No to chyba Stany popłynęły...

polimex 250 mln obrotu , ktoś sypie czy ktoś tak kupuje

Capital One -9,60%.

Opel ma zwolnić 8.300 osób w całej Europie. Nie ma popytu, trzeba się zwijać.

Ken wie co robi. Nie loguje się i tym sposobem sobowtóry są natychmiast identyfikowane przez IP.

Scandal: Albert Edwards Alleges Central Banks Were Complicit In Robbing The Middle Classes

ken chyba dzis siorbac zaczął ...)))

doczekal sie korekty razem z longiem..

bo ktos w koncu to skupił chyba ??? ))

WIG20 wyraźnie nie spadnie w najbliższym czasie poniżej 2400 z jednego oczywistego a zarazem trywialnego powodu.

Gruby nie pozwoli, żeby zbyt dużo leszczy obkupiło się po niższych cenach. To wszystko.

Dla głąba 94.75.121.*. W całości...
So Much For FASB (Wells And Others)

Well, so much for the FAS 166/167 announcement that was supposed to end the off-balance-sheet games.

The new accounting standard requiring banks to bring assets back on balance sheet had a negligible impact on Wells Fargo. Despite having over $2.0 trillion of off-balance sheet assets, Wells consolidated just $10 billion of risk-weighted assets when the new standard took effect January 1. (See slide 17 in the bank’s supplemental earnings release)

Grrrrr.....

The "Volcker Rule" is a good thing, and we should (and must) stand behind President Obama in implementing it.

But if the games with off-balance sheet "assets" are not addressed we will be right back where we started in short order.

We still have not learned a damn thing from ENRON have we? Off-balance-sheet "assets" are always a means of deceiving investors and regulators as to exactly what the exposure might be (and thus how much CAPITAL should be behind those alleged "assets".)

There is no other reason to run an entity off the balance sheet - other than to keep from having to properly reserve and capitalize against a potential bad outcome for that "asset"!

The banks are all whining about "risk retention" and claiming that it will "effectively shut down" mortgage underwriting (except by the few "huge banks.") Oh really? How come it didn't shut it down for the preceding 50 years after The Depression - before securitization became all the rage?

The reason is simple - banks love it when they can find some sort of SCAM to allegedly "transfer risk" to someone else but keep their chunk of the deal. If they were underwriting mortgages (for real, not the "automated crap" they use today) and thus were confident that they had actually made a good loan they'd be more than happy to portfolio the paper and earn the income stream - all of it!

The scam of faux "risk transfer", of course, allows them to not give a good damn about the performance of that "deal" - and yet performance is, in point of fact, what should be the central concern when a deal is structured!

Let's be frank: Securitization fraud and OTC Derivatives fraud in all of their forms is why we had both the bubble and the bust. Without those crucial capabilities there would have been no bubble - and no bust.

For more than two years I have advocated that there must be NO off-balance sheet exposures permitted (by anyone) and NO OTC derivatives. If you want to write derivatives you should be forced to do so on a public exchange with a central counterparty. Such a structure inherently forces proper margin supervision since the exchange is the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer - and as their only fee income is from trade volume, they will never allow people to cheat on margin or capital adequacy.

Has such come to the fore as "the" goal of regulatory reform?

Not yet.

If it does not we will suffer another collapse. It is inevitable and all we are left to argue over is when it will occur.