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.
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.
This would be the beginning of the end....
March 29, 2008
Treasury Dept. Plan Would Give Fed Wide New Power
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department will propose on Monday that Congress give the Federal Reserve broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system.
The proposal is part of a sweeping blueprint to overhaul the nation’s hodgepodge of financial regulatory agencies, which many experts say failed to recognize rampant excesses in mortgage lending until after they set off what is now the worst financial calamity in decades.
Democratic lawmakers are all but certain to say the proposal does not go far enough in restricting the kinds of practices that caused the financial crisis. Many of the proposals, like those that would consolidate regulatory agencies, have nothing to do with the turmoil in financial markets. And some of the proposals could actually reduce regulation.
According to a summary provided by the administration, the plan would consolidate an alphabet soup of banking and securities regulators into a powerful trio of overseers responsible for everything from banks and brokerage firms to hedge funds and private equity firms.
While the plan could expose Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds to greater scrutiny, it carefully avoids a call for tighter regulation.
The plan would not rein in practices that have been linked to the housing and mortgage crisis, like packaging risky subprime mortgages into securities carrying the highest ratings.
The plan would give the Fed some authority over Wall Street firms, but only when an investment bank’s practices threatened the entire financial system.
And the plan does not recommend tighter rules over the vast and largely unregulated markets for risk sharing and hedging, like credit default swaps, which are supposed to insure lenders against loss but became a speculative instrument themselves and gave many institutions a false sense of security.
Parts of the plan could reduce the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is charged with maintaining orderly stock and bond markets and protecting investors. The plan would merge the S.E.C. with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates exchange-traded futures for oil, grains, currencies and the like.
The blueprint also suggests several areas where the S.E.C. should take a lighter approach to its oversight. Among them are allowing stock exchanges greater leeway to regulate themselves and streamlining the approval of new products, even allowing automatic approval of securities products that are being traded in foreign markets.
The proposal began last year as an effort by Henry M. Paulson Jr., secretary of the Treasury, to make American financial markets more competitive against overseas markets by modernizing a creaky regulatory system.
His goal was to streamline the different and sometimes clashing rules for commercial banks, savings and loans and nonbank mortgage lenders.
“I am not suggesting that more regulation is the answer, or even that more effective regulation can prevent the periods of financial market stress that seem to occur every 5 to 10 years,” Mr. Paulson will say in a speech on Monday, according to a draft. “I am suggesting that we should and can have a structure that is designed for the world we live in, one that is more flexible.”
Congress would have to approve almost every element of the proposal, and Democratic leaders are already drafting their own bills to impose tougher supervision over Wall Street investment banks, hedge funds and the fast-growing market in derivatives like credit default swaps.
But Mr. Paulson’s proposal for the Fed echoes ideas championed by Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Both see the Fed overseeing risk across the entire financial spectrum, but Mr. Frank is likely to favor a stronger Fed role and to subject investment banks to the same rules that commercial banks now must follow, especially for capital reserves.
The Treasury plan would let Fed officials examine the practices and even the internal bookkeeping of brokerage firms, hedge funds, commodity-trading exchanges and any other institution that might pose a risk to the overall financial system.
That would be a significant expansion of the central bank’s regulatory mission.
When Fed officials agreed this month to rescue Bear Stearns, once the nation’s fifth-largest investment bank, they pointedly noted that the Fed never had the authority to monitor its financial condition or order it to bolster its protections against a collapse.
In two unprecedented moves, the Fed engineered a marriage between JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, lending $29 billion to JPMorgan to prevent a Bear bankruptcy and a chain of defaults that might have felled much of the financial system.
For the first time since the 1930s, the Fed also agreed to let investment banks borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from its discount window, an emergency lending program reserved for commercial banks and other depository institutions.
But Mr. Paulson’s proposal would fall well short of the kind of regulation that Democrats have been proposing. Mr. Frank and other senior Democrats have argued that investment banks and other lightly regulated institutions now compete with commercial banks and should be subject to similar regulation, including examiners who regularly pore over their books and quietly demand changes in their practices.
In a recent interview, Mr. Frank said he realized the need for tighter regulation of Wall Street firms after a meeting with Charles O. Prince III, then chairman of Citigroup.
When Mr. Frank asked why Citigroup had kept billions of dollars in “structured investment vehicles” off the firm’s balance sheet, he recalled, Mr. Prince responded that Citigroup, as a bank holding company, would have been at a disadvantage because investment firms can operate with higher debt and lower capital reserves.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, has taken a similar stance.
“Commercial banks continue to be supervised closely, and are subject to a host of rules meant to limit systemic risk,” Mr. Schumer wrote in an op-ed article on Friday in The Wall Street Journal. “But many other financial institutions, including investment banks and hedge funds, are regulated lightly, if at all, even though they act in many ways like banks.”
Mr. Paulson’s proposal is likely to provoke bruising turf battles in Congress among agencies and rival industry groups that benefit from the current regulations.
Administration officials acknowledged on Friday that they did not expect the proposal to become law this year, but said they hoped it would help frame a policy debate that would extend well after the elections in November.
In a nod to the debacle in mortgage lending, the administration proposed a Mortgage Origination Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of state governments in regulating mortgage brokers and protecting consumers.
The bulk of the proposal, however, was developed before soaring mortgage defaults set off a much broader credit crisis, and most of the proposals are geared to streamlining regulation.
This plan would consolidate a large number of regulators into roughly three big new agencies.
Bank supervision, now divided among five federal agencies, would be led by a Prudential Financial Regulator, which could send examiners into any bank or depository institution that is protected by either federal deposit insurance or other federal backstops. It would eliminate the distinction between “banks” and “thrift institutions,” which are already indistinguishable to most consumers, and shut down the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Any effort to merge the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with the S.E.C. is likely to provoke battles.
Yet another proposal would, for the first time, create a national regulator for insurance companies, an industry that state governments now oversee.
Administration officials argue that a national system would eliminate the inefficiencies of having 50 different state regulators, who have jealously guarded their powers and are likely to fight any federal encroachment.
Arthur Levitt, a former S.E.C. chairman who has long pushed for stronger investor protection, said his first impression of the plan was positive. Even though the S.E.C.’s powers might be reduced, Mr. Levitt said, the plan would create a broader agency to regulate business conduct in all financial services.
“It’s a thoughtful document,” he said. “I’m intrigued by the fact that it puts an emphasis on investor protection, and that it establishes an agency specifically for that purpose, which would operate across all markets. I think that’s a very constructive first step.”
WOW he made the jump.....Must be bored.
A know it all....LOL All I know is the CEO continued to lie to people while he sold shares. Pretty common in stinky pinky land. I don't think it takes a know it all to know that. Have a great weekend!
I have been on this one from the start. The CEO told me directly that he would not dilute and wasn't sure why the price was falling. While that was going on he would drop some news on us and dilute the crap out of it. The TA wouldn't have the "updated numbers" for three days or so. That is why I said to call him close of business on Tuesday. Feel free to check my post here where I posted my email from the CEO where he directly lied to all of us. pardon me if I don't believe his "non-toxic no dilution" rap as he has single-handedly drove this issue into the ground. Yes I do have an ax to grind since I still hold more shares then I care to mention...
Check with the TA about this time on Tuesday...
That seems to be everyones answer for everything...
Sells and buys are about even for the day. No wonder it isn't moving up....
Oh I'm sure the whole world is watching. We always do great up until the break then we take a dump. JOE JOE JOE to the rescue!
PS. If Jason Schmidt ever gets back to even 90% we should be very good. I still think the Giants failed to disclose when they traded him to us.
So far so good injury wise. As always it will boil down to pitching and the NL West looks tough!!! Seeing Torre for the first time in Dodger Blue was nothing short of amazing for me.
Jose Canseco has been dead on so far. The fall out from this one should be entertaining to say the least.
Just a reminder....
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27659157
Nice!
Tell the truth that was just you big player.....
Anyone who says they haven't had their ass handed to them is well, just plain old full of shit!
I agree with that statement a lot...
Tough learning curve for all...
Put it next to your QBID/CMKX shares...
LMAO!
Other than it's BK and on the Greysheets!
Most people just don't care who they screw....To bad!
Well here is a great place to start...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27465005
Well here is a great place to start...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27465005
Who are the main pumpers?
Nice work!
Deep Down Announces Conversion of Series D Preferred Stock
Last update: 1:06 p.m. EDT March 24, 2008
HOUSTON, March 24, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Deep Down, Inc. (DPDWDPDW
News, chart, profile, more
DPDW) announced today that it has converted all 5,000 shares of Series D Convertible Preferred Stock outstanding and held by Ronald E. Smith, President and CEO and Mary L. Budrunas, VP, into 25,866,529 shares of common stock of Deep Down. The Series D Convertible Preferred Stock was convertible at $0.1933 per share. The Holders of Series D Convertible Preferred Stock also had the option, beginning April 29, 2008, to force the Company to use up to 15.625% of the prior year's audited net income to redeem shares of Series D Preferred Stock held by them at $1,000 per share.
"Ron Smith and Mary Budrunas are once again signaling their confidence in the future operations of Deep Down by giving up their preference rights embedded in the preferred securities. We enthusiastically welcome this conversion, which continues the Company's efforts to simplify and strengthen its balance sheet. This conversion eliminates the potential redemption obligation and increases the equity on our balance sheet," said Robert E. Chamberlain, Jr., Chairman and Chief Acquisition Officer.
About Deep Down, Inc.
Deep Down specializes in the provision of innovative solutions, installation management, engineering services, support services, custom fabrication and storage management services for the offshore subsea control, umbilical, and pipeline industries. The company fabricates component parts of subsea distribution systems and assemblies that specialize in the development of subsea fields and tie backs. These items include umbilicals, flow lines, distribution systems, pipeline terminations, controls, winches, and launch and retrieval systems, among others. Deep Down provides these services from the initial field conception phase, through manufacturing, site integration testing, installation, topside connections, and the final commissioning of a project.
The Company's ElectroWave subsidiary offers products and services in the fields of electronic monitoring and control systems for the energy, military, and commercial business sectors. ElectroWave designs, manufactures, installs, and commissions integrated PLC and SCADA based instrumentation and control systems, including ballast control and monitoring, drilling instrumentation, vessel management systems, marine advisory systems, machinery plant control and monitoring systems, and closed circuit television systems.
The Company's Mako subsidiary serves the growing offshore petroleum and marine industries with technical support services, and products vital to offshore petroleum production, through rentals of its remotely operated vehicles (ROV), topside and subsea equipment, and diving support systems used in diving operations, maintenance and repair operations, offshore construction, and environmental/marine surveys.
The Company's strategy is to consolidate service providers to the offshore industry, as well as designers and manufacturers of subsea, surface, and offshore rig equipment used by major, independent, and foreign national oil and gas companies in deep-water exploration and production of oil and gas throughout the world. Deep Down's customers include BP Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Devon Energy Corporation, Chevron Corporation, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Marathon Oil Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, Nexen Inc., BHP, Amerada Hess, Helix, Oceaneering International, Inc., Subsea 7, Inc., Transocean Offshore, Diamond Offshore, Marinette Marine Corporation, Acergy, Veolia Environmental Services, Noble Energy Inc., Aker Kvaerner, Cameron, Oil States, Dril-Quip, Inc., Nexans, Cabett, JDR, and Duco, among others. For further company information, please visit http://www.deepdowninc.com and http://www.electrowaveusa.com
Company information distributed through the Market Access Program is based upon information that Standard & Poor's considers to be reliable, but neither Standard & Poor's nor its affiliates warrant its completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such. This material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or other financial instrument.
One of our most important responsibilities is to communicate with shareholders in an open and direct manner. Comments are based on current management expectations, and are considered "forward-looking statements," generally preceded by words such as "plans," "expects," "believes," "anticipates," or "intends." We cannot promise future returns. Our statements reflect our best judgment at the time they are issued, and we disclaim any obligation to update or alter forward-looking statements as the result of new information or future events. Deep Down urges investors to review the risks and uncertainties contained within its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SOURCE Deep Down, Inc.
WOW People are posting today.....WEEEEEE
UCLA got away with murder tonight with 7 seconds left....
What I wouldn't give for some news....Wonder how much time I have wasted waiting on news from POS companies....LOL
No changing...Rules are rules and he runs a pretty tight ship!
Who is the big spender???
0.013 42000 OTO 13:39:21
Glass half empty...
10,899
Understatement!!!
Sweet story...
AMEN!!!!!
WOW go figure, a democrat wants to raise taxes....
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.
"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.
That is just going to pop one of these days. Looks soooooo good!
Sarissa Resources Agrees to Joint Venture Option on Dead-Moose Lake Property
Last update: 9:16 a.m. EDT March 19, 2008
BAY CITY, MI, Mar 19, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Sarissa Resources, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: SRSR) announced today that the Company has entered into an option agreement with Botanic Oasis International Inc. ("BOII"), a privately held exploration company, whereby BOII has a purchase "earn-in" option to acquire up to a 50% working interest in Sarissa's Dead-Moose Lake Property project in Northern Ontario.
Under the terms of the Agreement, BOII has the option to acquire a 50% working interest in the project in exchange for a non-dilutive 5% of the outstanding shares of BOII common stock and an "earn-in" commitment to spend $250,000 to explore the property over the next 24 months, and a $25,000 cash payment to Sarissa. Sarissa will act as property operator with respect to any monies spent to explore the property under the terms of the option agreement and BOII will be required to reimburse Sarissa for any and all costs incurred, such as administration fees and property and claim maintenance, above and beyond the $250,000 capital commitment by BOII. Exploration expenditures, including the applicable administration fee associated with general property and claim maintenance, will be for a minimum of $5,000 for the first four months. The balance of the exploration expenditures must be incurred by March 30, 2010. A finders fee is payable in conjunction with the transaction.
The Dead-Moose Lake Property was initially staked following the release of the Ontario Geological Survey's Open File Report 6061: "Montreal River Headwater Area Sediment Survey, Northern Ontario: PGE [Platinum Group Elements] Data-Operation Treasure Hunt." An excerpt from the report stated, "The highest Pd [Palladium], second highest Platinum [Pt] [Platinum] and seventh highest Au [Gold] (FA/ICP-MS) value collected in the survey area was obtained from a small lake located near Deadmoose Creek in central Shillington Township." In 2006 Sarissa contracted for a Geotech VTEM (Versatile Time Domain Electromagnetic) airborne geophysical survey to be conducted over the Dead-Moose property. Analysis of magnetic and VTEM data has indicated 5 potential mineral targets, of which 2 VTEM anomalies indicate a potential for Copper [Cu] and Gold [Au], while 2 VTEM and magnetic anomalies indicate a potential for Nickel [Ni], Copper [Cu] and Platinum [Pt] and 1 indicates potential for a Kimberlite/diamond target. There are several other magnetic highs and lows paralleling regional and mineralized structures to the west of the highlighted survey area that also have significant potential.
Sarissa Resources CEO, Scott Keevil, commented, "We are pleased to have consummated an agreement with the principals of Botanic. We feel that this option agreement provides Sarissa with a low risk way to finance the development of the Dead-Moose property. Additionally, because Botanic is currently pursuing a public listing venue for its shares, our share ownership position could provide significant intrinsic value to Sarissa in the near future." He continued, "We are also getting close to finishing the most recent assessment of the Lake Nemegosenda Property and will be updating shareholders on the results of that initiative shortly."
About Sarissa Resources
Sarissa Resources is an American junior exploration company that identifies and explores mineral properties in North America. Currently, Sarissa has interests in properties with base metal, precious metal, uranium and niobium prospects in Northern Ontario, Canada.
Safe Harbor
This press release contains statements, which may constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Those statements include statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of Sarissa Resources, Inc., and members of its management as well as the assumptions on which such statements are based. Prospective investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, and that actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by such forward-looking statements. Important factors currently known to management that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-statements include fluctuation of operating results, the ability to compete successfully and the ability to complete before-mentioned transactions. The company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results.
LMAO!!!