goldenhinde

Total Rating:
0 / 0

24 Comments

    • Sat Nov 15th 14:12 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      State Default Watch: Budget Deficit Heatmap
      Get a grip Mowog. The Republicans put us into this frickin mess. Given your observation here another one back at you: let's have the "red" states pay for reconstituting the US economy. After all, you folks voted in these clowns and kept them there the second time.


      On Nov 15 08:30 AM Mowog wrote:

      > It seems like the more financially troubled the budget of a state,
      > the more likely it was to vote for Sen. Obama. Expectations of "free"
      > money for government bailouts?
      View article »
    • Sat Nov 15th 14:02 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Hidden Crash: The Dumping of Venture Funds
      of course no one knows what the next great thing will be. However, a contrarian view is that there has NEVER been a better time to invest in American innovation. There are big hairy problems that must be fixed and the United States, right or wrong is one of the only places on the planet where it they can be fixed.

      Venture funds will not move overseas because no one who has cash will innovate and let them it. The Arabs don't innovate. The Russians - yeah right. The Chinesse don't need our money so the impact of US centric VC firms will be minimal.

      There is no other place. WE are it and therefore we had better get to work or our kids are screwed (more than we've already screwed them).

      View article »
    • Sun Oct 26th 09:58 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why is McCain Playing Defense on This Market?
      Anton: First, get a picture that doesn't make you look so mad. It is not flattering to you and makes you look - well, mad. Sorry to break the rather simplistic news to you but the market doesn't give a rat's ass about Obama in so far as he represents the least scary thing "out there".

      The really scary thing is that Republicans don't recognize that the policies of their beloved Reagan are coming home to roost.

      As other citizens wake up to the simplistic but accurate notion that the only thing that is different about Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans borrow and spend while Democrats tax and spend.

      Frankly, while neither is a model of leadership, he Republican framework has burst and anyone who thinks that we ought to keep trying it - deserves what they get.

      View article »
    • Wed Oct 15th 00:02 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      U.K. Limits 'Quality of Life' Meds to £30,000 a Year
      I would like to suggest that health care rationing is the only rational approach left to health care. It makes no sense that we, as a country, put our economic resources to bear on extending the life of a 75 year old. I am sure their loved ones appreciate it. I am very sure of that. However, that is not the government's business.

      There is no free market in health care. There never has been.

      Oh yes, if you are fat, smoke and have other bad habits - you can pay for the consequences of that yourself. Don't bother coming to me to subsidize your bad habits.

      View article »
    • Sat Sep 27th 12:06 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Bad Idea: A Tax on Trading
      I don't know of anyone in any capacity that ever thought having a tax applied to them, their property or their activity made sense. So, while I don't disagree with your assessment about dumb elements of our two party system and while I generally think that taxation has to go up and spending go down, I cannot see any great harm in taxing trading. It may discourage really short term thinking but won't interfere with any other activity.

      How do I know. A friend of mine has an account with Goldman. He recently told me that the same trade that would cost him ,$50 with Schwab was going to cost him $4,000 with Goldman.

      Goldman imposes a tax (read unconscionable fee) to do business with them. Rich folks gladly pay it. In that case it is pure self interest. In the case of not wanting a tax I go back to my first statement.

      As for cutting spending no one has yet answered the question; Why is the government in the business of keeping old people alive? I say slash Medicare in half. Yes, people will die but they were going to die anyway.

      This country would be better off spending money on education and training.
      View article »
    • Sun Sep 21st 11:54 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Oppose the Treasury's Bailout Plan
      Thank you for your thoughtful response. My hat is taken off to you sir for the boldness and clarity of your intention and process. This bail out proposal must make those who either directly caused the pain or were asleep at the wheel when the pain came into focus - to feel the most pain.

      If ML sold such MBS assets for $0.22 on the dollar then THAT price represents the best arms length transaction that the market could make available to a seller at that time. If the US government steps in then the purchase price of such securities or those related should be lower as the taxpayers should demand and be paid a premium for serving as the buyer of last resort.

      The era of privatizing profits and socializing losses must end. It is time that the taxpayer win and shareholders, board members and investors too asleep to have any foresight as to what they were doing MUST loose.
      View article »
    • Sun Sep 7th 16:47 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Obama's Windfall Profits Proposal Is Dangerous
      I am in global finance and as far as I can tell - the last eight years of this administration has been anything but a direct assult on the capitalist free market. It is utter horse s___ to think that the Republicans favor a free market and Democrats don't. Republicans favor using their influence to win for their friends and Dems the same.

      Just how many ultra rich sports team owners built their own stadiums with their own money? Yea, free market my ass.

      The entire tax structure of the US favors one type of capital over others - real estate. You can't roll over your stock in an exchange the way you can gains in real estate. It is ALL ABOUT the allocation of capital and tax policy with regards to that. So, back off the ideological crap.

      Oh yes, Obama's idea sucks but it comes from a recognition that "the other side" has had a free ride for many years. They are only striking back - so what.

      If we don't raise taxes AND cut spending we're screwed.

      The politicans are all the same. If we don't demand that they change we deserve what we get.
      View article »
    • Sat Sep 6th 11:46 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      RNC / DNC: Crisis? What Crisis?
      I was once in a mediation over a business dispute. The mediator told us that the best result was a resolution in which no one felt like they got what they wanted. That was his measure of fairness - that was his metric becuase there is always some element of truth to both sides.

      We must raise taxes and we must cut expenditures. It is quite simple. The politicans are unwilling to tell the truth in either party and the American people don't know enough about finance to demand answers becasue they don't know what questions to ask.

      It was PT Barnham who said: Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people.
      View article »
    • Mon Aug 18th 00:19 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Start Looking for a Bottom?
      while I appreciat the post - there is little new here. That said, one has to be impressed with just how well the US economy seems to hold up -even in the face of some God aweful news for the past year. Perhaps we simply have gotten as bad as it will get YET. I have room for that to be true. The resiliency of the US is nonetheless astounding.

      View article »
    • Sat Jul 26th 10:02 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      What You Can - And Can't - Learn from Warren Buffett
      With regards to estate tax, Buffett has a perspective most other don't. I cannot describe it - or the source of it but to say that Bill Gates and Bill Gates Sr. are of like mind. I suppose it would be obvious that they have a sense of duty which is stronger within them about the "need" or moral imperative to give back.

      Not all wealthy think this way. No surprise there. No all of anyone thinks one way.

      I would argue that estate taxes as applied to a closely held business are uneconomic and make no sense. Few businesses can recapitalize themselves at 55% of their net worth - even over 14 years as the federal estate tax allows.

      If your money is tied up in a business the estate tax ought to be minimal - say 10%. so amend SEC 6166 - fine.

      It is interesting to note that our sense of obligation to others here is nothing compared to the sense of obligation embedded in Asian or Middle Eastern culture. It is simplistic to say that our selfishness has caught up with us. It is also simplistic to dismiss the value that is generated by having a culture in which citizens felt honor in giving back to their communities and countries - rather than foolishish.

      It is not entirely clear - other than from a more middle class perspective - that Buffett has it wrong.

      View article »
    • Sat Jul 19th 12:10 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      How the U.S. Financial Crisis Resembles Japan’s 'Lost Decade' - And How to Play it
      Many good thoughtful comments on this thread. One observation: the answer as to "what to do about the mess we are in" depends very much on what the purpose is you are trying to achieve. I suspect if each person posting described their purpose, the thought process that followed might appear to be more consistent than what is otherwise the case.

      Is the purpose of "fixing what's broken" to (1) sustain the broadest number of middle class Americans in the lifestyle they are accustomed to, (2) promote investment from the rich, (3) financially put a net underneath those who find themselves in deep financial trouble (4) remain the central banker for the world ...Just what is the end game here.

      For whatever it is worth, and in very generalized terms, one observation I have is that rich folks abhor government intervention until they want it for THEIR economic interests. Then, it all seems to make sense to them. Poor folks have developed a mind set in which they are more emotionally comfortable thinking of themselves as victims of someone else's actions rather than digesting the fact that they are architects of their world (as seen from their shoes).

      If you want personal responsibility to be part of the game then it ought to apply everywhere. If you are fat, smoke, eat lots of red meat and drink to excess you have that right - just don't ask the citizens of this country to pay for it. Your health insurance should cost you an amount of money that reflects the risk you represent- which on an NPV basis is greater than someone who doesn't engage in such behaviors.

      Our entire economic model is substantially unprincipled and I would argue that this is part of the problem. If you don't measure it - it doesn't count in our system. Reality be damned. So if your economic activity causes a certain level of pollution for example in air or water why don't you pay for it. Given that the cost of dealing with the pollution is not zero, then not paying for it is assuming that the responsibility for your actions rightly falls to someone else.

      If you run a company and use shareholder's assets to engage in economic activity then, as a manager, you should be made to apply a "rental charge" for the use of shareholder's capital for any project. To have accounting rules which ignores this fundamental prnciple now means that you've structured an enterprise so that management can use shareholder's net worth for "free". You can generate accounting profits that bear no basis in reality for a cost of capital or even a risk free rate of return a shareholder could otherwise earn if they didn't want to take any risk.

      Welcome to GAPP accounting.

      It is a far differnt lens with which to look through than say an EVA (economic value added) lens. If you aren't familiar with EVA and you are an investor - you are missing something important.

      So, if what you measure doesn't match reality (I have presented a few examples) you are building a system which is fundamentally flawed. A wake up call is built into such a system and a systems engineering approach is required to put in the "fix".

      It all starts with what are you trying to accomplish.

      View article »
    • Sat Jul 19th 11:05 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Was That 'a' Bottom or 'the' Bottom?
      Thanks for reminding me. I got in on WAMU and am up by 33% this week. Your comments are sobering - I thank you for reminding me not to think of myself as smart. Lucky would suffice.
      View article »
    • Tue Jul 15th 09:39 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is This Financial Armageddon or the Greatest Buying Opportunity Since 2002?
      I appreciate the easy language of your article and like your writing style. That said, I would offer two things to note. First, diversification is the last thing you want to do in this market. It guarantees that you will lose. You want to make concentrated bets only on those names or sectors which see action and you want to monitor your moves carefully. If you don't have time to monitor the activity of the bets you make - stay in cash.

      If the bears are right - you won't regret cash. If the bulls are right and you are paying attention AT ALL, you will see the recovery happen and can join the party.

      If you stay diversified you will lose in both directions.

      There are some themes that will go on - no matter what happens to the flows of the capital markets. Alternatives to oil will, as an investment theme, not go away for a generation. Food and all the resources that go into its production will not diminsh in stature whether the bears or bulls win. People have to eat and the more people you have and the more inflation rages - the more important food becomes. Its importance relative to discretionary income will only increase. That is what happens in tough times. Lastly but not least WATER. Clean water is only available to 1/3 of the people on this planet and the statistics are getting worse. If you have all the oil you want (we don't) and all the food you want (we don't) but you don't have clean water - you have nothing.

      Markets will be strong or weak en masse - but there are ALWAYS themes within markets that exhibit strength or weakness.

      I am lucky so far this year being up about 38%. I am neither a rocket scientist nor someone who sits in front of screens all day. Just someone paying more attention than I used to pay.
      View article »
    • Mon Jul 14th 02:16 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Semi-Upbeat Housing News
      I think this is wonderful news. The only problem is that it is not even close to offering the kind of economic uplift that is required to bring the country back from the brink.

      IT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME.

      Wow, OK, I've gotten it out.

      Energy will not be reduced in cost for 10 years unless something comes out of left field.

      If one follows TB Pickens - we will collectively give away $7 trilliion to pay for foreign oil over the next ten years. This comes out of discretionary income - or should I say what we used to call discretionary income.

      Before any of the gas prices even began to escalate the Comptroller of the Currency was decrying the sorry state of US financial affairs speaking to anyone who would listen i.e., Petersen Foundation that the US is broke. The NPV of our liabilities both short and long term is somewhere north of $60 trillion.

      OH OK, let's eliminate medicare. Sorry, that doesn't work. You transfer the liability from a government balance sheet to a private one. Same problem persists only the government's ability to tax the population is diminished.

      Come on left field...
      View article »
    • Mon Jul 7th 11:45 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      CSX’s Hedge Fund Battles: A Cautionary Tale for Pensions?
      As a technical matter the Department of Labor is on record as stating tha that derivatives (it does not distinguish what type), when held as an asset of the retirement Trust are Plan assets and therefore subject to the fiduciary monitoring duties JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PLAN ASSET.

      The answer to your question is that very few - SORRY, VERY VERY FEW fiduciaries ever exam the issues you brought forth in your article. There are various reasons for this. They aren't that educated on the topic, there is no consequence to them if they ignore the issue and no one is looking over their shoulder with sufficient rigor to have any impact on their collective state of inattentiveness.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»