Naked Shorts and Malignant Narcissism

A thoughtful and creative diary about the instabilities that emerge when the market is based on credit lines. Promoted by Specter

Our hero, Narcissis, was so taken with his own self image as an elite invester that he could not turn away. It would be his nemesis. He was making money in an unregulated hedge fund market. The scenario for profit was so tantalizingly and unimaginably beautiful, hedging complex market bets so you never lose, with naked shorts, imaginary IOU's for stocks that you bet will lose money, then sell without actually owning them and made a tidy profit. The final fantasy of all gambling men, making money at the craps game by betting on the loss. Narcissus was intoxicated, imagining the wealth created by this ultimate and sophisticated market fantasy, he could not stop himself from making money and falling in love with his own cleverness at playing the system. It was a beautiful scheme that would not stop staring him in the face.

He wore the snappiest suits, and was the much sought after hero of investment world, the hedge funder who fell in love with gaining on losing. He was celebrated by the richest of the rich who found a way to make money with virtual iou's. Many a University student swoons at the lure of becoming the ultimate winner, a financial engineer. Old fashioned engineering, building things you can touch, is much less appealing. There is much more money to be made in paperless bets and virtual ious. Yet at what cost?

Hedge funds, have become so enormously attractive because they take money off each end of transaction, win or lose you get a tasty piece of pie. It seems like such an incredible dream. And these virtual transactions, have been wholly unregulated. An attempt was made to regulate the mangers in 2005, but it was filled with loopholes. It is a craps game that is fueling speculation of an economic downturn in liquidity for capital investiments.

Pension funds and institutional investors began to look to hedge funds to beat benchmarks. The number of hedge funds worldwide has increased from approximately 600 funds with $38 billion in assets in 1990 to more than 8000 funds with $1 trillion in assets in 2004.

Consider the case of Bear Stearns: Their hilarious hedge holes -- the CDO-heavy High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund and its sister, High-Grade Structured Credit Fund -- cratered in early June, going from about $10 billion to a few hundred million in assets within a matter of months, even though the hedge fund itself had been barely up and running for more than 10 months.

You can play both sides against the middle -- the middle class, come to think of it -- and still win. Huge. So it was no surprise when the Wall Street investment titan decided to bail out its own hedge fund, to which it had committed only around $35 million, with over $3 billion and counting. As Bear Stearns Chief Financial Officer Sam Molinaro explained in a conference call, "There continues to be significant value in it."

Narcissus was pleased with his take of the profits.

What I find most ironic is the narrative by some on the hard right suggesting that liberals are the ones suffering from maligant narcisism.

Painted as self obsessed, the hard right claims the left's, attempt's to look out for the lesser among us is the heigth of selfishness. Unable to separate from reality, the claim contends that an affront on equal rights is seen as a sign of trifling self absorbtion. A mention of race is seen as blatant racism. The mention of promoting access to equal opportunity is seen as a selfish plot to promote a populist take over and the beginning of a new era of socialism. These talkers decry compassion and tout self interest. They mock human suffering and pledge only selfishness will save society at large. They hedge their bets that any talk of regulation can be dismissed as the hysterical self centered paranoid left, thinking that because mafia style investment execs have created a vapor lock where we find debt for jaguars and sprawling mansions.

The markets Thursday and Friday wiped out $526.1 billion in shareholder wealth from the stocks in the Standard & Poor's 500 index, largely due to crediters taking too much risk, in unregulated markets. There are more IOU's in the banks then there is money to back them due to the upward spiraling of the home market values that was driven by essentially easy access to credit. Bankers were recently forced to ease up on the 12 billion dollar loan to help Chrysler due to soft invester demand. A severe wake up call to crediters.

The Glass Steagal Act of 1933, a response to the crash of 1929, mandated a separation of collusion between investment bankers. Sixty Six years later, in 1999, it was repealed by none other than Bill Clinton. Nice shorts Bill.

Is the mirror of boundless greed, from which Narcissus can not avert his eyes beginning to crack?

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I've engaged in 'naked shorts' dozens of times before

I take a lot of risks with money.  I've played hundreds of thousands of hands of poker.  I've had downswings of thousands of dollars.  I've traded stocks on margin.  I lost a large percenage of my modest net worth on 9/11 due to positions in highly speculative stocks on margin.  

I see no conflict between taking risks with money and also being for equal access to opportunity and looking out for the disadvantaged and those who are suffering.  One of my problems with most populists is that they see the financial markets as boogeymen-- conjuring up hedge funds as boogeymen, private equity as boogeymen, lenders as boogeymen, even Bill Clinton as a boogeyman..  Fact is, the emergence of modern financial markets has coincided historically with unprecedented increases in worldwide standard of living, increases in lifespans, and decrease in human suffering.  At the very least, it has been proven that modern finance and human progress are not mutually exclusive. 

There is no doubt that there are (and always have been) institutions who have taken unwise risks with money, just as there have always been individuals who have taken unwise risks with money.  I'm sympathetic to the calls for improvements in various areas, but I don't advocate throwing out babies with bathwater.  

And by the way, Bill Clinton did more to expand opportunity and lessen poverty and human suffering than you and I ever will be able to do.  The stats on crime, employment, income, and poverty under his administration speak for themselves.

…………

Appreciate the perspective

At the recent high power Aspen conferance, the big dogs on the stage were all discussing the economy, and chuckling about the hedge funders. I thought it was interesting that there was little division between the so called liberals and conservatives. They all seemed to be on the same basic page.

I don't advocate throwing out any babies either. In '05 Congress tried to get at least the Managers of these Funds to be held to some standards for how to measure hedge funds, saying part of the problem is these deals inject essentially false information into the market.

Returning to the discussion before us, what is the consequence of this growth in hedge funds but continuing lack of information about these products? I would suggest that the result is twofold. First, there may be too much liquidity chasing too few deals (a sentiment recently echoed by Alan Greenspan) and second, there may be too much uniformed or insufficiently informed investor money at risk.

Isn't this what just happened in the subprime lending market. The brokers who sold these loans, knowing full well their customers would be unlikely to pay them back. Pretty unscrupulous.

The recent woes in the sub-prime market speak to a boogey man somewhere. Here is a noted conservative lamenting the problems in the housing market, with an appeal to populism...... or as I like to say a call for ethics.

Good People, Bad Loans, No Ethics

Ethics say that maybe you shouldn't take the liquidity in a pension fund, and hedge your bets with naked shorts. The men and women that worked and put their hard earned money into retirement funds deserve better than a money manager that is willing to take such unethical risks with someone's retirement security.

As you mention there has always been a tension between institutions that take unwise risks with money and those 'populists' that stand on their soap boxes and rally the people to call for standards.

You are a high risk player if you have done the naked shorts AND played online poker!! Again, I appreciate the perspective.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

There are standards

The men and women that worked and put their hard earned money into retirement funds deserve better than a money manager that is willing to take such unethical risks with someone's retirement security.

As you mention there has always been a tension between institutions that take unwise risks with money and those 'populists' that stand on their soap boxes and rally the people to call for standards.

I get the impression that you perhaps believe there are no standards that protect people's retirement funds, and that you feel that people need to call for standards. But there are standards, and protections, in place already for retirement investments, especially those made through one's employer.

First, there is the idea of fiduciary responsibility. The fiduciary for the employer's retirement plan ("the plan") is under legal and enforceable obligation to ensure that investments are made prudently. The Department of Labor enforces this standard and takes enforcement very seriously; you, MissL, would be pleased if you knew how much zeal they apply on behalf of the employee. A DOL audit is the absolute fear of any employer; a DOL audit makes an IRS or State audit look like a walk in the park.

Second, there are several laws already on the books that describe (1) the types of investments that must be made available within the plan, and (2) what education must be provided to the employees with relation to those investments.

Are the laws perfect? No. But I get the impression that you think they are non-existent, and I must assure you, they are not. Are hedge funds risky? Sure. But in the market, risks are measured and managed as well as they can be within the very nature of the market itself. Those who wish to avoid as much risk as possible in their retirement plans can do so very easily under current law.

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran

………… parent

I am a bit skeptical

in light of these kinds of events.

This is from Senator Grassly a strong conservative.

"Like Enron, workers' lives and retirements have been ruined," Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said last week. "But unfortunately, this time it's perfectly legal."

warning that a wider crisis will loom if the nation's pension security laws are not revised.

More than 20 other companies have defaulted on pension funds of more than $100 million in the past three years, and last week, executives of troubled Delta and Northwest airlines said they may be next. Miller has proposed a six-month moratorium on defaults, as Congress debates how to fix what many lawmakers call "broken" pension protection laws.

The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. (PBGC), the federal insurance program that faces its own solvency crisis and is to take over the United pensions

Toll of Pension Default

I hope you are right, that my pensions is safe, but if you read the link I provided, there is referance to hedge fund managers using the liquidity in pension funds, which could put them at risk.

If a company like United Airlines, that went bankrupt, defaults on their pension, then the US tax payer picks up the tab. The bankruptcy allowed then to default on their pensions.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

DB vs DC

The defaults referred to in these types of notices are for the older style Defined Benefit (DB) plans. Historically, the PBGC has charged too low a premium for its reinsurance of these plans, and actuaries have used too high a rate of return estimates in their funding calculations. Unions have also demanded too high a benefit formula.

DB plans have been dying for 20 years and were really only popular for the largest corporations. Most pension plans (and yours, probably) are Defined Contribution plans (DC) which are a completely different thing from what is being referred to here.

Even if a DB plan goes belly up, the DOL steps in to ensure the assets are distributed in as fair a manner a possible. They fight for the employee, whether you want to believe that or not. And they fight hard.

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran

………… parent

Sounds like you are familiar

with all this stuff.

I take comfort in your words.

So what about union pensions, like Teamsters and Carpenters Unions. Does the DOL (don't know what that is) fight for the employee pensions here also.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

DOL = Department of Labor

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Union Pensions

Union pensions are much more complex, especially the multi-state unions such as the Teamsters. But basically, the unions and the employers negotiate the terms, just like they do for other aspects of the employment relationship

The DOL is the Department of Labor, the governmental agency charged with ensuring all federal labor laws are followed. Employer-sponsored pension benefits fall under their jurisdiction. Every time Congress passes some form of employer pension law, at least two and sometimes three governmental agencies are charged with writing the detailed regulations that explain exactly how that law is to be applied in the real world: one is the IRS (because there are significant income tax impacts for employer-sponsored pensions), the other is the Department of Labor (for the labor and employee relations aspects) and sometimes the Social Security Administration gets to create regulations as well if the new law affects payroll taxes (which many do now, especially union and municipal plans that act as social security replacement plans).

To top it all off, most defined contribution plans are invested in quasi-securities/quasi-insurance type of funding vehicles, so the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) provides their own set of rules and regulations at the federal level, and each State adds their own under their own State insurance regulations.

So for a given employer-sponsored retirement plan, there can be up to four federal and 50 state regulatory bodies imposing complex rules and standards today. Add in the Union if it is a unionized employer.

I agree that the Defined Benefit plans of some large companies are in trouble for very specific reasons that can be summarized as the "rose colored glasses" affect. But DB plans are dinosaurs and most pension assets are in DC plans now. And those DC plans are very heavily regulated and standardized by the governmental agencies I've listed in this comment.

I spent my entire Corporate America career in financial services, focusing mainly on employer-sponsored pension plans, designing systems and processes that ensured these regulations were followed.

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran

………… parent

Cool

You are the go to guy for pension questions. Sounds like there are plenty of regulatory safeguards..... :+)

But this is the kind of stuff that makes me nervous.

From a speech given by the SEC commissioner in 05.

This of course has raised the question of whether such short-time investors should be entitled to shareholder rights in outright conflict with long-term investors. We also have seen hedge funds combining their involvement in both the capital and the corporate arena. Just last month, Citadel purchased a 10% ownership right in the Philadelphia stock exchange and signed a 10-year contract with Accenture to manage large quantities of trading data.

Hedge funds are not required to report periodic audited returns but only information as they desire.

With the increased leveraging exhibited by many funds today and the mediocre performance results, Mr. Lo suggests another crisis is likely. His ultimate parade of terribles is a series of collapses of highly leveraged hedge funds that bring down the major banks or brokerage firms that lend to them. Based on these predictions, I would suggest that investors are entitled to more information about hedge funds sooner rather than later.

And this last little piece is the mention of the pensions.

The trends uncovered during the staff's analysis of hedge funds raise the same concerns worldwide about the risk associated with these funds, including the rapid growth of an opaque industry of which no government agency has reliable data, the potential for systemic risk to the markets due to hedge funds influence, broader investor exposure (both retail and pension/retirement fund), their fee structure, the absence of uniform performance reporting and valuation - not to mention disclosure and transparency generally, and the growth in hedge fund fraud. If the regulator can't tell what's going on in the industry, how is the investor supposed to do so?

Hedge funds, banks, retirement funds and pensions were all thrown in the picture here.

I am not sure when or if you retired, but the rules seemed to loosen up considerably in the last six years.

So it isn't like it is just nothing. There is something to this. And we can see the results of it in the wild swings of the stock market, and the slump in the housing market.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

asdf

To understand what they are talking about, you have to keep separate the idea of the "the plan" (in our example, a pension plan) and the "investment vehicle" (for example, a hedge fund). They are two distinct things.

A pension plan can successfully exist without a hedge fund; it could be entirely invested in government bonds, for example. The return would be lousy and employees would complain, but it would be safe and risk-free.

A hedge fund can exist without affecting any pension plan. The investors in that fund might all be wealthy individuals.

They are two different things.

As he mentions in the link, some large pension plans (DB plans), seeking higher returns, choose to invest a portion of their assets in hedge funds. If you are a large pension plan with several tens of millions to invest, some portion of that will normally be invested in riskier investments because that is where the higher rates of return are. From your POV, you should be glad of this, because a higher return means a healthier and wealthier plan, one that is better able to meet its obligations.

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran

………… parent

Okay!

From my pov I am glad that they are trying to make money with my pension funds. I want my plan to meet it's obligations.

I acknowledge your point.

I think you should at least acknowledge mine. That a money manager operating in the hedge funds markets that is not responsible to anyone or any kind of measurement standard AT ALL, including transparency, accounting, audits, data measurement, is at the bare minimum a very high risk proposition.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Sorry, cannot

That a money manager operating in the hedge funds markets that is not responsible to anyone or any kind of measurement standard AT ALL, including transparency, accounting, audits, data measurement, is at the bare minimum a very high risk proposition.

I cannot agree with this statement because I do not believe it is entirely accurate.

The money manager operating the hedge fund IS responsible to others and must comply with some standards for data measurement, accounting, etc: his boss's standards. Now those standards may be incomplete, may vary widely from company to company, and our federal rules and standards for oversight may not be where they should be, but I think it is a fallacy to say that there are zero standards.

I hear where you are coming from and agree that federal regulations need to be updated for this newest type of investment fund.

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran

………… parent

Just curious

Would you be willing to put 50% of your assests in a hedge fund that bet on naked shorts....

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Why is that relevant?

(And the naked shorts imagery, that's soo bad it makes me smile)

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran

………… parent

It's relevant

it's a matter of trust.

Would you trust a hedge fund to manage 50% of your assests, since you say I shouldn't mind if they mess with my pension paln.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

I wouldn't trust any individual to manage 50% of my assets

even the great ones on Wall Street. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider Hedge fund as an allocation. Hedge funds (for those who incorporate them in pensions and endowments) usually (and I'm willing to guess 99.9% of the time) only make up about 5-10% of assets.

It's not that it's insignificant that 5-10% of your assets are going down, but one of the first rules of fiduciary duty is to diversify client assets. While one investment is zigging, another should be zagging. This approach allows investors to maintain higher returns while reducing risk.

Having 50% of assets in a hedge fund is not diversification (which is why he's asking relevance). No investment would or should stand up to your test of worthiness.

………… parent

That wasn't the point of my question

It was more a matter of trusting folks who have no accurate data on their workings. (See details in article and responses)

I take your narrow and obvious point.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Ahh...

I didn't think I could conclude it would be "narrow and obvious" given your other posts.

………… parent

Can I just say regretably

that I was more right than I wanted to be.

The situation was bad, but I didn't think it was bad enough to cause a global meltdown and a seizing up of the banks.

The leveraged risk of the credit default swaps is said to be 63 Trillion dollars. The hedge funders trying to recover their capital are the main cause of the recent cliff the stock market has fallen off of.

if anyone mentioned regulating these black cesspolls of investment, the investment banking lobbiests shrieked and howled and kicked and screamed that regulations would ruin the markets. And too many were willing to look the other way cause they were getting filthy rich.

It's hard to stomach that for a long time to come, myself and others who took no part in this, will have to pay for this reckless and immoral behavior.

We are put in a position that for the greater good we have to bail out these vultures that hijacked the global economy with their malignant gluttony that has created a cancer in the world markets.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Feeling goofy...

You are a high risk player if you have done the naked shorts AND played online poker!!

I lost my shorts playing naked online poker.

Sorry.. the root canal drugs haven't worn off yet, and, just like Steve Martin said when he put baloney in his shoes:

"I feel funny."

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein

………… parent

Irresistable word play

The opportunities are too good to pass up. Like the Bush colonoscopy. Getting your head checked.....!

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

The Ralph Peters article you

The Ralph Peters article you linked to lost me here:

So here's my simple proposal: Pass a law that makes the lending officer who approves a mortgage personally liable for a $ 10,000 fine if the borrower defaults within five years. In plain English, if you set folks up to fail, you pay.

Brokers have the responsibility of honestly representing their product. If a broker misrepresents their product, they have committed fraud, and can be prosecuted under existing fraud laws, as well as any other laws covering the mortgage industry. Why then should a broker be responsible for customer defaults? The fact is, customers routinely misrepresent their own financial situation when applying for mortgages. Where's the $10000 fine for consumers when they default on their loan?

And then there's the funds that bought up all these bundled loans. And the pension funds and the insurance companies and the investors that bought into these funds-- well, they each simply made bad investments. And they lost money. That's the way the cookie crumbles. People have been warning of a housing bubble for years, and it's been known that people were buying increasingly expensive houses with no money down, even interest-only ARMs for years, while wages have not increased much. Myself, I've felt for many years that something like this has been positively inevitable. This is not the result of some massive fraud-- those who are getting their clocks cleaned now by widespread loan defaults have simply ignored the readily available evidence that the homebuyer has been stretched thinner and thinner.

The subprime mess in my mind is a total failure of both the lender and the consumer to adequately recognize risk; it is less of a failure of law and more of a failure of culture. Our culture ignories history; assumes a minimum level of personal prosperity and standard of living regardless of personal financial realities; views credit and cash in hand virtually the same; equates irresponsible spending with generosity and living life to the fullest while viewing saving as miserly penny-pinching; sees excess material goodies as essential to happiness; and therefore is overly suseptible to clever advertising and marketing that plays into rampant class envy.

Every defaulting homebuyer had a choice to rent or live with family and friends and save for a downpayment, or perhaps buy a less expensive house. Every single one of them.

The fault, dear homebuyers, is not in our laws, but in our selves.

Like many things, I feel the remedy is better education, and a return of emphasis to the basics of reading, writing, and 'rithmentic, coupled with stronger emphasis on history, economics, and civics later on. Laws on the subprime industry can and will be tweaked in our current environment where lawmakers rush to pile attention and effort on each crisis after the horse has already left the barn, but new law won't cure stupidity and laziness.

………… parent

Yes

mostly agree.

What bugs me is the lack of accountability by the subprime lenders who sold the loans, to other lenders who sold the loans to other lenders, until it is a viscious circle of untouchable corruption.

The optimistic selfishiness of wanting to make a buck, and wanting to own a home.

There are documented cases where a few extra papers were slipped in at closing. So you signed it in your eagerness to not have to unpack your house you packed up and your eagerness to move into a new home. There is no legal remedy for that. Were the people stupid. I guess they could bring a lawyer to the signing. Were the sub lenders stupid. NO they are the ones that made out the best. They made the money without any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Suze Orman would be happy if they taught basic living economics in highschool. It's a survival skill.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Were the sub lenders stupid.

Were the sub lenders stupid. NO they are the ones that made out the best. They made the money without any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

I'd have to dispute that the subprime lenders have made out well.  Dozens of companies have been forced into bankruptcy, turning executive's shares of stock into worthless scraps of paper.  There are various criminal probes.  Executives are being hauled in front of unsmiling Congressional committees.  That doesn't seem like fun times to me.

And the bankruptcies are due to the fact that in the end, the subprime lenders were by and large held responsible for the consequences of their actions.  When other institutions bought up the subprime lenders loans, the buyers of those loans included clauses that requied the subprime lenders to buy back large numbers of loans if too many loans were non-perfroming.  The bankruptcies were caused by the subprime lenders' failure to have enough cash to buy back their loans when these clauses were invoked.  It's not as if the subprime lenders made loans, sold them off in secondary markets, and were able to wash their hands of all responsibility for the performance of the loans.

The reality is, it's very hard to find any winners in the subprime mess.  The homebuyers are defaulting on their mortgages and losing their homes and going bankrupt; the subprime lenders are going bankrupt; and when the subprime lenders go bankrupt, the secondary market is getting stuck with the bad loans.  There will be winners eventually, probably speculators who swoop in at the bottom and pick up the cheap real estate.

………… parent

I will have to check into

that.

So far I haven't heard of much court action on the sub prime lenders.

Maybe cheap credit wasn't so cheap after all.

Was anyone saying that? And if they were was anyone listening? And if folks didn't listen why not?

So why did all parties just for the gusto, like they were on a winning streak that would never bust?

Laws did nothing to prevent, and are after the fact. But regulating, and making sure the sublenders had some kind of skill set to broker a morgage might have.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Here's some support for my claims:

New Century Financial , the second biggest subprime lender-- in bankruptcy for insufficient cash to buy back loans, and the subject of criminal probes by the SEC.

Ownit , the 11th biggest subprime lender, in bankruptcy for the same reason-- it was required to buy back its bad loans and didn't have the cash:

Investors also shield themselves by requiring mortgage companies like Ownit to buy back mortgages that incur “early payment defaults,” an industry term for loans that have turned bad quickly.

In recent months, banks have sought the safety of these protective measures and grown pickier about the kinds of loans they will buy after noticing that a growing number of borrowers who took out loans in 2006 were falling behind within months. According to its bankruptcy filing, Ownit was asked to buy back $166.4 million in loans, $93 million of which was owed to Merrill Lynch.

Merrill Lynch owned about 20 percent of Ownit and provided a credit line worth billions of dollars to the company. (Also in December, Merrill Lynch bought First Franklin Financial, a subprime lender co-founded by Mr. Dallas, for $1.3 billion from National City.)

Ownit’s strained financial circumstances set the tone for negotiations with JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch and CIVC Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm that owns the majority of Ownit. Mr. Dallas, who along with other executives owned about 20 percent of the company, said Merrill Lynch agreed to step in to make up Ownit’s financial shortfall and was even willing to buy the 80 percent of the company it did not already own.

But Mr. Dallas said the deal fell apart on Dec. 7, when Merrill pulled its offer of additional funds and its representative on Ownit’s board, Michael Blum, tendered his resignation by fax.

 

………… parent

Thanks!

I was just checking the web and there are lots of companies getting a wake up call. I just can't believe that they let it go this far.

Not a pretty picture.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

This is going to trickle down

all over the place.

Building and ownership driving the construction industry.

We needed the loans to build the houses to drive the economy to supply the jobs.

Maybe 'they' can start working on US roads again. Some of our highways and biways are in pretty sad shape.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

If you assume that education is the cure

And assuming that bankers and investers are the 'educated' class, why did these so called educated people participate in this scam, where as you say there are no winners?

Free enterprise is good. Owning your own capital is good. Unregulated free markets, not so much.

I am not a big fan of reactionary knee-jerk laws. (See padded playgrounds, running outlawed at recess).

The big lenders just stood by and let this happen, because they are educated!!!!!

There are other factors to consider such as, what I call privatized taxes, or hidden taxes, paying twice as much for gas than six years ago, and twice as much for heating and air conditioning your home and the ensuing domino effect of higher costs for everything.

In 21st Century America it's hard to believe that we seem to be going backwards and not forwards. The lack of vision and foreseeable consequences is baffling.

Now it appears the 'crises' is spreading to Germany

FRANKFURT, July 30 (Reuters) — The American subprime mortgage crisis claimed the lender IKB as a first victim in Germany today, setting off sharp falls in other German bank shares on fears that they, too, could face sudden problems.

In Germany, shares of IKB Deutsche Industriebank, which 10 days earlier said the sub-prime crisis wouldn't affect it, fell 20% in Frankfurt on Monday after it reported problems with investments in sub-prime mortgages.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Rush invasion of SC

Now the title of one of their songs, "Malignant Narcissism", has made its way into the title of a thread.

I hope you sent a royalty check onto Pratt, Dirk, and Lerxst.

;-)

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein

…………

Serious!

So the radio host I heard speak was not using an original phrase!! Plagarist.

It's a great combination of words.

Yeah okay, I will send a check to the guys as soon as my hedge fund manager gets back to me on how I did on my naked shorts. We are still waiting for the electronic transfer of funds.

This 'Rush' band you speak of sounds visionary!

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

haha

how I did on my naked shorts

There's just something really funny about that phrase.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein

………… parent

Video just released

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbqD-SdeV-A

Love the hatchet/axe/sword allusion at the end.

"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran

………… parent

Oh My!

This dairy is meant to promote discussion about the economy in light of recent news about the sub-prime market, tighter credit lines, and the recent down turn in the stock market.
I heard a radio personality give a long speech about the evils of liberalism and how they are suffering from malignant narcissism. Her audience was a small group of Young Republicans. She then proceeded to discuss her own transformation to conservatism, and rail on and on about how liberals view all events through a lens paranoia and self centeredness. She also used the term benign narcissism to describe liberalism that won't spread... !
The word malignant narcissism stuck out in my mind when I was reading about the completely unregulated hedge fund managers and their naked shorts.
Because really it is always the economy stupid.

It is the economy, stupid.

…………

Daddy Specter!

I edited the diary and it fell off the front page. Oops.

It is the economy, stupid.

…………

No prob

I stepped out for a moment so I didn't see it until now.

Nice job, BTW.

………… parent

Ok...

The sum total of my financial investments is the $25 I have in my joint savings account with my fiancee. (chill, I'm 23 and have just finished college)

All of this hedge fund stuff is Greek to me.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

…………

Study up, my man...

....study up.

Knowledge is power. The financial decisions you make at 23 years old have much larger effects long term on you than the ones you make 20 years from now.

If you're employed. Start funding your 401K now.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein

………… parent

It does make a big difference

if you remember doing compound interest in math it makes a huge difference if you start a year earlier if you are talking about compounding over 40 years. Or if you put in 6% vs 5% of you paycheck.

Another nice thing about 401k is you can loan yourself money from them. You still have to pay it back with interest but you are paying yourself back as opposed to paying some bank the interest. Just make sure you can actually pay it back otherwise you screw yourself.

on edit- to be clear, this was meant for stinerman, agreeing with PM.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Indeed it does

I have my degree in math.

Right now, my fiancee and I have about $70,000 of student loans to pay off and a large amount of credit card debt.

And I hope to be employed by week's end (2nd interview on Wednesday; wish me luck).

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

………… parent

A shame that so many students venture out into the real world...

...saddled with mountains of student debt.  I will radically depart from my libertarian friends when they talk about hating all subsidies.  Higher education is one thing that I feel should be HIGHLY subsidized in our society, whether it be thru favorable loan terms, more scholarships, greater government contribution to the operation of public universities, or other means.  The costs of higher education have reached a level where working one's way thru school without debt seems to be nearly impossible for the average student, and at the same time, higer education has become increasingly essential to preparation for the work force.  When I went to college going on 20 years ago, I had a part time job, and was just able to put myself thru school without taking out loans by living at home with my parents.  With tuitions so much higher today, even with the compromises that I made, I probably would have had to take on some debt.  If I had gone to a private school away from home and tried to put full attention on my studies rather than working a job, I can't imagine how fast the debt would have piled up.

Good luck on the job! 

………… parent

Agreed

I think we should make school free up through an associate's degree. As you mention, higher education is essential to do anything other than mop floors. Our education spending should mirror that.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

………… parent

Good for you.

I screwed myself in math. I took AP calculus in high school and tested well enough to get credit for math 251/252. So I went to college and 253 wasn't offered until spring term so I had 9 months of no math before dropping into 253. Never really caught up.

Then again I spent a fair amount of time in college just trying to figure out what I really wanted to do. I had so many AP and previous college credits (I started taking summer classes in astronomy when I was in middle school) that I started as a second term sophomore but it still took me five years to finish up. :)

Some of those terms were *very* light class loads. Then my last term I took 27 credits because I really wanted to just be done. Did really well. I always knew I could, I just didn't have any motivation to.

Total side tangent. Sorry.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

How Interesting

That sounds quite a bit like my experience.

I started with 24 credits between AP classes and PSEO (an Ohio program that allows for taking college classes for high school credit). I started out in computer science and got pretty far down the line until I figured out I hated programming. From there I switched to Math because it wouldn't put be too far behind.

The bad thing for me was that I wanted to switch to a liberal arts major after I was pretty much done with everything. Math was me settling so I could just get done. I had trouble around my sophomore year since I was never challenged in high school. College challenged me, and I didn't know how to deal with it.

Well technically I'm not graduated as my college messed up my paperwork. I've taken all the proper classes, but I don't hold any papers saying that I have.

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...

………… parent

Check this out

I just heard this on the news yesterday. If you would have bought a 1.000 worth of Warren Buffets stock in 1957, today it would be worth 25 million.

Take $2.51 and put it in an indexed annuity account. (okay kidding)

Hedge funds are big dog, world wide, finance wheelers and dealers, who for some reason don't have to play by the normal rules. It is a high risk, short term investment deal that involves merging pools of money to make short term gains. It is sort of like making money in Las Vegas by sitting at the table and betting who you think is gonna lose, and you make money without having any of your own.

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

You and me both, man.

I'm still a student, and this stuff is completely off the map for me.

Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

………… parent