[VanMorrisonFan]

I said this on another blog…this picture reminds me of the movie “The Matrix” or was it “The Matrixx.” Identical houses with identical signs.

[VanMorrisonFan]

I said this on another blog…this picture reminds me of the movie “The Matrix” or was it “The Matrixx.” Identical houses with identical signs.

[VanMorrisonFan]

I said this on another blog…this picture reminds me of the movie “The Matrix” or was it “The Matrixx.” Identical houses with identical signs.

[VanMorrisonFan]

I said this on another blog…this picture reminds me of the movie “The Matrix” or was it “The Matrixx.” Identical houses with identical signs.

[VanMorrisonFan]

I said this on another blog…this picture reminds me of the movie “The Matrix” or was it “The Matrixx.” Identical houses with identical signs.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Other financial writers and commentators have written about this, and I think they are on to something.

The problem right now is not a shortage of liquidity. There is massive liquidity in the system. The problem is the lack of confidence in value indicators – i.e., no one is certain that the quoted prices for financial assets are anywhere near their real underlying value.

The “bail-out” of Bear Stearns was a necessity. Had they gone under it could have been the start of a melt-down. However, the bail-out causes problems of its own. If JP Morgan was only willing to offer $2 a share for a company that two days before many people thought was worth $30 a share (and whose HQ building on Madison Avenue is probably worth $8 per share) what does that say about valuations?

Putting more money in the system is a necessity, but it doesn’t help that much. It’s like pushing string or herding cats.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Other financial writers and commentators have written about this, and I think they are on to something.

The problem right now is not a shortage of liquidity. There is massive liquidity in the system. The problem is the lack of confidence in value indicators – i.e., no one is certain that the quoted prices for financial assets are anywhere near their real underlying value.

The “bail-out” of Bear Stearns was a necessity. Had they gone under it could have been the start of a melt-down. However, the bail-out causes problems of its own. If JP Morgan was only willing to offer $2 a share for a company that two days before many people thought was worth $30 a share (and whose HQ building on Madison Avenue is probably worth $8 per share) what does that say about valuations?

Putting more money in the system is a necessity, but it doesn’t help that much. It’s like pushing string or herding cats.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Other financial writers and commentators have written about this, and I think they are on to something.

The problem right now is not a shortage of liquidity. There is massive liquidity in the system. The problem is the lack of confidence in value indicators – i.e., no one is certain that the quoted prices for financial assets are anywhere near their real underlying value.

The “bail-out” of Bear Stearns was a necessity. Had they gone under it could have been the start of a melt-down. However, the bail-out causes problems of its own. If JP Morgan was only willing to offer $2 a share for a company that two days before many people thought was worth $30 a share (and whose HQ building on Madison Avenue is probably worth $8 per share) what does that say about valuations?

Putting more money in the system is a necessity, but it doesn’t help that much. It’s like pushing string or herding cats.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Other financial writers and commentators have written about this, and I think they are on to something.

The problem right now is not a shortage of liquidity. There is massive liquidity in the system. The problem is the lack of confidence in value indicators – i.e., no one is certain that the quoted prices for financial assets are anywhere near their real underlying value.

The “bail-out” of Bear Stearns was a necessity. Had they gone under it could have been the start of a melt-down. However, the bail-out causes problems of its own. If JP Morgan was only willing to offer $2 a share for a company that two days before many people thought was worth $30 a share (and whose HQ building on Madison Avenue is probably worth $8 per share) what does that say about valuations?

Putting more money in the system is a necessity, but it doesn’t help that much. It’s like pushing string or herding cats.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Other financial writers and commentators have written about this, and I think they are on to something.

The problem right now is not a shortage of liquidity. There is massive liquidity in the system. The problem is the lack of confidence in value indicators – i.e., no one is certain that the quoted prices for financial assets are anywhere near their real underlying value.

The “bail-out” of Bear Stearns was a necessity. Had they gone under it could have been the start of a melt-down. However, the bail-out causes problems of its own. If JP Morgan was only willing to offer $2 a share for a company that two days before many people thought was worth $30 a share (and whose HQ building on Madison Avenue is probably worth $8 per share) what does that say about valuations?

Putting more money in the system is a necessity, but it doesn’t help that much. It’s like pushing string or herding cats.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Aside from home loans, there are significant problems with car loans, credit card loans, and student loans.

Essentially what happened is that over the last decade or so, as the Fed followed a policy of keeping interest rates low, lenders gave money to people who, in retrospect, weren’t the best credit risks. Housing was the most visible sector where this happened, but it happened in other sectors as well.

Now the solution that is being proposed (and followed by the current Fed) is…more cheap money. It’s as though the hangover is just starting, so we’ve got to get a few drinks under our belt in order to “take the edge off” so to speak.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t think more cheap money is a good idea.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Aside from home loans, there are significant problems with car loans, credit card loans, and student loans.

Essentially what happened is that over the last decade or so, as the Fed followed a policy of keeping interest rates low, lenders gave money to people who, in retrospect, weren’t the best credit risks. Housing was the most visible sector where this happened, but it happened in other sectors as well.

Now the solution that is being proposed (and followed by the current Fed) is…more cheap money. It’s as though the hangover is just starting, so we’ve got to get a few drinks under our belt in order to “take the edge off” so to speak.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t think more cheap money is a good idea.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Aside from home loans, there are significant problems with car loans, credit card loans, and student loans.

Essentially what happened is that over the last decade or so, as the Fed followed a policy of keeping interest rates low, lenders gave money to people who, in retrospect, weren’t the best credit risks. Housing was the most visible sector where this happened, but it happened in other sectors as well.

Now the solution that is being proposed (and followed by the current Fed) is…more cheap money. It’s as though the hangover is just starting, so we’ve got to get a few drinks under our belt in order to “take the edge off” so to speak.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t think more cheap money is a good idea.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Aside from home loans, there are significant problems with car loans, credit card loans, and student loans.

Essentially what happened is that over the last decade or so, as the Fed followed a policy of keeping interest rates low, lenders gave money to people who, in retrospect, weren’t the best credit risks. Housing was the most visible sector where this happened, but it happened in other sectors as well.

Now the solution that is being proposed (and followed by the current Fed) is…more cheap money. It’s as though the hangover is just starting, so we’ve got to get a few drinks under our belt in order to “take the edge off” so to speak.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t think more cheap money is a good idea.

[VanMorrisonFan]

Aside from home loans, there are significant problems with car loans, credit card loans, and student loans.

Essentially what happened is that over the last decade or so, as the Fed followed a policy of keeping interest rates low, lenders gave money to people who, in retrospect, weren’t the best credit risks. Housing was the most visible sector where this happened, but it happened in other sectors as well.

Now the solution that is being proposed (and followed by the current Fed) is…more cheap money. It’s as though the hangover is just starting, so we’ve got to get a few drinks under our belt in order to “take the edge off” so to speak.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I don’t think more cheap money is a good idea.

[Author]

Posts