southsider2k5

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 09:23 PM) That quote may have been taken out of context, but the other two were not, where he recommended buying Bear Sterns at like 60. Mere weeks before it was worth 2. I think more than anything, this simply prooves that these experts aren't all they're cracked up to be...and maybe now people will be a little more weary of blindly following their expert advice. Like I said, tell me one single person who was putting a sell rating out before the public information was out there. Its more than just Jim Cramer that pisses me off about this whole thing. Its another piece of the stated White House effort to take individuals, demonize them, and make them responsibile for all that is evil in the world. Once they do that, then they get to stand up and say they have the solution. Personally I don't see how the "politics of divisiveness" is getting left behind when the stated White House strategy is to personally pick individuals out and try to paint and entire party of people like that one person. To me it sounds like the last eight years, just like I said it would. The funny part is that everyone who makes fun of Rush Limbaugh is taking the Rush of the left wing's infotainment show and using it just like the right wing uses Rush to advance their cause. No one really seems to get that. In reality you can take any stock picker and find some glaring errors. Its an near impossible science, which is why the SP outpreforms the vast majority of stock pickers on an annual basis. Its not different than the experts in any other field. Tell me one scientist who can tell me exactly what the weather is going to be like in a week. Find me one who can tell me exactly when the next great quake is going to strike in the world and where. How about one who knows how big the universe is. You can keep going on with this, but you get my point. The fact that Rush Stewart and the rest of the left wing is after Cramer is because of one simple fact. He questioned Barack Obama, and has the respect of enough people to potentially change some minds about him. For a party that a few years ago was claiming it was patriotic to question the President, they sure seem to like to turn everything into a personal battle very quickly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 08:29 PM) So is trying to say that you weren't telling people to buy their stock. He claimed that the quote they took was out of context. It was.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 08:01 PM) Was already too late. That is pretty much my point. Without insider information or hindsight, there wasn't a single person alive who wasn't recommending Bear. Digging up pieces from before their collapse is disingenious.

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 07:13 PM) Well I think both Anderson and Owens should go to AAA. I think we'd be better off looking into having Kroeger as our everyday CF and Wise as our 4th outfielder. I just hate Anderson as much as other people hate Owens, if not more. I'd still rather have Wise in the 25-man roster over Anderson, he brings the speed and base-stealing ability this team needs, which Owens can't provide. Plus it seems to me that Anderson wouldn't be getting as much love by White Sox fans he's getting if he wasn't white. When it comes to having a "defensive replacement" on the team, I'd rather have Juan Uribe, and that's saying a lot. You really don't want people to take you seriously, do you? Sox fans want the best team on the field, period. If you are looking for a team who can't see past race, maybe you should look at the one whose fans were were wearing racist T-shirts to games last season. You also might want to look past the team whose most beloved player in franchise history isn't white, their manager isn't white (and is loved), and whose GM isn't white (and is pretty well loved as well). You also might want to look past a team whose current players that are really well loved include a Cuban at SS, a Cuban 3b who has never even played an out of minor league baseball, and a black RF who is pretty much universally loved by Sox fans everywhere. You also might want to not look at a team who has a pitching staff that is going to be 40% minority and has everyone excited as well. Yeah, if you are going to make racist comments, you might want to take a look at the anecdotal evidence that pretty much universally tells me you are full of it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) Mouse sees cheese...mouse takes cheese... .cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;} The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c In Cramer We Trust Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things With Demetri Martin Political Humor Economic Crisis You are 100% correct. Jon Stewart was wrong that Jim Cramer recommended buying Bear Stears stock the week before he collapsed, and he apologizes in that video. He then provides you the video from 5 days beforehand where he directly says to BUY BEAR STEARNS STOCK. And where a few weeks beforehand, he virtually begs people to buy Bear's stock. So who put a sell recommendation on Bear Stearns before they knew they were collapsing?

Like I said, playing time is reason #1 he won't land on the southside.

How you can deny the almighty slider is beyond me. Sinner.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 3, 2009 -> 12:49 PM) Oh, and you shouldn't sell Bear Stearns stock. There's no problem with Bear. An interesting write up, but I thought you would be interested in the bolded part. http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinv...-stewart?page=1

QUOTE (The Beast @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 10:38 AM) I guess my issue is that UIC doesn't have a journalism program. I know they have a paper, and I know it is only weekly. I've often thought about writing PR reports, too. However, I would like to get a background in business so that I can adapt to writing in a business setting. As of right now, my goals are to improve my writing, vocabulary, and overall, just to move forward in life. I'm just unsure if the reason why I didn't want to write for the Daily Eastern News anymore was because the material they were giving me was dry, or for the fact that no one gives a crap about sports at this school. Thank you for your post; I'm going to consider a lot of what you've said. @kyyle: I'm just proving to you guys that I'm not as narrow minded as I was last year. If its because you are worried about what other people think, stop it. If no one else gives a care, that is their problem, not yours.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) So, Obama's education policy is a gigantic success? He had better just keep his mouth shut about the markets today.

So they cut the guy to save $1.5 million essentially. How odd.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 09:46 AM) Sans some real fundemental change, I am sure it is. This could be it!!! I wonder how much political willpower there is to change this? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/budget-de...l?feed=rss_news

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) As long as its not a dead cat bounce... Sans some real fundemental change, I am sure it is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 08:19 AM) I can confirm that #2 has been underway for a while, CME wants to do it. But I don't know if the feds are pushing the issue to get going faster, or if they are promising any sort of funding. If the CME is interested, I am guessing the hold up is finding enough capital for marketmakers to be able to function with. I am surprised they haven't put something together for Globex yet, but at the sametime, how do you standardize a product like that? It would be interesting to see what their prod/dev team is doing with it.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 08:23 PM) barring major injury theres almost no way he doesn't go 1 Only if Borass prices him out of Washington's budget...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 10, 2009 -> 07:51 AM) A couple thoughts on this discussion... 1. If you stop MTM valuation, you have to replace it with something. What model or models are the people who want to stop it, suggesting we use to replace it? 2. The government would be smart to heavily back efforts to get clearing houses and organized exchanges online for fixed income and swap instruments. That is a big part of why these parties were able to trade into such high risk - there wasn't anything binding them into the consequence of each transaction on their risk profile. 1.Dollar/cost averaging is the system that makes the most sense to me. 2.Rumor on the street is that the have been pushing the CME to get into this business. Don't know if that is true or not, or in what form it would be, but that's just what has been said.

Ross: Its actually not a bad thing that you are experiencing this now and not later. One thing that I have learned in my professional life is that many times what you want to do with your life doesn't work out. Unlike our grandparents generation, odds are hugely in favor of you doing multiple different things with your life. To me the most important thing I got out of college wasn't the course work, but the learning and life skills. I have probably changed careers about 3 times within the same industry. For what I do things are constantly changing. The dirty secret about college is that no matter what you learn, you are going to go into the "real world" and they are going to re-teach you how to do things the way that they want them done anyway. The big thing that I got was the ability to learn. The end of college is only the beginning of your education. Heck as we speak I am studying for licensing exams with the NASD. Make sure you solidify your study techniques and figure out exactly how it is you learn best, because you will have no one to depend on but your self if you want to advance in whatever you get involved in. If you think you are doing it own your own now, it only gets worse. For me the important thing was picking out something I knew would give me a chance to live a respectful life style financially, while still being material I was interested in, and could see myself dealing with on a daily basis. Looking back the activities I got into also made a large difference in my life, as they provided me with some valuable skills. My years in radio, and being a program director at the station, were huge. Don't cut those kind of things out if you still enjoy them. If you don't enjoy them, find something else you are interested in and try it out. Finally, I know it sounds hard, because I did the same things at your age, but don't let it eat at you too much. At 19/20 years old, one simply doesn't have the foresight of being able to make these kind of decisions. You have no idea what life is going to throw at you, because every one's life is completely different. Do the best that you can today, and be ready to change things tomorrow. When it happens, it doesn't mean something is wrong, its just different. There isn't anything you can do about, so don't stress about it. Get that degree, keep working hard, and most important of all, enjoy these four years. Life completely changes when you are out of college, and you never get those years back. Soak them up as best as you can.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 08:02 PM) The problem is, everyone knows that the government simply can only go so far backing these assets before people simply aren't going to want to bail them out any more. What %age of Citigroup do we own now? I mean, just look at the numbers. Citigroup's total market value right now is what, about $10 billion? (Haven't done the math today, it was around that # on Friday). Look at the deal the Federal Government struck with Citi in November. Citigroup would take the first $29 billion in losses on their securities. For the next $272 billion, the losses would be split 90/10 with the government taking 90% of the losses. Out of their first $330 billion in losses, the Fed was going to absorb $245 billion. The U.S. government has guaranteed to take on $245 billion of Citigroup's losses, basically agreeing to pay Citigroup $245 billion, and their total value now has dragged itself below $10 billion. The only way that makes sense is if the markets currently think the losses Citi is going to take will overwhelm $245 billion from the government, since Citi supposedly has $108 billion in emergency reserves based on that report that I just posted. The Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet by $2 trillion over the past year, buying up these assets. The Fed has guaranteed $245 billion in Citigroup's assets directly. And yet, the market still thinks that Citigroup is nearly worthless. The market certainly isn't always wise, but the numbers there are staggering. They're expecting Citigroup to be unable to cover $350 billion in losses. One more thing I didn't think of explaining last night, that you all probably don't know... market cap is the valuation of a company, simple enough, right? For a bank, its not. Once again because of the ill-fitting accounting laws, a banks value isn't as simple as what their assets are worth plus or minus a forward valuation of earnings or loses. Because of the capital ratio laws of the Depression era banking changes, plus the genius of Sarbanes Oxley, a bank that has an 89% capital ratio, is worth the same thing as a 0% capital ratio, because they are both insolvent. Technically at under 90% the bank is taken over by the government, they charter is revoked, and their stock is cancelled. The numbers actually make sense. I tried to google assets under management for C, and found a number from the end of May that stated they had $1.8 trillion in assets under management. Which means they probably lent out something like 1.5 to 1.6 trillion dollars against it. Take losses of $350 billion in valuation write downs, and you are insolvent. This is write down of about 20% of total valuations. Citibank still has assets of about 1.4 to 1.5 trillion dollars under management, but is technically worthless and doesn't exist if the Fed weren't pumping up their books to keep them at that 90% ratio. They are worth $10 billion in market cap today because the market doesn't believe the Fed can keep pumping in money until their assets start to appreciate again. This is another perfect example of how easy it is to make numbers lie to people who don't understand them. Realize that under your theory of an asset being worth what someone is immediately willing to pay for it, C would have gone under 6 months ago, even with government help, and we would have been on the hook for the majority of that 1.8 trillion dollars.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 08:02 PM) The problem is, everyone knows that the government simply can only go so far backing these assets before people simply aren't going to want to bail them out any more. What %age of Citigroup do we own now? I mean, just look at the numbers. Citigroup's total market value right now is what, about $10 billion? (Haven't done the math today, it was around that # on Friday). Look at the deal the Federal Government struck with Citi in November. Citigroup would take the first $29 billion in losses on their securities. For the next $272 billion, the losses would be split 90/10 with the government taking 90% of the losses. Out of their first $330 billion in losses, the Fed was going to absorb $245 billion. The U.S. government has guaranteed to take on $245 billion of Citigroup's losses, basically agreeing to pay Citigroup $245 billion, and their total value now has dragged itself below $10 billion. The only way that makes sense is if the markets currently think the losses Citi is going to take will overwhelm $245 billion from the government, since Citi supposedly has $108 billion in emergency reserves based on that report that I just posted. The Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet by $2 trillion over the past year, buying up these assets. The Fed has guaranteed $245 billion in Citigroup's assets directly. And yet, the market still thinks that Citigroup is nearly worthless. The market certainly isn't always wise, but the numbers there are staggering. They're expecting Citigroup to be unable to cover $350 billion in losses. And why are they worthless? Because the people at the top keep saying that they are. None of this stuff will begin to solidify until the marketplace gets some confidence in the actions of the government. Right now they have no reason to believe things will be getting better anytime soon, because they keep getting told they won't.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 03:16 PM) CKnolls, Do you agree we see 10%+ bounce if we get rid of mark-to-market? Huge upside, IMO. I don't know about Dr J's bet of the doubling of the financials, but I would bet on a 25% bounce from that sector. I don't know how many SP/Dow points that translates into, but it will be one hell of a rally. It may well put in the bottom of this market.

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....ng-version.html

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 8, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) As for Floyd, he has much better raw physical ability than Danks and just about every other pitcher in baseball. If Floyd can keep it together mentally, he's going to win even more games than the eye-popping 17 last season. www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=277539&src=162 That and the insight that we won't see Contreras until May. John Danks was consistently throwing 92-93-94 for most of last season, I don't get where so many people shortchange him and treat him more like Mark Buehrle. He was a first round draft pick, too. I don't think you can make the statement Gregor does simply based on the fact that Floyd has an awesome curveball when it's on, which is about 30-40% of the time. Yes, there are lots of pitchers that have the ability to be the best in baseball based on pure stuff alone, but a little hyperbole for your Sunday morning...I think everyone in White Sox Nation would be pleased as punch if Gavin somehow managed 15 wins this season. Gregor predicting 18 or more? Well, he's out on a limb, I hope he's right. On this team, I would say Danks gets more out of his stuff than anyone except Mark Buehrle. I can actually agree with Gregor if you word it a little differently. I really believe that Gavin Floyd has better pure stuff and potential than Danks does. Danks just has a HUGE edge in the mental aspect of the game, which we all know how important that is in the game of baseball. Gavin Floyd is blessed with more potential and stuff than most of baseball. He just has to learn to harness it.

I'd love to see Valpo product Scott Drew and Baylor manage a second round upset and beat Kansas.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Mar 9, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) Williams deserves a lot of credit right now. As you say, every day more and more it seems like this team is going to compete for a division crown in 2009, while at the same time Williams has started to re-build the farm with high end players like Beckham, Poreda, Viciedo, Allen,Flowers, Shelby, and Danks. Along with that, the influx of Danks-Floyd-Quentin-Alexei has made the current major league core something to get excited about. On top of it all, there isn't a long term deal on the books right now that is really hurting the franchise. Pretty nice spot to be. The funny thing was everyone laughed at Kenny when we had the worst farm system on the planet and he said it would take no time to fix it. It took him all of a year and a half to get it back to respecful, contributing levels.