Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nice to see some upsets in College Football, seems like Georgia lost today, considering they have been playing teams like North Texas, and Tennessee and could barely beat them, but managed to keep their high National Ranking.
This time they should drop, but then this is the SEC, and they have always used extra money to keep their schools at the fore font of the National Rankings.
Gee, it sounds like an expose for the Civil War all over again. It is history repeating itself again, the South discriminating against the sick and helpless. Since these states that are not adhering to an injustice like slavery was back then, this time its the killing of Americans by allowing Health Insurance Companies to deny them medical care, until their only outlet is an emergency room treatment when they are near death.
This one is for Lee....
Peanut butter sniff test confirms Alzheimer’s
by editor@futurity.org
on October 8, 2013
A dollop of peanut butter and a ruler might be a way to confirm a diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease.
Jennifer Stamps, a graduate student in the McKnight Brain Institute Center for Smell and Taste and the University of Florida, came up with the idea of using peanut butter to test for smell sensitivity when she was working with Kenneth Heilman, a professor of neurology at the University of Florida.
Continued at:
http://www.futurity.org/can-peanut-butter-smell-test-confirm-alzheimers/
Americans "Ready To Kill" Over Obamacare (Must See Video)
By Money Morning Staff Reports
Obamacare doesn't officially kick off until January 1st, yet millions of Americans are already at each other's throats over it.
Research from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the country is now more divided than any other time in history since the Civil War era.
In fact, 20 states including Texas, Georgia and Louisiana have threatened to secede.
And despite a recent Supreme Court ruling making Obamacare the law of the land, only 24 states are moving forward with a key aspect of Obamacare- the expansion of Medicaid. Of the rest, 21 are opposed and five are deadlocked in debate.
Editor's Note: Millions of Americans are enraged over government imposed Obamacare. Watch this shocking video ( http://tinyurl.com/l3nxgk5 ) to see how one group of furious citizens is getting revenge.
So far, every single southern state from Texas to Virginia has refused to widen Medicaid, a key provision of the Obamacare program.
This will leave millions of Americans without coverage.
That's because they make too much money to qualify for Medicaid as it now stands, but not enough to get the subsidies to buy insurance in the new exchanges.
The South isn't alone in rejecting Obamacare. Liberal states such as Maine have opposed the bill.
Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio have yet to move forward with the expansion.
Even legendary investor Warren Buffett, a one-time Obamacare supporter, said in 2010 he would scrap the healthcare bill and start over.
One of the main architects of the bill, Democratic Senator Max Baucus from Montana said Obamacare is heading for a "train wreck" if it's not implemented properly.
Obamacare Tax Hikes Stoke The Most Outrage
While even Obamacare detractors applaud the requirement that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions and put a stop to lifetime caps on benefits, they say these laudable benefits don't compensate for the bills high cost - especially in new taxes.
According to most experts, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.
In fact, the Obama administration has already given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.
The new taxes don't bode well for millions of middle-class Americans. Incomes for the rich have soared this decade but middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate and even drop since the 2008 Great Recession.
Many fear Obamacare with its high insurance costs and new taxes, could provide the middle class a fatal blow.
http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/obamacare-war.php?code=dis-oc-war
Thanks, I could of sworn I posted something after I read that piece of crap.
I think that is why I get so angry every once in awhile.
I read almost anything, and everything, and I really try my best to find companies and stocks that will benefit from this ever changing economy. You have to admit business might be good in some sectors, but for many the squeezed margins, and profitability makes it very hard for many companies to grow sales and earnings at a robust rate.
All we ever hear is about Obamacare is going to kill the economy, well it hasn't, and it probably never will, if anything it will makes Insurance Companies even richer, after all it was really writing by them for them and all about them.
Besides Insurance Companies might have actually spend money on healthcare, now wouldn't that be a novel idea.
Then we get this article that was so full of crapola, and we are not allowed to comment against it, amazing.
Oats futures down from 400 to 317.60 in the past 6 weeks. Looks to be forming a cup and handle bottom. A buy-stop at 325 or so might bring a trader in at a good point. Just an idea.
My Antidote to the Dirty Obamacare Pill
By Don_Miller
Oct 11, 2013 - 08:54 PM GMT
(Special thanks to investor15)
I wish I never had to write this article, but I cannot put it off any longer. There are life-threatening secrets you need to know today.
In the fall of 2009, my wife Jo and I went to a town hall meeting in Illinois. The guest speaker was a member of the House of Representatives who served on the committee putting together the law now known as Obamacare. The Congressman stood next to a draft of the bill and answered our questions by reading straight from the text. Most of us left terrified, hoping the bill would never pass.
Jo and I were so aghast that we attended several International Living conferences and even traveled to Costa Rica and Panama to investigate international healthcare options. The thought of going to a hospital where we didn't even speak the language was unnerving, but we needed to know our options.
We spent time with the president of the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Panama—a real world-class facility with mostly US-trained and board-certified physicians. He laid out the details of international medicine for us: "We are gearing up for an onslaught of Americans coming here for health care which they will find denied or delayed in the United States." Much like Canada, eventually Americans will have to leave the country to get quality, timely health care.
Like most countries, in Panama you either have insurance from a carrier the hospital does business with, you pay out of pocket in advance, or you don't get treated.
So, we looked into obtaining international insurance and discovered two things. First, the policies are expensive: over $12,000 for the two of us, who are both currently covered by Medicare. Second, if you want a policy, you need to be under 75 years of age; 75-plus trips around the sun renders you uninsurable.
At the time, Jo and I decided to put it off. Health care in that part of the world is currently less expensive than in the United States, so we took our chances and self-insured. If we needed treatment, we would pay for it ourselves.
Obamacare is now the law of the land. We can't put it off dealing with it any longer. Disagree? Here's a frank look at the law's dirty secrets, courtesy of a few friendly experts.
During our webinar last month ( http://tinyurl.com/lobsw5v ), David Galland asked FOX Business reporter John Stossel about his recent book:
"You write that, 'Where governments control health care, but want to limit the costs, everyone has to get in line.' … and then you go on to say, 'Once you accept the idea that taxpayers should pay, then individual choice dies. Someone else decides what treatment you get, and when.' …
"It sounds to me like the end result (is) the government basically decides who lives and who dies. Could that really happen?"
Stossel replied:
"Sure. I imagine it already happens under Medicaid; they won't pay for every experimental treatment. And in some cases that means who gets it lives and somebody who doesn't dies. But when somebody else is going to pay, there is going to be a limit on that. And the question is: who's going to set the limit? If you pay, you get to set the limit. … It should be an individual choice that you weigh based on the cost, but right now with no cost, nobody even thinks about it.
"The people at FOX are fond of saying … there's going to be this unelected committee of bureaucrats that's going to decide what you get, and they'll decide whether you live or die. … Would elected bureaucrats deciding for you be any better? No. It's the idea that others will decide for us, and that's what happens when it's a third-party payment."
That exchange jogged my memory back to an article Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet wrote in July: 10 Reasons Why Obamacare Is Going to Ruin Your Medical Care… and Your Life ( http://tinyurl.com/my4nlkt ). Dr. Vliet is an acclaimed expert on the enigmatic law, and one of our featured speakers at this week's Casey Summit in Tucson. She wrote (all emphasis in original):
"Higher expenditures to provide medical services lead to rationing of medical care and treatment options to reduce costs. This is the mandated function of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB): to cut costs by deciding which types of medical services to allow… or disallow.
"If you are denied treatment, you have no appeal of IPAB decisions; you are simply out of luck, and possibly out of life. This is a radical departure from the appeals process required for all private health insurance plans. Further, the IPAB is accountable only to President Obama, and cannot be overridden by Congress or the courts. IPAB is designed to have the final word on your health.
"Under current regulations, if medical care is denied by Medicare, then a patient is not allowed to pay cash to a Medicare-contracted physician or hospital or other health professional. Patients who need medical care that is denied under Medicare or Medicaid will find themselves having to either: 1) look for an independent physician or hospital (quite rare these days); or 2) go outside the USA for treatment."
Huh. So my cash won't be good enough for US doctors or US hospitals. Good thing I was gearing up to interview Nick Giambruno, editor of International Man, for the August issue of Money Forever, when I first read those frightening statements. It's strange how Nick's comments on currency controls wound up speaking to my healthcare worries. Here's what he had to say:
"Currency or capital controls are a favorite option in the tool box of a desperate government and are fairly common in the world today. Though they come in many shapes and sizes, capital controls are government regulations that prevent you from taking your money in and out of a country. The imposition of capital controls usually precedes some form of wealth confiscation (a currency devaluation or deposit confiscation among other measures) and always comes as a surprise to the average person. By their nature, capital controls have to come as a surprise in order to be effective. …
"There were many… (Cypriots) who saw the writing on the wall and had previously moved to diversify a portion of their savings internationally—most commonly with a Swiss or other European bank account. …
"This concept of diversifying your sovereign risk through internationalization is universal and applies to everyone in the world. It is especially urgent for those who live under a government whose fiscal health is in bad and deteriorating shape. Of course it is only an effective strategy if you act before the capital controls and other restrictive measures are imposed."
It's clear how currency controls can cause one to lose a lot of money, but there can be far worse consequences, too.
As seniors, Jo and I will likely find our care denied or delayed under the new law. What happens if one of us needs a knee replacement or a quadruple bypass and care is denied? We won't have the option to pay cash here at home, so that leaves two choices: go offshore, or go without treatment. I know what my choice would be.
Nevertheless, what if I had the means to pay out of pocket offshore, but I couldn't take my money out of the country? How sad would it be to need a quadruple bypass, be denied care, and still be unable to pay for the procedure offshore because of currency controls?
Here's where things get really sinister: Our government would have no incentive to allow a medical loophole in its currency controls. If we die, we are off the Social Security payroll, and maybe it can even snatch some of our wealth through the estate tax.
While I am not qualified to discuss the pros and cons of health care in individual foreign countries, I can say that you will need money to pay for it. That means money you can easily access offshore. Remember, if IPAB denies treatment, there is no appeal process. You are simply up a creek without a paddle, so to speak.
Moving money offshore—now—could be the most important medical decision you make for yourself and your family. International investments make sense for a lot of reasons; protecting your life is sure one of them.
If you want to learn more, Nick and his team have published an inexpensive special report, Going Global 2013 ( http://tinyurl.com/n5hoqpx ). While it does not outline healthcare options, it is the best, most comprehensive report on internationalization I have ever read. First things first: we need a safety net with money offshore. Then we can determine the best countries for health care and hope we never have to go there for treatment. Better safe than waiting penniless in a foreign ER.
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article42656.html
To me that was a an example of a great Baseball Game, and the fans in St' Louis are probably some of the best in America. Been to Busch Stadium back in the 1970s, right after a bunch of my buddies went through the Tour of the Anheuser-Busch Brewery Tour, you even could get free samples of the product.
[Ot] Dodgers-Cardinals 2-2 in the 6th.
Red Sox favored to take Detroit in 1st game tomorrow at Fenway. Lines vary a bit but $140 will get you $100 if the Sox win.
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20131011/US--Budget.Battle/
What I found are all of the small things that are shut down because of this Government shutdown. Of course they are small when people think Government is too big, but they mean a lot if you are Fisherman in the Bering Sea, and you have 1 Month to get in your Crab Harvest, because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has not assigned the quotas to the number of boats that will be used this year.
I had a friend who did this once, and the stories he came back with made me appreciate the Crab we all take for granted. Maybe that's why I always enjoyed my lobster.
It is nice to see them still talking, maybe by Monday morning America can get back to work, and our politicians will quit screwing with this fragile economy.
"CANV, this stock trades by appointment only."
Terrific phrase, may take the Award.
Is the market closed Monday for Columbus Day? Columbus didn't discover America. He got to the Hudson River, hooked a left and wound up in Puerto Rico. You could look it up.
CANV this stock trades by appointment only, and most of it is held by Insiders. Just the spread between the bid and ask is large enough to drive a train through.
http://www.barchart.com/charts/stocks/CANV&style=technical
Its just one to put on a screen and wait it out, another medical marijuana stock, but I keep coming across it in my readings.
I was referring to the futures. I should have made that clear.
gold and silver down moderately.
Gold will probably take out the lows if this continues. NUGT has dropped from 72 to 39 in only 3 weeks..........called a route!
Futures indices still strong; gold and silver down moderately.
GWPH slowly turning itself around from this morning's sell-off.
MPAA still moving higher.
GDP good stock, IMHO, that sold off but seems to want to bounce back.
LOL No I've never been there.
Mary and I were suppose to go to the Biltmore, and I saw it on your other message. I have always believed it was one of the most beautiful estates in America, and a glimpse on how the truly wealthiest family lived during the 1800s'
Besides he was a Railroad Baron, and because my family worked for the New York Central for almost 70 years I have always had a soft spot for the history of them.
I take it you have been there, or is just another source of advertising from SI.
I looked at the funeral stocks, and even mentioned them a few times, but that was a few years ago. I thought even back then that the Baby Boomers would be utilization them at a higher rate, it seems that this segment of the population have always been a trend setter.
So why couldn't they lead in the death scenario, after all most us are in our sixties, and all we have to loo forward to is maybe another decade or so before we all kick the bucket.
GSAT a small one seems to be moving again, its interesting, and has been trading well with all of these ups and downs.
MY is another one that has a chart that begs to move higher, it just needs some more news.
RVLT is another one that just needs a good story.
EDN and PAM I have missed entirely, and am afraid of them because a negative story could kill them.
END, EOX, REN, TPLM, KOG, and MTDR are some oil plays that have been doing better.
PVA and PZZI have interesting charts.
BWEN just will not stop moving higher.
FOE finally breaking $ 10.00
IQNT another interesting one.
MPAA I have mentioned a few times.
XLRN is interesting.
FB could challenge its old highs, but would need some news or Washington saying something positive.
Seems to me if that's the case why do they hate all Americans with all their crazy stupid ideas? LOL
op-ed, the educational operations arm of some group. We can't know who are individually ultimately bankroll it and in some cases the group is hidden. Dan might know, but I doubt it.
MPAA, REN, MTDR making some movement, interesting charts.
America has enough pipelines, and with all of this Fracking occurring all around the country we are risking things that are unforeseen.
I spent four years in Iowa, they were very protective of their land and ground water, Nebraska too, why anyone would want to continue risking the bread basket of this country, and the world is crazy. But then just like the government shutdown by those same crazies Americans have to stand up and vote them out.
I heard a piece on how the American Farmer is really getting hurt during this government shutdown because all of the agricultural numbers are not being done each day. Worse than that, this is harvest time in the Midwest. But then a Crazy never cared about those people, there just farmers of the land.
Can't wait for the Keystone pipeline! STUPID so the boys can ship it out of the states!
http://news.yahoo.com/nd-farmer-finds-oil-spill-while-harvesting-wheat-050659313.html
BWEN- a chart that is really nice to look at, occasionally there are a few that just keep going up.
HIIQ a play on Obamacare.
EHTH another play on Obamacare.
GTN, MEG LIN, NXST, and SBGI if you believe political advertising will be going up next year due to the 2014 elections.
GWPH is you believe Marijuana for medical purposes is here to stay.
How nice. After decades of a rigged game the boys are gonna make it right. Maybe.
FEDS DISCUSS DATA RELEASES
WSJ’s Brody Mullins and Coleen McCain Nelson: “Federal officials are discussing changes to how the government releases sensitive economic data, seeking to bring the system in line with fast-moving financial markets. While the talks are preliminary, officials are driven by their growing concern about leaks and their unease that high-speed trading firms can trade on market-moving numbers. … The talks have covered a number of options, including eliminating the current system, which releases data via embargoed news releases to the media; building a single, technologically secure facility for all government agencies to use to distribute data; and publishing economic data directly on the Internet.
“The discussions are among the first steps toward what could be the most comprehensive change in a generation to how the federal government sends data, such as the unemployment rate, productivity numbers and other indicators of the economy's performance to the public and Wall Street. …The deliberations have included senior White House economic advisers and officials from several government departments.
Questions about how to release economic data will continue to receive attention in the administration, said Jason Furman , chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers.”
http://on.wsj.com/1bKyU8P
Very nice to see IHUB come to their senses and do away with that new format which SUCKED!
It is a prelude to a New Order. A more heartless and repressive Order.
He like all your copy and pastes are completely DELUSIONAL!
How does one person ever find all these crazies?
Get used to it, what some of us might think is an invasion of privacy, is actually some companies idea of getting better with their service.
Like many of the issues of the day, including trading, everything is evolving thanks to technology and social media. Just look at Facebook, Twitter and all of the other current accepted ways of communication.
I know some on this board come here with an agenda, like Fox news does each day, but many companies are trying to stay current in their offerings. Staying ahead of the competition, before the competition comes in and takes market share away from them.
SI has been around for many years, and in some ways it hasn't changed much over the years. We might not like certain aspects of this change, but without change, we would never know how far we have all come.
Some would like to return to an easier time, where things stayed the same for years. I doubt very much that can happen, look at Ameritrade, I have lost my old streamer, and some days I hate, but I do like the individual stock charts I get, so I use my back up streamer from E-Trade. I do not use E-Trade except for the streamer, but then I only have two computers on my desk.
Today will be a long day of playing chicken, some of us will be looking for news out of Washington for news that at least gives everyone some assurances that a deal will be agreed upon. Obama wants the government open as a condition of a deal, while Republicans still want it closed, I just wonder how the Republicans will spin it. In the meantime only certain stocks really were strong yesterday so many others did not participate at all. A very narrow rally in my opinion.
SWY seems to of had another nice bump this morning.
Suit Revives Goldman Conflict Issue
By SUSANNE CRAIG and JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
October 10, 2013, 2:43 pm
Carmen Segarra worked at the New York Federal Reserve Bank after a career on Wall Street that included jobs at Citigroup and Bank of America.
At a March 2012 meeting, a group of examiners at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York agreed that Goldman Sachs had inadequate procedures to guard against conflicts of interest — guidelines aimed at stopping firms from putting their pursuit of profit ahead of their clients’ best interests.
The examiners voted to downgrade a confidential rating assigned by the New York Fed that could have spurred costly enforcement actions and other regulatory penalties. It is not known whether the vote in fact led to a rating change. The former examiner who pushed for a downgrade, Carmen M. Segarra, now contends in a lawsuit filed on Thursday that just weeks after the vote, her superiors asked her to change her findings on Goldman and fired her after she refused.
The vote to downgrade, which has not been previously reported, could have been a big blow for Goldman.
“Goldman Sachs does not have a conflicts-of-interest policy, not firmwide, and not for any divisions,” Ms. Segarra wrote to Michael F. Silva, a senior executive at the New York Fed. “I would go so far as to say they have never had a policy on conflicts.”
The lawsuit, along with a review by The New York Times of confidential government documents and internal e-mails, raises questions about the success of Goldman’s efforts to police potential conflicts.
The bank has been buffeted by accusations that it has put its own interests ahead of its clients, a contention it denies. Goldman, for instance, faced accusations that in the run-up to the financial crisis that it sold billions of dollars in souring real estate assets to unsuspecting clients. Just weeks before the examiners’ vote last year, the bank was publicly excoriated by a federal judge who found that Goldman had conflicts in a huge energy deal.
The lawsuit also provides a look into the often-opaque relationship between federal regulators and Wall Street. After the financial crisis, banking regulators faced criticism that they were too cozy with the banks that they were overseeing — a familiarity that failed to thwart some of the risky behavior precipitating the housing crisis and ensuing recession.
Even now, banks have sway over their regulators, especially those stationed at a bank’s headquarters, according to two former regulators who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The banks, for example, can work behind the scenes to avert a vote like the one to downgrade Goldman. The people said, however, that once a vote to downgrade has taken place, it is difficult to reverse.
In the lawsuit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Ms. Segarra contends she was wrongfully terminated in violation of a federal law that affords protections to bank examiners who find wrongdoing in the course of doing their jobs. Mr. Silva, who is chief of staff for the executive group at the New York Fed, is among the defendants named in the suit.
Jack Gutt, a New York Fed spokesman, declined to comment on Ms. Segarra’s case, citing rules that restrict what the regulator can discuss. “Personnel decisions at the New York Fed are based exclusively on individual job performance and are subject to thorough review. We categorically reject any suggestions to the contrary,” he said in a statement.
Mr. Silva declined to comment through the Fed spokesman.
A Goldman spokesman, Michael DuVally, said his company had no knowledge of internal New York Fed discussions or matters related to Ms. Segarra. “As we have described publicly in our Business Standards Committee report, Goldman Sachs has a comprehensive approach to addressing conflicts through firmwide and divisional policies and infrastructure.”
In an interview, Ms. Segarra said that when she was fired, her bosses told her they had lost confidence in her judgment. Within the Fed, some people who worked with Ms. Segarra echoed those concerns, according to people with knowledge of her time at the agency. Ms. Segarra, these people said, sometimes developed “conspiracy theories.”
Ms. Segarra landed the job at the New York Fed in October 2011 after a career on Wall Street that included jobs at Citigroup and Bank of America.
She was assigned to assess Goldman’s conflict-of-interest program to determine whether it complied with Fed standards.
Banks are required to have detailed policies in place to deal with conflict of interests. Ms. Segarra said these policies typically defined what constituted various conflicts, how the bank might penalize employees who violated those rules and also how the firm made sure that it did not inadvertently promote questionable behavior.
Under the New York Fed’s guidelines, banks are required to have “processes established to manage compliance risk across an entire organization, both within and across business lines, support units, legal entities, and jurisdictions of operation.”
These guidelines are aimed at ensuring that banks have reviewed business transactions to make sure that relationships with one client do not conflict with other clients or with the bank itself.
After Ms. Segarra joined the New York Fed, she said she examined several potentially controversial Goldman deals. For instance, in 2012 Goldman advised El Paso, an energy company, on its decision to sell itself to Kinder Morgan. Goldman owned a big stake in Kinder Morgan, which angered a number of El Paso shareholders, who argued this gave Goldman an incentive to undervalue El Paso. Goldman maintained that it had properly managed the conflicts but was later admonished by a judge, who noted the “disturbing behavior” that led to the deal.
As the deal was coming together, the lawsuit said, Ms. Segarra urged Goldman to provide her with its firmwide conflict-of-interest policy. But Goldman, the lawsuit said, told her that it had no such policy.
While Goldman lacked a broad conflict-of-interest policy, the lawsuit says, individual business units did have some procedures in place. For Ms. Segarra, the absence of a firmwide policy was alarming because it signaled that Goldman lacked the procedures to spot and police conflicts, according to the suit.
Such concerns, the lawsuit said, prompted Ms. Segarra to raise the issue with Mr. Silva, her boss, in a meeting in early December 2011. He seemed to agree. Mr. Silva “expressed concern that Goldman would suffer significant financial harm if consumers and clients learned the extent of Goldman’s noncompliance with the rules on conflict of interest,” according to the lawsuit.
Soon, though, Ms. Segarra was looking at another deal, involving Banco Santander, the largest bank in Spain, and Qatar Holding. As part of her review, Ms. Segarra asked Goldman to provide documentation that it had performed an anti-money-laundering analysis.
According to the lawsuit, Goldman executives told Ms. Segarra that it had done the analysis, but the bank later backpedaled, admitting that no such work had been performed.
Ms. Segarra took her concerns about the transaction to her bosses, who confronted Goldman. She contends that Michael S. Koh, another senior staff member at the New York Fed and a defendant in the lawsuit, told her that Goldman admitted to the misconduct but then he dismissed her concerns. Further efforts to raise the issue were also stymied and her bosses prohibited her from asking Goldman more questions about the deal — a decision that prevented her from finishing her report.
Mr. Koh, through the Fed spokesman, also declined to comment.
In March 2012, Ms. Segarra got her chance to voice her concerns to the New York Fed’s legal and compliance risk team. At the meeting, the group, roughly 20 people, agreed that the issues with Goldman’s conflict-of-interest procedures warranted a warning, known-as a “matter requiring attention,” or M.R.A., according to the lawsuit. As a result, the team approved a downgrade of Goldman’s annual rating from a 2, indicating satisfactory to a 3, indicating fair, according to a confidential document reviewed by The Times. The rating involving policies and procedures is one of several measurements that make up Goldman’s overall score, which is confidential.
In the weeks after the vote, Ms. Segarra’s supervisors began to question her findings about Goldman, according to a review of e-mails. Mr. Silva said her conclusions “are debatable at best, or alternatively, plainly incorrect,” according to a late-night e-mail sent on May 13, 2012. Mr. Silva explained that a “cursory review” of Goldman’s Web site showed that the bank had a conflict-of-interest section within its code of conduct that “seems to me to define” conflict of interest.
Days after this contentious exchange, Ms. Segarra said in the lawsuit, Mr. Silva and Mr. Koh pressed her to excise her negative findings on Goldman from her examination.
The men, Ms. Segarra said, told her that they did not find her position “credible.” Ms. Segarra said she refused to modify her findings — a position she said she reiterated in an e-mail. On May 23, 2012, Ms. Segarra was terminated and escorted from the building.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/bank-examiner-was-told-to-back-off-goldman-suit-says/?_r=1&
Obamacare sign-up crash: what’s really behind it?
By Jon Rappoport
October 10, 2013
It’s easy to say the government always screws things up and, therefore, the crash of its Obamacare sign-up system is merely another example of gross incompetence.
But this is shortsighted. White House officials knew, months ago, the online site was an unmitigated disaster, and yet they let the train continue speeding down the track to its inevitable crackup.
To understand this, we need to go back to the opening salvo in the Obamacare drama.
To his advisors’ shock and surprise, Obama, taking office in 2009, announced that his first big move was going to be national health insurance.
His people assumed jobs would be the top priority. The nation was clamoring for a solution. People were out of work. Banks were foreclosing on homes. Families were in peril.
How could the President misread the national mood so badly? National health insurance? Now? Where the hell did that come from?
The 1993 track record of earlier efforts, headed by Hillary Clinton and her buffoon of a consultant, Ira Magaziner, had run aground, failed miserably, and stirred up considerable animosity.
Obama was going to lead with this again? Bring on a storm of contentious clashes in the Congress, the press, and the nation at large?
What was he thinking?
He wasn’t. A super-ambitious campaign on this issue had to come from somewhere else. Obama’s high-flying humanitarian rhetoric notwithstanding, the man was acting as an agent of change. An agent.
He was taking dictation.
And sure enough, he sank the country in a hostile grinding debate that persists to this day. Meanwhile, the economy and jobs went begging.
When the Obamacare bill finally passed, without anyone reading it, and when subsequent arm-twisting led the Supreme Court to call the individual mandate a tax (a transparently preposterous strategy), thus clearing the way for implementation, amid loud cries of fraud, there remained another opportunity for promoting disaster:
A system for enrollment that wouldn’t work, that would crash, that would look like a bevy of drunken idiots ($634 million richer) had put it together with scotch tape and a random number generator.
At a much high level of op, Obamacare was always invented chaos.
It was intended to be.
The target was America itself. As in destabilization.
This is a strategy as old as the hills.
In this case, the people in charge, behind the scenes, are Globalists (think Rockefeller, for starters). For over a hundred years, their objective has been the takedown of the United States, one of the strongest holdouts against a planetary management system, in which, ultimately, national borders are erased and individual countries cease to exist.
In 1971, David Rockefeller’s intellectual consigliere, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “…[the] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
Achieving such a goal, however, is not simply a matter of standing back and watching evolution take it course. It involves torpedoing major institutions, regardless of how well or poorly they are serving the public interest.
In other words: promote chaos at every possible opportunity.
The extreme oddness of choosing national health insurance as the first planned shot out of the White House, in 2009, was, at the most important level, an exercise in stirring the national pot with a multi-blade fan engine.
Chaos has several aims; among them: raising the level of frustration; dividing the populace; engendering heating conflicts; demoralizing citizens; producing a sense of helplessness; and rendering large numbers of people into a state of surrender and passivity.
It is a prelude to a New Order. A more heartless and repressive Order.
Obamacare is just one example among hundreds.
Operation Chaos has been targeting the United States for well over a hundred years.
Of the dozen or so possible first steps of a Presidency, Obama chose the one that would produce the most discord.
Because US presidents rarely mention Globalism and its tentacles and plans and organizations, it is assumed the issue isn’t of high importance.
But since the closing days of World War 2, (and, actually, much earlier), when members of the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations were tapped to write the blueprint for the United Nations, when the outline of the Marshall Plan was drafted, when the first serious meetings of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were set in stone, every American President has looked the other way, when Globalism has reared its head.
That’s FDR all the way through to Obama.
And during that 70-year period, ops small, medium, and large have been launched to weaken the United States and entangle it in the Globalist framework.
For the two terms of Obama’s Presidency, national health insurance was chosen as a bare electric wire, to shock, stimulate, and magnify dormant hostilities throughout the country.
To the Globalists, the respective merits and flaws in a national healthcare system are of absolutely no concern. It is simply one more opportunity to “crash the system” and produce a hole in the fabric of national life.
For these men, the issue of Obamacare “has legs.” They will squeeze more out of it, for their own purposes, in the months and years ahead.
Mired in the quite serious and real pros and cons of a national health plan, people will miss the bigger picture and pass by it without a glance of recognition.
The manipulators don’t pick trivial issues. Distraction requires presenting people with forceful conflicts.
It requires the belief that events are what they seem and the motives behind them are clear and on the surface.
Jon Rappoport
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/obamacare-sign-up-crash-whats-really-behind-it/
When I now click on a post I get not only the post buy your picture and the sites you like. Is this happening to all or am I being given special consideration by Ihub? I really don't need all your homepage info when I click on a post.
Futures: Dow +17, S&P +0.75, Naz +3.50. Gold and Silver down slightly.
Detroit wins 3-0.
[Ot] Detroit leads Oakland 3-0 in the 7th. Verlander gave up the first hit to the A's in the 7th. Tough, smart pitcher. Don Orsillo and Dennis Eckersley calling the game. They've done the Red Sox. They're good.
FAUX news tinner? Good one.
Why U.S. Health Care Is Obscenely Expensive, In 12 Charts
By Katy Hall & Jan Diehm
10/03/2013 1:56 pm EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/health-care-costs-_n_3998425.html
New Study Shows HFT Hurts Long-Term Institutional Investors
By Floating Path
October 9, 2013
The negative effects of high frequency trading (HFT) are sometimes obvious when it comes to blatant manipulation or flash crashes, however the incremental effects of HFT on longer-term investors is something that is more difficult to quantify ( http://tinyurl.com/mxcvftb ).
A paper published by Professor Lin Tong from the University of Iowa suggests that high frequency trading often has a negative effect on institutional trading taking the other side. His study, A Blessing or a Curse? The Impact of High Frequency Trading on Institutional Investors, looked at trade data from 204 institutions and NASDAQ data on a sample of 120 stocks. As summarized by Themis Trading, the results are quite interesting.
1.HFT activity is positively correlated with execution shortfall.
2.When HFT activity is more intense, institutional investors’ execution shortfall is higher.
3.The increasing effect of HFT activity on execution shortfall is stronger on smaller stocks.
4.When HF traders on the net are buying (selling), it is more costly for institutional investors to sell (buy).
5.Even though HFT activity increases institutional investors’ execution shortfall, it does not provide the benefit of reduced timing delay cost.
While regulation around the world is starting to take notice to HFT ( http://tinyurl.com/n8qq9za ), the U.S. is lagging. On the bright side, the SEC today launched a website ( http://tinyurl.com/n8ho7y8 ) dedicated to publishing data mined by its market-monitoring system MIDAS ( http://tinyurl.com/ou7bsh3 ). As more studies like this are published and more regulators take notice, perhaps we are taking the first steps towards ensuring an orderly, fair, and honest market for all participants.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/10/hft-study/
The girl that does insurance in our office just called me about her new blue cross premium. She works 4 jobs and has individual coverage for her, her husband and 3 kids $2500 deductible annually. She likes her plan and pays $321 per month.
Now to the new rate. $1500 per month. Now that's what I call affordable health care. Those liberals are doing a great job in DC.
Pat yourselves on the back boys. Mission accomplished. Written by the insurance lobbyists and the insurance companies are going to be limited to a percentage profit. Now as an example of 5X a greater pie. Hope and change.
She says she will drop coverage when her current policy ends.
If Obama Care is so bad, and it surely has some flaws why don't the Conservatives wait till people test the waters and they sweep the next election if the majority hates it.
It is just what they are afraid of, that people will like it, poor people, themotherpeople.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |