Global Financial Crisis (30 Viewers)

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,127
4 Big Banks Score Perfect 61-Day Trading Run

It is the Wall Street equivalent of a perfect game of baseball — 27 up, 27 down, the final score measured in millions of dollars a day.

Despite the running unease in world markets, four giants of American finance managed to make money from trading every single day during the first three months of the year.

Their remarkable 61-day streak is one for the record books. Perfect trading quarters on Wall Street are about as rare as perfect games in Major League Baseball. On Sunday, Dallas Braden of the Oakland Athletics pitched what was only the 19th perfect game in baseball history.

But Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Company produced the equivalent of a trio of perfect games during the first quarter. Each one finished the period without losing money for even one day.

Their showing, disclosed in quarterly financial filings, underscored the outsize — and controversial — role that trading has assumed at major financial institutions. It also drives home the widening lead that a handful of big banks are enjoying over lesser rivals on post-bailout Wall Street.

Experts said it would be difficult to repeat such a remarkable feat this quarter. Even so, the performance could feed the debate in Washington over the role of proprietary trading at banks, as well as sometimes conflicted roles banks play as market makers in matching buy and sell orders.

Risk management experts said the four banks, as well as other Wall Street players, reaped big rewards without necessarily placing big bets that stocks or bonds would go up or down. Instead, they mostly played matchmaker, profiting from the difference between the prices at which clients were willing to buy and sell. Banks said that customer order flows were particularly strong during the period.

“This is not about hitting home runs,” said Jaidev Iyer, who runs his own risk management consulting firm, J-Risk Advisors. “This is just, as we call it, milking the market and your captive client base.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/4-Big...3.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

________________________

This is what we get for bailing these maggots out. They use their High Frequency trading (HFT) programs to basically loot money from the NYSE by knowing about certain trades before everyone else does. Then the computers put in gigantic, quick trades that can move the market in a certain direction, like what happened last Thursday during the crash.

Of course, this puts traders like me and regular investor at a huge disadvantage, but the big banks -- nor our government -- care about our sentiments.

Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was a financial terrorist's dream, allowing these investment banks to take taxpayer money and speculate with it by using their HFT programs. Taking out that act also allowed them to take excessive risks with mortgage-backed securities which have wiped out our economy. So big thanks to the overrated Clinton administration for allowing this to happen.

Do we hear anything about this from our own mainstream media? No, we don't. Except from Dylan Ratigan.

These markets are basically a rigged game, as Max Keiser has been saying for a while now.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,127
The Federal Reserve also loves these HFT programs. There is very little real liquidity out there, as seen by the Thursday crash, but with these computers trading back and forth the market can be propped up at times of little volume. And this is partly the reason why US equities have shot straight to the moon since March 2009.

A rising stock market would create the illusion of a sound economy even if the fundamentals of it do not. The average American doesn't understand how to interpret these fundamentals. So these banks propping up the market with HFT benefits the Federal Reserve and the politicians who are seeking re-election this year or in the following elections.

All this shit makes me sick.
 

JBF

اختك يا زمن
Aug 5, 2006
18,451
The number of people unemployed in the UK rose by 53,000 to 2.51 million during the three months to March, official figures have shown.

The unemployment total is now at its highest level since December 1994.

However, the total number of people claiming unemployment benefit fell in April by 27,100 to 1.52 million - a sharper fall than expected.

The rate of unemployment remained at 8%, the Office for National Statistics said.

Osborne: 'We need a strong and stable government to deal with the problem'

There was also a rise in the number of people classed as economically inactive - those out of work and not seeking work. They rose by almost 100,000 to a record total of just under 8.2 million.

The ONS figures showed youth unemployment rising, with 941,000 16 to 24-year-olds out of work in the January to March period - a rise of 18,000 on the previous three months. The number of over-50s out of work for more than a year climbed 12,000 on the quarter to 146,000.


And 1,066,000 people said they were working part-time because they could not find a full-time job - up by 25,000.

John Philpott of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said the latest data underlined how tough a challenge the new coalition government faced.

"The big task for the government is trying to stimulate growth while also cutting the deficit," he told the BBC.

"There's nothing to suggest we're going to get a return to anything approaching full employment anytime soon."

And Brian Johnson, an insolvency practitioner at HW Fisher chartered accountants, said that those who had predicted that the worst of unemployment was over were wrong.

"If it were not bad enough already, we can expect significant public sector job losses, as the new government sets about cutting spending immediately in order to reduce the deficit.

"With private sector collapses and public sector cuts, we expect unemployment to continue to rise during the remainder of 2010 and on into 2011."


BBC

-----

Nothing close to the staggering almost 20% of Spain's unemployment rate but still an alarming indication.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,664
Federal Reserve Audit Bill passed the Senate yesterday 96 - 0.

Some dumb ass Republican tried to amend it earlier today to make it too broad and watered down. He got buttfucked too.

It will be interesting to see how far Congress is willing to go.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,127
The BBC does a nice cover job and fools the masses by only mentioning the British U-3 number. They don't explain that the U-6 number, or real unemployment, is far higher than that.

8.2 million people aren't counted in the U-3 number. How people can take the U-3 unemployment number seriously is just screaming to the world, "FOOL ME, FOOL ME, FOOL ME!"
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,127
Federal Reserve Audit Bill passed the Senate yesterday 96 - 0.

Some dumb ass Republican tried to amend it earlier today to make it too broad and watered down. He got buttfucked too.

It will be interesting to see how far Congress is willing to go.
I won't believe anything until it actually happens.

A full audit is needed with full transparency of all on and off balance sheet assets and liabilities.

I doubt we get it. The Fed will somehow not allow it to happen.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,664
I won't believe anything until it actually happens.

A full audit is needed with full transparency of all on and off balance sheet assets and liabilities.

I doubt we get it. The Fed will somehow not allow it to happen.
Should have seen C-SPAN yesterday. Dudes defending the Fed were getting owned.

Granted it's an election year for many Senators, so we'll see what happens in the House that's where the real problems are.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,127
The argument to not audit the Fed is that disclosure of what they have on their balance sheets might "harm the economic recovery."

Too bad. You harmed the future of the United States by buying up a lot of junk to support your friends on Wall Street, and if we're going down, you're coming with us. You lot of unconstitutional parasites.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,127
Should have seen C-SPAN yesterday. Dudes defending the Fed were getting owned.

Granted it's an election year for many Senators, so we'll see what happens in the House that's where the real problems are.
Look out for more financial terror attacks if the audit really gains traction.

The Fed has the power to take the US stock market and economy to supercritical simply by pulling liquidity. That's partly why we had the October 2008 crash -- they pulled liquidity from the market.

These aint even the BBC's figures Andy, they're OSN's :D
Yeah, just like the Bureau of Labor Statistics here in the states.

The numbers they produce are intentionally skewed to look better than they really are, which is why they switched to U-3 unemployment years ago.

The Birth-Death model of employment statistics has shown it is nonsense time and time again, but since it discounts some people who don't have work, they use it.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,127
More on Goldman's Perfect Record

A bit of math for the geeky among you... or those interested in the odds of Goldman's "perfect trading record" being achievable.

Let's take a simple game of chance. We flip a coin and call "heads" a winning day, and "tails" a losing day. A pure game of chance with a 50% set of odds for each "trial."

If we perform one flip, half the time it will come up heads, half the time tails (we will ignore the tiny chance of it landing on the EDGE and balancing - not exactly zero odds of that, but close enough.)

So what about if we perform four trials? What are the odds that the coin comes up "heads" all four times?

This is easily determined as 0.5 (odds on one trial) ^ 4, or the odds times itself four times over (to the 4th power)

This comes out to 6.25%. That is, if you did 100 sets of these four flips, in about six of them you would expect to have all four comes up "heads."

In the first quarter there were 12 full weeks and four days, for a total of 64 week days. A couple of those days, however, were holidays during which the market was closed (Good Friday, New Year's Day, etc.) so we will call it 60 trading days. This is a reasonable estimation for any given quarter.

So what are the odds that in a pure game of chance the coin would come up "heads" all 60 times?

That would be 8.67 x 10-19, or 8.67 times in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 attempts (if I counted my zeros correctly.)

A trillion is 1,000,000,000,000, or 1012; this is about 1,000,000 times less likely than one in a trillion.

In the "real world" we have had 234 years of history in America. There have been, on average, 240 days (approximately) of trading in each of those years, or 56,160 trading days, and there have been 936 quarters. The NYSE was founded in 1792, so in fact there haven't been that many days on which stocks have traded in the United States, but that's close enough.

The odds of this outcome happening in any one quarter since the founding of the nation are approximately 8.1 x 10-16 or quite significantly (by close to 100,000 times!) less likely than a one-in-a-trillion chance.

To put this in perspective you have a 1-in-500,000 chance each year of being hit by lightning while retrieving your mail, walking your dog, or taking a hike.


In comparison to that risk in ordinary life the odds of Goldman pulling this off in a game of chance are approximately forty million times LESS than the probability either of that event happening to you in the next year (again, assuming I've checked my zeros correctly.)

Should such an outcome happen on the street with the outcome subject to the exchange of money (that is, a wager) the gullible would hand over the wager. A person with a bit of knowledge of mathematics and even the tiniest bit of street smarts would react to such an event by pulling his sixgun and drilling the coin-flipper, as he would be certain (within HIS knowledge of having just been robbed) that the coin was rigged.

Now certainly trading is not a pure game of chance. Indeed, quite to the contrary; trading is allegedly a game of skill in the main.

I will leave it to you, and those who investigate frauds, to determine whether the application of skill, without any sort of cheating such as front-running client orders, insider information or other forms of rigging the markets, can turn the random chance odds of 8.67 x 10-19 into an event that has, in fact, actually occurred.
http://market-ticker.org/archives/2305-More-On-Goldmans-Perfect-Record.html

:lol:
 

JBF

اختك يا زمن
Aug 5, 2006
18,451
Yeah, just like the Bureau of Labor Statistics here in the states.

The numbers they produce are intentionally skewed to look better than they really are, which is why they switched to U-3 unemployment years ago.

The Birth-Death model of employment statistics has shown it is nonsense time and time again, but since it discounts some people who don't have work, they use it.
What is U3 unemployment? You keep on mentioning it and I have no clue what so ever regarding it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 30)