Archive for July, 2009
I mean the role of the banking system and the capital market is supposed to funnel capital sectors that are good investment. The recent banking crisis can be attributed to the failure of this system to allocate money to where is needed, but rather over allocated to an excess sector like housing. Bailout will violate the principle of free market but saving a system that made serious mistake. Why not the government take control with direct investment in education, health care, alternative energy to create jobs and economic activities instead of saving a failed banking system? Many countries after the WWII such as Japan has government controlled strategic investment and produce good economic results. Is bailout of the banks really a solution that make sense or just because the politics? can someone explain to me?
The roll of the banking system to really to provide credit, not provide capital to fund sectors in the economy.
"An important part of the Federal Reserve’s statutory mandate is promoting the availability of credit throughout the banking system."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/Kroszner20070613a.htm
Banks loan money based on risk models. Clearly their models failed miserably. They over lent in the real estate market and assumed two things.
1. Real estate prices can never go down.
2. Interest rates can never go up.
The FED Funds rate went from 1.00% on 06-25-2003 to 5.25% 06-29-2006 - a 425% rate increase. This killed the real estate market.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm
Anyone with adjustable rates were severely impacted. And millions got signature loans, leveraged phantom equity in their house and bought more real estate.
Thus I have to respectfully disagree with the statement that, "The recent banking crisis can be attributed to the failure of this system to allocate money to where is needed." That would not be the role of banks.
Banks PRIMARY business is lending in the area of home and commercial real estate. The stock market provides capital to new and expanding business that banks do not want to take such risk.
Yes, a bailout would violate the principles of a free market.
However, the risk to the US banking system and hence the US economy are a far greater risk. We, as consumers cannot afford to allow massive banks failures. The result could be huge unemployment 30%+, soaring inflation/ interest rates (25-30%+), and a plunge in the US Dollar, further escalating inflation (everything will get expensive fast). This would make The Depression look like an e-Ticket at Disneyland.
Taking government control over the entire economy would be called Socialism. We would be looking at income taxes like most socialist countries who pay ~50% on income taxes with no deductions no matter how much you make. Socialists’ counties also pay 40-50% in sales tax. That is why people don’t drive luxury cars in mass in Europe, have big screen TV’s, as they do in the USA. Europe also pays double what we pay for gas. It’s the high EU socialistic taxes that everyone has to pay to live in socialists countries.
They also live what we would call apartments or very small housing in comparison. There are exceptions, but they are not common place like they are in the US.
Sure you get health care and education free, but it really isn’t free, because Europeans pay for those social programs via higher taxes. That is why we left Great Britain 232 years ago. Why would we go back to that program?
The USA spends more on education than any country in the world. We have more government sponsored universities, state schools, junior colleges, and K-12 than any anyone.
The USA spends about $ 1.25 Trillion (2007) on entitlement programs (welfare, social security, Medicare, and other related social programs). This amount will increase rapidly every year as more baby boomer retire and collect social security and need medicine.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7851/03-08-Long-Term%20Spending.pdf
The government should allow tax breaks and other incentives to get PRIVATE money into alternative energy.
The US should use and develop our own energy which we have and could develop, but no one wants a nuclear power plant in their home town.
As a result of that "Toxic Substances Control Act" (Clean Air Act), [15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq]. we have not had a single new oil refinery built in the USA (for our own domestic oil benefit) since 1976.
Toxic Substances Control Act
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html
"There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/
The government’s role is not to create jobs. That thinking would be shared by socialists. The gov can lay the foundation and set up the rules for the private sector to create jobs.
Japan obviously went through a bit of restricting since WWI, but so did the rest of the world. Japan is the #2 economy after the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan
Japan has not recovered in 19 years from the housing bust of 1989. The Nikkei-225 Index (Japan’s major market index) is still down about 50% from their 1989 high.
"The (Nikkei-225) average peaked at 38,915.87 points on December 29, 1989."
http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/FR/SERV/nikkei_indexes/nifaqs.html
Chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkei_225
"Bailout"
So is a bailout of US banks a solution? Yes, it is a solution. Is it the only solution, no.
Keep in mind that despite incorrect belief, the US tax payer is not just handing out a $700 billion check to banks.
We would be buying up real estate ASSETS with that money, but not all at once. Homeowners would pay the gov for their mortgage. After 25-30 years, hopefully real estate price would be higher then, verses now. Then the US gov could and would sell those properties at current market prices. Any gain would go to the Treasury (the tax payers).
If structured correctly, the amount of money the tax payer could make could pay for a lot in the future.
If housing grows at just 3% a year for the next 30 years (assume 30 year mortgage) on average, that $700 Billion would grow to $1.699 Trillion.
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm
This does not include the interest earned by tax payers on the mortgages.
In addition, I think it would be wise if the government REQUIRES all banks who participate in this "bailout" to GIVE the Treasury (the tax payers) rights or warrants and or Senior Preferred Stock (legal term is "Senior Liquidation Preference") to own part of the bank’s stock. So if the bank makes money in the future, the Treasury (the tax payers) make a profit off their stock.
Senior Liquidation Preference
"A series of preferred stock has a "senior" liquidation preference when it is entitled to receive its liquidation preference before another series of preferred stock. "
http://www.fenwick.com/vctrends/VC_Terms.htm
Preferred Stock
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/preferredstock.asp
I think this is a fair risk exchange for the Treasury (the tax payers) to take on all the bad banking decisions. So now we have several ways for tax payers to make money on their investment.
1. Rights, warrants, and or Senior Preferred Stock of ownership in such banks we bail out. Preferred stocks often pay quarterly dividends. We make money while we wait for a return on our $700 Billion investment. We profit on the banks growth in their stock price, when banks earn money in the future. We lose nothing if they don’t.
Banks can pay the Treasury a PREMIUM now, for the right to buy back the stock, warrants, etc, issued to the US Gov at a profit say 50%. I figure as long as the bank doesn’t fail in the future, the stock should easily have grown by 50% over 30 years.
Wachovia is up 87% (interday trading, 09-30-08 ) one day after they were taken over by the FDIC and handed to Citigroup.
2. We make interest on existing mortgages we bought with that $700 Billion. Some will default, yes, but tax payers get the house to hold or sell it for cash.
3. Mortgages that are held to maturity, (25-30 years from now) tax payers get fair market value of home prices in the future. That alone should pay off the investment. But I still think we should penalize the banks for making bad decisions, and say if you want tax payers to take on this investment, we want part ownership with the opportunity to share in the profits of your good assets too.
This is exactly how the Citibank - Wachovia deal was structured with the FDIC.
Video
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=871751416
Summary:
"Citigroup has granted the FDIC $12 billion in preferred stock and warrants to compensate the FDIC for bearing this risk."
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2008/09/29/daily11.html?ana=from_rss
So, how the proposed bailout is structured will answer this question. And how the markets react to it, will be the "final answer."
It would be nice if we could get all the billions of unnecessary pork barrel spending OUT of any bailout bill. This is Congress taking advantage of taxpayers in order to save the banking system. This is not a time to fund billions in "pet projects" during an election year.
Congress and the media need to sell this idea to taxpayers in these more realistic financial terms and not just (incorrectly) paint it as a "tax payer bailout of Wall Street.”
The business is a website and professional consulting services for the food and beverage industry. The website is a portal type that is intended to connect everyone from suppliers (wine growers, farmer, pasta maker etc) to on trade distributors and customers such like restaurants, hotels, etc.
Our consultants are available to map and reengineering business process, create a technological infrastructure for the information exchange, create a legal infrastructure for the sale process, implement other services such like CRM or accounting.
The name should reflect the integratration the Food & Beverage Supply chain process. I’ve been coming up with names like:
Ambrosia Consulting
Grape Vine Solutions
Savory Technical Services
Grape Vine Network Consulting
Ambrosia Architecture Services
Culinary Matrix Solutions
Culinary Market Integration
Culinary Interlink Management
Linkedin Culinary Management
Cullinary Connections Interlink
But I am being told that "Culinary Interlink Market" and the other names sound nice but are probably too long (not immediate and difficult to remeber) it would be better to put all in a word…. may be missing some calrity something like: Culinarylink
My other concern now is to incorporate the concept of wine food and beverage not just food.
The word culinary is more related to food.
So Perhaps Epicure is a good word then, it is not limited to food and has good resonance among a particular class of aficionado of food and drink. Let me try out a few more on you:
Epicure Colaboration = Epicurlaboration (may be difficult to remember)
Interlinked Epicures
Epilink
Integrated Epicurean
Integrated Vines
Epicurean Harvest
I cant seem to find a word that is inclusive of everyone from growers to suppliers and buyers. Epicurean is about as close as I can get. Another thing that comes to mind is that much can be inferred with the logo that will accompany the company name. So the name may not need to bear the entire burden of conveying the depth of the services offered.
Your thoughts? help?
"Food-Link"
"Field to Table"
"Farm to Kitchen"
"Chef&Farmer Network"
"Epicurion"
"Vine & Branches"
Hi,
I need to record my online classes, now i know there is camsoft and a bunch of free software i can use but let me make clear
This online class is for 4-8 hrs continous, break is after very two hour
and camsoft or any free desktop capture solution is not a good option
I am looking for something like a video recorder that I can attach to desktop and capture the screens for hours like we do with your favourite movies or tv programs
i am Ready to pay if that is available
Does anyone know if there is anything of this kind in the market
Thanks in Advance
windows media center has this