Offline
| Post a Message | Explore Forums | Browse Stock Messages | Hot Discussions | Top rated Messages | Top Boarders | |
|
|
|
Oil & Gas - Sector
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
FUTURE OUTLOOK
==============
Construction and infrastructure sector is in a "momentum" growth phase and with an excellent business model coupled with strong execution capabilities and thriving order book position the company is expected to have robust growth in income and profitability.
With the present emphasis on creating physical infrastructure and the massive investment planned during the Tenth Plan. The construction and infrastructure industry would play a crucial role in this regard.
The Government of Indias focus has resulted in several large infrastructure projects in the country. Provision for the National Highway Development and Indira Awas Yojna has added impetus to this line of business. Also excellent opportunities for the companys business is expected from emphasis made by the government on development of sea ports, airports, oil exploration etc.
The company has planned to enter into the business of renting of oil & gas drilling rigs and in this regard company has signed the MOU with Chinas biggest Oil & Gas Rig manufacturer and has placed order for design and manufacture of nos. 4, 2000 HP VFD Oil & Gas Drilling Rigs on, BAOJI OILFIELD MACHINERY COMAPANY (BOMCO) owned by China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).
The Company for its future expansion and diversification plan has acquired land at Gadhinglaj Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Company intends to expand its activities from equipment rental to manufacturing as well as setting up of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at the mentioned site. In this regard company has already received formal approval for Metal SEZ at Gadhinglaj for 100 Hectares of Land.
The Company has taken 75% controlling stake in 11 Coal mine licenses in Mozambique having an aggregate 13,520 hectares (appx. 13,52,00,000 sq. mts) of land in prime region of Moatize. This region falls in Karoo basin which is recognized as Prime Hard Coking coal bearing area in Africa. There is a global shortage and crisis of hard coking coal and this will add huge value to the profitability of the Company.
SUBSIDIARIES:
During the year under review, the following wholly owned subsidiaries have been formed:
1. Petrogrema Overseas PTE Ltd.
2. Gremach Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
-manish...
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
If you choose, you can pour most of your money into stocks and track their value in real time on a computer screen, confident that you`ll get good money for them when you decide to sell. And you won`t be alone — staring at millions of computer screens are other investors who share your confidence that the value of their portfolios will hold up.
But that collective confidence, Jorgenson says, is gone. And when confidence is drained out of a financial system, a lot of investors will decide to sell at any price, and a big chunk of that money you thought your investments were worth simply goes away.
If you once thought your investment portfolio was as good as a suitcase full of twenties, you might suddenly suspect that it`s not.
In the process, of course, you`re losing wealth. But does that mean someone else must be gaining it? Does the world have some fixed amount of wealth that shifts between people, nations and institutions with the ebb and flow of the economy?
Jorgenson says no — the amount of wealth in the world "simply decreases in a situation like this." And he cautions against assuming that your investment losses mean a gain for someone else — like wealthy stock speculators who try to make money by betting that the market will drop.
"Those folks in general have been losing their shirts at a prodigious rate," he said. "They took a big risk and now they`re suffering from the consequences."
"Of course, they had a great life, as long as it lasted."
Associated Press....
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by :
sambala
All that money you`ve lost — where did it go?
NEW YORK - Trillions in stock market value — gone. Trillions in retirement savings — gone. A huge chunk of the money you paid for your house, the money you`re saving for college, the money your boss needs to make payroll — gone, gone, gone.
Whether you`re a stock broker or Joe Six-pack, if you have a 401(k), a mutual fund or a college savings plan, tumbling stock markets and sagging home prices mean you`ve lost a whole lot of the money that was right there on your account statements just a few months ago.
But if you no longer have that money, who does? The fat cats on Wall Street? Some oil baron in Saudi Arabia? The government of China?
Or is it just — gone?
If you`re looking to track down your missing money — figure out who has it now, maybe ask to have it back — you might be disappointed to learn that is was never really money in the first place.
Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, puts it bluntly: The notion that you lose a pile of money whenever the stock market tanks is a "fallacy." He says the price of a stock has never been the same thing as money — it`s simply the "best guess" of what the stock is worth.
"It`s in people`s minds," Shiller explains. "We`re just recording a measure of what people think the stock market is worth. What the people who are willing to trade today — who are very, very few people — are actually trading at. So we`re just extrapolating that and thinking, well, maybe that`s what everyone thinks it`s worth."
Shiller uses the example of an appraiser who values a house at $350,000, a week after saying it was worth $400,000.
"In a sense, $50,000 just disappeared when he said that," he said. "But it`s all in the mind."
Though something, of course, is disappearing as markets and real estate values tumble. Even if a share of stock you own isn`t a wad of bills in your wallet, even if the value of your home isn`t something you can redeem at will, surely you can lose potential money — that is, the money that would be yours to spend if you sold your house or emptied out your mutual funds right now.
And if you`re a few months away from retirement, or hoping to sell your house and buy a smaller one to help pay for your kid`s college tuition, this "potential money" is something you`re counting on to get by. For people who need cash and need it now, this is as real as money gets, whether or not it meets the technical definition of the word.
Still, you run into trouble when you think of that potential money as being the same thing as the cash in your purse or your checking account.
"That`s a big mistake," says Dale Jorgenson, an economics professor at Harvard.
There`s a key distinction here: While the money in your pocket is unlikely to just vanish into thin air, the money you could have had, if only you`d sold your house or drained your stock-heavy mutual funds a year ago, most certainly can.
"You can`t enjoy the benefits of your 401(k) if it`s disappeared," Jorgenson explains. "If you had it all in financial stocks and they`ve all gone down by 80 percent — sorry! That is a permanent loss because those folks aren`t coming back. We`re gonna have a huge shrinkage in the financial sector."
There was a time when nobody had to wonder what happened to the money they used to have. Until paper money was developed in China around the ninth century, money was something solid that had actual value — like a gold coin that was worth whatever that amount of gold was worth, according to Douglas Mudd, curator of the American Numismatic Association`s Money Museum in Denver.
Back then, if the money you once had was suddenly gone, there was a simple reason — you spent it, someone stole it, you dropped it in a field somewhere, or maybe a tornado or some other disaster struck wherever you last put it down.
But these days, a lot of things that have monetary value can`t be held in your hand.
CONT.....
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
All that money you`ve lost — where did it go?
NEW YORK - Trillions in stock market value — gone. Trillions in retirement savings — gone. A huge chunk of the money you paid for your house, the money you`re saving for college, the money your boss needs to make payroll — gone, gone, gone.
Whether you`re a stock broker or Joe Six-pack, if you have a 401(k), a mutual fund or a college savings plan, tumbling stock markets and sagging home prices mean you`ve lost a whole lot of the money that was right there on your account statements just a few months ago.
But if you no longer have that money, who does? The fat cats on Wall Street? Some oil baron in Saudi Arabia? The government of China?
Or is it just — gone?
If you`re looking to track down your missing money — figure out who has it now, maybe ask to have it back — you might be disappointed to learn that is was never really money in the first place.
Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, puts it bluntly: The notion that you lose a pile of money whenever the stock market tanks is a "fallacy." He says the price of a stock has never been the same thing as money — it`s simply the "best guess" of what the stock is worth.
"It`s in people`s minds," Shiller explains. "We`re just recording a measure of what people think the stock market is worth. What the people who are willing to trade today — who are very, very few people — are actually trading at. So we`re just extrapolating that and thinking, well, maybe that`s what everyone thinks it`s worth."
Shiller uses the example of an appraiser who values a house at $350,000, a week after saying it was worth $400,000.
"In a sense, $50,000 just disappeared when he said that," he said. "But it`s all in the mind."
Though something, of course, is disappearing as markets and real estate values tumble. Even if a share of stock you own isn`t a wad of bills in your wallet, even if the value of your home isn`t something you can redeem at will, surely you can lose potential money — that is, the money that would be yours to spend if you sold your house or emptied out your mutual funds right now.
And if you`re a few months away from retirement, or hoping to sell your house and buy a smaller one to help pay for your kid`s college tuition, this "potential money" is something you`re counting on to get by. For people who need cash and need it now, this is as real as money gets, whether or not it meets the technical definition of the word.
Still, you run into trouble when you think of that potential money as being the same thing as the cash in your purse or your checking account.
"That`s a big mistake," says Dale Jorgenson, an economics professor at Harvard.
There`s a key distinction here: While the money in your pocket is unlikely to just vanish into thin air, the money you could have had, if only you`d sold your house or drained your stock-heavy mutual funds a year ago, most certainly can.
"You can`t enjoy the benefits of your 401(k) if it`s disappeared," Jorgenson explains. "If you had it all in financial stocks and they`ve all gone down by 80 percent — sorry! That is a permanent loss because those folks aren`t coming back. We`re gonna have a huge shrinkage in the financial sector."
There was a time when nobody had to wonder what happened to the money they used to have. Until paper money was developed in China around the ninth century, money was something solid that had actual value — like a gold coin that was worth whatever that amount of gold was worth, according to Douglas Mudd, curator of the American Numismatic Association`s Money Museum in Denver.
Back then, if the money you once had was suddenly gone, there was a simple reason — you spent it, someone stole it, you dropped it in a field somewhere, or maybe a tornado or some other disaster struck wherever you last put it down.
But these days, a lot of things that have monetary value can`t be held in your hand.
CONT.....
...
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : sambala
But even as the disaster unfolds on our computers, television sets and BlackBerrys, and in our bank accounts and broker statements, at least the trains are still running and bridges are still open and police are still catching bad guys. The potential for things to quickly deteriorate on a social level is no more crazy an idea than the thought a year ago today at the Dow`s peak that Wall Street as we knew it would be gone in 12 months.
For all of the jokes about him and his wacky state, Schwarzenegger isn`t acting this time.
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
Investors may pick up these mortgages for a fraction of their potential worth. But trying to make toxic loans work is time-consuming and labor-intensive, and carries huge risk of its own. People in repayment plans often default a second time, said Mani Sadeghi, a managing partner at Equifin Capital Partners in New York, which has set up a company that invests in mortgages and distressed loans.
Despite the "vulture" label, Sadeghi suggested there is a white knight aspect to the task. These bad loans are taken off bank balance sheets, "where they are acting as a cancer." And the homeowners get a shot at keeping their property.
"We`re trying to create better outcomes than foreclosures," Sadeghi said.
By DAVID B. CARUSO
...
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : sambala
Vultures circle Wall Street, but hesitate to feed
NEW YORK
When financial panic sweeps Bedford Falls in the 1946 movie "It`s a Wonderful Life," the villain, Mr. Potter, moves to snap up the Bailey Bros. Building and Loan, offering a fire-sale price of 50 cents on the dollar.
"I may lose a fortune," Potter says with a smirk. The picture`s hero, George Bailey, knows better. "He`s picking up some bargains," he tells stockholders.
That kind of bold opportunism has made capitalists rich for centuries. Now, legions of like-minded bargain-hunters stand ready to do some Potter-style shopping of their own amid the nation`s financial crisis.
"Vulture" investors, as they are called, have raised tens of billions of dollars over the past year in anticipation of opportunities to scavenge distressed assets and debt at discounted prices.
Speculators are eyeing potential profits in many of the same areas now at the center for the financial mess: real estate in foreclosure-plagued Florida, high-yield commercial paper, and pools of questionable mortgages.
Yet, so far, most have hesitated to swoop in. Instead, they have circled and watched for nearly a year as the turmoil worsened, wary about committing to anything with the financial system in chaos.
"These people have been waiting for the bottom to be reached before they plunge in, and then they take the risk of having the price drop even more," said Roy Smith, a finance professor at New York University.
The vultures have been skittish for another reason: The poorly performing mortgages at the root of the crisis were repackaged, resold, sliced apart and pooled together in so many complicated ways that even the best-trained experts have trouble understanding their value.
"There are investors who have pools of loans, and they don`t know where the assets are," said Harvey Green, chief executive and president of Marcus & Millichap, a large commercial real estate investment brokerage based in Los Angeles.
Some of these factors might begin to change in the coming months as the federal government begins trying to stimulate the credit markets with its $700 billion bailout.
If it works, the private sector may be ready to pounce. Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst said Tuesday that 18 distress funds have raised $37.9 billion so far this year. One big player, Oaktree Capital Management, has set aside a whopping $10.6 billion to invest in distressed debt. Goldman Sachs announced last fall that it had raised $4.5 billion to invest in distress opportunities in the credit markets. Even Lehman Brothers had been preparing a $1.25 billion fund for distressed mortgage-backed securities before filing for bankruptcy last month.
"There is much more money raised for these distressed assets than there are distressed assets themselves," said Tomasz Piskorski, assistant professor of finance at Columbia University.
Other entities have begun to mobilize in response to the crisis, such as high-powered law firms and factory-like operations designed to rehabilitate bad mortgages.
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani`s law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, has formed a task force to help corporate clients understand legislation and regulatory issues related to the bailout, a politically delicate move that Democrats seized on in trying to paint the Republican as taking advantage of the crisis. Republicans called such attacks ridiculous.
In a news release on Oct. 7, the firm said one "silver lining" to the economic crisis is the opportunity for risk-taking investors to pick up distressed debt at a rock-bottom price. Bracewell & Giuliani is one of hundreds of firms looking to put their lawyers to work untangling the financial mess.
Some investors have already started to position themselves for forays into the problematic mortgage market by hiring teams of specialists who will attempt to rehabilitate bad loans by renegotiating them with the homeowners.
Cont.....
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
Vultures circle Wall Street, but hesitate to feed
NEW YORK
When financial panic sweeps Bedford Falls in the 1946 movie "It`s a Wonderful Life," the villain, Mr. Potter, moves to snap up the Bailey Bros. Building and Loan, offering a fire-sale price of 50 cents on the dollar.
"I may lose a fortune," Potter says with a smirk. The picture`s hero, George Bailey, knows better. "He`s picking up some bargains," he tells stockholders.
That kind of bold opportunism has made capitalists rich for centuries. Now, legions of like-minded bargain-hunters stand ready to do some Potter-style shopping of their own amid the nation`s financial crisis.
"Vulture" investors, as they are called, have raised tens of billions of dollars over the past year in anticipation of opportunities to scavenge distressed assets and debt at discounted prices.
Speculators are eyeing potential profits in many of the same areas now at the center for the financial mess: real estate in foreclosure-plagued Florida, high-yield commercial paper, and pools of questionable mortgages.
Yet, so far, most have hesitated to swoop in. Instead, they have circled and watched for nearly a year as the turmoil worsened, wary about committing to anything with the financial system in chaos.
"These people have been waiting for the bottom to be reached before they plunge in, and then they take the risk of having the price drop even more," said Roy Smith, a finance professor at New York University.
The vultures have been skittish for another reason: The poorly performing mortgages at the root of the crisis were repackaged, resold, sliced apart and pooled together in so many complicated ways that even the best-trained experts have trouble understanding their value.
"There are investors who have pools of loans, and they don`t know where the assets are," said Harvey Green, chief executive and president of Marcus & Millichap, a large commercial real estate investment brokerage based in Los Angeles.
Some of these factors might begin to change in the coming months as the federal government begins trying to stimulate the credit markets with its $700 billion bailout.
If it works, the private sector may be ready to pounce. Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst said Tuesday that 18 distress funds have raised $37.9 billion so far this year. One big player, Oaktree Capital Management, has set aside a whopping $10.6 billion to invest in distressed debt. Goldman Sachs announced last fall that it had raised $4.5 billion to invest in distress opportunities in the credit markets. Even Lehman Brothers had been preparing a $1.25 billion fund for distressed mortgage-backed securities before filing for bankruptcy last month.
"There is much more money raised for these distressed assets than there are distressed assets themselves," said Tomasz Piskorski, assistant professor of finance at Columbia University.
Other entities have begun to mobilize in response to the crisis, such as high-powered law firms and factory-like operations designed to rehabilitate bad mortgages.
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani`s law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, has formed a task force to help corporate clients understand legislation and regulatory issues related to the bailout, a politically delicate move that Democrats seized on in trying to paint the Republican as taking advantage of the crisis. Republicans called such attacks ridiculous.
In a news release on Oct. 7, the firm said one "silver lining" to the economic crisis is the opportunity for risk-taking investors to pick up distressed debt at a rock-bottom price. Bracewell & Giuliani is one of hundreds of firms looking to put their lawyers to work untangling the financial mess.
Some investors have already started to position themselves for forays into the problematic mortgage market by hiring teams of specialists who will attempt to rehabilitate bad loans by renegotiating them with the homeowners.
Cont.....
...
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : sambala
Not everyone agreed. "We may get to the point where we need to inject capital into banks, but we`re not there yet," Mr. Crandall said. "That holds the greater potential reward for economy but creates more risk for taxpayers."
Mr. Paulson`s reputation took a hit following the battle with Congress over the plan. When asked to grade the secretary`s performance, economists on average dropped his score to 67 from 74 in July. Grades for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke fell to 72 from 77 in July. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair fared best at 80.
Thanks for your reply. Please check this interesting website- The Market Oracle....
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : Kalidas
for diliphm
- Agreed that domestic Corporate Tax rates are very high at almost 35%. This is disincentive. However, the US corporate contribute very little to taxation. Most of the taxes are paid by the Individuals. In my book I have suggested complete overhaul of taxation system.
- We can not take into billions of dollars of drug and other vice money. However, US may announce Amnesty scheme to ask all American corporations and citizens to declare their income and pay once say 25% to legalize the money, so that official money supply is more.
- Off shore is the main problem. They should de-legalize activities of all corporations and citizens operating in Off shore
- Unaccounted money portion is very small in USA. We can not take the money out of drugs, prostitution etc for officializing them
Kalidas, Hong Kong
7-10-2008
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
NYMEX Nov crude oil futures hit fresh yr-low of $81.13/bbl...
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
Kalidasji,
There is this article in the New York Times by Peter S. Goodman “The reckoning taking hard new look at Greenspan legacy” a very well written article which indicts the former governor and Rupert Rubin for all the inaction and flawed decision making that has plunged the world into this crisis just like you have been saying all this while.
Reminds me of late Yasser Arafat who was given the Nobel Prize for peace in 1994 and deemed a terrorist.
One interesting bit in the article is the selective amnesia that Mr. Larry Summers with regard to the phone call.
The article also gives a break up of all the Derivative Outstanding in the Global marketing in 2008.
Interest rate swaps and options; currency swaps USD 464.7 trillions
Credit default swaps USD 54.6 trillions
Equity Derivative USD 11.9 trillions
Total USD 531.2 trillions
Regards
Slowhand
...
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : Kalidas
for mitwa9 and others raising similar questions
I will write after a few days. It takes time to write for serious subject. I do not write if I can not write convincingly. - Kalidas
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
India crude oil basket up $1.71 at $78.43 per barrel Thu...
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
Sambala.
Quote
If Mr. Greenspan had acted differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman from 1987 to 2006, many economists say, the current crisis might have been averted or muted.
Over the years, Mr. Greenspan helped enable an ambitious American experiment in letting market forces run free. Now, the nation is confronting the consequences.
Unquote
I felt this in January this year that Alan commited grave mistakes and the nation is paying for his mistakes....
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : sambala
Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy
“Not only have individual financial institutions become less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors, but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient.” — Alan Greenspan in 2004
George Soros, the prominent financier, avoids using the financial contracts known as derivatives “because we don’t really understand how they work.” Felix G. Rohatyn, the investment banker who saved New York from financial catastrophe in the 1970s, described derivatives as potential “hydrogen bombs.”
And Warren E. Buffett presciently observed five years ago that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.”
One prominent financial figure, however, has long thought otherwise. And his views held the greatest sway in debates about the regulation and use of derivatives — exotic contracts that promised to protect investors from losses, thereby stimulating riskier practices that led to the financial crisis. For more than a decade, the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has fiercely objected whenever derivatives have come under scrutiny in Congress or on Wall Street. “What we have found over the years in the marketplace is that derivatives have been an extraordinarily useful vehicle to transfer risk from those who shouldn’t be taking it to those who are willing to and are capable of doing so,” Mr. Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in 2003. “We think it would be a mistake” to more deeply regulate the contracts, he added.
Today, with the world caught in an economic tempest that Mr. Greenspan recently described as “the type of wrenching financial crisis that comes along only once in a century,” his faith in derivatives remains unshaken.
The problem is not that the contracts failed, he says. Rather, the people using them got greedy. A lack of integrity spawned the crisis, he argued in a speech a week ago at Georgetown University, intimating that those peddling derivatives were not as reliable as “the pharmacist who fills the prescription ordered by our physician.”
But others hold a starkly different view of how global markets unwound, and the role that Mr. Greenspan played in setting up this unrest.
“Clearly, derivatives are a centerpiece of the crisis, and he was the leading proponent of the deregulation of derivatives,” said Frank Partnoy, a law professor at the University of San Diego and an expert on financial regulation.
The derivatives market is $531 trillion, up from $106 trillion in 2002 and a relative pittance just two decades ago. Theoretically intended to limit risk and ward off financial problems, the contracts instead have stoked uncertainty and actually spread risk amid doubts about how companies value them.
If Mr. Greenspan had acted differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman from 1987 to 2006, many economists say, the current crisis might have been averted or muted.
Over the years, Mr. Greenspan helped enable an ambitious American experiment in letting market forces run free. Now, the nation is confronting the consequences.
Derivatives were created to soften — or in the argot of Wall Street, “hedge” — investment losses. For example, some of the contracts protect debt holders against losses on mortgage securities. (Their name comes from the fact that their value “derives” from underlying assets like stocks, bonds and commodities.) Many individuals own a common derivative: the insurance contract on their homes.
On a grander scale, such contracts allow financial services firms and corporations to take more complex risks that they might otherwise avoid — for example, issuing more mortgages or corporate debt. And the contracts can be traded, further limiting risk but also increasing the number of parties exposed if problems occur.
Cont.....
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
No, I’m not,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “I believe that the general growth in large institutions have occurred in the context of an underlying structure of markets in which many of the larger risks are dramatically — I should say, fully — hedged.”
The House overwhelmingly passed the bill that kept derivatives clear of C.F.T.C. oversight. Senator Gramm attached a rider limiting the C.F.T.C.’s authority to an 11,000-page appropriations bill. The Senate passed it. President Clinton signed it into law.
Pressing Forward
Still, savvy investors like Mr. Buffett continued to raise alarms about derivatives, as he did in 2003, in his annual letter to shareholders of his company, Berkshire Hathaway.
“Large amounts of risk, particularly credit risk, have become concentrated in the hands of relatively few derivatives dealers,” he wrote. “The troubles of one could quickly infect the others.”
But business continued.
And when Mr. Greenspan began to hear of a housing bubble, he dismissed the threat. Wall Street was using derivatives, he said in a 2004 speech, to share risks with other firms.
Shared risk has since evolved from a source of comfort into a virus. As the housing crisis grew and mortgages went bad, derivatives actually magnified the downturn.
The Wall Street debacle that swallowed firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and imperiled the insurance giant American International Group, has been driven by the fact that they and their customers were linked to one another by derivatives.
In recent months, as the financial crisis has gathered momentum, Mr. Greenspan’s public appearances have become less frequent.
His memoir was released in the middle of 2007, as the disaster was unfolding, and his book tour suddenly became a referendum on his policies. When the paperback version came out this year, Mr. Greenspan wrote an epilogue that offers a rebuttal of sorts.
“Risk management can never achieve perfection,” he wrote. The villains, he wrote, were the bankers whose self-interest he had once bet upon.
“They gambled that they could keep adding to their risky positions and still sell them out before the deluge,” he wrote. “Most were wrong.”
No federal intervention was marshaled to try to stop them, but Mr. Greenspan has no regrets.
“Governments and central banks,” he wrote, “could not have altered the course of the boom.”
...
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : sambala
In early 1998, Mr. Rubin’s deputy, Lawrence H. Summers, called Ms. Born and chastised her for taking steps he said would lead to a financial crisis, according to Mr. Greenberger. Mr. Summers said he could not recall the conversation but agreed with Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin that Ms. Born’s proposal was “highly problematic.”
On April 21, 1998, senior federal financial regulators convened in a wood-paneled conference room at the Treasury to discuss Ms. Born’s proposal. Mr. Rubin and Mr. Greenspan implored her to reconsider, according to both Mr. Greenberger and Mr. Levitt.
Ms. Born pushed ahead. On June 5, 1998, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Levitt called on Congress to prevent Ms. Born from acting until more senior regulators developed their own recommendations. Mr. Levitt says he now regrets that decision. Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin were “joined at the hip on this,” he said. “They were certainly very fiercely opposed to this and persuaded me that this would cause chaos.”
Ms. Born soon gained a potent example. In the fall of 1998, the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management nearly collapsed, dragged down by disastrous bets on, among other things, derivatives. More than a dozen banks pooled $3.6 billion for a private rescue to prevent the fund from slipping into bankruptcy and endangering other firms.
Despite that event, Congress froze the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s regulatory authority for six months. The following year, Ms. Born departed.
In November 1999, senior regulators — including Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin — recommended that Congress permanently strip the C.F.T.C. of regulatory authority over derivatives.
Mr. Greenspan, according to lawmakers, then used his prestige to make sure Congress followed through. “Alan was held in very high regard,” said Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican who led the House Banking and Financial Services Committee at the time. “You’ve got an area of judgment in which members of Congress have nonexistent expertise.”
As the stock market roared forward on the heels of a historic bull market, the dominant view was that the good times largely stemmed from Mr. Greenspan’s steady hand at the Fed.
“You will go down as the greatest chairman in the history of the Federal Reserve Bank,” declared Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee when Mr. Greenspan appeared there in February 1999.
Mr. Greenspan’s credentials and confidence reinforced his reputation — helping him to persuade Congress to repeal Depression-era laws that separated commercial and investment banking in order to reduce overall risk in the financial system.
“He had a way of speaking that made you think he knew exactly what he was talking about at all times,” said Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. “He was able to say things in a way that made people not want to question him on anything, like he knew it all. He was the Oracle, and who were you to question him?”
In 2000, Mr. Harkin asked what might happen if Congress weakened the C.F.T.C.’s authority.
“If you have this exclusion and something unforeseen happens, who does something about it?” he asked Mr. Greenspan in a hearing.
Mr. Greenspan said that Wall Street could be trusted. “There is a very fundamental trade-off of what type of economy you wish to have,” he said. “You can have huge amounts of regulation and I will guarantee nothing will go wrong, but nothing will go right either,” he said.
Later that year, at a Congressional hearing on the merger boom, he argued that Wall Street had tamed risk.
“Aren’t you concerned with such a growing concentration of wealth that if one of these huge institutions fails that it will have a horrendous impact on the national and global economy?” asked Representative Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont.
Cont.....
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
In early 1998, Mr. Rubin’s deputy, Lawrence H. Summers, called Ms. Born and chastised her for taking steps he said would lead to a financial crisis, according to Mr. Greenberger. Mr. Summers said he could not recall the conversation but agreed with Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin that Ms. Born’s proposal was “highly problematic.”
On April 21, 1998, senior federal financial regulators convened in a wood-paneled conference room at the Treasury to discuss Ms. Born’s proposal. Mr. Rubin and Mr. Greenspan implored her to reconsider, according to both Mr. Greenberger and Mr. Levitt.
Ms. Born pushed ahead. On June 5, 1998, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Levitt called on Congress to prevent Ms. Born from acting until more senior regulators developed their own recommendations. Mr. Levitt says he now regrets that decision. Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin were “joined at the hip on this,” he said. “They were certainly very fiercely opposed to this and persuaded me that this would cause chaos.”
Ms. Born soon gained a potent example. In the fall of 1998, the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management nearly collapsed, dragged down by disastrous bets on, among other things, derivatives. More than a dozen banks pooled $3.6 billion for a private rescue to prevent the fund from slipping into bankruptcy and endangering other firms.
Despite that event, Congress froze the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s regulatory authority for six months. The following year, Ms. Born departed.
In November 1999, senior regulators — including Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin — recommended that Congress permanently strip the C.F.T.C. of regulatory authority over derivatives.
Mr. Greenspan, according to lawmakers, then used his prestige to make sure Congress followed through. “Alan was held in very high regard,” said Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican who led the House Banking and Financial Services Committee at the time. “You’ve got an area of judgment in which members of Congress have nonexistent expertise.”
As the stock market roared forward on the heels of a historic bull market, the dominant view was that the good times largely stemmed from Mr. Greenspan’s steady hand at the Fed.
“You will go down as the greatest chairman in the history of the Federal Reserve Bank,” declared Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee when Mr. Greenspan appeared there in February 1999.
Mr. Greenspan’s credentials and confidence reinforced his reputation — helping him to persuade Congress to repeal Depression-era laws that separated commercial and investment banking in order to reduce overall risk in the financial system.
“He had a way of speaking that made you think he knew exactly what he was talking about at all times,” said Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. “He was able to say things in a way that made people not want to question him on anything, like he knew it all. He was the Oracle, and who were you to question him?”
In 2000, Mr. Harkin asked what might happen if Congress weakened the C.F.T.C.’s authority.
“If you have this exclusion and something unforeseen happens, who does something about it?” he asked Mr. Greenspan in a hearing.
Mr. Greenspan said that Wall Street could be trusted. “There is a very fundamental trade-off of what type of economy you wish to have,” he said. “You can have huge amounts of regulation and I will guarantee nothing will go wrong, but nothing will go right either,” he said.
Later that year, at a Congressional hearing on the merger boom, he argued that Wall Street had tamed risk.
“Aren’t you concerned with such a growing concentration of wealth that if one of these huge institutions fails that it will have a horrendous impact on the national and global economy?” asked Representative Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont.
Cont........
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : sambala
“I always felt that the titans of our legislature didn’t want to reveal their own inability to understand some of the concepts that Mr. Greenspan was setting forth,” Mr. Levitt said. “I don’t recall anyone ever saying, ‘What do you mean by that, Alan?’ ”
Still, over a long stretch of time, some did pose questions. In 1992, Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts who led the House subcommittee on telecommunications and finance, asked what was then the General Accounting Office to study derivatives risks.
Two years later, the office released its report, identifying “significant gaps and weaknesses” in the regulatory oversight of derivatives.
“The sudden failure or abrupt withdrawal from trading of any of these large U.S. dealers could cause liquidity problems in the markets and could also pose risks to others, including federally insured banks and the financial system as a whole,” Charles A. Bowsher, head of the accounting office, said when he testified before Mr. Markey’s committee in 1994. “In some cases intervention has and could result in a financial bailout paid for or guaranteed by taxpayers.”
In his testimony at the time, Mr. Greenspan was reassuring. “Risks in financial markets, including derivatives markets, are being regulated by private parties,” he said.
“There is nothing involved in federal regulation per se which makes it superior to market regulation.”
Mr. Greenspan warned that derivatives could amplify crises because they tied together the fortunes of many seemingly independent institutions. “The very efficiency that is involved here means that if a crisis were to occur, that that crisis is transmitted at a far faster pace and with some greater virulence,” he said.
But he called that possibility “extremely remote,” adding that “risk is part of life.”
Later that year, Mr. Markey introduced a bill requiring greater derivatives regulation. It never passed.
Resistance to Warnings
In 1997, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency that regulates options and futures trading, began exploring derivatives regulation. The commission, then led by a lawyer named Brooksley E. Born, invited comments about how best to oversee certain derivatives
Ms. Born was concerned that unfettered, opaque trading could “threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it,” she said in Congressional testimony. She called for greater disclosure of trades and reserves to cushion against losses.
Ms. Born’s views incited fierce opposition from Mr. Greenspan and Robert E. Rubin, the Treasury secretary then. Treasury lawyers concluded that merely discussing new rules threatened the derivatives market. Mr. Greenspan warned that too many rules would damage Wall Street, prompting traders to take their business overseas.
“Greenspan told Brooksley that she essentially didn’t know what she was doing and she’d cause a financial crisis,” said Michael Greenberger, who was a senior director at the commission. “Brooksley was this woman who was not playing tennis with these guys and not having lunch with these guys. There was a little bit of the feeling that this woman was not of Wall Street.”
Ms. Born declined to comment. Mr. Rubin, now a senior executive at the banking giant Citigroup, says that he favored regulating derivatives — particularly increasing potential loss reserves — but that he saw no way of doing so while he was running the Treasury.
“All of the forces in the system were arrayed against it,” he said. “The industry certainly didn’t want any increase in these requirements. There was no potential for mobilizing public opinion.”
Mr. Greenberger asserts that the political climate would have been different had Mr. Rubin called for regulation.
Cont......
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
“I always felt that the titans of our legislature didn’t want to reveal their own inability to understand some of the concepts that Mr. Greenspan was setting forth,” Mr. Levitt said. “I don’t recall anyone ever saying, ‘What do you mean by that, Alan?’ ”
Still, over a long stretch of time, some did pose questions. In 1992, Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts who led the House subcommittee on telecommunications and finance, asked what was then the General Accounting Office to study derivatives risks.
Two years later, the office released its report, identifying “significant gaps and weaknesses” in the regulatory oversight of derivatives.
“The sudden failure or abrupt withdrawal from trading of any of these large U.S. dealers could cause liquidity problems in the markets and could also pose risks to others, including federally insured banks and the financial system as a whole,” Charles A. Bowsher, head of the accounting office, said when he testified before Mr. Markey’s committee in 1994. “In some cases intervention has and could result in a financial bailout paid for or guaranteed by taxpayers.”
In his testimony at the time, Mr. Greenspan was reassuring. “Risks in financial markets, including derivatives markets, are being regulated by private parties,” he said.
“There is nothing involved in federal regulation per se which makes it superior to market regulation.”
Mr. Greenspan warned that derivatives could amplify crises because they tied together the fortunes of many seemingly independent institutions. “The very efficiency that is involved here means that if a crisis were to occur, that that crisis is transmitted at a far faster pace and with some greater virulence,” he said.
But he called that possibility “extremely remote,” adding that “risk is part of life.”
Later that year, Mr. Markey introduced a bill requiring greater derivatives regulation. It never passed.
Resistance to Warnings
In 1997, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency that regulates options and futures trading, began exploring derivatives regulation. The commission, then led by a lawyer named Brooksley E. Born, invited comments about how best to oversee certain derivatives
Ms. Born was concerned that unfettered, opaque trading could “threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it,” she said in Congressional testimony. She called for greater disclosure of trades and reserves to cushion against losses.
Ms. Born’s views incited fierce opposition from Mr. Greenspan and Robert E. Rubin, the Treasury secretary then. Treasury lawyers concluded that merely discussing new rules threatened the derivatives market. Mr. Greenspan warned that too many rules would damage Wall Street, prompting traders to take their business overseas.
“Greenspan told Brooksley that she essentially didn’t know what she was doing and she’d cause a financial crisis,” said Michael Greenberger, who was a senior director at the commission. “Brooksley was this woman who was not playing tennis with these guys and not having lunch with these guys. There was a little bit of the feeling that this woman was not of Wall Street.”
Ms. Born declined to comment. Mr. Rubin, now a senior executive at the banking giant Citigroup, says that he favored regulating derivatives — particularly increasing potential loss reserves — but that he saw no way of doing so while he was running the Treasury.
“All of the forces in the system were arrayed against it,” he said. “The industry certainly didn’t want any increase in these requirements. There was no potential for mobilizing public opinion.”
Mr. Greenberger asserts that the political climate would have been different had Mr. Rubin called for regulation.
Cont.........
In reply to:
A Nation on the Grill
Posted by : sambala
Throughout the 1990s, some argued that derivatives had become so vast, intertwined and inscrutable that they required federal oversight to protect the financial system. In meetings with federal officials, celebrated appearances on Capitol Hill and heavily attended speeches, Mr. Greenspan banked on the good will of Wall Street to self-regulate as he fended off restrictions.
Ever since housing began to collapse, Mr. Greenspan’s record has been up for revision. Economists from across the ideological spectrum have criticized his decision to let the nation’s real estate market continue to boom with cheap credit, courtesy of low interest rates, rather than snuffing out price increases with higher rates. Others have criticized Mr. Greenspan for not disciplining institutions that lent indiscriminately.
But whatever history ends up saying about those decisions, Mr. Greenspan’s legacy may ultimately rest on a more deeply embedded and much less scrutinized phenomenon: the spectacular boom and calamitous bust in derivatives trading.
Faith in the System
Some analysts say it is unfair to blame Mr. Greenspan because the crisis is so sprawling. “The notion that Greenspan could have generated a totally different outcome is naïve,” said Robert E. Hall, an economist at the conservative Hoover Institution, a research group at Stanford.
Mr. Greenspan declined requests for an interview. His spokeswoman referred questions about his record to his memoir, “The Age of Turbulence,” in which he outlines his beliefs.
“It seems superfluous to constrain trading in some of the newer derivatives and other innovative financial contracts of the past decade,” Mr. Greenspan writes. “The worst have failed; investors no longer fund them and are not likely to in the future.”
In his Georgetown speech, he entertained no talk of regulation, describing the financial turmoil as the failure of Wall Street to behave honorably.
“In a market system based on trust, reputation has a significant economic value,” Mr. Greenspan told the audience. “I am therefore distressed at how far we have let concerns for reputation slip in recent years.”
As the long-serving chairman of the Fed, the nation’s most powerful economic policy maker, Mr. Greenspan preached the transcendent, wealth-creating powers of the market.
A professed libertarian, he counted among his formative influences the novelist Ayn Rand, who portrayed collective power as an evil force set against the enlightened self-interest of individuals. In turn, he showed a resolute faith that those participating in financial markets would act responsibly.
An examination of more than two decades of Mr. Greenspan’s record on financial regulation and derivatives in particular reveals the degree to which he tethered the health of the nation’s economy to that faith.
As the nascent derivatives market took hold in the early 1990s, and in subsequent years, critics denounced an absence of rules forcing institutions to disclose their positions and set aside funds as a reserve against bad bets.
Time and again, Mr. Greenspan — a revered figure affectionately nicknamed the Oracle — proclaimed that risks could be handled by the markets themselves.
“Proposals to bring even minimalist regulation were basically rebuffed by Greenspan and various people in the Treasury,” recalled Alan S. Blinder, a former Federal Reserve board member and an economist at Princeton University. “I think of him as consistently cheerleading on derivatives.”
Arthur Levitt Jr., a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, says Mr. Greenspan opposes regulating derivatives because of a fundamental disdain for government.
Mr. Levitt said that Mr. Greenspan’s authority and grasp of global finance consistently persuaded less financially sophisticated lawmakers to follow his lead.
Cont....
Tracked by: 0 Boarder
Throughout the 1990s, some argued that derivatives had become so vast, intertwined and inscrutable that they required federal oversight to protect the financial system. In meetings with federal officials, celebrated appearances on Capitol Hill and heavily attended speeches, Mr. Greenspan banked on the good will of Wall Street to self-regulate as he fended off restrictions.
Ever since housing began to collapse, Mr. Greenspan’s record has been up for revision. Economists from across the ideological spectrum have criticized his decision to let the nation’s real estate market continue to boom with cheap credit, courtesy of low interest rates, rather than snuffing out price increases with higher rates. Others have criticized Mr. Greenspan for not disciplining institutions that lent indiscriminately.
But whatever history ends up saying about those decisions, Mr. Greenspan’s legacy may ultimately rest on a more deeply embedded and much less scrutinized phenomenon: the spectacular boom and calamitous bust in derivatives trading.
Faith in the System
Some analysts say it is unfair to blame Mr. Greenspan because the crisis is so sprawling. “The notion that Greenspan could have generated a totally different outcome is naïve,” said Robert E. Hall, an economist at the conservative Hoover Institution, a research group at Stanford.
Mr. Greenspan declined requests for an interview. His spokeswoman referred questions about his record to his memoir, “The Age of Turbulence,” in which he outlines his beliefs.
“It seems superfluous to constrain trading in some of the newer derivatives and other innovative financial contracts of the past decade,” Mr. Greenspan writes. “The worst have failed; investors no longer fund them and are not likely to in the future.”
In his Georgetown speech, he entertained no talk of regulation, describing the financial turmoil as the failure of Wall Street to behave honorably.
“In a market system based on trust, reputation has a significant economic value,” Mr. Greenspan told the audience. “I am therefore distressed at how far we have let concerns for reputation slip in recent years.”
As the long-serving chairman of the Fed, the nation’s most powerful economic policy maker, Mr. Greenspan preached the transcendent, wealth-creating powers of the market.
A professed libertarian, he counted among his formative influences the novelist Ayn Rand, who portrayed collective power as an evil force set against the enlightened self-interest of individuals. In turn, he showed a resolute faith that those participating in financial markets would act responsibly.
An examination of more than two decades of Mr. Greenspan’s record on financial regulation and derivatives in particular reveals the degree to which he tethered the health of the nation’s economy to that faith.
As the nascent derivatives market took hold in the early 1990s, and in subsequent years, critics denounced an absence of rules forcing institutions to disclose their positions and set aside funds as a reserve against bad bets.
Time and again, Mr. Greenspan — a revered figure affectionately nicknamed the Oracle — proclaimed that risks could be handled by the markets themselves.
“Proposals to bring even minimalist regulation were basically rebuffed by Greenspan and various people in the Treasury,” recalled Alan S. Blinder, a former Federal Reserve board member and an economist at Princeton University. “I think of him as consistently cheerleading on derivatives.”
Arthur Levitt Jr., a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, says Mr. Greenspan opposes regulating derivatives because of a fundamental disdain for government.
Mr. Levitt said that Mr. Greenspan’s authority and grasp of global finance consistently persuaded less financially sophisticated lawmakers to follow his lead.
Cont.......
In reply to: