http://wallstreetexaminer.com/?p=2486

I think this is trouble.

Looks like they have already borrowed all of the 4/17 tax reciepts. If that's the case, no market boosting debt paydown as usual in mid-late April.

Ron Onsana, the too big to fail financials are a BUY.

Banks didn't look to have any holding power today..............

[attachmentid=96963]

If GS is an early warning signal then it hit the 50dma on lighter volume and closed under Thursday's high

http://www.StockSharePublishing.com/ChartL..._1206389749.png

IT bottom for now

carl futia is finally vindicated

Lee.....who would have thunk it?

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/index.html

The Guardian. “Home sellers pushed up asking prices for property last month, despite a significant slowdown in the housing market and a lending squeeze by the major banks, according to figures compiled by online estate agents Rightmove.”

“Rightmove said sellers were deluding themselves that buyers were prepared to pay high prices at a time of heightened anxiety. It said sellers were ‘ignoring market reality’ when the credit crunch was already cutting deep into the number of sales and consistently dragging down sale prices.”

Carl is a genius!...He's bankrupt....but a genius....

[attachmentid=96964]

That's in Britain. Not happening here to any great extent, that's for sure. California major metros down from 0.7% to3% in the last month. Florida markets flat to down 0.9% in what is normally the strongest month. New York area markets were mixed. DC down 1.9%. Boston flat, Baltimore up 0.4%, Philly, the cheapest major Northeast metro up 1.4%. http://www.housingtracker.net/


Sp

Muni ppl pressuring Ratling agencies "If crappy structured products and MBS can have fictitious AAA ratings, why can't we?"


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...g5bY&refer=home

"More than a dozen states, cities and public agencies said in a March 4 letter to Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's that the current system exaggerates the risk municipal borrowers will default on their debt."

They were going crazy on CNBS, housing sales were up, first time in seven months. Bob Pissonme- Homies are up 50% from their lows.
It looks like they are going to the give us bears another great shorting opportunity.

Think I'll invite Bob over for my next barbeque.....

[attachmentid=96965]

It is good to know Barney is protecting the public from the Fraudsters.

It's so pathetic. It's all become so corrupt & pathetic.

Right on Karl

THIS IS UNLAWFUL AS IT IS CLEARLY A BAILOUT ON THE BACKS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC; EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN JUST GOT THEIR POCKET PICKED TO THE TUNE OF $300 FOR BEAR STEARNS BOND AND STOCKHOLDERS, AND IT WAS DONE WITHOUT A VOTE BY CONGRESS!

As if this wasn't enough, this morning on Crapvision Jim Cramer said, when it was brought up that this was in fact a picking of American's pockets to the tune of $300 each, that the common man does not know jack!

In other words, just to be straight with everyone, JIM CRAMER THINKS ITS JUST FINE IF THE LAW IS IGNORED AND YOU, THE COMMON MAN'S POCKET, IS PICKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTLY SUPPORTING WALL STREET AND ITS OBSCENE BONUSES PAID OUT OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS WHEN WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE **INDICTMENTS** AIMED AT EVERY ONE OF THESE FIRMS - AND THEIR EXECUTIVES
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

Shorty,

thanks for that how to trade link in your signature. That site cleared up a few things for me.

What pissed me off this morning is that the huge BSC move happened in the premarket session, which I don't have access to. How come the comman man is locked out of stuff like that?

I rarely call my senators and congresscritter (because in most cases it is a waste of time and effort), but I did on this issue to demand an investigation into the BSC deal because it smells like stool. Don't think we'll get one, but lawsuits have got to be on the table right now by shareholders

Standby, here is what is coming. I would be a great trader if the government picked up my losers.

March 24 (Bloomberg) -- Forget lower interest rates. For the Federal Reserve to keep the financial markets from imploding it needs to buy troubled mortgage bonds from banks and securities firms, say the world's biggest Treasury investors.

Even after cutting rates by 3 percentage points since September, expanding the range of securities it accepts as collateral for loans and giving dealers access to its discount window, the Fed has been unable to promote confidence. The difference between what the government and banks pay for three- month loans almost doubled in the past month to 1.69 percentage points.

The only tool left may be for the Fed to help facilitate a Resolution Trust Corp.-type agency that would buy bonds backed by home loans, said Bill Gross, manager of the world's biggest bond fund at Pacific Investment Management Co. While purchasing some of the $6 trillion mortgage securities outstanding would take problem debt off the balance sheets of banks and alleviate the cause of the credit crunch, it would put taxpayers at risk.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...g5bY&refer=home
``An RTC-type structure is interesting, and it may not be that much of a burden on taxpayers in the long run,'' said Barr Segal, a managing director at Los Angeles-based TCW Group Inc. who helps oversee $80 billion in fixed-income assets. The government should purchase the mortgages and reissue ``debt that's backed by the U.S. government and there you go, you've unclogged the drain,'' he said.

I found shortys link very helpful too I will add one more tip. just push one of these buttons - see, its easy!

How come the comman man is locked out of stuff like that?

Maybe the common man is locked out of that stuff....but not the con man....

[attachmentid=96967]

The guy is getting hysterical because his short positions get blown out.

You're prolly right. But I think there's more to it than that . . .

You called him demagogue recently, and you may be right about that as well. Denninger may be tapping into something very powerful with these rants. TWT

Trading and funnymentals don't match up in the short run. The market can make him wrong for months before making him right.

Just like Carl Futia, how much Capital do you think he had to bet on his last call that by chance was somewhat correct (for now) ?

Whew, he get saved with that 250 point stop?

Sure, that's why I read his blog. He is very smart, knowledgeable and genuine. However, his trading and fear that his considerable wealth will be taxed by those less fortunate than him color his political views.

I signed one of his petitions(rants) because I was appalled at Bernanke's $.50 rate cut in September as far its impact on the dollar, only to find out much later that KD lost $40,000 on that date. In retrospect, I agree with Bernanke's decision.

Tonight's news clips from Gloomberg

<embed src="http://eplayer.clipsyndicate.com/cs_api/get_swf?swfHome=eplayer.clipsyndicate.com&amp;va_id=550375&amp;wpid=2593" width="320" height="260" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>

<embed src="http://eplayer.clipsyndicate.com/cs_api/get_swf?swfHome=eplayer.clipsyndicate.com&amp;va_id=550368&amp;wpid=2593" width="320" height="260" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>

<embed src="http://eplayer.clipsyndicate.com/cs_api/get_swf?swfHome=eplayer.clipsyndicate.com&amp;va_id=550347&amp;wpid=2593" width="320" height="260" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>

<embed src="http://eplayer.clipsyndicate.com/cs_api/get_swf?swfHome=eplayer.clipsyndicate.com&amp;va_id=550340&amp;wpid=2593" width="320" height="260" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>

The difference between the way Gloomberg covers key issues and the way Crapvision covers them is astounding.

I don't much care how much money he's made or lost. What I'm interested in is whether his message about tax dollars being hijacked for the benefit of a select few fraudsters will begin to resonate on Main Street. Denninger may or may not be the right messenger, and this may or may not be the right moment. But at some point in the not too distant future, I expect this to become THE hot-button political issue of the year.

Could someone spell out how tax dollars are being used to bail out fraudsters. I'm not connecting the dots yet. Has Congress appropriated money for it? That's not to say we won't pay in the end, we always do. In everything we buy, we pay for the fraud component. What's different about this?

Erin Burnett, who is one of the co-anchors on Crapvision in the morning, was on Meet the Press yesterday to discuss the credit crisis. Now, let me get my prejudice out up front.

I think she is the stupidest person on television. I mean really, really, really, really dumb.

Of course, she was on Meet the Press, because both programs share the same network call letters, N-B-C. And perhaps the only thing worse than hearing her field questions, was to hear Tim Russert pose them.

I turned to my wife when they came on and I said, "Where do you think Erin Burnett would be if she were really ugly?" "Not on 'Meet the Press,'" she answered.

Which is to say that Crapvision is to financial news generally what beer-swilling fraternity brothers are to intellectual curiosity on a university campus....

Off Topic.

VMW looks good for a few points here. I bought 1000 at 46.61 this morning. I see 52+. The SPX cash looks like 1367 gap is going to get filled by Wedensday. I see higher but will most likely exit my dongs at that level. A pull back, after that, will most likely set up a nice move to short. We shall C.

I don't know about his short positions, but I don't like watching thieves get away with swindling the public or me .
When The Fed, which is an arm of the government according to Doc, basically takes over a company the stockholders are wiped out as are most of the bondholders. In this BSC-JPM fiasco, not only are the bondholders left whole, but now the BSC share price is escalating in ongoing negotiations betwenn JPM and BSC Where is the FED? The deal in based on the FED picking up 29 billion of bad BSC paper otherwise the deal is DOA.
This is the taxpayer making the Wall STREET billionaires richer. One point mentioned was that if BSC went BK, the recent large end of year bonuses would have to be repaid.
Now we can't let that happen. Enter stage right, Helo BEN to the rescue.WTF
Even Doc was acknowledging that was government intervention in our so called free market. Of course they only intervene when the market is going down.

The original deal included $30 billion in “special financing” from the Federal Reserve. Both firms said Monday that the Fed’s funding of the deal had dropped to $29 billion, with the first $1 billion of losses to be absorbed by JPMorgan — an indication that the Fed implicitly had signed off on the revision, although no statement from government officials was available at the time this story was published

http://www.housingwire.com/2008/03/24/jpmo...o-10-per-share/

I don't think that's quite right.

I may be wrong, but that $30 billion exists only as pledged collateral, which Bear or JPM will eventually reacquire. They've posted it as collateral, but the Fed is only on the hook IF Bear goes bust.

Now, as I understand it, in the event of a bankruptcy, the Fed would take a hit on that non-recourse loan before Bear bondholders.

So, it's not about tax payers bailing out anyone today; to me, as I understand it, it's about the Fed standing up and signalling that it's prepared to expose itself to explicit losses to the advantage of specific parties to facilitate transactions.

Assuming I'm not as dumb as Erin Burnett....

I will second that.

I hope you make as much money as she does plus she gets Cramer's hot tips before he announces them
One of Cramer's disgruntled employes wrote that one of Jimbo's tricks was to call Maria with a hot tip on a stock he wanted to unload. When it poped after she touted it, he would close his position. .

Getting a sense of anger out of Denniger's rants of late. No sh*t huh!,
This trend towards outright anger is interesting to watch and who the finger gets pointed towards. John K. galbraith wrote a book back in the late 50's called the Affluent Society, and one of its main idea's was what happens when the free spending ways end!, How do people react to having the candy taken off the table so it speak, I have a feeling that we will be finding out.

This may have some room to run. It is an A-1+ company according to S&P.

Bear Stearns, Wall Street’s fifth-largest investment bank, agreed to sell itself for the fire-sale price of $2 a share, earlier this month, after it booked huge subprime mortgage losses and other banks refused to lend it money. (See "Bear Throws In The Towel.")

But while the initial sale has gained the approval of regulators, its price tag has angered Bear’s shareholders, including billionaire Joseph Lewis, who had previously spent more than $1 billion on some 12.1 million shares in Bear Stearns. As of Thursday's closing price, his stake is now worth just $72.1 million. The reported new offer would boost his proceeds from the sale to $120.1 million, from $24.2 million.

Lewis and Bear Stearns Chairman James Cayne, who together own almost 15% of the brokerage, have reportedly been looking for another bidder to buy Bear Stearns for a higher price. "Finding a counterbidder is attractive, but a lot more difficult," Lewis told The Times of London over the weekend. "There are two ways to block the deal: first by a shareholder 'no' vote and second by litigation. We should be able to block the deal by one of these ways."

Bear Stearns has been preparing for potential lawsuits from disgruntled shareholders like Lewis by amending its bylaws so that it can pay for any future legal battles. (See "Bear Stearns Prepares To Lawyer Up.")

The U.S. Federal Reserve had also backed the deal but according to The New York Times did not want JPMorgan Chase to pay more than $2 a share to make sure that it would not look like Bear shareholders were being rescued.

Meanwhile Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its view that overnight repo investments with Bear Stearns were consistent with its rated-fund criteria, which call for repo providers to maintain short-term ratings of 'A-1+' or 'A-1' or equivalent credit quality.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/equities/200...4markets06.html

8EMA cross of 34EMA from below. This is a very reliable signal.

[attachmentid=96968]

I don't know if this guy got knocked out of his shorts or not, but what he says makes sense IMO. The Wall Streeters are stating to act like professional athletes except the Wall Streeters make a lot more money

Moral hazard is the probability that a party insulated from risk will behave differently from the way they would behave if fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act with increasing recklessness, literally 'without reckoning." It also encourages the rise to power of the sociopath in the affected organizations.

It is difficult to explain moral hazard to tenured professors or the pampered princes of bureaucracy, who beat the drum with their silver spoons in support of shifting the risk of loss to the public every time that Wall Street falls into one of its own schemes and blows itself up.

It is a lesson that the average person learns by the age of twelve and relearns, sometimes spectacularly, at least once in young adulthood. If you do something wrong there can be bad outcomes, and you will pay the price and penalty. Unfortunately there is a small but powerful demi-oligopoly of privilege that is trying to project themselves onto the global stage while believing that they are immune to ordinary consequence, and have become addicted to the notion that 'others must pay' for their failures.

Moral hazard comes from rewarding bad behaviour in markets with wristslaps and bailouts. It is a danger to the economy and to the public.

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2...ral-hazard.html

Yeah, you're right -- but if you talk like that in Denninger's neighborhood, Bubba hauls you out to the parking lot and kicks your ass. So let's recapitulate for our listeners out there in talk-radio land: a bunch of fast-talking, slick-ass, Persian-bazzar Wall Street scam-artists just conned an egghead Ivy League eCONomics professor who happens to be Chairman of the Fed out of a whole lot money that properly belongs to hardworking 'mericans like me and you. Now what are we gonna DO about it?

Guess which country's industrials index for the past year?

I'd consider taking a trip there for a few days just to experience it firsthand. But it's not in my budget and seems somewhat lurid, like staring at the bodies along the road side. I think it would be interesting.

The median price of an existing home fell 26.2 percent, the Californica ASSociation of REAMTORS® (C.A.R.) reamported today.

I've read it all now

"Now, maybe we can get back to the business of starting a new uptrend in some of the markets which have been trending lower, while bear markets maul the commodity, currency and bond markets. Certainly, the coming 90% decline in the price of oil will do a lot to really help out on the inflation front and in the average citizen's bottom line."
http://marketclues.blogspot.com/

maybe I can git on that clip syndicate

after my successful debut on Time magazine laSSt fall

It's been interesting reading people's thoughts on the Bear-JPM takeout. I've softened my belief just a bit, but I'm still kind of on Dr. B's side. I'm not married to this view, but nothing I've read really argues against it. It was a dire emergency to put an immediate stop to the run on the Bear bank because of the large clearing business and the potential for cascading deaults. Because it was Bear, specifically because of what Bear did in the LTCM crisis, there was no way to do this with a group of companies. There'd be way too much bickering, and it wouldn't get done. There just wasn't time for that. It had to be a single company, and there's only a handful or so large enough and capable of absorbing Bear. JPM was probably the largest counterparty, which would make them the logical choice. The share price is besides the point. The $2 makes sense from the point of view that the Fed didn't want it to look like a shareholder bailout, and the latest negotiations are just to make sure the shareholders can't stop the deal made by the board. The $30B is just a loan, although probably on very favorable terms. The question is whether or not the loan is... what's the term? Whether JPM is liable regardless of the collateral value. If they go bankrupt... Come on! If JPM goes bankrupt, it's bloody game over. And I do mean bloody. Literally! To make sure this didn't look like a JPM-only deal, the PD CouF window was opened to everyone, and also because there were others right behind Bear. Moral hazard be damned. What would have happened if things went on another week and Bear could no longer settle market trades, not to mention if they started defaulting? Certainly, you could argue about some tactical issues and play Tuesday morning quarterback, but there really wasn't much choice in the basic choice. The only other choice I can fathom was probably much worse. Directly bail out Bear. Now that would be moral hazard.

Chinese mainland stocks don't look that giddy considering that people are calling this the bottom.

http://www.szse.cn/main/en/