nuckin_futz

Members
  • Content count

    4,004
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

nuckin_futz last won the day on December 26 2014

nuckin_futz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,185 Gaming the system

About nuckin_futz

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Victoria
  • Interests
    Travel, financial markets,... chicks, cars and the 3rd world war.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,157 profile views
  1. It's actually a mistake she's made on 3 separate occasions. Once is a mistake. 3 times is deliberate.
  2. 2018 is going to be a referendum on Trump. Nothing more, nothing less. 2018 is a long time away. If he delivers, his shenanigans will be tolerated. If he can't deliver (Border Wall, repeal/replace ObamaCare with something better, manufacturing jobs, 4% GDP) his bombastic style will wear thin and his tomfoolery will consume him. He and the GOP will pay a price. It's put up or shut up time.
  3. History tends to repeat itself. When the Dems swept in, in 2009 they had everything and failed to see the Tea Party movement coming. Or if they did see it coming they did not take it seriously. In 2008 Obama secured 365 electoral votes and beat the McCain/Palin ticket by 9.5 million votes. They figured they had a mandate to govern their way. The Right did not respect those totals as a mandate and the push back was immense. Now you have Trump who secured 304 electoral votes and lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes. He's acting like he has a mandate and is governing as such. Recent history tells us that is no mandate. The Tea Party was very good at organizing and mobilizing. Dismissing that was a mistake. Fast forward to today. You have the Left organizing and mobilizing in a manner that is putting the Tea Party to shame. Will it fizzle out by mid term elections? That remains to be seen. If it doesn't and continues to grow the Right had better watch out. History says as much. Trump has promised much on the economic front. much of which it will be near impossible to deliver. +4% GDP growth, yeah good luck with that. Stay tuned, it's just getting started.
  4. I was looking forward to reading this then I saw it's by Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore. Moore is an apologist and the very definition of a partisan hack who's also a Trump financial advisor. Then you have Kudlow a heavily partisan reformed major cokehead. The same Kudlow who had a $10,000 a month cocaine habit and once while he was a manager at Morgan Stanley blew off a meeting with potential middle east investors in favor of going on a week long cocaine bender. Resulting in his getting fired. Kudlow hasn't stopped tooting Regan's horn in decades and has no credibility. I knew what the article was going to say before I even read it. Even the very anti Obama Zerohedge enjoys poking fun at his credibility. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-27/larry-kudlow-idiot-least-he’s-dangerous http://gawker.com/5469601/larry-kudlow-cokehead Neither of those 2 guys write bi-partisan articles.
  5. Yeah I have seen that before. But not for about 7 years so thanks for that trip down memory lane. While we're reminiscing about the financial collapse allow me to post my favorite clip from those times.
  6. Opinions are fine but you haven't articulated why you have this opinion. What did Clinton do in your opinion that was worse than the change in the net capital rule? Which happened under Bush.
  7. I'd say 'ice orca' is very correct. The sub prime mortgage crisis was very manageable. Sub Prime mortgages made up a tiny percentage of the overall mortgage market. What lead to the problem cascading out of control was the insane way those mortgages and others were securitized and over leveraged by Wall St. in a grossly irresponsible manner. The impetus for what lead to the mess was the changing of the "net capital rule". This is all too often glossed over. In April 2004 the five biggest investment banks (*Goldman, Morgan, Merrill, Bear and Lehman, not commercial banks) lobbied the SEC to change the rule. Changing the rule would lower the amount of capital the firms had to hold in reserve to weather losses in turbulent times and instead allow them to invest that money anyway they saw fit. The thinking was they'd never do anything or take excessive risk that would harm their own interests. It was allowing the fox to guard the hen house. The SEC approved the rule change. The Chairman at the time was William H. Donaldson a Bush appointee. He served from 2003-2005. The guy who replaced him was Christopher Cox, who also was a friend of business and had sh** for brains. The leverage at Bear Sterns would eventually rise to 33:1. Meaning that for every 1 dollar they had in capital they were borrowing and investing $33. That's nuts. There were many smaller factors that all contributed such as deregulation, pushing home ownership, the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, liar loans, Standard and Poor's dereliction of duty etc. These can be traced back to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush jr. None of these on their own would be a big enough problem to do anything significant. The regulators abdicating their responsibilities and allowing investment banks to run wild in 2004 did. It was like collecting every tiny issue and dumping them in a big pile and lighting it on fire. The events that would eventually lead to the full blown crisis were sown in April 2004 at this meeting. The SEC under the Obama administration would later implement "stress tests" for the banks to make sure they had enough capital to weather future financial storms. If they failed they had to raise capital. *Only 2 of those IB's would survive in their current form and those two needed massive capital injections from the Fed. The other three either went tits up or were taken over for peanuts. That's how disastrous this rule change was. If anyone has even a passing interest in what happened. I highly recommend this article from 2008. It sums it up in plain English rather than the usual financial jargon. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html
  8. Quarterly earnings released Thursday.
  9. An ETF will pay out better because you will encounter no loads and no management fees. You'll just pay a dinky commission to buy and sell. With your S&P example, the ETF is (SPY). If you want to maximize your gains you'll have to manually re-invest your dividends. Where a mutual fund would take care of that for you. There's ETF's for just about everything. The main ones are fine (SPY, QQQ, DIA, GLD, XLF etc). Avoid ones with horrible liquidity. Avoid double and triple ETF's like the plaugue. They're not what they appear to be.
  10. I am aware of his background. My opinion of his intelligence is based off the bizarre things he posts on Twitter. If he knew he was being recorded why did he lie about it? He knew the rules had been changed by then. That is either incredibly dumb or incredibly arrogant. All of this could have been avoided if there was one administration at a time. Making introductory phone calls to your future counterparts is fine. Calling the day sanctions are levied and asking the recipient not to retaliate is another. Especially when the Pres Elect is dumb enough to congratulate Putin on not retaliating on Twitter. Obama didn't get Flynn by changing the rules. Flynn tripped himself up by lying. He lied after the rules had changed. I see what Trump and his cronies are doing more as finger painting, but time will tell.
  11. My guess is he changed the rules because of what he had been briefed with regarding Russian involvement and felt Trump would sweep it all under the rug. I can't really see Trump demanding Congress investigate this, can you? No one set up Flynn. Simply put he was too dumb to know that calls to foreign diplomats (among other foreign officials) are regularly collected as intelligence gathering. I almost +1'd you for "globalist Soros agenda", couldn't quite do it but I did let out a hearty chuckle.
  12. Yeah I know, "fake news, fake news". So fake their breaking of this story caused the President to demand the resignation of Mr. Pants On Fire. How would they know this? It's called investigative journalism.
  13. Umm everyone knows. Flynn reportedly lied to FBI about sanctions talk with Russian envoy Former national security adviser Michael Flynn denied in an FBI interview last month that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with Moscow's ambassador to the United States, contradicting transcripts of intercepted communications between the two men, the Washington Post reported Thursday. Flynn, who resigned from President Donald Trump's administration Monday evening, could face criminal charges. However, some officials told the Post that bringing a case against him could prove difficult. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/16/flynn-reportedly-lied-to-fbi-about-sanctions-talk-with-russian-envoy.html
  14. Umm yeah about that. You're not going to like this............ This came out today. It's a survey of 91 historians. The criteria used is as follows......... C-SPAN's academic advisors devised a survey in which participants used a one ("not effective") to ten ("very effective") scale to rate each president on ten qualities of presidential leadership: "Public Persuasion," "Crisis Leadership," "Economic Management," "Moral Authority," "International Relations," "Administrative Skills," "Relations with Congress," "Vision/Setting An Agenda," "Pursued Equal Justice for All," and "Performance Within the Context of His Times." Surveys were distributed to historians and other professional observers of the presidency, drawn from a database of C-SPAN's programming, augmented by suggestions from the academic advisors. Ninety-one agreed to participate. Participants were guaranteed that individual survey results remain confidential. Survey responses were tabulated by averaging all responses in a given category for each president. Each of the ten categories was given equal weighting in arriving at a president's total score. https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall *Not surprised that Buchanan is dead last. When you try to undo everything Lincoln did, history isn't going to be very kind to you. How Hoover escaped the bottom 5 is puzzling. Historians Survey Results Category Total Scores/Overall Rankings President's Name 2017 Final Scores Overall Rankings 2017 2009 2000 Abraham Lincoln 906 1 1 1 George Washington 867 2 2 3 Franklin D. Roosevelt 854 3 3 2 Theodore Roosevelt 807 4 4 4 Dwight D. Eisenhower 744 5 8 9 Harry S. Truman 737 6 5 5 Thomas Jefferson 727 7 7 7 John F. Kennedy 722 8 6 8 Ronald Reagan 691 9 10 11 Lyndon Baines Johnson 686 10 11 10 Woodrow Wilson 683 11 9 6 Barack Obama 668 12 NA NA James Monroe 645 13 14 14 James K. Polk 637 14 12 12 Bill Clinton 633 15 15 21 William McKinley Jr. 626 16 16 15 James Madison 610 17 20 18 Andrew Jackson 609 18 13 13 John Adams 603 19 17 16 George H. W. Bush 596 20 18 20 John Quincy Adams 589 21 19 19 Ulysses S. Grant 556 22 23 33 Grover Cleveland 540 23 21 17 William H. Taft 528 24 24 24 Gerald R. Ford Jr. 509 25 22 23 Jimmy Carter 506 26 25 22 Calvin Coolidge 505 27 26 27 Richard M. Nixon 486 28 27 25 James A. Garfield 481 29 28 29 Benjamin Harrison 461 30 30 31 Zachary Taylor 458 31 29 28 Rutherford B. Hayes 458 32 33 26 George W. Bush 455 33 36 NA Martin Van Buren 450 34 31 30 Chester Arthur 446 35 32 32 Herbert Hoover 416 36 34 34 Millard Fillmore 393 37 37 35 William Henry Harrison 383 38 39 37 John Tyler 372 39 35 36 Warren G. Harding 360 40 38 38 Franklin Pierce 315 41 40 39 Andrew Johnson 275 42 41 40 James Buchanan 245 43 42 41