lannarebirth

cnbc were mostly bearish until half way into the rally then suddenly the coverage became bullish. Midas one question , why didn't you short the last 7 months? Lucky for you your out of your depth

I dont know why your even here although its a free forum but generally threads are started for people with a common interest. I mean why not not go to the golf thread ant tell them they got no balls or something really start a thread called GFC2 and you can rant away . This one is about trading which you don't do and are clueless and you got it wrong so no credibility either . I wouldn't sacrifice my dignity like you have the last year but were all different

Perhaps Zorro, you should actually take note of the fact that Midas IS still here. It shows a degree of conviction that it would be wrong to ignore. Afterall at the end of 2000 this could be a thread about internet stocks and there would be a guy saying that given they are all up 300% why continue saying they are massively overvalued and are a sell?

As far as dignity is concerned you get far more in my book to post when you are wrong then when you are right.

I would not be a bear if things got back to being measured

in relation to fundamentals ...........and when the market collapses I will remind him he should have stuck to rice dealing

I'm not sure where you got this notion midas. Markets have never been measured in relation to fundamentals. Al least not with coincident timing. Typically markets range from being undervalued to being overvalued, and those misvaluations can persist for an awfully long time.

Abrak as a person who obviously has an in-depth appreciation of economics, I assume past studies of subjects such as ' rational economics' stuff 'chaos theory' etc

are based on an assumption people are expected to act within certain parameters ? I would be interested in your view as to how or if economic theory ( not stock markets but everyday business activity ) is capable of factoring in a situation where due to stress of everyday living and loss of income etc., the tendency for people to act dishonestly in business transactions starts to becomes prevalent in society i.e. corruption becomes an epidemic ?

Does this merely result in the theory of inherent irrationality being compounded several times ? If in other words for one reason or another people started thinking

on a very short term such as I don't see any bright prospects in the future so I'm going to lie, steal and cheat in every activity I do and to hel_l with everyone else?

How can economic theory or economic modelling take account of such behaviour and if it cannot surely theory based on past conditions is meaningless today ?

Well I think Flying touches on the most important issue here namely 'moral hazard'. If a bank can lend badly (or riskily) and be bailed out or someone can borrow imprudently and be bailed out then there is an incentive for people to act dishonestly 'namely to borrow and lend monies with no intention of repayment'. This seems a fundamental problem with capitalism in that it becomes ever more dependent on increasing 'moral hazard'. Note here that dishonest behavior becomes rational.

This issue is 'sort of' on the agenda with talk of reregulation of banks. For instance by law in Canada you cannot lend more than I think 70% of the capital value of property. Now if the Government is going to guarantee the bank that sounds fairly sensible (actually it just sounds fairly sensible.)

Economics is based on transactions taking place that are win-win for both buyer and seller. So how is buying a house at twice what its worth win-win? First you have the moral hazard issue the buyer believes that losses will not be borne by him. Secondly you have what is called in economics 'Hahn's rational disequilibrium' (better known as 'the greater fool theory') in other words he is paying too much because he believes there will be another buyer who will pay even more. (Midas might believe this is Zorro's current approach to investing for instance.)

Also you have to bear in mind that honesty lies in different places with different people. A politician that might 'invest' to get elected may believe he is entitled to a return on his investment whether it is in the interest of his electors or not - they have received upfront. The company that does a US$1.5bn contract with sales commissions of US$500m simply sees them as an additional cost of doing business - where the US$500m goes is really not a major concern. And to some extent even the local community who elected him are unconcerned because a proportion of it will make its way back to them - Banharnville like.

(Obviously as Marx pointed out capitalism is designed for the priveleged few to take advantages of the masses. So that a transaction that involves Goldman Sachs getting US$1bn, Putin getting US$1bn and Abromavich getting US$10bn happen because it is win-win-win between the three parties while Russia's oil reserves are used to keep John Terry as captain of Chelsea.)

Finally you have 'bad will' where through one means or another a transaction is made to look good which isnt. This gets tended to be referred to as 'lack of transparency' 'cronyism' 'legging over minority interests' etc. Ultimately all the investor does is add a substantial risk weighting to the investment and increases their cost of capital. In other words, in the absence of 'good faith' capitalism fails to happen.

BTW, in theory, the concept that all transactions are win-win or mutually beneficially is quite central to capitalist economics. Often in Asia I find this concept very difficult to get across. It often seems - to the Chinese in particular - that every transaction must involve a winner and a loser.

Good post and the only thing I would add is that a significant portion of the "victims" of these policies are those that enable the same policies. The thinking being "I'll get mine before it all blows up". Or maybe it's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

I was there yesterday. Took a number and they were calling me even before my form was filled out. In and out 15 minutes. Nice.

It's true that Chiang Mai land prices have been creeping up over the past few years. I disagree that the target buyers are foreigners however. The vast majority of sales are to other Thais and in the case of the more expensive parcels, most likely Bangkok Thais. Foreigners like to think they are the wealthy segment of the real estate market here but that is a fallacy.

Well, both are about share price. That's dealt with in the market.

There in lies the rub

fraudulent banking re-inflating markets with un-backed credit lines of monopoly money given to them by a fraudulent compromised FED.

Its not a finanical crisis ..............its a crisis of loss of morals, a crisis of

not being to tell the truth any longer and a crisis where even the regulatory

authorities at best turned a blind eye and at worse were complicit in the fraud.

Well, everyone loved those things when it made the markets go up. Now they're upset? The nerve.

^no, but dont see gold going that much higher. Should have gotten in when it was $300 an ounce.

I'm gonna get out my glasscutter and hang that one on the wall over my desk. You should be writing newsletters.

I completley disagree with you because in my career i experienced a time when people were not sewer rats

when they conducted business and you could actually trust what people told you.

There being honor amongst thieves? Something like that?

And if society thinks this is now acceptable then i dont see how anyone will ever be able to rely on the integrity of the valuation

of any asset ever again

There's an expression "the market is always right" Well, that's bullshit, pure and simple. Instead it should be "the market is almost never right but it always wins".

You keep talking about " markets " which are no different now to any gambling enterprise.

My post was about potential fraudulent activity in banking.

Or are you suggesting we shouldn't really expect any meaningful standards to be adhered to any longer

in any realm of buisness activity ............god help us all

Well, both are about share price. That's dealt with in the market. It's a public, private, punter partnership. No one's interested in these companies going out of business. It's harder to make money off that.

They'll reign in the CDS's eventually, but the way Wall Street operates won't change significantly. They may be taxed more however, and for them that's a financial crisis.

You know however optimistic you are

are the banks being "optimistic" when you keep seeing bank failure after bank failure - nearly 100 of them now - where balance sheets are universally overvaluing claimed "assets" .vs. their disposition value ?

At some point you have to call this what it is: a pattern of intentional conduct designed to deceive regulators and the public as to the condition of these institutions.

You could say "Scam" "Ripoff" "Charade" "Myth"- or perhaps we should use the word that would be apply if you tried to do this in any other line of work - FELONY

The financial markets are not where one should be looking for signs of righteousness. It's always been a quasi criminal enterprise. Successful punters aim to get on the side that's winning.

I completley disagree with you because in my career i experienced a time when people were not sewer rats

when they conducted business and you could actually trust what people told you.

There being honor amongst thieves? Something like that?

And if society thinks this is now acceptable then i dont see how anyone will ever be able to rely on the integrity of the valuation

of any asset ever again

There's an expression "the market is always right" Well, that's bullshit, pure and simple. Instead it should be "the market is almost never right but it always wins".

Good bag of Falafels for 20 Baht on the left hand side as you go into the Friday morning hilltribe market.

Iain

Where is the Friday morning hilltribe market located? TIA

You know however optimistic you are

are the banks being "optimistic" when you keep seeing bank failure after bank failure - nearly 100 of them now - where balance sheets are universally overvaluing claimed "assets" .vs. their disposition value ?

At some point you have to call this what it is: a pattern of intentional conduct designed to deceive regulators and the public as to the condition of these institutions.

You could say "Scam" "Ripoff" "Charade" "Myth"- or perhaps we should use the word that would be apply if you tried to do this in any other line of work - FELONY

The financial markets are not where one should be looking for signs of righteousness. It's always been a quasi criminal enterprise. Successful punters aim to get on the side that's winning.

Maybe you should give some examples of what you're talking about.

What's a hosepipe?

Briefly - I think this to a certain extent misses the point as do a lot of things that arise as projects etc.

Chiang Mai was/is to a certain extent popular as an entity in itself. It has a lot of shopping/attractions, but for many people the attraction is in the city itself.

This boils down as being the responsibility of existing residents and the city authorities.

I agree with cmsally. It's the city itself and its proximity to northern destinations that is the attraction. I think there may be enough markets.

I checked your website Mr. Tiger, but couldn't see the PDF. Could you link it there?

http://www.track-of-the-tiger.com/ I assume?

yes, i cant find any info either. I guess that is the first test of the company, can they find this thread and provide some info.

Maybe more here:

http://www.boondee.net/

The Fed is starting to float trial baloons and make inquiries as to how they might mop up some excess liquidity "sometime in the future". That's all it took to make the market nervous. This market is like a spoiled child. Once you start to give in to petulant demands, it's the beginning of the end.

so, do you know this product or are you just making general statements? tx anyway for posting something thats related to the topic .

I know something about solar towers, but not the one you posted, as the manufacturer hasn't released any information about it.

and when i go boating, i like to backpaddle when i realize i hit a waterfall. problem is. its usually when the boat is already vertical.

I wish them well. I've always like the inventors and the tinkerers. I used to fund, in a small way, a buddy of mine working on a perpetual motion machine. I knew it wouldn't work but he always came up with something cool.

Here's an example of what inventive minds, looking only for solutions can come up with:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/09/sol...ming/index.html

A new solar power product is soon released. What do you think about it? is it better than existing products?

http://classifieds.thaivisa.com/miscellane...ergy-31875.html

cheers, chr

I can not say if it's better but you may want to check out the VAWT windmill and the "boon dee" machine for driving customers to your business, that this manufacturer also produces.

http://classifieds.thaivisa.com/miscellane...bine-30302.html

what do you mean by "driving costumers to your business?"

are u suggesting i have a relation to this company?

cheers, chr

I guess it's been removed, but they claimd that the interface between the lucky amulet and the electronics could enhance your customer traffic up to 65%. Maybe it could.

http://www.boondee.net/increase-sales/

A new solar power product is soon released. What do you think about it? is it better than existing products?

http://classifieds.thaivisa.com/miscellane...ergy-31875.html

cheers, chr

I can not say if it's better but you may want to check out the VAWT windmill and the "boon dee" machine for driving customers to your business, that this manufacturer also produces.

http://classifieds.thaivisa.com/miscellane...bine-30302.html

No, I think it's true that the big money isn't in the stock market yet.

Why, what makes you think that?

Because of all the money that's going into bonds and CD's. I didn't say I thought it ever would get into the stock market. In fact I think it probably never will. Not anytime soon anyway.

Yes I saw you didnt think it would likely go into equities.

What is 'all the money going into bonds and CD's' though? Where are the stats? You dont mean the QE do you?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "sideline money". I'm speaking of the pool of available capital, though not including QE. If you're talking about funds in brokerage accounts I can only speak anecdotally. For myself, I realized I had far more in my brokerage account than I need to do what I do. Pulled 500k out last year. Spread the rest through a few new accounts to be under insured levels. I know many many people who did the same. I never ever add to my brokerage accounts. I only withdraw profits to move elsewhere.

No, I think it's true that the big money isn't in the stock market yet.

Why, what makes you think that?

Because of all the money that's going into bonds and CD's. I didn't say I thought it ever would get into the stock market. In fact I think it probably never will. Not anytime soon anyway.

badge its pretty obvious trillions still on the side lines, not sure what you want me to do? I can google a hundred posts to confirm it but its common knowledge .

Again, its not only 'not-obvious' to me, its contrary to what Im reading, hence my request for sources.

Further inability to provide sources, but claiming its 'obvious', is on par with your last response.

For example, I read that the Aug US mutual fund($10Trillion) cash-to-asset ratio is at 4%, just up from the all time low of 3.5% in Jul '07. Source: ICI. I havent checked this though.

I keep reading how much money is on the sidelines, yet no one seems to be able to provide details.

One of the common errors Ive been quoted, is looking at asset values of a couple of years ago, compared to today, and assuming that 'obviously' the difference is waiting on the sidelines, when infact its simply vanished. Wealth destruction.

Ah, it's gone to money heaven. Some truth in that and also some money has left the market because it's no place for retiring baby boomers to have all their eggs.

wonder what cnbc pay him for his segment. Would have to be upwards of a hundred K?? or is it a trade off for exposure

CNBC pays him for his entertainment value and for viewers. He does it for the remuneration he gets from providing liquidity shilling for his hedge fund buddies to sell into.

[...]just remember the big money hasnt hit yet ... thats when you will be skating 300000000 kms down

Source please?

sure would love to but hel_l being frozen over at 300000000 kms down was just a guess

Well then I'll be forgiven for assuming that no source = meaningless

The reason I ask is its actually contrary to alot of information Im reading, so perhaps one of us has more significant figures, or erroneous data?

Not to worry

No, I think it's true that the big money isn't in the stock market yet. The assumption however that it may be in at some time in the future is IMO erroneous. The people who didn't want their money in the market a year ago and instead chose the "safety" of CD's aren't going to be rushing back in afer a 50% plus rise IMO. Maybe on a substantial pullback which ought to align with favorable tax ramifications.

Jim Cramer picks another winner

CIT...BUY BUY BUY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Next day 40% plunge

http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog...C)/4980734.html

One might infer fom that that Cramer is stupid but he's not. Maybe his followers didn't get paid on that call but you can rest assured he did.