Financial News

[Balta1701]

6. One thing that WOULD have prevented this, is the Volcker Rule. I'll bet that rule is in place within 2 years in some form.

 

(will resume sniping once I stop laughing).

[StrangeSox]

Hasn't Volcker disowned whatever bastardized version of his rule was included in Dodd-Frank?

[Balta1701]

Hasn't Volcker disowned whatever bastardized version of his rule was included in Dodd-Frank?

Yes

[StrangeSox]

House Republicans reject 2-month payroll tax cut

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Tuesday rejected legislation to extend a payroll tax cut and jobless benefits for two months, drawing a swift rebuke from President Barack Obama that Republicans were threatening higher taxes on 160 million American workers on Jan. 1.

 

Obama said the two-month compromise is the only way to stop payroll taxes from going up by two percentage points.

"Now let's be clear," Obama said in a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room after the House vote. "The bipartisan compromise that was reached on Saturday is the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1st. The only one."

Obama said failure to pass the Senate version of the payroll tax cut extension could endanger the U.S. economic recovery, which he described as "fragile but moving in the right direction."

 

Obama is gearing up to run for a second term in next November's elections and there have been suggestions he will borrow a tactic from a past president and charge that a do-thing Congress is responsible for the country's ills.

 

House Republicans controlling the chamber instead of a two-month extension want immediate negotiations with the Senate on a year-long plan. But the Senate's top Democrat on Tuesday again ruled out talks until the House passes the stopgap measure.

"President Obama needs to call on Senate Democrats to go back into session ... and resolve this bill as soon as possible," said the Republican leader of the House, Speaker John Boehner. "I need the president to help out."

 

If Congress does not break the stalemate and pass a bill by the end of the year, payroll taxes will go up by almost $20 a week for a worker making a $50,000 salary. Almost 2 million people could lose unemployment benefits as well, and doctors would bear big cuts in Medicare payments.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hasn't Volcker disowned whatever bastardized version of his rule was included in Dodd-Frank?

Yes, because of its bastardization. But there wasn't the groundswell behind it then, that there may be now. Different world. If Obama is re-elected, which at this point seems better than 50/50 to happen, I will bet you right now that a stronger or more complete version of it will come up for votes in Congress. Whether or not it passes Congress depends on a lot of things. ObamaCo may also see if they can get it done without Congress, though I am fairly certain that can't work.

 

[Balta1701]

Yes, because of its bastardization. But there wasn't the groundswell behind it then, that there may be now. Different world. If Obama is re-elected, which at this point seems better than 50/50 to happen, I will bet you right now that a stronger or more complete version of it will come up for votes in Congress. Whether or not it passes Congress depends on a lot of things. ObamaCo may also see if they can get it done without Congress, though I am fairly certain that can't work.

The only part of this I agree with is that the Pres's odds seem better than 50/50 right now. The Democrats aren't going to push something that hurts Wall street if they somehow get into power, especially with Frank being gone (who would be about the only one who could drive something like that). And the Republicans aren't going to bring anything even resembling a strong bill that would limit Wall Street's activities.

[NorthSideSox72]

The only part of this I agree with is that the Pres's odds seem better than 50/50 right now. The Democrats aren't going to push something that hurts Wall street if they somehow get into power, especially with Frank being gone (who would be about the only one who could drive something like that). And the Republicans aren't going to bring anything even resembling a strong bill that would limit Wall Street's activities.

I think your view of the political situation is far too static. Things are changing rapidly (not necessarily for the better, but, change nonetheless). We'll see.

 

[Balta1701]

I think your view of the political situation is far too static. Things are changing rapidly (not necessarily for the better, but, change nonetheless). We'll see.

Yeah, the part whehre things are changing for the worse is the part I'm concerned about. In a Citizens United world, now it's so much easier to own 3/4 of Congress.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, the part whehre things are changing for the worse is the part I'm concerned about. In a Citizens United world, now it's so much easier to own 3/4 of Congress.

Companies still don't vote, and anger still reigns supreme. If nothing is done to fix glaring issues (even if the fix is weak at best), heads roll at election time, that is still a basic truth.

 

[Balta1701]

Companies still don't vote

Only because the Court hasn't had a chance to rule on that yet

[southsider2k5]

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this happened right after they failed to get the budgetary boost they requested to be able to pay for their expansion.

 

I can't think of a better plan in the world than throwing money at agencies that have consistently failed in the scope of their duties. After all, all of the increased funding has prevented rouge traders and flash crashes over at the SEC and FINRA.

[Balta1701]

I can't think of a better plan in the world than throwing money at agencies that have consistently failed in the scope of their duties. After all, all of the increased funding has prevented rouge traders and flash crashes over at the SEC and FINRA.

After checking, I was actually kinda startled to find out that the SEC's budget declined relative to inflation from 2005-2009 (and therefore declined massively relative to the share of the economy taken up by Wall Street), and last year's budget post Dodd-Frank was the first time the SEC had actually received increased funding. Thankfully nothing weird happened in the markets over that time period, and thankfully the Flash Crash didn't happen during that time period, otherwise one might scoff at your statement.

[southsider2k5]

After checking, I was actually kinda startled to find out that the SEC's budget declined relative to inflation from 2005-2009 (and therefore declined massively relative to the share of the economy taken up by Wall Street), and last year's budget post Dodd-Frank was the first time the SEC had actually received increased funding. Thankfully nothing weird happened in the markets over that time period, and thankfully the Flash Crash didn't happen during that time period, otherwise one might scoff at your statement.

 

Declined relative to inflation, means still increased. They have also increased staffing. And it also ignores increases at FINRA

[Balta1701]

Declined relative to inflation, means still increased.

 

The SEC's budget outright declined from 2005-2007.

[Balta1701]

How about that, FINRA actually shrunk from 2007-2009 also.

[southsider2k5]

 

The SEC's budget outright declined from 2005-2007.

 

And once they started getting their increases, everything got fixed...

[NorthSideSox72]

Sniping over staffing levels is kind of pointless here. The system they work within needs changing. Adding a small % or removing a small % does next to nothing either way. I personally think they should at least stay even in funding vs inflation because of how key they are (and yes, even when problematic, they are still important and still prevent some problems). But fundamentally, they need to be changed.

 

[southsider2k5]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/21/real_estat...?source=igoogle

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Existing home sales during the housing bust were actually 14.3% worse than previously reported, a revision to Realtors' group numbers shows.

 

On Wednesday, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) revised home sale counts back to 2007 due to flaws in their original data analysis.

 

In 2007, there were actually just 5.04 million existing home sales, 11% less than the 5.65 million originally reported. Even worse were 2008 and 2009, when there were 16% fewer sales than originally reported. Sales in 2010 were 15% lower.

 

"The errors started in 2007 and continued to accumulate over time," said Lawrence Yun, NAR's chief economist.

 

The accuracy of the data is important. Private companies like residential real estate developers rely on it for planning and policy makers make decisions based on it.

Home building spikes higher

 

The data is "key to the economic outlook," said Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics, "and the revisions help to explain the severity of the housing crash."

 

David Crowe, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, said its members use existing home sales as reported by NAR as a gauge of the overall health of the housing market.

 

"Sales data and, just as important, an inventory buildup, would make builders less likely to go forward with developments," he said.

 

Some industry sources had been critical of the organization's data. In February, CoreLogic charged that NAR data was overestimating sales by 15% to 20%.

 

When NAR investigated, it found a "notable upward drift" in the numbers compared to other measurements such as courthouse deeds records, said Yun.

 

NAR doesn't report actual counts of home sales but estimates them based on the number of transactions reported by local Realtors.

 

That method worked well into the mid-2000s, but then discrepancies arose during the housing bust as Realtors started to get involved in more deals and some MLSs expanded into new territories, skewing the numbers and leading to doublecounting of some sales.

 

Still, the revisions, according to Zandi, will have little impact going forward and, looking backward, are of limited importance.

 

"We all knew it was a crash, now it's a deeper one," he said.

 

For November, the latest month under the re-benchmarked formula, sales of existing homes came in at a seasonally adjusted, annualized rate of 4.42 million. That's up 4% from the revised level of 4.25 million in October and 12.2% higher than a year earlier.

 

That good news followed recent positive reports on new home sales and home construction activity. These pickups, along with historically low mortgage rates, may indicate that "a modest recovery may be underway," said Paul Dales, a senior economist with Capital Economics. To top of page

[max power]

The accuracy of the data is important.

 

Some would apparently dispute that.

[StrangeSox]

Countrywide's Racist Lending Practices Were Fueled by Greed

 

Economic racism is a slippery thing in 2011. It's not out in the open, like a "whites only" sign above a lunch counter. And it's not explicit, like the deed to a house barring its sale to blacks or Jews.

 

Instead, it's submerged. It lives in patterns of discrimination hidden within reams and reams of hard to analyze data. It's not necessarily driven by animus or hate. Sometimes it's just a product of garden-variety greed.

 

For proof, direct your attention to the record-setting settlement announced this week between the Justice Department and Bank of America over the mortgage lending practices of Countrywide Financial. The bank agreed to pay $335 million dollars to settle claims that, at the height of housing boom, Countrywide routinely discriminated against blacks and Hispanics by charging them higher interest rates and fees than equally qualified white customers.

[mr_genius]

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/dec/3...ke--ar-1765473/

 

Lexington man charged with making a fake $1 million bill and trying to spend it. A move which was likely inspired by President Obama.

[Balta1701]

A move which was likely inspired by President Obama.

Huh?

[mr_genius]

Huh?

 

Obama is a role model to many, therefore when the President just prints up money to spend his followers assume it is OK for the to do the same. It's a very simple (and completely correct) theory that I have.

[Balta1701]

Obama is a role model to many, therefore when the President just prints up money to spend his followers assume it is OK for the to do the same. It's a very simple (and completely correct) theory that I have.

Do right wingers actually think this is funny and not just embarrassing to the person writing it?

[mr_genius]

Do right wingers actually think this is funny and not just embarrassing to the person writing it?

 

Well, there's no need to start throwing around insults, Balta.