|
|
 |
|
|
|
#3
03-05-2009, 06:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
you may be right....but can gov't be trusted at anything 
|
|
#4
03-06-2009, 07:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I was going to say that my capping skills have out performed the stock market.....by far, and I stink.
Quote:
__________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
|
|
#5
03-11-2009, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A big "bank" posts a profit and we got a
300 pt gain. Still remains to be seen what these "bank" bailouts do. Bernanke is at ramming speed.
|
|
#6
03-11-2009, 10:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I believe it was more the talk of ways to fix Mark to Market by Big Ben that sparked the rally more so than CITI talk about making a profit. What people don't realize is the banks are making $ and showing profit it is just an accounting issue (thanks enron) that is screwing everything up. Imagine if you had to revalue your home daily and if it went down you would have to pay the bank more money and then if your neighbor sold his house at a discount then your house keeps going down value and you pay the bank more $, then another neighbor has to sell his house because he doesn't have the $ to pay the bank now he sells lower and you have to pay more. This is more or less what mark to market is doing to banks. They are not losing real $. I believe more talk or change to different accounting principals will spark a huuuge rally in the financials and huge gain in the stock market. Most good financial companies are undervalued. Just my uneducated opinion though....
|
|
#7
03-11-2009, 11:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
here's my question: if you believe the market is the best way to fairly value assets, what's the current free market argument against mark to market? if odd accountancy rules are needed to make sure our larger financial institutions remain technically solvent aren't we just prolonging the pain by ignoring the fact they don't hold asset's to cover all the deposits? i'm looking for some of the pure free market, no government interference folks to explain this to me. and why can't obama solve this with a waive of his magic libtard wand? (<timm: i'm being ironic. don't agree with me.)
|
|
#8
03-12-2009, 07:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#9
03-12-2009, 08:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am not economic expert, but Mark to Market principals are bringing the entire financial system down. A Cash flow method I believe would be more fair. This would value assets based on cash coming in. The answer to your second question is no. The assets are simply not as bad as the values placed on them because there is no market for them at all. Currently their are no investors to buy Jumbo mortgages at all. The banks that were forced to sell assets due to the de-valuing of the assets sold them at a discount so now other banks need to sell assets at to cover the fact that their assets are now worth less due to the first bank selling at a discount. It is a terrible cycle and there is no end. There is no real $ being lost. Simply put it doesn't work. The free market would continue to work based on a cash flow method and would still protect investors. I believe Obama and the dems will actually work with the SEC, the treasury dept, etc to help solve this problem. Again I am not an expert on this and I believe that we can't just switch or stop mark to market overnight, but the current system is failing miserably and hurting everyone from the consumer, the small business owner to the large corporations for no real reason.
|
|
#10
03-12-2009, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
because we dont really know exactly what is in the package. But you are saying that merely selling off assets has devalued other banks assets? If banks have assets that are discernable, and the assets are composed of loans to solvent customers that are duely paying their loans I want a piece. I do indeed. Or am I missing something, anybody?
|
Hybrid Mode
