Käive jällegi üsna kesine ning hetkeseisuga jääb eilselegi päevale alla! Bernanke ja Paulsoni kõnest pole eriti toetust saadud, kuid päev veel väga noor ja sõnavõtjaid veel mitmeid.
Hetkel võtab sõna SEC-i Cox, mis sealt tulemas on?
Bernanke Comments
Think of securities having two prices: 1) Fire Sale- sold today into a bad market; 2) Hold to Maturity Price- when an asset is allowed to mature to proper value... says fire sale price has been dominant in the market... says doing away with mark-to-market accounting would further drive down confidence... believes auctions could be designed to provide a proper mark to maturity price; if the Fed is able to do this banks would be able to account for those assets more accurately; this would bring liquidity back to the markets; the confidence would bring private equity back to the markets; says tax payers should hold mark-to-maturity values so they are not on the hook... need experts in place to run these auctions; says beneficiaries are not just those who sell the asset but all market participants... says reform of the financial industry is necessary but believes this program is separate given the severity of the situation...
Think of securities having two prices: 1) Fire Sale- sold today into a bad market; 2) Hold to Maturity Price- when an asset is allowed to mature to proper value... says fire sale price has been dominant in the market... says doing away with mark-to-market accounting would further drive down confidence... believes auctions could be designed to provide a proper mark to maturity price; if the Fed is able to do this banks would be able to account for those assets more accurately; this would bring liquidity back to the markets; the confidence would bring private equity back to the markets; says tax payers should hold mark-to-maturity values so they are not on the hook... need experts in place to run these auctions; says beneficiaries are not just those who sell the asset but all market participants... says reform of the financial industry is necessary but believes this program is separate given the severity of the situation...
Huvitav, mis siis saab, kui kongress plaani heaks EI kiida.
Paulson, Bernanke, Cox kõik on täna päev otsa rääkinud, kui pekkis finantssüsteem on. Siis peaks järelikult RÄIGE crash tulema ju?
Paulson, Bernanke, Cox kõik on täna päev otsa rääkinud, kui pekkis finantssüsteem on. Siis peaks järelikult RÄIGE crash tulema ju?
PS Starmani võrgus saab Bloomberg TV pealt seda tsirkust pealt vaadata.
ma mõtsi kah nõndaviisi, et kui kongress EI ütleb, et kas siis on räige crash tulemas.. aga mõeldes poliitikute peale ja mõeldes mis on valikud:
a) kindel, et kui 700 miljardit ei köhi, siis on crash
b)pole välistatud, et 700 miljardi köhimine ei päästa meid crashist
..kui üks on kindel, aga teine ebalev, minnakse ikka kindla peale ;)
a) kindel, et kui 700 miljardit ei köhi, siis on crash
b)pole välistatud, et 700 miljardi köhimine ei päästa meid crashist
..kui üks on kindel, aga teine ebalev, minnakse ikka kindla peale ;)
Tehtud küll selle aasta veebruaris, aga ikkagi... 3 ja pool minutit. Time well spent: )
Domeenist väljuvad lingid võiks olla uues aknas avanevad :P
Broker Buy-In Notice
Here is an alert that went out to customers of a prominent online broker: Please be aware that today is the first day that short stock sales transacted after the SEC's Emergency Order of 2008-09-18 will settle and become subject to hard T+3 close-out if the broker is unable to deliver the stock this afternoon. Your account has been identified as holding a short position as of the 2008-09-18 close and which therefore may be subject to buy in today in order to ensure compliance with this Order. We are currently in the process of determining what quantity of shares, if any, is available either internally or through third party borrows to meet our settlement obligation and will know that later today. We anticipate sending to you by approximately 12:00 PM Eastern Time a notice of your short positions which we are unable to cover and which will be bought in by broker if you fail to act and close our your short positions in a timely manner.
Seega lühikesed positsioonid võivad minna sundkatmisele!
Here is an alert that went out to customers of a prominent online broker: Please be aware that today is the first day that short stock sales transacted after the SEC's Emergency Order of 2008-09-18 will settle and become subject to hard T+3 close-out if the broker is unable to deliver the stock this afternoon. Your account has been identified as holding a short position as of the 2008-09-18 close and which therefore may be subject to buy in today in order to ensure compliance with this Order. We are currently in the process of determining what quantity of shares, if any, is available either internally or through third party borrows to meet our settlement obligation and will know that later today. We anticipate sending to you by approximately 12:00 PM Eastern Time a notice of your short positions which we are unable to cover and which will be bought in by broker if you fail to act and close our your short positions in a timely manner.
Seega lühikesed positsioonid võivad minna sundkatmisele!
Sellest ka ilmselt tänane tõus, kuna täna saab T+3 täis. Ehk siis homme võib teistpidi müügisurvet tulla, kui hakatakse likvideerima soovimatult kontole ilmunud positsioone. Tundub, et shordi katmine pole piisav ehk siis võib teistpidi pika positsiooni otsas lõpetada tänase päeva lõpuks.
Late Day Sector Strength:
REITS- ICF +3.5%, Real Estate- IYR +2.9%, Nat Gas- UNG +2.4%, Tech.- XLK +1.3%, QQQQ +0.90%, Seims- SMH +1.1%, Internet HLDRS- HHH +1.2%, Telecom +0.90%.
Late Day Sector Weakness:
Steel- SLX -4.5%, Base Metals- DBB -3.7%, Regional Banks- KRE -3.0%, Coal- KOL -2.9%, Gas- UGA -2.6%, Homebuilders- XHB -2.8%, Materials- XLB -2.3%, IYM -2.2%, Ag/Chem- MOO -2.2%
Briefingust kokkuvõte tänase istungi kohta:
I must credit the Senate Banking Committee, as they did not pull out the usual grandstanding that is generally seen in these hearings (although there were plenty of repetitive questions). The issue at hand are: 1) Where does the $700 bln figure come from and would the Fed and Treasury be able to work with a tranche-type system: The $700 bln was to ensure Paulson, Bernanke, et al that they would have enough money to battle the issue at hand and that the amount being issued was necessary to calm market fears. They also thought that a healthy backstop would finally intrigue a private equity market that has been sitting on the sidelines. Paulson/Bernanke also conveyed that they would not necessarily use the full $700 bln but wanted to have it on hand. Basically, it seems to me that they just do not want to have to go back in front of this committee with their hat in hand and get grilled two months down the road. The problem here is that they used language on a couple of occasions that suggested that they could get by with less. Perhaps they simply used the age old sales technique of asking for more than they want and they would be perfectly fine with an amount in the neighborhood of $500 bln. Regardless I think that it is very likely that any bill passed will be set up in tranches as no one in the Senate is going to want to stick their necks out, especially when Paulson is likely to be gone in three months and neither one was very convincing in translating that this would be the final solution to the problems; 2) Executive compensation: House Rep Frank (who will lead tomorrows Joint Economic Committee session) has stated that the House would never pass a bill that did not have a provision for executive compensation. Paulson and Bernanke have stated that in order for the plan to work they must be able to attract better institutions that are not in trouble in order to extract the best pricing. They have also stated that they would like to have the best in the profession involved to ensure a return to taxpayers. This issue is likely to be a contentious one but I would expect to see Frank win out on this as the outcry from the public is likely to be big. There would likely be a concession on Frank's part on the cap, but all numbers discussed so far have been theoretical; 3) Regulatory issues: It would appear that everyone is on the same page that the current regulatory set up is archaic and there is a much needed update. However, this will be a secondary thought as most agree the primary issue at hand is the credit markets and assuaging fear in the markets. When these discussions do resume perhaps the two items that will undergo the biggest change are the CDS and insurance industry. I would expect the majority of the banking regulation to be covered by the G7's Financial Stability Forum which is currently providing suggestions on sweeping banking reform; 4) Oversight of the plan: While not included in the plan, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke assumed that some type of oversight committee would be formed so this is likely to be a non-issue. Who they put in charge could be the bigger debate, however, it is too early to speculate on names; 5) What are they other options available: Certainly one of the bigger issues that the committee had with Bernanke and Mr. Paulson was that they were unable to offer any alternatives to the current plan. I am sure they have some plans but that they kept those cards up their sleeves, likely waiting for the Banking Committee response before they offered up alternatives; 6) Pricing of the securities: Mr. Bernanke bought up a great argument of the fire sale verse the mark to maturity that will make the difference of the cost and/or profit to the taxpayer. This is an issue that can be debated all night but until the Fed/Treasury begin the process it is all just a theoretical argument. Both sides brought up interesting points, but I would have to side with Bernanke/Paulson in that you need to open up the system to all institutions good and bad, so that you have a better opportunity of receiving a mark to maturity prices. As stated above this is purely a theoretical argument and one can make as many assumptions until the process starts. This could very well give the 'tranche-style' argument a lot of teeth; 7) Type of securities: The type of security will likely be clearly defined in any agreement. Mr. Paulson stated that he would like to leave this open to any type of security until the problem is clearly defined, noting a domino style effect the credit markets can have. The Senate seemed to be a little nervous giving this broad based power and was looking to limit it to mortgage-based securities. Mr. Paulson did say that the plan was to work on one security at a time starting with MBS' so obviously that will not be an issue. Whether or not it would allow the Fed/Treasury to dabble in student loans, car loans, etc will be debated with a likely middle of the road solution presented... Bottom Line: There is no way the proposal will pass the way it is worded right now, but that really should not come as a surprise to anyone. There does appear to be a motivation to get a deal done quickly and a plan in place. After tomorrow we should have some better insight as to how the Senate Banking Committee and Joint Economic Committee are viewing the plans at which point Bernanke and Paulson will go back to the draft board and hammer out the necessary changes for the plan to pass votes in the Senate and the House. Based on commentary today I would think a likely completion date for this plan is around October 5th. If that is the case look for a lot of uncertainty in the markets over the next two weeks, especially in currency markets.
I must credit the Senate Banking Committee, as they did not pull out the usual grandstanding that is generally seen in these hearings (although there were plenty of repetitive questions). The issue at hand are: 1) Where does the $700 bln figure come from and would the Fed and Treasury be able to work with a tranche-type system: The $700 bln was to ensure Paulson, Bernanke, et al that they would have enough money to battle the issue at hand and that the amount being issued was necessary to calm market fears. They also thought that a healthy backstop would finally intrigue a private equity market that has been sitting on the sidelines. Paulson/Bernanke also conveyed that they would not necessarily use the full $700 bln but wanted to have it on hand. Basically, it seems to me that they just do not want to have to go back in front of this committee with their hat in hand and get grilled two months down the road. The problem here is that they used language on a couple of occasions that suggested that they could get by with less. Perhaps they simply used the age old sales technique of asking for more than they want and they would be perfectly fine with an amount in the neighborhood of $500 bln. Regardless I think that it is very likely that any bill passed will be set up in tranches as no one in the Senate is going to want to stick their necks out, especially when Paulson is likely to be gone in three months and neither one was very convincing in translating that this would be the final solution to the problems; 2) Executive compensation: House Rep Frank (who will lead tomorrows Joint Economic Committee session) has stated that the House would never pass a bill that did not have a provision for executive compensation. Paulson and Bernanke have stated that in order for the plan to work they must be able to attract better institutions that are not in trouble in order to extract the best pricing. They have also stated that they would like to have the best in the profession involved to ensure a return to taxpayers. This issue is likely to be a contentious one but I would expect to see Frank win out on this as the outcry from the public is likely to be big. There would likely be a concession on Frank's part on the cap, but all numbers discussed so far have been theoretical; 3) Regulatory issues: It would appear that everyone is on the same page that the current regulatory set up is archaic and there is a much needed update. However, this will be a secondary thought as most agree the primary issue at hand is the credit markets and assuaging fear in the markets. When these discussions do resume perhaps the two items that will undergo the biggest change are the CDS and insurance industry. I would expect the majority of the banking regulation to be covered by the G7's Financial Stability Forum which is currently providing suggestions on sweeping banking reform; 4) Oversight of the plan: While not included in the plan, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke assumed that some type of oversight committee would be formed so this is likely to be a non-issue. Who they put in charge could be the bigger debate, however, it is too early to speculate on names; 5) What are they other options available: Certainly one of the bigger issues that the committee had with Bernanke and Mr. Paulson was that they were unable to offer any alternatives to the current plan. I am sure they have some plans but that they kept those cards up their sleeves, likely waiting for the Banking Committee response before they offered up alternatives; 6) Pricing of the securities: Mr. Bernanke bought up a great argument of the fire sale verse the mark to maturity that will make the difference of the cost and/or profit to the taxpayer. This is an issue that can be debated all night but until the Fed/Treasury begin the process it is all just a theoretical argument. Both sides brought up interesting points, but I would have to side with Bernanke/Paulson in that you need to open up the system to all institutions good and bad, so that you have a better opportunity of receiving a mark to maturity prices. As stated above this is purely a theoretical argument and one can make as many assumptions until the process starts. This could very well give the 'tranche-style' argument a lot of teeth; 7) Type of securities: The type of security will likely be clearly defined in any agreement. Mr. Paulson stated that he would like to leave this open to any type of security until the problem is clearly defined, noting a domino style effect the credit markets can have. The Senate seemed to be a little nervous giving this broad based power and was looking to limit it to mortgage-based securities. Mr. Paulson did say that the plan was to work on one security at a time starting with MBS' so obviously that will not be an issue. Whether or not it would allow the Fed/Treasury to dabble in student loans, car loans, etc will be debated with a likely middle of the road solution presented... Bottom Line: There is no way the proposal will pass the way it is worded right now, but that really should not come as a surprise to anyone. There does appear to be a motivation to get a deal done quickly and a plan in place. After tomorrow we should have some better insight as to how the Senate Banking Committee and Joint Economic Committee are viewing the plans at which point Bernanke and Paulson will go back to the draft board and hammer out the necessary changes for the plan to pass votes in the Senate and the House. Based on commentary today I would think a likely completion date for this plan is around October 5th. If that is the case look for a lot of uncertainty in the markets over the next two weeks, especially in currency markets.
GS ralli turu lõpus oli ilmselgelt forced covering.. kasutasin seda putide võtmiseks.
On keegi Sigaretitööstusel silma peal hoidmas?
Kas sisenemine Reynolds American Inc. (RAI) pikana võiks olla sobiv hetk? Saan aru, et aktsiahind on peamiselt pihta saanud tänu Altria Group Inc. (MO) USTi omandamisele, mis on jätnud RAI viimase turunishis teisejärguliseks mängijaks. Ehk siis suuresti emotsionaalne liikumine.
RAI viimased majandustulemused ei anna põhjust pessimismiks ja pika positsiooni loogika peitub suuresti arusaamal, et sõltuvustarbimisest ei loobuta reeglina ka piiratumate finantsresursside olukorras.
Kas sisenemine Reynolds American Inc. (RAI) pikana võiks olla sobiv hetk? Saan aru, et aktsiahind on peamiselt pihta saanud tänu Altria Group Inc. (MO) USTi omandamisele, mis on jätnud RAI viimase turunishis teisejärguliseks mängijaks. Ehk siis suuresti emotsionaalne liikumine.
RAI viimased majandustulemused ei anna põhjust pessimismiks ja pika positsiooni loogika peitub suuresti arusaamal, et sõltuvustarbimisest ei loobuta reeglina ka piiratumate finantsresursside olukorras.
jim minuarust jah päris karm värk. Ma sarnastaks seda karu maha laskmise ja kontoll lasuga. Arvestades seisu kuidas AAPL 122 pealt jooksis 145 peale :) ning täna on juba tagasi 126 peal.
Siis noh jah mul on selline tunne et karudel on elusast peast kerad küljest lõigatud.
Siis noh jah mul on selline tunne et karudel on elusast peast kerad küljest lõigatud.
OFC Corp Office Props announces offering of 2 mln shares
EQY Equity One announces launch of offering of 2.2 mln common stock
SF Stifel Financial announces proposed offering for 1.2 mln shares
FPO First Potomac Realty launches public offering of 2.5 mln shares
Palunostkehästipaljumeieaktsiaid.com
EQY Equity One announces launch of offering of 2.2 mln common stock
SF Stifel Financial announces proposed offering for 1.2 mln shares
FPO First Potomac Realty launches public offering of 2.5 mln shares
Palunostkehästipaljumeieaktsiaid.com
jim a kas see mitte ei lahjenda suppi ja ei vii aktsia hinda veelgi räigemalt alla ?
Tõesti või? :)
No kõik kaanivad elu eest kapitali juurde. Kuniks elu!
GS Goldman Sachs says Berkshire to invest $5 bln in Goldman preferred; says its raising $2.5 bln in common stock offering - Bloomberg
Selgus tegelik põhjus Goldmani tõusuks :)
Selgus tegelik põhjus Goldmani tõusuks :)