Author Topic: U.S. Companies Cut Payrolls by 532,000 in May 2009  (Read 2789 times)

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: U.S. Companies Cut Payrolls by 532,000 in May 2009
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2009, 05:56:34 PM »
The Market Ticker
by: Karl Denninger


The banks are still carrying these "assets" at well-above their actual market value.  This means their balance sheets are showing them to be healthier than they really are.

The Government, which claimed it was going to "drain the swamp" and get the market moving again, tried everything short of the barrel of an M-16 in the mouth of people like Blankfein and Pandit, but couldn't get them to sell.

But rather than force the recognition of market prices on the balance sheets, which would force these banks to either sell or be FDIC'd (incidentally, the only correct pair of options the banks should have) the government instead is allowing the banks to continue to lie about the market value of these "assets" and carry them above what the market will pay - that is, they are allowing the continuing intentional distortion of so-called "book value", reserve ratios and soundness

Of course this isn't how the government banking cartel (the same so-called "regulators" that allowed and even encouraged book-cooking when it came to reserves and deposits) sees it:

F.D.I.C. officials portrayed the change as a sign that banks were returning to health on their own.

Baloney.  If the banks were returning to health on their own they wouldn't care if the market price was recognized on their balance sheets.

The FDIC is lying.

But some analysts said the banks’ reluctance to clean up their balance sheets meant they were merely postponing their day of reckoning. Indeed, some analysts said government policies had made it easier for banks to gloss over their bad loans.

"Gloss over" is another fancy word for fraudulent accounting practices, all made "legitimate" by our government.

No one knows exactly how many losses are buried in the troubled mortgages on banks’ books, but some analysts estimate that the unrecognized losses total more than $1 trillion. Under accounting rules, banks do not have to write down the value of most mortgages unless they sell them or they fall delinquent.

And, as Wells Fargo did last year, they can change the rules on when something is "delinquent"!  That is, it can be 30 days behind today, 60 tomorrow, and three years next week.  That's all ok, according to our so-called "regulators."

The Federal Reserve also is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into mortgage-backed securities, and into other kinds of consumer and business lending. Starting next month, the Fed plans to offer cheap financing for investors who want to buy “legacy” securities backed by mortgages on commercial real estate.

Of course this simply means that the Federal Reserve (that is, you) will eat the loss.

Al Doggity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7286
  • Old School Gemini
Re: U.S. Companies Cut Payrolls by 532,000 in May 2009
« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2009, 07:59:06 PM »
Its not the job losses that bother me so much. That is a part of the natural order of things. But the rising oil and commodity prices should not be happening right now. Job losses are easy to deal with, but inflation is an absolute killer. It is hard to get control of, and in order to kill massive inflation you have to cause another recession like we had to do in the early 80s.

The action in the oil market may be exuberant right now, but there is nothing especially irrational about it. It seems like you have more of a financial background than I do, so I can only assume that you are being willfully obtuse. Commodities usually rise in anticipation of inflation because they're insulated from its effects. According to a lot of analysts, the credit crisis caused an overreaction in the oil market, so part of the precipitous increase in its price can actually be attributed to a correction. The oil market isn't just reacting to the American economic outlook, but the global economic picture. These aren't signs of stagflation, and certainly nowhere near the level of the 70s.