[robson]

Just thought you guys might be interested in this email I just got from Etrade
“The past few months have been challenging for the financial services industry. And, as you may be aware, E*TRADE has been the subject of some unfounded rumors and speculation in recent days.
While many of our customers have openly expressed their confidence in us, I’m writing to reassure you that your money is safe at E*TRADE FINANCIAL.
Because the sweep option for your brokerage account is the E*TRADE FINANCIAL Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Account, you have one of the highest levels of asset protection in the industry—including 5X the FDIC coverage for our standard sweep accounts¹:
FDIC insures all E*TRADE Bank accounts to at least $100,000 and Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Accounts to $500,000².
SIPC protects E*TRADE Securities customers up to $500,000 (including $100,000 for claims for cash).
Additional E*TRADE Securities protection of up to $150 million per brokerage account is underwritten by London insurers (aggregate $600 million).
E*TRADE is well capitalized by regulatory standards. In addition, our core business is thriving. Today, over 3.5 million customers worldwide rely on us for their trading, investing, and banking needs.
Our ability and commitment to invest in our products, services, systems, and platforms are stronger than ever. We look forward to serving you for many years to come.”

I wonder just how many customers have pulled their assets so far?

[robson]

Just thought you guys might be interested in this email I just got from Etrade
“The past few months have been challenging for the financial services industry. And, as you may be aware, E*TRADE has been the subject of some unfounded rumors and speculation in recent days.
While many of our customers have openly expressed their confidence in us, I’m writing to reassure you that your money is safe at E*TRADE FINANCIAL.
Because the sweep option for your brokerage account is the E*TRADE FINANCIAL Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Account, you have one of the highest levels of asset protection in the industry—including 5X the FDIC coverage for our standard sweep accounts¹:
FDIC insures all E*TRADE Bank accounts to at least $100,000 and Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Accounts to $500,000².
SIPC protects E*TRADE Securities customers up to $500,000 (including $100,000 for claims for cash).
Additional E*TRADE Securities protection of up to $150 million per brokerage account is underwritten by London insurers (aggregate $600 million).
E*TRADE is well capitalized by regulatory standards. In addition, our core business is thriving. Today, over 3.5 million customers worldwide rely on us for their trading, investing, and banking needs.
Our ability and commitment to invest in our products, services, systems, and platforms are stronger than ever. We look forward to serving you for many years to come.”

I wonder just how many customers have pulled their assets so far?

[robson]

Just thought you guys might be interested in this email I just got from Etrade
“The past few months have been challenging for the financial services industry. And, as you may be aware, E*TRADE has been the subject of some unfounded rumors and speculation in recent days.
While many of our customers have openly expressed their confidence in us, I’m writing to reassure you that your money is safe at E*TRADE FINANCIAL.
Because the sweep option for your brokerage account is the E*TRADE FINANCIAL Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Account, you have one of the highest levels of asset protection in the industry—including 5X the FDIC coverage for our standard sweep accounts¹:
FDIC insures all E*TRADE Bank accounts to at least $100,000 and Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Accounts to $500,000².
SIPC protects E*TRADE Securities customers up to $500,000 (including $100,000 for claims for cash).
Additional E*TRADE Securities protection of up to $150 million per brokerage account is underwritten by London insurers (aggregate $600 million).
E*TRADE is well capitalized by regulatory standards. In addition, our core business is thriving. Today, over 3.5 million customers worldwide rely on us for their trading, investing, and banking needs.
Our ability and commitment to invest in our products, services, systems, and platforms are stronger than ever. We look forward to serving you for many years to come.”

I wonder just how many customers have pulled their assets so far?

[robson]

Just thought you guys might be interested in this email I just got from Etrade
“The past few months have been challenging for the financial services industry. And, as you may be aware, E*TRADE has been the subject of some unfounded rumors and speculation in recent days.
While many of our customers have openly expressed their confidence in us, I’m writing to reassure you that your money is safe at E*TRADE FINANCIAL.
Because the sweep option for your brokerage account is the E*TRADE FINANCIAL Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Account, you have one of the highest levels of asset protection in the industry—including 5X the FDIC coverage for our standard sweep accounts¹:
FDIC insures all E*TRADE Bank accounts to at least $100,000 and Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Accounts to $500,000².
SIPC protects E*TRADE Securities customers up to $500,000 (including $100,000 for claims for cash).
Additional E*TRADE Securities protection of up to $150 million per brokerage account is underwritten by London insurers (aggregate $600 million).
E*TRADE is well capitalized by regulatory standards. In addition, our core business is thriving. Today, over 3.5 million customers worldwide rely on us for their trading, investing, and banking needs.
Our ability and commitment to invest in our products, services, systems, and platforms are stronger than ever. We look forward to serving you for many years to come.”

I wonder just how many customers have pulled their assets so far?

[robson]

Just thought you guys might be interested in this email I just got from Etrade
“The past few months have been challenging for the financial services industry. And, as you may be aware, E*TRADE has been the subject of some unfounded rumors and speculation in recent days.
While many of our customers have openly expressed their confidence in us, I’m writing to reassure you that your money is safe at E*TRADE FINANCIAL.
Because the sweep option for your brokerage account is the E*TRADE FINANCIAL Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Account, you have one of the highest levels of asset protection in the industry—including 5X the FDIC coverage for our standard sweep accounts¹:
FDIC insures all E*TRADE Bank accounts to at least $100,000 and Extended Insurance Sweep Deposit Accounts to $500,000².
SIPC protects E*TRADE Securities customers up to $500,000 (including $100,000 for claims for cash).
Additional E*TRADE Securities protection of up to $150 million per brokerage account is underwritten by London insurers (aggregate $600 million).
E*TRADE is well capitalized by regulatory standards. In addition, our core business is thriving. Today, over 3.5 million customers worldwide rely on us for their trading, investing, and banking needs.
Our ability and commitment to invest in our products, services, systems, and platforms are stronger than ever. We look forward to serving you for many years to come.”

I wonder just how many customers have pulled their assets so far?

[robson]

1 other thing i noticed was the longterm p/r they cite is a 15 year average. i imagine this graph to look a lot like Rich’s price/income graphs in “evidence of a housing bubble.” A 15 year average captures 1 cycle of p/r downswing and upswing successfully, however, in the case of the last 15 years it captures a normal downswing (92-98, 05-07) and an enormous upswing (98-05). Therefore, the “longterm” p/r of the last 15 years is higher than the actual longterm p/r of say, the last 45 years. This means the needed 34% correction is probably a bit higher.

[robson]

1 other thing i noticed was the longterm p/r they cite is a 15 year average. i imagine this graph to look a lot like Rich’s price/income graphs in “evidence of a housing bubble.” A 15 year average captures 1 cycle of p/r downswing and upswing successfully, however, in the case of the last 15 years it captures a normal downswing (92-98, 05-07) and an enormous upswing (98-05). Therefore, the “longterm” p/r of the last 15 years is higher than the actual longterm p/r of say, the last 45 years. This means the needed 34% correction is probably a bit higher.

[robson]

1 other thing i noticed was the longterm p/r they cite is a 15 year average. i imagine this graph to look a lot like Rich’s price/income graphs in “evidence of a housing bubble.” A 15 year average captures 1 cycle of p/r downswing and upswing successfully, however, in the case of the last 15 years it captures a normal downswing (92-98, 05-07) and an enormous upswing (98-05). Therefore, the “longterm” p/r of the last 15 years is higher than the actual longterm p/r of say, the last 45 years. This means the needed 34% correction is probably a bit higher.

[robson]

1 other thing i noticed was the longterm p/r they cite is a 15 year average. i imagine this graph to look a lot like Rich’s price/income graphs in “evidence of a housing bubble.” A 15 year average captures 1 cycle of p/r downswing and upswing successfully, however, in the case of the last 15 years it captures a normal downswing (92-98, 05-07) and an enormous upswing (98-05). Therefore, the “longterm” p/r of the last 15 years is higher than the actual longterm p/r of say, the last 45 years. This means the needed 34% correction is probably a bit higher.

[robson]

1 other thing i noticed was the longterm p/r they cite is a 15 year average. i imagine this graph to look a lot like Rich’s price/income graphs in “evidence of a housing bubble.” A 15 year average captures 1 cycle of p/r downswing and upswing successfully, however, in the case of the last 15 years it captures a normal downswing (92-98, 05-07) and an enormous upswing (98-05). Therefore, the “longterm” p/r of the last 15 years is higher than the actual longterm p/r of say, the last 45 years. This means the needed 34% correction is probably a bit higher.

[robson]

That 34% correction is composed of a 10% increase in rents and a 24% decrease in home values. As far as interest rates, they say “Today average real rates for all mortgages, fixed and adjustable, stand at 4.7% (adjusted for inflation), which is roughly in line with the long-term average.” I wonder just how “rough” that average is, and why they would think it would trend below the average, rise back up to the average and then simply stop.

[robson]

That 34% correction is composed of a 10% increase in rents and a 24% decrease in home values. As far as interest rates, they say “Today average real rates for all mortgages, fixed and adjustable, stand at 4.7% (adjusted for inflation), which is roughly in line with the long-term average.” I wonder just how “rough” that average is, and why they would think it would trend below the average, rise back up to the average and then simply stop.

[robson]

That 34% correction is composed of a 10% increase in rents and a 24% decrease in home values. As far as interest rates, they say “Today average real rates for all mortgages, fixed and adjustable, stand at 4.7% (adjusted for inflation), which is roughly in line with the long-term average.” I wonder just how “rough” that average is, and why they would think it would trend below the average, rise back up to the average and then simply stop.

[robson]

That 34% correction is composed of a 10% increase in rents and a 24% decrease in home values. As far as interest rates, they say “Today average real rates for all mortgages, fixed and adjustable, stand at 4.7% (adjusted for inflation), which is roughly in line with the long-term average.” I wonder just how “rough” that average is, and why they would think it would trend below the average, rise back up to the average and then simply stop.

[robson]

That 34% correction is composed of a 10% increase in rents and a 24% decrease in home values. As far as interest rates, they say “Today average real rates for all mortgages, fixed and adjustable, stand at 4.7% (adjusted for inflation), which is roughly in line with the long-term average.” I wonder just how “rough” that average is, and why they would think it would trend below the average, rise back up to the average and then simply stop.

[Author]

Posts