Finally, a week late. And no Virginia, there will be no Santa Claus this year.

Nemo,
It has to do with what we export. For but one example; There's no season to scrap metal. The smelters run all the time.

Lots of information (Anecdotal and real numbers) pointing to a double dip. Methinks Obama's favorite indicator (stock indexes) will drop (or be "driven down") and give him cover for another round of poines, most likely "cash for votes". His plummeting approval ratings won't help his inflated ego much either. Maybe he should change his attention to the college football playoff system.

Dr Munch - dont you mean peonies? They are lovely flowers and make fine gifts. My ex's Taiwanese mom couldnt pronounce this flower's name. Which added a humorous note.

OT: I just posted the mid-August update for trustee sales for select areas in So Cal.

Orange County:
Effective Demand: Orange County Trustee sales for Mid-August 2009

Los Angeles County:
Effective Demand: Trustee Sales for Los Angeles County Mid-August 2009

Ventura County:
Effective Demand: Ventura County Trustee sales for Mid-August 2009

San Diego County:
Effective Demand: San Diego Trustee Sales Mid-August 2009

No huge rush yet but the beginning of the month started off weak and has been picking up steam.. if the steam keeps up September could be good.

"Finally, a week late. And no Virginia, there will be no Santa Claus this year. "

'Cause we've been bad.....

I do appreciate all the economic data CR keeps slinging our way, but until or unless somebody comes up with a reasonable strategy dragging the economy off the bottom -- much less halt any further decline -- it's all sports news. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing, or nothing we don't already know.

Wall Street isn't going to do it. Retail isn't going to do it. Housing isn't going to do it. These are all lagging indicators. The forward indicator is hard money in real pockets. We haven't had that for a long time -- just virtual money we could play make-believe with.

Ton Mile Trader
Ton Mile Trader - home
"By matching the current S&P vs. the BDI 1.5 months prior you see the indices rise together in lock-step since April 1. However, shipping rates have collapsed over the last few weeks and the S&P is yet to follow. If this pattern remains true....today's stock market should correlate to shipping rates at the end of June. The BDI was at >4,000 on June 22 and has fallen to the ~2,500 since then. Will this recent softness in rates manifest itself in a market sell-off 1.5 months from now?"

Yes, oz-wee-pay, Obama told us to buy stocks in March, based on his proprietary "Profit to earnings" ratio. And he pointed to the indexes as a sign that things were better after the last jobs report. He knows that if the markets decline, it's TARP II for the insurers and big banks.

Despite the Recession Being Over, LA Area Ports: Export Traffic Declines in July

Hmmmm, guess I missed that: " Yesterday, President Obama stated, "Profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you’ve got a long-term perspective on it,”

That is fun when you think in terms of P/E being the inverse of yield, so is he saying that yields will be going down? If so, I agree!

"All the money being created has gone to backfill the banks' deleveraging. I am more and more coming to believe the only way out is a US bank with max 6x leverage and explicit full faith and credit. The other banks can try to compete and to a large extent eventually they will but US Bank will be the anchor to keep the insanity from becoming systemic. With US Bank we can bypass the insolvent black holes and get stimulus into the economy without the 120% surcharge of propping up the zombie banks."

This is a way out of something, and into something else. What it leads to is a continuation of easy money (because any institution tied to the govt will become an infinite source of cheap and easy money). Is that the solution? Only if your problem is that you are facing drops in the prices of assets that you were relying on for future income. I am not sure that really is a long term solution for everyone.

Rob Dawg: I'm coming around to something like your US Bank idea.

• We have WAY to many banks and credit unions, federal and state.
• They really don't offer competition of benefit to depositors or those who borrow
• They have unaccountable control over too much of the eCONomy.
• They buy the government at all levels with their influence and money
• They hide their true financial condition
• The need for depositors is safety and fair return (surely not the profit levels they have gotten and the salaries/bonuses they extort.
• The need for borrowers is fair treatment (dependent on business soundness/fundamentals) and lasting relationships based on earned trust.
• Banks should be like regulated electric and gas utilities with earnings based on return on invested capital at reasonable rates of interest charged and interest earned.
• They have proved they are not acting in the common/public interest - more than once, and over and over.

Have a large RV employer in county who had 1000 employes at max and was down to about 30 for the last six or eight months, last week 80 employes were called back. When I inquired how could this be was told most competion was now out of business.

JimPortland /Dawg - on the retail banking side, I agree. For the vast majority of 'mericans, id think it could be looked at as a utility.

However, the reason it has so much power, is the non-retail. It's been viewed as the one comparative advantage we had (worked for the city of London too! ha)

So, we basically have a dying manufacturing base....health care was a big jobs creator, but how long can that go on, especially in the face of inevitable reform - even if this first pass at it doesnt work right, it has to happen in time.

Tech? We're slowly getting that advantage competed away. Only a matter of time before we are fairly ordinary on that front.

I just think that we looked at finance as the one thing we were really good at, that raked in tons of bucks.. Only problem is, we arent really that good at it, in terms of its benefit to our country overall in the long run. It is amazingly effective for enriching a small class of the country, but for the most part, it isnt any good for us. Yet, even after proving this, it retains its sparkly shiny effect on our political class and retains its power. Pretty sickening.

Frankly, if those folks want to separate out banking into components, so that f-ed up innovation by some doesnt effect general lending that runs the economy, hell, go innovate all you want.

- We have WAY to many banks and credit unions, federal and state.

We have too many TBTF banks as well, when we should have none.

Has anyone actually discussed how to deal with the collapse of a TBTF bank logistically? I know the reform package discusses who should do that, but has anyone actually talked about how the event would be handled?

I keep hearing lots of people suggesting that we break up the TBTF banks, but I kind of wonder what they actually think that means when they say it.

What would splitting up the TBTF banks look like?

Here's my suggestion for BoA: Take Ken Lewis and his former board members, and set them down in a wild animal park in Africa. Follow them with a few cameras as they avoid hazards, or... fail. The rest of BoA carries on under new management. That sounds like a good start to the splitting process for me.

(As a BoA shareholder, I am mad at Ken Lewis and his former board for taking on Countrywide and Merrill out of poor judgment and loyalty to their own jobs over the shareholders' best interests.)

/ end snark

Well, I am mainly concerned about how we get there from here. What happens to outstanding contracts, what kinds of services the banks would provide, etc.

Rob Dawg: I'm coming around to something like your US Bank idea.

Most loans won't fix the problem.

to answer that, we'd actually have to define what a TBTF bank is (which no one has actually done), other than just the top 19 in total assets, because in a financial holding company, the whole is so much more than the sum of its parts. Hell, Bair didn't think that Wachovia was TBTF, even though it would have been in the top 19. the closest "definition" that I've seen so far is a deposit institution that meets the statutory systemic risk exception. of course, this wouldn't include financial institutions like Fannie, Freddie, AIG, or GE Capital.

perhaps, we should just ask Goldman...

jp,
+1

don't forget:
5. Clawbacks and industry bans.

Baltic Dry Index FFA Contract Curve

I'm assuming this is a futures curve?
It's implying a further downturn of 22% in the next 18 months?

Yeah. How would we define it? The assets-based definition is silly and arbitrary to be sure.

we'd actually have to define what a TBTF bank is (which no one has actually done), other than just the top 19 in total assets, because in a financial holding company, the whole is so much more than the sum of its parts.

I actually think it is pretty straightforward: TBTF is defines either one of the following conditions

1) Too Big = Assets above certain threshold, say >$100 Bil or $250 Bil, pick a number (and yes, starting next year assets will include what is currently off balance sheet)

2) Too Connected = Notional amount of all uncollateralized derivatives above, say, $100 Bil or $250 Bil with no offset across counterparties: if I buy a $1 Bil swap from Bank X and sell the same $1 Bil swap to Bank Y, then my notional exposure is $2 Bil.

Done.

"Countrywide and Merill may be the only thing keeping BAC solvent"

Depends on what the word "solvent" means. Slinging out new loans and recognizing fee revenue on them, and not setting up loan loss provisions comparable to the risks? That would add to BoA's 'solvency' all right, but I'm not sure it would add to its solvency.

MrM,

So would you have a different criterion for exposure for determining whether a bank is well-capitalized and whether it is TBTF?

Bond Girl (homepage, profile) wrote on Sat, 8/15/2009 - 12:28 pm

Rob Dawg,
What would happen to say, the interest rate swaps the bank is a counterparty on? Are they treated like a bankruptcy? Divided among the new pieces?

Even Tanta was okay with my idea on that. Put all the counterparties in a room and tell them to not come out until they traded down their paper at par with each other. The implication being that the game of hot potato was about to be stopped. IMO most of the swaps could be unwound with no damage other than to the transaction fees being generated. The interesting part of this reverse prisoners dilemma exercise is that no one is going to call the others liars lest they be likewise accused. This is a chance for them to get their stories straight before talking to the cops. Let's face it. Until the government foolishly stepped in and started taking on risk the game was not diminishing risk at all but it was generating monster transaction fees. Indeed without those fees the debt would be far less shaky.

I prefer a rule that simply increases required capital with asset size more quickly than linearly. Otherwise, every bank will grow to just under the TBTF barrier. It's a little better to ease the accelerator and start applying the brake as you go faster than to stop suddenly when you hit a certain speed.

I didn't even realize there aren't any uninsured assets any more, under the "temporary" (-Dec. 31, hahaha) FDIC no-interest transaction account full guaranty (Temp Liquidity Program).

NO $ LIMIT!! Now it's even easier to cash that 100 million bonus with the Treasury. Just "forfeit" a little interest.

1)Take all the deposits, give yourself a fat shit bonus, stick it in the bank.
2) Bust your bank, cash out.
3) (optional) You can "swap" with your pals if someone asks questions, but they won't.

FDIC: Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program Archives

FDIC Fucking Disgusting Institutionalized Cheating

A lot of them have contracts that are not with each other.

Basel, there is an article in the current issue of The Economist on that topic, discussing compensation restrictions. France tried to implement them, no one else did. It is a total mess.

re: NYC
When I was there in June, they had a program offering vacant storefronts as temporary gallery spaces for artists. A win-win type of situation, except they ran out of artists who want free exhibition space

sk2322 - thanks for this. Someone tell Krugie.

C

"play second fiddle"

why should the population of the US suffer to allow a few outsized egos to flourish at the head of a few huge US banks/institutions?

Excellent dawg.

Any U.S. bank regulation will apply to all banks operating in the U.S. regardless of whether they are U.S. or foreign owned. CitiBank and BofA operations abroad will still use the banking regulation of the country where those operations are located. CitiBank will not become less competitive, however, they may move certain units from New York to London in order to maximize regulatory arbitrage.

I think one of my pet reforms would be to add regular stress tests to the capital issue. (Of course this would also assume regulators use something approximating realistic expectations...) Would be better than just relying on the banks to model the complex stuff and ratings.

"however, [Citi] may move certain units from New York to London in order to maximize regulatory arbitrage. "

Thanks, now I'm more optimistic for the US. We can dream...

I'm not sure it would make much of a difference if the banks did move overseas to try to game things as long as we could guarantee a strong domestic alternative. Talent would have to decide whether to move or to participate in the economy in another way (which might not be a bad thing after all).

I think a lot of this crisis can be attributed to regulatory capital arbitrage and the mentality that some of the innovations actually reduced risk.

"I think one of my pet reforms would be to add regular stress tests to the capital issue. (Of course this would also assume regulators use something approximating realistic expectations...) Would be better than just relying on the banks to model the complex stuff and ratings."

There are a lot of good ideas out there. But the cynics and, unfortunately perhaps, realists, say that all these measures will be circumvented.

Perhaps what we need are not just good ideas, but simple ideas that are hard to get around. We'd lose some efficiency, but gain transparency and enforcement potential.

Gosh, if you are big enough to have a CRO then we already know you're guilty.

I agree they are complex - which is part of the reason for my suggestion on Baseline that we not leave this task in the hands of the old guard that is still learning what the heck this stuff is.

I can see the headline now...

Goldman announces it will become the ONLY US Investment Bank

Stock soars!

Mauldin:

"Let's make the assumption that the part-time workers want to go to full-time (which they say they do). Typically employers will increase the hours of part-time employees before adding new workers. That will be a major drag on potential job growth. It is the equivalent of creating at least 4 million jobs, except that no new jobs are created. Plus, those who want jobs but are not looking will come back into the market if jobs are available. That adds another 2 million. Now we are seeing the need for 23 million new jobs in five years, to get back to the "Old Normal."

To get U-3 and U-6 down to 2007 levels, just under a net gain of 400,000 jobs have to be created per month for 60 months in a row. JPM says no new normal?

The innovations did what they were designed to do: spread risk--

from investor to taxpayer, all over the bathroom walls.

patientrenter,

Yeah, I guess I am one of the cynics. I'm not even remotely cyncial about our ability to change things, but I am completely cynical as to whether we will.

I think a lot of this crisis can be attributed to regulatory capital arbitrage

Symptoms.
The real issue is the long-term credit cycle.
You can control manifestations all you like, but they'll simply change form unless you limit the positive feedback effects of debt accumulation.

Auditors are nearly useless. Well, they prevent the worst 90% of fraud and incompetence. The remaining 10% is enough to sink us all many times over.

patientrenter (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sat, 8/15/2009 - 1:03 pm

I don't like the idea of an anointed bank acting as the govt bank. Whenever an institution plugs into the US govt, it sucks out money, usually lots of it. What starts responsibly ends, after years of lobbying and Congressional meddling, irresponsibly. Witness Fannie, Freddie, etc.

What if the minority party in Congress is who appoints the board?

Seriously, I think we can get a lot of mileage out of a US Bank. Sure there will be efforts to play politics but with enough transparency it will be difficult. I don't want it to replace the private banking system, only parallel it. Oh and as to capitalization; make interest earned triple tax free. I'd move at least 5 digits into a savings account earning 3% (prime minus) in that case.

Similar to those arbitration firms that were owned by the credit card
companies in whole or in part. These people apparently never heard
of the idea of conflict of interest. In spite of the cash incentive, they
were nothing but fair in ajudicating borrower's claims--not!

play second fiddle

Gosh it would have been such a tragedy if Britain, Japan, or Germany had had to cough up the trillions for the TARP and for loan guarantees. How could we every survive?

lol, yogi, I love your bloodthirsty attitude. Kill the FDIC, institute a public bank, and see where the savings go.

Kill them tomorrow, before they grab that $500 billion.

Tom Stone - yep, it's a regular read. Love the tie-in of one of the biggies with a certain huge computer company that looked terribly successful but still went tango uniform when clients started ditching it for miscellaneous bad behavior and it was later exposed as a ponzi scheme.

C

Fantastic monthly U-3 heat map:
Why Did the Unemployment Rate Drop? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
.
Just started on the article but the map was too cool not to pass along immediately

Yahoo! 404 - Page Not Found

CitiGroup says two exempt from pay review: report

It cited "people involved in that process" who said CitiGroup told the U.S. Treasury Department that energy trader Andrew J. Hall, with a pay package of $98 million, and a second unidentified trader who was paid more than $30 million, were exempt from review.

But another source familiar with the matter said federal pay czar Kenneth Feinberg, the U.S. official responsible for setting pay for top executives at finance firms that received billions of dollars in government aid, will have flexibility in applying his authority on a case-by-case basis.

>
President : "We cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment."

Yeah. But people here take it for granted that there needs to be an actual paradigm shift and many others think it is just a matter of getting the people in power to use the tools they already have available. They think they have a spine when they do not at all.

I am always puzzled by the air of superiority many US people have when comparing the reactions here to the latest recession to Japan's actions over the last 20 years.

In the US, it is considered politically brave to dump private losses on taxpayers or, through inflation, on savers. This leads to more "growth", as everybody is making money again. If I got to write off $1,000,000 every 10 years, I could earn $100,000 a year in between. I wouldn't necessarily be producing any real value, but all the economic measurements would look good. I am not sure which is the spineless path.

The invisible hand as beneficent allocator is as much a utopian ream as a perfectly planned economy.

Best mistype of the day. LOL!

I think Yogi did it on purpose.

No, I lose a lot of key strokes to hooc.
(But I'm keeping it in the edit).

patientrenter,
Which country are you comparing with?

you're looking at it backwards - it is the bank BODs with political control of the govt, not the other way around. don't be distracted by the whipping-boy antics with C and BAC - Jamie and Lloyd are infinitely more powerful than O, Geithner, BB and Sheila combined.

I don't know. I actually think it would be easier to change the nature of regulation than it would be to dramatically change the structure of the financial industry.

uh oh - even BG is drifting towards the audit-and-shutdown crowd...

I think it would be easier to introduce something akin to a public bank than to break up existing banks.

Like what Rob Dawg et al were suggesting...

Fully agreed.
All problems can be fixed in 24 hours.

Additional tools would certainly help. But political will is a more important element. Imagine if someone like Paul Volcker had been at the helm of the Fed during 2000-2009. Would he have excoriated and threatened excessive risk-takers? Maybe. Would he have raised rates earlier? Maybe. One person can make a difference. So I think it's not a good idea to lapse too quickly into cynicism, and lose potential opportunities. Unfortunately, the appointments of Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers don't give us much hope on that count.

But we definitely faced headwinds during the last 5-10 years. We had growing global savings, and a US culture that accepted and facilitated borrowing. I'm not sure if anyone swimming upstream could have made headway.

MrM (profile) wrote on Sat, 8/15/2009 - 3:53 pm

Building on Rob's idea - one aspect of the TBTF regulatory status should be that personal criminal penalties for the top management of failed banks.
See - the problem is actually very simple.

Actually, it's not; those people are protected because they're part of a corporation, and until the definition of corporations is redefined by the courts, it'll probably be difficult to implement this plan. Not that I don't think these guys shouldn't be prosecuted; I've been advocating RICO for awhile (I think I was the first, but maybe not; I'm a relative newcomer). It's just that I think it's not as easy as you imply.

It might be audit, shutdown, disgorge (the Chinese food). Start new Ponzi at supersyndicate. Hope they buy (lend).

"In Econ they taught us that the invisible hand does a miraculous job of allocating resources in the long run."

The invisible hand does more than allocate resources.

I Heard a Little Tapping:

pavel.libsyn.com

The invisible hand will tell you exactly how many widgets are needed per capita, though.

Cheap, quickly produced consumer goods, you mean.

I actually think it would be easier to change the nature of regulation than it would be to dramatically change the structure of the financial industry.
The problem most outside of the DC echo chamber have understanding the nature of regulation is that it itself is constrained by the body of administrative case law that's developed since the New Deal. For example, the most influential Supreme Court case in the past thirty years is Chevron v. NaturalResources Defense Council, which allows Bernanke to interpret 13(3) in ANY reasonable way, and yet almost no one's every heard of it.

REBear, most criticisms of Japan from the US are that it did too little, too late. Folks who say this advocate larger QE, more bailouts (through closing banks and making good on most of their obligations), and more inflation, and all done much more quickly than in Japan.

Actually, it's not; those people are protected because they're part of a corporation, and until the definition of corporations is redefined by the courts, it'll probably be difficult to implement this plan

Yes, it is. A doctor can be sued for negligence even if he or she is a part of a corporation or an LLP. If the regulation says officers of a failed bank can be personally sued by the fdederal government for negligence, then they can be sued for negligence. If Jamie Dimon does not like it, he can resign. If the JPM Board cannot find a suitable person willing to serve as its CEO, the regulators will close down the bank.

A widget is any good traded in perfect equilibrium with supply and demand over time, with no external imbalance.

Since none has ever existed in nature, the economist had to postulate a fictitious one.

number of people present has dropped off since we started talking about serious stuff.

You're talking about fixing symptoms, not the true cause.
But that's probably because symptoms are visible and simpler in nature.
.
See it a lot in projects.
When I walk into a failed project, it's often blamed on a technical aspect.
But it's usually a political problem within the org that no one wants to address or even acknowledge.

I'm not sure if there is single country out there not trying to screw savers.

They have no choice.
They have balance production with consumption.
Too many assets in too few hands == more income for production & less for consumption.
Governments universally recognize that they have to shift income from producers to consumers to maintain equilibrium.

The corporate "veil" can be "pierced". Madoff was certainly a corporation. But few cases are so easy. I don't see Blankfein or Liddy coming out with, "The whole AIG CDS thing was just AAA insurance fraud"...

Tough cases against the politically connected rich and powerful are rarely pursued.

Plus savers represent an amorphous entity with diffused political interests, whreas banks have very specific interests and powerful levers of political influence.
Same problem as with sugar quotas or farm subsidies.

Funny how everything comes back to capture.

Or if you're in an environment that's not command-driven, you have a morass of unending problems which are rarely resolved. See Japan for example.

Is Japan menu-driven?

Bond Girl;

Capture and redistribution. Capture was built into our political system by the founders. That's what the U.S. Senate is about. Just because Senators are now popularly elected does not mean that they won't vote the interests of their states. There are a lot of farm states, thus we have farm price supports, sugar price manipulation, etc. What else would one expect from a nation whose founders were mostly farmers?

Edit: replaced "not" with "now".

"enough of this serious stuff. i've got to figure out how to file a patent and what to do with 10,000 quarters. "

Can't help you with the quarters, but for the patent, get help from an expert unless you already are one.

What do you mean by conformist?

What do you mean by conformist?

The 1950s, where most people said and did the "right" things.
Bruce Schneier summed it up well, although inadvertently.
I'm looking for the link.

LoL!

Looks like Basel Too makes a side living out of knocking off laundromats, in between going to law school and hob-nobbing with Hill staffers.

OT,Rabid Quail are really not a big problem in sebastopol or anywhere else in Sonoma county.Really.

How close did I get, Broward?

I suspect the "right-wing" part won't fly.
Unimaginative and narrow-minded are probably right. Or... what's "left".

You can monkey with the banking system and insurance industry and regulations but ultimately, if too many assets sit in too many hands, that income will shift from consumption to production and you'll get exactly what we have right now anyway. An imbalance.

Being a director could never give a doctor or lawyer immunity from neglegence. A famous veil-piercing case was a coterie of taxi "corporations" set up to limit tort liability to one shell, so that large judgments would be handled by one BK. The profits of all the different corp.s somehow wound up in the hands of a few owners.

For some reason "Potus # 44" reminds me of "Mambo # 5.

But "A little bit of Monica, all night long..." brings to mind a different Potus.

I believe that' bass ackwards, as my law profs would say. Limited corporate liability is not common law but statutory.

Here's an example - Bob Dylan walking out in the rain.
.
Something Is Happening Here, But You Don’t Know What It Is… | The Agitator
.
How many people saw the "LA terrorist incident" yesterday?
Almost nobody.
I only know about it because I read the conspiracy boards last night.
I can't prove it but it was probably censored deliberately to avoid inciting people.

Show and tell time broward. Inquiring minds MUST know.

Yikes. "Negligence". "Medicine". No edit button. No typing quality control. Sorry.

Corporations must state their business purpose in their filing, even though it can be just "all legal endeavors". But to practice medicine requires a special license, for which special corporate structures may be possible. Limited liability only limits the personal civil ( liability of owners and directors to the assets of the corporation.

But that's plenty of Welfare, of course.

Thank you Ken!!!!

I have a popcorn icon!
Neil

MrM the "veil piercing" cases are common law (judicial) limitations on statutory limited liability. Legislation which reimposes personal liability effectively repeals limited liability for that class of corporations.

Can not be applied ex post facto, of course.

Not to worry, Uncle Warren owns more of the ratings pie now...

Somebody mis-spelled county a while back. . .

Proto-lawyer?

The corporate veil in Fla is really hard to pierce tho it can be done. You really have to try.

is .

I just don't understand why I couldn't start a war with v. .

Ok, so who was that tear-gassed man?

Lawyers can form P. A.s for the tax benefits, but can't
use the corporate stucture to avoid being sued for malpractice.

Somehow, lawyers are thick on the ground anyway.

Uh-oh.

D&O insurance notwithstanding, directors take their personal liability very seriously

D&O insurance notwithstanding, directors take their personal liability very seriously

Sure, but like all insurance it changes the error rate. Just like malpractice. < ducks >

Anyway, dinnertime on the east coast.

Insurance generally (always?) doesn't cover fraud.

I was reading Time Mag. There's an article about Las Vegas, mostly about commercial,
but with shenanigans in the single family home real estate market, this really
disgusted this hardened South Florida atty. I have a feeling the shennanigans
are over, as who has good enough credit anymore to buy a 2nd house and
then walk from the first one? And if short sellers are getting any under the
table money in South Fla, I don't know about it.

Even though "utopian ream" was a great mis-type, "The American Ream" warrants a glossary entry. Talk about encapsulating what's happening to the US taxpayer!

Or, was it count?

.

Nobody around, so just practicing my iconese.

1 currency now -yogi (profile) wrote on Sat, 8/15/2009 - 6:12 pm

Can not be applied ex post facto, of course.

Are you saying that the veil is statutory and the piercing is common-law? Just curious

lawyerliz (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sat, 8/15/2009 - 6:28 pm

The corporate veil in Fla is really hard to pierce tho it can be done. You really have to try.

Liz,
I know you've been doing this awhile. I also know we have some law students as well, and I was referring to them as proto-lawyers. No offense intended to anyone-

More for Memeophiles

"why should the population of the US suffer to allow a few outsized egos to flourish at the head of a few huge US banks/institutions? "

Because they're rich and we're not.

This is how revolutions get started.