Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Classic FX
- Thread starter Depth Trade
- Start date
- Watchers 39
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Still holding the previous positions except Usd/jpy.Eur/usd: long 1.4732 5
Usd/cad: short 1.0433 5
Usd/chf: short 1.0307
Usd/jpy: short 89.69 6
Classic FX
Balance start date: 27/06/09
Closed trades
+ 1737.4 pips
+ 4.06%
Annualized
+ 13.23%
Eur/usd: +205.6 pips
Usd/cad: +99.9 pips
Usd/chf: +155.2 pips
Usd/jpy: out -29.4 pips
Current
+ 1.27%
+ 431.3 pips
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Hello Forexruta. No I would not be willing to manage a Demo account, I really do not have the time to do that. I would really like to help you out, but I am not that desperate.
Sorry
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Have entered orders to close previous positions
and have entered orders to open the following positions.
€ > Usd
Cad > Usd
Chf > Usd
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Profitable 66.7%
Profit factor 1.6:1
Sharpe ratio 1.181
Max peak valley draw down 1.04%
Paste
Iran to completely drop dollar from foreign exchange
Press TV
October 17, 2009
Editor’s note: I guess this means an attack is imminent.
Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization has announced a near future plan to completely exclude the US dollar from the country’s foreign revenues and reserves.
Iran has recently asked Japan to replace the US dollar with the yen in oil deals it has with the Islamic Republic, Mehr News quoted the organization as saying on Friday.
Since October 2007, Iran has received 85 percent of its oil revenues in currencies other than the US dollar and Tehran is determined to find a substitute for the US dollar for the rest of its 15 percent of oil revenues, the report added.
Iran suggests other currencies such as the euro and the United Arab Emirates’ dirham to replace the US dollar for oil revenues.
The constant declining value of the dollar and persisting economic crisis in the US has forced many countries to drop the currency in favor of a more stable and valuable one.
Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China, Venezuela, Sudan and Russia have taken steps to replace the US dollar in their foreign exchange reserves.
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Hello Forexruta, I guess subscription price being expensive is only relative to how much money you have to trade.
Currently I am at 16% per year. With a 100k account which I recommend, that is 16k gained, while only having to pay me 2K. That is only a 12.5% gain on profits payed to me. If I was managing your account, I would be charging 25%.
I have a friend who started with a 50% split, now he receives 80% last I heard. If you had 50k in an account like you said you would eventually put in, as of right now you would be making 8k a year, that puts my gains at 25% of your profit, which is still low.
500$ per quarter is only 167$ per month.
As far as average loss being to high, that is not taking into account that I am holding more than one position at a time. Average loss of 0.36% is irrelative to overall statistics. Win probability is 75% right now, with Profit Factor being 2.5:1, max DrawDown peak to valley being -1.23%
...So statistics dictate that average loss is irrelative, unless you did not manage your positions right and in order for that to happen, one would have to risk like 20% of you capital per trade, then get a few losses in a row. Which I now is not going to happen to me, but I really have no idea what you have planned or how you will play out the positioning recommendation that you receive.
Back to subscription price, I think I am already as low as I can or want to go. Imagine if I had clients positioning 1mln and I was only receiving 1.25% of that, that would be ridiculous.
There is a fine line between those who should be in this game and those who should not be, it is up to you to figure that part out.
19/10/09 NYtime 10:25pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Profitable 75%
Profit factor 2.5:1
Sharpe ratio 1.62
Max peak valley draw down 1.23%
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Hello Forexruta, glad to have you on board.
I assume you mean you subscribed to Classic FX on Collective2 and want the Managed Account Agreement for Oanda.
Here is the link.
http://fxtrade.oanda.com/fileadmin/images/fxtrade/fx_trading/OANDA_Power_Of_Attorney.pdf
You need to have opened an Oanda trade account, then register it through this next link to have it linked to my Management account service.
https://fx1.oanda.com/ma/landingpad_signup_ma.shtml
Sign the bottom of the Power of Attorney agreement, then fax it to 1-541-344- 4151. I will sign it and write in your managed account number, then fax it to Oanda. You will then be ready to go!
21/10/09 NYtime 10:35pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Profitable 63%
Profit factor 2.2:1
Sharpe ratio 1.92
Max peak valley draw down 1.23%
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Hello Forexruta, yes I will give you a refund if I am not showing a gain for 3 months you have subscribed to, but I assure you that will not even be an issue.
25/10/09 NYtime 14:25pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Profitable 63%
Profit factor 2.0:1
Sharpe ratio 1.8
Max peak valley draw down 1.23%
APR+13.2%
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Have entered the following positions.
Eur > Usd
Chf > Usd
25/10/09 NYtime 19:10pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Profitable 63%
Profit factor 2.0:1
Sharpe ratio 1.4
Max peak valley draw down 1.23%
APR+13.2%
President Obama declares national emergency over swine flu pandemic, but why?
Mike Adams
NaturalNews
October 24, 2009
According to the CDC, swine flu infections have already peaked, and the pandemic is on its way out. Peak infection time was the middle of October, where one in five U.S. children experienced the flu, says the CDC. Out of nearly 14,000 suspected flu cases tested during the week ending on October 10, 2009, 99.6% of those were influenza A, and the vast majority of those were confirmed as H1N1 swine flu infections. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/)
Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
Even though the H1N1 pandemic appears to have peaked out, U.S. President Barack Obama has now declared a national emergency over swine flu infections. The reasoning behind such a declaration? According to the White House, it’s designed to "allow hospitals to better handle the surge in patients" by allowing them to bypass certain federal laws.
Emergency powers trump the Bill of Rights
That’s the public explanation for this, but the real agenda behind this declaration may be far more sinister. Declaring a national emergency immediately gives federal authorities dangerous new powers that can now be enforced at gunpoint, including:
• The power to force mandatory swine flu vaccinations on the entire population.
• The power to arrest, quarantine or "involuntarily transport" anyone who refuses a swine flu vaccination.
• The power to quarantine an entire city and halt all travel in or out of that city.
• The power to enter any home or office without a search warrant and order the destruction of any belongings or structures deemed to be a threat to public health.
• The effective nullification of the Bill of Rights. Your right to due process, to being safe from government search and seizure, and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination are all null and void under a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.
None of this means that federal agents are going to march door to door arresting people at gunpoint if they refuse the vaccine, but they could if they wanted to. Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
What emergency?
The declaration of this national emergency seems suspicious from the start. Where’s the emergency? The number of people killed by swine flu in the United States is far smaller than the number of people killed each year from seasonal flu, according to CDC statistics. People obviously aren’t dropping dead by the millions from H1N1 influenza. Most people are just getting mild flu symptoms and a few days later they’re fine.
So where’s the emergency?
The only emergency I can see is the emergency fabricated by Big Pharma to sell more vaccines. By declaring a national emergency over the H1N1 pandemic, Obama is playing right into their hands.
I find the timing of all this curious. Two days ago, New York gave up on its efforts to require mandatory vaccinations of health care workers. This was designed to defuse a large number of planned protests from health freedom-conscious people who don’t want government-mandated chemicals pumped into their veins.
The planned protests in New York would have fueled yet more resistance among health care workers across the country, and had it been allowed to continue, it could have resulted in a huge nationwide backlash against swine flu vaccines. By backing off the vaccine mandate and blaming it on a vaccine shortage (http://www.naturalnews.com/027313_N…), and then having Obama declare a national emergency, our state and national leaders have halted the protests and put in place a pro-vaccine Big Brother mandate that can be enforced at gunpoint.
Big Pharma must be pleased with all this. With these emergency powers in place, all that’s necessary to force vaccinations upon the entire population is a larger supply of the vaccines — and that’s coming in November.
Eur > Usd
Chf > Usd
25/10/09 NYtime 19:10pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Profitable 63%
Profit factor 2.0:1
Sharpe ratio 1.4
Max peak valley draw down 1.23%
APR+13.2%
President Obama declares national emergency over swine flu pandemic, but why?
Mike Adams
NaturalNews
October 24, 2009
According to the CDC, swine flu infections have already peaked, and the pandemic is on its way out. Peak infection time was the middle of October, where one in five U.S. children experienced the flu, says the CDC. Out of nearly 14,000 suspected flu cases tested during the week ending on October 10, 2009, 99.6% of those were influenza A, and the vast majority of those were confirmed as H1N1 swine flu infections. (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/)
Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
Even though the H1N1 pandemic appears to have peaked out, U.S. President Barack Obama has now declared a national emergency over swine flu infections. The reasoning behind such a declaration? According to the White House, it’s designed to "allow hospitals to better handle the surge in patients" by allowing them to bypass certain federal laws.
Emergency powers trump the Bill of Rights
That’s the public explanation for this, but the real agenda behind this declaration may be far more sinister. Declaring a national emergency immediately gives federal authorities dangerous new powers that can now be enforced at gunpoint, including:
• The power to force mandatory swine flu vaccinations on the entire population.
• The power to arrest, quarantine or "involuntarily transport" anyone who refuses a swine flu vaccination.
• The power to quarantine an entire city and halt all travel in or out of that city.
• The power to enter any home or office without a search warrant and order the destruction of any belongings or structures deemed to be a threat to public health.
• The effective nullification of the Bill of Rights. Your right to due process, to being safe from government search and seizure, and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination are all null and void under a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.
None of this means that federal agents are going to march door to door arresting people at gunpoint if they refuse the vaccine, but they could if they wanted to. Your rights as an American are no longer recognized under this national emergency declaration.
What emergency?
The declaration of this national emergency seems suspicious from the start. Where’s the emergency? The number of people killed by swine flu in the United States is far smaller than the number of people killed each year from seasonal flu, according to CDC statistics. People obviously aren’t dropping dead by the millions from H1N1 influenza. Most people are just getting mild flu symptoms and a few days later they’re fine.
So where’s the emergency?
The only emergency I can see is the emergency fabricated by Big Pharma to sell more vaccines. By declaring a national emergency over the H1N1 pandemic, Obama is playing right into their hands.
I find the timing of all this curious. Two days ago, New York gave up on its efforts to require mandatory vaccinations of health care workers. This was designed to defuse a large number of planned protests from health freedom-conscious people who don’t want government-mandated chemicals pumped into their veins.
The planned protests in New York would have fueled yet more resistance among health care workers across the country, and had it been allowed to continue, it could have resulted in a huge nationwide backlash against swine flu vaccines. By backing off the vaccine mandate and blaming it on a vaccine shortage (http://www.naturalnews.com/027313_N…), and then having Obama declare a national emergency, our state and national leaders have halted the protests and put in place a pro-vaccine Big Brother mandate that can be enforced at gunpoint.
Big Pharma must be pleased with all this. With these emergency powers in place, all that’s necessary to force vaccinations upon the entire population is a larger supply of the vaccines — and that’s coming in November.
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Has President Obama, the Constitutional Lawyer, Committed Open Treason?
JTCoyoté
Infowars
October 28, 2009
“Has President Obama, the Constitutional Lawyer, Committed Open Treason?”
When the president of the United States, Barack H. Obama accepted rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council, he committed high treason… not only a direct violation of article 1 section 9 clause 7 of the Constitution for the United States of America, which states emphatically:
“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
But this act by the President also has violated the 13th article of amendment that was duly ratified by March of 1819, but with secrecy and by active subterfuge, it was replaced by Lincoln’s 14th amendment right after the Civil War. This duly ratified original 13th amendment states the following:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
http://www.amendment-13.org/
Article 1 section 9 describes what shall not be allowed, but, it puts forth no punishment for such actions on the part of an elected government official… the original 13th amendment however, which was proposed in 1810… and some would say was a large part of the reason for the War of 1812, not only states that an elected government official cannot accept this kind of gratuity or office, but also states, if so done, the official would lose all possibility of office present and future, as well as citizenship, and if the circumstances are grave enough could be tried for treason and ultimately hung.
In either case I do not recall there having been a bill, resolution, or memorial, put forth by Congress, granting this president its permission for accepting the position of chairman of the Security Council of the United Nations… Without this permission and open discussion about it, prior to the granting of the permission… President Barack H. Obama is in violation of article 1 section 9 clause 7 of the Constitution for the United States of America… at the very least.
The creation of the United Nations at the Presidio in San Francisco in 1945, was done by treaty power. It is not part of the United States in any way other than by treaty in the form of an international “Peace” treaty. The Constitution states that treaties are considered part of Constitutional law when they are enacted by an act of Congress and signed by the president.
They are not etched in stone however, and as with all treaties, as was addressed in 1803 by the Supreme Court in the landmark Marbury vs Madison, which states that a law, (by law I mean act of Congress, and no treaty can become law without an Act of Congress), cannot void the Constitution. The Constitution however can void any law including treaties, if that law is repugnant to the Constitution.
When Obama took the position of Chairman of the UN Security Council… he violated Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 by accepting leadership in an organization that is clearly at odds with the Constitution for the United States of America.
The instant the United Nations starts amending the Constitution by treaty power is the day that the United Nations should be carved off of the East Coast and floated out past the continental shelf and sunk in 2 miles of water, for good.
JTCoyoté
Infowars
October 28, 2009
“Has President Obama, the Constitutional Lawyer, Committed Open Treason?”
When the president of the United States, Barack H. Obama accepted rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council, he committed high treason… not only a direct violation of article 1 section 9 clause 7 of the Constitution for the United States of America, which states emphatically:
“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
But this act by the President also has violated the 13th article of amendment that was duly ratified by March of 1819, but with secrecy and by active subterfuge, it was replaced by Lincoln’s 14th amendment right after the Civil War. This duly ratified original 13th amendment states the following:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
http://www.amendment-13.org/
Article 1 section 9 describes what shall not be allowed, but, it puts forth no punishment for such actions on the part of an elected government official… the original 13th amendment however, which was proposed in 1810… and some would say was a large part of the reason for the War of 1812, not only states that an elected government official cannot accept this kind of gratuity or office, but also states, if so done, the official would lose all possibility of office present and future, as well as citizenship, and if the circumstances are grave enough could be tried for treason and ultimately hung.
In either case I do not recall there having been a bill, resolution, or memorial, put forth by Congress, granting this president its permission for accepting the position of chairman of the Security Council of the United Nations… Without this permission and open discussion about it, prior to the granting of the permission… President Barack H. Obama is in violation of article 1 section 9 clause 7 of the Constitution for the United States of America… at the very least.
The creation of the United Nations at the Presidio in San Francisco in 1945, was done by treaty power. It is not part of the United States in any way other than by treaty in the form of an international “Peace” treaty. The Constitution states that treaties are considered part of Constitutional law when they are enacted by an act of Congress and signed by the president.
They are not etched in stone however, and as with all treaties, as was addressed in 1803 by the Supreme Court in the landmark Marbury vs Madison, which states that a law, (by law I mean act of Congress, and no treaty can become law without an Act of Congress), cannot void the Constitution. The Constitution however can void any law including treaties, if that law is repugnant to the Constitution.
When Obama took the position of Chairman of the UN Security Council… he violated Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7 by accepting leadership in an organization that is clearly at odds with the Constitution for the United States of America.
The instant the United Nations starts amending the Constitution by treaty power is the day that the United Nations should be carved off of the East Coast and floated out past the continental shelf and sunk in 2 miles of water, for good.
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Have entered the following positions.
$ bias: + strong
Usd > Aud
Usd > Eur
Usd > Cad
01/11/09 NYtime 19:00pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Profitable 50%
Profit factor 0.9:1
Sharpe ratio -1.135
Max peak valley draw down 1.49%
Annual return (compounded) -1.8%
How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash
Goldman Sachs' secret bets.
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.
Goldman's sales and its clandestine wagers, completed at the brink of the housing market meltdown, enabled the nation's premier investment bank to pass most of its potential losses to others before a flood of mortgage defaults staggered the U.S. and global economies.
Only later did investors discover that what Goldman had promoted as triple-A rated investments were closer to junk.
Now, pension funds, insurance companies, labor unions and foreign financial institutions that bought those dicey mortgage securities are facing large losses, and a five-month McClatchy investigation has found that Goldman's failure to disclose that it made secret, exotic bets on an imminent housing crash may have violated securities laws.
"The Securities and Exchange Commission should be very interested in any financial company that secretly decides a financial product is a loser and then goes out and actively markets that product or very similar products to unsuspecting customers without disclosing its true opinion," said Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor who's proposed a massive overhaul of the nation's banks. "This is fraud and should be prosecuted."
John Coffee, a Columbia University law professor who served on an advisory committee to the New York Stock Exchange, said that investment banks have wide latitude to manage their assets, and so the legality of Goldman's maneuvers depends on what its executives knew at the time.
"It would look much more damaging," Coffee said, "if it appeared that the firm was dumping these investments because it saw them as toxic waste and virtually worthless."
Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman's chairman and chief executive, declined to be interviewed for this article.
A Goldman spokesman, Michael DuVally, said that the firm decided in December 2006 to reduce its mortgage risks and did so by selling off subprime-related securities and making myriad insurance-like bets, called credit-default swaps, to "hedge" against a housing downturn.
DuVally told McClatchy that Goldman "had no obligation to disclose how it was managing its risk, nor would investors have expected us to do so ... other market participants had access to the same information we did."
For the past year, Goldman has been on the defensive over its Washington connections and the billions in federal bailout funds it received. Scant attention has been paid, however, to how it became the only major Wall Street player to extricate itself from the subprime securities market before the housing bubble burst.
Goldman remains, along with Morgan Stanley, one of two venerable Wall Street investment banks still standing. Their grievously wounded peers Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch fell into the arms of retail banks, while another, Lehman Brothers, folded.
To piece together Goldman's role in the subprime meltdown, McClatchy reviewed hundreds of documents, SEC filings, copies of secret investment circulars, lawsuits and interviewed numerous people familiar with the firm's activities.
McClatchy's inquiry found that Goldman Sachs:
Bought and converted into high-yield bonds tens of thousands of mortgages from subprime lenders that became the subjects of FBI investigations into whether they'd misled borrowers or exaggerated applicants' incomes to justify making hefty loans.
Used offshore tax havens to shuffle its mortgage-backed securities to institutions worldwide, including European and Asian banks, often in secret deals run through the Cayman Islands, a British territory in the Caribbean that companies use to bypass U.S. disclosure requirements.
Has dispatched lawyers across the country to repossess homes from bankrupt or financially struggling individuals, many of whom lacked sufficient credit or income but got subprime mortgages anyway because Wall Street made it easy for them to qualify.
Was buoyed last fall by key federal bailout decisions, at least two of which involved then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former Goldman chief executive whose staff at Treasury included several other Goldman alumni.
The firm benefited when Paulson elected not to save rival Lehman Brothers from collapse, and when he organized a massive rescue of tottering global insurer American International Group while in constant telephone contact with Goldman chief Blankfein. With the Federal Reserve Board's blessing, AIG later used $12.9 billion in taxpayers' dollars to pay off every penny it owed Goldman.
These decisions preserved billions of dollars in value for Goldman's executives and shareholders. For example, Blankfein held 1.6 million shares in the company in September 2008, and he could have lost more than $150 million if his firm had gone bankrupt.
With the help of more than $23 billion in direct and indirect federal aid, Goldman appears to have emerged intact from the economic implosion, limiting its subprime losses to $1.5 billion. By repaying $10 billion in direct federal bailout money — a 23 percent taxpayer return that exceeded federal officials' demand — the firm has escaped tough federal limits on 2009 bonuses to executives of firms that received bailout money.
Goldman announced record earnings in July, and the firm is on course to surpass $50 billion in revenue in 2009 and to pay its employees more than $20 billion in year-end bonuses.
THE BLUEST OF THE BLUE CHIPS
For decades, Goldman, a bastion of Ivy League graduates that was founded in 1869, has cultivated an elite reputation as home to the best and brightest and a tradition of urging its executives to take turns at public service.
As a result, Goldman has operated a virtual jobs conveyor belt to and from Washington: Paulson, as Treasury secretary, sent tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars to rescue Wall Street in 2008, and former Goldman employees populate some of the most demanding and powerful posts in Washington. Savvy federal regulators have migrated from their Washington jobs to Goldman.
On Oct. 16, a Goldman vice president, Adam Storch, was named managing executive of the SEC's enforcement division.
Goldman's financial panache made its sales pitches irresistible to policymakers and investors alike, and may help explain why so few of them questioned the risky securities that Goldman sold off in a 14-month period that ended in February 2007.
Since the collapse of the economy, however, some of those investors have changed their opinions of Goldman.
Several pension funds, including Mississippi's Public Employees' Retirement System, have filed suits, seeking class-action status, alleging that Goldman and other Wall Street firms negligently made "false and misleading" representations of the bonds' true risks.
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose state has lost $5 million of the $6 million it invested in Goldman's subprime mortgage-backed bonds in 2006, said the state's funds are likely to lose "hundreds of millions of dollars" on those and similar bonds.
Hood assailed the investment banks "who packaged this junk and sold it to unwary investors."
California's huge public employees' retirement system, known as CALPERS, purchased $64.4 million in subprime mortgage-backed bonds from Goldman on March 1, 2007. While that represented a tiny percentage of the fund's holdings, in July CALPERS listed the bonds' value at $16.6 million, a drop of nearly 75 percent, according to documents obtained through a state public records request.
In May, without admitting wrongdoing, Goldman became the first firm to settle with the Massachusetts attorney general's office as it investigated Wall Street's subprime dealings. The firm agreed to pay $60 million to the state, most of it to reduce mortgage balances for 714 aggrieved homeowners.
Attorney General Martha Coakley, now a candidate to succeed Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate, cited the blight from foreclosed homes in Boston and other Massachusetts cities. She said her office focused on investment banks because they provided a market for loans that mortgage lenders "knew or should have known were destined for failure."
New Orleans' public employees' retirement system, an electrical workers union and the New Jersey carpenters union also are suing Goldman and other Wall Street firms over their losses.
The full extent of the losses from Goldman's mortgage securities isn't known, but data obtained by McClatchy show that insurance companies, whose annuities provide income for many retirees, collectively paid $2 billion for Goldman's risky high-yield bonds.
Among the bigger buyers: Ambac Assurance purchased $923 million of Goldman's bonds; the Teachers Insurance and Annuities Association, $141.5 million; New York Life, $96 million; Prudential, $70 million; and Allstate, $40.5 million, according to the data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
In 2007, as early signs of trouble rippled through the housing market, Goldman paid a discounted price of $8.8 million to repurchase subprime mortgage bonds that Prudential had bought for $12 million.
Nearly all the insurers' purchases were made in 2006 and 2007, after mortgage lenders had lifted most traditional lending criteria in favor of loans that required little or no documentation of borrowers' incomes or assets.
While Goldman was far from the biggest player in the risky mortgage securitization business, neither was it small.
From 2001 to 2007, Goldman hawked at least $135 billion in bonds keyed to risky home loans, according to analyses by McClatchy and the industry newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance.
In addition to selling about $39 billion of its own risky mortgage securities in 2006 and 2007, Goldman marketed at least $17 billion more for others.
It also was the lead firm in marketing about $83 billion in complex securities, many of them backed by subprime mortgages, via the Caymans and other offshore sites, according to an analysis of unpublished industry data by Gary Kopff, a securitization expert.
In at least one of these offshore deals, Goldman exaggerated the quality of more than $75 million of risky securities, describing the underlying mortgages as "prime" or "midprime," although in the U.S. they were marketed with lower grades.
Goldman spokesman DuVally said that Moody's, the bond rating firm, gave them higher grades because the borrowers had high credit scores.
Goldman's securities came in two varieties: those tied to subprime mortgages and those backed by a slightly higher grade of loans known as Alt-A's.
Over time, both types of mortgages required homeowners to pay rapidly rising interest rates. Defaults on subprime loans were responsible for last year's housing meltdown. Interest rates on Alt-A loans, which began to rocket upward this year, are causing a new round of defaults.
Goldman has taken multiple steps to put its subprime dealings behind it, including publicly saying that Wall Street firms regret their mistakes. Last winter, the company cancelled a Las Vegas conference, avoiding any images of employees flashing wads of bonus cash at casinos.
More recently, the firm has launched a public relations campaign to answer the criticism of its huge bonuses, Washington connections and federal bailout. In late October, Blankfein argued that Goldman's activities serve "an important social purpose" by channeling pools of money held by pension funds and others to companies and governments around the world.
KNOWING WHEN TO FOLD THEM
For investment banks such as Goldman, the trick was knowing when to exit the high-stakes subprime game before getting burned.
New York hedge fund manager John Paulson was one of the first to anticipate disaster. He told Congress that his researchers discovered by early 2006 that many subprime loans covered the homes' entire value, with no down payments, and so he figured that the bonds "would become worthless."
He soon began placing exotic bets — credit-default swaps — against the housing market. His firm, Paulson & Co., booked a $3.7 billion profit when home prices tanked and subprime defaults soared in 2007 and 2008. (He isn't related to Henry Paulson.)
At least as early as 2005, Goldman similarly began using swaps to limit its exposure to risky mortgages, the first of multiple strategies it would employ to reduce its subprime risk.
The company has closely guarded the details of most of its swaps trades, except for $20 billion in widely publicized contracts it purchased from AIG in 2005 and 2006 to cover mortgage defaults or ratings downgrades on subprime-related securities it offered offshore.
In December 2006, after "10 straight days of losses" in Goldman's mortgage business, Chief Financial Officer David Viniar called a meeting of mortgage traders and other key personnel, Goldman spokesman DuVally said.
Shortly after the meeting, he said, it was decided to reduce the firm's mortgage risk by selling off its inventory of bonds and betting against those classes of securities in secretive swaps markets.
DuVally said that at the time, Goldman executives "had no way of knowing how difficult housing or financial market conditions would become."
In early 2007, the firm's mortgage traders also bet heavily against the housing market on a year-old subprime index on a private London swap exchange, said several Wall Street figures familiar with those dealings, who declined to be identified because the transactions were confidential.
The swaps contracts would pay off big, especially those with AIG. When Goldman's securities lost value in 2007 and early 2008, the firm demanded $10 billion, of which AIG reluctantly posted $7.5 billion, Viniar disclosed last spring.
As Goldman's and others' collateral demands grew, AIG suffered an enormous cash squeeze in September 2008, leading to the taxpayer bailout to prevent worldwide losses. Goldman's payout from AIG included more than $8 billion to settle swaps contracts.
DuVally said Goldman has made other bets with hundreds of unidentified counterparties to insure its own subprime risks and to take positions against the housing market for its clients. Until the end of 2006, he said, Goldman was still betting on a strong housing market.
However, Goldman sold off nearly $28 billion of risky mortgage securities it had issued in the U.S. in 2006, including $10 billion on Oct. 6, 2006. The firm unloaded another $11 billion in February 2007, after it had intensified its contrary bets. Goldman also stopped buying risky home mortgages after the December meeting, though DuVally declined to say when.
I'VE GOT A SECRET
Despite updating its numerous disclosures to investors in 2007, Goldman never revealed its secret wagers.
Asked whether Goldman's bond sellers knew about the contrary bets, spokesman DuVally said the company's mortgage business "has extensive barriers designed to keep information within its proper confines."
However, Viniar, the Goldman finance chief, approved the securities sales and the simultaneous bets on a housing downturn. Dan Sparks, a Texan who oversaw the firm's mortgage-related swaps trading, also served as the head of Goldman Sachs Mortgage from late 2006 to April 2008, when he abruptly resigned for personal reasons.
The Securities Act of 1933 imposes a special disclosure burden on principal underwriters of securities, which was Goldman's role when it sold about $39 billion of its own risky mortgage-backed securities from March 2006 to February 2007.
The firm maintains that the requirement doesn't apply in this case.
DuVally said the firm sold virtually all its subprime-related securities to Qualified Institutional Buyers, a class of sophisticated investors that are afforded fewer protections than small investors are under federal securities laws. He said Goldman made all the required disclosures about risks.
Whether companies are obliged to inform investors about such contrary trades, or "hedges," is "a very hot issue" in cases winding through the courts, said Frank Partnoy, a University of San Diego law professor who specializes in securities. One issue is how specific companies must be in disclosing potential risks to investors, he said.
Coffee, the Columbia University law professor, said that any potential violations of securities laws would depend on what Goldman executives knew about the risks ahead.
"The critical moment when Goldman would have the highest liability and disclosure obligations is when they are serving as an underwriter on a registered public offering," he said. "If they are at the same time desperately seeking to get out of the field, that kind of bailout does look far more dubious than just trading activities."
Another question is whether, by keeping the trades secret, the company withheld material information that would enable investors to assess Goldman's motives for selling the bonds, said James Cox, a Duke University law professor who also has served on the NYSE advisory panel.
If Goldman had disclosed the contrary bets, he said, "One would have to believe that a rational investor would not only consider Goldman's conduct material, but likely compelling a decision to take a pass on the recommendation to purchase."
Cox said that existing laws, however, don't require sufficient disclosures about trading, and that the government would do well to plug that hole.
In marketing disclosures filed with the SEC regarding each pool of subprime bonds from 2001 to 2007, Goldman listed an array of risk factors that grew over time. Among them was the possibility of a pullback in overheated real estate markets, especially in California and Florida, where the most subprime loans had been made.
Suits filed by the pension funds, however, allege that Goldman made materially false or misleading statements in its public offerings, failing to disclose that many loans were based on inflated appraisals and were bought from firms with poor lending practices.
DuVally said that investors were fully informed of all known risks.
"What's going to happen in the next few years," said San Diego's Partnoy, "is there's going to be a lot of lawsuits and judges will have to decide, should Goldman have disclosed more or not?"
$ bias: + strong
Usd > Aud
Usd > Eur
Usd > Cad
01/11/09 NYtime 19:00pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Profitable 50%
Profit factor 0.9:1
Sharpe ratio -1.135
Max peak valley draw down 1.49%
Annual return (compounded) -1.8%
How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash
Goldman Sachs' secret bets.
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.
Goldman's sales and its clandestine wagers, completed at the brink of the housing market meltdown, enabled the nation's premier investment bank to pass most of its potential losses to others before a flood of mortgage defaults staggered the U.S. and global economies.
Only later did investors discover that what Goldman had promoted as triple-A rated investments were closer to junk.
Now, pension funds, insurance companies, labor unions and foreign financial institutions that bought those dicey mortgage securities are facing large losses, and a five-month McClatchy investigation has found that Goldman's failure to disclose that it made secret, exotic bets on an imminent housing crash may have violated securities laws.
"The Securities and Exchange Commission should be very interested in any financial company that secretly decides a financial product is a loser and then goes out and actively markets that product or very similar products to unsuspecting customers without disclosing its true opinion," said Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor who's proposed a massive overhaul of the nation's banks. "This is fraud and should be prosecuted."
John Coffee, a Columbia University law professor who served on an advisory committee to the New York Stock Exchange, said that investment banks have wide latitude to manage their assets, and so the legality of Goldman's maneuvers depends on what its executives knew at the time.
"It would look much more damaging," Coffee said, "if it appeared that the firm was dumping these investments because it saw them as toxic waste and virtually worthless."
Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman's chairman and chief executive, declined to be interviewed for this article.
A Goldman spokesman, Michael DuVally, said that the firm decided in December 2006 to reduce its mortgage risks and did so by selling off subprime-related securities and making myriad insurance-like bets, called credit-default swaps, to "hedge" against a housing downturn.
DuVally told McClatchy that Goldman "had no obligation to disclose how it was managing its risk, nor would investors have expected us to do so ... other market participants had access to the same information we did."
For the past year, Goldman has been on the defensive over its Washington connections and the billions in federal bailout funds it received. Scant attention has been paid, however, to how it became the only major Wall Street player to extricate itself from the subprime securities market before the housing bubble burst.
Goldman remains, along with Morgan Stanley, one of two venerable Wall Street investment banks still standing. Their grievously wounded peers Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch fell into the arms of retail banks, while another, Lehman Brothers, folded.
To piece together Goldman's role in the subprime meltdown, McClatchy reviewed hundreds of documents, SEC filings, copies of secret investment circulars, lawsuits and interviewed numerous people familiar with the firm's activities.
McClatchy's inquiry found that Goldman Sachs:
Bought and converted into high-yield bonds tens of thousands of mortgages from subprime lenders that became the subjects of FBI investigations into whether they'd misled borrowers or exaggerated applicants' incomes to justify making hefty loans.
Used offshore tax havens to shuffle its mortgage-backed securities to institutions worldwide, including European and Asian banks, often in secret deals run through the Cayman Islands, a British territory in the Caribbean that companies use to bypass U.S. disclosure requirements.
Has dispatched lawyers across the country to repossess homes from bankrupt or financially struggling individuals, many of whom lacked sufficient credit or income but got subprime mortgages anyway because Wall Street made it easy for them to qualify.
Was buoyed last fall by key federal bailout decisions, at least two of which involved then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former Goldman chief executive whose staff at Treasury included several other Goldman alumni.
The firm benefited when Paulson elected not to save rival Lehman Brothers from collapse, and when he organized a massive rescue of tottering global insurer American International Group while in constant telephone contact with Goldman chief Blankfein. With the Federal Reserve Board's blessing, AIG later used $12.9 billion in taxpayers' dollars to pay off every penny it owed Goldman.
These decisions preserved billions of dollars in value for Goldman's executives and shareholders. For example, Blankfein held 1.6 million shares in the company in September 2008, and he could have lost more than $150 million if his firm had gone bankrupt.
With the help of more than $23 billion in direct and indirect federal aid, Goldman appears to have emerged intact from the economic implosion, limiting its subprime losses to $1.5 billion. By repaying $10 billion in direct federal bailout money — a 23 percent taxpayer return that exceeded federal officials' demand — the firm has escaped tough federal limits on 2009 bonuses to executives of firms that received bailout money.
Goldman announced record earnings in July, and the firm is on course to surpass $50 billion in revenue in 2009 and to pay its employees more than $20 billion in year-end bonuses.
THE BLUEST OF THE BLUE CHIPS
For decades, Goldman, a bastion of Ivy League graduates that was founded in 1869, has cultivated an elite reputation as home to the best and brightest and a tradition of urging its executives to take turns at public service.
As a result, Goldman has operated a virtual jobs conveyor belt to and from Washington: Paulson, as Treasury secretary, sent tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars to rescue Wall Street in 2008, and former Goldman employees populate some of the most demanding and powerful posts in Washington. Savvy federal regulators have migrated from their Washington jobs to Goldman.
On Oct. 16, a Goldman vice president, Adam Storch, was named managing executive of the SEC's enforcement division.
Goldman's financial panache made its sales pitches irresistible to policymakers and investors alike, and may help explain why so few of them questioned the risky securities that Goldman sold off in a 14-month period that ended in February 2007.
Since the collapse of the economy, however, some of those investors have changed their opinions of Goldman.
Several pension funds, including Mississippi's Public Employees' Retirement System, have filed suits, seeking class-action status, alleging that Goldman and other Wall Street firms negligently made "false and misleading" representations of the bonds' true risks.
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose state has lost $5 million of the $6 million it invested in Goldman's subprime mortgage-backed bonds in 2006, said the state's funds are likely to lose "hundreds of millions of dollars" on those and similar bonds.
Hood assailed the investment banks "who packaged this junk and sold it to unwary investors."
California's huge public employees' retirement system, known as CALPERS, purchased $64.4 million in subprime mortgage-backed bonds from Goldman on March 1, 2007. While that represented a tiny percentage of the fund's holdings, in July CALPERS listed the bonds' value at $16.6 million, a drop of nearly 75 percent, according to documents obtained through a state public records request.
In May, without admitting wrongdoing, Goldman became the first firm to settle with the Massachusetts attorney general's office as it investigated Wall Street's subprime dealings. The firm agreed to pay $60 million to the state, most of it to reduce mortgage balances for 714 aggrieved homeowners.
Attorney General Martha Coakley, now a candidate to succeed Edward Kennedy in the U.S. Senate, cited the blight from foreclosed homes in Boston and other Massachusetts cities. She said her office focused on investment banks because they provided a market for loans that mortgage lenders "knew or should have known were destined for failure."
New Orleans' public employees' retirement system, an electrical workers union and the New Jersey carpenters union also are suing Goldman and other Wall Street firms over their losses.
The full extent of the losses from Goldman's mortgage securities isn't known, but data obtained by McClatchy show that insurance companies, whose annuities provide income for many retirees, collectively paid $2 billion for Goldman's risky high-yield bonds.
Among the bigger buyers: Ambac Assurance purchased $923 million of Goldman's bonds; the Teachers Insurance and Annuities Association, $141.5 million; New York Life, $96 million; Prudential, $70 million; and Allstate, $40.5 million, according to the data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
In 2007, as early signs of trouble rippled through the housing market, Goldman paid a discounted price of $8.8 million to repurchase subprime mortgage bonds that Prudential had bought for $12 million.
Nearly all the insurers' purchases were made in 2006 and 2007, after mortgage lenders had lifted most traditional lending criteria in favor of loans that required little or no documentation of borrowers' incomes or assets.
While Goldman was far from the biggest player in the risky mortgage securitization business, neither was it small.
From 2001 to 2007, Goldman hawked at least $135 billion in bonds keyed to risky home loans, according to analyses by McClatchy and the industry newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance.
In addition to selling about $39 billion of its own risky mortgage securities in 2006 and 2007, Goldman marketed at least $17 billion more for others.
It also was the lead firm in marketing about $83 billion in complex securities, many of them backed by subprime mortgages, via the Caymans and other offshore sites, according to an analysis of unpublished industry data by Gary Kopff, a securitization expert.
In at least one of these offshore deals, Goldman exaggerated the quality of more than $75 million of risky securities, describing the underlying mortgages as "prime" or "midprime," although in the U.S. they were marketed with lower grades.
Goldman spokesman DuVally said that Moody's, the bond rating firm, gave them higher grades because the borrowers had high credit scores.
Goldman's securities came in two varieties: those tied to subprime mortgages and those backed by a slightly higher grade of loans known as Alt-A's.
Over time, both types of mortgages required homeowners to pay rapidly rising interest rates. Defaults on subprime loans were responsible for last year's housing meltdown. Interest rates on Alt-A loans, which began to rocket upward this year, are causing a new round of defaults.
Goldman has taken multiple steps to put its subprime dealings behind it, including publicly saying that Wall Street firms regret their mistakes. Last winter, the company cancelled a Las Vegas conference, avoiding any images of employees flashing wads of bonus cash at casinos.
More recently, the firm has launched a public relations campaign to answer the criticism of its huge bonuses, Washington connections and federal bailout. In late October, Blankfein argued that Goldman's activities serve "an important social purpose" by channeling pools of money held by pension funds and others to companies and governments around the world.
KNOWING WHEN TO FOLD THEM
For investment banks such as Goldman, the trick was knowing when to exit the high-stakes subprime game before getting burned.
New York hedge fund manager John Paulson was one of the first to anticipate disaster. He told Congress that his researchers discovered by early 2006 that many subprime loans covered the homes' entire value, with no down payments, and so he figured that the bonds "would become worthless."
He soon began placing exotic bets — credit-default swaps — against the housing market. His firm, Paulson & Co., booked a $3.7 billion profit when home prices tanked and subprime defaults soared in 2007 and 2008. (He isn't related to Henry Paulson.)
At least as early as 2005, Goldman similarly began using swaps to limit its exposure to risky mortgages, the first of multiple strategies it would employ to reduce its subprime risk.
The company has closely guarded the details of most of its swaps trades, except for $20 billion in widely publicized contracts it purchased from AIG in 2005 and 2006 to cover mortgage defaults or ratings downgrades on subprime-related securities it offered offshore.
In December 2006, after "10 straight days of losses" in Goldman's mortgage business, Chief Financial Officer David Viniar called a meeting of mortgage traders and other key personnel, Goldman spokesman DuVally said.
Shortly after the meeting, he said, it was decided to reduce the firm's mortgage risk by selling off its inventory of bonds and betting against those classes of securities in secretive swaps markets.
DuVally said that at the time, Goldman executives "had no way of knowing how difficult housing or financial market conditions would become."
In early 2007, the firm's mortgage traders also bet heavily against the housing market on a year-old subprime index on a private London swap exchange, said several Wall Street figures familiar with those dealings, who declined to be identified because the transactions were confidential.
The swaps contracts would pay off big, especially those with AIG. When Goldman's securities lost value in 2007 and early 2008, the firm demanded $10 billion, of which AIG reluctantly posted $7.5 billion, Viniar disclosed last spring.
As Goldman's and others' collateral demands grew, AIG suffered an enormous cash squeeze in September 2008, leading to the taxpayer bailout to prevent worldwide losses. Goldman's payout from AIG included more than $8 billion to settle swaps contracts.
DuVally said Goldman has made other bets with hundreds of unidentified counterparties to insure its own subprime risks and to take positions against the housing market for its clients. Until the end of 2006, he said, Goldman was still betting on a strong housing market.
However, Goldman sold off nearly $28 billion of risky mortgage securities it had issued in the U.S. in 2006, including $10 billion on Oct. 6, 2006. The firm unloaded another $11 billion in February 2007, after it had intensified its contrary bets. Goldman also stopped buying risky home mortgages after the December meeting, though DuVally declined to say when.
I'VE GOT A SECRET
Despite updating its numerous disclosures to investors in 2007, Goldman never revealed its secret wagers.
Asked whether Goldman's bond sellers knew about the contrary bets, spokesman DuVally said the company's mortgage business "has extensive barriers designed to keep information within its proper confines."
However, Viniar, the Goldman finance chief, approved the securities sales and the simultaneous bets on a housing downturn. Dan Sparks, a Texan who oversaw the firm's mortgage-related swaps trading, also served as the head of Goldman Sachs Mortgage from late 2006 to April 2008, when he abruptly resigned for personal reasons.
The Securities Act of 1933 imposes a special disclosure burden on principal underwriters of securities, which was Goldman's role when it sold about $39 billion of its own risky mortgage-backed securities from March 2006 to February 2007.
The firm maintains that the requirement doesn't apply in this case.
DuVally said the firm sold virtually all its subprime-related securities to Qualified Institutional Buyers, a class of sophisticated investors that are afforded fewer protections than small investors are under federal securities laws. He said Goldman made all the required disclosures about risks.
Whether companies are obliged to inform investors about such contrary trades, or "hedges," is "a very hot issue" in cases winding through the courts, said Frank Partnoy, a University of San Diego law professor who specializes in securities. One issue is how specific companies must be in disclosing potential risks to investors, he said.
Coffee, the Columbia University law professor, said that any potential violations of securities laws would depend on what Goldman executives knew about the risks ahead.
"The critical moment when Goldman would have the highest liability and disclosure obligations is when they are serving as an underwriter on a registered public offering," he said. "If they are at the same time desperately seeking to get out of the field, that kind of bailout does look far more dubious than just trading activities."
Another question is whether, by keeping the trades secret, the company withheld material information that would enable investors to assess Goldman's motives for selling the bonds, said James Cox, a Duke University law professor who also has served on the NYSE advisory panel.
If Goldman had disclosed the contrary bets, he said, "One would have to believe that a rational investor would not only consider Goldman's conduct material, but likely compelling a decision to take a pass on the recommendation to purchase."
Cox said that existing laws, however, don't require sufficient disclosures about trading, and that the government would do well to plug that hole.
In marketing disclosures filed with the SEC regarding each pool of subprime bonds from 2001 to 2007, Goldman listed an array of risk factors that grew over time. Among them was the possibility of a pullback in overheated real estate markets, especially in California and Florida, where the most subprime loans had been made.
Suits filed by the pension funds, however, allege that Goldman made materially false or misleading statements in its public offerings, failing to disclose that many loans were based on inflated appraisals and were bought from firms with poor lending practices.
DuVally said that investors were fully informed of all known risks.
"What's going to happen in the next few years," said San Diego's Partnoy, "is there's going to be a lot of lawsuits and judges will have to decide, should Goldman have disclosed more or not?"
Last edited:
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Will enter the following positions tomorrow.
:!: Note the balance is negative, but there has only been 2.2 full positions taken. I am positioning the USD across 6 pairs, so there have been 13 trades made, but only 2.2 full positions.
$ bias: - weak
Usd < Eur
Usd < Gbp
Usd < Cad
Usd < Jpy
07/11/09 NYtime 15:10pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
# full USD positions taken 2.2
# of trades 13
Balance -1.8%
Profitable 38.5%
Profit factor 0.5:1
Sharpe ratio -3.373
Max peak valley draw down 3.5%
Annual return (compounded) -15.1%
by Andrew Napolitano
- FOXNews.com
- November 06, 2009
Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes
Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.
AP
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will vote on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will no doubt pass. It will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.
We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms. Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.
When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare--, he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.
America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be.
When Congress takes away our freedoms, they will be gone forever. What will you do to prevent this from happening?
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
Text size
House Committee On Ways & Means Republicans
November 7, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
– - – - – - – - – -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
– - – - – - – - – -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
:!: Note the balance is negative, but there has only been 2.2 full positions taken. I am positioning the USD across 6 pairs, so there have been 13 trades made, but only 2.2 full positions.
$ bias: - weak
Usd < Eur
Usd < Gbp
Usd < Cad
Usd < Jpy
07/11/09 NYtime 15:10pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
# full USD positions taken 2.2
# of trades 13
Balance -1.8%
Profitable 38.5%
Profit factor 0.5:1
Sharpe ratio -3.373
Max peak valley draw down 3.5%
Annual return (compounded) -15.1%
by Andrew Napolitano
- FOXNews.com
- November 06, 2009
Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes
Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.
AP
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will vote on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will no doubt pass. It will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.
We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms. Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.
When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare--, he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.
America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be.
When Congress takes away our freedoms, they will be gone forever. What will you do to prevent this from happening?
Pelosi: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
Text size
House Committee On Ways & Means Republicans
November 7, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
– - – - – - – - – -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
– - – - – - – - – -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Still holding previous positions.Will enter the following positions tomorrow.
:!: Note the balance is negative, but there has only been 2.2 full positions taken. I am positioning the USD across 6 pairs, so there have been 13 trades made, but only 2.2 full positions.
$ bias: - weak
Usd < Eur
Usd < Gbp
Usd < Cad
Usd < Jpy
07/11/09 NYtime 15:10pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
# full USD positions taken 2.2
# of trades 13
Balance -1.8%
Profitable 38.5%
Profit factor 0.5:1
Sharpe ratio -3.373
Max peak valley draw down 3.5%
Annual return (compounded) -15.1%
Up about +1%
13/11/09 NYtime 14:50pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
# full USD positions taken 2.8
# of trades 17
Balance -0.8%
Profitable 52.9%
Profit factor 0.7:1
Sharpe ratio -1.952
Max peak valley draw down 3.5%
Annual return (compounded) -9.6%
http://ukraineplague.blogspot.com/
Chinese Lien on US Treasury?
STEVE Q. NOTE: Confirmed through Asian sources this morning – the largest gold trader in the world, but understand I can not confirm all items in this story. The ramifications are overwhelming. Keep your eyes open.
November 13, 2009
Steve,
submitted by RD
I found news on link of Chinese parties were signing papers, to execute their LIEN on the US Treasury. As one of the key aggrieved Beneficiary Owners of the loaned 10,000 tonnes of gold *500,000 mt of au not 10,000 mt when gold was USD$45.00 an oz.*
*now USD$1,200 an oz. + interest at 7 and7/8% per year compounding *
* WOW now you see, right?*yes ,...big yes..
MY SOURCE---Our comments between he and I was that this war was set to break eventually...i mean you see that someone is owed something when it was cheap and now they are owed something when it's a kings' ransome, so what would you do? go to court? most likely...
we need someone in the washington pool..on this..
it's quite covert and very touchy
So yes. yes yes
it's the only fire stick the good guys with the white hats have left.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1): The Chinese parties were signing papers at the World Court on 11th November 2009, following preparatory activity on 10th November, to execute their LIEN on the US Treasury. As one of the key aggrieved Beneficiary Owners of the loaned 10,000 tonnes of gold and the currency boxes etc., the World Court powers will enable them to seize US assets around the world within their jurisdictions and probably even on the high seas and at airports, to the value of the stolen/diverted assets.
They have no choice now, given that they acted in good faith; whereas, as usual, the US 'Shadow Government' consisting of Fraudulent Finance cadres functioning as though they are bona fide US officials, appointees and legislators, have gone too far, as previously explained.
(2): We understand that a total of 163 prominent individuals, many from Congress, plus George Bush 41, William Clinton 42 and George Bush 43, plus THREE current and former US Supreme Court Justices, will be arrested on the basis of arrest warrants in the light of the continued sabotage and the deadline for the Chinese to implement their LIEN on the US Treasury.
Our sources initially indicated that 'exposure and lockup orders going all the way to Bush 41' were extant on 10th November. Separate sources stated to us that these arrests were associated with World Court instructions and warrants which were put into process with effect from the sabotage operation on Tuesday 10th November becoming known.
It STANDS TO REASON that this state of affairs represents a massive threat to US national security which has been brought about exclusively by the feckless refusal of the US authorities to do what should have been done in 2007, but was aborted because the Bush dynasty was still in power - and by the lust of various components of the structures for 'the money', representing corruption on a gargantuan scale arising from George Bush Sr.'s insidious technique of enticing collaboration through the mirage or promise of great riches. That has been the technique used throughout, and its absolute decadence and foul origination is now unveiled for even the most blind observers to see (unless they belong to the 'mainstream' media which, like King Zechariah, have had their eyes put out by Nebuchadnezzar and have been transported to Babylon).
We further understand that about 1,600 people around the world will be at the receiving end of arrest warrants and seizure on sight following the generation of these warrants by the World Court in the foregoing context. The aggrieved parties remain unchanged, and are headed by the Chinese authorities and Elders, and the British Monarchical Power.
Don't Fool Yourself: America Is Now a Communist Nation
Politics / US Politics
Nov 12, 2009 - 01:39 AM
By: DailyWealth
At last year's Alliance Conference, I urged folks to buy stocks – vehemently... It was the most bullish I've been in my entire life. But now I feel the opposite way. When the facts change, I change my mind. I never thought we'd see the government running $2 trillion deficits, taking over health care, owning all the banks...
The stock market seems to believe the government can solve all of our problems with paper money and bureaucratic mandates. My bet is, it doesn't work... at least, not for long. And given the choice between earning less than 1% in the bank and buying gold at $1,100 per ounce, I'm buying gold.
Watching the government rack up debts that will be impossible to repay while narrowing the tax base (at least 50% of Americans pay zero federal income tax) at the same time is very scary. Not only has the government gone mad with spending and corruption, but it also expects about 10% of the population to pay for essentially all the costs. The math simply doesn't add up: 10% of the population can't (and won't) pay for all of the costs of a socialist federal government.
This has nothing to do with traditional party politics. Both parties have grown the size and responsibilities of government. Both parties have added to the national debt. And both parties support the narrowing of the tax base – because that's what makes good political sense in an unlimited democracy... Promise the voters they can live at the expense of their neighbors and future generations.
Unfortunately, we know from history this kind of political system can't last for long – for lots of reasons. One important reason: The rich will leave. Or they will stop working. They will hide their incomes or only invest in tax-protected vehicles. And we know the political response will be tougher laws on emigration, taxation, more money printing, and – eventually – capital controls that make it impossible to protect yourself from a massive currency devaluation.
That's the script. We've watched the same things happen dozens of times around the world following World War II and the introduction of a global paper currency standard, which allowed governments to run huge deficits and finance their activities through inflation and devaluation. We just never thought we'd see it happen here.
Today, the idea of leaving America in search of freedom and financial security seems like absolute madness. But it won't for long. And by the time most people wake up to the very real threats to their standard of living, it will be too late.
The trends I'm talking about are cultural and fiscal, not ideological. Read the original Communist Manifesto. It's nearly identical to today's government policies. Any politician who tries to oppose the landslide of modern entitlements is immediately labeled a kook and is unelectable.
Whether you think we ought to have free health care and drugs for retirees, more military spending than the rest of the world combined, a bankrupt retirement scheme based on government debt, government guarantees for the banks, etc. doesn't matter to me. I'm not interested in pie-in-the-sky ideas about how the world should work. I write about how the world does work.
And I can tell you this with 100% accuracy: You cannot support the world's reserve currency when you are the world's largest debtor, when you plan to finance annual deficits exceeding $2 trillion with progressive income taxes and money printing. Our economy is a charade. And when it falls apart, the consequences will be devastating.
Regards,
Porter Stansberry
More from Steve: I did my homework after I heard Porter speak, and I was surprised. Porter was right... Heavily progressive taxation, state-owned schools, government controlling the banks, printing the money, and owning manufacturing – these are not free-market ideals. They're the opposite. These are calls right out of the Communist playbook.
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Will be entering the following positions tomorow.
$ bias: - weak
Usd < Gbp
Usd < Eur
Usd < Cad
Usd < jpy
Usd < Chf
14/11/09 NYtime 18:50pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
# full USD positions taken 2.8
# of trades 17
Balance -1.0%
Profitable 52.9%
Profit factor 0.7:1
Sharpe ratio -1.678
Max peak valley draw down 3.5%
Annual return (compounded) -7.8%
ARE YOU ANGRY YET?
By Lynn Stuter
November 10, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
Tomorrow is Veterans Day, commemorating our men and women who fought (and died) to keep this country free under the Constitution and Bill of Rights established by our Founding Fathers.
On November 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama was elected to the office of president of the United States. The evidence grows that Obama is not an American citizen, was not eligible to the office he holds, should never have been allowed on the ballot in any of the 50 states.
1. Not one of the Senators of Representatives in Congress has actually seen Obama's birth certificate. They have seen pictures of a document posted on the internet, but they have not seen the actual birth certificate.
2. Hawaii claims to hold a birth certificate for Obama but that does not mean Obama was born in Hawaii. At the time Obama contends he was born (1961), Hawaii (Act 96, Session Laws of 1911, Special Session of 1909 and the Organic Act) allowed for the birth registration, in Hawaii, of foreign-born children. Until the actual birth certificate is produced and examined; where Obama was actually born is unknown and unproven.
3. No Hawaiian hospital is willing to own up to Obama being born there. Meanwhile, Obama and his half-sister have claimed he was born at two different hospitals. When Obama finally decided he was born at one particular hospital, internet sites set about to "correct" their stories to reflect his unproven claims, including the left-wing website, Snopes.com.
4. On page 26 of his book, Dreams from my Father (2004, paperback edition), Obama states he found his birth certificate in with other documents in his grandparents home. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii, such undermines the need for Hawaii to produce a laser printed document only produced after 2001—the Certification of Live Birth that has appeared in pictures on the internet, that Hawaii refuses to authenticate, and that forensic experts have dubbed a forgery.
5. Obama has claimed dual citizenship at birth, American by his mother, Kenyan by his father (actually, this would be British as Kenya was a British colony at that time). Historically, "natural-born" requires two American parents. This makes Obama ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, irrespective of the birth certificate issue. Whether a dual citizen at birth, indications are that Obama because an Indonesian citizen and remains so today.
6. African newspapers have consistently claimed that Obama is "Kenyan-born". One such article that recently surfaced is dated 2004. This means he did not have dual citizenship at birth was a British subject at birth as his mother was not of the age required to confer her citizenship to Obama.
7. Obama's paternal step-grandmother, Sarah, also claims he was born in Kenya and she was present at his birth.
8. Obama was listed, in the Soetoro/Dunham divorce papers, as dependent on Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education. As Obama was over the age of 18 at the time, he could only be considered the legal child of Lolo Soetoro if he was legally adopted by Soetoro. Evidence points to him being adopted by Lolo Soetoro, to becoming (ca 1966) an Indonesian citizen. No evidence exists that he was ever an American or that he reclaimed American citizenship. The terminology used in the divorce papers may have been to facilitate Obama in receiving foreign student aid to attend college in the United States.
9. Indications are that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat National Committee personnel knew Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible to the office of president; that the nomination of a non-American as the Democrat candidate was deliberate.
Since his usurping of the office of president, Obama has worked tirelessly to dismantle what remains of the once great nation, the United States of America. He has
1. plunged this nation $1.4 trillion dollars further in debt, more than any president in history;
2. pushed every piece of Marxist legislation to come forth from the House and Senate;
3. taken over private companies in violation of the United States Constitution;
4. used the public coffers to bail out his Wall Street benefactors;
5. used his public office to promote and assist radical left-wing organizations like the Black Panthers, ACORN, and Moveon.org;
6. surrounded himself with czars who have a known Marxist agenda;
7. traveled the world denigrating America and the American people;
8. bowed in fealty to his Muslim brothers;
9. partied hearty in the White House at taxpayer expense while Americans lost their jobs;
10. insulted America's allies at every opportunity while affiliating himself with the leaders of Marxist regimes.
More recently, one of Obama's Muslim brothers shot and killed at least 13 people, wounded at least 31 at Ft Hood in Texas. While former President George Bush and his wife, Laura, met with families, the wounded, and mourners, Obama was in DC, twisting the arms of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to pass his Marxist healthcare reform bill (H.R. 3962). After all, if he can't kill them with bullets, what better way to kill them than by withholding (rationing) health care?
In commemorating the men and women who have died for our country, for the cause of freedom, Public Television broadcast a show Sunday night on the vast cemeteries that sprinkle the European landscape where Americans fought and thousands died in World War II. They fought for their country and for those who came after them, their progeny.
And now we stand at the precipice of the totalitarian state with a man occupying the White House, usurping the Oval Office, who isn't an American; who has, by his own actions and words, declared himself a Marxist.
The United States Congress, assembled, has refused to remove this usurper sitting illegitimately as our president.
The United States Supreme Court, and lower courts, have refused to address the growing body of evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not our legitimate president; going so far as to make the ludicrous claim that they cannot overturn the vote of millions, in essence saying that popular vote (if it could even be claimed to be uncorrupted) is above the law.
The mainstream media of the United States has refused to expose this illegitimate president. Indications are that their actions are the result of threats and duress should they expose Obama for the fraud he is.
If those who are supposed to uphold our laws, according to their oath of office, refuse to do so, then they leave the American people no choice but to take matters into their own hands.
This past week we have seen three shootings occur in this country—in Florida, in Texas, and in Washington state. Each of these shootings was directed against a company or government entity seen as unjust. This is the direct result of the refusal of those entrusted to do so, to uphold the law; this is a direct result of the corruption that permeates our government and the companies now seen as partnered with it in the fascist state. When the rule of law breaks down, and it has, then anarchy reigns.
All the men and women who have died for this country, it would seem, from the War of Independence to present day, have died in vain.
Are you angry yet?
China's End Run Around the U.S.
As more free-trade deals exclude America, Beijing could dominate a new Asian trade bloc
By Dexter Roberts and Pete Engardio
November 23, 2009
President Barack Obama makes his first state visit to East Asia on Nov. 13-19. He'll start off in Tokyo, attend a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Singapore, travel to Shanghai and Beijing, then finish up in Seoul.
It's a cover-the-waterfront trip, but the focus is on China, America's key trading partner and rival. The Obama team will express its concern that Beijing aims to boost locally owned companies, from commercial aircraft makers to express delivery services, all at the expense of foreign competitors. Washington also wants China, which has more than $2 trillion in foreign reserves, to let the yuan appreciate against the dollar. Finally, Obama and top Cabinet officials will press Beijing to stoke consumer demand at home and rely less on exports to drive growth. Rebalancing the economies of China and other Asia nations "is perhaps the most important thing we can do to restore growth and jobs in the U.S.," explains one senior White House official.
Beijing will likely respond by playing up the country's accomplishments: a huge stimulus package that pumped up spending at home and kept the world from sliding deeper into recession; signs of an increase in consumption; and a modest appreciation of the yuan over the last five years. China's ministers will also point out that Washington has its own work to do, especially in cutting the U.S. budget deficit, bolstering the dollar, and devising regulations to prevent another blowout.
What happens in Beijing next week will undoubtedly be important to U.S.-China trade relations. But trade developments throughout Asia will likely affect the American position in the region as much as, or more than, those meetings in Beijing. Even while it keeps up the dialogue with Washington, China is essentially doing an end run around the U.S. in Asia by pursuing a bewildering variety of free-trade pacts with its neighbors. "What China is doing is very smart and logical," says Linda Menghetti, vice-president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, a Washington group representing U.S. multinationals. The White House, transfixed by problems at home and its own diplomatic dance with China, trails its rival in sewing up trade deals. The result could be a trade bloc dominated by the mainland.
China's trade diplomats have been exceptionally busy. Next year a deal to drop most duties on farm and manufactured goods goes into effect among China and 10 Southeast Asian nations. A landmark free-trade agreement between China and Taiwan is under discussion, while a financial-services pact with the island could be announced soon. Talks on liberalizing trade terms with Seoul and the Persian Gulf states are under way. China Premier Wen Jiabao just visited Egypt, where the Chinese announced a plan to give $5 billion in low-interest loans and export credits to Africa. In October, Vice-Premier Li Keqiang traveled Down Under to mend relations with commodity-rich Australia and discuss a new free-trade deal with New Zealand. With less success, Beijing has pushed for a regional currency that would weaken reliance on the dollar and increase the role of the yuan.
Why all the hustle? China's total trade volumes are expected to drop 20% this year largely because of the U.S. recession. Beijing has to keep exports growing to keep workers employed, and it needs commodities to turn into finished goods. China also needs other nations as customers and suppliers—if not the U.S., then Korea, Japan, Australia, and others will do.
The Obama visit, meanwhile, may yield some movement on a U.S. pact with New Zealand and Chile. But important free-trade deals with Taiwan and Korea have been held up. One reason is the U.S. approach to these agreements. In its trade talks, the U.S. typically tries for universal, all-in-one deals that cover not only lower tariffs but also services, intellectual property rights, government procurement rules, and even labor and environmental codes. Initiatives by China and other Asian nations, in contrast, focus on simpler, narrower goals, such as a cut in tariffs or easing investment rules
Chinese companies aren't complaining. After the Southeast Asian trade bloc decided to shed agricultural tariffs and ease manufacturing and property investment rules for Chinese companies, for example, Nanning-based Guangxi State Farms Group signed deals worth more than $620 million in the region. The U.S. has been talking about joining the same trade group since 2002. The delay puts American companies at a disadvantage, says Karan Bhatia, a former U.S. trade negotiator who now is General Electric's (GE) vice-president and senior counsel for international law.
CHANGING PERCEPTIONS
Most manufactured goods made in Southeast Asia will now enter China duty-free. But goods shipped from the U.S. will still face average duties of 9%. "That is a meaningful differential," Bhatia says. Much like Nafta, which prompted many global companies to produce in Mexico in order to export duty-free to America, many U.S. manufacturers will have to go to Southeast Asia to have better access to China. That would be bad for U.S. exports.
Obama is aiming to change the perception of American indifference. Trade issues will be on the agenda in Seoul and Tokyo as well as in Beijing, and Obama's team will include top economic officials Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, as well as Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
The message, says White House foreign policy spokesman Ben Rhodes, is that "the President is very committed to being competitive in this region." The Administration also knows that American executives are getting nervous. "What the companies are expressing is a strong interest in the U.S. being engaged in [Asia]," says the senior White House official. "That is our position, not to sit on the sidelines."
Rather than bringing concrete proposals, though, Obama is likely to talk in generalities, says Ernest Bower, Southeast Asia director at Washington's Center for Strategic & International Studies. "We are coming without any goodies in our basket," he adds.
The change in thinking in Tokyo and Seoul illustrates Washington's problem. In Japan, new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama aims to forge a trade group with China and South Korea. Rising exports to China have helped Japan's economy survive a plunge in trade with America. "There's a consensus among policymakers that Japan can't only rely on relations with the U.S., because Washington's global influence has diminished," says Keio University economist Masaru Kaneko.
It's a similar story with Korea: In 2002 the U.S. took 20% of Korean exports. In the first 10 months of 2009 the American share dropped to 10.5%, while China accounted for nearly 24%. No breakthroughs in U.S. trade talks with Korea are expected. "I'm sure we will hear lip service about moving the Free Trade Agreement forward," says Lee Si Wook, a trade expert at the Korea Development Institute, a government think tank. "But actions will be lacking."
$ bias: - weak
Usd < Gbp
Usd < Eur
Usd < Cad
Usd < jpy
Usd < Chf
14/11/09 NYtime 18:50pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
# full USD positions taken 2.8
# of trades 17
Balance -1.0%
Profitable 52.9%
Profit factor 0.7:1
Sharpe ratio -1.678
Max peak valley draw down 3.5%
Annual return (compounded) -7.8%
ARE YOU ANGRY YET?
By Lynn Stuter
November 10, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
Tomorrow is Veterans Day, commemorating our men and women who fought (and died) to keep this country free under the Constitution and Bill of Rights established by our Founding Fathers.
On November 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama was elected to the office of president of the United States. The evidence grows that Obama is not an American citizen, was not eligible to the office he holds, should never have been allowed on the ballot in any of the 50 states.
1. Not one of the Senators of Representatives in Congress has actually seen Obama's birth certificate. They have seen pictures of a document posted on the internet, but they have not seen the actual birth certificate.
2. Hawaii claims to hold a birth certificate for Obama but that does not mean Obama was born in Hawaii. At the time Obama contends he was born (1961), Hawaii (Act 96, Session Laws of 1911, Special Session of 1909 and the Organic Act) allowed for the birth registration, in Hawaii, of foreign-born children. Until the actual birth certificate is produced and examined; where Obama was actually born is unknown and unproven.
3. No Hawaiian hospital is willing to own up to Obama being born there. Meanwhile, Obama and his half-sister have claimed he was born at two different hospitals. When Obama finally decided he was born at one particular hospital, internet sites set about to "correct" their stories to reflect his unproven claims, including the left-wing website, Snopes.com.
4. On page 26 of his book, Dreams from my Father (2004, paperback edition), Obama states he found his birth certificate in with other documents in his grandparents home. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii, such undermines the need for Hawaii to produce a laser printed document only produced after 2001—the Certification of Live Birth that has appeared in pictures on the internet, that Hawaii refuses to authenticate, and that forensic experts have dubbed a forgery.
5. Obama has claimed dual citizenship at birth, American by his mother, Kenyan by his father (actually, this would be British as Kenya was a British colony at that time). Historically, "natural-born" requires two American parents. This makes Obama ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, irrespective of the birth certificate issue. Whether a dual citizen at birth, indications are that Obama because an Indonesian citizen and remains so today.
6. African newspapers have consistently claimed that Obama is "Kenyan-born". One such article that recently surfaced is dated 2004. This means he did not have dual citizenship at birth was a British subject at birth as his mother was not of the age required to confer her citizenship to Obama.
7. Obama's paternal step-grandmother, Sarah, also claims he was born in Kenya and she was present at his birth.
8. Obama was listed, in the Soetoro/Dunham divorce papers, as dependent on Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education. As Obama was over the age of 18 at the time, he could only be considered the legal child of Lolo Soetoro if he was legally adopted by Soetoro. Evidence points to him being adopted by Lolo Soetoro, to becoming (ca 1966) an Indonesian citizen. No evidence exists that he was ever an American or that he reclaimed American citizenship. The terminology used in the divorce papers may have been to facilitate Obama in receiving foreign student aid to attend college in the United States.
9. Indications are that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat National Committee personnel knew Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible to the office of president; that the nomination of a non-American as the Democrat candidate was deliberate.
Since his usurping of the office of president, Obama has worked tirelessly to dismantle what remains of the once great nation, the United States of America. He has
1. plunged this nation $1.4 trillion dollars further in debt, more than any president in history;
2. pushed every piece of Marxist legislation to come forth from the House and Senate;
3. taken over private companies in violation of the United States Constitution;
4. used the public coffers to bail out his Wall Street benefactors;
5. used his public office to promote and assist radical left-wing organizations like the Black Panthers, ACORN, and Moveon.org;
6. surrounded himself with czars who have a known Marxist agenda;
7. traveled the world denigrating America and the American people;
8. bowed in fealty to his Muslim brothers;
9. partied hearty in the White House at taxpayer expense while Americans lost their jobs;
10. insulted America's allies at every opportunity while affiliating himself with the leaders of Marxist regimes.
More recently, one of Obama's Muslim brothers shot and killed at least 13 people, wounded at least 31 at Ft Hood in Texas. While former President George Bush and his wife, Laura, met with families, the wounded, and mourners, Obama was in DC, twisting the arms of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to pass his Marxist healthcare reform bill (H.R. 3962). After all, if he can't kill them with bullets, what better way to kill them than by withholding (rationing) health care?
In commemorating the men and women who have died for our country, for the cause of freedom, Public Television broadcast a show Sunday night on the vast cemeteries that sprinkle the European landscape where Americans fought and thousands died in World War II. They fought for their country and for those who came after them, their progeny.
And now we stand at the precipice of the totalitarian state with a man occupying the White House, usurping the Oval Office, who isn't an American; who has, by his own actions and words, declared himself a Marxist.
The United States Congress, assembled, has refused to remove this usurper sitting illegitimately as our president.
The United States Supreme Court, and lower courts, have refused to address the growing body of evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not our legitimate president; going so far as to make the ludicrous claim that they cannot overturn the vote of millions, in essence saying that popular vote (if it could even be claimed to be uncorrupted) is above the law.
The mainstream media of the United States has refused to expose this illegitimate president. Indications are that their actions are the result of threats and duress should they expose Obama for the fraud he is.
If those who are supposed to uphold our laws, according to their oath of office, refuse to do so, then they leave the American people no choice but to take matters into their own hands.
This past week we have seen three shootings occur in this country—in Florida, in Texas, and in Washington state. Each of these shootings was directed against a company or government entity seen as unjust. This is the direct result of the refusal of those entrusted to do so, to uphold the law; this is a direct result of the corruption that permeates our government and the companies now seen as partnered with it in the fascist state. When the rule of law breaks down, and it has, then anarchy reigns.
All the men and women who have died for this country, it would seem, from the War of Independence to present day, have died in vain.
Are you angry yet?
China's End Run Around the U.S.
As more free-trade deals exclude America, Beijing could dominate a new Asian trade bloc
By Dexter Roberts and Pete Engardio
November 23, 2009
President Barack Obama makes his first state visit to East Asia on Nov. 13-19. He'll start off in Tokyo, attend a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Singapore, travel to Shanghai and Beijing, then finish up in Seoul.
It's a cover-the-waterfront trip, but the focus is on China, America's key trading partner and rival. The Obama team will express its concern that Beijing aims to boost locally owned companies, from commercial aircraft makers to express delivery services, all at the expense of foreign competitors. Washington also wants China, which has more than $2 trillion in foreign reserves, to let the yuan appreciate against the dollar. Finally, Obama and top Cabinet officials will press Beijing to stoke consumer demand at home and rely less on exports to drive growth. Rebalancing the economies of China and other Asia nations "is perhaps the most important thing we can do to restore growth and jobs in the U.S.," explains one senior White House official.
Beijing will likely respond by playing up the country's accomplishments: a huge stimulus package that pumped up spending at home and kept the world from sliding deeper into recession; signs of an increase in consumption; and a modest appreciation of the yuan over the last five years. China's ministers will also point out that Washington has its own work to do, especially in cutting the U.S. budget deficit, bolstering the dollar, and devising regulations to prevent another blowout.
What happens in Beijing next week will undoubtedly be important to U.S.-China trade relations. But trade developments throughout Asia will likely affect the American position in the region as much as, or more than, those meetings in Beijing. Even while it keeps up the dialogue with Washington, China is essentially doing an end run around the U.S. in Asia by pursuing a bewildering variety of free-trade pacts with its neighbors. "What China is doing is very smart and logical," says Linda Menghetti, vice-president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade, a Washington group representing U.S. multinationals. The White House, transfixed by problems at home and its own diplomatic dance with China, trails its rival in sewing up trade deals. The result could be a trade bloc dominated by the mainland.
China's trade diplomats have been exceptionally busy. Next year a deal to drop most duties on farm and manufactured goods goes into effect among China and 10 Southeast Asian nations. A landmark free-trade agreement between China and Taiwan is under discussion, while a financial-services pact with the island could be announced soon. Talks on liberalizing trade terms with Seoul and the Persian Gulf states are under way. China Premier Wen Jiabao just visited Egypt, where the Chinese announced a plan to give $5 billion in low-interest loans and export credits to Africa. In October, Vice-Premier Li Keqiang traveled Down Under to mend relations with commodity-rich Australia and discuss a new free-trade deal with New Zealand. With less success, Beijing has pushed for a regional currency that would weaken reliance on the dollar and increase the role of the yuan.
Why all the hustle? China's total trade volumes are expected to drop 20% this year largely because of the U.S. recession. Beijing has to keep exports growing to keep workers employed, and it needs commodities to turn into finished goods. China also needs other nations as customers and suppliers—if not the U.S., then Korea, Japan, Australia, and others will do.
The Obama visit, meanwhile, may yield some movement on a U.S. pact with New Zealand and Chile. But important free-trade deals with Taiwan and Korea have been held up. One reason is the U.S. approach to these agreements. In its trade talks, the U.S. typically tries for universal, all-in-one deals that cover not only lower tariffs but also services, intellectual property rights, government procurement rules, and even labor and environmental codes. Initiatives by China and other Asian nations, in contrast, focus on simpler, narrower goals, such as a cut in tariffs or easing investment rules
Chinese companies aren't complaining. After the Southeast Asian trade bloc decided to shed agricultural tariffs and ease manufacturing and property investment rules for Chinese companies, for example, Nanning-based Guangxi State Farms Group signed deals worth more than $620 million in the region. The U.S. has been talking about joining the same trade group since 2002. The delay puts American companies at a disadvantage, says Karan Bhatia, a former U.S. trade negotiator who now is General Electric's (GE) vice-president and senior counsel for international law.
CHANGING PERCEPTIONS
Most manufactured goods made in Southeast Asia will now enter China duty-free. But goods shipped from the U.S. will still face average duties of 9%. "That is a meaningful differential," Bhatia says. Much like Nafta, which prompted many global companies to produce in Mexico in order to export duty-free to America, many U.S. manufacturers will have to go to Southeast Asia to have better access to China. That would be bad for U.S. exports.
Obama is aiming to change the perception of American indifference. Trade issues will be on the agenda in Seoul and Tokyo as well as in Beijing, and Obama's team will include top economic officials Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, as well as Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
The message, says White House foreign policy spokesman Ben Rhodes, is that "the President is very committed to being competitive in this region." The Administration also knows that American executives are getting nervous. "What the companies are expressing is a strong interest in the U.S. being engaged in [Asia]," says the senior White House official. "That is our position, not to sit on the sidelines."
Rather than bringing concrete proposals, though, Obama is likely to talk in generalities, says Ernest Bower, Southeast Asia director at Washington's Center for Strategic & International Studies. "We are coming without any goodies in our basket," he adds.
The change in thinking in Tokyo and Seoul illustrates Washington's problem. In Japan, new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama aims to forge a trade group with China and South Korea. Rising exports to China have helped Japan's economy survive a plunge in trade with America. "There's a consensus among policymakers that Japan can't only rely on relations with the U.S., because Washington's global influence has diminished," says Keio University economist Masaru Kaneko.
It's a similar story with Korea: In 2002 the U.S. took 20% of Korean exports. In the first 10 months of 2009 the American share dropped to 10.5%, while China accounted for nearly 24%. No breakthroughs in U.S. trade talks with Korea are expected. "I'm sure we will hear lip service about moving the Free Trade Agreement forward," says Lee Si Wook, a trade expert at the Korea Development Institute, a government think tank. "But actions will be lacking."
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Will be entering the following positions tomorow.
$ bias: - weak
Usd < Gbp
Usd < Eur
Usd < Cad
Usd < jpy
Usd < Chf
14/11/09 NYtime 18:50pm
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
# full USD positions taken 2.8
# of trades 17
Balance -1.0%
Profitable 52.9%
Profit factor 0.7:1
Sharpe ratio -1.678
Max peak valley draw down 3.5%
Annual return (compounded) -7.8%
My six month trial using Collective2 as an auditor has come to an end. I will no longer be using Collective2 as a third party verification due to there late start at the begining of a week. The platform I had always used the past few years opens and starts moving about five hours before Collective2. By the time Collective2 has opened, many times markets had already moved a substantial amount.
I think Collective2 is a great platform to verifiy ones strategy, but caters to traders who are taking the majority of there positions after markets have moved and triggering entrance signals.
Classic Fx (collective2.com)
Balance +0.303%
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Bias for the week is short USD.
Lumber prices are up along with high grade copper and aluminum. Obviously having weakened the USD versus lumber and manufacturing metals, leaves USD business ventures having to spend more, along with a weakened USD as the result.
Housing starts are off almost -6%, that combined with high material prices, drastically neutralizes any chances of strength in the USD.
Looking over bonds, we have bonds making new lows, also resulting in traders having to find safety in other products besides the USD.
Usd/Cad
Usd/Chf
Usd/Jpy
Position value: 0.49% of balance.
Classic Fx
start date (10/04/10)
Closed Balance
+0.0%
The Latest Gold Fraud Bombshell: Canada's Only Bullion Bank Gold Vault Is Practically Empty
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/07/2010 10:30 -0500
Continuing on the trail of exposing what is rapidly becoming one of the largest frauds in commodity markets history is the most recent interview by Eric King with GATA's Adrian Douglas, Harvey Orgen (who recently testified before the CFTC hearing) and his son, Lenny, in which the two discuss their visit to the only bullion bank vault in Canada, that of ScotiaMocatta, located at 40 King Street West in Toronto, and find the vault is practically empty. This is a relevant segue to a class action lawsuit filed against Morgan Stanley, which was settled out of court, in which it was alleged that Morgan Stanley told clients it was selling them precious metals that they would own in full and that the company would store, yet even despite charging storage fees was not in actual possession of the bullion. It appears that this kind of lack of physical holdings by all who claim to have gold in storage, is pervasive as the actual gold globally is held primarily in paper or electronic form. Lenny Organ who was the person to enter the vault of ScotiaMocatta, says "What shocked me was how little gold and silver they actually had." Lenny describes exactly how much (or little as the case may be) silver was available - roughly 60,000 ounces. As for gold - 210 400 oz bars, 4,000 maples, 500 eagles, 10 kilo bars, 10 one kilogram pieces of gold nugget form, which Adrian Douglas calculates as being $100 million worth, which is just one tenth of what the Royal Mint of Canada sold in 2008, or over $1 billion worth of gold. As Orgen concludes: "The game ends when the people who own all these paper obligations say enough and take physical delivery, and that's when the mess will occur."
Also note the interesting detour into what Stephan Spicer of the Central Fund Of Canada, said regarding his friend at a major bank, who wanted access to his 15,000 oz of silver, and had to wait 6-8 weeks for its to be flown in from Hong Kong.
It is funny that central bankers thought they could take the ponzi mentality of infinite dilution of all assets coupled with infinite debt issuance, as they have done to fiat money, and apply it to gold, in essence piling leverage upon leverage. They underestimated gold holders' willingness to be diluted into perpetuity - when the realization that gold owned is just 1% of what is physically deliverable, you will see the biggest bank run in history.
Lumber prices are up along with high grade copper and aluminum. Obviously having weakened the USD versus lumber and manufacturing metals, leaves USD business ventures having to spend more, along with a weakened USD as the result.
Housing starts are off almost -6%, that combined with high material prices, drastically neutralizes any chances of strength in the USD.
Looking over bonds, we have bonds making new lows, also resulting in traders having to find safety in other products besides the USD.
Usd/Cad
Usd/Chf
Usd/Jpy
Position value: 0.49% of balance.
Classic Fx
start date (10/04/10)
Closed Balance
+0.0%
The Latest Gold Fraud Bombshell: Canada's Only Bullion Bank Gold Vault Is Practically Empty
Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/07/2010 10:30 -0500
Continuing on the trail of exposing what is rapidly becoming one of the largest frauds in commodity markets history is the most recent interview by Eric King with GATA's Adrian Douglas, Harvey Orgen (who recently testified before the CFTC hearing) and his son, Lenny, in which the two discuss their visit to the only bullion bank vault in Canada, that of ScotiaMocatta, located at 40 King Street West in Toronto, and find the vault is practically empty. This is a relevant segue to a class action lawsuit filed against Morgan Stanley, which was settled out of court, in which it was alleged that Morgan Stanley told clients it was selling them precious metals that they would own in full and that the company would store, yet even despite charging storage fees was not in actual possession of the bullion. It appears that this kind of lack of physical holdings by all who claim to have gold in storage, is pervasive as the actual gold globally is held primarily in paper or electronic form. Lenny Organ who was the person to enter the vault of ScotiaMocatta, says "What shocked me was how little gold and silver they actually had." Lenny describes exactly how much (or little as the case may be) silver was available - roughly 60,000 ounces. As for gold - 210 400 oz bars, 4,000 maples, 500 eagles, 10 kilo bars, 10 one kilogram pieces of gold nugget form, which Adrian Douglas calculates as being $100 million worth, which is just one tenth of what the Royal Mint of Canada sold in 2008, or over $1 billion worth of gold. As Orgen concludes: "The game ends when the people who own all these paper obligations say enough and take physical delivery, and that's when the mess will occur."
Also note the interesting detour into what Stephan Spicer of the Central Fund Of Canada, said regarding his friend at a major bank, who wanted access to his 15,000 oz of silver, and had to wait 6-8 weeks for its to be flown in from Hong Kong.
It is funny that central bankers thought they could take the ponzi mentality of infinite dilution of all assets coupled with infinite debt issuance, as they have done to fiat money, and apply it to gold, in essence piling leverage upon leverage. They underestimated gold holders' willingness to be diluted into perpetuity - when the realization that gold owned is just 1% of what is physically deliverable, you will see the biggest bank run in history.
Depth Trade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,848
- Likes
- 98
Still holding USD short versus Cad, Chf, Jpy.Bias for the week is short USD.
Lumber prices are up along with high grade copper and aluminum. Obviously having weakened the USD versus lumber and manufacturing metals, leaves USD business ventures having to spend more, along with a weakened USD as the result.
Housing starts are off almost -6%, that combined with high material prices, drastically neutralizes any chances of strength in the USD.
Looking over bonds, we have bonds making new lows, also resulting in traders having to find safety in other products besides the USD.
Usd/Cad
Usd/Chf
Usd/Jpy
Position value: 0.49% of balance.
Classic Fx
start date (10/04/10)
Closed Balance
+0.0%
[/I]
Usd/cad +2.6 pips
Usd/chf +102.1 pips
Usd/jpy -1.9 pips
Apr 9, 5:18 PM (ET)
By BERNARD CONDON
NEW YORK (AP) - Think Dow 11,000 is a big deal? Think again.
The Dow Jones industrial average briefly hit the milestone Friday for the first time in 18 months before closing at 10,997.
But Wall Street analysts who study key stock index levels say all the attention paid to 11,000 is more like a big distraction. They worry that investors are ignoring another number at their peril: The surprisingly low volume of trading. As stocks have risen over the past year, the volume reflects the vulnerability of a rally riding on the shoulders of relatively few participants.
And that's given pause even to the bulls.
"It worries a lot of us," says Wellington Shields' Frank Gretz, a technical analyst who specializes in pinpointing market levels at which stocks might suddenly rise or fall. He wonders whether the volume signals that the rally could soon peter out, like the big surges that preceded steep declines in the 1930s in the U.S. and in Japan more recently.
Louise Yamada, a 29-year veteran of technical analysis who heads an eponymous firm in New York, says she's not just concerned but confused.
"Why is the market going up?" she asks. "You usually don't see advances without volume."
The widely cited Dow index, which tracks stocks of 30 companies, is up 70 percent from its lows of more than a year ago. The climb has been one of the strongest in history, and it may herald a strong recovery. But it's been propelled by relatively few trades.
The 200-day moving average volume on the New York Stock Exchange is now at 1.2 billion shares, down from 1.6 billion, or nearly 25 percent, a year ago.
In other words, if there is wisdom in crowds, the stock market is getting dumber.
One reason volume is lower: Main Street investors have largely stayed out of the market, abandoning it to hedge funds, pension funds and other professional investors. Last year, individuals, as tracked by mutual fund flows, yanked $14 billion from stock mutual funds.
Bulls argue that the Dow breaching 11,000 might convince ordinary investors that the rally will last. And that will bring a flood of money into the market, pushing indexes higher.
But Janney Montgomery Scott analyst Dan Wantrobski isn't convinced.
"Main Street investors need confidence in the economy more than the Dow at 11,000," he says. "They need a drop in the unemployment rate."
On that front, there are signs of hope.
Last week the Labor Department reported 162,000 jobs were created in March, the most in three years. The unemployment rate was unchanged, at 9.7 percent.
Another boost to the outlook came Thursday from retailers: Sales at stores open at least a year rose 9 percent last month.
And, of course, there are plenty of other indicators of stock market health besides volume.
Technical analysts will make your head dizzy with their talk of "double tops,""double bottoms" and "Fibonacci retracements." Some of them prefer to make the case for a bull market.
For starters, they like that most stocks in various indexes have rallied, and not just a few powerful ones, as is sometimes the case. They also note that nearly nine out of 10 stocks are trading above their 200-day average price - a bullish sign.
Then there's the argument that maybe volume isn't really all it's cracked up to be.
In the last bull market, the trend was completely opposite the one today. The 200-day average daily volume surged to 1.7 billion shares in late 2007, up more than a third from early 2002, as individuals grew more confident in the rally.
As it turns out, they should have sat on their cash. In October 2007, shortly after volume peaked, the market began to collapse. Investors will still be down 22 percent - even if the Dow does eventually close above 11,000.
