Finance Geek: Archive

If the courts stepped in and decided these interest payments were illegal, that would certainly be a whole lotta money flying out of the Federal Reserve at once.

I’m not sold on the logic that this would necessarily lead to hyperinflation. The money might fly right back into the Federal Reserve as Treasury Bills, especially if they bumped interest rates a bit.

Still, an interesting story that isn’t getting coverage in the MSM.

Oct 13, 20113 notes

Play

Sep 20, 20112 notes

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.” —Warren Buffett

Play

Play

“If developers were allowed to face directly the high land costs of providing so much parking, the number of spaces would be a result of a careful economic calculation rather than a matter of satisfying a legal requirement. Parking would be scarcer, and more likely to have a price — or a higher one than it does now — and people would be more careful about when and where they drove.” —Economic View - Why Free Parking Comes at a Price - NYTimes.com

Aug 15, 20103 notes

“Singapore, I think, has the closest thing to the sort of system Hayek had in mind. Among wealthy countries, it spends the smallest percentage of GDP on health care, and it gets about the best results. You know what that’s called? Efficiency. How do you get it? Competitive markets with freely moving prices under the rule of law! It’s the sort of thing you’re in favor of if you want everybody to have access to really good health care and money to spend on things other than health care.” —

So Hayek Basically Had Ezra Klein’s Views on Health Care, Right? (via jimdew) (via continuum)

Great article on free markets, libertarianism, and how it is possible for governments to take care of all their constituents without completely screwing up the market for healthcare.

Jul 11, 20104 notes

Jul 2, 20101 note

“How could we have gone back to business as usual and petty political gridlocks with all those black swans circling around us? Then we will really kick ourselves.” —Thomas Friedman - This Time Is Different

Jun 14, 2010

“A true measure of economic vitality is measured by wealth. We can look at incomes or other measures of productivity but real wealth is measured by net worth. Who controls wealth in the U.S.? According to a study from the Joint Center for Housing Studies the top 25% of U.S. households control 87% of all wealth in the country.” —America’s wealthiest 25 percent of households own 87 percent of all U.S. wealth. How the middle class face growing income inequality in the new era of the psychopath corporatocracy.

May 24, 20101 note

“These days, trading isn’t risky at all. In fact, it’s safer than walking down the street.
Why?
Because the US government is lending money to the big banks at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest rates, making 3%+ on the spread. What’s more, the banks are leveraging this trade, borrowing at least $10 for every $1 of equity capital they have, to increase the size of their bets. Which means the banks can turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits—by borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.” —God It’s Great To Be A Banker

May 24, 20101 note

“Deep recovery for the global economy depends on the American consumer becoming the American saver, investor, and builder. That, in turn, depends on a new generation of businesses, that lay the foundations for tomorrow’s industries, sectors, and markets. Those businesses - Constructive Capitalists - are what fuel meaningful investment in people, communities, and society, not just naked consumption by them.” —Umair Haque / Bubblegeneration

May 19, 20105 notes

(via unsolicitedanalysis)

I’m not normally for nationalisation, but this one seems to make sense. There is an astounding amount of money to recoup.

May 6, 2010

… The FDIC closes it on a Thursday. LibertyPointe Bank of New York, NY just failed. The bank had $209.5 million in total deposits and will have an estimated hit to the Deposit Insurance Fund of $24.8 million. The FDIC entered into a loss-share agreement with Valley National Bank on $181.5…

Mar 11, 20102 notes

hilker:

“WASHINGTON—The U.S. economy ceased to function this week after unexpected existential remarks by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke shocked Americans into realizing that money is, in fact, just a meaningless and intangible social construct.

See: Fiat currency

Feb 18, 20107 notes

“One in five men in the U.S. between the ages of 25 and 54 is not working right now…” —Lawrence Summers (via azspot) (via quotingthecrisis)

Feb 5, 20108 notes

Feb 1, 201029 notes

Feb 1, 2010

“

What are your top three trend predictions for the virtual goods sector in 2010?

More people wake up to the fact that selling 100% replicable pixels for dollars is more profitable than selling black sugar water.

Global virtual goods market over USD 10 billion: the US market was about $1B in 2009 and our estimated for Asia was a conservative $7B. Factor in growth in US (maybe $2B next year) + Asia ($9B?) + rest of the world and we’re there easily.

” —

Our Views Along 30 Experts on the Virtual Goods Market 2010

$KO takes in ~$30B a year, so it definitely isn’t true today. I do think that the turning point is coming, though.

Jan 21, 20101 note

“In my opinion, Goldman is a dangerous, closed ‘Collective Knowledge System‘ . Having a closed Collective Knowledge System is cool, but I have long not trusted what it is that Goldman’s system decides to share, with whom, and when.” —

Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » What is Goldman Sachs?

Interesting anecdote about the history of $BARE

Jan 18, 20101 note

“But the high ground has shifted. The new high ground is an ethical edge. It’s not about having more; it’s about doing better. It’s not about protecting exports, pressuring buyers and suppliers, price discriminating against the powerless, and programming consumers to buy, buy, buy — it’s about making people, communities, and society authentically better off. It’s not about caring less — but caring more. It’s not about ruthlessness. It’s about mindfulness.” —Google, China, and the New High Ground of Advantage - Umair Haque - Harvard Business Review

Jan 15, 20102 notes

“In other words, Google has managed to turn their business quandary over what to do about China into a political affair, with the US government having no choice but to play second fiddle to Google’s first. Now it’s not just Mountain View vs Beijing, it’s Washington/Mountain View vs Beijing. Brilliant. No wonder Google has been hiring all those smart policy types with government experience: you can see they are acting very smart.” —Google + US government = Love? | Net Effect

Jan 14, 20101 note

Jan 11, 20101 note

“After the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980’s, there were more than 1,000 felony indictments of senior officers. Recent fraud is much more widespread and costly. The consequences are much greater. Congress needs to fund investigations. Regulators need to get tough on crime.” —Janet Tavakoli: Washington’s Bipartisan Betrayal: The 2015 Global Financial Crisis (via quotingthecrisis)

Jan 5, 20101 note

“One of the primary lessons of the recent financial crisis is that the most important form of diversification is across institutions, not, as the experts have told us for decades, across asset classes.” — The importance of institutional redundancy cdixon.org – chris dixon’s blog

Dec 18, 20092 notes

“One of the little appreciated facts of American history: the Westward expansion was funded mostly by credit money. Banks and companies would set up shop with tiny gold reserves, people would use their money as currency, and the banks would regularly explode, making the issued money worthless paper. Why on earth would anyone back such a hare brained scheme? Simple, really: there was no other form of money available, because the government removed vast amounts of money from circulation in the form of greenbacks (fiat money which funded the Civil War) and silver notes. That, combined with the very real economic expansion brought on by new technologies and exploitation of new resources in the American West required much more money than was available. So, seemingly silly monopoly money was the only game in town. This caused problems to the people who held a lot of cash backed by an exploding bank, but it solved more problems than it caused, as it enabled markets, trade and economic growth at an important time in American history. You think derivatives are complicated? At the outbreak of civil war, there were over 7000 different kinds of Bank issued credit money in circulation in America; and there were no computers to sort this all out.” —A peregrination on the nature of money « Locklin on science (via nonolet)

Dec 2, 20092 notes

“It’s one of those numbers that’s so unbelievable you have to actually think about it for a while… Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt. And that’s not counting any additional deficit spending, which is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion. Put the two numbers together. Then ask yourself, how in the world can the Treasury borrow $3.5 trillion in only one year? That’s an amount equal to nearly 30% of our entire GDP. And we’re the world’s biggest economy. Where will the money come from?” —Porter Stansberry - The bankruptcy of the United States is now certain

Dec 2, 20092 notes

“China’s banking regulator issued a stern warning to banks to strictly comply with capital requirements or face sanctions, the clearest sign yet Beijing is worried about possible risks building in the country’s financial system after a year of blow-out lending.” —Denis McMahon in China’s banking regulator talks tough about complying with capital-adequacy rules - WSJ.com (via quotingthecrisis)

Nov 24, 20091 note

“Ultimately, Chinese growth is the result of a great skyhook: an artificially cheap currency. That skyhook says: Chinese prosperity is in many ways simply an economic fiction. That currency manipulation can’t last forever — and without it, China will have to confront the same problems every industrialized society does: the tremendous costs of a model of growth that places “product” over people.” —What’s Your Strategy for the Next Decade? - Umair Haque - HarvardBusiness.org

Nov 17, 20091 note

“A new decade’s breaking, and in it, people, companies, and countries will have to strategize differently. The story the macroeconomic tea leaves foretell isn’t one of power shifting from America to China or anywhere else. It is a story of global economic might everywhere wavering and falling, unable to meet the new challenges of the 21st Century, The Age of Decline isn’t just American: it’s global, a descent into a new kind of economic dark age - unless different choices are made.” —

What’s Your Strategy for the Next Decade? - Umair Haque - HarvardBusiness.org

Lots of people make a living saying that the sky is falling. Umair is the only one I take seriously.

Nov 17, 20092 notes

“Debt didn’t get dangerously out of scale because the system was broken. It got out of scale, in part, because the system worked.” —How the tax code encourages debt : The New Yorker

Nov 16, 20091 note

I switched majors from history to finance once I figured out which one of those two fields drove the other.

unsolicitedanalysis:

The biggest thing we’re doomed to repeat is failed monetary policy. That’s been true from the Romans to the Russians.

Nov 13, 2009

Nov 13, 20094 notes

continuum:

Keynesians say you cannot save out of a recession. While true, you can’t either spend out of a multi-trillion debt hole. #austrianeconomics

Nov 12, 20095 notes

“We all know at this point that our banking system is being used as an unregulated bonus-seeking mechanism for bankers, now underwritten by taxpayers with $23.7 trillion worth of national wealth. Bankers lent pretend money to home buyers to award themselves actual money in bonuses — making home prices balloon and, in the process, bankrupting America’s treasury, currency, the states, and many of its citizens. To simply let the housing market rapidly correct itself (or more likely over-correct) would result in massive societal disruption, possible violence and unnecessary suffering.” —Dylan Ratigan | Veterans Get Lip Service, Bankers Get Billions & We Get Foreclosures (via poortaste)

Nov 12, 200911 notes

“…42% of American men with fathers in the bottom income quintile remain there as compared to: Denmark, 25%; Sweden, 26%; Finland, 28%; Norway, 28%; and the United Kingdom, 30%.” —

Inequality Begets Inequality (via azspot)

The American Dream may be just that

Oct 30, 20096 notes

quotingthecrisis:

continuum:

It is hardly surprising that GMAC is circling back to the government for a third helping of taxpayer money. GMAC is struggling under the double whammy of bad car loans and the fallout from its misguided foray into mortgage finance at the height of the housing bubble. After the government applied stress tests to the banks last May, it was the only big bank that could not raise the capital it was deemed to need.

Oct 29, 20095 notes

Quotation Of The Day

quotingthecrisis:

ataxiwardance:

mattpayton:

“And now there are five — five Wall Street behemoths, bigger than they were before the Great Meltdown, paying fatter salaries and bonuses to retain their so-called ‘talent,’ and raking in huge profits. The biggest difference between now and last October is these biggies didn’t know then that they were too big to fail and the government would bail them out if they got into trouble. Now they do. And like a giant, gawking adolescent who’s just discovered he can crash the Lexus convertible his rich dad gave him and the next morning have a new one waiting in his driveway courtesy of a dad who can’t say no, the biggies will drive even faster now, taking even bigger risks.”

- Robert Reich

Oct 27, 20098 notes

Buffettism

taitran:

• Rule No.1: Never lose money.

Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1

• Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful

• It is far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price

• Whether we’re talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down

• Price is what you pay. Value is what you get

• It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it

• Cash combined with courage in a crisis is priceless

• Never invest in a business you cannot understand

• Only buy something that you’d be perfectly happy to hold if the market shut down for ten years

• Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago

• Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing

• If you don’t feel comfortable owning something for 10 years, then don’t own it for 10 minutes

• If a business does well, the stock eventually follows

• I wouldn’t mind going to jail if I had three cellmates who played bridge

• The fact that people will be full of greed, fear or folly is predictable. The sequence is not predictable

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8322921.stm

Oct 27, 20095 notes

Oct 21, 200929 notes

“The theory that bailout benefits sans meaningful reform will trickle down and benefit the average Joe (as much than or more than bankers) is the kind of perverse logic only an economist could love. It’s is faith-based economics — and it’s Barack Obama’s biggest mistake. (Consider for a moment that 20+ per cent of hedge funds misrepresent info.) For years, George Bush hunted for phantom WMDs, while terrorist networks flourished under his nose. Now Barack Obama is hunting for a phantom prosperity, while the greatest robbery in the world is happening right under his nose.” —Reinventing Wall Street From the Bottom Up - Umair Haque

Oct 18, 20093 notes

“If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big,” Greenspan said today. “In 1911 we broke up Standard Oil — so what happened? The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that’s what we need to do.” —Alan Greenspan

Oct 16, 20094 notes

“When you take any money at all from a big VC in a seed round, you are effectively giving them an option on the next round, even though that option isn’t contractual. And, somewhat counterintuitively, the more well respected the VC is, the stronger the negative signal will be when they don’t follow on.” —

Chris Dixon (via entrepreneurwisdom)

Yes. This always bothered me. I’d rather raise from a group of great angels (and therefore herd a lot of cats) than run the risk of having a seed VC not lead the next round. And if they do end up leading there are lots of distorted incentives that can cause serious problems for the entrepreneur. Negotiate too hard and you lose your lead and end up sending a really negative message to other prospective investors. Not good.

(via mikehudack)

Thanks for the advice, would love to hear more about it. About to go through this now for the first time. Definitely leaning towards doing a syndicated angel deal than a VC seed round that also requires a board seat and other strings. Pros / Cons?

(via caterpillarcowboy)

Your angels should get a board seat. More specifically, the lead should represent them as a class on the board. I guess this doesn’t always happen. It’s the way it worked for us, and it worked reasonably well. At some point they should expect to give up their seat as they get crammed down by professional venture investors in later rounds.

I think there are many reasons to go with an angel syndicate over a VC in an early seed round. The follow-on issue is only one of them. You also get more diverse advice. You also get friends. No investor is really your friend, but angels are probably as close as any investors get. Most angels invest because they love it, not so much for the returns. VCs are professionals that are fiduciaries for LPs (pension funds, university endowments, etc). They’re more likely to be dicks because sometimes they have to be dicks. You want investors who you can grow with.

There are exceptions to every rule. I think it would be tough to turn down a seed round from USV, for example. But imagine how much it must suck to have Fred put in $500,000 and then refuse to participate in your next round. Everyone out there thinks Fred has one of the best noses around. How do you explain to potential funders that Fred won’t be participating? This is always a problem, but it’s much more pronounced early in a company’s history when concrete metrics are hard to come by and you’re still to a large degree selling vision.

(via mikehudack)

Oct 12, 200915 notes

“One interesting thing that I’ve always found about the film business from an economic point of view is that unlike in any other business I can think of, the cost of manufacturing the product has no affect on the purchase cost to the consumer. For example Honda can make a cheaper car with less features and cheaper finishes than BMW without losing all of their customers to the superior car because they sell their product for less. You spend less to make something, you charge less for it. Makes complete and obvious sense. Not so in the film business.” —Marginal Revolution: the unusual economics of the film industry

Oct 8, 2009

Sep 23, 20099 notes

“Central bank officials are discussing plans to use so- called reverse repurchase agreements to drain some of the $1 trillion they pumped into the economy” —

Fed Said to Start Talks With Dealers on Using Reverse Repos - Bloomberg.com

I’m sure if I took the time to grok it would become sensical, but at the moment it would be much more pleasing to simply say “reverse repurchase agreements?” Are you f*cking kidding me?

What’s worse is that the industry term for such transactions are “reverse repos” which a lyaman would bring to mind getting your unpaid car given back to you … which isn’t really how we want American’s thinking the government is treating the banks and all the loans. It sounds like we’ll be giving the banks back the money that we loaned them

(via tedr)

I’ll try and break it down a bit more. You’re right that ‘repo’ sounds like repossession, but hopefully Bloomberg readers at least know that there is a difference between the Federal Reserve and a no-credit-check discount car leasing company.

When the Federal Reserve wanted to stimulate the banking system they bought up securities (it used to just be government bonds, but has now expanded beyond that) with money from the treasury. Now, they want to sell these securities back to the public (and by public, I mean large institutional investors and banks) to pull back in some of the money to reduce the risk of inflation/devaluation of the US dollar.

That’s the gist of it, at least.

Sep 22, 20095 notes

Sep 22, 20093 notes

“At the last MIT Venture Capital conference, a speaker brilliantly described the good and bad about VC money:
“Venture capital is like sex. When it’s good, it’s really good. When it’s bad, it’s still good.” —

What Have VCs Really Done for Innovation?

Comment by @rodmaz

Sep 21, 20091 note

“What we need to do is to apply the same rules to VC’s which they impose on their companies – force them to make tough choices and get their business models in order. And instead of giving the tax-breaks to the middlemen, let’s give these directly to the entrepreneurs who take the risks and create the innovation. It is the entrepreneurs who fuel the economy, not the venture capitalists or investment bankers.” —What Have VCs Really Done for Innovation?

Sep 20, 20092 notes

Finance Geek

October 2011

1 post

September 2011

1 post

July 2011

1 post

November 2010

1 post

October 2010

1 post

September 2010

1 post

August 2010

1 post

July 2010

2 posts

June 2010

1 post

May 2010

4 posts

March 2010

1 post

February 2010

4 posts

January 2010

6 posts

December 2009

3 posts

November 2009

8 posts

October 2009

9 posts

September 2009

15 posts