Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1612.3 | 2.4 | 0.15% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2654.8 | -11.8 | -0.44% |
| Oil (WTI) | 95.66 | -0.2 | -0.23% |
| LIBOR | 0.273 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 80.92 | -0.031 | -0.04% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 2.21% | -0.02% | |
| Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA | 101.5 | -0.2 | |
| Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA | 99.8 | 0.0 | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 203.4 | 0.5 | |
| BankRate 30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage | 4.05 |
Markets are up on the back of a good retail sales number, in spite of an absolute shellacking (down 6.4%) in the Nikkei 225 index overnight. Initial Jobless Claims came in at 334k, a little better than expectations. The Import Price Index fell, which is bond bullish. Bonds and MBS are up small.
Advance Retail Sales were up .6% in the month of May, which was better than expected. Less autos and gasoline, they were up .3%, in line with expectations. April was revised downward from .5% to .2%. Building materials are increasing at a 10% clip, which bodes well for new construction.
It is probably too early for the back up in rates that started in May to start showing up in economic data, but is presence (or absence) will almost influence the Fed’s decision making on ending QE. Don’t forget The Bernank is done at the end of the year. The odds-on favorite is Janet Yellen to replace him and she is to the dovish side of Bernake. While I think it is a long shot, beware of a snap-back rally in bonds. That is when the margin clerk finishes his business.
CoreLogic reported that home equity increased 9% in the first quarter to reach $4.2 trillion. Negative equity fell 8% to $580 billion and the number of negative equity properties fell to 9.7 million from 10.5 million. CoreLogic estimates that if home prices increase another 5%, 1.6 million homes would regain positive equity. This should really help drive purchase business as homeowners who have been stuck finally are able to move. Combined with a recovering job market to lure in the first time homebuyer and still generally good affordability, maybe the purchase business will make up for some of the lost refi business. Caveat: If the increase in home price appreciation continues to be driven by all-cash bidding wars in Las Vegas, then the effect will be more muted. We need to see home price appreciation in places like the Northeast and Midwest for this to really start turning things around.
JP Morgan Chase is cutting 1,800 jobs in its mortgage unit, with the hits primarily coming from servicing (as delinquencies fall) and its Albion NY call center (as the refi market dries up).
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
First I want to say that I do not believe a word of this. Second, does anybody believe anyone of these Einstiens will actually quit? third, I say Tough Shit, we have to live with this turd, so should they.
OMFG:
If the issue isn’t resolved, and massive numbers of lawmakers and aides bolt, many on Capitol Hill fear it could lead to a brain drain just as Congress tackles a slew of weighty issues — like fights over the Tax Code and immigration reform.
Is there a rational person outside of the beltway that is afraid of this? They foist this utter disaster on us and whine because they have to live with it? Fuck Them!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obamacare-lawmakers-health-insurance-92691.html?hp=f2
LikeLike
McWing:
It would be a real shame, wouldn’t it, if everyone up and quit, and they just couldn’t get anything done? The horror, the horror.
LikeLike
Let us just say their woe is unconvincing, George.
I’ll bet OPM says they get subsidized, anyway. After all, they are employed by the federal government.
addendum: Totally scooped by Brent.
LikeLike
“Rep. John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat in leadership when the law passed, said he thinks the problem will be resolved.
“If not, I think we should begin an immediate amicus brief to say, ‘Listen this is simply not fair to these employees,’” Larson told POLITICO. “They are federal employees.”
I couldn’t believe that one… It isn’t “fair” to Federal Employees to subject them to the same health care system as we get? oooh kay…
LikeLike
I’m not buying that people will really quit. mostly b/c this is the first I’ve heard of it.
maybe if they had a foot out the door anyway. but this gets to the larger issue. Congress like to have it both ways all the time. sometimes those staff are fed employees. other times, it’s like working for a feudal lord. normal rules just don’t apply.
LikeLike
The other annoying piece of that story is efforts by Ezra Klein to characterize the Grassley amendment as a “drafing error” and a piece of grandstanding that was “supposed to be rejected”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/25/no-congress-isnt-trying-to-exempt-itself-from-obamacare/
No, this was an intended policy and there’s a real easy answer. Treat every Congressional office as a small business instead of all of them as employees of the Federal government. That’s the case anyway as if an incumbent loses the election, the staff is pretty much guaranteed to turn over 100%.
LikeLike
JNC, Klein’s comments were more even handed than you suggest, I think. And the history he tells is plausible, as well. Don’t make me go the WaPo any more! It has a paywall…
LikeLike
I hope they all quit. If they’re there for the Fed benefits they’re there for the wrong reason. I know, I know………………they’re “special”.
LikeLike
Good piece from Thomas Drake on the NSA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/12/snowden-surveillance-subverting-constitution
LikeLike
Question: Can the IRS obtain and collect information on all of my financial transactions through my bank without first obtaining a warrant?
LikeLike
A local DA can obtain this from a bank by simple subpoena. A Grand Jury subpoena would be secret and unknown to you, so I suspect an IRS subpoena would be, too.
A civil litigant can, but you would know about it in that case.
Assuming your bank is in the USA, of course. I think Euro banks honor IRS requests now too.
I DK this last to be true.
Addendum: http://tinyurl.com/kwfovqc
LikeLike
Mark:
I am just thinking that I am obligated every year to reveal to the IRS all manner of financial information about myself and what I have done. And I am wondering if they need a warrant in order to check whether the information I give them is correct or not. I am guessing not, at least for some stuff, because my bank (and my employer) is obligated to produce tax forms which I then have to submit to the IRS. I am assuming the IRS could go directly to the bank (or my employer) and obtain those forms, but I am not sure.
LikeLike
one of the others issues is they don’t want to be part of the GS system. but they want the staff to have time served count to fed retirement if they move to the executive.
LikeLike
This is just wrong and the opposite is true:
“This isn’t, in other words, an effort to flee Obamacare. It’s an effort to fix a drafting error that prevents the federal government from paying into insurance exchanges on behalf of congressional staffers who got caught up in a political controversy.”
It’s an effort to allow Congress and their staff to keep the status quo and not have to participate in the exchanges.
The “drafting error” language raises my hackles. It’s not an error. It’s the intended consequence of the amendment.
LikeLike
Ditto the lack of subsidies in states that do not set up exchanges. Baucus intentionally left them out.
LikeLike
The NYT makes the case for arming the Syrian rebels as a new story.
“Starved for Arms, Syria Rebels Make Their Own
By C. J. CHIVERS
Published: June 12, 2013
SARAQIB, Syria — The workers arrive by darkness, taking their stations at the vise and the lathe. Soon metal filings and sparks fly, and the stack of their creations grows at their feet: makeshift mortar shells to be fired through barrels salvaged from disabled Syrian Army tanks.
Across northern Syria, rebel workshops like these are part of a clandestine network of primitive arms-making plants, a signature element of a militarily lopsided war. ”
The US of course has to “level the playing field” and all that as part of R2P.
LikeLike
jnc: I vote we sit this one out.
LikeLike
Kelley, what if by shipping arms to AQ sympathizers we even the playing field with Hezbollah and they all kill each other down to the very last freaking suicidal 12 year old? Wouldn’t we have done the Lord’s Work?
Yep. Sit this one out. Learn the lesson.
LikeLike
Technical question for Brent (although I suspect any and all of you know the answer): negative equity is just another way of saying “underwater”, right?
LikeLike
“Technical question for Brent (although I suspect any and all of you know the answer): negative equity is just another way of saying “underwater”, right?”
Yes.
LikeLike
I’m heading out early this morning but just want to say that while I was briefly looking at the comments over at the PL, while I still can apparently, that if banned would come back this place would be close to perfect. $10 is almost worth the price of admission to read the excellent snark between NoVA and Banned when they get on a roll……………almost but not quite.
BTW, agree with everyone here on Syria…………………no way.
LikeLike
“negative equity”
in health policy world, if you get a payment cut, it’s a “negative update”
LikeLike
Thanks, Brent!
LikeLike
Giggle.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/13/bill-clinton-obama-may-look-like-a-wuss-over-syria.html
LikeLike
“ScottC, on June 13, 2013 at 9:08 am said:
Mark:
I am just thinking that I am obligated every year to reveal to the IRS all manner of financial information about myself and what I have done. And I am wondering if they need a warrant in order to check whether the information I give them is correct or not. I am guessing not, at least for some stuff, because my bank (and my employer) is obligated to produce tax forms which I then have to submit to the IRS. I am assuming the IRS could go directly to the bank (or my employer) and obtain those forms, but I am not sure.”
The employers, banks, and investment companies also send the forms directly to the IRS. Your copy is just for verification. They already have the information.
LikeLike
jnc:
They already have the information.
Thanks. So my next question is, then, why is it an outrageous invasion of privacy for the NSA to collect information about my phone calls and e-mails without a warrant, but it is not an equally outrageous invasion of privacy for the IRS to collect information about my financial transactions without a warrant? Personally I care far more about my privacy with regard to my income and finances than I do about my phone calls.
LikeLike
““If you refuse to act and you cause a calamity”
And of course no one ever gets in trouble by acting and causing a calamity.
This is also where I think both Bush I and Bush II have the right idea on not commenting on current events.
Bush II noted that ex Presidents spouting off in public just made his job that much harder and it was the one thing he could refrain from doing to help the next President.
LikeLike
I was thinking how much Clinton hates Obama.
LikeLike
why is it an outrageous invasion of privacy for the NSA to collect information about my phone calls and e-mails without a warrant, but it is not an equally outrageous invasion of privacy for the IRS to collect information about my financial transactions without a warrant?
Just a guess, as I’m neither financial wizard nor lawyer, but by the force of law you’re required to divulge the information to the IRS. Nobody says you’ve got to give the NSA (or FBI, or other three-letter agencies that are involved in intelligence gathering) squat.
Unless you’re applying for a security clearance, in which case pretty much everything is fair game.
LikeLike
“not an equally outrageous invasion of privacy for the IRS to collect information about my financial transactions without a warrant?”
I think it is. but, from the IRS, it’s an “illegal” protest
These illegal tax protesters argue that filing a
Form 1040 violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy or the Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, the courts have
consistently held that disclosure of routine financial information required on a tax
return does not incriminate an individual or violate the right to privacy.
LikeLike
The Sixteenth Amendment provides them a lot of leeway.
This may cheer you up though:
“Second IRS closing day coming tomorrow
By Eric Yoder, Published: June 13, 2013 at 11:23 am
The IRS is reminding taxpayers that most operations will be closed Friday, the second in a string of sequestration-caused furlough days for its 115,000 employees.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/06/13/second-irs-closing-day-coming-tomorrow/?hpid=z10
Yet again, the sequester cuts won’t result in the world ending.
LikeLike
jnc:
The Sixteenth Amendment provides them a lot of leeway.
Is the outrage over the Snowden revelations a constitutional issue? I didn’t think that Snowden was alleging any illegal activity. My impression was that the collection of the data was being done in accordance with the law, and that opposition to it was based more in principle…the government shouldn’t do this even if it is constitutionally viable. Is that not correct?
LikeLike
Heh. Seems for once I was right!
LikeLike
Financial scandal de jour:
I actually found this from you know who, but I figured I’d link the original Bloomberg source as well.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/everything-is-rigged-vol-9-713-this-time-its-currencies-20130613
The counter argument: All trading involves some manipulation.
http://dealbreaker.com/2013/06/everybody-always-manipulated-everything-basically/
LikeLike
jnc:
Financial scandal de jour:
I will comment later tonight.
LikeLike
jnc:
Financial scandal de jour:
I think it is worth considering how the FX market actually works, and how it relates to these trades.
Normally, when a client calls a bank and says he wants to do an FX trade, the FX trader knows what the current market bid and offer is, knows where he can get out of the risk he takes on by doing the trade, and will quote a price of his choosing that represents either where he can dump the risk off immediately and make a profit, or where he is comfortable holding the risk for some length of time in the hopes that the market will move and he will make an even larger profit. If the trade is for a particularly large size, he may widen out his own bid/offer to the client knowing that, in an effort to lay off the risk, he will necessarily move the market against the position, and hence he needs a bigger cushion in order to protect himself against a loss. The client then, once shown the price, can either execute the trade or not, depending on whether he likes the price.
However, these orders that are talked about in the article are of a totally different nature. The bank is actually agreeing to execute a trade at an unknown price to be determined by a third party at a specific time. The bank is not actually making the price itself. Accepting this type of order is in fact fraught with risk that does not exist on a normal trade. Having agreed to do the trade, say at 3:30, for a 4pm fixing, the bank now owns the risk, but it has no idea at what price it owns the risk, and hence no idea what level it can trade out of the risk so as to make money or avoid losing it. So it has 3 options in trying to manage this risk.
First, it can trade out of it immediately. However, if it does this, it is at risk of whatever movements occur in the market between the time at which it trades out and the 4pm set. It might make a lot of money, or it might lose a lot of money, all depending on the vagaries of market movements in the interim. The trader could, conceivably, attempt to influence the market in one direction or another in order to protect his position, but only by doing more trades and thus increasing his position and hence risk. But this is very hard to do, and very dangerous, especially in an extremely liquid market like the major currencies, EUR, JPY, GBP, etc., because of the size of trades, and hence size of risk, needed to move the market.
The second choice is to wait until the set is posted, ie after 4pm, then trade out of the position when/if the current rate is at a point where a profit can be made. But that “if” is important. This obviously carries similar risk to that described above, in that an open position is being held, and the market may move in either direction and conceivably result in a loss.
The third and last choice is to trade out of the position as close as possible to the 4pm setting time. This, in fact, is the most conservative and safest choice, as it leave the bank open to market risk for the shortest possible time, with the least risk to market movement. But, of course, since the setting itself is a function of trades that occur at that time, one is, by necessity, influencing the setting by executing a trade or trades during the time in which the setting is happening. Is this “manipulation” of the rate? I suppose one might see it that way, but since the alternatives require one to actually speculate on market movements, you tell me which one you would prefer an FDIC insured bank do.
LikeLike
No, there’s an argument that the statute, or at least the blanket warrants for the metadata violate the 4th Amendment.
LikeLike
jnc:
No, there’s an argument that the statute, or at least the blanket warrants for the metadata violate the 4th Amendment.
Okay, so the issue is strictly a constitutional one…”is this activity constitutional?”. From my perspective it is a much bigger issue. There are some things (a lot, actually) that I don’t think the government should be doing even if it can come up with a constitutional justification for it, and collecting e-mails and phone calls is one.
LikeLike
Was Rep. Franks remarks demagogued?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/13/was-franks-another-akin/
LikeLike
McWing:
Was Rep. Franks remarks demagogued?
Seems like it. Unfortunately, for those invested in the status quo there is no real upside to having an honest, rational discussion about the issue.
LikeLike
and the response to that seems to be:
1. you have no expectation of privacy because of facebook and (my favorite) your grocery store club card. See the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-outraged-his-private-information-being-co,32783/?ref=auto
2. collecting such data doesn’t violate the 4th, b/c it’s just collecting and a warrant (albeit a secret one) in needed to look further than that.
3. the “David Brooks” … people should trust their betters and know when they are conquered. We’re doing this b/c we love you.
4. Snowden is somehow the issue
5. Obama wouldn’t abuse this. Bush would. Go team!
LikeLike
There are some things (a lot, actually) that I don’t think the government should be doing even if it can come up with a constitutional justification for it, and collecting e-mails and phone calls is one.
*faints
We agree again.
LikeLike
Worth noting:
LikeLike
This is right up my alley as the resident psych freak…. 😉
Alford has spent more than a decade asking why some people reveal government secrets in the name of public good while most don’t, asking what makes Edward Snowden Edward Snowden, and not one of the many other Booz Allen analysts who presumably saw the same information that Snowden did but kept quiet about it. Alford’s 2001 book, Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power, examines the psychology of whistleblowing based on the extensive time he spent with people who’ve done it—some to much fanfare, others to very little. He says he’s received a phone call or an email from a whistleblower about every month since the book came out 12 years ago, and in many cases has kept up for years with those who reach out. He spoke with Mother Jones about the Edward Snowden-Daniel Ellsberg parallel, why whistleblowers tend to have big egos, and what Snowden might face in the coming weeks and months.
Mother Jones: Based on what we know about Edward Snowden so far, does he remind you of other whistleblowers you’ve spent time with or studied over the years?
C. Frederick Alford: Daniel Ellsberg, overwhelmingly. I don’t think Bradley Manning: Bradley Manning committed a data dump. He just released tons of information, and I don’t think he understood all the information he was releasing. I don’t think anyone could have understood it all.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/snowden-whistleblower-interview-alford
LikeLike
Was Rep. Franks remarks demagogued?
Maybe. Is it demagoguing when a Republican does it? He’s more than welcome to offer legislation for a post-20 week total ban on abortions including for rape and incest if he really thinks that’s what America wants…………..and maybe he’s right. Is he demagoguing when he claims as a fact that a fetus feels pain after that point? Or that women who have been raped should have the good sense to get an abortion before they’re 20 weeks pregnant?
The thing that’s so interesting is I don’t think any of you actually agree with him. If he’s going to make all these claims on the floor of the House I think it’s fair to expect some push back. Like I said I wouldn’t be living up to my liberal female creds if I didn’t push back. Although I do admit I hate bringing the subject up when I’m hanging out here, I can’t just always ignore the subject, I don’t think anyway.
Abortion politics — and the politics of rape — were back with a vengeance Wednesday, with House Judiciary Committee Republicans backing a nationwide ban on abortions after 20 weeks after the bill’s chief sponsor dismissed a Democratic push for exemptions for rape and incest.
Democrats pounced, sending around images of the all-male Republican lineup on the panel and ripping Arizona Rep. Trent Franks’ comment that “the instance of pregnancy resulting from rape is very low.”
Moderate Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania also slammed members of GOP leadership for planning to bring the bill to the floor next week for a vote.
“I’ll be very frank: I discouraged our leadership from bringing this to a vote on the floor,” Dent told CQ Roll Call. “Clearly the economy is on everyone’s minds, we’re seeing very stagnant job numbers, confidence in the institution of government is eroding and now we’re going to have a debate on rape and abortion.
“The stupidity is simply staggering,” he said.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/house-pushes-abortion-bill-amid-controversy/
LikeLike
lms:
The thing that’s so interesting is I don’t think any of you actually agree with him.
According to wikipedia, three different studies have placed the the percentage of rape victims that become pregnant as a result of the rape at somewhere between 3% and 5%. I suppose whether or not that is low, as Franks claimed, is a matter of opinion, but if so, I’d have to say I agree with him.
His other point seemed to be that 20 weeks was a reasonable amount of time for a rape victim to decide whether or not to get an abortion. I agree with that, too.
LikeLike
Scott, the incidence of pregnancy from rape is the same as it is from consensual sex in women who are not on birth control. Rape or not, women will become pregnant if they’re ovulating and are having unprotected sex. If a sperm and an egg get together they don’t care if it was by choice or not. They’ll either result in pregnancy or not, it has nothing to do with rape.
And I’m sure 20 weeks seems reasonable unless you’re actually a victim of rape. There are all sorts of issues that may come into play that most (but not all) men may not think of. Shame, denial, indecision, fear, etc. etc. Putting a time limit on pregnancy from rape or incest can be cruel.
It even makes sense to me on some level to personally know what I would do or one of my daughters would do, but I can’t claim the same certitude for other women, as I haven’t walked in their shoes. A 20 week old fetus, according to what we know today, isn’t viable, and that’s the line in the sand for me. Viability. At that point a live birth and adoption or bringing the baby home are the two options.
Men like Trent Franks are not qualified to decide…………………imo.
LikeLike
lms:
Scott, the incidence of pregnancy from rape is the same as it is from consensual sex in women who are not on birth control.
I guess, then, I would say that this is low, too.
Putting a time limit on pregnancy from rape or incest can be cruel.
And yet putting a time limit on when a rape victim can destroy the resulting life is necessary unless you want to allow rape victims to kill their children at any point up until adulthood. Assuming you wouldn’t advocate for that, then the question is not whether a time limit should be put on it, but rather when that time limit should be. Again, 20 weeks does not seem unreasonable to me. Certainly, at least, someone thinking so is not indicative to me of some horrible and uncaring ignoramus, which is of course what all the demagoguery is aimed at turning Franks into.
As you know, I think any woman should be allowed to get an abortion up until the point of viability, and then after that point no woman should be allowed to get an abortion (although they should be allowed to remove the baby from their bodies at any point). Whether that is 20 weeks, or 24 weeks, or something else is fine with me. But whatever that point is, I see no justification for making that period longer for rape victims than for non-rape victims. If that makes me a horrible person, then I guess I am a horrible person.
LikeLike
As you know, I think any woman should be allowed to get an abortion up until the point of viability
The lungs do not develop the capability for gas exchange until 24 weeks at the earliest.
LikeLike
And anyway, the word “viability” is subject to different interpretations. What you and I consider viable may be different from what yello or McWing consider viable.
LikeLike
Scott
I don’t think you’re a horrible person. IMO all women, whether raped or otherwise impregnated, should be able to abort their fetus up to the point of viability….so we basically agree. Right now the prevailing scientific facts appear to support the 24 week mark, which is fine with me. I do think that women whose life is endangered by some sort of medical necessity to abort a fetus past that mark, that has no chance of survival, should be allowed to do so with the advice of her doctor and without the state having any interest. These are not women who do not want children but are in an untenable situation that only they, their doctors and their families understand. Let the medical profession decide with the best interest of all what is the best option in these situations. I don’t believe it’s any of my business.
My objection is with men, and I’m sorry about this, like Trent Franks, who seriously have made explosive comments in the past about 50% of AA babies being aborted (proven to be untrue), Obama being an “enemy of humanity”, and a few of his choice allegations about planting Muslim spies in congressional offices, having even an opinion on the choices that women face.
I don’t have a problem with men such as you, mcwing, brent and Mark who basically agree with me………………..ha
Many women believe they’re the subject of punishment when all male or primarily male committees and legislatures attempt to pass these laws and at the same time make statements that are essentially untrue but get the pro-life folks worked up.
I think there could be some tempering of the abortion laws as they stand now if conservative fundamentalists in the right to life movement weren’t always trying to go too far or determine what women should be doing to satisfy their ideal. Life in the real world of women and reproduction doesn’t always fit that ideal.
LikeLike
lms:
I think there could be some tempering of the abortion laws as they stand now if conservative fundamentalists in the right to life movement weren’t always trying to go too far or determine what women should be doing to satisfy their ideal.
I doubt that is true. Pro-choice forces, not pro-life forces, have won and control the politics on this issue, and the only reason the US does not have a more sensible abortion policy, for example one that disallows the grisly practice of partial birth abortion, is because the moderates of the left have teamed with the extremists in their midst and allowed those extremists to take over the issue. You seem to be afraid of the slippery slope on which sensible regulations will lead to an outright ban. But that doesn’t make sense to me. If it is in the power of pro-choice forces to maintain the free-for-all that we now have (and it obviously is), it is also within its power to maintain more sensible regulations short of an outright ban. I don’t think it is right to blame conservative fundamentalists for the left’s unwillingness to advocate for and implement regulations that you apparently support (e.g. an end to PBA).
LikeLike
“I suppose one might see it that way, but since the alternatives require one to actually speculate on market movements”
The behavior being alleged in the piece isn’t speculation. It’s collusion to benefit the traders at the expense of their clients to whom some sort of fiduciary duty is presumably owed.
“Traders would share details of orders with brokers and counterparts at banks through instant messages to align their strategies, two of them said. They also would seek to glean information about impending trades to improve their chances of getting the desired move in the benchmark, they said.”
The traders collude with traders at other banks to benefit themselves. This isn’t a competitive market if that’s the case.
LikeLike
jnc:
The behavior being alleged in the piece isn’t speculation.
I know. I am trying to explain that the alternative to some of the behavior being alleged is speculation. It is a function of the nature of the orders being given.
It’s collusion to benefit the traders at the expense of their clients
Yes, sorry, I meant to address this charge as well. I was focusing on the first charge, that traders execute trades just prior to or during the rate setting period in order to “manipulate” the setting. As I said, doing trades at the time the rate gets set is the safest way to manage the risk the banks have, and such trades necessarily influence the set.
It’s not clear from the bberg article exactly what kind of collusion is taking place, but if several big dealers were all sharing information with each other about the orders they had for a given setting time and trading on that information, that would indeed be troublesome, although I think it would primarily be at the expense of the smaller dealers who were not privy to the information and to whom the dealers in-the-know would look to for prices. Given that the authors of the article seemed to be talking to several traders, but only 2 of them alleged sharing order info, I wonder how widespread this might be.
I’ll try to write more about this later…I think it is worth exploring the inherent problems in both giving orders in general and having dealing levels set by a third party at a pre-ordained time. It is also worth talking about how realistic it is to give people who’s job is to manage risk due to market movements information about how that market might move and then expect them to pretend that they don’t have that information.
LikeLike
Pro-choice forces, not pro-life forces, have won and control the politics on this issue, and the only reason the US does not have a more sensible abortion policy, for example one that disallows the grisly practice of partial birth abortion, is because the moderates of the left have teamed with the extremists in their midst and allowed those extremists to take over the issue.
I doubt that is true.
But that is your opinion, and if past behavior is any indicator nobody is going to change your mind about that.
But that doesn’t make sense to me.
That’s obvious.
LikeLike
Scott
Pro-choice forces, not pro-life forces, have won and control the politics on this issue
I don’t think that is currently the situation. One of the things I’ve talked about recently are the number of states attempting to restrict access to and availability of early abortions. Most pro choice activists are struggling to keep up with the new pro life attack on abortion rights at the state level.
a more sensible abortion policy, for example one that disallows the grisly practice of partial birth abortion
Congress passed (with some Democratic support) and Bush signed in 2003 a partial birth abortion ban which was subsequently upheld by the SC.
You seem to be afraid of the slippery slope on which sensible regulations will lead to an outright ban.
What I am afraid of is the heightened emphasis the pro-life movement is placing on burdening women with unnecessary restrictions preventing them from getting those early stage abortions. I’m afraid more and more women will seek disreputable solutions later in their pregnancy because of it.
According to the CDC 98.7% of abortions from the 39 of 45 reporting areas occur well before 21 weeks which is pre-viability the way we understand it now. Of the remaining 1.3% most of those took place in hospitals.
if it is in the power of pro-choice forces to maintain the free-for-all that we now have (and it obviously is)
I don’t think that is obvious at all.
LikeLike
“committees and legislatures attempt to pass these laws and at the same time make statements that are essentially untrue but get the pro-life folks worked up.”
the only way to resolve that is to limit the influence of said committees and legislatures. simply changing the players won’t do. Once you’ve involved the government in health care … it’s too late. now, that committee has jurisdiction over you.
LikeLike
Nova, I wish it were that simple. Health care is an industry ripe for abuse of the public, intentional or not. I think, and I know most of you disagree, that in some cases there is no other option but for the government to enact regulations or outright participate in health care. I’m gonna get slammed for that one… 😉
From the days of medicare/medicaid and the necessity of both, in my opinion, we’ve been fighting this battle but I wonder how many of us would really want to go back to the days before either program or before, for that matter, legal abortions.
I don’t actually see where we have a choice. Scott mentioned a free-for-all, and I assume he wasn’t referring to cost but the atmosphere of anything goes, and I think without government participation in the health industry that’s exactly what we would have, a free-for-all.
LikeLike
Imsinca… I believe our healthcare has been a free-for-all for a long time now, for those who can afford it… others just be damned because you didn’t do the right things with your life to be able to afford it, and who cares if you did and then lost it all because of something totally out of your control.
LikeLike