elessa: (Default)
i keep reading about the ponzi scheme/$50B fraud on wall street by bernard madoff. how investors gave him money and he "lost" it for them.

i have a few investments on wall street through morgan stanley and merrill lynch. every single one came with paperwork, whether it was for a straight stock purchase or a fund, that spelled out there there are no guarantees of return. in fact it is iterated more than once that investing money could mean losing every cent. surely these people had to sign paperwork of some sort. was he guaranteeing there would be no risk?

all the stories about people who seem to be significantly more wealthy than i can ever dream of being losing far more money than i can ever conceive of ever having is not making me empathetic. are the articles to make us who have near nothing in this economy feel sorry for them? i am having a hard time feeling sorry for someone who had $650K or $1M invested that they lost.

i have current lost 3/4 of the money i have invested. annoyed. yes. was the money lost in a scam. no. it is part of the risk of return. the players in this game knew that. how can they be portrayed as being naive? surely they have other investments with gains and losses.

granted the scheme he had was bound to collapse due to the exponential increases in payouts. but still, there had to be paperwork as if it was a bona fide investment, didn't there? or is this part of the fuck up by the SEC?
elessa: (fluffy bunny)
while in line at the grocery tonight i struck up a conversation with the guy standing behind me. you know, talk about weather turns to other things. he mentioned it was cold and had just come back from san diego. since i lived in san diego the conversation continued.

not sure how much of what he had to say is true, but even partially it shows the impact of the stupidity of the mortgage companies and their lending practices.

this guy claims to own a window installation company. he mentioned having been in san diego the last two weeks. evidently his daughter and son-in-law live there, in addition to having a work contract to install replacement windows in homes in chula vista/otay ranch that were foreclosed. something to do with the money from the feds allowing B of A to purchase materials from out of state tax free to repair houses mortgaged by countrywide.

he said that before leaving san diego yesterday he had a holiday luncheon with sixty of his employees... and laid them off. he is now down to eighteen employees for whom the company can no longer afford to provide health insurance. a year ago he had over nine thousand employees.

he told me of having had so much business nationwide for supplying windows he was earning $5M/year. developers were putting up houses left and right with no regard for the viability of the creditworthiness of the buyers. now those houses are standing empty. now he is no longer receiving the volume of orders for windows.

he also said that his son-in-law had called to tell him that the five bedroom house they were renting with four other couples, on a street in eastlake filled with empty houses, had the rent increased to $2800/month. this guy said he told the kid to call the owner back and tell him he would pay $1500/mo. the owner reduced the rent to $1800. perhaps this is true. perhaps not.
elessa: (fluffy bunny)
auto bailout talks collapse

the washington post is reporting that there will not be a bailout for the automakers. seems the UAW wasn't willing to cut pay for its members to parity with the nonunion workers on US soil for toyota and honda.

i wonder just how far stocks are going to fall tomorrow. 500 points? 750? 1000?


i was finally getting a little of my previous losses over the last four months back. i suppose i shall wave goodbye to it when the bell rings in the morning.


Dec. 3rd, 2008 11:58 am
elessa: (fluffy bunny)
Obama: Financial bailout must help homeowners, too

been thinking about this. what percentage of the population owns a home? what percentage rents?

why should those who have a mortgage be given help with making their expenses? why aren't those who rent and are also having money come out of their pockets in order to have a roof over their head given aid as well?

seems to me that the few are being given preferential treatment over the many.

don't get me wrong. i have been a homeowner. i was careful with mortgages on both houses i owned. yes, the first house was with my ex, the second i held the mortgage in my name only as i was divorced. they were fixed rate 30 year loans. no surprises in monthly payments.

i now rent.

i do not think someone should be bailed out simply because they own a house they can't pay for. there are people who rent who cannot make their monthly payments either due to job downsizing or rent increases. how is this different as those who bought, have job issues and now may have an increased mortgage payment due to a variable interest rate?
elessa: (fluffy bunny)
here is another example of more money about to come out of your wallet.

in an article in the new york times, food chain - as the price of corn rises, catfish farms dry up

"i don't eat catfish", you might say. ah, but you do eat beef or chicken in all likelihood. the same impact is going to be felt on that industry.

i found the line "government mandates for corn to produce ethanol..." to be interesting. so, our government is telling farmers not to grow food? i realise this country is starved for fuel for its oversized land yachts aka SUVs and other guzzlers. however, in light of the flooding in the midwest there is going to be a significant shortfall in the amount of corn which can be grown this year. within the next six months expect there the be less meat products available in your grocery store. expect the price of processed food items to also rise due to a lack of corn to be made into high fructose corn syrup. you know, the additive to nearly everything in a box, can or bag on the shelf at the grocers. read the labels on a bag of corn chips, frozen dinner, or can of beans you'll see what i mean.

with the shortage of corn there is going to be further unemployment as is reported in the article affecting the catfish industry. everything is ultimately related.
elessa: (trees)
read an article today in the san francisco chronicle discussing "walkaway" borrowers. you know, those people who have decided that they will stop paying their mortgages and send their keys back to their lenders. in many instances it isn't a matter of financial hardship that is inducing them to do this. it is rather the realisation that with the market adjusting their house is worth less than what they have it mortgaged for.

well, guess what? )

i am sorry. i simply find this all to be very amusing.
elessa: (pony)
while making the night deposit after work i was watching the crawl on CNN as i waited in line at the bank.

an interesting one came across the screen.

basically, lojack has lowered its income projections for 2008 which caused its stock value to plummet today. reason for lowering the income projections?

it seems that fewer new cars are expected to be stolen. why? because fewer new cars are being sold due to the economy being in the crapper.

July 2017



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 06:07 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios