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.
Anyone here been to visit them in Vegas at the below address?
Corporate Office
8883 W. Flamingo Rd.
Suite 102
Las Vegas, Nevada
89147
Tel:1(702)940-0494
Fax:1(702)942-3397
GoldUranDiamondTrade new member I see from Feb. 25, 2011. Why the interest all of a sudden? Things that make one go HMMMMMMM..........
For those whom are not aware of this new rule change taking affect on Feb. 28, 2011. Below.
short version:
Quote: There's 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the "short sale exempt" (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or "locates" before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to "inject liquidity" then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public's eyes goes out the window. You can't have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a "proprietary trading strategy".
Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.
The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.
Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522
Notice the part I marked in bold in the quote above:
"FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations."
For those who do not know these rules go into affect on Feb. 28, 2011 for the MM's games.
short version:
Quote: There's 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the "short sale exempt" (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or "locates" before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to "inject liquidity" then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public's eyes goes out the window. You can't have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a "proprietary trading strategy".
Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.
The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.
Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522
Notice the part I marked in bold in the quote above:
"FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations."
For all who did not know these new rules going into affect on Feb. 28, 2011 for our nice MM's buds.
short version:
Quote: There's 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the "short sale exempt" (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or "locates" before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to "inject liquidity" then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public's eyes goes out the window. You can't have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a "proprietary trading strategy".
Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.
The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.
Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522
Notice the part I marked in bold in the quote above:
"FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations."
For those interested the MM's will have new rules starting tomorrow Feb. 28, 2011.
short version:
Quote: There's 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the "short sale exempt" (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or "locates" before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to "inject liquidity" then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public's eyes goes out the window. You can't have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a "proprietary trading strategy".
Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.
The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.
Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522
Notice the part I marked in bold in the quote above:
"FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations."
Not that it affects this investment too much but perhaps new rules for MM's taking affect Feb. 28, 2011. Short version.
short version:
Quote: There's 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the "short sale exempt" (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or "locates" before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to "inject liquidity" then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public's eyes goes out the window. You can't have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a "proprietary trading strategy".
Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.
The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.
Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522
Notice the part I marked in bold in the quote above:
"FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations."
All those interested the rules they are finally changing for those nice MM's. Feb. 28th 2011 takes affect short version.
short version:
Quote: There's 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the "short sale exempt" (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or "locates" before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to "inject liquidity" then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public's eyes goes out the window. You can't have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a "proprietary trading strategy".
Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.
The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.
Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522
Notice the part I marked in bold in the quote above:
"FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations."
Not that it matters too much on this stock but for all boards information takes affect Feb. 28, 2011.
short version:
Quote: There's 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the "short sale exempt" (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or "locates" before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to "inject liquidity" then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public's eyes goes out the window. You can't have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a "proprietary trading strategy".
Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.
The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.
Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522
Notice the part I marked in bold in the quote above:
"FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations."
New Rules Taking affect February 28, 2011.
short version:
Quote: There's 3 new laws gaining attention in the NSS market reform arena: FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations. FINRA 2010-043, also starting on 2/28/11 reinstates the "short sale exempt" (SSE) marking requirements for trade reporting and the OATS system. Those MMs accessing the bona fide MM exemption from executing pre-borrows or "locates" before admittedly naked short sales must now FORMALLY acknowledge the accessing of that universally-abused exemption. Being that these trades are theoretically being made to "inject liquidity" then the excuse to hide the related trade data from the public's eyes goes out the window. You can't have it both ways and claim the bona fide MM exemption and later claim that the related trade data needs to be kept secret because it might reveal a "proprietary trading strategy".
Truly bona fide MMs that are able to legally access that universally-abused exemption cover their naked short position on the next downtick after their short sale when buy side liquidity is in need of being ejected as share prices fall. The 3rd new rule which is in effect now states that the offers and bids that MMs post must be of approximately the same size. No longer can the offers be of 1 million shares and the offsetting bid good for the minimum 5,000 shares.
The verbiage in 4320 is especially well done as it FINALLY puts the clearing firms that aid and abet this crime wave on the spot. With the FFETF, which is made up of 25 different agencies, now on the scene the transparency has increased markedly. You can imagine how critical the lack of transparency is to a crime involving selling nonexistent securities and then refusing to ever deliver that which you sold AFTER being allowed access to the funds of the investor being defrauded.
Here are the links to the rules SR-FINRA-2010-028 and SR-FINRA-2010-043:
www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522
Notice the part I marked in bold in the quote above:
"FINRA 4320 goes into effect on 2/28/11. It mandates 13 day buy-ins for open delivery failures FINALLY applying to shares of non-reporting corporations."
On Geraldo tonight on Fox News Channel is Medical Marijuana stores coming up soon after this first segment. All should watch this show tonight. GLTA here.
Nice balance here holding around .0006 not below .0005, good sign here with all that up/down volume on Friday. Watch next week.
Good luck on getting out on Monday or averaging down some, not good news here. Sell.
CBIS on it's way to the moon, no funds to buy any today, so sad. GLTA here still holding 1 million strong here. Maybe we get some off shoot here with any luck.
Thought you may all be interested in reading this article. Mentions Lehman and Chinese investments.
Special report: China flexed its muscles using U.S. Treasuries
By Emily Flitter Emily Flitter – Thu Feb 17, 10:21 am ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Confidential diplomatic cables from the U.S. embassies in Beijing and Hong Kong lay bare China's growing influence as America's largest creditor.
As the U.S. Federal Reserve grappled with the aftershocks of financial crisis, the Chinese, like many others, suffered huge losses from their investments in American financial firms -- from Lehman Brothers to the Primary Reserve Fund, the money market fund that broke the buck.
The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks, show that escalating Chinese pressure prompted a procession of soothing visits from the U.S.Treasury Department. In one striking instance, a top Chinese money manager directly asked U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for a favor.
In June, 2009, the head of China's powerful sovereign wealth fund met with Geithner and requested that he lean on regulators at the U.S. Federal Reserve to speed up the approval of its $1.2 billion investment in Morgan Stanley, according to the cables, which were provided to Reuters by a third party.
Although the cables do not mention if Geithner took any action, China's deal to buy Morgan Stanley shares was announced the very next day.
The two Treasury officials to whom the cables were addressed, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Asia Robert Dohner and Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Monetary and Financial Policy Mark Sobel, declined through a spokesperson to comment for this story. The State Department also declined to comment.
China is America's biggest foreign lender, playing a crucial role in the U.S.Treasury auctions that allow Washington to borrow what it needs to keep its government running. At the same time, the United States is China's top export destination: America's trade deficit with the nation reached a record $273.1 billion in 2010. Most economists describe the two economies as co-dependent.
The concern in certain influential Washington and Wall Street circles is that Beijing would leverage its position as the main enabler of U.S. overspending. And the cables provide a glimpse into how much politics inform relations between the world's two largest economies.
One cable cites Chinese money managers expressing concern that U.S. arms sales to Taiwan -- a major, longstanding irritant in the relationship -- could sour the Chinese public on Treasury purchases.
The subject of Taiwan came up during an October 9, 2008 meeting the U.S. financial attache's office had with Liu Jiahua, Deputy Director General of China's foreign currency reserve manager, the secretive behemoth known as the State Administration for Foreign Exchange, or SAFE.
"Liu observed that the recent U.S. announcement of another arms sale to Taiwan made it more difficult for the Chinese government to explain its policies supportive of the U.S. to the Chinese public," reads an account of his comments in one of the cables.
The cables also indicate a high level of confidence among the Americans that China can't entirely stop buying U.S. debt, a sentiment shared by most economists who describe the dynamic as a form of mutually assured financial destruction.
But the cables do show that China can and will pull back, with financial repercussions. In the spring of 2009, with U.S.-China financial tensions running especially high, China's Treasury holdings fell to around $764 billion, down from nearly $900 billion. In July, after tensions between the two nations mostly subsided, its holdings rose to a record $940 billion.
During the financial turmoil, the cables show that Beijing also shifted its portfolio away from longer-term Treasury notes, which helped drive up America's long-term borrowing costs.
NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL
The collapse of Lehman had a swift and powerful impact on SAFE. "Several interlocutors have told us that Lehman was a counterparty to SAFE in financial transactions and as a result SAFE suffered large losses when Lehman collapsed," Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing Dan Piccuta wrote in a cable to Washington on March 20, 2009.
The hit to its balance sheet is likely what prompted a Chinese official to tell a U.S. diplomat months earlier that SAFE was afraid to re-enter the U.S. repo market -- that is, it was reluctant to resume lending its short-term Treasuries to counterparties wanting to use them as collateral in cash loans.
On October 9, 2008, officials from the U.S. embassy's office of the financial attache in Beijing met with SAFE Deputy Director General Liu Jiahua. "SAFE is very concerned over the danger involved in lending U.S. Treasuries to U.S. financial institutions in the repurchase agreement market," Liu said.
Liu said SAFE's confidence in U.S. banks had been shaken. SAFE had exited the repo market, which is a way for corporations and financial institutions to borrow overnight.
The cable continues, "Liu remained noncommittal on the possible resumption of lending, but agreed that SAFE had sufficient confidence in those institutions and would consider a system whereby the Federal Reserve or other U.S. government agency would act as a guarantor."
Public opinion clearly rattled China's financial leaders. One cable shows Liu citing an internet discussion forum, saying "the Chinese leadership must pay close attention to public opinion in forming policies."
The U.S. government does not appear to have offered the Chinese a special setup guaranteeing U.S. banks. Instead, the cables show, American diplomats reassured the Chinese by pointing out that Washington had infused banks' balance sheets with $700 billion in fresh capital, effectively propping up the banking system.
FANNIE AND FREDDIE, GUARANTEED OR NOT
China holds hundreds of billions of dollars in debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the housing agencies known as Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.
Like many other investors, it purchased agency debt before the crisis with the expectation that Fannie and Freddie were implicitly backed by the U.S. government.
In September 2008, when the Treasury Department took control of the two GSEs, SAFE officials grew alarmed, the cables show. Suggestions that senior GSE debt holders would have to take a haircut sparked a public outcry in China. The media warned that the government's currency manager faced monstrous losses similar to those suffered earlier by the nation's sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corp., after its investments in U.S. financial institutions blew up.
Media outlets had already heavily criticized the government for CIC's losses -- a Financial Times story circulated by outlets such as China Daily speculated that CIC had lost $80 billion of the government's foreign reserves. In late 2008 Chinese newspapers routinely ran headlines with the words "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac" spelled out in English.
To defuse the situation, the Treasury Department sent Undersecretary for International Affairs David McCormick to Beijing for two days in October 2008. The gesture went over well.
"All of Undersecretary McCormick's counterparts appeared to appreciate his willingness to come to Beijing in the midst of a financial crisis," Piccuta wrote in a cable dated October 29, 2008. "Interlocutors stressed that unless leaders' concerns about the viability of banks and U.S. government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are assuaged, lower-level officials will be constrained from taking on greater counter-party risks."
The cables show McCormick trying to reassure the Chinese. "In each meeting, Undersecretary McCormick emphasized that even though the U.S. government did not explicitly guarantee GSE debt, it effectively did so by committing to inject up to $100 billion of equity in each institution to avoid insolvency and that this contractual commitment would remain for the life of these institutions," Piccuta wrote.
PACIFIC RIFT
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced a program to buy agency mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries in early 2009 to help flood the financial system with liquidity and stop Treasury yields from rising. But at first the purchases had very little impact on yields, which climbed steadily while the Treasury Department's auctions of new debt wobbled.
In China, top officials began publicly criticizing the inflationary side-effects of the Fed's program. They said the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet would devalue their Treasury holdings -- and indeed, the Chinese public watched as Treasury yields rose and the older debt the Chinese had sank in value.
On March 13, 2009, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said at a press conference he was "concerned" about the security of China's investments in U.S. Treasuries. The March 20 cable, titled "Premier Wen's comments on U.S. Treasuries: Protect China's investments," documents a score of Chinese officials discussing their worries about U.S. Treasuries and the potential consequences of their uncertainty.
One economist at Caijing Magazine, which diplomats described as a "respected" Chinese outlet, told U.S. officials in late February "there has been a 'huge debate' within the government about China's holdings of U.S. Treasuries."
According to the cable, the Chinese economist told U.S. embassy officials that "SAFE has been shifting its portfolio toward shorter-term assets to reduce the risk of capital losses from higher inflation."
That information dovetailed with data, released many months later, showing the Chinese had indeed sold longer-dated Treasuries and bought more T-bills, which surged to $210 billion by May 2009. The move likely contributed to the rise in long-term yields.
GEITHNER IN BEIJING
Tensions remained high during Geithner's visit to China -- his first as Treasury Secretary -- on June 1 and 2, 2009.
Geithner, who has lived in China and other parts of Asia and holds a master's in East Asian studies, met with top Chinese officials, including the head of CIC, China's $200 billion sovereign wealth fund, and the ministers of finance and commerce.
The trip had been scheduled for months with a predictable agenda, but the meetings were full of spontaneous discussion and frank complaints from the Chinese, the cables reveal.
Xie Xuren, China's minister of finance, met with Geithner on June 1 and "expressed concern about the potential for inflation and the long-term sustainability of U.S. budget deficits," according to a cable detailing Geithner's visit, dated June 17, 2009.
The next day, June 2, CIC Chairman Lou Jiwei confided in Geithner that his fund had halted all new investments in 2008 after the financial crisis broke out, but had since scoped out a new stake in Morgan Stanley, the U.S. investment bank.
At the time of Geithner's visit, Morgan Stanley was planning a new share issue to raise funds to repay the government for the money it received during the financial crisis.
"Lou asked if it would be possible for the Fed to expedite approval of CIC's request that this investment be exempted from restrictions on investment by bank holding companies, as the customary two-week process for considering such exemption requests is too long to allow CIC to take advantage of this opportunity," according to the cable.
There's no record in the cable of how Geithner responded, but it was only a day later, on June 3, that CIC announced plans to purchase $1.2 billion in Morgan Stanley shares.
A spokesperson for the Fed said in the instance of the June 3 CIC investment, no application for an exemption was made to the Federal Reserve Board.
(Additional reporting by Kristina Cooke and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Jim Impoco and Claudia Parsons)
From Who or whom are they buying it from. What idiot would be selling a gold mine today????????? Does not make sense and methinks it is not a true PR. JMHO.
But of course they did, so we are the long lost step child in this mess. Turn back the clock Judge and you will have done you're job and upheld real justice here. You ain't got the guts to do it though.
Did all banks then file for bankrupcy protection?
Can the Honorable Judge rule that this bankrupcy should have never occurred based on all the information she has seen and heard to date? She knows it was a viable concern/company, not in any trouble, she knows it had value and assets exceeded it's purchase steal price, she knows now all the manipulation that occurred at that time. What is it here that would not lend itself to her reversing the terms of the filing and making the FDIC and/or JPM redo this mess from the start? What is it compels this procedure to move forward when everyone with brain knows what occurred and the TARP funds one week later that would have sustained (if the WAMU bank even needed it) this concern to continue to do business. Could it be that she would be declaring that the FDIC made a mistake in it's estimates based on JPM data? Could it be that she cannot make such a ruling because that is the law, and the law does not provide her an out to say that this should have never occurrred? I still am at square one here and we should not be where we all are today. Sorry group but that is my feeling legality's be damned.
So with your method of thinking cheaper is better for Walmart. But if I wanted to make more money and I'm Walmart I would love to continue to sell all these HP and other cartridges for big profits instead on one kit and one time profit, then your done. JMHO.
I'm with you the first order of business should be who took it over or stole it from the company in the first place. They ask us all to believe that is was insolvent and they had to save society and that argument has been proven to be inaccurate. To me that puts us back to the very first question, Why the Takover had to occur and so quickly. Very different question than where we are because there would be no bankrupcy case to begin with. But in order to protect assets they were forced to file it this way to avoid further losses is my guess here. But now we all know that the country would have survived and/or WAMU would have received their fair share of TARP monies, so lets go back to find out why this occurred. To me that is the glaring question and the only answer I have come up with is that the Federal Government wanted Jamie Dimon and JPM to own WAMU for they had no presence on the West Coast this gave them instant access and at a bargain to boot. I am with you BigBang lets get back to the basics that started this small snowball now a giant iceburg down the slippery slope. GLTA here.
Can anyone tell me the advantage for Wal Mart to have this in their stores? To me if I am Wal Mart I want folks to keep coming back paying and buying the HP and Kodak and other cartridges every month or whatever instead of a one time purchase and no more return customers to buy ink at higher values where Wal Mart makes more money. Not sure they would do this based on economics and the way Wal Mart likes to make cash.
Also on another note here another down side to this is if a company has multiple locations around the country they need only buy this once then get free ink for all their other divisions eliminating the need for the other divisions to buy their own units here. Not sure this is a great idea for LKEN. Once purchased if you do get free ink for life then big companies could make a killing just buying one unit. GLTA here, I do own shares so not bashing just making observations about this product and it's potential or not.
Rite Aid in my Wal Mart scenario above is not really a big pusher of other companies ink cartridges so that makes sense to me for them to use this product and sell it. Bigger news such as deals with HP and Lexmark are huge here and can change this value really quick if true.
I am in talks with myself and I will have some kind of news on Monday to tell myself. This is not an advisement to invest in me and my thoughts but I just thought you may all want to know what is or is not happening as far as I am concerned. GLTA here and Go LKEN, I hope you get something going here soon. UP then Down then UP then down I just realized something this is the stock market and things do go up and down a tad.
With this contract posting will dispell all rumors being talked about here. Good job Triton, Up from here folks. Buy time.
I do believe you're school was correct in this regards.
During the internet boom in the 90's to 2000 more millionaires were made in penny stocks than any other exchange. My friend in the 90's almost bought Yahoo stock at .02 cents and did not because it doubled overnight to .04 cents so he thought he missed the boat then. I will never ever repeat his mistake.
If I read this number correctly from the Details on the available shares in the Ibox then we own about 34% of the Float here. Anyone? Verify?
Even 1 million shares here for myself, GLTA here, thanks folks.
Like to see the JPM numbers for 2008 years ending or 2007 for comparison.
U.S. Treasury WAMU Takeover was a mistake, I will complete this sentence. "That caused thousands of decent shareholders of this great company to suffer financial losses from their investment in this 100 year old company. The U.S. Treasury suggests that a full investigation into the FDIC and JPM relationship prior to this unwarranted takeover to see if criminal charges should be filed and the shareholders holding the bag made whole from their investement only to have wealthier companies take advantage of their losses to line their own pockets in the process". JMHO.
I'll sit tight until retreats back to .03-.04 then buy in. GLTA here, if it don't then so be it.
Buys v. sells anyone todays action?
No one panicking here I know of except shorties, I'm long here still, nice movement today and yes we have seen it all before. GLTA here. My luck if I sold in the .009 today it would have jumped to .05 so I held. Scared money.
Still holding 1 million shares here. Not going anywhere until we see da moon up close. eom.