WGR Werk, Geldzaken, Recht en de Beurs
Hier kun je alles kwijt over sollicitaties, werksituaties, belastingen, (handelen op) de beurs, hypotheken, beleggingen en salarissen, arbeidscontracten of geschillen met je (huis)baas. Alles over werk, geldzaken en recht dus.
Zowaar het 3e plan om banken te herkapitaliseren.
CDS die 'die doelbewust' goedkoop worden doorverkocht aan banken.
Geitners plan.
En nu Mark to Myth approved.. (zie uitleg hieronder).
The Mark-to-Market Myth
Today the Financial Accounting Standards Board voted - by one vote - to relax accounting standards for certain types of securities, giving banks greater discretion in determining what price to carry them at on their balance sheets. The new rules were sought by the American Bankers Association, and not surprisingly will allow banks to increase their reported profits and strengthen their balance sheets by allowing them to increase the reported values of their toxic assets.This makes no sense, for three reasons.
1. Investors and regulators are not idiots. They know what the accounting rules are. If banks claim they were forced to mark their assets down to “fire-sale” prices, investors can look at the facts themselves and apply any upward corrections they want. Now that banks will be able to mark their assets up to prices based solely on their own models, investors will the downward corrections they want. It’s a little like what happened when companies were forced to account for stock option compensation as expenses; nothing happened to stock prices, because anyone who wanted to could already read the footnotes and do the calculations himself.
However, the situation is not symmetrical, and the change is bad for two reasons. First, fair market value (”mark to market”) has the benefit of being a clear rule that everyone has to conform to. So from the investor’s perspective, you have one fact to go on. The new rule makes asset prices dependent on banks’ internal judgment, and each bank may apply different criteria. So from the investor’s perspective, now you have zero facts to go on. It’s as if auto companies were allowed to replace EPA fuel efficiency estimates with their own estimates using their own tests. We all know the EPA estimates are not realistic, but we can find out exactly how they were obtained and make whatever adjustments we want. If each auto company can use its own criteria, then we have no information at all.
Second, this takes away the bank’s incentive to disclose information. Under the old rule, if a bank had to show market prices but thought they were unfairly low, it would have to show some evidence in order to convince investors of its position. Under the new rule, a bank can simply report the results of its internal models and has no incentive to provide any more information.
So what we get is less information and more uncertainty. That was all reason number one.
2. Between the two options, this is the unsafe choice. Accounting in general is supposed to embody a principle of conservatism. Given plausible optimistic and pessimistic rules, you are supposed to choose the pessimistic one. But think about what happens here. Let’s say the bank has to mark to market, but it turns out the economy recovers and the asset increases in value. In this scenario, the writedown reduced the bank’s capital, so it had to get more. When the asset recovers, the bank is profitable and can buy back the shares it sold.
In the opposite scenario, the bank marks to its own imagination, but in reality the market price was the long-term price. At some point in the future, the bank will have to write down that asset, but it may not have the capital to absorb that writedown, in which case it will fail.
The choice is between the risk of raising too much capital and the risk of not raising enough capital. FASB chose the latter.
3. Mark-to-market is a red herring to begin with. Accounting rules are much more complex than “all assets must be marked to market” and “all assets can be marked to model.” There are different types of assets (Level 1, 2, and 3); different types of impairments to asset values (temporary and other-than-temporary); different accounting impacts (some writedowns on the balance sheet affect income statement profitability, some don’t); and, most importantly, different ways of holding assets. How a bank accounts for an asset depends in part on whether it says that asset is held for trading purposes, is available for sale, or will be held to maturity. Wharton has a high-level discussion of some of these issues, but if you really want to understand them you should read Sections 1.B-D of the SEC’s study of mark-to-market accounting, which I helpfully summarized for you in an earlier post.
The SEC’s conclusions were, in short:
Most bank assets are not marked to market to begin with, and half of the ones that are marked to market are the type that don’t affect the income statement.
Marking assets to market had only a very small impact on bank capital through September 2008.
The bank failures of 2008, including Washington Mutual, were not caused by marking assets to market (increasing loan loss provisions were a bigger culprit). In each case, stock prices started falling before the banks took writedowns, implying that investors already knew something was fishy before the accountants did anything.
I don’t know any of the back-room dealing, but it seems like the banking industry is taking advantage of the confusion to push through a change it wants, because it will make it easier for banks to massage their balance sheets and harder for investors to see what is really going on.
------------
Je gaat jezelf toch echt afvragen wat er daar aan de hand is (ik denk een heleboel omdat de nieuwe ontwikkelingen kort achter elkaar verlopen) . En of daar hun verstand volledig zijn verloren.
The Mark-to-Market Myth
Today the Financial Accounting Standards Board voted - by one vote - to relax accounting standards for certain types of securities, giving banks greater discretion in determining what price to carry them at on their balance sheets. The new rules were sought by the American Bankers Association, and not surprisingly will allow banks to increase their reported profits and strengthen their balance sheets by allowing them to increase the reported values of their toxic assets.This makes no sense, for three reasons.
1. Investors and regulators are not idiots. They know what the accounting rules are. If banks claim they were forced to mark their assets down to “fire-sale” prices, investors can look at the facts themselves and apply any upward corrections they want. Now that banks will be able to mark their assets up to prices based solely on their own models, investors will the downward corrections they want. It’s a little like what happened when companies were forced to account for stock option compensation as expenses; nothing happened to stock prices, because anyone who wanted to could already read the footnotes and do the calculations himself.
However, the situation is not symmetrical, and the change is bad for two reasons. First, fair market value (”mark to market”) has the benefit of being a clear rule that everyone has to conform to. So from the investor’s perspective, you have one fact to go on. The new rule makes asset prices dependent on banks’ internal judgment, and each bank may apply different criteria. So from the investor’s perspective, now you have zero facts to go on. It’s as if auto companies were allowed to replace EPA fuel efficiency estimates with their own estimates using their own tests. We all know the EPA estimates are not realistic, but we can find out exactly how they were obtained and make whatever adjustments we want. If each auto company can use its own criteria, then we have no information at all.
Second, this takes away the bank’s incentive to disclose information. Under the old rule, if a bank had to show market prices but thought they were unfairly low, it would have to show some evidence in order to convince investors of its position. Under the new rule, a bank can simply report the results of its internal models and has no incentive to provide any more information.
So what we get is less information and more uncertainty. That was all reason number one.
2. Between the two options, this is the unsafe choice. Accounting in general is supposed to embody a principle of conservatism. Given plausible optimistic and pessimistic rules, you are supposed to choose the pessimistic one. But think about what happens here. Let’s say the bank has to mark to market, but it turns out the economy recovers and the asset increases in value. In this scenario, the writedown reduced the bank’s capital, so it had to get more. When the asset recovers, the bank is profitable and can buy back the shares it sold.
In the opposite scenario, the bank marks to its own imagination, but in reality the market price was the long-term price. At some point in the future, the bank will have to write down that asset, but it may not have the capital to absorb that writedown, in which case it will fail.
The choice is between the risk of raising too much capital and the risk of not raising enough capital. FASB chose the latter.
3. Mark-to-market is a red herring to begin with. Accounting rules are much more complex than “all assets must be marked to market” and “all assets can be marked to model.” There are different types of assets (Level 1, 2, and 3); different types of impairments to asset values (temporary and other-than-temporary); different accounting impacts (some writedowns on the balance sheet affect income statement profitability, some don’t); and, most importantly, different ways of holding assets. How a bank accounts for an asset depends in part on whether it says that asset is held for trading purposes, is available for sale, or will be held to maturity. Wharton has a high-level discussion of some of these issues, but if you really want to understand them you should read Sections 1.B-D of the SEC’s study of mark-to-market accounting, which I helpfully summarized for you in an earlier post.
The SEC’s conclusions were, in short:
I don’t know any of the back-room dealing, but it seems like the banking industry is taking advantage of the confusion to push through a change it wants, because it will make it easier for banks to massage their balance sheets and harder for investors to see what is really going on.
------------
Je gaat jezelf toch echt afvragen wat er daar aan de hand is (ik denk een heleboel omdat de nieuwe ontwikkelingen kort achter elkaar verlopen) . En of daar hun verstand volledig zijn verloren.
Banks Get New Leeway in Valuing Their Assets
Published: April 2, 2009
A once-obscure accounting rule that infuriated banks, who blamed it for worsening the financial crisis, was changed Thursday to give banks more discretion in reporting the value of mortgage securities.
The change seems likely to allow banks to report higher profits by assuming that the securities are worth more than anyone is now willing to pay for them. But critics objected that the change could further damage the credibility of financial institutions by enabling them to avoid recognizing losses from bad loans they have made.
Critics also said that since the rules were changed under heavy political pressure, the move compromised the independence of the organization that did it, the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
During the financial crisis, the market prices of many securities, particularly those backed by subprime home mortgages, have plunged to fractions of their original prices. That has forced banks to report hundreds of billions of dollars in losses over the last year, because some of those securities must be reported at market value each three months, with the bank showing a profit or loss based on the change.
Bankers bitterly complained that the current market prices were the result of distressed sales and that they should be allowed to ignore those prices and value the securities instead at their value in a normal market. At first FASB, pronounced FAS-bee, resisted making changes, but that changed within a few days of a Congressional hearing at which legislators from both parties demanded the board act.
“There is a perception that we are yielding to political pressure,” one board member, Lawrence W. Smith, said as he voted for the changes.
“We are an independent standard setter, and it is important that we maintain our independence,” Mr. Smith added. “At the same time, how can we ignore what is going on around us?”
A group headed by two former chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission, one who served under President Bill Clinton and one who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said that it feared that politicization of accounting standards would destroy the credibility of the board.
It is not clear how much bank profits will improve as a result of the change; that will depend on how much the banks use their newly approved discretion to set values. Nor is it clear whether investors will put much faith in the new figures.
Early answers to those questions may become available within a few weeks. The board said banks could apply the new rules to their financial statements for the quarter that ended this week.
One major bank, Citigroup, said the new standard would not cause any change in its statements.
It is rare that the application of an accounting rule becomes a political issue, but that happened this year in both the United States and Europe, where the International Accounting Standards Board held an emergency meeting to change its rule after such a move was demanded by the French president.
In the United States, FASB acknowledged the investor criticism of the rules the board proposed after the Congressional hearing and responded on Thursday by voting to require banks to make additional disclosures about the assets in question.
The five-member board approved three changes to the rules, two by unanimous votes and one with two dissents. That disputed change makes it possible for banks to keep some declines in asset values off their income statements.
Robert H. Herz, the board’s chairman and the man who faced the Congressional pressure, said he voted for the changes because he thought the improved disclosures would help investors.
Mr. Smith said he had considered changing his vote as recently as Thursday morning. That would have led to the defeat of one change sought by the banks and perhaps set off a confrontation with Congress. “But,” he said, “I ultimately decided this is an improvement, because we have significantly improved the amount of information” being disclosed.
The American Bankers Association, which pushed legislators to demand the board make changes, praised the board. “Today’s decision should improve information for investors by providing more accurate estimates of market values,” said Edward Yingling, the association’s president.
One change adopted by the board would require banks to disclose the effect of the changed interpretation, although the final wording has not been released and it is not clear how detailed that disclosure will be.
For some other assets, banks must write them down to market value only if they conclude that the decline is “other than temporary.” The measure that drew dissents will allow banks to keep part of such declines off their income statements, although the decline would still show on the institutions’ balance sheets.
One of the dissenters, Thomas J. Linsmeier, argued that accounting rules already allowed the “fiction all banks are well capitalized,” adding that the changes would “make them seem better capitalized.”
The adoption of the rules was widely expected. It came on the same day that the stock market soared, but that rally began in Asia, well before the board met, and seemed to be tied to indications that the world economy might no longer be getting worse, even if recovery was not imminent.
While it was the banks who pressed for the rule, it will affect all financial institutions. But the board said it would make small changes to assure that it did not change accounting in mutual funds, which must mark their assets to market value every day.
Bank regulators already have the power to adjust accounting in computing capital, and some investor groups argued they should do that, rather than give the banks more freedom to value assets at what they think they should be worth, rather than what someone will pay for them.
The board added to the latest rule a statement that the goal of reflecting market value remained the same, but the rules will still allow more judgment by managers, and thus gives them more ability to control the numbers they report.
The vote drew condemnation from an organization called the Investors Working Group, and the two former S.E.C. chairman who lead it — William H. Donaldson, appointed by the second President Bush, and Arthur Levitt Jr., who served in the Clinton administration.
“In order to create high-quality accounting standards, it is critical that the process be independent and free from political pressure,” the group said in a statement. “This will ensure that such standards are neutral and faithfully represent economic reality. To the extent that these new FASB proposals reduce the free flow of transparent and reliable financial information, they undermine investor interests and weaken their ability to make sound investment decisions.”
Published: April 2, 2009
A once-obscure accounting rule that infuriated banks, who blamed it for worsening the financial crisis, was changed Thursday to give banks more discretion in reporting the value of mortgage securities.
The change seems likely to allow banks to report higher profits by assuming that the securities are worth more than anyone is now willing to pay for them. But critics objected that the change could further damage the credibility of financial institutions by enabling them to avoid recognizing losses from bad loans they have made.
Critics also said that since the rules were changed under heavy political pressure, the move compromised the independence of the organization that did it, the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
During the financial crisis, the market prices of many securities, particularly those backed by subprime home mortgages, have plunged to fractions of their original prices. That has forced banks to report hundreds of billions of dollars in losses over the last year, because some of those securities must be reported at market value each three months, with the bank showing a profit or loss based on the change.
Bankers bitterly complained that the current market prices were the result of distressed sales and that they should be allowed to ignore those prices and value the securities instead at their value in a normal market. At first FASB, pronounced FAS-bee, resisted making changes, but that changed within a few days of a Congressional hearing at which legislators from both parties demanded the board act.
“There is a perception that we are yielding to political pressure,” one board member, Lawrence W. Smith, said as he voted for the changes.
“We are an independent standard setter, and it is important that we maintain our independence,” Mr. Smith added. “At the same time, how can we ignore what is going on around us?”
A group headed by two former chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission, one who served under President Bill Clinton and one who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said that it feared that politicization of accounting standards would destroy the credibility of the board.
It is not clear how much bank profits will improve as a result of the change; that will depend on how much the banks use their newly approved discretion to set values. Nor is it clear whether investors will put much faith in the new figures.
Early answers to those questions may become available within a few weeks. The board said banks could apply the new rules to their financial statements for the quarter that ended this week.
One major bank, Citigroup, said the new standard would not cause any change in its statements.
It is rare that the application of an accounting rule becomes a political issue, but that happened this year in both the United States and Europe, where the International Accounting Standards Board held an emergency meeting to change its rule after such a move was demanded by the French president.
In the United States, FASB acknowledged the investor criticism of the rules the board proposed after the Congressional hearing and responded on Thursday by voting to require banks to make additional disclosures about the assets in question.
The five-member board approved three changes to the rules, two by unanimous votes and one with two dissents. That disputed change makes it possible for banks to keep some declines in asset values off their income statements.
Robert H. Herz, the board’s chairman and the man who faced the Congressional pressure, said he voted for the changes because he thought the improved disclosures would help investors.
Mr. Smith said he had considered changing his vote as recently as Thursday morning. That would have led to the defeat of one change sought by the banks and perhaps set off a confrontation with Congress. “But,” he said, “I ultimately decided this is an improvement, because we have significantly improved the amount of information” being disclosed.
The American Bankers Association, which pushed legislators to demand the board make changes, praised the board. “Today’s decision should improve information for investors by providing more accurate estimates of market values,” said Edward Yingling, the association’s president.
One change adopted by the board would require banks to disclose the effect of the changed interpretation, although the final wording has not been released and it is not clear how detailed that disclosure will be.
For some other assets, banks must write them down to market value only if they conclude that the decline is “other than temporary.” The measure that drew dissents will allow banks to keep part of such declines off their income statements, although the decline would still show on the institutions’ balance sheets.
One of the dissenters, Thomas J. Linsmeier, argued that accounting rules already allowed the “fiction all banks are well capitalized,” adding that the changes would “make them seem better capitalized.”
The adoption of the rules was widely expected. It came on the same day that the stock market soared, but that rally began in Asia, well before the board met, and seemed to be tied to indications that the world economy might no longer be getting worse, even if recovery was not imminent.
While it was the banks who pressed for the rule, it will affect all financial institutions. But the board said it would make small changes to assure that it did not change accounting in mutual funds, which must mark their assets to market value every day.
Bank regulators already have the power to adjust accounting in computing capital, and some investor groups argued they should do that, rather than give the banks more freedom to value assets at what they think they should be worth, rather than what someone will pay for them.
The board added to the latest rule a statement that the goal of reflecting market value remained the same, but the rules will still allow more judgment by managers, and thus gives them more ability to control the numbers they report.
The vote drew condemnation from an organization called the Investors Working Group, and the two former S.E.C. chairman who lead it — William H. Donaldson, appointed by the second President Bush, and Arthur Levitt Jr., who served in the Clinton administration.
“In order to create high-quality accounting standards, it is critical that the process be independent and free from political pressure,” the group said in a statement. “This will ensure that such standards are neutral and faithfully represent economic reality. To the extent that these new FASB proposals reduce the free flow of transparent and reliable financial information, they undermine investor interests and weaken their ability to make sound investment decisions.”
Yup, dit is de omgekeerde wereld, en te shockend voor woorden. Als het nu nog niet duidelijk is voor mensen dat de banken iedereen recht in hun bek staan te pissen dan weet ik 't niet meer.
Hoppa, nee, bankX is niet gewoon 2 duppies waard, bankX rapporteert gewoon niet meer dat hij tsjokvol zit met bad assets die eigenlijk afgeschreven moeten worden. Dus is bankX opeens gewoon weer 30 eur waard. Tot over 6 maanden bankX alsnog omvalt en niet eens meer 2 duppies waard is. Het verschil? Nu heb je geen enkele kans meer om uit te stappen als je 't niet vertrouwt, want de informatie die je daarvoor nodig hebt krijg je gewoon niet meer.
Het is duidelijk dat de banken nog even mensen van hun laatste spaargeld af willen helpen.
Iemand nog zin om in te stappen? Nu, koopjes te doen...
Hoppa, nee, bankX is niet gewoon 2 duppies waard, bankX rapporteert gewoon niet meer dat hij tsjokvol zit met bad assets die eigenlijk afgeschreven moeten worden. Dus is bankX opeens gewoon weer 30 eur waard. Tot over 6 maanden bankX alsnog omvalt en niet eens meer 2 duppies waard is. Het verschil? Nu heb je geen enkele kans meer om uit te stappen als je 't niet vertrouwt, want de informatie die je daarvoor nodig hebt krijg je gewoon niet meer.
Het is duidelijk dat de banken nog even mensen van hun laatste spaargeld af willen helpen.
Iemand nog zin om in te stappen? Nu, koopjes te doen...
Guest Post: FHLB Chairman Disgusted With FASB Accounting Alchemy, Quits
quote:When the man in charge of the second largest borrower in the U.S. is willing to lose his job due to his discomfort with the FASB's shift in accounting rules, you can bet that the tragic fallout of all the "market buoying" recent events is only a matter of time.
Somehow this noteworthy event, which happened over a week ago, passed substantially unnoticed until Zero Hedge friend Jonathan Weil at Bloomberg dug it up. Charles Bowsher, who was most recently Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank System's Office of Finance and previously served as U.S. comptroller general may be the only truly honorable man in the socialist nexus of politics and finance. The reason for his departure from this critical post - his discomfort in vouching for the banks' combined financial statements. And as Weil puts it succinctly: "Now the question for taxpayers is this: If Charles Bowsher can’t get comfortable with these banks’ financial statements, why should anybody else be?" Why indeed.
If Bowsher was merely involved with some marginal organization, this could be perceived as a hypocritical attempt to score populist brownie points. However, the FHLB is among the governmental entities at the heart of the current problem. Zero Hedge has written previously about the FHLB and its critical role in the ongoing housing crisis, but in a nutshell "The Office of Finance issues and services all the debt for the 12 regional Federal Home Loan Banks. That’s a lot of debt -- $1.26 trillion as of Dec. 31, making the FHLBank System the largest U.S. borrower after the federal government. The government-chartered banks, which operate independently, in turn supply low-cost loans to their 8,100 member banks and finance companies. If any of the FHLBanks were to fail, taxpayers could be on the hook."
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Je ziet nu heel duidelijk wat er gaat gebeuren.... het lijkt een beetje op de creditratings (Fitch/S&P) van vorig jaar.quote:Wells Fargo May Need $50 Billion in Capital, KBW’s Cannon Says
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- Wells Fargo & Co., the second- biggest U.S. home lender, may need $50 billion to pay back the federal government and cover loan losses as the economic slump deepens, according to KBW Inc.’s Frederick Cannon.
KBW expects $120 billion of “stress” losses at Wells Fargo, assuming the recession continues through the first quarter of 2010 and unemployment reaches 12 percent, Cannon wrote today in a report. The San Francisco-based bank may need to raise $25 billion on top of the $25 billion it owes the U.S. Treasury for the industry bailout plan, he wrote.
First-quarter net income rose 50 percent to about $3 billion, Wells Fargo said last week in announcing preliminary results that topped the most optimistic Wall Street estimates and sparked a 32 percent jump in the stock. The bank attributed the profit to a surge in mortgage originations and revenue from Wachovia Corp., acquired in December. Full results are scheduled for April 22.
“Details were scarce and we believe that much of the positive news in the preliminary results had to do with merger accounting, revised accounting standards and mortgage default moratoriums, rather than underlying trends,” wrote Cannon, [b]who downgraded the shares to “underperform” from “market perform.” “We expect earnings and capital to be under pressure due to continued economic weakness.” [/b]
Banken gaan een side accounting opstellen voor banken waarin het vertrouwen opnieuw wordt gewogen.
Dit gaat zeker gevolgen krijgen voor het schaduw-financiële systeem....waardoor banken elkaar weer minder gaan vertrouwen. Als dit de transparantie is wat Obongo bedoelde... dan hebben we nog een lange en pijnvolle weg te gaan. De "gemiddelde" aandeelhouder heeft het nakijken die niet alle mark-to-market modellen kan doorgronden (lees de werkelijke situatie).
Ongelooflijk dat dit is goedgekeurd! Wat voor gevolgen zal dit hebben voor de rest van (financiële) wereld?
Banken als Citi kunnen vanaf morgen weer een volkomen gezonden balans dus hebben?
Banken als Citi kunnen vanaf morgen weer een volkomen gezonden balans dus hebben?
Is het ergste geval.... dat we ons protectionistisch gaan opstellen met welke bank + accountantregels we zaken kunnen/mogen doen.quote:Op dinsdag 14 april 2009 00:36 schreef pdegroot het volgende:
Ongelooflijk dat dit is goedgekeurd! Wat voor gevolgen zal dit hebben voor de rest van (financiële) wereld?
Wat is de invloed hiervan op het Nederlandse bankwezen? En dan doel ik met name op hun financële rapportages.
En zo er geen invloed zou zijn, is dit dan niet gewoon een typisch gevalletje van internationale concurrentievervalsing? En dus werk aan de winkel voor de EU en de WTO?
Wel opvallend trouwens hoe Goldman Sachs ineens met prachtige cijfers op de proppen komt. Ik weet genoeg.
[ Bericht 14% gewijzigd door Lemmeb op 14-04-2009 05:42:03 ]
En zo er geen invloed zou zijn, is dit dan niet gewoon een typisch gevalletje van internationale concurrentievervalsing? En dus werk aan de winkel voor de EU en de WTO?
Wel opvallend trouwens hoe Goldman Sachs ineens met prachtige cijfers op de proppen komt. Ik weet genoeg.
[ Bericht 14% gewijzigd door Lemmeb op 14-04-2009 05:42:03 ]
Money is short, times are hard, here's my fucking business card!
"I never let my schooling interfere with my education." — Mark Twain
"I never let my schooling interfere with my education." — Mark Twain
Waarom krijgt dit niet meer aandacht van de pers? Betekend zoiets eigenlijk niet het einde van de fundamentele analyse?
De Michiel Bosgra's van deze wereld komen echt niet verder dan wat ANP persberichten hoor. In de kranten met een serieuze financiele redactie wordt er wel aandacht aan geschonken, zoals NRC en het FD.quote:Op woensdag 15 april 2009 00:50 schreef pdegroot het volgende:
Waarom krijgt dit niet meer aandacht van de pers?
Kees gaf het zonder uitleg ook al aan.....quote:Op woensdag 15 april 2009 01:16 schreef Bolkesteijn het volgende:
[..]
De Michiel Bosgra's van deze wereld komen echt niet verder dan wat ANP persberichten hoor. In de kranten met een serieuze financiele redactie wordt er wel aandacht aan geschonken, zoals NRC en het FD.
Het zaakje stinkt..... vertrouwen is zoek. Of beter raakt zoeker dan ooit.
Hoorde vandaag ook zoiets.... banken doen nog wel zaken..... aan de schaduwzijde. Niet om de reële economie. Eerst genoemde laat een duidelijke stijging zien.
quote:Op woensdag 15 april 2009 01:16 schreef Bolkesteijn het volgende:
[..]
De Michiel Bosgra's van deze wereld komen echt niet verder dan wat ANP persberichten hoor. In de kranten met een serieuze financiele redactie wordt er wel aandacht aan geschonken, zoals NRC en het FD.
En die neem ik niet echt serieus.....
Er is een blogger actief tegen GS die ze hard de mond willen snoeren.
Ghe hoe zou dat toch komen.
Deze dude is fel.....
Let me telll you something "gringo".... ML-implode was al redelijk spot on toen ik vorig jaar (of was het het jaar hiervoor) hier poste. 80 % begrijp ik nauwelijks maar soms komen er verhalen boven waarvan ik slagroom kan maken.
Qua officiele kanalen FD en DFT alsook NRC lopen ze dik achter qua horizon... minstens 3 mnd...
Goldmansachs666.com, die site had ik ook al langs zien komen. Dit soort sites komen nu ineens op naarmate mensen in de gaten krijgen dat ze bedonderd worden.quote:Op woensdag 15 april 2009 02:04 schreef Drugshond het volgende:
[..]
[/b]
En die neem ik niet echt serieus.....
Er is een blogger actief tegen GS die ze hard de mond willen snoeren.
Ghe hoe zou dat toch komen.
Deze dude is fel.....
Let me telll you something "gringo".... ML-implode was al redelijk spot on toen ik vorig jaar (of was het het jaar hiervoor) hier poste. 80 % begrijp ik nauwelijks maar soms komen er verhalen boven waarvan ik slagroom kan maken.
Qua officiele kanalen FD en DFT alsook NRC lopen ze dik achter qua horizon... minstens 3 mnd...
ML-implode was in mijn optiek all veel langer bezig. Schijnt overigens geen kleintje te zijn op youtube. Gewoon een soort van "Ronald Speirs" die nogal wat kont probeert te schoppen.quote:Op woensdag 15 april 2009 03:02 schreef Dutchguy het volgende:
[..]
Goldmansachs666.com, die site had ik ook al langs zien komen. Dit soort sites komen nu ineens op naarmate mensen in de gaten krijgen dat ze bedonderd worden.
Deze juridische beperkingen komen imo niet voor niks uit de lucht vallen. Zeker niet omdat dit deels gevatte insight information is.
BNW or AEX.... just follow the money.
|
|
