alan greenspan doesnt understand CDO.
-
Originally posted by Ice Dive:
One of it ... I thought this is the only one ...
Would have subconsciously skipped his post until you point it out ....
...because you are a delusional....
-
After Bernard Madoff's fraud of about US$50 billion, now FBI has uncovered another fraud by Sir Allen Stanford of Texas for about US$8bn. Who's next? I bet you there will be more of such frauds under investigations. Just wait and see.
-
Originally posted by BJK:
After Bernard Madoff’s fraud of about US$50 billion, now FBI has uncovered another fraud by Sir Allen Stanford of Texas for about US$8bn. Who’s next? I bet you there will be more of such frauds under investigations. Just wait and see.
People linked with Sovereign Wealth Funds? nah... those will just be covered up...
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
People linked with Sovereign Wealth Funds? nah... those will just be covered up...
just manage to get your IMH medicines for you, take your medicine ya -
Hmm...what you guys said about Greenspan might be correct.....
I think he might be "playing dumb"
A lot of people when they got into trouble, will pretend to play dumb.
Do u remember the scandal with the gas company...Enron...the boss said...I dont know, I dont remember, I dont understand....
Or with the Bush picked attorney general....when he appear to be grilled in American congress, his favourite reply is always.....I dont remember....I dont recall....
Or about some bank executive...I forgot this one what case....Citibank something...when being asked about some financial products or procedure, in court, he always said....I dont understand that....Im not familiar.....I dont know...
So I believe in lawyer tactic there is such a thing called pretending to be dumb....
I think Greenspan might be also playing dumb when he said he doesnt understand these derivatives.
He might not be referring to computer models, because even if he doesnt understand computer formulas, he must have understood the overall picture, that those instruments are getting way too overleveraged and pose a systemic risk because they got built like some flimsy sand castle, without any solid foundation, and getting out of hand with derivatives on derivatives on another derivatives. I firmly believe he understood that.
Those players are just doing their parts, but people need someone with helicopter view, who can see everything. That someone is the authorities, which included him.
But he didnt take action. I think he just underestimated or neglected the risks, so he just let it go on.
So now when the game blow up, people got angry, they want to blame the authorities for neglecting their responsibility, so what do they do? They say, "but I dont understand this..."
Meat Pao
-
so now we got Alien Greenspan who try to alien himself from the reality ar??
-
Who rules US financial system?
By Wang Yusheng (China Daily)
As the global financial turmoil triggered by the US subprime crisis worsens affecting more countries, disputes are also rising on how to end this mess.
And as critics search for the arch-criminal to blame for this crisis, one point of view convicts supervision authorities such as the Federal Reserve. This view holds them guilty of loose market monitoring, while it acknowledges capital's greediness for maximum profit is just the law of nature.
True, the lack of supervision is a major contributor to the collapse. But it might be a misjudgment to identify the US Federal Reserve (Fed) as the arch-criminal despite its delinquency of responsibilities as the watchdog of the US financial system.
The Fed, which actually runs as the central bank of the US, is in fact an organization consisting of private bankers and large enterprise groups, and independent of government control. Almost all the high-ranking officials of the Fed are heads or elites representing those groups, like Alan Greenspan and Ben S. Bernanke, from whom the US government will appoint one as chairman of the Fed. On the surface, the Fed is the overlord of the country's banking system, but the fact is it's just a lord.
Greenspan confessed recently that the Fed should have monitored and restrained overgenerous and irresponsible lending, but he didn't intervene in the free market. He obviously thought the free market is mighty enough to adjust the financial mechanism. And as a result, he is partly accountable for the current situation as the Fed's former chairman.
But don't you believe this politicized, exculpating and misleading cant. In fact, Greenspan had been sharing the same financial concepts as well as vital interests with the real overlord of the system behind the dark scene. They were comrades in the same trench fighting for their common fate. Now, Bernanke also comes from the same camp.
Then, let's talk about the big three US rating agencies, Fitch, Moody and Standard & Poor, which people once believed to be the most authoritative and credible financial managerial bodies. A large number of materials exposed lately show that these three trumpeters of the overlord had all the time been blaring a fantasia in praise of the harmlessness, safety and benefiting potential of bonds supplied by the latter.
For money's sake, they labeled countless safety marks on those poisonous bonds created by the Wall Street, and sometimes they even made up good-looking rating statistics for enterprises that had no credit references being filed.
Elites in the industry, if they had any doubts, will be driven out immediately. But even these elites, if they stopped thinking to maintain their jobs, sighed that they were not doing professional rating analysis; rather, they were selling their souls to put coins in the devil's pocket.
What appeared coincidentally, when the big three had their revenue doubled in the past five years, were that many innocent Americans and people in other countries were fooled by their lies.
And if one moves to the US treasury and government, republicans have been advocating absolute and unfretted market economy of liberalism since the Reagan administration, and peddling it all around the world.
For example, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was established in former US president George Bush's period. Therefore, policies and concepts of the government can be basically considered as rooted in the same origin of rules of the banking system fixed by its overlord.
To deal with issues like financial innovation and financial derivatives, official policies and industry rules were actually made in a complementary way for the common strategic goal. Only after uncovering the deepest root of the financial storm can we discuss solving the problem in an efficient way.
First of all, the US government must carry out the duty as the final supreme ruler of the financial system and put every corner of the market under scrutiny. Tough it is difficult to do this since White House is used to being influenced by those banking overlords, it's worth a try. After all, it's American people who choose their president. Additionally, ruling power there is tripartite.
Second, the US must give up its blind faith in absolute liberal market economy and have relevant concepts and policies corrected. In the times of globalization, market economy shouldn't be denied and derivatives still need to be developed, but we must insist on the following three indispensable preconditions: financial innovations and derivatives must be based on real economy; they cannot step over the reasonable scope of core capital; and they must be strictly supervised and assessed.
Third, from a global point of view, the existing international financial system, especially the IMF, must be adjusted to adapt to the trend of multi-polarization.
Here two points are very important, discourse power and monetary power. For the former, democracy and equal consultation must be introduced in discussing international affairs, rather than leaving the whole thing to be judged by one or two countries.
As for the currency issue, it is necessary to strengthen surveillance over the US dollar and increase transparency of its operation because it serves as a main international reserve & settlement currency.
Uncle Sam should not have his note printing machines run at his own will simply because it just shifts a crisis elsewhere and causes turbulence. For sure, it is difficult for the US to take such ideas of reform. But right now, everyone knows the only question is how to reform, rather than whether to reform or not.
The author is a Beijing-based researcher in international relations
-
The commander in chief of the world system of banking control was Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who was built up by the private bankers to a position where he was regarded as an oracle in all matters of government and business.
In government the power of the Bank of England was a considerable restriction on political action as early as 1819 but an effort to break this power by a modification of the bank's charter in 1844 failed. In 1852, Gladstone, then chancellor of the Exchequer and later prime minister, declared, "The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned."
This power of the Bank of England and of its governor was admitted by most qualified observers. In January, 1924, Reginald McKenna, who had been chancellor of the Exchequer in 1915-1916, as chairman of the board of the Midland Bank told its stockholders: "I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money. . . . And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."
In that same year, Sir Drummond Fraser, vice-president of the Institute of Bankers, stated, "The Governor of the Bank of England must be the autocrat who dictates the terms upon which alone the Government can obtain borrowed money."
On September 26, 1921, The Financial Times wrote, "Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills."
Vincent Vickers, who had been a director of the bank for nine years, said, "Since 1919 the monetary policy of the Government has been the policy of the Bank of England and the policy of the Bank of England has been the policy of Mr. Montagu Norman."
On November 11, 1927, the Wall Street Journal called Mr. Norman "the currency dictator of Europe.". This fact was admitted by Mr. Norman himself before the court of the bank on March 21, 1930, and before the Macmillan Committee five days later.
Montagu Norman's position may be gathered from the fact that his predecessors in the governorship, almost a hundred of them, had served two-year terms, increased rarely, in time of crisis, to three or even four years. But Norman held the position for twenty-four years (1920-1944), during which he became the chief architect of the liquidation of Britain's global preeminence. Norman was a strange man whose mental outlook was one of successfully suppressed hysteria or even paranoia. He had no use for governments and feared democracy.
Both of these seemed to him to be threats to private banking, and thus to all that was proper and precious in human life. Strong-willed, tireless, and ruthless, he viewed his life as a kind of cloak-and-dagger struggle with the forces of unsound money which were in league with anarchy and Communism.
When he rebuilt the Bank of England, he constructed it as a fortress prepared to defend itself against any popular revolt, with the sacred gold reserves hidden in deep vaults below the level of underground waters which could be released to cover them by pressing a button on the governor's desk. For much of his life Norman rushed about the world by fast steamship, covering tens of thousands of miles each year, often traveling incognito, concealed by a black slouch hat and a long black cloak, under the assumed name of "Professor Skinner."
His embarkations and debarkations onto and off the fastest ocean liners of the day, sometimes through the freight hatch, were about as unobserved as the somewhat similar passages of Greta Garbo in the same years, and were carried out in a similarly "sincere" effort at self-effacement.
Norman had a devoted colleague in Benjamin Strong, the first governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Strong owed his career to the favor of the Morgan Bank, especially of Henry P. Davison, who made him secretary of the Bankers Trust Company of New York (in succession to Thomas W. Lamont) in 1904, used him as Morgan's agent in the banking rearrangements following the crash of 1907, and made him vice-president of the Bankers Trust (still in succession to Lamont) in 1909.
He became governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as the joint nominee of Morgan and of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company in 1914. Two years later, Strong met Norman for the first time, and they at once made an agreement to work in cooperation for the financial practices they both revered.
These financial practices were explicitly stated many times in the voluminous correspondence between these two men and in many conversations they had, both in their work and at their leisure (they often spent their vacations together for weeks, usually in the south of France).
In the 1920's, they were determined to use the financial power of Britain and of the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.
It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.
The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called "international" or "merchant" bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks.
These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.
This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world.
They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds through bank loans, the discount rate, and the rediscounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges.
Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coups, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates.
In this system the Rothschilds had been preeminent during much of the nineteenth century, but, at the end of that century, they were being replaced by J. P. Morgan whose central office was in New York, although it was always operated as if it were in London (where it had, indeed, originated as George Peabody and Company in 1838).
Old J. P. Morgan died in 1913, but was succeeded by his son of the same name (who had been trained in the London branch until 1901), while the chief decisions in the firm were increasingly made by Thomas W. Lamont after 1924...
-
To the
"House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Greenspan acknowledged that the data fed into financial systems was often a case of garbage in, garbage out.
Business decisions by financial services firms were based on "the best insights of mathematicians and finance experts, supported by major advances in computer and communications technology," Greenspan told the committee. "The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year because the data inputted into the risk management models generally covered only the past two decades — a period of euphoria."
He added that if the risk models had also been built to include "historic periods of stress, capital requirements would have been much higher and the financial world would be in far better shape today, in my judgment."
Alan Greespan himself does not understand the stuff "mathematicians and finance experts, supported by major advances in computer and communications technology" do.
He does not think that there is anything insincere with what the "mathematicians and finance experts, supported by major advances in computer and communications technology" told him, but because the data they used are based on what happened in the last twenty years, the computer modelling could not predict what is happening now.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
just manage to get your IMH medicines for you, take your medicine yaStill cannot get rid of your IMH fixation, self-proclaimed "Angel of God", or are you just a sad lonely nobody wants PAP bitch?
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Still cannot get rid of your IMH fixation, self-proclaimed "Angel of God", or are you just a sad lonely nobody wants PAP bitch?
I am just an Angel sent to convert you to your senses. Behold, bless the Angels of God on my Uncle. Amen -
Originally posted by angel7030:
I am just an Angel sent to convert you to your senses. Behold, bless the Angels of God on my Uncle. AmenOh My God... you can't even formulate a blessing properly....
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Oh My God... you can't even formulate a blessing properly....
That was your God, aint my God. Bless the child.