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.
Out of respect for Zeev, this board has been disabled from further posts.
This spirit of this board has gotten far away from the type of discussion that Zeev would approve of. There's simply too much hate and infighting. He had a very special way of moderating and interacting and we are quite sure this is not the vision he had for a board of his namesake.
Below is a link to our Political Boards. Amongst these you should be able to find another board that suits your views and posting style.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/boards.aspx?cat_id=123
The recent Moderators are commended for their valiant attempts to maintain some control over this board, but even a couple of them agree this is the right decision at this time. Thank you all for the time and energy you dedicated here.
Ok so I went overboard (again) praising Reagan's foreign policy prowess...
Ordinary
yes but you have to try and let them down easy
can't give em the worst stuff first
Well he does have the reputation of cutting taxes but he was one of the biggest raiser of taxes in our history. He took many working and getting a payroll check and increased payroll taxes tremendously.
Tax Increase #1
KRUGMAN: The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.
Tax Increase #2
KRUGMAN: I’m referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.
For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent—but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.
Raygun raised taxes 4 times
That piece was much too kind to all his failures.
"Reagan Was the Butcher of My People:" Fr. Miguel D'Escoto Speaks From Nicaragua
The 8 years Reagan was in office represented one of the most bloody eras in the history of the Western hemisphere, as Washington funneled money, weapons and other supplies to right wing death squads. And the death toll was staggering — more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 killed in the contra war in Nicaragua. In Washington, the forces carrying out the violence were called "freedom fighters." This is how Ronald Reagan described the Contras in Nicaragua: "They are our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers."
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/8/reagan_was_the_butcher_of_my
"I agree he let spending get out of control, and
was totally his fault, but he also cut taxes and
brought prosperity to this country, and not to
just the rich, everybody, no, and it will never
be that way, under anybody, under Capatilism,
Socialism, a Dictatorship, until Heaven, it
will never be equal and fair."
When it came to domestic policy issues, he gets an "F".
In terms of foreign policy issues....well..that's a TOTALLY different story...
Ordinary
Ronald Reagan: a legacy of crack and cheese
June 16, 2004
by Bob Fitrakis
The mainstream media spent an entire week mythologizing Ronald Wilson Reagan. Why did the corporate for-profit media spend so much time creating a cult of personality around a former President with an estimated 105 IQ? Because the actual historical reality of Reagan’s life are so shockingly reactionary you need the pageantry, majesty and imagery of a Hollywood-scripted finale to cover up the thousands of damning facts.
Reagan was a snitch during his Hollywood years. As Anthony Summers makes clear in his book Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover, the “Gipper” had his own code name – “T-10” – and regularly provided the FBI with information on Communists, real, imagined and manufactured. Victor Navasky’s Naming Names documents as well how Reagan, then the head of the Screen Actors Guild, kept the FBI well informed about “disloyal” actors. During Reagan’s Moscow Summit, the President met with Russian students to discuss communism and capitalism. In a speech too simple to be included in Communism for Idiots, the President dusted off his old theoretical writings from Reader’s Digest and Boy’s Life and told the students why Marx was evil and unbridled capitalism good.
As his B-actor career faded, Reagan became a mouthpiece for General Electric, one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers. Reagan’s one clear talent was the ability to read a Teleprompter or memorize his lines on the glories of free enterprise. While his skills were sub-par by Hollywood standards, he was able to parlay bad acting into good politics. Reagan understood the uncritical nature of the American public and their appetite for neo-American hokum. As E.L. Doctorow pointed out in his 1980 article, “The Rise of Ronald Reagan”: “…his tenure as GE spokesman overlapped the years in which the great electrical industry price-fixing scandal was going on.”
“While Reagan extolled the virtues of free enterprise in front of the logo, G.E., along with Westinghouse, Allis-Chalmers and other giant corporations, was habitually controlling the market by clandestine price fixing and bid rigging agreements, all of which led, in 1960, to grand jury indictments, in what was characterized by the Justice Department as the largest criminal case ever brought under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act,” Doctorow noted.
As a child I watched Reagan pitch the joys of 20-mule team Borax on Death Valley Days, two reoccurring themes on the Old West show were the joys of imperialist conquest and genocide against indigenous people. All of it was served up by the smiley-faced Gipper. Bertrand Gross would later assess the Reagan administration as “friendly fascism.”
Caught up in the Goldwater conservative movement, Reagan realized that he could deliver the right-wing reactionary script better than the much more intellectual Senator from Arizona. Thus, in 1966, Reagan took his highly-honed hokum and became the ultimate shill for the far right. As the New Republic pointed out during his 1966 campaign for Governor of California, “Reagan is anti-labor, anti-Negro, anti-intellectual, anti-planning, anti-20th century.” Reagan campaigned against the civil rights movement, the peace movement, the student rights movement and the Great Society. In his fantasy world, Reagan equated giant price-fixing corporations with small town entrepreneurs. As every long-hair in the late 60s knew, Ronald Reagan was “the drugstore truck-drivin’ man, the head of the Ku Klux Klan.” He said if the students at Berkeley wanted a bloodbath, he would give them one. James Rector was shot dead soon after.
The real legacy of Reagan can be found in Philadelphia, Mississippi where he announced his candidacy for the Presidency in 1980. Previously, the most important political event in Philadelphia had been the deaths of civil rights workers, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Cheney in 1964. Reagan appeared, sans hood, to talk in those well-known racist code words about “state’s rights.” This was no mistake or misunderstanding. Reagan was signaling the right-wing movement that he would carry their racist agenda. Remember in 1984, his political operatives accused Walter Mondale of being “a San Francisco-style Democrat.”
Reagan reached out and embraced the racist apartheid government of South Africa through his policy of so-called “constructive engagement.” Reagan’s solution to the de-industrialization of America was to build the prison industrial complex. His centerpiece was a racist so-called “War on Drugs” while his friends in the CIA used narcotics peddlers as “assets.” And then Reagan’s El Salvadorian Contra buddies began bringing in crack.
Reagan's response to the 1981-1982 recession, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, was to declare ketchup a vegetable, release federal cheese surpluses, and shackle the strike leaders of the air traffic control union hand and foot and lead them off to jail. My most pronounced memories of the Reagan years are the three hour cheese line and the German care packages to unemployed workers in Detroit.
In the first two years of the Reagan administration, his policy was a forced economic recession and de-industrialization of the United Stated. He cut federal low income housing funds by 84%; his tax cuts for the rich, his “trickle-on” the poor and working class economics ended up tripling all previously existing U.S. government debt. So, when I think of the Reagan legacy, I think of urban decay, crack, homelessness, racism, rampant corporatism and the destruction of the American dream. Amidst the growing homelessness and despair, I remember seeing graffiti all over inner-city Detroit that simply said: “Ronald Wilson Reagan 666.” Reagan’s policies so marked him as “the beast” in Detroit, blue-collar workers actually cheered when he was shot. The hottest song on underground radio was “Hinckley had a Vision.” The song’s refrain, “He knew, he knew.”
When the mainstream media was analyzing Reagan's legacy and actively participating in the mythologizing of the 40th president, they conveniently ignored volumes of work by mainstream reporters. Wall Street Journal reporter Jane Mayer and Los Angeles Times reporter Doyle McManus documented Reagan's diminishing mental capacity in Landslide:
In March 1987 a memo was written by Jim Cannon to Howard Baker, Reagan's new Chief of Staff. His first recommendation: "Consider the possibility that section four of the 25th amendment might be applied." The amendment allows for the removal of the president when "the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." Mayer and McManus reported that staffers told Cannon in confidence that Reagan had become "inattentive and inept ... He was lazy; he wasn't interested in the job ... he wouldn't read the papers they gave him - even short position papers and documents ... he wouldn't come over to work - all he wanted to do was watch movies and television at the residence." Scholarly works have been written on Reagan's confusion of facts with Hollywood images.
The problem with the great communicator was the content of his messages. Reagan was a paid shill of the plutocrats, who used his charm and acting skills to hawk, like soap, mean spirited social policies and sell a fantasy version of the American Dream to common folk that trusted him.
--
Bob Fitrakis is the Editor of the Free Press (http://freepress.org), a political science professor, attorney and co-author with Harvey Wasserman of George W. Bush vs. the Superpower of Peace.
Reagan voted as one of two best presidents ever....
your feelings are in a minority
What is is about Reagan you did not like.
I agree he let spending get out of control, and
was totally his fault, but he also cut taxes and
brought prosperity to this country, and not to
just the rich, everybody, no, and it will never
be that way, under anybody, under Capatilism,
Socialism, a Dictatorship, until Heaven, it
will never be equal and fair.
Ah yes. Heard of both of them....
Ordinary
The politicans. You ever hear Jindal or Barbour? BITCH and BITCH.
Who? The (Alabama) citizens affected by the worst environmental disaster this country as ever seen, or the National Guardsmen sent out to "knock" on people's doors?
Ordinary
No idea but all they do is complain and yet they won't even send out the troops to help. The would just rather bitch!
"...Alabama has deployed 432 troops of 3,000 available."
Are they still going around knocking on people's doors telling them about their rights to file (for claims) against BP?
Ordinary
As of May, the six largest US banks and their trade associations spent approx $600million lobbying against financial reform.
Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) refused to meet with any financial reform lobbyists, per CNBC - 06/25/10.
And you expected to use them???????? LOL
As of today, the federal government has authorized a total of 17,500 National Guard troops across four Gulf states, all to be paid for by BP.
But CBS News has learned that in addition to Louisiana's 1,053 troops of 6,000, Alabama has deployed 432 troops of 3,000 available. Even fewer have been deployed in Florida - 97 troops out of 2,500 - and Mississippi - 58 troops out of 6,000.
oh okay, so you came up with the idea all by yourself
it was just a coincidence that Limbaugh also called on his "troops" to try and rig the vote
sure, I guess we'll just take your word for it
LMAO!
Gulf Coast Governors Leaving National Guard Idle
Thousands of Troops Called Up to Fight Oil Spill Haven't Been Deployed
(CBS) All along the Gulf coast, local officials have been demanding more help from the federal government to fight the spill, yet the Gulf states have deployed just a fraction of the National Guard troops the Pentagon has made available, CBS News Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian reports.
That's a particular problem for the state of Louisiana, where the Republican governor has been the most vocal about using all resources.
Gov. Bobby Jindal's message has been loud and clear, using language such as "We will only be winning this war when we're actually deploying every resource," "They (the federal government) can provide more resources" and "It's clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here."
But nearly two months after the governor requested - and the Department of Defense approved the use of 6,000 Louisiana National Guard troops - only a fraction - 1,053 - have actually been deployed by Jindal to fight the spill.
"If you ask any Louisianan, if you said 'If you had those troops, do you think they could be put to good use? Is there anything they can do in your parish?' I think they'd all tell you 'Absolutely,'" Louisiana state Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, said.
As of today, the federal government has authorized a total of 17,500 National Guard troops across four Gulf states, all to be paid for by BP.
But CBS News has learned that in addition to Louisiana's 1,053 troops of 6,000, Alabama has deployed 432 troops of 3,000 available. Even fewer have been deployed in Florida - 97 troops out of 2,500 - and Mississippi - 58 troops out of 6,000.
Those figures prompted President Obama to weigh in.
"I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible," Mr. Obama said.
It's believed officials in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi and are reluctant to use more troops because their presence could hurt tourism. In hardest-hit Louisiana, however, Jindal is pointing fingers.
"Actually we asked the White House to approve the initial 6,000," Jindal said. "What they came back and said is the Coast Guard and BP had to authorize individual tasks."
But Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander in charge of the government's response to the spill, said Jindal is just flat wrong.
"There is nothing standing in the governor's way from utilizing more National Guard troops," Allen said.
In fact, the Coast Guard says every request to use the National Guard has been approved, usually within a day. Now Jindal's office acknowledged to CBS News the governor has not specifically asked for more Guard troops to be deployed.
Whether it's simple confusion or the infusion of politics into the spill, the fact remains thousands of helping hands remain waiting to be used.
(Scroll down to watch the report CBS News Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian filed) June 24, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/24/eveningnews/main6615414.shtml
Boat Captain: A rare and endangered species of sea turtle is being burned alive
Venice, Louisiana, Boat Captain/ by Catherine Craig
A rare and endangered species of sea turtle is being burned alive in BP's controlled burns of the oil swirling around the Gulf of Mexico, and a boat captain tasked with saving them says the company has blocked rescue efforts.
Mike Ellis, a boat captain involved in a three-week effort to rescue as many sea turtles from unfolding disaster as possible, says BP effectively shut down the operation by preventing boats from coming out to rescue the turtles.
"They ran us out of there and then they shut us down, they would not let us get back in there," Ellis said in an interview with conservation biologist Catherine Craig.
I've been following this guy's blog
he's put up some interesting posts
from what I gather he is volunteering his time and effort to do this
Drew Wheelan
http://birding.typepad.com/gulf/
"there is none" - That's when a pol has to create a boogeyman, someone the gullible can be made afraid of and it helps greatly if a media outlet supports everything a pol does/says, without question.
Pols also use the illegal immigrant as a boogeyman, and again it works on some as we see..."free education", "free medical", "welfare checks" etc. etc. Those who do the hiring and contribute to pol campaigns are not forced to accept any responsibility, the illegal immigrant is the boogeyman - end of story.
Most understand Mexico's economy benefits from those who come into the US to work and send money back home.
QUESTION: Then, why don't/didn't they take the initiative to make their lives better in their country?
seems to me, your equation for work and a better life is to take advantage of OUR PROSPERITY....
why aren't they fixing THEIR COUNTRY?
Do you think it could be the same reason that 'our' so called 'puritans' or whatever you want to call
them came here .....INSTEAD of "fixing THEIR COUNTRIES" ..?
seems to me, your equation for work and a better life is to take advantage of OUR PROSPERITY....
Absolutely NOT .. WE take advantage of their illegal status.
Alex, You missed the lie part....
You seem to like to omit things and distort things...
"because "dear leader" Limbaugh told you to
how'd that strategy work out for the Limbaugh dittoheads?"
Do you really have any intent on discussing the topic of this board or are you more interested in personal attacks with bogus statements and wild accusations?
Simply NOT TRUE ..they come here for work and a better life.
THEY COME HERE FOR THE SOCIAL BENEFITS....
free education...
free medical....subsidized housing...
welfare check...
food stamps...
free cell phone...
Simply NOT TRUE ..they come here for work and a better life.
Immigration restrictionists argue, not without some merit, that illegal immigrants don’t fully pay into the social-welfare system from which they benefit. Restrictionists tend to overstate the effect of illegal immigrants on American wages and they understate the amount of taxes even illegals pay. About two-thirds of illegals pay Medicare, Social Security, and income taxes. All pay sales taxes and property taxes (directly if they own property, or, more likely, indirectly via rents that reflect property taxes). And since 1996, the only public funds illegals can really access are for emergency medical care and primary and secondary education (and only 10 percent of illegals send kids to public schools).
But the most efficient way to address those concerns is by making it easier for illegals to function in the light of day, where they would have every reason to pay all the taxes the rest of us do. And to enter the country through official checkpoints (and to leave the country through the same gates). This isn’t just idle guesswork. In October 2005, the National Immigration Forum and the conservative Manhattan Institute surveyed 233 illegal Latino immigrants in Miami, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Fully 98 percent of respondents said they would legalize their status if given the opportunity. (81 percent said they would “live and work in the United States” for the rest of their lives.) Ninety-one percent said they would pay a $1,000 fine to come clean and 96 percent said they would submit to a criminal background check. Seventy percent said they would pay any back taxes they owed as a condition of legalization and 87 percent said they would enroll in an English class. A vanishingly small proportion of illegal immigrants come here to live in the shadows of American prosperity.
Any immigrant, legal or not, will tend to be a producer of some good an American wants to pay him or her for, and simultaneously a consumer of some good an American wants to sell. Businesses can and do arise out of supplying the wants and needs of legal or illegal immigrants; what they directly pay in taxes or take in social services is no meaningful measure of what they are adding to or subtracting from the commonweal; human beings are indeed the ultimate resource, green card or no.
The free market, as it usually does, has created a system of mutually satisfactory interdependence, all of us serving each other and helping each other get what we want.
http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/20/immigration-now-immigration-to/
Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers.
What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.
Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families � most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.
at least Nixon passed some positive legislation such as women's rights and positive environmental legislation
i can't think of anything positive Reagan or the two Bush's left us with
unless you like never ending wars, shipping jobs overseas, environmental destruction, financial calamities, handing over pallets of cash to Wall Streeters, Banksters, corporate buddies, and warlords etc etc
Visitors to the coastal communities of southern Louisiana report an eery silence.
The people are still there, but they're not talking.
It's been made clear to them that their only hope of economic salvation - now that the fishery that provides 30% of the US seafood has been destroyed - is clean up work.
And that work is controlled by BP.
"Talk and your lifeline is cut."
Here's one person willing to talk...
DUH.....what a revelation!
Oh I bet you hate em all, don't you?
...........hate is your bag. reviewing statistical information is mine.
Better yet, Lincoln was a Republican, come one..
He helped free the slaves, but I'm sure there
was a Caveat to that, some kick back, something
we can blame him for.
Lincoln would be classified as an eastern democratic elitist now. After all He moved harshly against
the south AGAINST southern democratic slave owners ..& now the south is republican .. lmao. They LOST
..and still can't get over it ..
Banks ‘Dodged a Bullet’ as Congress Dilutes Rules
June 25, 2010, 11:25 AM EDT
By Christine Harper
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-25/banks-dodged-a-bullet-as-congress-dilutes-rules.html
June 25 (Bloomberg) -- Legislation to overhaul financial regulation will help curb risk-taking and boost capital buffers. What it won’t do is fundamentally reshape Wall Street’s biggest banks or prevent another crisis, analysts said.
A deal reached by members of a House and Senate conference early this morning diluted provisions from the tougher Senate bill, limiting rather than prohibiting the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives and invest in hedge funds or private equity funds.
Banks “dodged a bullet,” said Raj Date, executive director for Cambridge Winter Inc.’s center for financial institutions policy and a former Deutsche Bank AG executive. “This has to be a net positive.”
Hashed out almost two years after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the legislation shepherded by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank places limits on potentially risky activities such as proprietary trading or over-the-counter derivatives and gives regulators new powers to seize and wind down large, complex institutions if needed.
The overhaul, which still requires approval from the full Congress, won’t shrink banks deemed “too big to fail,” leaving largely intact a U.S. financial industry dominated by six companies with a combined $9.4 trillion of assets. The changes also do little to solve the danger posed by leveraged companies reliant on fickle markets for funding, which can evaporate in a panic like the one that spread in late 2008.
‘Fig Leaf’
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Financials Index, whose 79 companies include JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., rose 1.1 percent at 10:50 a.m. in New York.
The legislation is “largely a fig leaf,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “Given where we were when this got started, I’d have to imagine the Wall Street firms are pretty happy.”
Banks avoided drastic curbs on their highly profitable derivatives businesses. Lenders including JPMorgan and Citigroup Inc. will be required to move less than 10 percent of the derivatives in their deposit-taking banks to a broker-dealer division during the next two years, which may require additional capital.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which were the two biggest U.S. securities firms before converting to banks in September 2008, won’t be as affected because they kept most of their derivatives in their broker-dealer units.
‘Pennies’ of Dilution
“There’s going to be some adaptation, but I don’t think there’s going to be any colossal impact,” said Benjamin Wallace, an analyst at Grimes & Co. in Westborough, Massachusetts, which manages $900 million and holds stakes in Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan and Wells Fargo & Co. Derivatives rules mean “there’s going to be a capital raise, but the analysis we’ve seen suggests we’re talking in the pennies in terms of dilution” of earnings per share.
Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat from Arkansas, had originally advocated forbidding banks that receive federal support such as deposit insurance from trading swaps, a rule that could have required banks to spin off those businesses.
The final agreement provides a number of exemptions: Banks can continue trading derivatives used to hedge their risks and can keep trading interest-rate and foreign-exchange contracts. Banks will have up to two years to move other types of derivatives, such as credit default swaps that aren’t standard enough to be cleared through a central counterparty, into a separately capitalized subsidiary.
97% of Market
U.S. commercial banks held derivatives with a notional value of $212.8 trillion in the fourth quarter, of which 92 percent were interest-rate or foreign-exchange derivatives, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The five U.S. banks with the biggest holdings of derivatives -- JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo -- hold $206.2 trillion, or 97 percent, of that total, the OCC said.
The rules are “nowhere as bad as what the banks might have feared as recently as a week ago,” Bill Winters, the London- based former co-chief executive officer of JPMorgan’s investment bank, told Bloomberg Television today. “Banks have pretty much factored in already the idea that most derivatives will have to be cleared through a central clearing counterparty. Not a huge surprise and probably not a huge cost either.”
Volcker Rule
Derivatives are contracts whose value is derived from stocks, bonds, loans, currencies and commodities, or linked to specific events such as changes in interest rates or weather. They include credit-default swaps, which act like insurance for investors in case a debt issuer can’t repay.
Swaps sold by American International Group Inc. that later went sour helped push the insurer to the brink of bankruptcy and triggered a $182 billion federal bailout of the New York-based company during the near collapse of the financial system in 2008.
Another portion of the legislation that was amended in the final conference was the so-called Volcker rule, named after Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who championed it. Originally the rule would have prevented any systemically important bank holding company from engaging in proprietary trading, or bets with its own money, as well as investing its own capital in hedge funds or private-equity funds. Goldman Sachs executives have estimated that about 10 percent of the firm’s annual revenue comes from proprietary trading.
3% Rule
In the final version, the banks will be allowed to provide no more than 3 percent of a fund’s equity, and will be limited to investing up to 3 percent of the bank’s Tier 1 capital in hedge funds or private equity funds. That represents a ceiling of about $3.9 billion for JPMorgan, $3.6 billion for Citigroup and $2.1 billion for Goldman Sachs, according to the companies’ latest quarterly reports.
“I don’t think it will have any impact at all on most banks,” Winters said of the amended Volcker rule. “It’s a pragmatic solution that will result in the banks having no big issues.”
While the rule has been watered down, it still represents an important change in direction for a financial industry that had been allocating a larger and larger portion of capital over the last decade to making bets and investments with their own money, said James Ellman, president of San Francisco-based hedge fund Seacliff Capital LLC, which specializes in financial industry stocks.
‘Casino’ Must Go
“You’re going to be taking out of the banks areas of investing that every 10 years or so, at certain points in the cycle, tend to have dramatic losses,” Ellman said. “Effectively you’re telling the system: We have to take the casino out of the utility.”
While Ellman said the legislation will help to make the financial system safer, he added that “it won’t satisfy anybody who wanted really strict additional regulation of banks.”
The new version of the Volcker rule also incorporates changes proposed by Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Carl Levin of Michigan that aim to curb conflicts of interest by preventing firms that underwrite an asset-backed security from placing bets against the investment. In April, Levin presided over a hearing in which Goldman Sachs executives were accused of betting against some of the same collateralized debt obligations that they underwrote; the executives responded by saying they were acting as market-makers.
Market-Based Funding
While requirements for an increase in capital will provide banks with a bigger cushion to absorb losses, the legislation does little to reduce banks’ dependence on the markets to finance their balance sheets. It was that market-based funding that made firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley vulnerable to the panic that spread in 2008.
“Something has to be put in place to cause banks to have deposit-based liabilities and not market-based liabilities,” Grimes & Co.’s Wallace said.
The effects of the legislation won’t be seen for several years as new regulations are drafted and implemented, analysts said. New international capital requirements under consideration by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which could be implemented by the end of 2011, will also be important.
Investors and analysts including Optique Capital Management’s William Fitzpatrick said bank stock prices have already factored in any likely reduction in revenue from the changes.
“Profitability is indeed going to take a hit and we’re going to see more stringent capital requirements,” said Fitzpatrick at Milwaukee-based Optique, which oversees about $800 million including stock in Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan. “The changes are most certainly necessary. They can certainly lead to a more stable and predictable earnings stream.”
Still, he added, “this doesn’t remove all of the elements of financial distress that could lead to some of the challenges we had in 2008.”
Oh I bet you hate em all, don't you?
moral justification for war....there is none....
but, more interestingly....I completely disagree with:
And as far as our border states are concerned, you/I know well that until corps refuse to hire illegal immigrants, they will continue to pour over our borders.
Nixon was a Saint compared to the other trash teabaggers elected !
.......Your words are an excellent exposure of who you are.