guys, this is not MY caption, but what CNN Finance is saying!!!
http://money.cnn.com/
Even more terrifying are the accompanying Latest News headlines:
Sponsored By:More videoLatest News
Lehman's dying hours
The Lehman lesson: A warning to Wall Street
Wall Street's troubles are yours, too
Goldman and Morgan: The anti-Lehmans
More layoffs seen on Wall Street
Greenspan: Economy in 'once-in-a-century'
Sit back, and Watch the gloom as it unfolds.. brought to you by the media...
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Cry of the Wolf
It is amusing to see more and more of the Capitalists in Wall Street crying wolf over companies which are dying. These are the same set of people who espouse the cause of Capitalism and actively encourage companies to die, so that it breeds competitiveness, the bedrock of capitalism. Looks like the bears in Wall Street doing the latest rounds now happen to be of the Siberian variety!!
A big game of chicken
Commentary: One firm was allowed to die because no one blinked
By MarketWatch
Last update: 4:40 p.m. EDT Sept. 14, 2008
It's one big game of chicken.
That's at the heart of the Treasury's decision not to assist in a Lehman buyout -- and the rest of Wall Street's decision not to step in, either.
The question is, how many firms can go under before the Treasury makes another bailout?
One, Lehman, is on the ropes. But what about two firms going under? Or three? At what point is it systemic failure that will force the government's hand?
Similarly, at what point does the healthier (a relative term) of the Street firms -- or aspirants, such as Barclays or HSBC Holdings -- step in and bail out rival(s), simply because it's in their own best interest due to the resulting market mayhem?
The answer, it appears, is not one. How much Street blood will be shed depends on who, if any, blink first.
-- Steve Goldstein
A big game of chicken
Commentary: One firm was allowed to die because no one blinked
By MarketWatch
Last update: 4:40 p.m. EDT Sept. 14, 2008
It's one big game of chicken.
That's at the heart of the Treasury's decision not to assist in a Lehman buyout -- and the rest of Wall Street's decision not to step in, either.
The question is, how many firms can go under before the Treasury makes another bailout?
One, Lehman, is on the ropes. But what about two firms going under? Or three? At what point is it systemic failure that will force the government's hand?
Similarly, at what point does the healthier (a relative term) of the Street firms -- or aspirants, such as Barclays or HSBC Holdings -- step in and bail out rival(s), simply because it's in their own best interest due to the resulting market mayhem?
The answer, it appears, is not one. How much Street blood will be shed depends on who, if any, blink first.
-- Steve Goldstein
Ravi Batra
I am reading a book of Dr. Ravi Batra right now titled Greensspan's Fraud.
http://www.ravibatra.com/gsfrd.html
It indeed appears to be a very controversial book. Dr Batra seems to have made a life for himself by mouthing controversial forecasts.
http://www.ravibatra.com/Forecasting.html
In this book, he has made scathing analyses on how the US Govt has screwed up Finances by covering up Federal Budget deficit with the hard earned money of the common man through the Social Security Trust fund. The result - low income people who have saved throughout their working lives for retirement now find that lesser and lesser retirement benefits, and have to work longer than ever before in the guise of increased life expectancy, even as the coofers of the rich conitnue to get fatter. It is indeed interesting reading, this.
By the way, Dr. Batra finds mention in the NYT as far back as 1987, as a Depression Guru!!!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DE4DC1639F933A0575BC0A961948260
http://www.ravibatra.com/gsfrd.html
It indeed appears to be a very controversial book. Dr Batra seems to have made a life for himself by mouthing controversial forecasts.
http://www.ravibatra.com/Forecasting.html
In this book, he has made scathing analyses on how the US Govt has screwed up Finances by covering up Federal Budget deficit with the hard earned money of the common man through the Social Security Trust fund. The result - low income people who have saved throughout their working lives for retirement now find that lesser and lesser retirement benefits, and have to work longer than ever before in the guise of increased life expectancy, even as the coofers of the rich conitnue to get fatter. It is indeed interesting reading, this.
By the way, Dr. Batra finds mention in the NYT as far back as 1987, as a Depression Guru!!!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DE4DC1639F933A0575BC0A961948260
Delhi Blasts
The terrorists have struck yet again. And the usual blaming game has started - soon to be followed by the ceremonial predictable " we will not keep quiet against terrorism" statement from the UPA Govt ( sic)... and life will move on- insterpersed with prompt " defence" of groups like SIMI by people like Lallo and Paswan - simply with the aim of cornering minority votes. Yet another shocking example of vote-bank politics steering the country fast towards the brink.
We can be sure that as long as politicians continue to condone con outfits like these, we can wintess more bloodshed of our bretheren. Whether it is the SIMI, the ULFA , the Raj Thackerays of the world , LTTE , Bajrang Dal, whoever it may be... the nation should unequivocally condemn people who espouse terrorism, and never ever make the blunder of supporting them even in idealogy - what happened in Delhi or Jaipur or Ahmedabad, or Hyderabad or Mumbai could well soon go out of hand and spread everywhere, unless drastic steps are taken right now.
For the moment, we can only pray for the departed souls.
We can be sure that as long as politicians continue to condone con outfits like these, we can wintess more bloodshed of our bretheren. Whether it is the SIMI, the ULFA , the Raj Thackerays of the world , LTTE , Bajrang Dal, whoever it may be... the nation should unequivocally condemn people who espouse terrorism, and never ever make the blunder of supporting them even in idealogy - what happened in Delhi or Jaipur or Ahmedabad, or Hyderabad or Mumbai could well soon go out of hand and spread everywhere, unless drastic steps are taken right now.
For the moment, we can only pray for the departed souls.
Profitting versus Profiteering
I have been intrigued by the thin line of distinction between Profitting and Profiteering, especially in this era of Capitalism vs Communism.
Below id the definition of PROFITEERING per the Oxford Pcoket dictionary.
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English Date: 2008
prof·it·eer / ˌpräfəˈti(ə)r/ • v. [intr.] make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, esp. illegally or in a black market: [as n.] (profiteering) the profiteering of tabloid journalists. • n. a person who profiteers: a war profiteer.
We all know the meaning of profit, generally - Sale price less Costs; in other words, a small price for one's "value-add".
The phrases/ words int eh above defintion of Profiteering that really bother me are - Excessive or Unfair Profit. When and how does one really define what is excessive or unfair? And what is the yardstick for Fair Profit?
We also know that generally, in times of shortage or during emergencies, profiteering happens- sellers jack up the price beyond "reasonable" or "normal" limits, and still find buyers comfortably. In other words Profiteering happens when the "normal" demand-supply equillibrium is affected. And usually, Profiteering levels return to Profit levels, once the "demand supply" equation becomes functional again - either demand wanes, or suppply increases, or both.
But this still does not answer my question -what is normal and excesssive? Is it 5%, as in selling PCs? Or 10% , as in many "normal' businesses or 50% or more for "value added products and Sservices" like arms sale, Software sales or "massage Services" ? Mind you, many of these so-called value-added products and services are priced based on Value - more specifically, perceived value. As an extreme example, if tomorrow people decide not to buy diamonds any more, the same $10,000 diamond ring may end up not being worth even $10- " $10 for a peice of tetrahedral carbon?" could be the refrain...
Who then decides what is 'reasonable' profit, and who declares 'profiteering'?
Can someone enlighten me?
Below id the definition of PROFITEERING per the Oxford Pcoket dictionary.
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English Date: 2008
prof·it·eer / ˌpräfəˈti(ə)r/ • v. [intr.] make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, esp. illegally or in a black market: [as n.] (profiteering) the profiteering of tabloid journalists. • n. a person who profiteers: a war profiteer.
We all know the meaning of profit, generally - Sale price less Costs; in other words, a small price for one's "value-add".
The phrases/ words int eh above defintion of Profiteering that really bother me are - Excessive or Unfair Profit. When and how does one really define what is excessive or unfair? And what is the yardstick for Fair Profit?
We also know that generally, in times of shortage or during emergencies, profiteering happens- sellers jack up the price beyond "reasonable" or "normal" limits, and still find buyers comfortably. In other words Profiteering happens when the "normal" demand-supply equillibrium is affected. And usually, Profiteering levels return to Profit levels, once the "demand supply" equation becomes functional again - either demand wanes, or suppply increases, or both.
But this still does not answer my question -what is normal and excesssive? Is it 5%, as in selling PCs? Or 10% , as in many "normal' businesses or 50% or more for "value added products and Sservices" like arms sale, Software sales or "massage Services" ? Mind you, many of these so-called value-added products and services are priced based on Value - more specifically, perceived value. As an extreme example, if tomorrow people decide not to buy diamonds any more, the same $10,000 diamond ring may end up not being worth even $10- " $10 for a peice of tetrahedral carbon?" could be the refrain...
Who then decides what is 'reasonable' profit, and who declares 'profiteering'?
Can someone enlighten me?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
New Bangalore Airport
Today's news item on the new Bangalore Airport confirms my feelings on this new " state of the art" airport in Bangalore that was opened a couple of months ago.
To me, it is a classic case of how NOT to plan and construct a Brand new airport- especially in a place like "The Silicon Valley of India".
Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa has said yesterday, "International airport at Bangalore which has been newly constructed is not up to the mark. That is why I have formed the legislature committee -- they will go through and take the necessary decision. After the report, after the inspection we are going to take decision. According to all our legislators and experts and industrialists, they want to have one more airport. We want to retain that and are in touch with Central government. HAL airport we want to retain."
The agreement signed with teh develoeprs of the new airport clearly says that the old HAL airport shall be closed to make way for this new one. Add to it that the DGCA ruling that no two airports shall be located within a 150 km radius of each other.
So much so for consistency on civil aviation policy! I wonder what message this will send out to the proespective investors in other airports? I am sure GMR, Reliance etc must be a worried lot by now.. The last thing you, as investor, would want is to pump in billions of dollars based on certain traffic projections being relocated to the new facility, at the contract award stage, only to see it being snatched by Netas based on their whims and fancies, after the airport becomes functional.
To me, it is a classic case of how NOT to plan and construct a Brand new airport- especially in a place like "The Silicon Valley of India".
Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa has said yesterday, "International airport at Bangalore which has been newly constructed is not up to the mark. That is why I have formed the legislature committee -- they will go through and take the necessary decision. After the report, after the inspection we are going to take decision. According to all our legislators and experts and industrialists, they want to have one more airport. We want to retain that and are in touch with Central government. HAL airport we want to retain."
The agreement signed with teh develoeprs of the new airport clearly says that the old HAL airport shall be closed to make way for this new one. Add to it that the DGCA ruling that no two airports shall be located within a 150 km radius of each other.
So much so for consistency on civil aviation policy! I wonder what message this will send out to the proespective investors in other airports? I am sure GMR, Reliance etc must be a worried lot by now.. The last thing you, as investor, would want is to pump in billions of dollars based on certain traffic projections being relocated to the new facility, at the contract award stage, only to see it being snatched by Netas based on their whims and fancies, after the airport becomes functional.
Russian Sstock Market
Not so long ago, Western investors were so pumped up about the Russian Oil story... the Russsian Stock Index (RTSI) spurted faster than the Sputnik.
Fast forward to 2008 - the same index is falling faster than the price of Oil. It ahs lost morethan 40% till date. (Phots and charts courtessy Wall Street Journal).
As they say, what goes up has to come down - maybe not this fast, though!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)