anything suspicious about this financial chart

tomterm8

penguine wrote: »

Much of the US public doesn't either. They're already screaming about the incoming tide of socialism.

I agree. the US public don't want it. But you have a choice... leave bankrupt financial companies on life support for the next decade, as they take increasingly stupid risks, or nationalise.

If the financial industry isn't changed so that it's no longer too big to fail, then inevitably it will fail. Again and again.

As it is, you have all the pain of socialism, with none of the benefits. Banks are hovering up vast amounts of tax payers money, and any reward for success goes to shareholders, while failure comes out of the ordinary American citizen.

bubblesmoney

its is not just the usa in the PIPP schemes there but also in the private public partnership scheme here. i had mentioned earlier this month about public getting scr*wed 3 times over by these schemes but looked like some people didnt like that view.

anyway here are the same doubts i had then, which are now being expressed on bloomberg now by some authors, so probably the people who opposed my view then would be more likely to view the similar bloomberg article with less derision!

Wall Street’s 1929 Scams Return in Geithner Plan: Jonathan Weil

see how people with conflicting interests are funnelling govt money into private companies to bailout bets of their counterparties with whom they again have significant personal investment interests. doesnt this ring a bell about what the bloomberg article linked is hinting at and what i was saying these bailouts are an elaborate charade by vested interests to scr*w the taxpayer even more.

purch

Nothing suspicious i guess like plunge protection teams or their equivalents in action.

I guess whenever the market moves in a way you disagree with, the best option is to think it must be suspicious !!!

bubblesmoney

purch wrote: »

I guess whenever the market moves in a way you disagree with, the best option is to think it must be suspicious !!!

i know markets move irrationally many times and that it is difficult to predict with certainity for anyone. when an industry as a whole has been battered it surely would be surprising to see their shares doing well across the board wrt the rest of the market. just like car manufacturers are not selling many cars now and their shares will be hit as well, but in that scenario if their shares started to do very well compared to the rest of the market then the numbers wouldnt add up for me.

i can understand if individual companies in that sector that are doing well & have their shares going up though.

StevieJ

They have been marked down dramatically to reflect what went on before, now they are reporting better results than the analysts predicted and the shares outperform. What is so odd about that.

I posted this on the savings board on 21/1/09, someone was aware of the lay of the land

JP Morgan boss just lashed out 11.5 million $ on company stock, maybe we are reaching a turning point.

tomterm8

I think people might be interested in http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/stress-test-cliff-notes.html . Basically, the methodology of the US bank stress test has been announced. It is not credible.

bubblesmoney

purch wrote: »

I guess whenever the market moves in a way you disagree with, the best option is to think it must be suspicious !!!

market movements might have been because the info that might badly affect markets was and is deliberately suppressed by people in power. before any mention of me reading too many conspiracy theories please read the recent reports of the testimony of ken lewis (BoA) about how paulson and bernanke armtwisted him to not to disclose merryl lynch losses to general public and BoA share holders as required by law. they actively subverted the law to hide the losses from share holders and other investors.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America Corp. to not discuss its increasingly troubled plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. -- a deal that later triggered a government bailout of BofA -- according to testimony by Kenneth Lewis, the bank's chief executive.
Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York's attorney general in February

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045610029046349.html

see the analysis on bloomberg about this issue

The spectacle of Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson running roughshod over Kenneth Lewis and his minions at Bank of America Corp. raises a pivotal question for all Americans: Is the U.S. a nation of laws, or a nation of banks?
Let’s start by examining the facts disclosed last week in a letter by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, while taking pains to present the actions of each player in this drama in the fairest possible light.
Both Bernanke and Paulson in mid-December knew Bank of America was obliged by statute to publicly disclose the huge losses Merrill Lynch & Co. had racked up that month. ................ Instead of making sure the public was fully informed of the losses before Bank of America completed its purchase of Merrill on Jan. 1, they did all they could to keep the secret safe.
.........
It didn’t matter that investors were buying and selling billions of the banks’ shares without a clue that Merrill had lost more than $12 billion during the fourth quarter. Bernanke and Paulson had a singular objective -- to get the Merrill deal done, on time -- even if that meant duping the stock market and threatening to fire Lewis as chief executive officer, along with the company’s board.

so if they (regulatory authorities and treasury officials) lied about that issue and arm twisted a company to not disclose the true state of its finances to the public. then how can anyone trust any of their words or deeds anymore. also this chairman who got arm twisted and hid the info, what will his assurances be worth anymore about the company and its present investments. extrapolate the same to all other large banks there. if they arm twisted one company into not disclosing the true state of affairs then why wouldnt they have done the same at other banks as well, all in the name of preventing systemic risk of course!

other countries seem to be catching on to the con jobs orchestrated by banks and no wonder the banks want to be tried under uk laws when they break criminal laws in other countries. companies owned in usa and operated from here in uk want to fly here to have any accusations against them defended in the uk when they break criminal laws of other countries. why does that happen? because regulators are lax and pliant and allow anything as long as profits get funneled into the uk and usa irrespective of whether other countries get conned. well looks like other countries are taking action now while the SEC and FSA are still snoozing.
Italy Seizes Millions in Assets From Four Banks

The jurisdiction of this case is in dispute. Last January, days after Milan announced that it was suing the banks in civil court, JPMorgan filed a countersuit in the High Court in London to have the claim heard there instead.
In their presentations, the banks noted that they were regulated by the Financial Securities Authority in Britain, an agency similar to the S.E.C., and that their contracts were subject to British laws.
But the Italian investigators argue that they have authority to investigate any fraud. British law “would be applicable to civil proceedings, not a criminal one, such as this,” said an investigator involved in the case who said he was not authorized to speak about a continuing investigation. According to the Italian magistrate, British rules may have been violated as well. Citing the opinion of David Dobell, a former British financial regulator who is now a partner in CCL, a compliance consultancy, the prosecutor claimed that the banks breached their fiduciary duties as defined by the F.S.A. when dealing with a nonprofessional customer like Milan.

more fraud being run out of london based operations are being investigated abroad. but what is the fsa doing about these?????

Sources say investigators are digging into whether Joseph Cassano, the former head of London-based AIG Financial Products, and two of his top deputies - Andrew Forster, an executive vice president, and Thomas Athan, a managing director - committed securities fraud and other federal crimes,

see link

StevieJ

But you can't hide this, (posted above)

JP Morgan boss just lashed out 11.5 million $ on company stock,

bubblesmoney

StevieJ wrote: »

But you can't hide this, (posted above)

JP Morgan boss just lashed out 11.5 million $ on company stock,

i dont know if he had a contract with the company as a perk allowing him the choice of buying shares at a discount to market price. did he exercise such an option???

StevieJ

bubblesmoney wrote: »

i dont know if he had a contract with the company as a perk allowing him the choice of buying shares at a discount to market price. did he exercise such an option???

I don't think many banking bosses would be exercising their options, with the catastophic fall in the share prices.