Reminder: The fundamental problems that caused the Great Recession still exist
| ruby demanding roast beef | 11/27/15 | | heady windowlicker | 11/27/15 | | Deep double fault | 11/27/15 | | unhinged aromatic french chef | 11/28/15 | | fear-inspiring step-uncle's house | 11/28/15 | | Charismatic cobalt meetinghouse doctorate | 11/29/15 | | crawly corner telephone | 11/29/15 | | Iridescent outnumbered personal credit line | 11/27/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/27/15 | | Iridescent outnumbered personal credit line | 11/27/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/27/15 | | cracking effete knife | 11/27/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/27/15 | | cracking effete knife | 11/27/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/27/15 | | Cream striped hyena | 11/28/15 | | Supple low-t hall | 11/29/15 | | Trip karate area | 11/27/15 | | Appetizing zippy space | 11/27/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/27/15 | | Appetizing zippy space | 11/27/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/27/15 | | Appetizing zippy space | 11/27/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/27/15 | | Appetizing zippy space | 11/27/15 | | Obsidian Station | 11/28/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/28/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/28/15 | | amber private investor | 11/28/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/28/15 | | vermilion coiffed mediation | 11/28/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/28/15 | | vermilion coiffed mediation | 11/28/15 | | splenetic bawdyhouse nibblets | 11/28/15 | | Navy Galvanic Whorehouse Jew | 11/28/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/28/15 | | Rebellious generalized bond gaming laptop | 11/28/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/28/15 | | Zombie-like shitlib | 11/28/15 | | magical razzle-dazzle dog poop | 11/28/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/28/15 | | bonkers hospital lettuce | 11/28/15 | | Zombie-like shitlib | 11/28/15 | | Zombie-like shitlib | 11/28/15 | | magical razzle-dazzle dog poop | 11/28/15 | | Zombie-like shitlib | 11/28/15 | | magical razzle-dazzle dog poop | 11/28/15 | | Zombie-like shitlib | 11/28/15 | | magical razzle-dazzle dog poop | 11/29/15 | | Zombie-like shitlib | 11/29/15 | | Supple low-t hall | 11/29/15 | | disturbing faggot firefighter native | 11/28/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/28/15 | | magical razzle-dazzle dog poop | 11/29/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/29/15 | | Racy Slate Death Wish Cruise Ship | 11/29/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/29/15 | | Racy Slate Death Wish Cruise Ship | 11/29/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/29/15 | | Racy Slate Death Wish Cruise Ship | 11/29/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/29/15 | | magical razzle-dazzle dog poop | 11/29/15 | | Zombie-like shitlib | 11/29/15 | | magical razzle-dazzle dog poop | 11/29/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/29/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/29/15 | | Racy Slate Death Wish Cruise Ship | 11/29/15 | | Zombie-like shitlib | 11/29/15 | | Charismatic cobalt meetinghouse doctorate | 11/29/15 | | comical degenerate | 11/29/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/29/15 | | Yapping Angry Filthpig | 11/29/15 | | magical razzle-dazzle dog poop | 11/29/15 | | Supple low-t hall | 11/29/15 | | ruby demanding roast beef | 11/29/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: November 27th, 2015 10:43 PM Author: ruby demanding roast beef
Brother, the mortgages themselves were a drop in a pretty big bucket. We've weathered much bigger bubbles bursting before with ease. The problem here was that the financial system has grown more complex, opaque, and risk-tolerant, meaning that it has become wholly unable to withstand minor shocks.
Here's how the G20 sums it up: "During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29264306) |
|
Date: November 27th, 2015 11:40 PM Author: ruby demanding roast beef
Meh, it's not going to be a 1:1 correlation to the last time, and like I said, the whole problem is that this sort of stuff happens in the context of an entirely opaque system (meaning it happens without us knowing), so I don't have a really satisfying answer for you. I can make some guesses, but if it were easy to determine ex ante it wouldn't be as dangerous as it is.
One answer for you is that HFT might cause a liquidity crunch akin to the debt crunch felt in '08-'09. HFT seems to be displacing traditional market makers, but has this nasty tendency of disappearing completely when shit goes down. So maybe the equation is tech bubble burst + HFT liquidity disappearing = Great Recession #2.
I also know that secondary markets for non-public securities have become widely used. The actual trading of stock of a private company itself isn't terribly worrying, but you have to wonder if derivatives or some other instruments are cropping up (or will soon crop up) to juice returns even further.
Those are just two examples. There's probably something even more pernicious out there that I'm just not thinking of. The root of the problem, of course, is that too many market actors are working under the influence of terribly improper incentives. If they haven't already found a way to tangle things up again, given enough time with the right incentives they will certainly cook something up.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29264546) |
Date: November 28th, 2015 9:49 PM Author: Zombie-like shitlib
Huge areas of risk right now are Energy Debt and everything attached to it (CEF's and Index funds buying that shit, using leverage then selling those products to regular investors) and Private valuations. Lots of shit
however there are also LOW risk places for a huge return if you know where to look
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29268386) |
|
Date: November 28th, 2015 10:19 PM Author: magical razzle-dazzle dog poop
energy debt risk is stupid high. it's not just kinda risky. there are going to be many many defaults in 2016.
here's high risk: student debt, biotech equity, tech equity, coastal real estate, art, everything china, canada real estate, some muni debt.
what do you have in-mind that is safe over the long term?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29268560)
|
|
Date: November 28th, 2015 10:51 PM Author: Zombie-like shitlib
ok thats a fair assessment of risk - some prob are but you can EASILY spot the ones that were smart by looking at their track record during 08 - the ones that didn't cut their dividends or increased them are top tier and very good.
But they also do the following things:
1. Benefit from rising rates
2. Have excess capital on their balance sheets
3. Easy to buy by a larger consolidator, benefit from scale
Also invest in way more simple less bizzaro risky wizard shit than the huge banks - major source of the risk
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29268786) |
Date: November 28th, 2015 10:18 PM Author: ruby demanding roast beef
Carl Icahn on distorted incentives:
"... the American worker is also getting 'screwed' ... boards and CEOS have allowed property, plants and equipment of our companies to become the oldest on record and, as a result, the growth rate in productivity per hour of our workers has also become the worst on record and has actually decreased compared to last year.
The average age of corporate property, plants and equipment is an astounding 22.3 years, the oldest it has reached since 1941. But I do not believe that most boards and CEOs really give a damn. With many exceptions, CEOs only care about short term results. Perhaps you can't really blame them because unfortunately, Wall Street judges them based on quarter to quarter results and CEOs receive their egregious compensation based on those short-term results."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29268559) |
|
Date: November 29th, 2015 5:22 PM Author: ruby demanding roast beef
Lots to unpack here.
You raise an interesting point, and I'm not entirely positive you're wrong. It's possible that some technological changes are different in kind from the others such that they permanently destroy jobs. I can certainly entertain the notion. However, I'm inclined to think it's wrong. Even in the most stylized example -- your button that produces 100 cars -- if such a thing were to exist, a whole industry would crop up around servicing and improving those buttons. It's not like people would just kick their feet up and say "great, we've invented the button, now we never have to think about cars again." More importantly, though, even if fewer people tend to the business of making cars, that would just mean some people who previously built cars will have to find something else to pursue. Maybe it's tangentially related to producing cars -- after-market modifications of cars, for example -- or maybe it's totally different. Maybe it's building rockets for satellites. Maybe it's walking dogs. The thing is, there's an infinite number of things that need to get done, so once one gets crossed off the list, there will always be something else to turn one's attention to... And even if there wasn't, it's still a moot point policy. Like I said, the march of technological progress will continue whether you like it or not. The only real question is whether you will lead it or be left behind by it. There's no sense in burying your head in the sand and wistfully clinging to a bygone era.
Regarding your first point, it's not good for ANYONE if America's corporations and financial firms are being run inefficiently. First of all, employees with retirement or pension plans benefit to the extent that American firms are growing long-term -- which they can only do if they make prudent capital investments. Second, as I said before, any short-term disruption in the labor market can be compensation for by taxing some of the increase in profits from these prudent investments and setting up some sort of welfare or basic income program for the unemployed. Properly managed, it is categorically true that prudent capital investments will benefit workers. Instead of focusing your time & efforts demonizing technology, you should be focusing your efforts and building a robust safety net and making sure corporations are not able to elude taxation.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29272593) |
|
Date: November 29th, 2015 1:46 PM Author: Zombie-like shitlib
Icahn is a real wild motherfucker but his agenda, is - crazily enough - probably now closer to the average working man than it is the moneyed elite. The guy came up hard in Queens, was told he would never amount to anything. Through force of will and hustling he made it into the bigtime.
Most of his rage is directed at companies that are being run like personal fiefs for the managerial class (a class of people who have successfully siphoned the wealth and progress gains made by corporations away from shareholders, pension funds, insurance companies, endowments etc) - and in the process made a lot of companies moribund.
Even though some of his involvement in companies results in downsizing - a lot of these companies could have gone bankrupt if he wasn't in there which would have resulted in 100% layoffs if you think about it.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29271334) |
|
Date: November 29th, 2015 2:31 PM Author: Zombie-like shitlib
Buybacks make sense sometimes and they don't make sense sometimes - they make sense if acquiring shares of a company that has a $20 intrinsic value when shares are trading at $10, but not $25. Corporate america does a lot of the $25 level buybacks and that gets a ton of flack for good reason.
Buying back shares also helps provide an outlet for capital that prevents companies from sprawling and buying random shit that could be idiotic and moneylosing (i.e "empire building" mergers like AOL-Time Warner).
It makes a lot of sense if you have 1. limited expansion potential, 2. nothing higher in the cap structure than common shares (like preferreds/debt) 3. if shares are trading at a substantial, significant discount.
That said, I would suspect that 75% of buybacks in the current environment are malinvestment because of how cheap debt is to get. IMO companies should have been attempting to get debt free vs. goosing their profitability metrics via buybacks when its clear management has a limited understanding of intrinsic value of companies.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3055586&forum_id=2#29271549) |
|
|