Things are very moody here at BALT headquarters, deep in the heart of the city of Palindrome in Arizona. Spirits are down. Income is scarce. Life itself is being questioned. Let us use our powers and away to Sweden, to the past, and the 2004 Hultsfred Festival.
Do you have your backpack? Here in the city the homeless all carry backpacks and if you are not from here, you might assume they are particularly badly aged students. They walk about with routines: mornings at the Lutheran, afternoons at the big box-like library when the desert heat is at its worst, evenings back out on the streets, scamming for a bite or looking for the ideal lot to sleep for the night.
Grab your backpack. Put a hand towel in there to wipe your brow. A bottle of water. Take an authentic pocket knife, for you will never know when you need to open a bottle of wine, saw a stick, or clean your teeth with the built in toothpick. We have always wanted an authentic pocket knife since we were a kid. Take some snacks; a bag of peanuts or something that travels well. Include a good book, some paper and a pen, your phone and your mp3 player, and let's go. We are all homeless now.
Remember when Paul met the Ethiopian on the road, and explained the Gospel to him? And then disappeared? Ha, not too many could pull such a thing. But we can. Disappear with us.
Look, and listen. Even though we can hardly endorse the philosphy in the songs, the mood fits...
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Dark Knight with Finn
I finally got around to seeing The Dark Knight at the local AMC mutiplex in downtown Phoenix, and while I can't say I was disappointed (because I wasn't), there were a few criticisms. As is my habit, I waited till the hype had died down, and viewed the film with a few family in the comfort of a spacious and empty theatre, soft pretzel pieces popping into my head.
Without going into an entire review, I should say that Christopher Nolan managed to continue the positive trend in creating a dark, questioning, semi-realistic Batman. There are some, like New Yorker critic David Denby, who seem to want a lighter, brighter, funnier (doofier?) film, closer to what Tim Burton created those many years ago when Batman leaped from comic to big screen. But such a complaint is ridiculous in light of the comic nonsense that nearly killed the franchise. Nolan raised the seemingly dead, and in serious fashion, and for that, many hosanas.
However Denby is not entirely wrong in knocking the pacing and structure of the film, and most of my complaints center around plot and casting.
There was a point in the film, around two thirds of the way in, where the Joker has been taken into custody, and the people guarding him and others proceed to do everything that semi-intelligent people in their right minds would not do. That would include leaving one officer as a lone watchman inside the room with the Joker, and, (as the guard) allowing oneself to be taunted into a confrontation with the Joker without adequate backup. In the flurry of action and distraction, and with the Joker as the central culprit, it just defied rationality that he should be left alone in such a situation, and despite whatever diversions he created to lure away the supposedly wiser and more capable hands.
Often I found myself thinking, "Why doesn't someone just shoot him," the Joker lacking any specific superpowers, and perhaps that is just a thought that can be easier made from observation than if you were a character in the film actually having to pull a trigger or face murder charges. But I think you could argue that killing a man who is himself in the middle of killing others makes it quite justifiable, thought the film clearly suggests Batman wont't go there.
I also found the chase scenes wildly ridiculous and they managed to undercut the realism that has made the Nolan movies such a joy. I suppose there is a type of viewer that needs the car chases and wants to see the latest version of the Batmobile in action, but it could still be done in a way that does not distort the logic of city streets. Invariably the action in the film would have created a level of damage unsustainable by any functioning city. Take that nonsense out to the suburbs and keep the action in the city proportional to what is possible, or have the recklessness culminate in one quick and destructive explosion.
The level of absurdity in the physical action did not help the frantic plot; had the chases been contained, the plot could have rolled out in more coherent fashion: less Batman on Batcycle, more explanation of how both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent could find assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes even remotely fascinating.
And what is that? Why do we not have one appropitately talented but also interesting actress in that role? In Batman Begins we suffered through wooden and quite ordinary looking Katie Holmes, only to have her replaced with a more talented, but quite ordinary Maggie Gyllenhaal. It's not just a matter of having a pleasant or attractive face. It's creating a female character that men, and smart men, should be willing to die or be really stupid over. Thus I found myself wanting to assure the demented Dent, "Dude, a little plastic surgery and you will get someone much more beautiful." Or not even beautiful... someone more interesting. Maybe a Lili Taylor or someone that can add depth and emotion. If a woman does not stun you with looks, you look for what makes them interesting, or, if a woman is not interesting, you notice her looks, but lacking neither, the death of Rachel Dawes was not much of a plot turn for me.
My biggest problem with the movie was how the black characters were used. Often I don't like to go "there" because it makes people uncomfortable and nothing ruins a great film more than having to bring real world issues into how you perceive it. But this issue has crossed my mind ever since seeing the entertaining film Spartan warrior film 300, where all the dark skinned characters were wiped out and void of any authentic menace beyond the darkness of skin.
I hardly imagined that I would be sitting in a Batman film watching Heath Ledger's truly amazing Joker pound the head of a black thug down onto the point of a pencil, or forcing the two remaining black thugs to fight each other to the death. It got to the point where if you saw a black face, and it wasn't the ever gentle Morgan Freeman, you just knew the guy was dead. Two black thugs-dead. Commissioner Black Guy (Loeb)-dead. There was another who I can't place-still dead.
In fact all the ethnic people, hispanic, Asian, black, were either corrupt, convicts or, eventually, dead. Why? Why does the Eric Robert's Italian gangster fellow maintain his dignity, while the black thugs, and blacks in general in movies, seem to be all talk and easily subdued? Is that someone's fantasy, and one that defies all logic of who actually does a lot of the killing and thuggery in real life? (A point I should hardly be proud of, but in the same way Italians secretly like their mafia movies, I want to be able to sit through a film where my evil black guy is not thoroughly humiliated or a puff tart).
Ah, but what of Morgan Freeman and the convict, who are both men of principle, with Morgan deeply disturbed at spying on innocents and the convict unwilling to blow up a boat of others before he and those on his boat are blown away? Good black people, no? Are you not appeased, black movie watcher?
But that's troubling as well. We are still getting the movies that depict blacks as impossibly wise or moral, even gentle, willing to drive around old white ladies. Also, we get the films where the black character is bad, but more talk than actually a real threat, and where there is always a white character to set him in his place, lead him, or out-bad him.
For a film like Batman it was possible to avoid killing so many black characters and still maintain the coherence of the plot. Heck, and speaking totally NOT for black actors, it is better to see no blacks humiliated on screen, than to see another black person with a job creating subtlely humiliating imagery. It's scenes like the Joker's killing of the black thug that puts comforting thoughts in minds not able to properly process that imagery and leave it on screen.
However these complaints with the film are small, and I imagine eventually the Hollywood establishment will become less oblivious to their own creations. As for Nolan, I think it was a job well done, for the second time in a row. The hype created around the film and centered on Heath Ledger's performance had me ready to deny any credit to that deceased actor, but the praise heaped upon him was well deserved. It is hard to walk away from the film without flashes of Ledger's Joker passing through the mind, and it is somewhat disturbing to find myself thinking, "I want to be him."
Without going into an entire review, I should say that Christopher Nolan managed to continue the positive trend in creating a dark, questioning, semi-realistic Batman. There are some, like New Yorker critic David Denby, who seem to want a lighter, brighter, funnier (doofier?) film, closer to what Tim Burton created those many years ago when Batman leaped from comic to big screen. But such a complaint is ridiculous in light of the comic nonsense that nearly killed the franchise. Nolan raised the seemingly dead, and in serious fashion, and for that, many hosanas.
However Denby is not entirely wrong in knocking the pacing and structure of the film, and most of my complaints center around plot and casting.
There was a point in the film, around two thirds of the way in, where the Joker has been taken into custody, and the people guarding him and others proceed to do everything that semi-intelligent people in their right minds would not do. That would include leaving one officer as a lone watchman inside the room with the Joker, and, (as the guard) allowing oneself to be taunted into a confrontation with the Joker without adequate backup. In the flurry of action and distraction, and with the Joker as the central culprit, it just defied rationality that he should be left alone in such a situation, and despite whatever diversions he created to lure away the supposedly wiser and more capable hands.
Often I found myself thinking, "Why doesn't someone just shoot him," the Joker lacking any specific superpowers, and perhaps that is just a thought that can be easier made from observation than if you were a character in the film actually having to pull a trigger or face murder charges. But I think you could argue that killing a man who is himself in the middle of killing others makes it quite justifiable, thought the film clearly suggests Batman wont't go there.
I also found the chase scenes wildly ridiculous and they managed to undercut the realism that has made the Nolan movies such a joy. I suppose there is a type of viewer that needs the car chases and wants to see the latest version of the Batmobile in action, but it could still be done in a way that does not distort the logic of city streets. Invariably the action in the film would have created a level of damage unsustainable by any functioning city. Take that nonsense out to the suburbs and keep the action in the city proportional to what is possible, or have the recklessness culminate in one quick and destructive explosion.
The level of absurdity in the physical action did not help the frantic plot; had the chases been contained, the plot could have rolled out in more coherent fashion: less Batman on Batcycle, more explanation of how both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent could find assistant District Attorney Rachel Dawes even remotely fascinating.
And what is that? Why do we not have one appropitately talented but also interesting actress in that role? In Batman Begins we suffered through wooden and quite ordinary looking Katie Holmes, only to have her replaced with a more talented, but quite ordinary Maggie Gyllenhaal. It's not just a matter of having a pleasant or attractive face. It's creating a female character that men, and smart men, should be willing to die or be really stupid over. Thus I found myself wanting to assure the demented Dent, "Dude, a little plastic surgery and you will get someone much more beautiful." Or not even beautiful... someone more interesting. Maybe a Lili Taylor or someone that can add depth and emotion. If a woman does not stun you with looks, you look for what makes them interesting, or, if a woman is not interesting, you notice her looks, but lacking neither, the death of Rachel Dawes was not much of a plot turn for me.
My biggest problem with the movie was how the black characters were used. Often I don't like to go "there" because it makes people uncomfortable and nothing ruins a great film more than having to bring real world issues into how you perceive it. But this issue has crossed my mind ever since seeing the entertaining film Spartan warrior film 300, where all the dark skinned characters were wiped out and void of any authentic menace beyond the darkness of skin.
I hardly imagined that I would be sitting in a Batman film watching Heath Ledger's truly amazing Joker pound the head of a black thug down onto the point of a pencil, or forcing the two remaining black thugs to fight each other to the death. It got to the point where if you saw a black face, and it wasn't the ever gentle Morgan Freeman, you just knew the guy was dead. Two black thugs-dead. Commissioner Black Guy (Loeb)-dead. There was another who I can't place-still dead.
In fact all the ethnic people, hispanic, Asian, black, were either corrupt, convicts or, eventually, dead. Why? Why does the Eric Robert's Italian gangster fellow maintain his dignity, while the black thugs, and blacks in general in movies, seem to be all talk and easily subdued? Is that someone's fantasy, and one that defies all logic of who actually does a lot of the killing and thuggery in real life? (A point I should hardly be proud of, but in the same way Italians secretly like their mafia movies, I want to be able to sit through a film where my evil black guy is not thoroughly humiliated or a puff tart).
Ah, but what of Morgan Freeman and the convict, who are both men of principle, with Morgan deeply disturbed at spying on innocents and the convict unwilling to blow up a boat of others before he and those on his boat are blown away? Good black people, no? Are you not appeased, black movie watcher?
But that's troubling as well. We are still getting the movies that depict blacks as impossibly wise or moral, even gentle, willing to drive around old white ladies. Also, we get the films where the black character is bad, but more talk than actually a real threat, and where there is always a white character to set him in his place, lead him, or out-bad him.
For a film like Batman it was possible to avoid killing so many black characters and still maintain the coherence of the plot. Heck, and speaking totally NOT for black actors, it is better to see no blacks humiliated on screen, than to see another black person with a job creating subtlely humiliating imagery. It's scenes like the Joker's killing of the black thug that puts comforting thoughts in minds not able to properly process that imagery and leave it on screen.
However these complaints with the film are small, and I imagine eventually the Hollywood establishment will become less oblivious to their own creations. As for Nolan, I think it was a job well done, for the second time in a row. The hype created around the film and centered on Heath Ledger's performance had me ready to deny any credit to that deceased actor, but the praise heaped upon him was well deserved. It is hard to walk away from the film without flashes of Ledger's Joker passing through the mind, and it is somewhat disturbing to find myself thinking, "I want to be him."
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Non-Daily Daily Roundup: Amy Winehouse Economy
The meteor that fell atop Wall Street and the housing market is now starting to show its true reach, and thus New York State is one of the first to suffer. Both Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson came out yesterday announcing major deficits going forward on the order of billions. The solution of course, is budget cuts, even as projected health costs for retired city workers rise. This same solution should be rolling across a state near you after its New York opening.
This fits quite nicely with the announced $482 billion federal deficit for fiscal 2009, with that number not factoring further losses from the housing bill. This all but assures that we need someone magical as the next president, and while both Obama and McCain promise the supernatural on paper, we ought not to expect too much. Where is the savior when you need him? (Not you Bernanke, be quiet).
Merrill, one of the firms adding to New York's misery, seems to not have righted itself under John Thain, but then we knew that. In annoucing another writedown of $5.7 billion, and in tune with awful results EVERYWHERE, we have to imagine that former head Stan O'Neal is quite comforted. Fox's Elizabeth McDonald, reports:
Meanwhile home prices continued to drop in May by 15.8%, and this trend should eventually cause yawns all around (along with fright faces), since there is no reason to expect demand will pick up when so many other factors (banks raising loan standards, rising cost of living, job insecurity) are in play. The suffering remains ahead. You know how when you were a kid and your mom went on a diet, the whole house went on a diet? No Hostess cupcakes this week, no oreos, no chips. You just had to wait it out until your dad put his foot down and demanded more junk in the house. Well today the banks are your mom, and the economy is the kids. Not sure who dad is in this anology; maybe they divorced or he ran off (see below).
Perhaps the good news, can be found rolling from the silver tongue of presidential candidate McCain, who announced that we could get at offshore oil within months of beginning the effort; some people would say his statement is an absolute fabrication given that most things, including oil drilling, involve a "process," but who are we to judge.
This Winehouse Economy is enough to make you want to grab your daughter and flee to safer climates, as this one Bostonian is doing. Now you could argue that this supposed Rockefeller is in some sort of custody dispute, and is actually in the act of kidnapping, but I suspect that he is just getting out before Fannie and Freddie begin to tilt over and wretch. You don't wait for full blown economic disaster when you can spirit your family away to safety and ride it out in the Caribbean.
This fits quite nicely with the announced $482 billion federal deficit for fiscal 2009, with that number not factoring further losses from the housing bill. This all but assures that we need someone magical as the next president, and while both Obama and McCain promise the supernatural on paper, we ought not to expect too much. Where is the savior when you need him? (Not you Bernanke, be quiet).
Merrill, one of the firms adding to New York's misery, seems to not have righted itself under John Thain, but then we knew that. In annoucing another writedown of $5.7 billion, and in tune with awful results EVERYWHERE, we have to imagine that former head Stan O'Neal is quite comforted. Fox's Elizabeth McDonald, reports:
On the July 17 conference call about its second quarter with analysts, analysts who were skeptical as they were expecting a loss of $1.8 bn, Merrill’s chief executive John Thain said: “Right now we believe we are in a very comfortable spot in terms of our capital.” Really? And 10 days later you announce both a massive writedown and another eye-watering, dilutive capital raise?Without putting too hard a skin on things, that is the type of distortion that O'Neal could not pull off and hold his job. We don't wonder why.
Meanwhile home prices continued to drop in May by 15.8%, and this trend should eventually cause yawns all around (along with fright faces), since there is no reason to expect demand will pick up when so many other factors (banks raising loan standards, rising cost of living, job insecurity) are in play. The suffering remains ahead. You know how when you were a kid and your mom went on a diet, the whole house went on a diet? No Hostess cupcakes this week, no oreos, no chips. You just had to wait it out until your dad put his foot down and demanded more junk in the house. Well today the banks are your mom, and the economy is the kids. Not sure who dad is in this anology; maybe they divorced or he ran off (see below).
Perhaps the good news, can be found rolling from the silver tongue of presidential candidate McCain, who announced that we could get at offshore oil within months of beginning the effort; some people would say his statement is an absolute fabrication given that most things, including oil drilling, involve a "process," but who are we to judge.
This Winehouse Economy is enough to make you want to grab your daughter and flee to safer climates, as this one Bostonian is doing. Now you could argue that this supposed Rockefeller is in some sort of custody dispute, and is actually in the act of kidnapping, but I suspect that he is just getting out before Fannie and Freddie begin to tilt over and wretch. You don't wait for full blown economic disaster when you can spirit your family away to safety and ride it out in the Caribbean.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Housing Bill Says, "Lemme Eat Your Baby's Upside"
The Senate approved the over 700 page new housing bill and it will soon be signed by President Bush. In the same way that every cloud has a silver lining, every ray of light can also bring you cancer, so we expect the bill to be much more than meets the eye, and do much less for those most desperate. In other words, for those currently in deep underwater on their loans, this bill probably is not going to help in the way they want to be helped. Nobody is going to come handing a refinanced loan and payment without any strings. Wouldn't be prudent, not gonna happen. So someone's Pinnochio, the homeowner will remain. Perhaps wisely, the freebies are not entirely free.
The centerpiece of revelance to the homeowner is the $300 billion insurance fund that the FHA can use to help people refinance their mortgages. CNN reports:
Because this is all voluntary on the part of the lender, one cannot be certain that any of this will happen in a swift and timely manner for the homeowner, if at all. The provisions certainly seem to reduce the risk to taxpayers, which is probably the better long term good. Certain fees are built into the new loans to cover costs of the bailout, including a 1.5% insurance fee paid to the FHA annually, plus an exit fee of 3% upon getting rid of the home.
What seems particularly hard hitting is the loss of upside, with the homeowner giving up 100% of any gain if they sell in the next year, and with that number dropping to 50% of the gain in five years. Half your upside is taken for the rest of the life of the loan. Yay (for the taxpayer).
Of course there are other components that could be quite bad for the taxpayer, including the raising of the debt ceiling to cover some of these initiatives and the Treasuries new temporary power (expiring in 18 months or so) to loan money or buy equity to Fannie and Freddie. There is $4 billion to allow states to buy up foreclosed properties, an idea whose time probably should not come. There is the raising of the cap on mortgages that Freddie and Fannie can handle to approximately $625,000 (from $417,000), which might not be good, since the two quasi government arms had trouble with what is currently on the plate.
The more important changes were made earlier in the month when the Fed imposed new rules for mortgage lenders which would have prevented the necessity of this current bailout; those rules take effect October 1, 2009 and include things like people having to have income to buy a home.
It just seems unclear to us whether those really in trouble will be able to capitalize on the help, since the type of person in trouble is probably not the type of person to be particularly detail oriented. In our mind that increases the likelihood of Freddie and Fannie taking major losses that might require Treasury action.
The centerpiece of revelance to the homeowner is the $300 billion insurance fund that the FHA can use to help people refinance their mortgages. CNN reports:
The FHA will be allowed to insure up to $300 billion in new 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for at-risk borrowers in owner-occupied homes if their lenders agree to write down loan balances to 90% of the homes' current appraised value.But the amount of help available certainly won't extend to every homeowner in distress, given the qualifications that must be met to gain assistance. These include: living in your home; having purchased it been 2005 and 2007; spending 31% of gross monthly income on housing; proving you are unable to pay current mortgage; having an ability to pay new mortgage; retiring any home equity or lines of credit before getting new loan and not being able to take out any such lines for 5 years.
Because this is all voluntary on the part of the lender, one cannot be certain that any of this will happen in a swift and timely manner for the homeowner, if at all. The provisions certainly seem to reduce the risk to taxpayers, which is probably the better long term good. Certain fees are built into the new loans to cover costs of the bailout, including a 1.5% insurance fee paid to the FHA annually, plus an exit fee of 3% upon getting rid of the home.
What seems particularly hard hitting is the loss of upside, with the homeowner giving up 100% of any gain if they sell in the next year, and with that number dropping to 50% of the gain in five years. Half your upside is taken for the rest of the life of the loan. Yay (for the taxpayer).
Of course there are other components that could be quite bad for the taxpayer, including the raising of the debt ceiling to cover some of these initiatives and the Treasuries new temporary power (expiring in 18 months or so) to loan money or buy equity to Fannie and Freddie. There is $4 billion to allow states to buy up foreclosed properties, an idea whose time probably should not come. There is the raising of the cap on mortgages that Freddie and Fannie can handle to approximately $625,000 (from $417,000), which might not be good, since the two quasi government arms had trouble with what is currently on the plate.
The more important changes were made earlier in the month when the Fed imposed new rules for mortgage lenders which would have prevented the necessity of this current bailout; those rules take effect October 1, 2009 and include things like people having to have income to buy a home.
It just seems unclear to us whether those really in trouble will be able to capitalize on the help, since the type of person in trouble is probably not the type of person to be particularly detail oriented. In our mind that increases the likelihood of Freddie and Fannie taking major losses that might require Treasury action.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Non-Daily Daily Roundup
In a powerful "pop through the glass ceiling moment", the N.Y. Times tells us that women are now suffering equally from things like layoffs and downturns, as opposed to the usual time off for motherhood or living off of husband or boyfriend.
Lusting after the full body that is the European Union, Serbia gave up the ghost and arrested Radovan Karadzic, one of our favorite arch villians. We can't help imagining that if you added up all the deliberate and tactical killings of innocents by the dead Slobodan Milosevic, Karadzic, and General Ratko Mladic, it would probably tally lower than the accidental non-deliberate killings by American forces everywhere, which has me worried. One day, some day, these international tribunals will be used against us and we will be mighty mortified when that happens. In any case, with two down and one to go, Serbia gets Europe's warm embrace.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson appeared before Congress promising world doom if he is not given the superpowers necessary to use taxpayer funds to give to government step-children Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in case they need more money for candy. We are pretty sure Congress will get right on that at warp speed, and before world doom arrives.
McCain continues to struggle to get his voice heard as Obama walks across the world stage with rather glowing press. McCain argues that Obama was against the surge in U.S forces in Iraq, a surge which appears to have worked, but is discounting the fact that Obama was not in favor of the war in the first place, which by all accounts should make the surge point somewhat trivial. The mere necessity of a surge suggests that someone lacked foresight in planning. In a way it's like a doctor seeking special applause because he was able to go back in and remove the jelly bean he dropped during the initial surgery. It should be no surprise that people might be skeptical about the possibility of throwing good after bad, and the fact that the surge worked is hardly endorsement for McCain's overall wisdom. Read US News' political roundup here.
Americans too rich or lazy to walk down to the local green market are increasingly hiring people to make them feel good about their food. We can now all let hired hands bring or grow us the healthy produce we need to save the planet and maintain our self esteem.
Lusting after the full body that is the European Union, Serbia gave up the ghost and arrested Radovan Karadzic, one of our favorite arch villians. We can't help imagining that if you added up all the deliberate and tactical killings of innocents by the dead Slobodan Milosevic, Karadzic, and General Ratko Mladic, it would probably tally lower than the accidental non-deliberate killings by American forces everywhere, which has me worried. One day, some day, these international tribunals will be used against us and we will be mighty mortified when that happens. In any case, with two down and one to go, Serbia gets Europe's warm embrace.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson appeared before Congress promising world doom if he is not given the superpowers necessary to use taxpayer funds to give to government step-children Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in case they need more money for candy. We are pretty sure Congress will get right on that at warp speed, and before world doom arrives.
McCain continues to struggle to get his voice heard as Obama walks across the world stage with rather glowing press. McCain argues that Obama was against the surge in U.S forces in Iraq, a surge which appears to have worked, but is discounting the fact that Obama was not in favor of the war in the first place, which by all accounts should make the surge point somewhat trivial. The mere necessity of a surge suggests that someone lacked foresight in planning. In a way it's like a doctor seeking special applause because he was able to go back in and remove the jelly bean he dropped during the initial surgery. It should be no surprise that people might be skeptical about the possibility of throwing good after bad, and the fact that the surge worked is hardly endorsement for McCain's overall wisdom. Read US News' political roundup here.
Americans too rich or lazy to walk down to the local green market are increasingly hiring people to make them feel good about their food. We can now all let hired hands bring or grow us the healthy produce we need to save the planet and maintain our self esteem.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Note: Posting...
We have migrated most of the posts to this new location on blogger, which you can still reach via blaxalternate.com.
We have been experiencing numerous personal adventures that put us in perfect sync with the national "eve of destruction sans Barry McGuire" mood, but hopefully by tomorrow or so we will be able to find some bootstraps and pick ourselves up long enough to post regularly.
We have been experiencing numerous personal adventures that put us in perfect sync with the national "eve of destruction sans Barry McGuire" mood, but hopefully by tomorrow or so we will be able to find some bootstraps and pick ourselves up long enough to post regularly.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Fed Fixes the Future With Whim Flick
If you are just now coming to us, you have missed the content that existed dating back to April of 2007. Our still current webhost seems to be on the verge of a long slow collapse, much like the financial sector, so we have decided to rebuild here where the likelihood of Google going belly up is akin to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae falling apart... oh nevermind. You know what we are saying.
In the process we have simply redirected our URL to this location and will start fresh in the same style we used in the past, focusing out attention on financial and political news, plus happenings in China and other parts of Asia; mixed in will be the usual personal observations, fairy tales, and frou frou.
While not much in the mood for posting, and annoyed at the prospect of attempting to migrate over 100 posts to this location, we took a little peak to see how the market fared today. It was a busy weekend for Fed Head Bernanke and his associates, what with IndyMac yanked off the street and taken into custody.
But the markets today did pretty much nothing. That fits with our long held belief that when in doubt, one should do nothing, and certainly with banks and other financial firms still hiding things in unpleasant places, doubt is the order of the day.
The Associated Press (via Yahoo), informs us that the Fed is working to curb shady mortgage practices with new rules that come a little too late:
The changes include additional fraud provisions, but one really has to wonder if the bulk of the people were rooked, or whether the many were compelled by their home lust and thus willing to engage in legal transactions that defied economic logic.
If we have to choose between the masses being stupid (as in defrauded) or evil (as in signing with their fingers a check their income can't cash), we lean toward evil.
In the process we have simply redirected our URL to this location and will start fresh in the same style we used in the past, focusing out attention on financial and political news, plus happenings in China and other parts of Asia; mixed in will be the usual personal observations, fairy tales, and frou frou.
While not much in the mood for posting, and annoyed at the prospect of attempting to migrate over 100 posts to this location, we took a little peak to see how the market fared today. It was a busy weekend for Fed Head Bernanke and his associates, what with IndyMac yanked off the street and taken into custody.
But the markets today did pretty much nothing. That fits with our long held belief that when in doubt, one should do nothing, and certainly with banks and other financial firms still hiding things in unpleasant places, doubt is the order of the day.
The Associated Press (via Yahoo), informs us that the Fed is working to curb shady mortgage practices with new rules that come a little too late:
For risky borrowers, the new rules will bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower's income. The rules will require lenders to make sure risky borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance.The above legal practices probably make up the bulk of loans now defaulting, and one wonders why the Fed is just now getting around to changing the law with apparently a flick of a magic whim.
Lenders will also be restricted from penalizing risky borrowers who pay loans off early. Such "prepayment" penalties are banned if the payment can change during the initial four years of the mortgage. In other cases, a penalty can't be imposed in the first two years of the mortgage.
And, lenders would be barred from making a loan without considering a borrower's ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home's value. The borrower need not have to prove that the lender engaged in a "pattern or practice" for this to be deemed a violation. That marks a change -- sought by consumer advocates -- from the Fed's initial proposal and should make it easier for borrowers to lodge a complaint.
The changes include additional fraud provisions, but one really has to wonder if the bulk of the people were rooked, or whether the many were compelled by their home lust and thus willing to engage in legal transactions that defied economic logic.
If we have to choose between the masses being stupid (as in defrauded) or evil (as in signing with their fingers a check their income can't cash), we lean toward evil.
Note: Website Issues...
Once again our regular site hosted on Burton Hosting seems to be down for unknown reasons. In all likelihood we will continue to rebuild Blax Alternate here while Burton works out their own issues.
In making this adjustment to a free host, there are a lot of limitiations. We lose the template that we enjoyed before, and while that template can be found on the free Wordpress hosted site, they do not allow much tweaking of templates or advertising.
While we did manage to make a backup of posts, we don't imagine those being easily transportable to this location, so it might be like starting from scratch if we choose to continue at all.
This is the second time Burton has gone down without warning and they seem to be on the edge of going out of business.
In making this adjustment to a free host, there are a lot of limitiations. We lose the template that we enjoyed before, and while that template can be found on the free Wordpress hosted site, they do not allow much tweaking of templates or advertising.
While we did manage to make a backup of posts, we don't imagine those being easily transportable to this location, so it might be like starting from scratch if we choose to continue at all.
This is the second time Burton has gone down without warning and they seem to be on the edge of going out of business.
Friday, July 11, 2008
IndyMac Hospitalized By Feds!
The Feds have grabbed IndyMac by the collar, tossed him into the ambulance; he was wandering about with his head not on straight, and hemorrhaging.
They are taking him to Fed Hospital where they will put him in critical care at high cost, injecting a possible $4 to 8 billion of treatment.
In the process the Feds will give him a new identity, IndyMac Fed, and they expect him to be on his feet on Monday in time to pay off most of the people whose money he lost.
However, his unsecured credit card debt will go unpaid.
Says AP:
They are taking him to Fed Hospital where they will put him in critical care at high cost, injecting a possible $4 to 8 billion of treatment.
In the process the Feds will give him a new identity, IndyMac Fed, and they expect him to be on his feet on Monday in time to pay off most of the people whose money he lost.
However, his unsecured credit card debt will go unpaid.
Says AP:
IndyMac Bank's assets were seized by federal regulators on Friday ... IndyMac customers with funds in the bank were limited to taking out money via automated teller machines over the weekend, debit card transactions or checks... Other bank services, such as online banking and phone banking were scheduled to be made available on Monday... FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair said the agency would cover all insured deposits and then try to recover its costs by selling IndyMac's assets..."We anticipate trying to market the institution as a whole bank," Bair said....Holders of unsecured IndyMac debt may not fully recover their investment, Bair said.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Fannie and Freddie After the Party
Fannie Mae: I don't have a good feeling about this.
Freddie Mac: I know.
Fannie: We should have used a condom.
Freddie: Yea but it felt good at the time.
Fannie: I know. I've never been done by so many people before.
Freddie: But we should have used a condom.
Fannie: Yea. We should have.
Freddie: What did your doctor Bernanke say?
Fannie: He was very non-committal.
Fannie: He said I shouldn't have been doing it with all those people without protection. What did your's say?
Freddie: Dr. Paulson? He seemed a bit distracted. Was looking at a lot of charts.
Fannie: We shouldn't have done that. I don't know why I wasn't more careful.
Freddie: I feel the same way. I talked to Indy yesterday, and he was not doing too good either.
Fannie: That makes me feel so bad. But can you really check everyone?
Freddie: I just don't know. Do you have good insurance?
Fannie: Oh yea. The best. I am covered. You?
Freddie: Me too.
Fannie: We shouldn't have, you know, done so many people.
Freddie: I know.
Freddie Mac: I know.
Fannie: We should have used a condom.
Freddie: Yea but it felt good at the time.
Fannie: I know. I've never been done by so many people before.
Freddie: But we should have used a condom.
Fannie: Yea. We should have.
Freddie: What did your doctor Bernanke say?
Fannie: He was very non-committal.
Fannie: He said I shouldn't have been doing it with all those people without protection. What did your's say?
Freddie: Dr. Paulson? He seemed a bit distracted. Was looking at a lot of charts.
Fannie: We shouldn't have done that. I don't know why I wasn't more careful.
Freddie: I feel the same way. I talked to Indy yesterday, and he was not doing too good either.
Fannie: That makes me feel so bad. But can you really check everyone?
Freddie: I just don't know. Do you have good insurance?
Fannie: Oh yea. The best. I am covered. You?
Freddie: Me too.
Fannie: We shouldn't have, you know, done so many people.
Freddie: I know.
Jackson Bites Obama's Head Off
I am sitting up late at night listening to music and munching on a Special Dark bar. After many days of just ramen noodles and broccoli in a kind of self impossed (the alternative being starving to death) food disinflation plan, the bit of chocolate is a pleasant and affordable deviation from the norm: the special hurt of joblessness.
The telly has been running quietly in the background but I can just make out an advertisement for rap mogul Russell Simmons' "Rush Card", a kind of high fee, high recurring cost debit card targeted towards the type of person who might think Mr. Simmons and the lifestyle he represents is fabulous.
Back on the computer, Jesse Jackson has come out saying some very negative things about Obama, throwing more ammunition to those who would like Obama to spend all his time battling every marginal controversy that comes his way. We had hoped that Mr. Jackson could hold his tongue forever, but he hardly seems able to learn the lesson that what is said off the mike will be used by people to make you look as foolish as you sound. Even Jackson's own son disapproved,saying, "His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee — and I believe the next president of the United States — contradict his inspiring and courageous career." (AP)
What did Jackson actually say, and why has he not learned from his own past history about the dangers of ad libbing to strangers?
The Washington Post reports:
Because of incidents like this, Obama clearly has a delicate task in trying to weave together a policy blanket that will cover enough Americans; comments like Jackson's show the extreme difficulties that a black candidate faces atop every other difficulty (which include trying to pay off the debt of the woman who ran against you, ran up her own debt in futility, who demeaned you, who told the world you were essentially not white enough to get the votes to win, and who implied you were sexist and a disembodied suit).
The cynicism that runs through every mind says that Obama is for faith based initiatives merely for purposes of policital expediency, never mind the fact that even faith based policy can be structured in a very liberal way if so desired. There is no reason to expect that a liberal and conservative setting up such a plan would have entirely overlapping rules, but nevertheless the press plays up these things for shock value. If a politician makes any deviation from a stated position, or seeks to expound or add depth, the press rushes in to say it's some significiant change in direction, and only when you have read every comment do you realize, "Hmmm, nuance or clarification does not a 180 degree turn make."
As a so-called reverend, and not an entirely stupid man, one would think that Jackson could be accepting of faith based initiatives. He knows good and well that Obama is hardly making a suggestion that the government disengage from helping the poor.
Of course like Tavis Smiley, the talk show host who was miffed at Obama's skipping one of his verbal group gropes, Jackson has his eye on the little picture, and it's a picture best viewed through the mirror and filled entirely with his own image.
Meanwhile Obama has to fend off these little cannibalistic attacks and shenanigans from other blacks who presume themselves to be something important, not realizing they are trying to be the biggest dog at the International Cat show.
Which brings us back to the Rush Card advertisement. When the card came out several years back it received some benign attention, but a few astute people in the black community and elsewhere were on hand to point out the complete hypocrisy of offering a high fee card to people who lack standard banking resources and low cost altenatives.
It is often difficult to take Russell Simmons seriously despite his achievements and rhetoric about his people. Those fees coming from people too ignorant to know better will go well in providing his children-- now with the ex-wife-- the best of what other's money can buy.
All of this explains in some way how someone like Obama is a refreshing change. His eyes are on the big picture and despite a few errors, he has kept focus. If he can refrain from being distracted by drama and stupidity coming from every direction, including black cannibalism, he could truly be a different type of leader, and a different type of black leader.
Let's hope he does not get eaten by others first; that would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many.
The telly has been running quietly in the background but I can just make out an advertisement for rap mogul Russell Simmons' "Rush Card", a kind of high fee, high recurring cost debit card targeted towards the type of person who might think Mr. Simmons and the lifestyle he represents is fabulous.
Back on the computer, Jesse Jackson has come out saying some very negative things about Obama, throwing more ammunition to those who would like Obama to spend all his time battling every marginal controversy that comes his way. We had hoped that Mr. Jackson could hold his tongue forever, but he hardly seems able to learn the lesson that what is said off the mike will be used by people to make you look as foolish as you sound. Even Jackson's own son disapproved,saying, "His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee — and I believe the next president of the United States — contradict his inspiring and courageous career." (AP)
What did Jackson actually say, and why has he not learned from his own past history about the dangers of ad libbing to strangers?
The Washington Post reports:
Speaking near a Fox News microphone that he thought was turned off, the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson on Sunday disparaged Sen. Barack Obama's embrace of faith-based social services, using crude language to suggest that he wanted to castrate the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
Because of incidents like this, Obama clearly has a delicate task in trying to weave together a policy blanket that will cover enough Americans; comments like Jackson's show the extreme difficulties that a black candidate faces atop every other difficulty (which include trying to pay off the debt of the woman who ran against you, ran up her own debt in futility, who demeaned you, who told the world you were essentially not white enough to get the votes to win, and who implied you were sexist and a disembodied suit).
The cynicism that runs through every mind says that Obama is for faith based initiatives merely for purposes of policital expediency, never mind the fact that even faith based policy can be structured in a very liberal way if so desired. There is no reason to expect that a liberal and conservative setting up such a plan would have entirely overlapping rules, but nevertheless the press plays up these things for shock value. If a politician makes any deviation from a stated position, or seeks to expound or add depth, the press rushes in to say it's some significiant change in direction, and only when you have read every comment do you realize, "Hmmm, nuance or clarification does not a 180 degree turn make."
As a so-called reverend, and not an entirely stupid man, one would think that Jackson could be accepting of faith based initiatives. He knows good and well that Obama is hardly making a suggestion that the government disengage from helping the poor.
Of course like Tavis Smiley, the talk show host who was miffed at Obama's skipping one of his verbal group gropes, Jackson has his eye on the little picture, and it's a picture best viewed through the mirror and filled entirely with his own image.
Meanwhile Obama has to fend off these little cannibalistic attacks and shenanigans from other blacks who presume themselves to be something important, not realizing they are trying to be the biggest dog at the International Cat show.
Which brings us back to the Rush Card advertisement. When the card came out several years back it received some benign attention, but a few astute people in the black community and elsewhere were on hand to point out the complete hypocrisy of offering a high fee card to people who lack standard banking resources and low cost altenatives.
It is often difficult to take Russell Simmons seriously despite his achievements and rhetoric about his people. Those fees coming from people too ignorant to know better will go well in providing his children-- now with the ex-wife-- the best of what other's money can buy.
All of this explains in some way how someone like Obama is a refreshing change. His eyes are on the big picture and despite a few errors, he has kept focus. If he can refrain from being distracted by drama and stupidity coming from every direction, including black cannibalism, he could truly be a different type of leader, and a different type of black leader.
Let's hope he does not get eaten by others first; that would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many.
IndyMac Not Your Mack Daddy Anymore
A lot of chatter out there is suggesting that IndyMac Bancorp Inc is getting close to forced retirement, with the FDIC possibly providing the social security net to keep depositors from losing their hard earned daily dropping in real value dollars. (We will ignore Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the public sector cousins who did similar whoring about with a ton of mortgages).
The Reuters piece goes on to point out that the FDIC has a few options including having other banks step in to take on the healthy assets. So we can be relieved that the FDIC's $53 billion in funds won't be reduced by Indy's $17 billion in deposits.
This makes for an interesting "It's a Wondeful Life" moment. If you have your money in one of Indy's bank units, will you begin to withdraw like those ingrates at Bailey Savings and Loan? Or will you stay the course? Or as George Bailey said, "Can't you see people, Jamie Dimon is buying! Not selling!"
If the depositor looks at the matter with rational distance he is well aware that his first $100,000 is covered, but given all that is going on in the world simultaneously, is regular Joe or Jane that emotionally detached from their green babies? Or is that Schwab or Vanguard account looking like a safer haven? Do you have trust that a Bear, Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, will be there to see you through when some other mega firm happens to simultaneously go under before Indy is unwound? Or are you allocating a special $38 dollars to pick up 100 shares to ride the wave and buy like a junior Mr. Potter.
My advice...buy 100 shares and move your savings for peace of mind. And what will Indy be doing while we watch them go through the shivers? Their letter to investors sounds reassuring enough if we ignore probably 80% of it and focus on the the rainbow:
Yep. Once the clouds are past they hope to re-enter all the businesses that they handled so badly the first time around. Having suffered so greatly, I am sure they will be wiser then than now, assuming they live that long.
IndyMac said this week it was unable to raise new capital, would slash staff by 60 percent, and had stopped making most home loans. Its shares have sunk to 38 cents, with one analyst forecasting they will be worthless.(Reuters)
The Reuters piece goes on to point out that the FDIC has a few options including having other banks step in to take on the healthy assets. So we can be relieved that the FDIC's $53 billion in funds won't be reduced by Indy's $17 billion in deposits.
This makes for an interesting "It's a Wondeful Life" moment. If you have your money in one of Indy's bank units, will you begin to withdraw like those ingrates at Bailey Savings and Loan? Or will you stay the course? Or as George Bailey said, "Can't you see people, Jamie Dimon is buying! Not selling!"
If the depositor looks at the matter with rational distance he is well aware that his first $100,000 is covered, but given all that is going on in the world simultaneously, is regular Joe or Jane that emotionally detached from their green babies? Or is that Schwab or Vanguard account looking like a safer haven? Do you have trust that a Bear, Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, will be there to see you through when some other mega firm happens to simultaneously go under before Indy is unwound? Or are you allocating a special $38 dollars to pick up 100 shares to ride the wave and buy like a junior Mr. Potter.
My advice...buy 100 shares and move your savings for peace of mind. And what will Indy be doing while we watch them go through the shivers? Their letter to investors sounds reassuring enough if we ignore probably 80% of it and focus on the the rainbow:
Thus, our core business model will include (1) Financial Freedom, one of the largest reverse mortgage lenders in the Country; (2) a top ten mortgage loan servicing operation, with a solid retention production unit; and (3) a Southern California retail bank branch network, including 33 branches and roughly $18 billion in deposits, of which over 96% is fully covered by FDIC insurance. In addition, when this housing and mortgage crisis abates and we return to health, we would also hope to be an investor in mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities and might re-enter the national forward mortgage production business with a low-cost, non-commissioned-based business model.
Yep. Once the clouds are past they hope to re-enter all the businesses that they handled so badly the first time around. Having suffered so greatly, I am sure they will be wiser then than now, assuming they live that long.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Richard Branson: Asset Man Comes Early
If you are one of those British women who just voted Richard Branson your favorite deep pocketed potential dating partner, you will be happy to know that Bronson has had his eye on various bottoms for some time now, admiring the view. Unfortunately, the bottom in question is the aviation industry, and the only use for his rather large rod will be to go bottom fishing for undervalued assets.
We've always assumed fishing was more an American thing: an attempt to recreate our inner Rockwell or Sawyer by casting hook, line and sinker into the roiling waters off Montauk or Mortgage Default or some other pleasant backdrop.
But lo! It's Richard Branson himself with eyes on the deep, yet inviting waters where struggling firms of every stripe are getting sucked to the bottom.
The Times reports that Branson is raising $1 billion from institutional investors and others to invest in the "aviation sector" Of course Branson is hardly first, or alone, with firms on both sides of the pond rushing to catch various distressed industries and assets at the bottom of their valuations.
(Forbes)
With so many men of money in so many places getting their sticks on, and out, one wonders if all this might be a bit of premature elation. After all, the problems in the colonies (that would be the United States) are hardly beyond initial stages. The impact of rising unemployment is like a toxic drip into the water, water already filled with rising prices, falling dollars, and sinking retirement fund values. When America sneezes, does not Europe get the sniffles?
Perhaps Branson's focus on aviation will not be so affected, as Europe generally did not follow the rather deranged path of experimentation in the United States, where citizens and non-citizens of every stripe--apparently some just out of kindergarten, who lacked the ability to read things like contracts-- were given the opportunity to have their very own McMansion and bankrupt themselves into never flying on a plane again.
Then too, aviation in Europe is not quite so haphazard as in the United States, where bankruptcy is the norm and one will soon end up having to leave your body as deposit at the terminal to afford the additional fees being tacked on to ticket costs (though the body count in crashes will be a much happier affair, planes aloft without souls).
Still you have to wonder. While airlines are his business, difficulties abound. Rising fuel prices and the emissions caps recently approved by the European Union to limit greenhouse gases can hardly make for clear sailing when the world economy is on the edge of slowing. One would think that more unwinding should occur before bargains can be found that are reliably at pond's bottom with nowhere to go but up.
Of course I recall the film "It's a Wonderful Life" and how evil banker Potter was buying when all were failing and selling; he did so in order to create a monopoly. But I should hardly think that a man so beloved by British women would be up to something so evil and sinister. We all know women are not fooled by bad boys, and Richard might be trying too hard to get ahead by coming too early.
We've always assumed fishing was more an American thing: an attempt to recreate our inner Rockwell or Sawyer by casting hook, line and sinker into the roiling waters off Montauk or Mortgage Default or some other pleasant backdrop.
But lo! It's Richard Branson himself with eyes on the deep, yet inviting waters where struggling firms of every stripe are getting sucked to the bottom.
The Times reports that Branson is raising $1 billion from institutional investors and others to invest in the "aviation sector" Of course Branson is hardly first, or alone, with firms on both sides of the pond rushing to catch various distressed industries and assets at the bottom of their valuations.
Highbridge Capital, a $28 billion hedge fund group majority-owned by JPMorgan Chase (nyse: JPM - news - people ), is said to be courting investors in a new $1 billion fund, though the company wouldn't confirm that. Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ) has $4 billion committed to two distressed funds, PIMCO has $3 billion, and Fortress Investment Group (nyse: FIG - news - people ) has $2 billion.
(Forbes)
With so many men of money in so many places getting their sticks on, and out, one wonders if all this might be a bit of premature elation. After all, the problems in the colonies (that would be the United States) are hardly beyond initial stages. The impact of rising unemployment is like a toxic drip into the water, water already filled with rising prices, falling dollars, and sinking retirement fund values. When America sneezes, does not Europe get the sniffles?
Perhaps Branson's focus on aviation will not be so affected, as Europe generally did not follow the rather deranged path of experimentation in the United States, where citizens and non-citizens of every stripe--apparently some just out of kindergarten, who lacked the ability to read things like contracts-- were given the opportunity to have their very own McMansion and bankrupt themselves into never flying on a plane again.
Then too, aviation in Europe is not quite so haphazard as in the United States, where bankruptcy is the norm and one will soon end up having to leave your body as deposit at the terminal to afford the additional fees being tacked on to ticket costs (though the body count in crashes will be a much happier affair, planes aloft without souls).
Still you have to wonder. While airlines are his business, difficulties abound. Rising fuel prices and the emissions caps recently approved by the European Union to limit greenhouse gases can hardly make for clear sailing when the world economy is on the edge of slowing. One would think that more unwinding should occur before bargains can be found that are reliably at pond's bottom with nowhere to go but up.
Of course I recall the film "It's a Wonderful Life" and how evil banker Potter was buying when all were failing and selling; he did so in order to create a monopoly. But I should hardly think that a man so beloved by British women would be up to something so evil and sinister. We all know women are not fooled by bad boys, and Richard might be trying too hard to get ahead by coming too early.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Father Fed's Maiden Daughter Losses It
We all remember (fondly) the collapse of Bear Stearns and the role played by the Federal Reserve in facilitating a bailout by J.P. Morgan. Terms of that deal included the Fed taking on a $30 billion portfolio of risky mortgage related stuff that J.P. Morgan was unwilling to swallow on the way to taking all of Bear Stearns in its mouth.
Well the Bear is no more; the Fed set up a company called Maiden Lane and loaned it $28.8 billion to handle the theoretically hard to value assets. J.P. Morgan agreed to lick off the first $1.15 billion or so of losses, but that's as slutty as Morgan was willing to get. The value of Maiden's assets now stand at $28.9 billion, and the money owed the Fed remains at $28.8 billion.
The current value represents a $1.1 billion drop in Fund assets, according to Bloomberg.
On the surface that number does not seem too bad. Then again, most things on their surface look entirely adequate until you stop assuming surface represents substance.
Given all the hard to value assets floating about, with banks pulling new loses out of there no no spots every quarter, an average bloke is left to wonder exactly how the Fed arrives at so specific (and reassuring) a value.
(Bloomberg)
Ah... oh... that's how they did the math. It's an estimate based on a theoretical world where everything is orderly. But we know from the mere existence of Maiden Lane, there is no such thing as an orderly market. It does not yet exist or these assets managed by Blackrock Inc. could have been disposed of already.
So essentially the numbers quoted are a moving target and could be quite Candyland in their value.
All of this is meaningless for us though right? We are losing 600 Starbucks stores and have more pressing things to worry about. We stand in line at the grocery looking at the high prices; in the produce aisle we wonder if we should eat the tomato or not, and the risk of salmonella poisoning (the source of which remains unresolved) makes those red little orbs extra sexy. We have life and death taste issues to worry about and can't be bothered by what Bernanke is up to.
And yet it's important. If the Fed is both losing money on the portfolio, and further, is valuing it in somewhat fictive fashion, we can hardly expect the financial institutions holding gobs of this stuff to see their asset values firming. If your bank does not really know the value of what it has, or has to guess by assigning ever decreasing values, you can be sure banker Potter won't be lending to us.
Well the Bear is no more; the Fed set up a company called Maiden Lane and loaned it $28.8 billion to handle the theoretically hard to value assets. J.P. Morgan agreed to lick off the first $1.15 billion or so of losses, but that's as slutty as Morgan was willing to get. The value of Maiden's assets now stand at $28.9 billion, and the money owed the Fed remains at $28.8 billion.
The current value represents a $1.1 billion drop in Fund assets, according to Bloomberg.
On the surface that number does not seem too bad. Then again, most things on their surface look entirely adequate until you stop assuming surface represents substance.
Given all the hard to value assets floating about, with banks pulling new loses out of there no no spots every quarter, an average bloke is left to wonder exactly how the Fed arrives at so specific (and reassuring) a value.
The Fed is valuing the portfolio in accordance with accounting guidelines that call for an estimate based on sales in an ``orderly market,'' rather than a hypothetical forced liquidation. The value doesn't necessarily reflect what the securities would fetch if Maiden Lane tried to sell today.
(Bloomberg)
Ah... oh... that's how they did the math. It's an estimate based on a theoretical world where everything is orderly. But we know from the mere existence of Maiden Lane, there is no such thing as an orderly market. It does not yet exist or these assets managed by Blackrock Inc. could have been disposed of already.
So essentially the numbers quoted are a moving target and could be quite Candyland in their value.
All of this is meaningless for us though right? We are losing 600 Starbucks stores and have more pressing things to worry about. We stand in line at the grocery looking at the high prices; in the produce aisle we wonder if we should eat the tomato or not, and the risk of salmonella poisoning (the source of which remains unresolved) makes those red little orbs extra sexy. We have life and death taste issues to worry about and can't be bothered by what Bernanke is up to.
And yet it's important. If the Fed is both losing money on the portfolio, and further, is valuing it in somewhat fictive fashion, we can hardly expect the financial institutions holding gobs of this stuff to see their asset values firming. If your bank does not really know the value of what it has, or has to guess by assigning ever decreasing values, you can be sure banker Potter won't be lending to us.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Leona Helmsley's Dog's Potty Mouth
I am sitting here in BALT offices (imaginary offices mind you) staring at a picture of the now deceased billionaire Leona Helmsley sitting with a rather cute dog in her lap. The picture is from a BBC article in which we are reminded that the billionairess attempted to leave $12 million to her dog instead of her grand kids. No doubt cause the grand kids were complete asses? Perhaps she can explain that while she rolls over in her grave learning that the court has taken from the dog to rightfully give to the kids.
We are about to piss off a ton of animal lovers, but the truth must be spoken, and if our offices (again, all imaginary) get fire bombed, so be it. Our imagination can handle it.
Animal rights groups are salivating over the potential $8 billion estate, imagining all sort of initiatives to make the world a better place for, ...dogs (and despite the fact that at least one cartoon has assured us that all dogs go to heaven anyway so why bother):
Because in this world where some people have no food to eat, the most pressing use for $8 billion is to send it to the dogs.
Of course this enthusiasm might be tempered by the fact that she did not expressly indicate the distribution in her will. And fortunately so.
Right now on television they are doing the advance advertising for a new reality show, Greatest American Dog, where Americans and their mongrels will compete to see who is, in fact, the greatest dog. While the concept is pleasant enough, what annoys is one upcoming contestent who tells us that her dog is "her soulmate".
All things being in doubt, like the concept of "greatest" anything, the concept of souls, of souls in dogs, and of conjoining souls with mate to create the ever dubioius soulmate, and cross species at that, I can hardly hold in my utter disdain.
Enough! Enough of pet owners proclaiming how great their pet is, or how their cat understands their mood, or that Fido or Guivera is like their child. Shut the infernal blazes of hell up! That's right I said that.
The type of people who move their pets along the path from animal, to human, to knighthood, to celestial deity, to let me kiss your toilet stained mouth, are deserving of every form of correction. I shall do it here, and not because I am against animals, but rather, because the state of humanity is so fragile. When humans are so screwed up in action, thought, and attitude, the animal world will only suffer in the long run.
The distinct pleasure of pet ownership is that they appeal to what is most selfish in man; as a pet owner your animal is there for you, always, and entirely dependent on you for a happy life. Knowing that you are the butterer of all bread, the layer of all dogbones, the cleaner of all poop, the builder of all homes, the walker of all walkers, it has no incentive to show any evil side or rebel. Unlike Satan, who felt compelled to dash from the worship of God, the source of his snacks, your pet will not be so proud, or take such initiative. He is a dog and just happy that today is Purina lamb flavored dinner day.
Indeed, and with all things provided, it might be virtually impossible for that pet to develop an evil disposition. As humans we make as pets those animals who will maintain that captive state of worship of our own presence. (Ha, and humans have trouble with Christianity, and a God who demands the same worship we compel from our pets). Hypocrisies!
And the fact of the matter is, these little pets remain for the most part like toddlers in our lives. There they are, hungry at our feet for food, at our feet sleeping, at our feet wanting to play. They hear the keys in the door and come running. "Momma" they say through each bark. We take them out to the park for playdates much like the foreign nannies flooding Central Park with the offspring of bankers and lawyers and other high powered types.
We use our pets to affirm ourselves so that we can in fact feel loved. For most pet owner this works out fine, and in healthy fashion. The pet is company, or good for the kids, or is also used for protection. He is part of the family, but not granted human status. In the end you know he is a pet and acknowledge the distinctions that your actual son should get your high school football trophies upon your own death.
But there is the other type of owner, often single (and often female) that will say absurdities like, "This is my child, no really" or, "Whomever I marry will have to like Fiona becausshe is like the daughter I never had" or, "I really can't answer the question of whether I would throw my baby or my dog off a row boat in your hypothetical construct and in fact my dog is my baby so it does not compute." Brain overload and distinction breakdown.
Such mental buggery of which I think Ms. Helmsley was a victim ought to be roundly pointed out and knocked down. What makes us special as humans (and actually can serve to protect the world) is our ability to take care of, nurture, and appreciate those things that DON'T automatically conform to our desire to be glorified.
Your dog is not your child because that dog will never take the natural progression that a child will take. A child will go through several stages and grow older into a teen and then an adult; that child may prove difficult to love or cause untold misery in your life. But because it is your child you learn to accept the good and the bad. You know that once that child gets a mind of his own, he will not blindly worship you or roll over to you every whim. You are not the boss of a real child. Your thirty five year old won't lick your face (hopefully) or take your crap... (again hopefully).
Owning a pet is like owning a toddler forever, and in that ownership we never learn how to truly love and embrace the difficult. We never learn to step outside of ourselves in a meaningful way. The humans in the wider world, and who cause the most problems, will not react in the way our pets will, and yet, full of pet theory, and pet love, and pet delusion, we will have no means to engage with real people. If we cannot engage real people and learn to work and understand those closest and farthest from us, then the worlds problems don't really get solved.
We sit in our cocoon world, with our pets, contemplating our navels, and shunting aside real people who probably also need our love, guidance, attention and wisdom.
In that regard, and in light of the suffering in the world, we here at BALT clearly hope that the courts or Leona's family manage to discount much of her intent and apportion some of her assets to humans, so that those humans can then go out and help other humans, AND pets.
Or maybe we just remain bitter. We walk around seeing really hot women french kissing their dogs, while masses of men go without, starving for female attention and affection. Maybe it's merely that. Regardless, something needs to be said.
Put the dog down, pick the person up.
We are about to piss off a ton of animal lovers, but the truth must be spoken, and if our offices (again, all imaginary) get fire bombed, so be it. Our imagination can handle it.
Animal rights groups are salivating over the potential $8 billion estate, imagining all sort of initiatives to make the world a better place for, ...dogs (and despite the fact that at least one cartoon has assured us that all dogs go to heaven anyway so why bother):
Charities said the money could be used to rescue dogs from disaster zones and to tackle dog fighting, rabies in China and India as well as the canine over-population problem.
Because in this world where some people have no food to eat, the most pressing use for $8 billion is to send it to the dogs.
Of course this enthusiasm might be tempered by the fact that she did not expressly indicate the distribution in her will. And fortunately so.
Right now on television they are doing the advance advertising for a new reality show, Greatest American Dog, where Americans and their mongrels will compete to see who is, in fact, the greatest dog. While the concept is pleasant enough, what annoys is one upcoming contestent who tells us that her dog is "her soulmate".
All things being in doubt, like the concept of "greatest" anything, the concept of souls, of souls in dogs, and of conjoining souls with mate to create the ever dubioius soulmate, and cross species at that, I can hardly hold in my utter disdain.
Enough! Enough of pet owners proclaiming how great their pet is, or how their cat understands their mood, or that Fido or Guivera is like their child. Shut the infernal blazes of hell up! That's right I said that.
The type of people who move their pets along the path from animal, to human, to knighthood, to celestial deity, to let me kiss your toilet stained mouth, are deserving of every form of correction. I shall do it here, and not because I am against animals, but rather, because the state of humanity is so fragile. When humans are so screwed up in action, thought, and attitude, the animal world will only suffer in the long run.
The distinct pleasure of pet ownership is that they appeal to what is most selfish in man; as a pet owner your animal is there for you, always, and entirely dependent on you for a happy life. Knowing that you are the butterer of all bread, the layer of all dogbones, the cleaner of all poop, the builder of all homes, the walker of all walkers, it has no incentive to show any evil side or rebel. Unlike Satan, who felt compelled to dash from the worship of God, the source of his snacks, your pet will not be so proud, or take such initiative. He is a dog and just happy that today is Purina lamb flavored dinner day.
Indeed, and with all things provided, it might be virtually impossible for that pet to develop an evil disposition. As humans we make as pets those animals who will maintain that captive state of worship of our own presence. (Ha, and humans have trouble with Christianity, and a God who demands the same worship we compel from our pets). Hypocrisies!
And the fact of the matter is, these little pets remain for the most part like toddlers in our lives. There they are, hungry at our feet for food, at our feet sleeping, at our feet wanting to play. They hear the keys in the door and come running. "Momma" they say through each bark. We take them out to the park for playdates much like the foreign nannies flooding Central Park with the offspring of bankers and lawyers and other high powered types.
We use our pets to affirm ourselves so that we can in fact feel loved. For most pet owner this works out fine, and in healthy fashion. The pet is company, or good for the kids, or is also used for protection. He is part of the family, but not granted human status. In the end you know he is a pet and acknowledge the distinctions that your actual son should get your high school football trophies upon your own death.
But there is the other type of owner, often single (and often female) that will say absurdities like, "This is my child, no really" or, "Whomever I marry will have to like Fiona becausshe is like the daughter I never had" or, "I really can't answer the question of whether I would throw my baby or my dog off a row boat in your hypothetical construct and in fact my dog is my baby so it does not compute." Brain overload and distinction breakdown.
Such mental buggery of which I think Ms. Helmsley was a victim ought to be roundly pointed out and knocked down. What makes us special as humans (and actually can serve to protect the world) is our ability to take care of, nurture, and appreciate those things that DON'T automatically conform to our desire to be glorified.
Your dog is not your child because that dog will never take the natural progression that a child will take. A child will go through several stages and grow older into a teen and then an adult; that child may prove difficult to love or cause untold misery in your life. But because it is your child you learn to accept the good and the bad. You know that once that child gets a mind of his own, he will not blindly worship you or roll over to you every whim. You are not the boss of a real child. Your thirty five year old won't lick your face (hopefully) or take your crap... (again hopefully).
Owning a pet is like owning a toddler forever, and in that ownership we never learn how to truly love and embrace the difficult. We never learn to step outside of ourselves in a meaningful way. The humans in the wider world, and who cause the most problems, will not react in the way our pets will, and yet, full of pet theory, and pet love, and pet delusion, we will have no means to engage with real people. If we cannot engage real people and learn to work and understand those closest and farthest from us, then the worlds problems don't really get solved.
We sit in our cocoon world, with our pets, contemplating our navels, and shunting aside real people who probably also need our love, guidance, attention and wisdom.
In that regard, and in light of the suffering in the world, we here at BALT clearly hope that the courts or Leona's family manage to discount much of her intent and apportion some of her assets to humans, so that those humans can then go out and help other humans, AND pets.
Or maybe we just remain bitter. We walk around seeing really hot women french kissing their dogs, while masses of men go without, starving for female attention and affection. Maybe it's merely that. Regardless, something needs to be said.
Put the dog down, pick the person up.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Ichan Says Americans Can't Get it Done
Whether a politician (Bill Clinton), corporation (Fortis), or billionaire (Carl Ichan), we are in a time when the message presented gets lost somewhere between conception and verbalization. You have to wonder.
We have all read of Bill Clinton's exuberant efforts on behalf of his wife, efforts that managed to set his own reputation back several levels closer to his true soul; his stubborn resistance to meeting with the "naive" man who beat his wife and stole his children-the black voter- seemed the act of a little boy wearing little boy thoughts. During the primary he imagined that he could say certain things to achieve specific result, and somewhere along the way the thinking was faulty, or the calculations of his own ability to deceive was too great, or simply his mouth mismanaged what his mind intended.
But is not only the politician who presents an image or words to create a desired effect and to eyebrow cocking result. Corporations constantly rework their images via ad campaigns, hoping that the words presented create the desired impression. Drift over to the Cassandra Does Tokyo blog where we see the Belgian Fortis trying to rework their image using a tag line that rather says the opposite of what an international banking and insurance concern might want to present to the public. Somewhere the concept took the long winding wrong road to presentation, as "Cassandra" adroitly points out through the use of stick figure art. In these times when financial firms are shaky and hiding buns of goodness knows what in the oven, they should be trying to inspire confidence, no?
But that does not come close to what Carl Ichan, American financier, has to say on his own blog. First we see him assuring a commenter that it is indeed him sitting in front of the computer in the midnight hour, the infidelity reality show "Cheaters" playing on the telly in the background, a cold Mountain Dew at arms reach:
In the next comment we see someone taking him to task over outsourcing:
After a sip of Mountain Dew, and a brief turn to the television where he wonders why people would expose themselves on a television show as liars, cheats and pursuers of immediate gratification, he responds:
Hmmm. He might want to rephrase parts of that answer, though we admit he was a bit more expansive than we have indicated here (in addition to the fact that his post appears to have actually been done at 11:15 a.m while in his boxers at brunch).
So there you have it. I am sure Ichan was not dissing the American workers on purpose since the presumed reason we cannot "get it done" is because we are not utilizing Ichan billionaire wisdom to dump the corporate managers so that we "CAN" get it done. You know, the way the new masters (Cerberus) at Chrysler are getting it done.
I cannot believe Ichan helps anyone except himself, but there are somewho probably would applaud his actions, shareholder gains being more important than the question of long or short term damage.
If we were not extremely lazy over here, and recovering from the depression of growing one year older today, we might take a peak and see if the companies he was involved with ultimately benefited in any real way from his wisdom.
We have all read of Bill Clinton's exuberant efforts on behalf of his wife, efforts that managed to set his own reputation back several levels closer to his true soul; his stubborn resistance to meeting with the "naive" man who beat his wife and stole his children-the black voter- seemed the act of a little boy wearing little boy thoughts. During the primary he imagined that he could say certain things to achieve specific result, and somewhere along the way the thinking was faulty, or the calculations of his own ability to deceive was too great, or simply his mouth mismanaged what his mind intended.
But is not only the politician who presents an image or words to create a desired effect and to eyebrow cocking result. Corporations constantly rework their images via ad campaigns, hoping that the words presented create the desired impression. Drift over to the Cassandra Does Tokyo blog where we see the Belgian Fortis trying to rework their image using a tag line that rather says the opposite of what an international banking and insurance concern might want to present to the public. Somewhere the concept took the long winding wrong road to presentation, as "Cassandra" adroitly points out through the use of stick figure art. In these times when financial firms are shaky and hiding buns of goodness knows what in the oven, they should be trying to inspire confidence, no?
But that does not come close to what Carl Ichan, American financier, has to say on his own blog. First we see him assuring a commenter that it is indeed him sitting in front of the computer in the midnight hour, the infidelity reality show "Cheaters" playing on the telly in the background, a cold Mountain Dew at arms reach:
It's me. I’m taking this blog seriously. I intend to spend some time with you on this blog so that we can make a difference in corporate America. I hope we will change the course of corporate governance in this country.
In the next comment we see someone taking him to task over outsourcing:
So, outsourcing jobs to other countries doesn't hurt economic survival?
It's not always about the money Mr. Ichan. Sometimes, the CEO not only has a right to the shareholders who invest in the company, but to the hard working men and women who make the company by building the products, marketing the products, the people selling the products, etc. etc.
After a sip of Mountain Dew, and a brief turn to the television where he wonders why people would expose themselves on a television show as liars, cheats and pursuers of immediate gratification, he responds:
A major reason we have to outsource is because our companies have become so ineffective that we have to outsource in order to get anything done!
Hmmm. He might want to rephrase parts of that answer, though we admit he was a bit more expansive than we have indicated here (in addition to the fact that his post appears to have actually been done at 11:15 a.m while in his boxers at brunch).
So there you have it. I am sure Ichan was not dissing the American workers on purpose since the presumed reason we cannot "get it done" is because we are not utilizing Ichan billionaire wisdom to dump the corporate managers so that we "CAN" get it done. You know, the way the new masters (Cerberus) at Chrysler are getting it done.
I cannot believe Ichan helps anyone except himself, but there are somewho probably would applaud his actions, shareholder gains being more important than the question of long or short term damage.
If we were not extremely lazy over here, and recovering from the depression of growing one year older today, we might take a peak and see if the companies he was involved with ultimately benefited in any real way from his wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)