Listening to a story from a friend this evening. Guy in a social setting talking to a group of Wall Street heavyweights. Every single one in the room certain Romney wins. Has Ohio locked. Has the whole thing tied up. No doubt.
(3) the fact that you can get nearly 4:1 on Romney at Betfair
makes the financial crisis much easier to understand.
Hoping that your guy will win even though he’s down? Reasonable. Figuring out a way he might actually win, despite the evidence? Not reasonable, maybe, but normal.
But being subjectively certain of a very unlikely outcome? Scary, in people who get to play with billions of dollars’ worth of other people’s money.
And the Murdochized Wall Street Journal isn’t helping. It used to be that the crazies got to do their thing on the editorial pages, but the news columns played it straight. No longer.
Spanish labour costs are painfully converging with German ones.
The fragment of the US blogosphere that pays any attention to Europe is still full of gloom about the prospects for the Eurozone. See for instance Kevin Drum. But here’s a ray of light from the very experienced insider Gavyn Davies, blogging in the FT:
The good news is that Spain has in fact improved its competitiveness markedly in recent years, as a result of the reductions in labour costs which have accompanied the recession and structural reforms in the labour market:
One thing Megan doesn’t note: the “equity premium” – the virtually-guaranteed 8% return on diversified stock portfolios – was the whole premise of Paul Ryan’s Social Security privatization plan. And of course “dynamic scoring” is jsut another version of something for nothing.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the con artists got out of politics and went back to just fleecing individuals?
But if that is the case, then assuming (in best chickens-counting style) that there even is a second Obama Administration, who should the next Treasury Secretary be?
This isn’t merely idle blog talk (although I am under no illusions about RBC’s awesome policy influence).Â One great failing of progressives is that after the 2008 election, we simply celebrated.Â Wall Street did not: it got to work making sure that its people were in key positions, and that Barack Obama’s agenda would never challenge the financial industry’s power.Â That’s how we got Timothy Geithner at Treasury, Larry Summers at NEC, Ben Bernanke reappointed at the Fed, Bowles himself appointed to an absurd “deficit reduction commission”, Christy Romer sidelined at CEA, and ditto Elizabeth Warren.
So if, as anyone not committed to entrenched plutocracy should hope, President Obama wins a second term, the very next day should be devoted to making sure that President Obama does not make such disastrous picks again.Â That means being prepared to push very hard against rancid appointments like Bowles and in favor of someone else.Â I would hope that the day after Obama’s re-election, Al Franken and re-elected Senator Sherrod Brown call the White House and make it very clear that if they have anything to say about, Bowles will never be confirmed.
But who should be?Â A couple of notes: 1) at this stage, we should not worry about confirmability too much.Â The Republicans will seek to block anyone (whether by filibuster or otherwise), and at some point progressives will have to press President Obama to make a recess appointment; and 2) for what it’s worth (and it may not be worth much), there has never been a woman or a minority heading Treasury.
There are a few I can think of offhand: former FDIC chair Sheila Bair, former CFTC chair Brooksley Born, Paul Volcker (too old?), Gary Gensler, Christy Romer, Jared Bernstein.Â Hillary?Â I would be very wary: the Clintons created the Wall Street Democratic party,Â all of her advisors will be Rubinites, and if she wants to run for President in 2016, negotiating with Wall Street potential campaign contributors provides dark incentives.Â Still, she could be more progressive as a way of attracting primary support.Â
Â Paul Campos wants The Shrill One: that would be great, but I think that’s a little too far-fetched even at this stage.Â Nevertheless, Campos is asking the right question.
By the day after Election Day, progressives should have an answer.Â Because Wall Street sure will.
How did the underwriters of the Facebook IPO make $125 million in trading profits in addition to their $176 million in underwriting fees?
Facebook went public at $38 per share, and is now trading at $30. So Morgan Stanley, the lead underwriter, and its accomplices partners at Goldman and J.P. Morgan, did an excellent job for their customers (Facebook and its selling shareholders, including Goldman itself) while leaving the public – including Morgan Stanley’s own retail customers at Smith Barney – holding the bag for something north of $3 billion.
They also did quite nicely for themselves, thank you: $176 million in underwriting fees plus $125 million in trading profits.
It’s the trading profits that leave me puzzled. The WSJ reporter writes, “Morgan Stanley and the other banks made additional money through their attempts to buoy the faltering stock early on.” But attempting to “buoy” a stock means buying it. How do you make $125 million buying a stock that opened at $44 and is now trading at $30? They must have sold into any temporary rally generated by their support efforts. So it sounds to me as if the banks figured out a way to fleece the suckers twice.
As the man said, “There’s no such thing as a gentleman when real money is on the table.”
Security screeners and Customs agents at airports are “domestic discretionary spending. Think about that the next time you miss your flight because the security line didn’t move.
I got to the airport and hour and ten minutes early for my flight today. It was a mid-afternoon flight, not at one of the peak periods; I had a boarding pass; and I wasn’t checking a bag. So the timing should have been ample.
But I almost missed the flight anyway, because the security-screening line was out the door; only two of four lanes were open.
TSA screeners are “domestic discretionary spending.” So are the Customs folks whose scarcity when I landed in Dallas on a flight from Guatemala caused me to miss my connecting flight to Washington; the line, also at a non-peak period, took more than an hour.
Think about that the next time someone tells you we need to work on the deficit by shrinking the size of the federal government.
Footnote Could we save money and make life easier for passengers by simplifying the screening process, without losing anything on the security side? Probably. But it’s not as if the Teahadis in Congress are actually working on that problem; they’re just slashing everything in sight save defense and rural pork. While we have the rules we have, fewer screeners and fewer Customs folks at airports means more missed flights.
A price worth paying? No, I don’t think so, either.
What’s a financial advisor to do? The correct advice pretty much fits on a single sheet of paper that is available for free at the public library. Moreover, the products one should recommend buying are inexpensive, and are widely-available at leading websites. An audit study finds predictably depressign results
Suppose you are in business offering people advice about some important products. You have a problem, though. The correct advice pretty much fits on a single sheet of paper that is available for free at the public library. Moreover, the products one should recommend buying are inexpensive, and are widely-available at leading websites.
Thus the predicament of the modern financial advisor. Thus also the predicament of her unsophisticated customers. If the right advice is simple and free, at-best the expensive and complicated advice she will sell you will be overpriced, and probably more than a little wrong. Moreover, if the correct products to buy are cheap, no-load index funds that generate little sales commission, your advisor has obvious incentives to offer you something riskier or fundamentally more costly.
Today’s headline in Britain about the CEO’s bonus at the Royal Bank of Scotland, rescued from collapse in 2008 and now owned 83% by the British government:
Mr Hester, the chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, has bowed to mounting public anger and agreed to give up shares worth almost Â£970,000.
Naturally Stephen Hester’s decision to live on his paltry pay of Â£1.2m has nothing at all to do with saving the Cameron-Clegg government from embarrassment and possible humiliation in the Commons. Where are the Murdochs’ phone hackers when you need them?
If the bonus was necessary to get Mr. Hester to do a proper job, he will now underperform. Logically he must now be sacked.
In another glimpse into the entitlement world of the banksters, the Sunday Times (yesterday, p.25, paywall) quotes the chairman of a rival bank sounding off indignantly (my italics):
And if he goes, how much would they have to pay the next person? It would either be somebody decent, who will want Â£10m upfront because they won’t trust the government, or they’ll get the chief executive of an NHS trust, pay them Â£100,000, and it will be a multi-billion-pound disaster.
Never mind that the chief executives of NHS trusts get basic pay of around Â£150,000, not Â£100,000, plus modest performance bonuses by City standards sometimes reaching Â£20,000: similar to the pay of senior NHS consultants. What’s astonishing is the top banker’s lack of imagination about the rest of the world. Running a big hospital is a order of magnitude more complex than running a bank, even a big and troubled one. You have thousands of high-technology and intrinsically dangerous products (medical procedures) as against a bank’s dozen or so; the key staff – the doctors – are prickly and highly specialised experts, with entrenched professional autonomy; and the consequences of screwing up are deaths, not paper losses. Would you trust Mr. Hester to run a teaching hospital?
Why did Merkel shake Sarkozy’s hand more warmly than at the last summit? Does that mean she’s softerning her stance on a Greek bailout? And did you overhear what a friend of a friend of mine thinks he overheard in a cloakroom in the Bundestag? These are the sort of parlour game questions to which the ongoing Euromess is driving many Germany-watchers.
Hans Kundnani notes the parallels to a prior era, and coins a word to describe it:
It strikes me that it’s all a little like Kremlinology — that is, the study of the Soviet leadership during the Cold War. Back then, the lack of reliable information forced Western analysts to attempt to understand possible shifts in Moscow by decoding what they thought were secret signs such as the position of leaders at parades. We now seem to speculate about what is really going on in Berlin in almost the same way — what you might call Kanzleramtology.
The front page of this morning’s Financial Times describes the struggle between the Royal Bank of Scotland and PM David Cameron over executive pay. RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton’s salary of nearly $2 million is set to be supplemented with a bonus of at least that hefty size. Cameron is calling for executive pay restraint, but the RBS board is intransigent.
The FT quotes a “senior banker” as saying that if Sir Philip doesn’t get a bonus, it would demoralise staff members by signalling that they now effectively work for “an arm of the civil service or a utility rather than for a bank”.
Let’s review the facts for this unnamed champion of free enterprise.
The Royal Bank of Scotland exists today only because the UK taxpayer bailed it out three years ago. The government owns 83% of the bank’s shares. Rather than be grateful for this generous welfare programme, the wizard of private industry quoted in the article is outraged that he might have to accept some public sector style restraints on compensation.
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.