http://vimeo.com/3722293 a must see if you have any investments.. prepre to be royally pissed off !! interesting what our crackerjack sec did to prevent this even when they knew it was prevelant ...
what really caused the meltdown !
- Thread starter new redneck
- Start date
And I bought when Bear went to $50.. thought I was buying low! Got greedy while people were fearful.. and I got screwed.
USA USA USA- just kidding guys.
Still love your best country in the world (clems quote).
Its about time Canadians and Americans put their heads together and put the masses together and hit the Gov't where it hurts.
Otherwise keep opening your aisses wider and say aah.
Still love your best country in the world (clems quote).
Its about time Canadians and Americans put their heads together and put the masses together and hit the Gov't where it hurts.
Otherwise keep opening your aisses wider and say aah.
homedog, that bothered me also.. he is probably going to try to blame bush !!! his upcoming film does not ,however,have much to do with the massive corruption that has existed for years.. there was a piece on naked shorting supposed to air about a yer ago on 20 /20.. three times it was cancelled on the day of the show !hmmmm
right off the bat you can detect the slant and inaccurracies when video wonders how run on Bears stock could happen with them holding plenty of liquidity. Easy. Lack of confidence. That's how runs happen on banks, especially.
Looks to me that the tremendous short selling was due to insiders knowing collapse was around the corner. No evidence is presented to show how it couldn't have been that.
And I don't think Lehman collapse was any trigger by itself. Credit markets were stable for a week afterwards (looking at the TED spread and Libor rates) then Treasury announced it's rescue deal and it wasn't recieved too well by congress or markets. Officials further talking it up made it worse and appeared directionless with saving some firm and letting others fail. Then more bad news on economy and Freddie and Frannies. Money started leaving markets, flying to saftey. In Sept. two commercial paper money market funds broke the buck, and it's right after that everyone freaked out and market plunged.
as I said here before, who knows full story behind this crisis? Only now are studies being done and papers written. Be at least a year before any consensus develops among analysts. The 1987 crash was much simpler event and up to 2 years later experts were still debating it's causes (now it's fully understood and taught at every finance school).
Looks to me that the tremendous short selling was due to insiders knowing collapse was around the corner. No evidence is presented to show how it couldn't have been that.
And I don't think Lehman collapse was any trigger by itself. Credit markets were stable for a week afterwards (looking at the TED spread and Libor rates) then Treasury announced it's rescue deal and it wasn't recieved too well by congress or markets. Officials further talking it up made it worse and appeared directionless with saving some firm and letting others fail. Then more bad news on economy and Freddie and Frannies. Money started leaving markets, flying to saftey. In Sept. two commercial paper money market funds broke the buck, and it's right after that everyone freaked out and market plunged.
as I said here before, who knows full story behind this crisis? Only now are studies being done and papers written. Be at least a year before any consensus develops among analysts. The 1987 crash was much simpler event and up to 2 years later experts were still debating it's causes (now it's fully understood and taught at every finance school).
i`m sure that whatever consensus is reached will reflect the ideological underpinnings of those conducting the investigation....these are the times we live in...
i`ll be curious to see what happens to the dollar`s value when our debt is pushed over our gdp...
it`s very sad that our congress/dear leader can't understand that spending much more money than you have coming in is not the way to create prosperity......
We discussed this subject at length--if anyone interested or has anything to add.
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358028
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358028
Naked Shorting at Lehman
Naked Shorting at Lehman
Barry Ritholtz has some good comments on this stuff in his blog:
Oh, this is going to get the Sith Lords all hot & bothered!
Both the WSJ and Bloomberg have articles this morning about Naked Shorting. The Bloomberg article more explicitly suggests that Lehman was ?brought down,? in part, by naked shorting:
Naked Short Sales Hint Fraud in Bringing Down Lehman
?The biggest bankruptcy in history might have been avoided if Wall Street had been prevented from practicing one of its darkest arts.
As Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. struggled to survive last year, as many as 32.8 million shares in the company were sold and not delivered to buyers on time as of Sept. 11, according to data compiled by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Bloomberg. That was a more than 57-fold increase over the prior year?s peak of 567,518 failed trades on July 30. The SEC has linked such so-called fails-to-deliver to naked short selling, a strategy that can be used to manipulate markets. A fail-to-deliver is a trade that doesn?t settle within three days.?
This is one of those things that is easy to allege, hard to disprove, has coincidental supporting data, and provides just enough plausability to make people forget (albeit temporarily) the cold hard facts of the day.
If I were at Bloomberg, here is how I would have written this article:
Over-Leverage, Under-Capitalization Brings Down Lehman (Update)
?The biggest bankruptcy in history might have been avoided if Wall Street had been sufficiently capitalized, used only moderate leverage, and avoided making false assumptions in their econometric models.
As Lehman Brothers Holdings struggled to survive last year, it was using as much as 40 to 1 leverage to purchase AAA securities that turned out to be no where near as safe as the triple A ratings assigned to it by Moody?s and S&P made them appear. Lehman, the second largest securitizer and trader of mortgage backed securities behind the also defunct Bear Stearns.
Wall Street continued practicing one of its darkest arts ? the over rating of securities, bonds and derivatives ? by self-interested parties in exchange for fees. In the 1999-2000 tech boom, the analyst community vastly over rated stocks with ?Buy? and ?Strong Buy? ratings. Sell wa hardly in their vocabulary. These were mostly profitless ?dot com? companies built on the merest of concepts. The underwriting fees were substantial, however, and the analysts firms were well paid via large syndicate and IPO banking fees.
The same conflict of interests remained on the Wall Street, even after the dot com collapse. This time around, it was the ratings agencies ? Moody?s, S&P, and Fitch ? that slapped triple A grades on paper that turned out to be junk in exchange for huge fees from the underwriters.
The SEC has yet to seriously investigate how and why so many triple A rated issuances have collapsed and failed. These highly rated papers are linked to ?payola? ratings, a practice that involved Ratings Agencies selling their highest seal of approval in exchange for large fees.?
When we were short Lehman at the time, from $30 and higher ? it was an easy borrow, and there was no need for anyone to short naked. That was not why they went bankrupt.
My biggest regret about Lehman Brothers ? aside from all the unfortunate souls who lost their jobs when the company imploded ? was that I lacked the cojones to buy a big slug of Puts when we went short . . . They seemed kinda pricey at the time.
Naked Shorting at Lehman
Barry Ritholtz has some good comments on this stuff in his blog:
Oh, this is going to get the Sith Lords all hot & bothered!
Both the WSJ and Bloomberg have articles this morning about Naked Shorting. The Bloomberg article more explicitly suggests that Lehman was ?brought down,? in part, by naked shorting:
Naked Short Sales Hint Fraud in Bringing Down Lehman
?The biggest bankruptcy in history might have been avoided if Wall Street had been prevented from practicing one of its darkest arts.
As Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. struggled to survive last year, as many as 32.8 million shares in the company were sold and not delivered to buyers on time as of Sept. 11, according to data compiled by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Bloomberg. That was a more than 57-fold increase over the prior year?s peak of 567,518 failed trades on July 30. The SEC has linked such so-called fails-to-deliver to naked short selling, a strategy that can be used to manipulate markets. A fail-to-deliver is a trade that doesn?t settle within three days.?
This is one of those things that is easy to allege, hard to disprove, has coincidental supporting data, and provides just enough plausability to make people forget (albeit temporarily) the cold hard facts of the day.
If I were at Bloomberg, here is how I would have written this article:
Over-Leverage, Under-Capitalization Brings Down Lehman (Update)
?The biggest bankruptcy in history might have been avoided if Wall Street had been sufficiently capitalized, used only moderate leverage, and avoided making false assumptions in their econometric models.
As Lehman Brothers Holdings struggled to survive last year, it was using as much as 40 to 1 leverage to purchase AAA securities that turned out to be no where near as safe as the triple A ratings assigned to it by Moody?s and S&P made them appear. Lehman, the second largest securitizer and trader of mortgage backed securities behind the also defunct Bear Stearns.
Wall Street continued practicing one of its darkest arts ? the over rating of securities, bonds and derivatives ? by self-interested parties in exchange for fees. In the 1999-2000 tech boom, the analyst community vastly over rated stocks with ?Buy? and ?Strong Buy? ratings. Sell wa hardly in their vocabulary. These were mostly profitless ?dot com? companies built on the merest of concepts. The underwriting fees were substantial, however, and the analysts firms were well paid via large syndicate and IPO banking fees.
The same conflict of interests remained on the Wall Street, even after the dot com collapse. This time around, it was the ratings agencies ? Moody?s, S&P, and Fitch ? that slapped triple A grades on paper that turned out to be junk in exchange for huge fees from the underwriters.
The SEC has yet to seriously investigate how and why so many triple A rated issuances have collapsed and failed. These highly rated papers are linked to ?payola? ratings, a practice that involved Ratings Agencies selling their highest seal of approval in exchange for large fees.?
When we were short Lehman at the time, from $30 and higher ? it was an easy borrow, and there was no need for anyone to short naked. That was not why they went bankrupt.
My biggest regret about Lehman Brothers ? aside from all the unfortunate souls who lost their jobs when the company imploded ? was that I lacked the cojones to buy a big slug of Puts when we went short . . . They seemed kinda pricey at the time.
