she is missing the larger point - the main reason these restrictions are in place are to prevent firms from lending to themselves. I.e. PE Fund buys bank ABC, collects a lot of FDIC-insured deposits in ABC, then coerces ABC to lend to PE Fund's other businesses, allowing PE Fund to cash out their equity stakes.
I really hate that she is allowing these companies to get involved at all. I would rather just see the banks fail and the taxpayer pick up the tab. It will cost less in the long run, as eventually we will have to pay for the insider lending practices of these new banks.
FDIC....Good Show - It's about time - even though this is "first-draft-only-hot-off-the-press-with-ink-still-wet" kind of criteria.....it's surprisingly comforting.
"The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Thursday urged tough capital requirements on private equity firms buying battered banks, and said any firms they buy must be held for at least three years."
It is indeed curious that every mouthpiece for the Federal government regardless of department jawbones and exhorts everyone within earshot to go long this economy whilst al the while themselves going short with their debt. It's almost as if there's a plan in there someplace.
Sheila sounds to be covering her assets, as her newfound worry about bad banks sounds soothing except for the part where she allowed oh so many failing banks to get picked up willy-nilly already, when we've played bank hot-potato as of late.
It's nice to see a plain-language description of the kind of games the PE people are trying to play: "We have seen bids where it has been difficult to determine actual ownership. We have seen bidders who have wanted permission to immediately flip ownership interests. We have seen structures organized in the secrecy law jurisdictions." The obfuscated-ownership bids should be rejected in every case. These would have a strong chance of being money-laundering or tax cheating vehicles.
I'm sick of overcriticizing, so on this one, I'll say this, the FDIC is getting closer to doing the right thing.
The problem we have is that there is extreme unwillingess to let banks fail without an angel waiting to assume the obligations of the depositors, so PE firms are being allowed to enter the fray. OTOH, if we don't allow the PE firms into the fray, we get zombified banks (b/c true failures will not be tolerated).
I'm actually not sure at this point which is worse - zombified credit conditions, or PE firms getting us ready for the next 'crisis.'
I knwo the best option, but they refuse to let bad banks fail. Or become nationalized.
I am also troubled by the opacity of some of the ownership structures that we have seen in our bidding process, though these have not been winning bids. We have seen bids where it has been difficult to determine actual ownership. We have seen bidders who have wanted permission to immediately flip ownership interests. We have seen structures organized in the secrecy law jurisdictions.
I mean why would the Chinese government think they would need to conceal their ultimate control of a FDIC chartered institution?
ghostfaceinvestah (profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 2:15 pm I really hate that she is allowing these companies to get involved at all. I would rather just see the banks fail and the taxpayer pick up the tab. It will cost less in the long run, as eventually we will have to pay for the insider lending practices of these new banks.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
I guess we learned nothing from the S&L crisis.
I would say some people studied the playbook very closely. They just didn't come away with the lessons you'd hope they did.
Unemployment up again.
Equities, down over 2%
Crude oil futures, down $2 to $66.7, as are other commodities
Long bonds (30Y), back down to 3.3%, right where they were before the spike
And we still have large bank failures, later today.
I hear that Walmart sill wants a bank (not actually sure, but IIRC, they were denied an application to set up an industrial bank).
Talk about survival of the fittest, who more than anyone else has a fighting chance with the wall street bankers than a drug cartel...plus we know that they have a solid cash flow....Heck, I am surprised that the rating companies haven't given them a AAA rating...
And in other news, the PPIP launch was announced today, which will lead to more money printing and corruption.
We aren't going to have classic wage/price spiral inflation. We are going to have "run on the currency" style hyperinflation, where no one will sell us the goods we need with the useless dollars we print.
Byzantine_Ruins (homepage, profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 11:32 am
ghostfaceinvestah (profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 2:15 pm
I guess we learned nothing from the S&L crisis. -gfi
I would say some people studied the playbook very closely. They just didn't come away with the lessons you'd hope they did. - byz
Why would they come away with lessons any different than the rest of us? It's beginning to look like the S&L crisis was the Huns testing the defenses before the big assault.
"I am also troubled by the opacity of some of the ownership structures that we have seen in our bidding process, though these have not been winning bids. We have seen bids where it has been difficult to determine actual ownership. We have seen bidders who have wanted permission to immediately flip ownership interests."
@Rob Dawg - on a day like this with super-anemic volume, it won't take much to keep it above 900 or even to push it up a little bit. Don't want to have a bummer close into a long weekend!
"Wow, it is almost like somebody has the ability and will to keep the S&P above 900. "
I am convinced the Fed is targeting an S&P 500 level of 900. They do it in Fed Funds, they did it in the MBS market, Bernanke has mentioned doing it in Treasuries, makes sense to me they would do it in equities.
S&P gets below 900, they buys spoos, it gets above, they let natural selling bring it back down.
The bank we use for day to day small transactions has been taken over by a giant. The swallowed one was an old established regional. Our principle bank is as solid as they come. If that one ever comes to grief you can kiss whatever it is you wish to kiss goodbye. Wolves will be running down the streets.
Mr.Sparkle (homepage, profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 11:39 am
@Rob Dawg - on a day like this with super-anemic volume, it won't take much to keep it above 900 or even to push it up a little bit. Don't want to have a bummer close into a long weekend!
They've spiked the tape twice. All that remains is how many times they will spike again. My guess is there won't be a last spike because all the big guys will be on their way to Long Island and they think it is a cute lesson to their assistants to let them pile into a fading market.
"It's beginning to look like the S&L crisis was the Huns testing the defenses before the big assault."
Why so conspiratorial? If you stand back a bit you can see nothing but logical development plus the human material that is its agent. A tolstoyan point of view.
Private equity firms Cerberus, Apollo, Icahn as well as many big hedge funds were all arguably spawned from convicted fellon Michael Milken and his ponzi/junk bond operation.
Read this long article from Deep capture. Bernanke is no match for this multi-headed snake.
Normally I would think the flu would hurt productivity and cause business and government shutdowns. We already have that so I think it will mean more outlays in healthcare expenditures for broke gov'ts
indeed. if anything, we're poised for an incredible amount of future deflation, going by current equity prices and the stubborn "stickiness" of many expensive housing enclaves at $300 sq/ft and above. the only bullish play i'm possibly considering is doubling down big on nat gas at under $3.
"Who is the Robespierre that emerges out of our Reign of Error?"
The reign of the original was bloody and short. He was a lawyer. He was screaming for the blood of his enemies even as he was seized. It's more interesting to wonder if we're to have our Bonaparte.
Normally I would think the flu would hurt productivity and cause business and government shutdowns. We already have that so I think it will mean more outlays in healthcare expenditures for broke gov'ts"
Tim waiting for 2012, I think a lot depends on the eventual virulence of the organism. We'll just have to wait a few months until we begin to find out.
Robespierre wasn't the boogeyman - the boogeyman was the rage within the average Frenchman in regards to the failure of the political elite to deliver anything in the way of security, rights or national consciousness to the masses.
Why so conspiratorial? If you stand back a bit you can see nothing but logical development plus the human material that is its agent.
Not to understate the deterministic character of it all, but Michael Lewis write all about the role of MBS and the S&L crisis in Liar's Poker. He still writes for Bloomberg. He is hardly the sole human being to have been present at both ends of the arc. Even if he was the sole survivor, Lewis still had the Ice-T / Iceberg Slim effect of writing about the horrors of something in an attempt to educate and creating a fanclub for it by accident. You can debate about the role of emulation, anticipation or whatever, but it's clear the S&L crisis was subject to a lot of study by a lot of people and a lot of strategies were built based on anticipated state response -- successfully, I'd say, as the core players managed to ail away unscathed from the latest iteration of the game.
Angry Saver,
I agree that the stuff Sheila was describing is as you say...people trying to jump on the gravy train and get theirs. But PE in general isn't that different than some of the investor pools that have owned banks. Lots of "community" banks have a small number of large shareholders and then a bunch of tiny shareholders. Subject to the same kind of self dealing that some of these PE groups have been engaged in.
Virulence is the wild card piece of the risk puzzle, it is the novel nature of the virus and the exponential mathematics of transmission which make for an almost certain test of the limits of the public health delivery systems of different parts of the globe.
When those systems are overwhelmed, then the sequelae will be a significantly worse set of outcomes - where that happens and when will determine the extent of the economic impact. Most likely we will see some of that during the flu season of the Southern hemisphere.
I've almost finished reading the biography of Pham Xuan An. Many if not most revolutions have some of those too. But it doesn't look to me as if the US is the sort of country to have a revolution. There is no ideology of revolution, no cadre. Danton, no, Robespierre, no. Bonaparte? Only if we were descend into chaos. Long odds on that.
right - present at the creation. that event, the cooking of the brew by those guys at Sal Bros., is a pivotal event in the slow unhinging of the empire.
72 - BW abandoned
82 - SB MBS scemes proliferate
92 - FRE/FNM lobbyists achieve critical mass in DC
02 - overnight rates go near zero
"Lots of "community" banks have a small number of large shareholders and then a bunch of tiny shareholders. Subject to the same kind of self dealing that some of these PE groups have been engaged in."
True, but at least those are confined to smaller banks, and quite honestly most of those dumbfks are not sophisticated enough to hide their corruption. They lend to their mothers and cousins and such.
The PE firms will take over bigger banks, and lend more dollars to closely associated firms, create lending pools, etc.
"...but it's clear the S&L crisis was subject to a lot of study by a lot of people and a lot of strategies were built based on anticipated state response -- successfully, I'd say, as the core players managed to ail away unscathed from the latest iteration of the game."
Byz, could be. But are we talking about insiders who can exploit a situation, or a conspiracy to generate one?
Holding these assets 3 years might serve two purposes:
1. Discourage "gaming the system". PE groups can't sell an asset back and forth at a higher price thus bidding up the apparent value of the asset.
2. Making sure PE groups can fund the cost of holding these assets for 3 years (approximately 1.1% per month of the cost of asset)
"We like the approach."
Nemo?
Private equity is glorified house flipping.
Sheila is just wishing bad banks into the cornfield, that's all.
We have free parking
Sheila is kinda growing on me...
Failed banks are pretty much F'D, I C.
she is missing the larger point - the main reason these restrictions are in place are to prevent firms from lending to themselves. I.e. PE Fund buys bank ABC, collects a lot of FDIC-insured deposits in ABC, then coerces ABC to lend to PE Fund's other businesses, allowing PE Fund to cash out their equity stakes.
I really hate that she is allowing these companies to get involved at all. I would rather just see the banks fail and the taxpayer pick up the tab. It will cost less in the long run, as eventually we will have to pay for the insider lending practices of these new banks.
I guess we learned nothing from the S&L crisis.
So the gov has learn't their lesson 7 years too late....
FDIC....Good Show - It's about time - even though this is "first-draft-only-hot-off-the-press-with-ink-still-wet" kind of criteria.....it's surprisingly comforting.
or perhaps not at all (per ghostfaceinvestah)
...we don’t want to see these institutions coming back.
Something about horses and barn doors... I forget.
"The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Thursday urged tough capital requirements on private equity firms buying battered banks, and said any firms they buy must be held for at least three years."
Financial domestic violence?
It is indeed curious that every mouthpiece for the Federal government regardless of department jawbones and exhorts everyone within earshot to go long this economy whilst al the while themselves going short with their debt. It's almost as if there's a plan in there someplace.
It's pretty f'ing ballsy for the FDIC to chastise the PE firms one the one hand and then turn around and extend PPIP with the other.
and by ballsy I really mean schizophrenically hypocritically stupid.
...we don’t want to see these institutions coming back.
Hmmm, a realization of past failed strategies? Perhaps they could extend the lesson to individual home-debtors...
Sheila sounds to be covering her assets, as her newfound worry about bad banks sounds soothing except for the part where she allowed oh so many failing banks to get picked up willy-nilly already, when we've played bank hot-potato as of late.
"It's pretty f'ing ballsy for the FDIC to chastise the PE firms one the one hand and then turn around and extend PPIP with the other."
The timing of the two news items is somewhat suspect.
It's nice to see a plain-language description of the kind of games the PE people are trying to play: "We have seen bids where it has been difficult to determine actual ownership. We have seen bidders who have wanted permission to immediately flip ownership interests. We have seen structures organized in the secrecy law jurisdictions." The obfuscated-ownership bids should be rejected in every case. These would have a strong chance of being money-laundering or tax cheating vehicles.
...they will approach banking in a way that is transparent, long term, and prudently managed.
Is this required of current bank holding companies?
UNG looks to retest early spring lows... every bit of that early May 25% rally is given back
I'm sick of overcriticizing, so on this one, I'll say this, the FDIC is getting closer to doing the right thing.
The problem we have is that there is extreme unwillingess to let banks fail without an angel waiting to assume the obligations of the depositors, so PE firms are being allowed to enter the fray. OTOH, if we don't allow the PE firms into the fray, we get zombified banks (b/c true failures will not be tolerated).
I'm actually not sure at this point which is worse - zombified credit conditions, or PE firms getting us ready for the next 'crisis.'
I knwo the best option, but they refuse to let bad banks fail. Or become nationalized.
I am also troubled by the opacity of some of the ownership structures that we have seen in our bidding process, though these have not been winning bids. We have seen bids where it has been difficult to determine actual ownership. We have seen bidders who have wanted permission to immediately flip ownership interests. We have seen structures organized in the secrecy law jurisdictions.
I mean why would the Chinese government think they would need to conceal their ultimate control of a FDIC chartered institution?
ghostfaceinvestah (profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 2:15 pm
I really hate that she is allowing these companies to get involved at all. I would rather just see the banks fail and the taxpayer pick up the tab. It will cost less in the long run, as eventually we will have to pay for the insider lending practices of these new banks.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
I guess we learned nothing from the S&L crisis.
I would say some people studied the playbook very closely. They just didn't come away with the lessons you'd hope they did.
Chalk one (day) up for the deflationistas!
Unemployment up again.
Equities, down over 2%
Crude oil futures, down $2 to $66.7, as are other commodities
Long bonds (30Y), back down to 3.3%, right where they were before the spike
And we still have large bank failures, later today.
Inflation, what inflation?
OT: Wow, it is almost like somebody has the ability and will to keep the S&P above 900.
Seasonally unadjusted U6 is 16.8 %. Consumer spending is over 70% of the economy. What is the next engine of growth?
I waiting for the last thirty minutes. See if it stays in this 'narrow range of trading' before close.
I hear that Walmart sill wants a bank (not actually sure, but IIRC, they were denied an application to set up an industrial bank).
Talk about survival of the fittest, who more than anyone else has a fighting chance with the wall street bankers than a drug cartel...plus we know that they have a solid cash flow....Heck, I am surprised that the rating companies haven't given them a AAA rating...
I would say some people studied the playbook very closely. They just didn't come away with the lessons you'd hope they did.
Byz,
We don't prosecute fraud, we reward it. Shams beget more shams due to our incentives structure.
The prevailing attitude is "I want my piece of the fraud". The government can clean up the mess after I sail away on my yacht with my F.U. money
"Inflation, what inflation? "
And in other news, the PPIP launch was announced today, which will lead to more money printing and corruption.
We aren't going to have classic wage/price spiral inflation. We are going to have "run on the currency" style hyperinflation, where no one will sell us the goods we need with the useless dollars we print.
Byzantine_Ruins (homepage, profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 11:32 am
ghostfaceinvestah (profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 2:15 pm
I guess we learned nothing from the S&L crisis. -gfi
I would say some people studied the playbook very closely. They just didn't come away with the lessons you'd hope they did. - byz
Why would they come away with lessons any different than the rest of us? It's beginning to look like the S&L crisis was the Huns testing the defenses before the big assault.
"I am also troubled by the opacity of some of the ownership structures that we have seen in our bidding process, though these have not been winning bids. We have seen bids where it has been difficult to determine actual ownership. We have seen bidders who have wanted permission to immediately flip ownership interests."
Vultures and fraudsters.
@Rob Dawg - on a day like this with super-anemic volume, it won't take much to keep it above 900 or even to push it up a little bit. Don't want to have a bummer close into a long weekend!
"Wow, it is almost like somebody has the ability and will to keep the S&P above 900. "
I am convinced the Fed is targeting an S&P 500 level of 900. They do it in Fed Funds, they did it in the MBS market, Bernanke has mentioned doing it in Treasuries, makes sense to me they would do it in equities.
S&P gets below 900, they buys spoos, it gets above, they let natural selling bring it back down.
rinse, repeat.
if/when they lose control, look out below.
"Don't want to have a bummer close into a long weekend!"
So daddy comes home at 3pm and flogs until things get better?
Martha Stewart was the last person of any note before Bernie, to do time for financial malfeasance.
Her crime was avoiding losing $45k, and she did 6 months in the slammer
His crime was stealing $60-odd Billion, and he's doing 150 years in the hoosegow.
The bank we use for day to day small transactions has been taken over by a giant. The swallowed one was an old established regional. Our principle bank is as solid as they come. If that one ever comes to grief you can kiss whatever it is you wish to kiss goodbye. Wolves will be running down the streets.
Mr.Sparkle (homepage, profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 11:39 am
@Rob Dawg - on a day like this with super-anemic volume, it won't take much to keep it above 900 or even to push it up a little bit. Don't want to have a bummer close into a long weekend!
They've spiked the tape twice. All that remains is how many times they will spike again. My guess is there won't be a last spike because all the big guys will be on their way to Long Island and they think it is a cute lesson to their assistants to let them pile into a fading market.
Krakatoa, east of Jersey
H1N1- "Don't sty for me Argentina"
"It's beginning to look like the S&L crisis was the Huns testing the defenses before the big assault."
Why so conspiratorial? If you stand back a bit you can see nothing but logical development plus the human material that is its agent. A tolstoyan point of view.
"H1N1- "
It will no doubt be a factor this fall. The question is: How big a factor?
Who is the Robespierre that emerges out of our Reign of Error?
Private equity firms Cerberus, Apollo, Icahn as well as many big hedge funds were all arguably spawned from convicted fellon Michael Milken and his ponzi/junk bond operation.
Read this long article from Deep capture. Bernanke is no match for this multi-headed snake.
Michael Milken, 60,000 Deaths, and the Story of Dendreon (Chapter 1 of 15) | Deep Capture: exposing the crime of naked short selling
Do we really want these people more deeply involved in our banking system?
Is it really BFT (Bank Failure Thursday)? The stock market is closed tomorrow, but banks are open, right?
aka competitive looting of the state
I think we're starting 3:00 a little early, maybe.
pavel
Normally I would think the flu would hurt productivity and cause business and government shutdowns. We already have that so I think it will mean more outlays in healthcare expenditures for broke gov'ts
"Inflation, what inflation? "
indeed. if anything, we're poised for an incredible amount of future deflation, going by current equity prices and the stubborn "stickiness" of many expensive housing enclaves at $300 sq/ft and above. the only bullish play i'm possibly considering is doubling down big on nat gas at under $3.
"Who is the Robespierre that emerges out of our Reign of Error?"
The reign of the original was bloody and short. He was a lawyer. He was screaming for the blood of his enemies even as he was seized. It's more interesting to wonder if we're to have our Bonaparte.
banks are closed tomorrow.
banks should be closing permanently tonight.
Hey, at least oil seems to have finally capitulated.
Juvenal Delinquent (profile) wrote on Thu, 7/2/2009 - 11:49 am
Who is the Robespierre that emerges out of our Reign of Error?
Nooobody expects the French Revolution! Our chief weapon is surprise... Surprise and... oh let me come in again.
"more deeply involved in our banking system? "
these people ARE our banking system.
Stock market is closed tomorrow but banks are open. No long weekend at Bernies for banks.
i should say, bank head offices are closed tomorrow. so if the FDIC wants to walk folks out, they have to do it tonight.
some branches may be open, as some are on Saturdays.
"It's more interesting to wonder if we're to have our Bonaparte. "
that's only possible after Joe Boomer (1955-2031) dies.
much as Napoleon's reforms were only possible once the hotheaded revolutionary generation had thoroughly burned itself out.
Oil started selling off this time last year too.
YouTube - The Spanish Inquisition!
"pavel
Normally I would think the flu would hurt productivity and cause business and government shutdowns. We already have that so I think it will mean more outlays in healthcare expenditures for broke gov'ts"
Tim waiting for 2012, I think a lot depends on the eventual virulence of the organism. We'll just have to wait a few months until we begin to find out.
I hope that vaccine comes in time.
Lots of formerly empowered lawyers are amongst the casualties of the hoi unempolloid, so that's where the boogeyman comes from this time, as well.
"the boogeyman"
Robespierre wasn't the boogeyman - the boogeyman was the rage within the average Frenchman in regards to the failure of the political elite to deliver anything in the way of security, rights or national consciousness to the masses.
Pavel
That's right no one can say for sure.
Pavel:
Why so conspiratorial? If you stand back a bit you can see nothing but logical development plus the human material that is its agent.
Not to understate the deterministic character of it all, but Michael Lewis write all about the role of MBS and the S&L crisis in Liar's Poker. He still writes for Bloomberg. He is hardly the sole human being to have been present at both ends of the arc. Even if he was the sole survivor, Lewis still had the Ice-T / Iceberg Slim effect of writing about the horrors of something in an attempt to educate and creating a fanclub for it by accident. You can debate about the role of emulation, anticipation or whatever, but it's clear the S&L crisis was subject to a lot of study by a lot of people and a lot of strategies were built based on anticipated state response -- successfully, I'd say, as the core players managed to ail away unscathed from the latest iteration of the game.
Angry Saver,
I agree that the stuff Sheila was describing is as you say...people trying to jump on the gravy train and get theirs. But PE in general isn't that different than some of the investor pools that have owned banks. Lots of "community" banks have a small number of large shareholders and then a bunch of tiny shareholders. Subject to the same kind of self dealing that some of these PE groups have been engaged in.
Virulence is the wild card piece of the risk puzzle, it is the novel nature of the virus and the exponential mathematics of transmission which make for an almost certain test of the limits of the public health delivery systems of different parts of the globe.
When those systems are overwhelmed, then the sequelae will be a significantly worse set of outcomes - where that happens and when will determine the extent of the economic impact. Most likely we will see some of that during the flu season of the Southern hemisphere.
The guillotine only really got going after Max Headroom got in power.
Let the moneyprinting commence
Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Gross purchases from June 25 through July 1: $36,150 million
Net purchases from June 25 through July 1: $23,100 million
I've almost finished reading the biography of Pham Xuan An. Many if not most revolutions have some of those too. But it doesn't look to me as if the US is the sort of country to have a revolution. There is no ideology of revolution, no cadre. Danton, no, Robespierre, no. Bonaparte? Only if we were descend into chaos. Long odds on that.
"in Liar's Poker."
right - present at the creation. that event, the cooking of the brew by those guys at Sal Bros., is a pivotal event in the slow unhinging of the empire.
72 - BW abandoned
82 - SB MBS scemes proliferate
92 - FRE/FNM lobbyists achieve critical mass in DC
02 - overnight rates go near zero
boiled imperial frog, four easy steps
Kung Fu Panda,
I'm at the point where I believe banks should be run as public utilities.
"Lots of "community" banks have a small number of large shareholders and then a bunch of tiny shareholders. Subject to the same kind of self dealing that some of these PE groups have been engaged in."
True, but at least those are confined to smaller banks, and quite honestly most of those dumbfks are not sophisticated enough to hide their corruption. They lend to their mothers and cousins and such.
The PE firms will take over bigger banks, and lend more dollars to closely associated firms, create lending pools, etc.
They would make Charles Keating proud.
"When those systems are overwhelmed..."
If? We really don't know. A conference in Mexico now.
AS,
I'd agree with that, as failure of the financial system is as catastrophic as failure of say, the electrical grid.
"...but it's clear the S&L crisis was subject to a lot of study by a lot of people and a lot of strategies were built based on anticipated state response -- successfully, I'd say, as the core players managed to ail away unscathed from the latest iteration of the game."
Byz, could be. But are we talking about insiders who can exploit a situation, or a conspiracy to generate one?
Sadly, this is a when not an if...and where, globally - the public health resources in some areas are not much.
Holding these assets 3 years might serve two purposes:
1. Discourage "gaming the system". PE groups can't sell an asset back and forth at a higher price thus bidding up the apparent value of the asset.
2. Making sure PE groups can fund the cost of holding these assets for 3 years (approximately 1.1% per month of the cost of asset)
Brilliant, why can't we make everyone hold every asset three years. think of the great transparancy in prices!!! whoo peee....
My we would sure know the exact price of every asset at every minute of the day. Those mark to market freaks would be so happy.
oh sugar, that wouldn't happen? well then the range of prices would be correct, right? like housing prices. a new market for valuation experts?
What a country. Time to move to new zealand
the only bullish play i'm possibly considering is doubling down big on nat gas at under $3.