lannarebirth

Yeah, and I stand by that statement. I understand exploit can have a negative connotation also but more commonly it simply means to "utilize". If your staff were working full time in America earning minimum wage they'd be costing you maybe $25k annually. Maybe your margins could absorb that or you have additional priceing power but I don't think most businesses are in a similar position.

If I understood that 'exploit can have a negative connotation' then I would use a different word. Like 'utilise'. Just for the sake of clarity, you understand.

You may also want to consider that there may be other benefits of operating a business here. You did say 'the sole benefit', after all. Just a thought.

Yes, I'll grant you there may be other, less tangible benefits and probably some additional challanges as well.

The ThaiVisa classifieds. Just one click away.

Or advertise in the Chaing Mai local newspaper. It`s a free local advertising paper for Thai people, in Thai text.

Ads cost from 400 baht up to 600 baht per month.

Can`t remember the name of it, but their office is located in Chaing Mai land. Ask any Thai, most know where it is.

I'm not sure that Thais would look at ThaiVisa classifieds for jobs. Besides, if they read the forum they would discover that "The sole benefit of (foreigners) operating a business here is to exploit cheap labor." We can thank Lannarebirth for that little nugget of wisdom.

I wonder if anyone has had any results from using the Government Labour Office on the road to Mae Rim? I vaguely recall my wife trying it a few years ago, but I don't think there was any response.

Yeah, and I stand by that statement. I understand exploit can have a negative connotation also but more commonly it simply means to "utilize". If your staff were working full time in America earning minimum wage they'd be costing you maybe $25k annually. Maybe your margins could absorb that or you have additional priceing power but I don't think most businesses are in a similar position.

Now that the Gold bulls have called me by name and identified me as the sole surviving Dollar bull, I'm happy that I'm not a young fellow anymore - being older, death is not that far away anyway so its not a big deal. My only real fear in life was to be broke and end up dying in a gutter somewhere. Being alone per se never bothered me.

But (this also answers sokal's question about how I can go against the fundamental of the markets) a chartist ought to know that Price has everything built into it, everything known to man aka the general investing public, everything except acts of God and George Bush.

So at any given moment, Price encompasses within itself every thought, attitude, action, expectation etc. about that instrument or entity. All fundamental factors are therefore already embedded in Price. The biggest problem has been that Technical analysis, which deals with pure Price action only is still a young science, fraught with perils and incomplete methodology. But its all I got.

What is the alternative?

You might investigate a methodology that encompasses TIME into your work. Just saying.

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun Doppa,

Neither one of me was frustrated until I read your post, and realized I and I had wasted time again.

best, ~o:37;

... to the tune of "Singing in the Rain" ...

pom len plaeng kan nai soi,

tam plaeng kan nai soi :

took maa mee jai sabai

portwah mai mee khit ary

i'm singing in the soi,

making songs in the soi :

all the dogs are happy

because i am not thinking

One doesn't often get to see two "song and dance men" conjured up in one post. Well done!

"I and I

In creation where one's nature neither honors nor forgives.

I and I

One says to the other, no man sees my face and lives."

musicians, who would welcome the opportunity to play and sing to your hearts content, for fun...no ego's required.

You've got to learn how that thread title function works.

It's all good.

Risk-taking is back for banks 1 year after crisis

By STEVENSON JACOBS, AP Business Writer Sun Sep 13, 3:11 pm ET

NEW YORK –

A year after the financial system nearly collapsed, the nation's biggest banks are bigger and regaining their appetite for risk.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and others — which have received tens of billions of dollars in federal aid — are once more betting big on bonds, commodities and exotic financial products, trading that nearly stopped during the financial crisis.

That Wall Street is making money again in essentially the same ways that thrust the banking system into chaos last fall is reason for concern on several levels, financial analysts and government officials say.

• There have been no significant changes to the federal rules governing their behavior. Proposals that have been made to better monitor the financial system and to police the products banks sell to consumers have been held up by lobbyists, lawmakers and turf-protecting regulators.

• Through mergers and the failure of Lehman Brothers, the mammoth banks whose near-collapse prompted government rescues have gotten even bigger, increasing the risk they pose to the financial system. And they still make bets that, in the aggregate, are worth far more than the capital they have on hand to cover against potential losses.

• The government's response to last year's meltdown was to spend whatever it takes to protect the financial system from collapse — a precedent that could encourage even greater risk-taking from the private sector.

Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, says an overhaul of financial regulations is needed as soon as possible to keep the financial system safe over the long haul.

"You cannot rely on the scars of past crises to ensure against practices that will lead to future crises," Summers says.

No one is predicting another meltdown from risky trading in the near term. Rather, the concern is what happens over time as banks' confidence grows and the memory of the financial crisis of 2008 fades.

Will they pile on bets to the point that a new asset bubble forms and — as happened with mortgage-backed securities — its undoing endangers banks and the broader economy?

"We're seeing the same kind of behavior from the banks, and that could lead to some huge and scary parallels," says Simon Johnson, former chief economist with the International Monetary Fund.

Some risk-taking is good. When banks are willing to invest in companies or lend to home-buyers, that nurtures economic growth by generating employment and consumer spending, feeding a cycle of expansion.

The problem is when banks' quest for profits leads them to take on too much risk. In the case of the housing bubble, which burst last year, banks lent too freely to consumers with weak credit and wagered too much on complex financial instruments tied to mortgages. As real-estate prices turned south, so did the financial industry's health.

Because the largest banks' trading divisions make their bets with each other, their fortunes are intertwined. The collapse of one can threaten another — and another — if it is unable to pay off its debts.

This so-called counterparty risk is a major reason the Obama administration's regulatory overhaul plan calls for the creation of a "systemic risk regulator."

The administration is also seeking tougher capital requirements for banks, arguing that banks' buying of exotic financial products without keeping enough cash on reserve was a key cause of the crisis. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has urged the Group of 20 nations — which meets this month in Pittsburgh — to agree on new capital levels by the end of 2010 and put them in place two years later. Geithner hasn't said how much extra capital banks should be required to keep on hand.

Data from the April-June quarter show that the banks are leaning heavily again on their trading desks for revenue.

• During the fourth quarter of 2008, when the financial crisis made even the shrewdest bankers risk-averse, Goldman's trading of risky assets nearly stopped. But in the second quarter of 2009, trading revenue had climbed to nearly 50 percent of total revenue, closer to where it was two years ago before the recession began. JP Morgan's reliance on trading revenue has exhibited a similar pattern.

• Also in the second quarter, the five biggest banks' average potential losses from a single day of trading topped $1 billion, up 76 percent from two years ago, according to regulatory filings.

The government hasn't just watched banks resume their freewheeling ways and prosper. It has been an enabler in the process. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — during both the Bush and Obama administrations — have made trillions of dollars available to the biggest banks through bailouts, low-cost loans and loss guarantees designed to stabilize the financial system.

The failure of Lehman Brothers — the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history — and the panicky sales of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, also have transformed Wall Street. The surviving investment banks have fewer competitors and more market share.

Five of the biggest banks — Goldman, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America — posted second-quarter profits totaling $13 billion. That's more than double what they made in the second quarter of 2008 and nearly two-thirds as much as the $20.7 billion they earned in the second quarter of 2007 — when the economy was strong.

Meanwhile, Bank of America and Wells Fargo today originate 41 percent of all home loans that are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The banks made $284 billion in such loans in the first half of this year, up from $124 billion during the same period last year.

"The big banks now are more powerful than before," said Johnson, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management. "Their market share has grown and they have a lot of clout in Washington."

Wall Street's recovery is also being aided by a stock-market rally that has driven the S&P 500 index up nearly 54 percent since March 9, when it hit a 12-year low.

Despite the return to profitability, these aren't the high-octane days from before the crisis. To qualify for government backing, the biggest Wall Street firms are no longer allowed to supercharge their returns by borrowing up to 30 times the value of their assets to place bets on stocks, bonds and other investments.

Businesses supported by Wall Street bankers and traders say they've also noticed changes. Namely, their customers aren't spending as much on food, drinks and entertainment as they did during the boom years.

At Fraunces Tavern, a high-end bar just around the corner from the New York Stock Exchange, the Wall Street workers who used to drink $25 glasses of port are scarce these days.

"Now we're doing happy hours," says Damon Testaverde, one of the owners of Fraunces Tavern. "We never did that. There's just less bodies around."

But one thing fundamental to Wall Street hasn't changed: Big banks and their traders are still finding creative — some say speculative — ways to profit.

They're still packaging risky mortgages into securities and selling them to investors, who can earn higher returns by purchasing the securities tied to the riskiest mortgages. That was the practice that helped inflate the real estate bubble and eventually spread financial pain around the globe.

In a way, the government has emboldened banks to keep selling risky securities: Since the crisis erupted, federal emergency programs have helped keep the banks from failing. But now, as the financial system recovers, the government plans to phase out these backstops — leaving banks more vulnerable to big bets that go bad.

One investment gaining popularity is a direct descendant of the mortgage-backed securities that devastated many banks last year. To get some lesser performing assets off their books, banks are taking slices of bonds made up of high-risk mortgage securities and pooling them with slices of bonds comprised of low-risk mortgage securities. With the blessing of debt ratings agencies, banks are then selling this class of bonds as a low-risk investment. The market for these products has hit $30 billion, according to Morgan Stanley.

"It may be unpleasant to hear that the traders are riding high," said Walter Bailey, chief executive of boutique merchant banking firm EpiGroup. "But, hey, it's a pay-for-performance thing, and they're performing like mad."

And that means the return of another Wall Street mainstay: Lavish compensation.

After 10 of the largest banks received a $250 billion lifeline from the government last fall, some lawmakers were outraged that employees were being paid seven-figure salaries even though their companies nearly collapsed. A handful of top executives, including Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit, have agreed to accept pay of just $1 this year. But the compensation of most high-performing traders hasn't changed.

Goldman spent $6.6 billion in the second quarter on pay and benefits, 34 percent more than two years ago. And Citigroup, now one-third owned by the government after taking $45 billion in federal money, owes a star energy trader $100 million.

The CEO of Goldman, Lloyd Blankfein, said at a banking conference in Germany last week that excessive banker pay works "against the public interest." He said bonuses are important to attract and retain top talent, but "misapplied, they can also encourage excess."

The Obama administration has proposed measures to diminish the risk posed by large banks. They include forcing banks to hold more capital to cover losses and trying to increase the transparency of markets in which banks trade the most complex — and potentially risky — financial products.

One major component of the Obama plan — creating an agency to oversee the marketing of financial products to consumers — will be difficult to pass in Congress. Industry lobbying against it and other proposed financial rules has been fierce.

Lobbyists for hedge funds, the large investment pools that cater to the rich, have been able to fend off proposals that would require them to register with the SEC and regularly disclose their holdings.

And they, too, are profitable again after a dismal 2008. The 1,000 largest hedge funds in Morningstar's database posted average returns of 11.9 percent through July. In 2008, those same funds lost 22 percent on average.

"Have there been changes around the edges?" says Timothy Brog, portfolio manager of New York-based hedge fund Locksmith Capital. "Absolutely. Have their been systematic changes? Absolutely not."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_...old_wall_street

for the heck and to demonstrate what crazy taste some people have. here's a picture of my wife's garage (i hate women in my garage and in my bathroom) and her car in our former house in Florida. and NO, i will not show you my garage and my cars!

Wouldyou mind having a word with my wife Herr Naam?

Just updating my stance ....

Gold epic long-term reversal imminent. Targets to 650, 490 approx.

US Dollar Index epic reversal imminent - next target to 90, then 93, then 100.

--------------------------

EuroDollar at 96% bulls = massive bubble

S&P500 has reached the extreme of the 4th of 3 today. What's more, its sporting a nice ending diagonal triangle = a termination pattern.

Vix warning has already occurred - despite the move back into the wedge, a close > 31.3 will see my entire thread call come to life in a hurry.

Excercising patience and just waiting for confirmation is harder than one thinks

The opportunity call of this thread is close - and it will last for 1-3 years so even a few errors in trying to catch the wave are justified.

I am still not sure if you base these calls on macroeconomic fundamentals or the actions of the PPT and the Fed led cartel.

I heard an interview with Prechter the other day, he is calling for a spike in gold after the fallout in 2010. That would exseed your 1 to 3 year call.

I just knew you and the Capt'n would find each other eventually. You and Capt'n share the distinction of each having only one tool in your toolboxes. At least the Capt'n has a hammer which is sometimes useful. You would appear to have only a rock.

And what is his hammer ? Don't take his color coded words too seriously

And your mises.org parroting we should take seriously? They get it right about every time there is a recession, which is less than 10% of the time.

Anyhow, as regards the $USD. Updating my prior post I'm looking for 80 week cycle lows centering around the 25th of September. If it is the second 80 week cycle of the 4.5 year cycle I expect higher lows than were seen in March'08. If that occurs my expectation is that $USD Index moves to at least 95. This forecast is based on the presumption that March '08 marked the low of the 18 year cycle. Window is +/- 4 weeks. If lower lows are made than in March '08 I'll update, but that is not my expectation at this time. All FWIW and OCICBW blah blah.

That would be pretty amazing. When was the last time it was 95? 2003?

I rule nothing out as these are amazing times for sure.

I will be interested to see if this occurs what is the cause of it.

Yeah it's hard to imagine what could propel the USD higher for the next 17 years. But the index is against other Charmin currencies so anything is possible. The Japanese economy has been in tatters for 20 years and their currency would seem FAR more bogus than the USD yet it has held it's exchange value.

I expect it will be a left translated cycle (meaning it wiil peak in the first half). Maybe severely left translated. Or I could be all wrong.

What could cause it? I don't know, I never really think about that, but maybe the advent of European style socialism? Big new taxes like a federal VAT?

Just updating my stance ....

Gold epic long-term reversal imminent. Targets to 650, 490 approx.

US Dollar Index epic reversal imminent - next target to 90, then 93, then 100.

--------------------------

EuroDollar at 96% bulls = massive bubble

S&P500 has reached the extreme of the 4th of 3 today. What's more, its sporting a nice ending diagonal triangle = a termination pattern.

Vix warning has already occurred - despite the move back into the wedge, a close > 31.3 will see my entire thread call come to life in a hurry.

Excercising patience and just waiting for confirmation is harder than one thinks

The opportunity call of this thread is close - and it will last for 1-3 years so even a few errors in trying to catch the wave are justified.

I am still not sure if you base these calls on macroeconomic fundamentals or the actions of the PPT and the Fed led cartel.

I heard an interview with Prechter the other day, he is calling for a spike in gold after the fallout in 2010. That would exseed your 1 to 3 year call.

I just knew you and the Capt'n would find each other eventually. You and Capt'n share the distinction of each having only one tool in your toolboxes. At least the Capt'n has a hammer which is sometimes useful. You would appear to have only a rock.

Two things I see that limit foreigners chance of success at business here. 1) Many of their businesses are oriented to serve other foreigners or tourists only which may be only 1% -2% of the population. They limit their potential income alot with such a narrow customer base. 2) They do not own the land on which their business resides. --- While there are certainly examples of successful businesses that rent their spaces and still make money, personally I've never seen a business prospectus here that allows for sufficient income if rent costs or land purchase amotization costs are included . Better if you just own it already.

oh yeah, and you should probably be sufficient capitalized to run at a loss for 3-5 years.

A good point 1) lannarebirth

have to respectfully disagree with point 2. Generally speaking purchasing the land should be based on an analysis of the land itself solely as an investment

reasons include commercial land is generally of less 'quality' meaning less likely to appreciate than housing (that is a broad generalisation, there are many specific examples that disprove that and it is also based on assumptions), secondly you lose allowable business deductions, tie capital up in a very illiquid asset (part of the value which is tied to the business) and thus generally lose better opportunities.

Many people hold a dream of owning the business premises for reasons of control and that can be a valid reason but financially it is usually not the best move

I agree with all that. It's a drag on ROI but that's the way things work here. You can't really evaluate it in the same way as you might in the West. The sole benefit of operating a business here is to exploit cheap labor.

Two things I see that limit foreigners chance of success at business here. 1) Many of their businesses are oriented to serve other foreigners or tourists only which may be only 1% -2% of the population. They limit their potential income alot with such a narrow customer base. 2) They do not own the land on which their business resides. --- While there are certainly examples of successful businesses that rent their spaces and still make money, personally I've never seen a business prospectus here that allows for sufficient income if rent costs or land purchase amotization costs are included . Better if you just own it already.

oh yeah, and you should probably be sufficient capitalized to run at a loss for 3-5 years.

It is a well below normal year of rainfall thusfar. The last year I remember like this was about 6 years ago and indeed locals tell me there is some kind of 7 year cycle associated with the weather pattern. Maybe El Nino related? I planted 250 trees this year and I never imagined I'd have to be hand watering them this season, but I am. Sure wish it would rain.

One bright spot. I have to dig a well next year so I'm thinkng about March should be an extremely low water table and if I drill then I should be OK for most any year.

So Thaksin was the self described CEO Prime Minister. "Waiting for a miracle" doesn't sound like much of a plan.

where is VegasVic and his 1.15-1.20 ?

I was asking the same question to myself, yesterday, and checked his profile; he was last on line on August 2 and I hope he's in good health and on a holdiay trip or something but who knows, but him?

His last words, on August 2, were:

""Currently the velocity of money is at a standstill and inflation is about as tame as I have ever seen it in my adult life, so I will go on the record here and predict a fall in the POG to mid $800 levels or lower by the end of September "" .....................including the smiley.

So.......what can I say other than that all gold buyers should sell their shiny stuff before it's too late ?

LaoPo

And maybe make note of the fact that it takes more Euros to buy an Oz. of Gold than it did the last time Gold was at this level.

..you mean less €uros ? (since the moment VegasVic wrote the above...) or do I misinterpret your sentence ?

LaoPo

Just eyeballing it roughly, last time Gold hit these levels the Euro could buy 1.58 $USD, not it buys 1.46 $USD, so roughly Euro took 9% hit against Gold.

where is VegasVic and his 1.15-1.20 ?

I was asking the same question to myself, yesterday, and checked his profile; he was last on line on August 2 and I hope he's in good health and on a holdiay trip or something but who knows, but him?

His last words, on August 2, were:

""Currently the velocity of money is at a standstill and inflation is about as tame as I have ever seen it in my adult life, so I will go on the record here and predict a fall in the POG to mid $800 levels or lower by the end of September "" .....................including the smiley.

So.......what can I say other than that all gold buyers should sell their shiny stuff before it's too late ?

LaoPo

And maybe make note of the fact that it takes more Euros to buy an Oz. of Gold than it did the last time Gold was at this level.

The one with Big C/HomePro (and Global House further to the east) is the inner ring road.

I thought that one was the middle ring road, just to add to your confusion.

That's what I thought too. Anyhow, thanks everyone for your claifications. 8 rai doesn't sound like much of anything. I was only concerned about potential traffic impact.

Anyhow, as regards the $USD. Updating my prior post I'm looking for 80 week cycle lows centering around the 25th of September. If it is the second 80 week cycle of the 4.5 year cycle I expect higher lows than were seen in March'08. If that occurs my expectation is that $USD Index moves to at least 95. This forecast is based on the presumption that March '08 marked the low of the 18 year cycle. Window is +/- 4 weeks. If lower lows are made than in March '08 I'll update, but that is not my expectation at this time. All FWIW and OCICBW blah blah.

Central has plans to build something fancy and high-end, on the 8 rai or so of land that they own at the intersection of the Outer Ring and the Hang Dong road.

You heard it here first.

Which road is the outer ring road? The one Big C is on, or the next one that runs between Saraphi and Samoeng?

I believe the outer ring road is the 121, well that what I call it anyway. right close to my house so that'll be handy

It's good you have some idea where you are and where it may be, but could you enlighten me? Your response contained no information I can use. tia

Maybe a helpful mod could clean up this thread, including my own posts? A relative of the deceased shouldn't have to read some of this crap. TIA

Central has plans to build something fancy and high-end, on the 8 rai or so of land that they own at the intersection of the Outer Ring and the Hang Dong road.

You heard it here first.

Which road is the outer ring road? The one Big C is on, or the next one that runs between Saraphi and Samoeng?

He's still batting 1.000 with me.

Is that a baseball expression? What does it mean?

Yes it is. Literally it means a batter gets a hit in every at bat. In Mapguys case one can find something offensive in every post (nearly).

Never happened before, but I find my sympathies are with Mapguy on this one.

He's still batting 1.000 with me.

all this talk about vaccinating the population is primarily because the pharma company producing it wants its money back from the govt.for all i know maybe the vaccine g-has a use by date.but has anyone noticed that the press are not reporting or telling if the swine flu virus is on the increase or decrease,i have not seen any updates in the UK press.

personally i would not touch these type of vaccines with abarge pole,as no one knows if they work or what reactions they may have ................they can shove it up their arse.

Most problems I see, whether they be in the realm of finance, health or agriculture seem to have a single element in common, poorly thought out compensation schemes.

The financial industry derives the highest compensation from creating volatility, which is not in the public interest. agriculture, which is more and more corporatized gets much of its compensation from tax dodges and subsidies, often unrelated to demand. Pharmaceutical companies can hold on to patents long past the time they should by lobbying for minor changes in intended use of the drug or minor reformulations.

I would scrap most of the pharma industry compensation scheme if I were in charge and offer generous bounties for delivery of efficacious drugs and then cut then off largely from the future revenue stream of those drugs, making them reasonably priced for any who may need them. And of course I'd kill all the lobbyists.

and what's wrong with that law Midas? it's a law i would highly appreciate if i were a Massachusetts resident because it reduces the risk that my next door neighbours, who refused a vaccination, are potentially endangering my health and the health of my family. the law is the law. if you don't follow the law you bear the consequences. as simple as that.

With all due respect.............

Not speaking for Midas but there is a lot wrong with a law that forces me to be injected with any substance against my will.

I have raised healthy children who are all now in their 20's & they never received one single vaccination. If they as adults ever feel the need to be vaccinated then that is their decision to do so.

But I like many others have very strong feelings about what goes into my body. That will not be decided by any government.

until reunification West Germany had mandatory vaccination laws for children. nobody complained because there were the odd cases to see what polio or small pocks can do not only to a child but spoil his/her whole life. there is nothing to rave about that all your children are healthy. they (and you) were just lucky. whether one has strong feelings or not is irrelevant. the legislature of the country in which one lives counts. if one does not like it one leaves or violates the laws and face the consequences.

p.s. and don't even think of telling me now how many firearms were bought to fight forceful vaccinations

Dr. Naam is correct IMO that we elect representatives and employ health officials to oversee the public welfare and except in cases where there may be increased health risks to a citixzen by following their recommendations (like allergic reactions etc.) one should expect they work with the best of intentions.

Flying's point I think, is that on numerous occasions public officials have failed in their duties to protect the public welfare and in fact have even been shown to collude with corporations to do harm to the public with the intention of profitting from those actions.

While I believe there is a strong case to be made for the public health benefits of vaccinations, the onus is on the government to prove their case and allay the fears of the populace. I'm not sure that can be done as they seem to have such little credibility these days.