Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Black Sunday

Rate this topic


Rearden_Steel

Recommended Posts

Well......

Lehman Brothers..... Gone

AIG .... Almost gone

Washington Mutual.... Teetering

Merrill Lynch.....Rescued by BoA

This was quite the weekend. We’ve seen buyouts and bankruptcies in what many are calling "the biggest financial story of the past half century." When all the dust has settled there was only two remaining independent Wall Street investment banks left !!!

Now is the time for crisis and opportunity or what I like to call “Crisitunity”! On the one hand what a time to buy!! To qoute Warren Buffett:

"I will tell you how to become rich. … Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful. The most common cause of low prices is pessimism -- sometimes pervasive, sometimes specific to a company or industry. We want to do business in such an environment, not because we like pessimism but because we like the prices it produces. It's optimism that is the enemy of the rational buyer." Not to mention the government finally let these lame duck banks go down. The market badly needed to clean some bats out of the attic.

On the other hand everybody in the press and on wall street at screaming for regulation. All over the press people are saying this is the result of the failure of the free market and lack of oversight. We just cleaned our slate and already these morons are preparing for the next recession. These next few months are going to be very critical. There is another post asking if the ARI is effective; now is the time to see if they are worth their salt. I curious to see what press reports they release and if they can get noticed. Capitalism and free markets are going to need every one of its allies in the coming weeks.

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was quite the weekend.
In a sense, in a small way, it was a good weekend from the point of view of the economy as a whole. As long as we have a mixed economy, we'll typically have these market cycles:

  • government helps people evade reality in the short term
  • the medium term arrives, and reality looms
  • government applies more evasion-aid, but selectively, letting some lose while protecting others
  • taxpayers are left with the long-term costs, which becomes the new reality

We're in the third stages and the question is: to what extent will the government allow reality to bite? Since Lehman was allowed to go bankrupt, there is hope that the government is willing to draw some line somewhere. That is good news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bank failures are bad things because when a bank fails, the money it loans out disappears from the system entirely, and it creates a massive domino effect affecting every bank and every person with money in a bank. Lehman's wasn't in retail banking, so the problem can be avoided I think.

I'd love to be in charge of a large financial institution right now for the same reason Buffet was talking about. It's a great time to buy out all of your competitors. Plus, it's an oversimplification but any financial ship I ran would be 100% aware and wary of jumping on bandwagons like the real estate one everyone jumped on.

As far as I'm concerned, the verdict is still up in the air if the failure here was a failure purely because of management or purely because of market conditions. Naturally, the employees don't seem to happy about it.

I guess we have to wait til the SEC releases the reports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? This is not the case.

Look up "fractional reserve banking".

Anyways, we know where our presidental candidates stand on the issue...

Sept. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Republican presidential nominee John McCain lashed out at ``reckless'' investments by Wall Street as his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, tied the crisis in U.S. financial markets to policies McCain supports.

McCain struck a strongly populist tone, blaming greed and corruption for putting American workers and the economy at risk.

``Too many people on Wall Street have been recklessly wagering instead of making the sound investments we expected of them,'' McCain told a crowd today in Tampa, Florida. ``If I am president, we are not going to tolerate that anymore.''

In Golden, Colorado, Obama said McCain's ``newfound support for regulation'' belied a record of backing deregulation and support for the economic philosophy of President George W. Bush's administration.

``Make no mistake: My opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance,'' Obama said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look up "fractional reserve banking".

Yeah, try a basic corporate finance course.

A bank failure through Chapter 11 doesn't unwind the asset base of a bank. It restructures the debt positions to appropriately value the assets. The balance sheet remains. It doesn't evaporate, but it will get discounted.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a sense, in a small way, it was a good weekend from the point of view of the economy as a whole. As long as we have a mixed economy, we'll typically have these market cycles:

  • government helps people evade reality in the short term
  • the medium term arrives, and reality looms
  • government applies more evasion-aid, but selectively, letting some lose while protecting others
  • taxpayers are left with the long-term costs, which becomes the new reality

We're in the third stages and the question is: to what extent will the government allow reality to bite? Since Lehman was allowed to go bankrupt, there is hope that the government is willing to draw some line somewhere. That is good news.

In school, they teach us that this is and the business cycle are both unavoidable and unchangeable part of life and that we must just try to soften the effects via government as there is no other solution. Have they always taught that?

You will be hearing the cry:

"It's the free market's fault! Capitalism's fault! Greed caused this!"

I will be more towards the wall of my bedroom, bruising my skull on the wall. Something of this nature: banghead.gif

Yeah, I heard it today on the bus ride home (the greed part). My face got all red and I nearly jumped out of my seat as I turned around and then tried to calmly explain to the kid that loaning people tons of money that can't pay back is NOT greed, and sending your bank into a tailspin and having an economic collapse is NOT greedy.

Edited by Devils_Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will this stop? Wonder who gets nationalized next: GE? Goldman? GMAC?

Yep...looks like a nationalization to me:

The Fed said in return for the loan, the government will receive a 79.9 percent equity stake in AIG.

I guess they wouldn't call it a nationalization for several reasons: The didn't go in with force to take over the company -- as in Venezuela; they gave them money for it; and they didn't do the whole 100% of the stock.

But, if the government takes over a business, I would call it a nationalization.

And I'm sure none of them will be run for a profit -- which means more taxes will be poured into it.

It may have started with the Clinton Administration forcing them to accept loans that could not be supported, but instead of reversing that law, Bush nationalizes the companies the government led to the breaking point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will this stop? Wonder who gets nationalized next: GE? Goldman? GMAC?

The irony is that since the Fed is a private bank, they get any future AIG profits from their 80% stake, while taxpayers cover the losses. Bernanke is laughing all the way to the bank today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahem...

-- Barclays Plc, the U.K.'s third- biggest bank, will acquire the North American investment-banking business of bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. for $1.75 billion, two days after abandoning plans to buy the entire firm.

Not the same guys. Read closer.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is the parent company that went bust. The investment-banking business is a child company of it.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they wouldn't call it a nationalization for several reasons: The didn't go in with force to take over the company -- as in Venezuela; they gave them money for it; and they didn't do the whole 100% of the stock.

I've looked up the term "nationalization" to see if there is some rationalization to bring news reporters from not calling it a nationalization.

From businessdictionary.com:Takeover of privately owned corporations, industries, and resources by a government with or without compensation.

From dictionary.die.net: changing something from private to state ownership or

control [syn: nationalisation] [ant: denationalization]

From wordreference.com: changing something from private to state ownership or control

While none of these reference sources says that to nationalization the government must take over, say, something like 85% of the assets and control, some such websites have said that it is not a bad thing if the government compensates the owners with money. I disagree with this, as I think the government running a business will lead to more and more controls favoring the government entity (perhaps even monopoly). In short, given my brief research, I don't see why they are being called bail-outs instead of nationalization, except, perhaps, to save face for the Bush administration, which is supposedly anti-big government....yeah, right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, try a basic corporate finance course.

A bank failure through Chapter 11 doesn't unwind the asset base of a bank. It restructures the debt positions to appropriately value the assets. The balance sheet remains. It doesn't evaporate, but it will get discounted.

What about people in retirement whose pensions depended on the value of those banks' stocks. They suddenly have no pension. Shouldn't they somehow be compensated? Or are pensions based solely on stocks a risky endeavor in general? Aren't most teachers' pensions that way?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about people in retirement whose pensions depended on the value of those banks' stocks. They suddenly have no pension. Shouldn't they somehow be compensated? Or are pensions based solely on stocks a risky endeavor in general? Aren't most teachers' pensions that way?

Pension funds don't work that way. A pension fund is a like a big mutual fund. It's manager manage a portion of their assets to have to provide yields today, and some for longer term return. THey are a diversified portfolio and as such, the worst you can say is that the fund isn't doing well due to the general downturn in the economy.

And no, pension holders are equity holders just like anyone else. A pension as such isn't a guaranteed annuity. It carries with it the risk of default just like any other. You aren't entitled to your pension risk free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about people in retirement whose pensions depended on the value of those banks' stocks.
Or what about people not in retirement whose vacation plans depend on the value of those bank stocks. They suddenly have no vacation. They deserve the same compensation. None. You have to know that all investments (where "all" means "each and every, all") have a risk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about people in retirement whose pensions depended on the value of those banks' stocks. They suddenly have no pension. Shouldn't they somehow be compensated? Or are pensions based solely on stocks a risky endeavor in general? Aren't most teachers' pensions that way?

These kinds of crises are why it's prudent to diversify your investments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pension funds don't work that way. A pension fund is a like a big mutual fund. It's manager manage a portion of their assets to have to provide yields today, and some for longer term return. THey are a diversified portfolio and as such, the worst you can say is that the fund isn't doing well due to the general downturn in the economy.

And no, pension holders are equity holders just like anyone else. A pension as such isn't a guaranteed annuity. It carries with it the risk of default just like any other. You aren't entitled to your pension risk free.

I was reacting to a coworker who said the government bailing out AIG was a good thing, because his mother in law is in retirement on a teachers' pension, and that those pensions get their money through AIG, and if AIG failed, those pensions would disappear. Is that not accurate?

He also mentioned another relative whose pension disappeared when a company/bank failed. Does this happen in general - pensions resting on the fate of single companies/banks, or is a massive downturn of the market necessary for this to occur?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...