Posted on 03/17/2008 5:57:12 AM PDT by Lazamataz
No, just the people who live off debt. ;)
This certainly is a very big concern for me - this industry affects my job, directly.
I know there’s a lot of fearmongering out there. But comprehensive, thoughtful, objective analysis is hard to come by. Any sources, from anyone, would be particularly helpful, to me and others I’m sure.
Thanks for posting.
Speculative chickens are coming home to roost. What’s amazing is that these supposedly prestigious investment firms allowing themselves to be so far out on that limb.
Steve Forbes on Fox just said that there should be a suspension of the “mark to market” rules. This is the second time in a week I’ve heard this suggestion.
Anyone with a better understanding of this have comments?
They don't know more than me after all...They're just bigger gamblers.
Adjustment of the book value or collateral value of a security to reflect current market value.
1) What it is: With the heightened trading activity of the stock market in recent years, many individuals, particularly the so-called "day traders," may find it advantageous to elect the mark-to-market method of accounting for their trades. This means that traders will have to recognize their gain as ordinary income, which is not as detrimental as it sounds (most of the gain would be short-term capital gain). The real advantage of using mark-to-market accounting is that traders can claim losses as ordinary losses, and can be freed from concerns about the wash sale rule, constructive sale rule and straddles.
I have two grandmothers who lived thru the first depression so I’m set. But grub/worm recipes are gladly accepted, and should I tape up the toes of my shoes today or wait until the holes appear?
It is the people living off lending that are doing the dying.
That's not on my to-do list.
All of the brokerages were my customers at one time or other. I never like Bear Stearns so nyah! nyah! nyah!
You are rich.
I heard alpo tastes best, followed by kennel ration
BLOAT.
You are rich.
Some of them are going bankrupt overnight, others are getting government-backed sweet-heart deals. Everytime the Fed throws these billions around, it comes out of the value of the dollar. Private profits + public losses = the worst of socialism.
This is not why Bear was taken under. If the whole thing could have been fixed with a loan from the FED or a change in accounting rules it would have been [they were a primary dealer]. The problem is clearly that the income coming from the securities Bear held (whatever their "market value") was grossly insufficient to pay their obligations and the problem was not likely to get better.
You are rich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.