STOCK MARKET WATCH, Friday April 9

[ozymandius]

Source: du

STOCK MARKET WATCH, Friday April 9, 2010

AT THE CLOSING BELL ON April 8, 2010

Dow... 10,927.07 +29.55 (+0.27%)
Nasdaq... 2,436.81 +5.65 (+0.23%)
S&P 500... 1,186.44 +3.99 (+0.34%)
Gold future... 1,186.44 +3.99 (+0.34%)
10-Yr Bond... 3.89 +0.04 (+0.91%)
30-Year Bond 4.75 +0.01 (+0.30%)

---

Market Conditions During Trading Hours

Euro, Yen, Loonie, Silver and Gold

---

Handy Links - Market Data and News:Economic Calendar    Marketwatch Data    Bloomberg Economic News    Yahoo! Finance    Google Finance    Bank Tracker    
Credit Union Tracker    Daily Job Cuts

Handy Links - Economic Blogs:
The Big Picture    Financial Sense    Calculated Risk    Naked Capitalism    Credit Writedowns
Brad DeLong      Bonddad    Atrios    goldmansachs666    The Stand-Up Economist

Handy Links - Government Issues:
LegitGov    Open Government    Earmark Database    USA spending.gov

Handy Links - Videos:
The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class    Charlie Rose talks with Roubini    Charlie Rose talks with Krugman
    William Black: This Economic Disaster    Bill Moyers with Kevin Drum and David Corn

Bush Administration Officials Convicted = 2
Names: David Safavian, James Fondren

Bush Administration Officials Charged = 1
Name(s): Richard Lopez Razo

Financial Sector Officials Convicted since 1/20/09 = 11

---

---

This thread contains opinions and observations. Individuals may post their experiences, inferences and opinions on this thread. However, it should not be construed as advice. It is unethical (and probably illegal) for financial recommendations to be given here.

Read more: du

[ozymandius]

1. Today's Report

10:00 Wholesale Inventories Feb
Briefing.com 0.1%
Consensus 0.4%
Prior -0.1%

http://www.briefing.com/Investor/Public/Calendars/EconomicCalendar.htm

[UpInArms]

59. Wholesale inventories for February increased 0.6%

Wholesale inventories for February increased 0.6%, which is slightly stronger than the expected increase of 0.4%. Inventories for the prior month were revised upward to reflect an increase of 0.1% from a decrease of 0.2%.

[ozymandius]

2. Oil up above $87 on signs of stronger US economy

SINGAPORE – Oil prices rose above $86 a barrel Friday in Asia after robust U.S. retail sales in March pointed to growing consumer demand in the world's biggest energy market. ...

Discounter Target Corp., department store Macy's Inc., clothier Gap Inc. and Victoria's Secret parent Limited Brands Inc. posted Thursday double-digit increases in March sales that beat Wall Street analysts' expectations. ...

Crude was also boosted by investor expectations that China might allow its currency to rise, which would make dollar-based commodities such as oil cheaper for investors with yuan and might increase demand.

In other Nymex trading in May contracts, heating oil added 2.07 cents to $2.2489 a gallon, and gasoline gained 1.34 cents to $2.3117 a gallon. Natural gas rose 3.9 cents to $3.948 per 1,000 cubic feet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/oil_prices

[saigon68]

5. Not around here---- Jobs are not coming back

[ozymandius]

7. Here too.

The local U3 unemployment rate just topped 10.4% - nearly a full percentage point increase in eight months.

[Roland99]

9. Rental homes in the Orlando area are being snapped up much more quickly

Making it hard for my gf and I to find something. Checking 4 major parts of town, we have a whopping 5-6 homes from which to choose that fit us. Looked at one a couple nights ago and it was a really nice house....10 years ago. Need a fair amount of TLC, esp. for what they were asking.

[Demeter]

17. I'd Guess All the Foreclosed Have Hit the Fan

and are out scrambling for affordable shelter.

Come to Detroit and BUY a house for pennies.

[Roland99]

41. I just left the cold! Ain't going back!

Yeah...there are a TON of foreclosures out there right now. Wish we had the money for even an FHA 3% downpayment. 5BR, 3BA 3000sq ft home in a prime part of town is listed for $270k on a foreclosure list. A good $150-200k "discount" by my guess.

[Dr.Phool]

43. The clearance sale will be coming soon.

According to yesterdays St. Pete Times, 19.6% of mortgages in Florida are at least 90 days past due. One in five mortgages.

And there's a bill moving through the legislature, and these bastards will pass it, that will allow banks to foreclose, without even going to court, where they can be challenged.

It's called "Do Process", as in, we're going to do the process to you.

And, before you buy, check out homeowners insurance rates. You'll be in for a major shock. Expect them to be at LEAST 5 times higher than up north. Some people around here are paying more for homeowners insurance each month, than principal and interest.

[Roland99]

48. yeah, I was preparing myself for a huge insurance bill

but it seems to be quite tempered here in Orlando vs. directly on the coasts.

Big thing I'm watching out for are property tax rates. I've seen $350,000 homes with annual taxes of less than $3,000. And I've seen homes a bit cheaper in other parts of town with tax bills over $5,000 per year!

[Dr.Phool]

50. They do have a strange property tax structure down here.

It's based on the purchase price of the house. You can have 2 identical houses, side by side, with wide tax differences between them. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Ghost Dog]

72. Approximately, then, here in Spain, in a similar town a similar property

(300sq m) in a prime area would be at least that price without the discount, today.

[fasttense]

25. Signs of stronger US economy????

From the headline of my hometown paper: "Jobless Rate In Greene County Dips To 15.9%" as of 9 April. It was 16.6%.

Soooo seeeee, the economy is improving. By 2050 we should be back at 3% unemployment rate.

[AnneD]

46. Morning Marketeers...

:donut: and lurkers. Although our unemployment to slight dip last month, the chickens have started to come home to roost. The tax base has shrunk, the city will get less money and are beginning to cut services (and staff). School districts are getting less (in tax money and fed grants) and are facing growing deficits and thus we face looming layoffs. NASA is losing the shuttle and are soon expecting additional additional layoffs. Available office space is increasing as are foreclosures. Houses stay on the market longer and values are slipping in many areas.

To paraphrase a famous quote,the rumors of this Recession's death are greatly exaggerated.

Happy hunting and watch out for the bears.

[Tansy_Gold]

45. And I got a very nasty call yesterday from the agency I work through

demanding additional production because the software-conversion-from-hell didn't go as smoothly as they anticipated, they're still having major problems with it, and as a result they have an enormous backlog, which has threatened to cost them one of their largest clients. Should they actually lose this client, it could mean the end of the company.

I don't offer this as anecdotal evidence of a recovery; quite the opposite. It's actually evidence of a poorly managed small mom-and-pop-type operation that is trying to fatten the wallets of its owners by cutting corners everywhere it can and by treating its workers like crap.

"Quit spending all day on FaceBook and do your work," the CEO yelled at us in a mass voicemail yesterday morning. "I don't care what your life is like, you're going to get more work than you want and you're going to do it."

And he knows he can do this because "we can hire people off the street very easily in this economy." In other words, each of us can be replaced in a heartbeat. Of course, he says in the very next breath that the people they hire off the street still require training and half of them will quit in 60 days or less and the half that stay won't be fully productive for 90 days.

I lost sleep over this last night. This little gig doesn't pay a whole lot but it's sufficient for me and the dogs, and it has distinct non-financial advantages that are very very important to me. I do not want to lose it. But by the same token, being forced to take more work than I can physically handle is not good for me either.

And as an independent contractor, I have none of the rights an employee would have -- and believe me, this job is indeed a true IC position. There's no way to argue that it's an employee/employer relationship, at least not as it stands now. I've been with this outfit for almost two years and it's been a very convenient arrangement. We'll see what happens.

I know you all think I should be in his face, but the real Tansy Gold is something of a paper tiger, especially when her economic survival is at stake. If I could write to the dude, I might be able to get the point across, but he only wants phone calls -- it's much easier to intimidate the peasants that way -- and I don't have an email address for him.

If I did, he'd hear from

Tansy Gold, who has never ever been on FaceBook but does spend all day on DU

[Dr.Phool]

49. Now get off of DU, and get back down the mine.

:hi:

[Demeter]

52. Doesn't Sound Like A Very Classy Operation

Rather like the "news"paper I'm delivering. Bunch of Grand Rapids Fundies playing at journalism, and if there's a God, losing their shirts at it.

[Tansy_Gold]

62. It's actually quite a successful operation.

Been in business about 13, 15 years, about 20 people work in the office, the rest are indies like me working mostly at home, about 120-150 of us at any given time.

But they got too big for their knowledge level and the software conversion done in conjunction with the acquisition of several large new accounts was, imho, beyond their capacity. They got greedy and it bit them in the butt. Now they're trying to pin the blame on the indies and make us cover their asses.

In some cases, I think there were people who did try to take advantage of the chaos. I wasn't one of them. Regardless how frustrating it was, regardless how little support and information I got from the agency, I did my work. And now I resent being not only blamed for it but asked to do more than I agreed to do.

Of course, if enough people refuse to take on extra work, the agency may lose the clients and go under, so it's two sides of a very thin coin.


TG

[Demeter]

63. That's Where the Flaw In Blaming Every Union for Business Failure Lies

It's the management whose policies and decisions bring down the company every single time, when it isn't the economy croaking any demand.

Unions just try to protect the workers and always get kicked for problems they didn't cause and couldn't prevent. And then, when the company sheds its union workforce and all its employees and employee benefits, it has no one left to blame but itself....

Can't wait to see all the outsourced firms collapse like the houses of cards they are. And the banksters, if the govt. ever pull the plug on their criminal enterprises. Nothing like having the Treasury Secretary in your back pocket for risky ventures.

Sounds like you really need a Plan B, Tansy.

[DoBotherMe]

65. You may not be the target of the vitriol

Sometimes management sends those blanket emails because they don't want to confront the culprit/s, or they've warned the culprits individually and are making an official statement with the blanket email.

I manage our small tech company and I won't allow attacks on the innocent. I usually warn the individuals and if the problem is a company-wide detriment we do follow up with a change in policy or a time-limited compromise(never a threat though).

When money-addicts (owners of companies) get worried about their stash they act out, but it doesn't mean that they'll do anything because if they kill the dealer (us) they won't have access to their drug.

You may want to confront whoever and renegotiate the terms of your contract, they may not want to substitute your goodwill with resentment. Just my two cents. Dana ; )

[Tansy_Gold]

70. I think you are 110% correct.

And I sincerely appreciate your comments. They mesh perfectly with what the BF said as well. (I won't tell him that because he already thinks he knows EVERYTHING. :P )


TG

[DoBotherMe]

71. You are welcome!

Our owner is getting a little crazy too because we aren't in the same position this year as last (even though we are still in good shape for the end of the year).

We are good friends so I can tell him when he's catastrophizing, his rants usually never get past his door :evilgrin:.

Good luck, and don't let the bastards wear you down! Dana ; )

[DemReadingDU]

51. Stronger???Why would a financial planner go door-to-door?

This must be a first.

Couple weeks ago, someone from a branch of a major investing company goes door-to-door looking for 'suckers'. Spouse tells him we got out of the market 2 years ago and we put the proceeds into a bank CD and Treasury bills, and not interested in investments.

Last week we get a thank you note. Yesterday, a phone call. I was the lucky one to speak to him. So I tell him we are not interested in investments. He says I can get you 4.5% with bonds in Orlando. I tell him no, not Florida, because Florida has too many problems with the house mortgages. He says that these are bonds with the airport. I say with so many people losing jobs, how can they fly anywhere. He asks what return I am getting on my CDs. I say the return is not as important as keeping all of my principal and not lose it when the market declines.

Then I go into my spiel why it is not a good time to invest....
1. Too much debt all over the world, and getting deeper with all these countries bailing out banks with people's tax money.
2. Trillions of toxic investments especially in credit default swaps and derivatives that could implode at any moment.
3. Greece on the verge of default, possibly triggering defaults in other countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain)

He thanks me and that was the end of that conversation. Maybe he got the message that we don't want any investments?

[Demeter]

53. Well, If Somebody Can Afford to "Stay Home", then

they must have money to burn? It is a strange business plan.

You might want to get on the DO NOT CALL list with these clowns.

[DemReadingDU]

55. That's interesting plan

We old retired people at home living on Social Security. Actually, there are several retired people in this neighborhood. I should ask neighbors if this guy talked to them too. Or maybe this guy was driving by, saw spouse outside, and stopped to chat?

[ozymandius]

3. Ex-Fannie Mae executives to face special panel

WASHINGTON – Two former top executives of Fannie Mae will face questions Friday about the government-created mortgage titan's role in fomenting the housing boom and its eventual bust.

Daniel Mudd, Fannie Mae's chief executive during the housing boom, and Robert Levin, the company's former chief business officer, are due to appear in the third day of hearings examining the roots of the financial crisis.

Both executives left Fannie Mae after it was seized by regulators in fall 2008. Also scheduled to appear are James Lockhart and Armando Falcon, both of whom headed up the federal regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ...

Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages from lenders and package them into bonds that are resold to global investors. As the housing bubble burst, they were unable to raise enough money to stay afloat, and the government effectively nationalized them in September 2008. That has cost taxpayers about $126 billion so far.

The role of Fannie and Freddie in the mortgage crisis is hotly debated in Washington. Republicans say the two companies, with the government's encouragement, deserve most of the blame for inflating the housing bubble. They argue that the two companies promoted homeownership to people who ultimately couldn't afford it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_bi_ge/us_meltdown_investigation

[ozymandius]

4. Major U.S. banks masked risk levels: report

(Reuters) – Major U.S. banks temporarily lowered their debt levels just before reporting in the past five quarters, making it appear their balance sheets were less risky, the Wall Street Journal said, citing data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The paper said on Friday 18 banks, including Goldman Sachs Group (GS.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N), J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM.N) Bank of America (BAC.N) and Citigroup (C.N), understated the debt levels used to fund securities trades by lowering them an average of 42 percent at the end of each period.

The banks had increased their debt in the middle of successive quarters, it said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100409/bs_nm/us_usbanks

[Po_d Mainiac]

10. Where have we seen/heard this before?

And as a follow-up...how did it end?

:waving hand: Call on me, I know!!

good morning :donut:

[ozymandius]

12. masked risk levels

Leverage rules coming into play? Bear Stearns? Lehman Brothers? Crash and burn.

Good morning. :donut: :donut: :donut:

[Demeter]

27. Enron

See my post below on the Bank Job

[UpInArms]

23. lowered by an average of "42 percent"!!!!!

Yowzer!! Cut your debt almost in half and hide your liabilities to make your shit not stink to high heaven!

These CRIMINALS belong in PRISON!

[ozymandius]

28. This reminds me of the Goldman Sachs orphaned month.

That was the missing month in 2008 when we know they lost money, should fair value be applied to their trading portfolio.

Floyd Norris commented on this:

6:50 a.m.| Where’s December?: Goldman Sachs reported a profit of $1.8 billion in the first quarter, and plans to sell $5 billion in stock and get out of the government’s clutches, if it can.

How did it do that? One way was to hide a lot of losses in not-so-plain sight.

Goldman’s 2008 fiscal year ended Nov. 30. This year the company is switching to a calendar year. The leaves December as an orphan month, one that will be largely ignored. In Goldman’s earnings statement, and in most of the news reports, the quarter ended March 31 is compared to the quarter last year that ended in February.

The orphan month featured — surprise — lots of write-offs. The pretax loss was $1.3 billion, and the after-tax loss was $780 million.

Would the firm have had a profit if it had stuck to its old calendar, and had to include December and exclude March?

The accounting ledgers are as transparent as tar.

[Demeter]

30. At Least No One Else Has Had the Temerity to Try That Trick

It's only good if you've got moles in high places--like Fed, Treasury, White House and Congress....

[ozymandius]

6. Banks once again cut emergency borrowing from Fed

....The Fed says that banks averaged $7.21 billion in daily borrowing for the week that ended Wednesday. That was down from $7.66 billion in average borrowing for the previous week.

Banks have been reducing their use of the Fed's emergency discount loan window as financial conditions have improved. At the peak of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, daily borrowing from the discount window peaked at $110 billion as banks found their normal sources of credit frozen. ....

Last week, the Fed ended on schedule a $1.25 trillion program to purchase mortgage backed securities held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While it will not purchase new securities, it plans to hold the securities it owns on its books and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has pledged that the reductions in holdings will be done in a gradual manner.

However, some economists are still worried that the halting of the Fed purchase program for mortgage securities could send interest rates higher at a time when the housing industry is still struggling to emerge from the steepest slump in decades.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fed_emergency_lending

[ozymandius]

8. Citi's ex-grandees strain to keep cool

...For nearly three hours Mr Rubin, a former US Treasury secretary and director of Citigroup, and Chuck Prince, the former chief executive of the US financial giant, did manage to work their way through questions from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. ...

In response to protestations by Mr Prince and Mr Rubin that they could not have monitored the company's catastrophic expansion into complex mortgage securities, Mr Angelides, a former California state treasurer, fulminated: "The two of you, in charge of this organisation, did not seem to have a grip on what was happening."

Then to Mr Rubin, who had explained he never had executive responsibilities at Citi despite commanding a $15m yearly pay package for most of his tenure, he said: "I don't know that you can have it two ways: you were either pulling the levers or asleep at the switch." ....

As Mr Rubin told the commission, the board had no reason to know about positions that, in the heady days before the crisis, had been regarded as super-safe by credit rating agencies. ...

However, the two men's assertion that the first time they knew Citi had billions of dollars of CDOs on its books was in September 2007 - when they began a series of nightly calls that became known as "defcon calls" - came under scrutiny.

Mr Angelides pointed to internal documents that appeared to contradict Citi's assertion - in an analysts' call in October 2007 - that its exposure to CDOs was $13bn.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/394ce998-436f-11df-833f-00144feab49a.html

[Po_d Mainiac]

11. Is Canada's Only Bullion Bank Gold Vault Nearly Empty??

:popcorn:
There are now reports that Lenny Organ, the son of Harvey Organ (who recently testified at the CFTC gold and silver position limit hearings), was able to enter the vault of ScotiaMocatta (Canada's only bullion bank vault) and see that shockingly, it contained roughly 60,000 ounces of silver and gold that he estimated as being worth approximately $100 million. Considering that the Royal Mint of Canada sold over $1 billion worth of gold in 2008 alone and many purchasers choose the convenience of vault storage and a paper certificate over physical delivery, the amount of gold stored in the vault appeared by Lenny to be exceptionally low.

In June of 2007, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $4.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit with brokerage clients who bought precious metals and paid storage fees, when in fact it was alleged that Morgan Stanley wasn't physically storing their gold and silver at all. NIA believes we may now have an epidemic of banks selling gold/silver they don't have. If this isn't exposed immediately, it could bring down the world's financial system.

snip

In September it was announced that Hong Kong is moving all of its gold reserves from depositories in London to a new facility built under the Hong Kong airport. This was a clear sign that Asian countries no longer trust the western world to manage their gold for them. In our opinion, a COMEX and LBMA default on gold and silver is inevitable as investors around the world wake up and realize that we have a fractional reserve gold and silver system, and begin to demand physical delivery of their precious metals.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/is-canadas-only-bullion-bank-gold-vault-nearly-empty-90185037.html

[Demeter]

13. This is why you take delivery

I betcha this is a real problem that will blow up within 6 months.

They trade "paper" gold. It's like Let's Make a Deal.

[mbperrin]

33. Not a bit different from the paper oil they trade as well.

Phantom oil and gambling traders are making the cost of crude and gasoline rise.

The only cure: make them take delivery.

[ozymandius]

36. Hear! Hear!

Imagine an oil services tanker rumbling up to the Goldman Sachs building in Manhattan.

[Demeter]

37. Only if Arson Is GS Only Hope

[Po_d Mainiac]

74. Is Hazelwood in the wheel-house? n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

47. "How would you like those eggs, sir? Scrambled or over easy?"

Back in the late '60s I worked for a short while for a commodities firm at the Chicago Board of Trade and the Mercantile Exchange. One of the clients was a crusty old guy who had made a lot of money in the restaurant business and was looking to make more for his kids (a truly worthless bunch; they visited the offices quite regularly) by "investing" in commodities.

After he'd made a good sum from pork bellies, he decided he could make more with eggs. So he was buying and selling egg futures, driving all of us in the office crazy. He wouldn't listen to the advice anyone was giving him, even to the point of warnings that he'd better start selling some stuff even at a loss or he was gonna end up owning it.

And then one day he did. A (freight) carload of eggs. We thought he was gonna have a stroke when he heard the news -- I was assigned the task of telling him and I flat-out refused -- including the fact that he would have to pay for them and then try to find a buyer. He ended up unloading them for about 10 cents on the dollar.

There are some things you really don't want to take delivery on. But then, there are some things you shouldn't be "investing" in, like the price of the eggs but not the eggs themselves.


TG

[ozymandius]

15. This is like specie circular days.

And just as stupid. I don't know about Canadian laws pertaining to this - but U.S. law would forbid this practice.

The specie circular crisis began with banks setting up shop in states where they were allowed to set their own reserve limits and issue paper currency (specie) based on the amount of gold and silver they stated were in their vaults. The whole system came crashing down when the banks (which were little more than storefronts at a modern-age strip mall) closed down and moved to another town where they could begin the process again, accumulating precious metals from the locals. The "specie" where issued became worthless. The scam precipitated a depression.

[Demeter]

19. For All We Know, They Do This With Oil, Too

I suppose it could be done with any commodity.

[ozymandius]

21. Agreed.

Anything with market value is game. Like overbooked airline flights.

[mbperrin]

34. I shoulda read a little further before posting above, but yes, they

definitely do this with oil; billions of barrels more are traded daily than could be pumped on the best day the fields ever had.

[Po_d Mainiac]

38. It's only "illegal" when you get caught.

Is Bernie expecting company?

[Demeter]

14. Europe rises on U.S. consumption hopes

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/europe-stocks-rise-on-us-consumption-hopes-2010-04-09?siteid=YAHOOB

Stocks in Europe rose Friday, with investors shifting their focus to evidence of growing U.S. consumption and away from Greece's capital-market troubles.

WHAT EVIDENCE? THE PHONY PAPER THE US PUTS OUT? PLEASE DON'T TRY TO TELL ME THAT EUROPE IS THAT FOOLISH.

The gains caught up to Thursday's rise on Wall Street, where data showing the largest increase in retailers' monthly sales since 1999 helped markets end higher.

Greece remains a headache, however, with yields on 10-year bonds in that country trading at around 7.36% Friday, compared to 3.13% on German bonds of the equivalent maturity.

That spread has been the focus of intense investor scrutiny. On Thursday, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said the prospect of a default by Greece "is not an issue."

Other observers thought differently.

"In our view, the recent market action means that an external intervention may be unavoidable and could happen very soon as the situation is untenable. We think an intervention over the weekend is a distinct possibility," said Stephane Deo, economist at UBS....

[Demeter]

16. U.K. stocks bounce back after Thursday's slide

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uk-stocks-bounce-back-after-thursdays-slide-2010-04-09?siteid=YAHOOB

U.K. stocks bounced back Friday after suffering the biggest one-day drop in six weeks, helped by a change in sentiment on Wall Street after evidence of strong consumption...

THERE'S A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE.

[Demeter]

18. Greek Fin Min: Athens not asking for rescue

NO, THEY ARE PRAYING FOR IT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_greece_financial_crisis

Debt-ridden Greece has not asked for the activation of a euro-zone and International Monetary Fund rescue plan designed to prevent a default, but details of how the plan would operate are being worked out, the finance minister said Friday.

Greece has faced spiraling borrowing costs in the last few days, a sign that markets fear the country will be unable to pay off its debts and that a bailout may be needed soon.

The country has been gripped by a debt crisis for months, and in March eurozone leaders agreed on a hard-fought bailout plan that would provide Greece with bilateral loans and IMF funds to avoid default and protect the euro. Athens had hoped the existance of the rescue package would calm markets and bring down the borrowing costs.

Asked whether Greece would seek help, Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou said that "no such issue has been raised."

"We have said that Greece does not intend to make use of the mechanism but it is very important for our country for this safety net to exist," he said after meeting with Prime Minister George Papandreou to discuss the situation.

But the rescue plan is vaguely worded and has not eased market concerns.

Papaconstantinou said the details of how the mechanism would operate were being worked out.

"In the last few days, there has been, as scheduled, a detailing of this mechanism, in other words the exact terms of how it would work," he said.

Under the vaguely-worded rescue plan, euro-zone leaders pledged to provide support with bilateral loans and IMF funds to prevent a default and protect the euro. The loans would only come with unanimous approval of all 16 euro-zone members — including Germany, which has been reluctant to bail out Greece — and only as a last resort.

Borrowing costs that had spiked sharply in the past few days began to ease slightly, although they remained alarmingly high Friday. The interest rate gap, or spread, between Greek 10-year government bonds and the German equivalent, considered a benchmark of stability, edged lower to about 4.12 percentage points from Thursday's high of 4.48 percentage points. But that still means Greece would have to borrow at more than twice the cost of Germany.

Papaconstantinou said the government was concerned by the high rates, but that they believed they would fall as market confidence was restored.

"We consider that they don't reflect the true state of the economy, nor the effort and the results that the government has already achieved," Papaconstantinou said. "But as time goes by, I believe that these will be understood in the markets and our international partners, and so we will have more reasonable borrowing interest rates."

[Demeter]

22. Italy central bank orders stop to new AmEx cards

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_italy_american_express

Italy's central bank on Thursday ordered a stop to the issuance of new credit cards by American Express in the country until the company can improve compliance with laws combatting money laundering and usury.

The Bank of Italy said there was concern that supplementary cards were being issued without sufficient checks to ensure they weren't being used by front men for money laundering operations.

It also said there was concern that the way interest rates are calculated could violate anti-usury laws.

The central bank's action doesn't apply to existing cards. It said it took similar action against Diners Club' card issuance in Italy last year.

"American Express acknowledges it has received a report following an inspection from the Bank of Italy," American Express spokeswoman Joanna Lambert said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

"As a result, American Express Italy is currently implementing an upgrade of its information technology systems and other procedures, in order to adhere more closely to the regulations applicable to payments service providers and financial intermediaries," she said.

Lambert also said that "American Express Italy will temporarily suspend issuance of new cards from April 12th and will resume card issuance as soon as these upgrades are completed, as established by the Bank of Italy.

"American Express Italy has already begun to address the issues raised in the report, and is cooperating fully with the Bank of Italy in an effort to resolve the matter," she said. "This suspension does not affect American Express' existing Cardmembers, who can continue to use their cards as usual."

Lambert said she couldn't provide further details because "the report is confidential under Italian law."

SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD REGULATION--MAYBE WE OUGHT TO GET TIMMY TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT HERE...:rofl:

[Po_d Mainiac]

40. Header should read...

Europe looks at US consumption porn, and gets a woody. If it lasts over 4 hours they must seek medical attention. If it doesn't last 4 hours, there is either a mess or disappointment....or both
:hide:

[Ghost Dog]

61. But it's not "Europe", it's people (and algorithms) trading on European market platforms.

The majority of these, I understand, work for US-UK financial "institutions".

[ozymandius]

20. Liberté, Egalité, Foreclosuré ?

From The Big Picture:

Well, it looks like the the foreclosure virus is becoming more egalitarian every day; its even moving into tonier neighborhoods:

RealtyTrac is forecasting that Houses with $5 million+ mortgages will likely be the next class of loans to go belly up. While the overall numbers are small, they expect to see a sharp rise in foreclosures this year. In all of 2009, there were 1,312 houses with $5M+ mortgages scheduled for foreclosure auction. The spike is apparent this year — in the month of February alone, there were 352 homes nationwide in this category.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/liberte-egalite-foreclosure/

Link points to more information from the WSJ and a handy chart.

[Demeter]

24. How Washington Abetted the Bank Job

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04koniak.html?emc=eta1

A FEW weeks ago, two Republican House members asked Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, whether the Fed knew — before Lehman’s bankruptcy examiner revealed it — about the bookkeeping scam at Lehman known as “Repo 105.” This scam allowed Lehman to disguise how much debt it was carrying, right up until it collapsed. Lehman got new loans to pay off old loans, pretended the new loans were “sales,” and through a complicated series of steps made both the old and new loans disappear just in time for its quarterly reports.

Mr. Bernanke said the Fed had known nothing about this. After all, he explained, the Fed wasn’t Lehman’s regulator — the Securities and Exchange Commission was. The Fed had placed some people at Lehman — not as many as the S.E.C. had — but they were there only to ensure that Lehman paid back money it was borrowing from the government. Can’t lay this on him.

Meanwhile, the S.E.C. insists that it could not have known what Lehman was up to because it was “understaffed” and “ill-suited” to run a voluntary oversight program. But, the commission says, since the Lehman bankruptcy examiner’s report it has sprung into action, investigating whether other banks might also have cooked the books.

Any minute now, expect to hear that the Treasury, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — our other federal bank regulators — were just as shocked that Lehman used make-believe sales to hide its ocean of red ink.

Well, the truth is this: The collapse of Enron back in 2001 revealed that the biggest financial institutions, here and abroad, were busy creating products whose sole purpose was to help companies magically transform their debt into capital or revenue. At the time, there were news reports about Merrill Lynch pretending to buy Nigerian barges from Enron, JPMorgan Chase dressing up its loans to Enron as commodity trades and Citigroup disguising Enron debt as profits from Treasury-bill swaps.

This went well beyond Enron. Our banks had gone into the business of creating “products” to help companies, cities and whole countries hide their true financial condition. Consider the recent revelations about how Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan helped Greece hide its debt. Now we discover that our banks not only were raking in huge profits helping others hide debt, they also drank their own Kool-Aid. As a chief executive of Citibank said in 2007 about financing dangerously leveraged deals, “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”

Our bank regulators were not, as they would like us to believe, outside the disco, deaf and blind to the revelry going on within. They were bouncing to the same beat. In 2006, the agencies jointly published something called the “Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Elevated Risk Complex Structured Finance Activities.” It became official policy the following year.

What are “complex structured finance” transactions? As defined by the regulators, these include deals that “lack economic or business purpose” and are “designed or used primarily for questionable accounting, regulatory or tax objectives, particularly when the transactions are executed at year end or at the end of a reporting period.”

How does one propose “sound practices” for practices that are inherently unsound? Yet that is what our regulatory guardians did. The statement is powerful evidence of the permissive approach bank regulators took toward the debt-dissolving financial products that our banks had been developing, hawking and using themselves for years. And it’s good reason for Americans to be outraged by the “who me, what, where?” reaction of Mr. Bernanke and the S.E.C. to the revelation of Lehman’s Repo 105 scam.

•

Since the financial crisis struck in 2008, many have bemoaned the supposed inability of bank regulators to coordinate their efforts. That assumes a joint effort would somehow have helped. In fact, our regulators could coordinate, and did, and thereby contributed to the crisis.

Their cooperation began in the early 2000s, when the regulators decided they had to say something about how our banks helped Enron conceal its debt through complex transactions and how financial institutions were devising ever more complex instruments. In 2004, the agencies issued their first proposed statement on these practices.

This proposal was not quite “regulation” (in the sense of a set of new binding rules), but rather more like a position paper that set forth safeguards the regulators thought the banks should adopt. Mild really, given what Enron had exposed.

Still, the plan included significant hurdles that the regulators wanted banks to clear before selling or using potentially dangerous financial instruments. The focus of the 2004 proposal was complexity itself; it would have applied to all new complex products developed by banks.

That focus was right. Complexity was what made it possible to hide debt, avoid capital requirements and evade taxes. Thus the statement said that banks should document their reasons for concluding that each complex instrument developed and sold would be used for a legitimate purpose and not to evade the law. It also said that financial institutions should ensure that the buyers of complex instruments understood how they worked and what risks they entailed.

The financial industry would have none of that. It bombarded the agencies with comments denouncing the proposal. Banks did not want the responsibility of explaining to customers the risks inherent in these instruments. And, while banks couldn’t say it directly, how they could document that products that were valuable specifically because they could get around laws were not being bought for that purpose?

MOREOVER, the banks understood that the statement threatened the virtually regulation-free zone they had won for other forms of complex structured finance, particularly collateralized debt obligations. So the industry condemned the 2004 proposal, and the regulators caved. They agreed to think it over — for two more years.

Hence the interagency statement on “sound practices” of 2006 we described earlier, which was greeted with effusive praise from bankers, their lawyers and accountants. Gone was the requirement to ensure that customers understood these instruments and that the banks document that they would not be used to phony-up a company’s books.

The focus on complexity was also gone, as was the concern over transactions “with significant leverage” — that is, deals with little real cash underneath, another unfortunate deletion because attending to excessive leverage would have served us well.

Instead, the only products that the banks were asked to handle with special care were so narrowly defined and so obviously fraudulent that suggesting that they could be sold at all was outrageous. These included “circular transfers of risk ... that lack economic substance” and transactions that “involve oral or undocumented agreements that ... would have a material impact on regulatory, tax or accounting treatment.”

Just as troubling, at least in retrospect, the new statement specifically exempted C.D.O.’s from the need for any special care because they were akin to other “plain vanilla” derivatives, in that they were “familiar to participants in the financial markets” and had “well-established track records” (yes, the same C.D.O.’s backed by bundled mortgages that financial firms and the government are now stuck trying to value and absorb, the infamous “toxic assets”).

•

Only two years later, these same regulators were explaining that the complexity and opaqueness of instruments like C.D.O.’s had contributed significantly to the economic collapse. And it is now common wisdom that many of the bankers themselves did not understand the risks of these “familiar” instruments.

Moreover, the collapse was characterized by institutions supposedly healthy one day and on the verge of collapse the next, due in no small part to their extraordinary debt burdens — debt burdens that complex instruments magically removed from the books.

To this day, that final interagency statement (which was adopted in 2007) has not been repealed or replaced. It can still be found on the S.E.C. Web site, along with the letters from industry representatives praising the 2006 draft.

The site also has a single letter begging the agencies not to adopt that draft statement — a letter the four of us wrote. Our position was simple: products having no economic purpose except to achieve questionable accounting, tax or regulatory goals; or that raise serious concerns that customers will use them to issue materially misleading financial statements; or that meet any of the other bullet points in the 2006 statement’s list, should, at a minimum, be labeled presumptively prohibited.

The final statement notes and rejects our plea, saying that if any firm determined that its participation in a complex financial transaction “would create significant legal or reputational risks for the institution,” it could “take appropriate steps to manage and address these risks.”

As Congress now considers reforming the financial industry, it needs to take into account how abysmally our regulators performed when they coordinated their efforts and how insular their decision-making has been on matters that affect the entire economy. Congress needs to recognize that “regulatory capture,” in which an agency becomes a pawn of the industry it is supposed to oversee, is real.

Ideas like the proposal by Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, to prohibit traditional banks from trading on their own accounts, will do little to improve the situation so long as enforcement is left up to regulators’ discretion. Passing piecemeal fixes to outlaw each fraud-inviting instrument — like the provision slipped into the recent jobs bill that outlaws a derivative that had been designed by the industry to allow individuals to evade paying taxes on their stock dividends — will never be a substitute for restoring civil liability for abetting securities fraud. Innovation can too easily outstrip specific rules.

Yes, we can lay Lehman’s Repo 105 and the proliferation of dangerously complex instruments at the feet of the Fed, the S.E.C. and the other signatories to the watered-down interagency statement. Years earlier, after Enron collapsed, they learned all they needed to know about the bogus structures banks developed to conceal financial instability. Yet by backing down and giving in, the regulators encouraged them. We are paying for those mistakes today.

Susan P. Koniak is a law professor at Boston University. George M. Cohen is a law professor at the University of Virginia. David A. Dana is a law professor at Northwestern University. Thomas Ross is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

[Demeter]

26. Call the SPCA!

That poor kitty. What a perfect cartoon for the employment market conditions.

[Demeter]

29. $33 Billion to Escalate a Quagmire

In the coming weeks, Congress will vote on spending $33 billion of your money to send another 30,000 troops, plus many more contractors, to Afghanistan....

http://afterdowningstreet.org

[ozymandius]

31. I intend to communicate my opposition to this expense.

Of course - since my two Senators are members of the Republican War Party - my words will go unnoticed. Just think - $33 Billion more to prop up a failing Afghan government led by a crazy person who scammed his way into another term.

[Demeter]

35. A Chip Off the Old Blockhead! Uncle Sam is So Proud

Looks just like his Daddy, doesn't he? Another unholy spawn of the BFEE.

[Dr.Phool]

39. Which one is the war party?

And is this expenditure paid for, a'la Coburn? That would be a great place to cover the unemployment extension.

[ozymandius]

44. War Party = party that promotes war "over there" to distract from issues "over here".

I look forward to watching Coburn twist himself into a rhetorical knot to explain his "unpaid-for" support of war funding for Krazy Karzai.

[Demeter]

32. Singapore’s lesson from Harvard model By Gillian Tett

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/edccd72a-432e-11df-9046-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=3b87e184-9789-11dc-9e08-0000779fd2ac,print=yes.html

The doughty Government Investment Corporation of Singapore is not often a hotbed of heretical thought. Recently, however, a debate has been bubbling at the GIC that has fascinating implications for investors round the world.

The issue at stake revolves around the so-called Harvard or Yale investment model. During most of its recent history, the GIC – like many other sovereign wealth funds round the world – has looked at these huge university endowment funds with envy and admiration. For the Harvard or Yale model seemed to offer an exciting vision for any long-term investment group that wanted to do more than act like a stodgy, old-fashioned pension fund. After all, for 20 years, groups such as Yale earned solid returns, by pioneering a distinctive investment style. This essentially championed the idea of diversifying into illiquid and alternative asset classes, such as private equity, alongside mainstream securities.

But these days, the names of Harvard and Yale – like so many American financial brands – are looking somewhat tarnished in places such as Asia. Or as Tony Tan, deputy chairman of the GIC explains: “The whole idea of the endowment model has been very influential (before). But any reasonable investor would (now) want to take another look at this.” Or, more specifically, about whether to copy it.

That is partly down to the numbers. In the year to June 2009, the value of the assets held in the Harvard and Yale endowment funds fell by over 25 per cent. Meanwhile, across all US colleges, the average loss was 23 per cent (a pattern similar to the GIC, which saw losses of 20 per cent in the year to March 2009).

Supporters of the Harvard approach insist that these declines are likely to be partly reversed in the coming years. Moreover, precisely because the losses were so widespread, some investment managers are apt to shrug them off, as a force of nature.

But the fact is that not everybody suffered quite the same way; at the Oxford University endowment fund, for example, losses in the year to June 2009 were “only” 10 per cent. And that, according to Sandra Robertson, head of this fund, is because Oxford deliberately decided a few years ago that it would not try to emulate Harvard.

But the sense of tarnish – or unease – goes beyond the losses. After recently scrutinising their performance data, some GIC executives are starting to conclude that their own in-house managers have performed as well, if not better, than external managers in recent years. That leaves them asking a question that used to seem heretical: namely why does anyone ever bother to pay such hefty fees to, say, hedge funds or private equity?

More important still is the issue of liquidity risk. Until 2007, the GIC tended to assume that it would never need to engage in asset firesales or unseemly investment exits. After all, the whole point of a sovereign wealth fund (or endowment fund) is that it is supposed to take a long-term perspective, which should enable it to ride out any temporary storms.

However, in the past two years, sovereign funds discovered that the long-term mantra provides far less protection than previously thought. For by investing in private equity and hedge funds, the GIC (and others) ended up being exposed to the vagaries of their co-investors – and some of those had short-term horizons, or mark-to-market triggers. Thus what hurt groups such as the GIC was not just the issue of asset correlation, but a contagion of investor style as well.

That raises some big questions about how the GIC (and others) should conduct themselves. Should they only co-invest with similar investors in the future? Could they now demand detailed lists of their co-investors (even if they hate providing such data themselves)? Could they ask to be paid for assuming illiquidity risk? Or should they dump external managers altogether, and bring that activity “in-house”?

Frankly, it is still unclear where this debate will end since, at groups such as the GIC, it is still at an early stage. Moreover, as Mr Tan admits, there has been little intellectual work done on this liquidity issue before, and most Asian funds have limited experience in trying to forge radical new ground. Instead, they have generally spent recent decades trying to follow a US model, to some degree (not least because many Asian investment officials have degrees from ... er ... Harvard or Yale).

But in a world where more wealth is moving to the emerging markets – and away from America – the question of where the future intellectual leadership for the investment business will be found is becoming ever more fascinating. Investors should keep watching what the GIC does next, not to mention its other – less vocal – brethren in places such as China.

[DemReadingDU]

42. 1.2 million households lost to recession

4/8/10 Study: 1.2 million households lost to recession
As friends and families double up, ‘overcrowding’ is up fivefold

Since Richard Brown lost his job to the recession and his Boston home to foreclosure a year ago, he’s been working short-term consulting assignments until he gets back on his feet. In the meantime, he’s been “couch surfing.”

“I’ve lived with my brother, my cousin, my friend and my dad,” he said. “The IRS keeps calling me, asking me: ‘What’s your address?’ And I say, ‘What week is this?’”

Armed with college degree and an MBA, Brown, 49, built a solid resume over three decades as a corporate controller for several Fortune 500 companies, including W.R. Grace and Wal-Mart, before launching his own global consulting business with clients in Europe and Mexico. But when the Panic of 2008 sent clients scrambling, he was unable to keep up with a jump in his mortgage payments and lost his home to foreclosure.

Brown represents one of the more than 1.2 million households lost to the recession, according to a report issued this week by the Mortgage Bankers Association that looked at data between 2005 and 2008. That number doesn’t include information from 2009, when job losses and foreclosures continued to rise.

So it's likely that the full impact of the 8.4 million jobs lost and nearly three million homes foreclosed on since the recession began has taken an even bigger toll on the number of American households.

“Given the depth of the downturn in 2009, and the ongoing weakness in the job market through the beginning of this year, this study gives no reason to expect that household formation has picked up at all," said Gary Painter, a professor at the University of Southern California who conducted the study.

The study also shed some light on what happens to the people in those "lost" households. It’s widely assumed that many who lose a home to foreclosure become renters. But since the recession began, there has been a five-fold increase in “overcrowding” of remaining households — defined as more than one person per room, according to the study.

That doubling-up is happening as families who lose their homes move in with friends or family. In other cases, younger people have delayed moving out on their own, instead staying with their parents until the economy improves. Others who fail to find work after graduating from college move back home.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36231884/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

[Demeter]

54. To Finish of a Dreadful Week, It's Only 35F at 10 AM

The fruit farmers are chewing nails for fear of frost killing off the blossoms that have been tricked to open early.

[Demeter]

56. Ex-Citigroup leaders contrite, defensive on crisis

http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CBUS/nbusinessNews_uUSTRE6372UT20100408

Charles Prince and Robert Rubin, who led Citigroup (C.N) in the run-up to the 2008 banking crisis, voiced regrets on Thursday, but accepted no responsibility for the mega-bank's massive losses.

The two came under heavy fire in a congressional panel hearing for being blind to Citi taking on huge financial risks under their watch, leading ultimately to the bank's near collapse, prevented only by a $45-billion taxpayer bailout.

His hands visibly shaking as he answered questions, Rubin, formerly U.S. Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, told panel members that he was not a key decision-maker at Citi during the worst of its troubles.

Former CEO Prince came to the defense of Rubin, saying that as an advisor he was not responsible for Citi's losses. Prince offered up multiple apologies for his own ignorance.

"I can only say that I am deeply sorry that our management -- starting with me -- was not more prescient and that we did not foresee what lay before us," Prince said.

Some members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission -- charged by Congress with explaining the origins of the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression -- did not buy the two executives' half-hearted mea culpas.

"You either were pulling the levers or asleep at the switch," commission Chairman Phil Angelides said to Rubin.

Citi has been in the crosshairs of the commission for two days now in public hearings occurring just before Congress resumes debate on a raft of financial reform proposals, and as the White House ramps up its push for a regulatory overhaul.

Eight former and current Citi executives have testified. All have basically said that no one, including them, could have foreseen the problems that nearly destroyed the bank.

THOMAS PUSHES FOR ANSWERS

Vice Chairman Bill Thomas pushed the Citi executives for some explanation of how they personally square the bank's financial calamities with their own lavish compensation packages, saying, "Behavior has to have consequences."

Prince left the bank in 2007 with almost $40 million in bonuses, shares and options. Citigroup paid Rubin more than $120 million for his work at the bank over several years.

Bad bets on repackaged debt securities, consumer loans and other assets forced Citi to take three separate government rescue packages totaling $45 billion, more than any other major bank. When the dust settled, taxpayers held about a third of Citigroup's common stock and $27 billion of its debt.

"The overriding lesson of the financial crisis was that the financial system is subject to more severe downside risk than almost anyone had foreseen," Rubin said. "It is imperative that private institutions and the government act on that lesson."

Rubin tried to clear his name on an old score from the late 1990s, defending his opposition to bringing over-the-counter derivatives under stricter regulatory control.

Back then, Rubin joined with former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in resisting attempts by former Commodity Futures Trading Commission chair Brooksley Born to bring transparency to the unpoliced OTC derivatives market.

On Thursday, Rubin told the commission -- which includes Born -- he was never against more regulation, he simply feared the CFTC's approach would bring dangerous legal uncertainty.

"Financial reform is imperative and should include ... derivatives regulation," said Rubin, a former Citi executive committee chairman and a former Goldman Sachs executive.

BANK BREAK-UP EYED IN CONGRESS

Some members of Congress want to break up banks such as Citi, arguing that they have become not only "too big to fail," as some in the markets see it, but also "too big to manage."

Prince said that that is not the case, saying "I personally do not think that Citi was too big to manage."

Over the past two days, the commission has delved into the breakdown of Wall Street's subprime mortgage securitization business, the complex securities it produced, and the impact those toxic assets had on financial giants, such as Citi.

In explaining their actions, Citi executives have said they relied chiefly on the judgment of others in assessing the risks being taken in loading the bank's balance sheet with subprime mortgage bonds and other complex debt instruments.

Rubin expressed deep regret for not recognizing the approach of the crisis. "Almost all of us ... missed the powerful combination of forces at work and the serious possibility of a massive crisis," he said.

The Obama administration is backing a reform proposal that would limit the growth of mega-banks with a market-share cap.

But Prince said he believes the financial world needs large, diversified banks. "We are past the days of exclusively small, local banks and financial institutions," he said.

PRINCE COMMENTS ON "STILL DANCING" QUIP

Prince's infamous comment that his bank was "still dancing" even as the subprime crisis worsened came back to haunt him at the commission hearing where he was asked about it.

His explanation seemed to boil down to this: it was a race to keep up with competitors who kept loosening lending standards and Citi couldn't afford to drop out.

In July 2007, the Financial Times quoted Prince as saying, "As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance ... We're still dancing." The quip became emblematic of bankers' failure to grasp the gravity of the crisis.

Prince said the quote related to the leveraged lending business. "It had nothing to do with the mortgage business. ... It had nothing to do with the issues that we've been talking about here," he said.

A few months after the Financial Times interview, Prince resigned.

The commission will hold another hearing on Friday to take testimony from former executives of housing finance giant Fannie Mae (FNM.N) and former regulators who supervised it. Fannie Mae was seized by the government in September 2008.

STILL DANCING, IT SEEMS--RATHER LIKE A CORPSE AT THE END OF A NOOSE

[Demeter]

57. Murdoch in ad price attack on rival NY Times

http://link.ft.com/r/73UJGG/LQF290/VTVRG/KEPH3Z/PRN84M/QR/t

News Corp is offering steep discounts to advertise in its Wall Street Journal and New York Post newspapers as its chairman Rupert Murdoch prepares an aggressive attack on the New York Times, people familiar with the plan said...

[Demeter]

58. Monsanto blinks

http://www.euronews24.org/business/monsanto-changes-core-strategy/

Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed company, said on Wednesday it was abandoning central parts of its business strategy in the face of aggressive low-cost competition.The company, which produces seeds and licenses technology, scrapped its target of doubling profit within five years and signaled it would be more aggressive on seed pricing, reversing its commitment to keeping prices relatively high to reflect its superior technology.

[Joe Chi Minh]

77. Say it ain't so..., Dem.

[kickysnana]

60. Minnesota bagged another two for massive fraud and has one in its sights.

Tom Petters is sentenced to 50 years in prison
http://www.startribune.com/local/90211832.html?page=2&c=y

Petters had just listened stoically, his hands crossed at his waist, as U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle told the packed room that he was sentencing the onetime stereo salesman turned multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme mastermind to 50 years in prison, with no possibility of release until 2051, when Petters would be 93. (Sun Country, Polaroid, etal)...

Petters was convicted in December on 20 counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. He and his associates offered investors high returns on supposed loans to finance purchase of electronics and other goods for sale to major retailers. But the government offered evidence at trial that purchase orders were faked and the merchandise didn't exist.

Bankruptcy judge: Jewels to Tamitha, debts to Denny Hecker
http://www.startribune.com/business/90126847.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Hecker, who was once Minnesota's largest auto dealer, is separately facing 25 charges in federal criminal court for alleged wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. He was indicted on the charges in February and March and, if convicted, could face up to 20 years in prison on each count.

Gateway's Ted Waitt bankrolled lender whose failed subdivisions now dot Minnesota.
http://www.startribune.com/investigators/89842082.html?page=1&c=y

Bankers who once believed in Waitt are now suing his investment company, alleging it raked in payments from Lakeland, starving it of cash when it was needed most. Lakeland, unable to pay $425 million owed the Bank of Scotland, is being liquidated by a court-appointed receiver who has accused Waitt's company of fraud.

[Demeter]

64. Good Deal

Only 999,999,999 to go

[burf]

67. Petters gets 50 years for his scheme

but Wachovia, who laundered Mexican drug cartel money gets by with a $160 million fine and nobody goes to jail?

MIAMI, March 17 (Reuters) - The Wachovia Bank unit of Wells Fargo & Co has agreed to pay $160 million to settle U.S. allegations that it laundered Mexican drug money.

Under the agreement, Wachovia will forfeit $110 million, representing the proceeds of illegal narcotics sales that were laundered through the bank, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida said.

The bank will pay an additional $50 million fine to the U.S. Treasury.

"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations by laundering at least $110 million in drug proceeds," U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman said on Wednesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1713901020100317

Am I the only one that sees just a tiny bit of hypocrisy here? After all, weren't there commercials that told drug users they were endangering America and supporting terrorists (and no they didn't mention the CIA in the ads) by buying illegal drugs? Seems I remember these ads even aired during the Super bowl a few years ago.

It also seems strange the life cycle of the Wachovia story seemed really short. But I guess when you make some serious campaign contributions things like that happen.

[Demeter]

69. Part of It Is Wachovia Doesn't Exist Anymore

And going after individual banksters is off the table, just like war criminals. We have to move forward, you know.

Honestly, I think the US is not only dead, but the final nail in the coffin--assassination by Presiential decree without due process--has been driven home.

[Festivito]

66. Debt: 04/07/2010 12,791,874,548,454.16 (DOWN 1,092,570,951.34) (Wed)

(Up a little. Good day all.)

(Debt under Obama seems to jump up big then drop slowly maybe up a little and down a little for days--repeat.)
= Held by the Public + Intragovernmental(FICA)
= 8,316,888,619,597.41 + 4,474,985,928,856.75
UP 926,408,143.83 + DOWN 2,018,979,095.17

Source: Debt to the penny:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

THINKING IN BILLIONS: Think 3 or 4 dollars per billion in a 309-Million person America.
If every American, man, woman and child puts in $3.23 each THAT'S 1B$.
A family of three: Mom, Dad, Child: $9.7, ABOUT TEN BUCKS for a 1B$ federal program.
I hope that is clear. However, I'd suggest using $3 per 1B$ to underestimate it.
Use $4 per 1B$ to overestimate the cost when thinking: Is the federal program worth it?
Aid to Dependant Children: 2B$/yr =$8/yr(a movie a year) Family of 3: $24/yr(an hour of bowling)

PERSONALIZED DEBT:
Every 10 seconds we net gain another American, so at the end of the workday of the report, there should be 309,187,038 people in America.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html ON 11/07/2009 08:19 -> 307,879,272
Currently, each of these Americans owe $41,372.61.
A family of three owes $124,117.83. (And that is IN ADDITION to their mortgage.)

ANALYSIS:
There were 24 reports in the last 30 to 33 days.
The average for the last 24 reports is 10,298,775,795.90.
The average for the last 30 days would be 8,239,020,636.72.
The average for the last 33 days would be 7,490,018,760.65.
There were 252 reports in 365 days of FY2007 averaging 1.99B$ per report, 1.37B$/day.
There were 253 reports in 366 days of FY2008 averaging 4.02B$ per report, 2.78B$/day.
There were 75 reports in 112 days of GWB's part of FY2009 averaging 8.03B$ per report, 5.38B$/day.
There were 174 reports in 253 days of Obama's part of FY2009 averaging 7.33B$ per report, 5.07B$/day so far.
There were 249 reports in 365 days of FY2009 averaging 7.57B$ per report, 5.16B$/day.
There were 129 reports in 189 days of FY2010 averaging 6.84B$ per report, 4.67B$/day.
Above line should be okay

PROJECTION:
There are 1,019 days remaining in this Obama 1st term.
By that time the debt could be between 14.2 and 20.4T$.
It could be higher. It could be lower.

HISTORICAL:
President's term begins and ends on Jan 20.
(Guess who might want to hide the Reagan Bush years. Jan 20 data is missing before 1993.)
01/20/1993 _4,188,092,107,183.60 WJC Inaugural
01/22/2001 _5,728,195,796,181.57 WJC (UP 1,540,103,688,997.97)
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 GWB (UP 4,898,681,252,731.43)
04/07/2010 12,791,874,548,454.16 BHO (UP 2,164,997,499,541.08 so far since Obama took office.)

FISCAL YEAR DEBT CHANGE, Sep 30 prior year to Sep 30 named year:
(One "* " for each 40B$ reached)
FY1994 +0,281,261,026,873.94 ------------* * * * * * * WJC
FY1995 +0,281,232,990,696.07 ------------* * * * * * * WJC
FY1996 +0,250,828,038,426.34 ------------* * * * * * WJC
FY1997 +0,188,335,072,261.61 ------------* * * * WJC
FY1998 +0,113,046,997,500.28 ------------* * WJC
FY1999 +0,130,077,892,735.81 ------------* * * WJC
FY2000 +0,017,907,308,253.43 ------------WJC
FY2001 +0,133,285,202,313.20 ------------* * * C&B
01-WJC +0,053,598,528,417.78 ------------* WJC 31% of FY, 40% of FY-Debt
01-GWB +0,079,686,673,895.42 ------------* GWB 69% of FY, 60% of FY-Debt
FY2002 +0,420,772,553,397.10 ------------* * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2003 +0,554,995,097,146.46 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2004 +0,595,821,633,586.70 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2005 +0,553,656,965,393.18 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2006 +0,574,264,237,491.73 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2007 +0,500,679,473,047.25 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2008 +1,017,071,524,649.92 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2009 +1,885,104,106,599.30 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B&O
09GWB +0,602,152,152,000.60 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB 31% of FY, 32% of FY-Debt
09-BHO +1,282,951,954,598.70 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BHO 69% of FY, 68% of FY-Debt
FY2010 +0,882,045,544,942.40 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BHO
Endof10 +1,703,421,290,497.23 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Linear Projection

LAST FIFTEEN REPORTS OF ADDITIONS TO PUBLIC DEBT(NOT FICA):
03/18/2010 +020,986,560,998.86 ------------**********
03/19/2010 +000,244,805,712.35 ------------********
03/22/2010 +000,662,784,714.13 ------------******** Mon
03/23/2010 +000,796,033,080.11 ------------********
03/24/2010 +000,495,755,553.04 ------------********
03/25/2010 +024,094,622,106.32 ------------**********
03/26/2010 -000,521,947,711.23 ---
03/29/2010 -000,032,502,739.57 ---- Mon
03/30/2010 +000,146,146,107.03 ------------********
03/31/2010 +089,964,337,654.53 ------------**********
04/01/2010 +004,832,827,050.45 ------------*********
04/02/2010 -000,783,098,135.53 ---
04/05/2010 +021,628,544,775.26 ------------********** Mon
04/06/2010 +000,246,106,716.91 ------------********
04/07/2010 +000,926,408,143.83 ------------********

163,687,384,026.49 Total of 15 above reports.

Heavy borrowing seems to start after 09/18/2008 while Bush was in power JUST BEFORE fiscal year end.
Bush admin borrowed $962,245,245,654.01 in those last 124 days in office crossing two fiscal years.
$360,093,093,653.42 in last 12 days of FY2008, and $602,152,152,000.59 in subsequent 112 days before leaving office.

For a prettier and more explanatory view of our nation's debt:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
DUer primer on National debt

(Debt to the penny keeps changing. Stuff is missing. Best to keep our own history.) LAST REPORT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4336228&mesg_id=4336252

[Festivito]

73. Debt: 04/08/2010 12,826,031,306,447.93 (UP 34,156,757,993.77) (Thu)

(Up a lot. Finally updated population. Good weekend to all.)

(Debt under Obama seems to jump up big then drop slowly maybe up a little and down a little for days--repeat.)
= Held by the Public + Intragovernmental(FICA)
= 8,347,752,339,307.00 + 4,478,278,967,140.93
UP 30,863,719,709.59 + UP 3,293,038,284.18

Source: Debt to the penny:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

THINKING IN BILLIONS: Think 3 or 4 dollars per billion in a 309-Million person America.
If every American, man, woman and child puts in $3.24 each THAT'S 1B$.
A family of three: Mom, Dad, Child: $9.71, ABOUT TEN BUCKS for a 1B$ federal program.
I hope that is clear. However, I'd suggest using $3 per 1B$ to underestimate it.
Use $4 per 1B$ to overestimate the cost when thinking: Is the federal program worth it?
Aid to Dependant Children: 2B$/yr =$8/yr(a movie a year) Family of 3: $24/yr(an hour of bowling)

PERSONALIZED DEBT:
Every 13 seconds we net gain another American, so at the end of the workday of the report, there should be 309,028,424 people in America.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html ON 04/09/2010 15:49 -> 309,034,742
Currently, each of these Americans owe $41,504.37.
A family of three owes $124,513.12. (And that is IN ADDITION to their mortgage.)

ANALYSIS:
There were 24 reports in the last 30 to 31 days.
The average for the last 24 reports is 11,652,471,023.68.
The average for the last 30 days would be 9,321,976,818.94.
The average for the last 31 days would be 9,021,267,889.30.
There were 252 reports in 365 days of FY2007 averaging 1.99B$ per report, 1.37B$/day.
There were 253 reports in 366 days of FY2008 averaging 4.02B$ per report, 2.78B$/day.
There were 75 reports in 112 days of GWB's part of FY2009 averaging 8.03B$ per report, 5.38B$/day.
There were 174 reports in 253 days of Obama's part of FY2009 averaging 7.33B$ per report, 5.07B$/day so far.
There were 249 reports in 365 days of FY2009 averaging 7.57B$ per report, 5.16B$/day.
There were 130 reports in 190 days of FY2010 averaging 7.05B$ per report, 4.82B$/day.
Above line should be okay

PROJECTION:
There are 1,018 days remaining in this Obama 1st term.
By that time the debt could be between 14.2 and 22.0T$.
It could be higher. It could be lower.

HISTORICAL:
President's term begins and ends on Jan 20.
(Guess who might want to hide the Reagan Bush years. Jan 20 data is missing before 1993.)
01/20/1993 _4,188,092,107,183.60 WJC Inaugural
01/22/2001 _5,728,195,796,181.57 WJC (UP 1,540,103,688,997.97)
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08 GWB (UP 4,898,681,252,731.43)
04/08/2010 12,826,031,306,447.93 BHO (UP 2,199,154,257,534.85 so far since Obama took office.)

FISCAL YEAR DEBT CHANGE, Sep 30 prior year to Sep 30 named year:
(One "* " for each 40B$ reached)
FY1994 +0,281,261,026,873.94 ------------* * * * * * * WJC
FY1995 +0,281,232,990,696.07 ------------* * * * * * * WJC
FY1996 +0,250,828,038,426.34 ------------* * * * * * WJC
FY1997 +0,188,335,072,261.61 ------------* * * * WJC
FY1998 +0,113,046,997,500.28 ------------* * WJC
FY1999 +0,130,077,892,735.81 ------------* * * WJC
FY2000 +0,017,907,308,253.43 ------------WJC
FY2001 +0,133,285,202,313.20 ------------* * * C&B
01-WJC +0,053,598,528,417.78 ------------* WJC 31% of FY, 40% of FY-Debt
01-GWB +0,079,686,673,895.42 ------------* GWB 69% of FY, 60% of FY-Debt
FY2002 +0,420,772,553,397.10 ------------* * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2003 +0,554,995,097,146.46 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2004 +0,595,821,633,586.70 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2005 +0,553,656,965,393.18 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2006 +0,574,264,237,491.73 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2007 +0,500,679,473,047.25 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2008 +1,017,071,524,649.92 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB
FY2009 +1,885,104,106,599.30 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B&O
09GWB +0,602,152,152,000.60 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GWB 31% of FY, 32% of FY-Debt
09-BHO +1,282,951,954,598.70 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BHO 69% of FY, 68% of FY-Debt
FY2010 +0,916,202,302,936.20 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BHO
Endof10 +1,760,072,845,114.28 ------------* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Linear Projection

LAST FIFTEEN REPORTS OF ADDITIONS TO PUBLIC DEBT(NOT FICA):
03/19/2010 +000,244,805,712.35 ------------********
03/22/2010 +000,662,784,714.13 ------------******** Mon
03/23/2010 +000,796,033,080.11 ------------********
03/24/2010 +000,495,755,553.04 ------------********
03/25/2010 +024,094,622,106.32 ------------**********
03/26/2010 -000,521,947,711.23 ---
03/29/2010 -000,032,502,739.57 ---- Mon
03/30/2010 +000,146,146,107.03 ------------********
03/31/2010 +089,964,337,654.53 ------------**********
04/01/2010 +004,832,827,050.45 ------------*********
04/02/2010 -000,783,098,135.53 ---
04/05/2010 +021,628,544,775.26 ------------********** Mon
04/06/2010 +000,246,106,716.91 ------------********
04/07/2010 +000,926,408,143.83 ------------********
04/08/2010 +030,863,719,709.59 ------------**********

173,564,542,737.22 Total of 15 above reports.

Heavy borrowing seems to start after 09/18/2008 while Bush was in power JUST BEFORE fiscal year end.
Bush admin borrowed $962,245,245,654.01 in those last 124 days in office crossing two fiscal years.
$360,093,093,653.42 in last 12 days of FY2008, and $602,152,152,000.59 in subsequent 112 days before leaving office.

For a prettier and more explanatory view of our nation's debt:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
DUer primer on National debt

(Debt to the penny keeps changing. Stuff is missing. Best to keep our own history.) LAST REPORT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4337279&mesg_id=4337787

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. The Little Dow That Could?

[ozymandius]

75. I wonder when the WEE thread starts.

Demeter? You there?

[Joe Chi Minh]

76. Interesting article about the bond raters in Guardian Online:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/08/useconomy-economics