Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Diego Mamani
ParticipantWhat if the U.S., European, etc. governments decide to sell gold in the open market? The price would collapse in a matter of days. It would be a way to scare speculators away from this metal and back into equities, treasuries, even good old fashioned CDs.
This is easy to do because the gold market is relatively thin, unlike that of oil, for instance. Back in 1980 there was a speculative bubble in gold, with prices exceeding $840 an ounce, only to drop to $300 in the following months and years.
The price of gold didn’t go back to $840 until Jan 2008!! (That’s 28 years waiting for the price to come back…) Of course, you may be thinking “this time is different!” But, haven’t we heard that before?
ParticipantWhat if the U.S., European, etc. governments decide to sell gold in the open market? The price would collapse in a matter of days. It would be a way to scare speculators away from this metal and back into equities, treasuries, even good old fashioned CDs.
This is easy to do because the gold market is relatively thin, unlike that of oil, for instance. Back in 1980 there was a speculative bubble in gold, with prices exceeding $840 an ounce, only to drop to $300 in the following months and years.
The price of gold didn’t go back to $840 until Jan 2008!! (That’s 28 years waiting for the price to come back…) Of course, you may be thinking “this time is different!” But, haven’t we heard that before?
ParticipantWhat if the U.S., European, etc. governments decide to sell gold in the open market? The price would collapse in a matter of days. It would be a way to scare speculators away from this metal and back into equities, treasuries, even good old fashioned CDs.
This is easy to do because the gold market is relatively thin, unlike that of oil, for instance. Back in 1980 there was a speculative bubble in gold, with prices exceeding $840 an ounce, only to drop to $300 in the following months and years.
The price of gold didn’t go back to $840 until Jan 2008!! (That’s 28 years waiting for the price to come back…) Of course, you may be thinking “this time is different!” But, haven’t we heard that before?
ParticipantWhat if the U.S., European, etc. governments decide to sell gold in the open market? The price would collapse in a matter of days. It would be a way to scare speculators away from this metal and back into equities, treasuries, even good old fashioned CDs.
This is easy to do because the gold market is relatively thin, unlike that of oil, for instance. Back in 1980 there was a speculative bubble in gold, with prices exceeding $840 an ounce, only to drop to $300 in the following months and years.
The price of gold didn’t go back to $840 until Jan 2008!! (That’s 28 years waiting for the price to come back…) Of course, you may be thinking “this time is different!” But, haven’t we heard that before?
ParticipantFrom the RS article:
“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”
I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.
The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme.
ParticipantFrom the RS article:
“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”
I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.
The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme.
ParticipantFrom the RS article:
“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”
I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.
The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme.
ParticipantFrom the RS article:
“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”
I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.
The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme.
ParticipantFrom the RS article:
“They [Wall Street investment bankers] then convinced ratings agencies like Moody’s and S&P to give that top tranche the highest AAA rating — meaning it has close to zero credit risk.”
I think convinced is too lenient a word to use. IMO there was something criminal or near criminal in granting AAA rating to subprime mortgage-backed securities. There’s no way someone can “convince” me that a pool of junk mortgages can have AAA associated with it, no matter how you dice it, or how much you polish it.
The big issue here is that it was Wall Street paying the three rating agencies for their rating. Conflict of interest! Or, as humans learned thousands of years ago, you don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
The clowns at S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch, should be personally prosecuted in civil and criminal courts. They were the crucial chain link in the whole scheme.
ParticipantI strongly suggest you read today’s Jim Jubak’s column on msn money. He’s usually a calm, cerebral guy, who has occasionally been annoyed at the way the system works, but today he’s really angry about the roots of the whole financial crisis, and understandably so.
He makes explicit the link between Wall Street greedy insiders and their jesters in congress: he names names and quotes exact dollar contributions going from the former to the latter.
ParticipantI strongly suggest you read today’s Jim Jubak’s column on msn money. He’s usually a calm, cerebral guy, who has occasionally been annoyed at the way the system works, but today he’s really angry about the roots of the whole financial crisis, and understandably so.
He makes explicit the link between Wall Street greedy insiders and their jesters in congress: he names names and quotes exact dollar contributions going from the former to the latter.
ParticipantI strongly suggest you read today’s Jim Jubak’s column on msn money. He’s usually a calm, cerebral guy, who has occasionally been annoyed at the way the system works, but today he’s really angry about the roots of the whole financial crisis, and understandably so.
He makes explicit the link between Wall Street greedy insiders and their jesters in congress: he names names and quotes exact dollar contributions going from the former to the latter.
ParticipantI strongly suggest you read today’s Jim Jubak’s column on msn money. He’s usually a calm, cerebral guy, who has occasionally been annoyed at the way the system works, but today he’s really angry about the roots of the whole financial crisis, and understandably so.
He makes explicit the link between Wall Street greedy insiders and their jesters in congress: he names names and quotes exact dollar contributions going from the former to the latter.
ParticipantI strongly suggest you read today’s Jim Jubak’s column on msn money. He’s usually a calm, cerebral guy, who has occasionally been annoyed at the way the system works, but today he’s really angry about the roots of the whole financial crisis, and understandably so.
He makes explicit the link between Wall Street greedy insiders and their jesters in congress: he names names and quotes exact dollar contributions going from the former to the latter.
-
AuthorPosts
