It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "up-to-the-minute Market Data" thread

page: 378
189
<< 375  376  377    379  380  381 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


I am saying if you want to discuss all of our liabilities, you must include our assets as well if you are going to say we are in the red.

Our debts are a liability just as well as our ongoing medicaid, medicare, etc. expenses in the future, correct?




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


GBM, those reports that show "assets" are what the US uses to calculate it's "assests".

Why? Because every USD is backed by the full faith and credit of the USA (taxpayers)

of course, in that article, $141.5 Billion of the "assests" reported by the Federal Reserve Board (the authors of the Z1) is "Financial assets"

you really should look at the whole report to even have a clue as to what the article is referring to.

You know what those mysterious "Financial assets" consist of?


Foreign deposits
Checkable deposits and currency
Time and savings deposits
Money market fund shares
Security RPs
Credit market instruments
Commercial paper
Treasury securities
Agency- and GSE-backed securities
Municipal securities
Mortgages
Consumer credit
Mutual fund shares
Trade receivables

Are you looking closely at that list? See how many of those "assets" listed are CURRENTLY considered questionable due to accounting & reporting practices?

How about things like Mortgages? you know those things being defaulted on every day?

Or how about those credit market instruments? Bet they are a real "strong" asset these days.

what you *think* are assets are in reality lies on paper & the rest of the world is waking up to this truth too.

You throw enough crap out there and a little may stick to the wall, but this time, you missed the wall & hit the fan - watch out, it's coming right back at you.

Until YOU ALONE can get the actual report & read it & decipher what it really says, STFU!! Because bloviating other people's crap, because it fits your agenda, is only making you look even more foolish than you already do.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


again, look at that report - the actual report, I provided the link. Over 20 pages of nothing but liabilities.

Do the math, do your own damned homework & then YOU TELL ME where we are actually "in the black" and not in the red.

And show me what basis you use to determine this - is it tangilble things or accounting tomfoolery in "financial assets" columns



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Yes my "agenda" redhatty

I post something that is contrary to the "negative herd" around here and you attack me conveniently.

That is cool though, you have in the past posted many many many links to websites such as ZH which have quite an "agenda" themselves.

I do not assume to know half of the stuff most people do on this thread, although when I find something posted by someone with a PhD you are very quick to debunk it. You should come up with a number yourself and then post it.


Please, put me on your ignore list, as I am doing to you. That should end most of it.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I am trying to find out how much of our industrial base or whatever we have left is America owned.

Does anybody have a clue, the only numbers I can find are from back 2002 and even then 50% of it was foreign owned.

I am very interested to know the countries that own that 50%.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


good luck

I have been searching now for quite a while and could only find that one link that provided any clarity..

yours is a much more indepth question and i doubt you are going to find it - or if you do it might be quickly "debunked"

pretty interesting



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


I know!!!! I was doing a research just now when I got hit with the fact that many of the nations data that has to do with US ownership of industries has not been updated since 2002.

Why is this? is the government hiding something? and who are they protecting. I mean 50% in foreign hands by 2002, here we are in 2009 we probably just lost the last industries to now the Car making one.

This a conspiracy of the highest.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


yepp!

surprise surprise i found a link from 2003 or 05 cant remember but it was too old to have any significance..



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


marg, if this is the link you found then everything else I am finding is based off of it's report. (so far)

IF the laws haven't changed, Foreign ownership of US Airlines is limited to 25%

I do not know how often the IRS compiles this data, since it is from an IRS report. It may be that this is the most current data available



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Yeah, that is the link I get from any source I find in the net, in my search, all linked to economy in crisis org.

I mean 7 years and no new data? something stinks here.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Well it depends on how often the data is compiled & reported. If it is only reported every 10 years (at the "2" year) then we are not due for an update until 2012.

I can't even find a previous report cited anywhere!!

Wonder if this was something compiled & reported ONLY ONCE EVER

Quite possible considering the backlash that must have been felt after it was released



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Really you would have to be incredibly ignorant not to see the game the Fed plays, no? All you have to do is watch the Fed buy "bad liabilities" from banks.. like say the CDO coop purchase program.. increases the portfolio of the Fed, but it's always listed as an asset, not a liability. And since they never have to reveal what they own/coop own or what it's worth... it's akin to a bank owning nothing but defaulting mortgages and declaring the total outstanding value of all the defaulting mortgages as assets. Makes it appear very wealthy, when it in fact is flat broke.

Then again, since technically speaking the Federal Reserve is a Board and not a Bank, it is only regulatory oversight for the financial world... could we assume it's just a trash can? The Federal Reserve, not being a financial entity and has no credit cannot go bankrupt.. it could hold 100% liabilities but it's never truly made an investment with capital, so it cannot truly be bankrupt. We can push all the bad assets into the Federal Reserve (Bad Bank Theory) and it wouldn't hurt the economy, aside from steep inflation, while the Fed can go on it's merry way... it's assets grow considerably, even if it's all crap that would bankrupt a normal bank.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
You know what those mysterious "Financial assets" consist of?

Foreign deposits
Checkable deposits and currency
Time and savings deposits
Money market fund shares
Security RPs
Credit market instruments
Commercial paper
Treasury securities
Agency- and GSE-backed securities
Municipal securities
Mortgages
Consumer credit
Mutual fund shares
Trade receivables




Maybe this will help....

Foreign deposits
Checkable deposits and currency
Time and savings deposits
Commercial paper

are not "Financial assets" they are [bank] "liabilities" , typically itemized on the right-side of the balance sheet.

GL



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
online.wsj.com...

Congress, the FDIC and Treasury are all trying to enact measures that unwind large institutions and force large banks to not be diversified (such as CITI being both a commercial and investment bank) and move away from that supermarket financial model. Supposedly, if they view something not being profitable or good for the institution, then they will force the institution to sell it.

I always knew when Sheila Bair kept saying "too big to fail must end" meant that the government would want to have people on the boards of banks and break them up in small pieces. This is nationalization without the word. Even Dick Bove, the well known perpetual bank bull said that if the reforms pass then financials earnings potential will be seriously stunted.

According to the article financials are lobbying Congress like crazy and trying to keep this under wraps because this could hurt the share prices. I don't like too big to fail institutions, but I also don't think politicians can run companies.



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


I don't have a subscription to WSJ, so I can't read the entire article just the beginning.

So instead of re-enacting Glass-Steagall, they want politicians to "sit" on the boards of the companies to dictate what can and cannot be done. Right?



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


I don't have a subscription to WSJ, so I can't read the entire article just the beginning.

So instead of re-enacting Glass-Steagall, they want politicians to "sit" on the boards of the companies to dictate what can and cannot be done. Right?



No they just want to decide what needs to go and what can stay at these companies.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by RetinoidReceptor
 


Right, and then they will also tell them what they can keep after they buy something or whether they wasted their money.

The government will be dictating what banks can and cannot buy. That is what it is coming down too. You know the government give them an inch and they will take a mile.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
FTSE 100 4,285.10 6:51AM ET Down 60.83 (1.40%)
CAC 40 3,169.81 7:06AM ET Down 51.46 (1.60%)
DAX 4,755.70 6:51AM ET Down 83.76 (1.73%)

S&P 500 917.33 908.7 -8.63
NASDAQ 1470.93 1451.5 -19.43
Dow Jones 8486.73 8415.0 -71.73

You know...it's not even really about a company's product or work-force anymore...it's about money...plain and simple...who cares if it works or tastes good...can they make money and pay a dividend with less over-head and employees? :shk:


World Bank cuts forecasts
www.reuters.com...

TOKYO/LONDON (Reuters) - The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development added to a grim outlook from the World Bank on Monday, saying major economies will contract throughout 2009 and the problem of unemployment will linger.

"We see a very difficult 2009, with negative growth in the OECD area. Unemployment problems are going to continue to linger," Angel Gurria, the head of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development told Reuters television in an interview on the sidelines of a conference in Paris.

Earlier the World Bank said prospects for the global economy remain "unusually uncertain" as it cut 2009 growth forecasts for most economies.
More at Links...

Citi urges governments to pull bank foreclosure trigger
www.reuters.com...

LONDON (Reuters) - Toxic real estate mortgages are holding the global economy to ransom and the banking sector will not return to health without a purge of its distressed property assets, the CEO of Citigroup Property Investors said.

The burgeoning economic rally could fizzle out by the end of the year unless governments take more affirmative action to protect it, by forcing bailed-out banks to sell off distressed property, Roger Orf told the Reuters Global Real Estate Summit.

"Any time that you have got clouds on the horizon, it means there is not clear sailing ahead. And these are thunderclouds, maybe even a cyclone," Orf said.

"I personally feel the best way to do that is through creative destruction as opposed to a malaise where you let the air out of the tire over a number of few years," he said.

"Regrettably, governments are not forcing banks to sell assets and that's one of the fundamental things needed to restore equilibrium to property markets," Orf said.


[edit on 6/22/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


1. Economic recovery possibly fizzling out? Surely those are Reuters and Citi know more about economics? There has been nothing to suggest, not one damn thing, that the economy is recovering. "Just not falling as fast". Perhaps they meant market recovery?

2. "Force banks to sell off bad assets" translates into "States will have to buy the bad assets from the banks".

Banks keep whats profitable, get rid of the bad liabilities that they have on the books, and then charge the government for the courtesy by buying the bonds that will fund the operation.

You might say that the banking industry is using Citi to tell the world:

We have you by your short n' curlies.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 
Yep...that was my thought as well...nobody else seems to want them...

This should work well in Cali...they'll go BK anyways so shove all their bad mortgages back on them to eat them also huh?

Gold falling...Oil falling...Hmmm...


Bank Holiday Coming? Prepare?
Sunday, June 21, 2009

Harry Schultz, dean of newsletter writers, has quoted the Chapman letter of May 30 regarding US embassies being sent large amounts of cash with which to buy local *currencies, to last them a year.

Here is Harry’s remarkable take on the situation: “My HSL suspicion is that the elite plan another FDR style “bank holiday” of indefinite length, perhaps very soon, to let the insiders sort-out the bank mess which is getting more out of their control every day.*Insiders want/need to impose new bank rules. Widespread nationalization could result, already under way. It could also lead to a formal US$ devaluation, as FDR did by revaluing gold (& then confiscating it). But devalue against what? The euro? Doubtful. Gold? Maybe. Or vs. the IIMF basket of currencies (which seems more likely)—& much in the news recently. Any kind of bank holiday will push the US$ lower, which may be a bonus benefit to their ongoing scenario of letting the $ fall. Such a fall would get the devaluation they want without having to declare it.

In sum, the insiders want more bank & system control, fewer banks & a lower US$. A bank holiday would suit all their needs.


[edit on 6/22/2009 by Hx3_1963]



new topics

top topics



 
189
<< 375  376  377    379  380  381 >>

log in

join