In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
I don't read it as a declaration of war. I read it as an aggressive, provocative and utterly out of touch comment coming from the face of the police force when he should be calling for calm and reassuring the policemen he represents.
Also who advises cops to stop arresting people unless strictly necessary because a random nut job shot a cop (or 2)? Again utterly no relation, Blood on the majors hands, again utterly no relation to the incident.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
So if they had had a reputation for abuse they would have deserved it? Framing it in terms of "reasons" is not intelligible. It used to be that the object of "protect and serve" was the public. It's become increasingly clear that for many police departments their priority has shifted to self-aggrandizement.
Speaking at his end-of-the-year press conference on Friday afternoon, President Obama sounded very much like he's poised to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. He gave his sharpest assessment to date of its potential costs and benefits—lots of costs and few benefits.
Climate hawks rejoiced, not only because of Obama's implied opposition to Keystone, but because he finally confronted American ignorance of how the oil market works, and attempted to reorient our energy policy around reality.
At the press conference, Obama took a question from The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin on what he will do about the Keystone XL pipeline, which congressional Republicans plan to try to ram through in January. Eilperin said Obama has in past comments "minimized some of the benefits" of Keystone. Obama responded that he has merely accurately characterized the benefits, which are objectively minimal, and walked Eilperin through a lesson in macroeconomics.
I don't think I've minimized the benefits, I think I've described the benefits.
At issue on Keystone is not American oil, it is Canadian oil that is drawn out of tar sands in Canada. That oil currently is being shipped through rail or trucks, and it would save Canadian oil companies and the Canadian oil industry an enormous amount of money if they could simply pipe it all the way through the United State down to the Gulf. Once that oil gets to the Gulf, it is then entering into the world market and it would be sold all around the world… There is very little impact, nominal impact, on US gas prices, what the average American consumer cares about, by having this pipeline come through.
And sometimes the way this gets sold is, let's get this oil and it's going to come here and the implication is that's gonna lower oil prices here in the US It's not. There's a global oil market. It's very good for Canadian oil companies and it's good for the Canadian oil industry, but it's not going to be a huge benefit to US consumers. It's not even going to be a nominal benefit to US consumers.
It has been a source of aggravation to climate hawks that Obama has often pandered to the economic ignorance of the American public when it comes to gas prices. Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy falsely asserts that increased domestic production of oil will reduce "our dependence on foreign oil," as if there really were any such thing. Oil is a global commodity. Prices are set by global supply and global demand. Whether the oil we buy happens to be drilled in the US, Canada, Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or Libya makes no difference. We are subsidizing our adversaries who produce oil as long as we are filling our gas-guzzlers with it. More oil production in the US, or oil importation from Canada, will not inoculate us against the price shocks caused by supply disruptions in the Middle East or elsewhere.
On December 20 2014 12:58 oneofthem wrote: but AAA isn't supposed to default, and defaulting on these tranches muddles everyone's books because they literally don't know which tranch will be paid out first and so on. the rating was horseshit
Nothing is 'supposed to' default. AAA does not mean zero risk. There's a hierarchy for tranches, so you do know who gets paid out first, and so on.
On December 20 2014 13:49 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 12:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 10:14 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:46 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote: I like how people avoided the states rights issue in order to step on Warren. What's wrong with the legislation being proposed...? "No one knows, but look at her cheekbones!" "Yeah she has funny nicknames! tehehe"
Politics really has devolved into an elementary school playground hasn't it?
Says the guy who posted the youtube clip titled 'Reagan is a retard'.
Warren's bitching over derivatives is pretty laughable. Almost no one with credibility came to her side. Volker and Bernanke both panned it as ineffective and many have pointed out that it would reduce regulator's ability to regulate the activities.
What a weird choice to cite as experts on derivatives. Bernanke's grasp of derivatives was so poor he didnt understand how subprime would impact the rest of the economy as late as 2008.
Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative.
Are you purposefully being dense here? Subprime's impact on the wider economy flowed through derivatives.
Subprime's effect on the wider economy flowed in a number of ways. The main one was through a run on the money markets.
On December 20 2014 10:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
On December 20 2014 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:46 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote: I like how people avoided the states rights issue in order to step on Warren. What's wrong with the legislation being proposed...? "No one knows, but look at her cheekbones!" "Yeah she has funny nicknames! tehehe"
Politics really has devolved into an elementary school playground hasn't it?
Says the guy who posted the youtube clip titled 'Reagan is a retard'.
Warren's bitching over derivatives is pretty laughable. Almost no one with credibility came to her side. Volker and Bernanke both panned it as ineffective and many have pointed out that it would reduce regulator's ability to regulate the activities.
What a weird choice to cite as experts on derivatives. Bernanke's grasp of derivatives was so poor he didnt understand how subprime would impact the rest of the economy as late as 2008.
Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative.
Who would you like to cite? I've yet to see anyone knowledgeable come out in support of that rule.
Err... subprime mortgages were bundled into mortgage backed securities (aka, derivatives) with a few prime mortgages, so basically adding kool aid powder to everclear (hint: it still tastes awful and will mess you up and yes I'm in college). Theory was that houses were good collateral, but turns out collateral is only worth something if 1. someone actually wants to buy it and 2. its not insanely overpriced. Basically if you drank the kool aid, you're fucked either way eventually.
I personally don't understand why "high finance" and investment banking exist since return is effectively a risk premium so it's not actually possible to beat the market. This recent article kinda outlines my view.
On another note, Obama is having one of the best weeks (or couple weeks) of his presidency. The timing suggests that God has a sense of humor.
I wouldn't call a standard MBS a derivative, unless we're talking a synthetic. To my knowledge the provision just pushes out commodity derivatives, equity derivatives and un-cleared CDS so regardless of the definition I don't think they apply to this.
MBS worked pretty well btw. Most AAA tranches performed fine (low default rate), and a lot of the losses were due to the market price tanking after liquidity dried up and mark to market rules or for those holding junior / equity tranches.
AAA by definition are not supposed to have any default rate, the service providers that were supposed ensure that were either inept/corrupt, the raters, or stupid, AIG and the monolines. The liquidity in the market dried up because as oneofthem said, when AAA turn into a big black box no financial institution could trust any other financial institution.
The Citirule was specifically created because retarded Citi pushed out all of its risk onto SPV when it was dancing around Tim Geithner asleep at the wheel and then took them back on its balance sheet once they realized their customers would never trust them again if they didnt.
Not sure about your argument about citi. The rule pushes derivatives off the bank's balance sheets so if you don't like SPV's you shouldn't like the rule.
The rule pushes them out on SPV and spells out explicitly that the SPV wont be taken back onto the balance sheet. The collapse of citi was caused by citi taking those SPVs back on the balance sheet and this is what they are trying to avoid.
Fair point, though I strongly argue that's a symptom and not a direct problem. Lots of SPVs and repo transactions failing is a problem by itself. Whether they directly move to a parent company has meaning, but not a whole lot as far as the financial system as a whole is concerned.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
So if they had had a reputation for abuse they would have deserved it? Framing it in terms of "reasons" is not intelligible. It used to be that the object of "protect and serve" was the public. It's become increasingly clear that for many police departments their priority has shifted to self-aggrandizement.
It's a real shame that the police are politicizing the issue...
One of the cops had a thirteen year old kid. The other one got married two months ago.
Speaking at his end-of-the-year press conference on Friday afternoon, President Obama sounded very much like he's poised to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. He gave his sharpest assessment to date of its potential costs and benefits—lots of costs and few benefits.
Climate hawks rejoiced, not only because of Obama's implied opposition to Keystone, but because he finally confronted American ignorance of how the oil market works, and attempted to reorient our energy policy around reality.
At the press conference, Obama took a question from The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin on what he will do about the Keystone XL pipeline, which congressional Republicans plan to try to ram through in January. Eilperin said Obama has in past comments "minimized some of the benefits" of Keystone. Obama responded that he has merely accurately characterized the benefits, which are objectively minimal, and walked Eilperin through a lesson in macroeconomics.
Here are the highlights:
I don't think I've minimized the benefits, I think I've described the benefits.
At issue on Keystone is not American oil, it is Canadian oil that is drawn out of tar sands in Canada. That oil currently is being shipped through rail or trucks, and it would save Canadian oil companies and the Canadian oil industry an enormous amount of money if they could simply pipe it all the way through the United State down to the Gulf. Once that oil gets to the Gulf, it is then entering into the world market and it would be sold all around the world… There is very little impact, nominal impact, on US gas prices, what the average American consumer cares about, by having this pipeline come through.
And sometimes the way this gets sold is, let's get this oil and it's going to come here and the implication is that's gonna lower oil prices here in the US It's not. There's a global oil market. It's very good for Canadian oil companies and it's good for the Canadian oil industry, but it's not going to be a huge benefit to US consumers. It's not even going to be a nominal benefit to US consumers.
It has been a source of aggravation to climate hawks that Obama has often pandered to the economic ignorance of the American public when it comes to gas prices. Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy falsely asserts that increased domestic production of oil will reduce "our dependence on foreign oil," as if there really were any such thing. Oil is a global commodity. Prices are set by global supply and global demand. Whether the oil we buy happens to be drilled in the US, Canada, Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or Libya makes no difference. We are subsidizing our adversaries who produce oil as long as we are filling our gas-guzzlers with it. More oil production in the US, or oil importation from Canada, will not inoculate us against the price shocks caused by supply disruptions in the Middle East or elsewhere.
Are people still taking this garbage as truth? What Keystone is / will do is pretty well analyzed at this point. If you don't like it, just say so and why and stop trying to lie and trick people into joining the opposition.
On December 20 2014 12:58 oneofthem wrote: but AAA isn't supposed to default, and defaulting on these tranches muddles everyone's books because they literally don't know which tranch will be paid out first and so on. the rating was horseshit
Nothing is 'supposed to' default. AAA does not mean zero risk. There's a hierarchy for tranches, so you do know who gets paid out first, and so on.
On December 20 2014 13:49 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 12:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 10:14 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:46 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote: I like how people avoided the states rights issue in order to step on Warren. What's wrong with the legislation being proposed...? "No one knows, but look at her cheekbones!" "Yeah she has funny nicknames! tehehe"
Politics really has devolved into an elementary school playground hasn't it?
Says the guy who posted the youtube clip titled 'Reagan is a retard'.
Warren's bitching over derivatives is pretty laughable. Almost no one with credibility came to her side. Volker and Bernanke both panned it as ineffective and many have pointed out that it would reduce regulator's ability to regulate the activities.
What a weird choice to cite as experts on derivatives. Bernanke's grasp of derivatives was so poor he didnt understand how subprime would impact the rest of the economy as late as 2008.
Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative.
Are you purposefully being dense here? Subprime's impact on the wider economy flowed through derivatives.
Subprime's effect on the wider economy flowed in a number of ways. The main one was through a run on the money markets.
On December 20 2014 10:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
On December 20 2014 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:46 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote: I like how people avoided the states rights issue in order to step on Warren. What's wrong with the legislation being proposed...? "No one knows, but look at her cheekbones!" "Yeah she has funny nicknames! tehehe"
Politics really has devolved into an elementary school playground hasn't it?
Says the guy who posted the youtube clip titled 'Reagan is a retard'.
Warren's bitching over derivatives is pretty laughable. Almost no one with credibility came to her side. Volker and Bernanke both panned it as ineffective and many have pointed out that it would reduce regulator's ability to regulate the activities.
What a weird choice to cite as experts on derivatives. Bernanke's grasp of derivatives was so poor he didnt understand how subprime would impact the rest of the economy as late as 2008.
Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative.
Who would you like to cite? I've yet to see anyone knowledgeable come out in support of that rule.
Err... subprime mortgages were bundled into mortgage backed securities (aka, derivatives) with a few prime mortgages, so basically adding kool aid powder to everclear (hint: it still tastes awful and will mess you up and yes I'm in college). Theory was that houses were good collateral, but turns out collateral is only worth something if 1. someone actually wants to buy it and 2. its not insanely overpriced. Basically if you drank the kool aid, you're fucked either way eventually.
I personally don't understand why "high finance" and investment banking exist since return is effectively a risk premium so it's not actually possible to beat the market. This recent article kinda outlines my view.
On another note, Obama is having one of the best weeks (or couple weeks) of his presidency. The timing suggests that God has a sense of humor.
I wouldn't call a standard MBS a derivative, unless we're talking a synthetic. To my knowledge the provision just pushes out commodity derivatives, equity derivatives and un-cleared CDS so regardless of the definition I don't think they apply to this.
MBS worked pretty well btw. Most AAA tranches performed fine (low default rate), and a lot of the losses were due to the market price tanking after liquidity dried up and mark to market rules or for those holding junior / equity tranches.
AAA by definition are not supposed to have any default rate, the service providers that were supposed ensure that were either inept/corrupt, the raters, or stupid, AIG and the monolines. The liquidity in the market dried up because as oneofthem said, when AAA turn into a big black box no financial institution could trust any other financial institution.
The Citirule was specifically created because retarded Citi pushed out all of its risk onto SPV when it was dancing around Tim Geithner asleep at the wheel and then took them back on its balance sheet once they realized their customers would never trust them again if they didnt.
Not sure about your argument about citi. The rule pushes derivatives off the bank's balance sheets so if you don't like SPV's you shouldn't like the rule.
The rule pushes them out on SPV and spells out explicitly that the SPV wont be taken back onto the balance sheet. The collapse of citi was caused by citi taking those SPVs back on the balance sheet and this is what they are trying to avoid.
Fair point, though I strongly argue that's a symptom and not a direct problem. Lots of SPVs and repo transactions failing is a problem by itself. Whether they directly move to a parent company has meaning, but not a whole lot as far as the financial system as a whole is concerned.
Well, the issue is what to do about a bank run on shadow banking. But the issue is also that banks with big balance sheets and FDIC insurance are able to essentially exploit their crucial position to (a) expand their off balance sheet stuff aggressively and (b) not worry their bond holders too much since their crucial position guarantees a bailout. By taking brightlines around investments that are going to be protected in the future vs stuff that will be allowed to fail the idea is to let future investors realize that if you buy some off shore domiciled Citi vehicle you are buying into an independent entity that does not in fact have Citi and by extension the federal reserve behind it.
On December 20 2014 12:58 oneofthem wrote: but AAA isn't supposed to default, and defaulting on these tranches muddles everyone's books because they literally don't know which tranch will be paid out first and so on. the rating was horseshit
Nothing is 'supposed to' default. AAA does not mean zero risk. There's a hierarchy for tranches, so you do know who gets paid out first, and so on.
On December 20 2014 13:49 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 12:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 10:14 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:46 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Says the guy who posted the youtube clip titled 'Reagan is a retard'.
Warren's bitching over derivatives is pretty laughable. Almost no one with credibility came to her side. Volker and Bernanke both panned it as ineffective and many have pointed out that it would reduce regulator's ability to regulate the activities.
What a weird choice to cite as experts on derivatives. Bernanke's grasp of derivatives was so poor he didnt understand how subprime would impact the rest of the economy as late as 2008.
Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative.
Are you purposefully being dense here? Subprime's impact on the wider economy flowed through derivatives.
Subprime's effect on the wider economy flowed in a number of ways. The main one was through a run on the money markets.
On December 20 2014 10:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
On December 20 2014 09:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:46 Sub40APM wrote:
On December 20 2014 08:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Says the guy who posted the youtube clip titled 'Reagan is a retard'.
Warren's bitching over derivatives is pretty laughable. Almost no one with credibility came to her side. Volker and Bernanke both panned it as ineffective and many have pointed out that it would reduce regulator's ability to regulate the activities.
What a weird choice to cite as experts on derivatives. Bernanke's grasp of derivatives was so poor he didnt understand how subprime would impact the rest of the economy as late as 2008.
Weird choice of criticism, subprime isn't a derivative.
Who would you like to cite? I've yet to see anyone knowledgeable come out in support of that rule.
Err... subprime mortgages were bundled into mortgage backed securities (aka, derivatives) with a few prime mortgages, so basically adding kool aid powder to everclear (hint: it still tastes awful and will mess you up and yes I'm in college). Theory was that houses were good collateral, but turns out collateral is only worth something if 1. someone actually wants to buy it and 2. its not insanely overpriced. Basically if you drank the kool aid, you're fucked either way eventually.
I personally don't understand why "high finance" and investment banking exist since return is effectively a risk premium so it's not actually possible to beat the market. This recent article kinda outlines my view.
On another note, Obama is having one of the best weeks (or couple weeks) of his presidency. The timing suggests that God has a sense of humor.
I wouldn't call a standard MBS a derivative, unless we're talking a synthetic. To my knowledge the provision just pushes out commodity derivatives, equity derivatives and un-cleared CDS so regardless of the definition I don't think they apply to this.
MBS worked pretty well btw. Most AAA tranches performed fine (low default rate), and a lot of the losses were due to the market price tanking after liquidity dried up and mark to market rules or for those holding junior / equity tranches.
AAA by definition are not supposed to have any default rate, the service providers that were supposed ensure that were either inept/corrupt, the raters, or stupid, AIG and the monolines. The liquidity in the market dried up because as oneofthem said, when AAA turn into a big black box no financial institution could trust any other financial institution.
The Citirule was specifically created because retarded Citi pushed out all of its risk onto SPV when it was dancing around Tim Geithner asleep at the wheel and then took them back on its balance sheet once they realized their customers would never trust them again if they didnt.
Not sure about your argument about citi. The rule pushes derivatives off the bank's balance sheets so if you don't like SPV's you shouldn't like the rule.
The rule pushes them out on SPV and spells out explicitly that the SPV wont be taken back onto the balance sheet. The collapse of citi was caused by citi taking those SPVs back on the balance sheet and this is what they are trying to avoid.
Fair point, though I strongly argue that's a symptom and not a direct problem. Lots of SPVs and repo transactions failing is a problem by itself. Whether they directly move to a parent company has meaning, but not a whole lot as far as the financial system as a whole is concerned.
Well, the issue is what to do about a bank run on shadow banking. But the issue is also that banks with big balance sheets and FDIC insurance are able to essentially exploit their crucial position to (a) expand their off balance sheet stuff aggressively and (b) not worry their bond holders too much since their crucial position guarantees a bailout. By taking brightlines around investments that are going to be protected in the future vs stuff that will be allowed to fail the idea is to let future investors realize that if you buy some off shore domiciled Citi vehicle you are buying into an independent entity that does not in fact have Citi and by extension the federal reserve behind it.
You want the Fed behind it though; that's how you stop runs. The only other thing you can do is make the arrangements less run-prone and more or less hope you don't have a run. And let's not forget that many of the bailouts were ad hoc. If a problem is big enough, you're going to have intervention... because that's what you must do. Also, note here that preventing runs is not synonymous with disallowing failure. Preventing runs is about solving liquidity and not solvency issues.
Now, if we're talking about the implicit too big to fail subsidy, yes that needs to be eliminated as much as possible. I don't see this having much of an impact there though. IIRC the issue there is Citi equity holders benefiting from lower borrowing costs due to the implied backstop. Offhand, I don't see how that benefit would flow through SPVs and into Citi.
Well just the way it worked out, Citi was able to offer higher rates on 'AAA' SPV securities, when that failed Citi took them back onto its BS and TARP paid for it. It was a too big to fail subsidy. I suppose the other way to skin the cat is to move away from the issuer pays the credit agency to rate its stuff. No more 9% return 'AAA' securities.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
So if they had had a reputation for abuse they would have deserved it? Framing it in terms of "reasons" is not intelligible. It used to be that the object of "protect and serve" was the public. It's become increasingly clear that for many police departments their priority has shifted to self-aggrandizement.
It's a real shame that the police are politicizing the issue...
One of the cops had a thirteen year old kid. The other one got married two months ago.
It's not just the police, it's others that seriously and repeatedly incited violence against the police. The opposite argument can be made that it's public figures like De Blasio and ideological allies that gin up sentiment and backlash for political posturing. From the NY Times,
Many in the department heard something else: the most striking example yet of what has been — according to a dozen officers interviewed before the shooting — the consistent vilification of the police by the city’s leader.
In fact, Mr. de Blasio has repeatedly praised the police, particularly throughout the recent sprawling protests. And many in the city have been critical of the unions’ treatment of the mayor since the shootings. (A spokesman for Mr. Lynch did not respond to questions on Sunday.)
Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president and a former police captain, said, “We need to use the pain that all of us are experiencing and turn it into purpose.” He added that “calling for reform is not a call for harm of police officers.”
Even Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican and former mayor, offered a measure of cover to Mr. de Blasio, telling Fox News that it “goes too far” to blame the mayor for the deaths. But, he added, Mr. de Blasio “did not properly police the protests” by allowing them to block city streets.
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Bratton acknowledged that “morale in the department, in general, is not good.”
Administration officials have attributed much of the police unrest to a contract dispute, suggesting that union leaders were not necessarily reflecting the opinions of the rank and file.
Many critics, though, trace the roots of department angst to the election last year. In an interview on ABC on Sunday, Mr. Bratton’s predecessor as commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, echoed a familiar refrain of the mayor’s skeptics: that he had run an “antipolice campaign.”
“It’s different for a white child. That’s just the reality in this country,” de Blasio said. “And with Dante, very early on with my son, we said, ‘Look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do, don’t move suddenly, don’t reach for your cellphone,’ because we knew, sadly, there’s a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color.”
On December 22 2014 14:26 Sub40APM wrote: Well just the way it worked out, Citi was able to offer higher rates on 'AAA' SPV securities, when that failed Citi took them back onto its BS and TARP paid for it. It was a too big to fail subsidy. I suppose the other way to skin the cat is to move away from the issuer pays the credit agency to rate its stuff. No more 9% return 'AAA' securities.
This is a bit convoluted. If the issuer is paying the credit agency you should wind up with bias towards better ratings and lower rates. Sell side wants lower rates, because lower rates mean a higher price, and when you're selling you want a higher price. If you have 'AAA' at a high rate, the buying isn't taking 'AAA' as true low risk.
As for TARP, I think you're missing why TARP and special Fed actions happened. The securities not going to Citi doesn't mean that there isn't a problem and so you'd still need those actions to take place. I guess in the new version TARP money goes to the SPVs, rather than Citi, which benefits Citi anyways so... what's new here?
Edit: Not sure if this was the case with Citi specific, but a lot of shadow banking had ties to regulated banking. During the crisis those ties acted as a sort-of private lender of last resort, which wasn't adequate. If the crisis is bad enough, only a public lender of last resort has enough sway.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
So if they had had a reputation for abuse they would have deserved it? Framing it in terms of "reasons" is not intelligible. It used to be that the object of "protect and serve" was the public. It's become increasingly clear that for many police departments their priority has shifted to self-aggrandizement.
It's a real shame that the police are politicizing the issue...
One of the cops had a thirteen year old kid. The other one got married two months ago.
It's not just the police, it's others that seriously and repeatedly incited violence against the police. The opposite argument can be made that it's public figures like De Blasio and ideological allies that gin up sentiment and backlash for political posturing. From the NY Times,
Many in the department heard something else: the most striking example yet of what has been — according to a dozen officers interviewed before the shooting — the consistent vilification of the police by the city’s leader.
In fact, Mr. de Blasio has repeatedly praised the police, particularly throughout the recent sprawling protests. And many in the city have been critical of the unions’ treatment of the mayor since the shootings. (A spokesman for Mr. Lynch did not respond to questions on Sunday.)
Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president and a former police captain, said, “We need to use the pain that all of us are experiencing and turn it into purpose.” He added that “calling for reform is not a call for harm of police officers.”
Even Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican and former mayor, offered a measure of cover to Mr. de Blasio, telling Fox News that it “goes too far” to blame the mayor for the deaths. But, he added, Mr. de Blasio “did not properly police the protests” by allowing them to block city streets.
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Bratton acknowledged that “morale in the department, in general, is not good.”
Administration officials have attributed much of the police unrest to a contract dispute, suggesting that union leaders were not necessarily reflecting the opinions of the rank and file.
Many critics, though, trace the roots of department angst to the election last year. In an interview on ABC on Sunday, Mr. Bratton’s predecessor as commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, echoed a familiar refrain of the mayor’s skeptics: that he had run an “antipolice campaign.”
“It’s different for a white child. That’s just the reality in this country,” de Blasio said. “And with Dante, very early on with my son, we said, ‘Look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do, don’t move suddenly, don’t reach for your cellphone,’ because we knew, sadly, there’s a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color.”
Widowed wives and fatherless children, the sad fruits of politics that couldn't care less.
Which quote is making your point for you that people like de Blasio are "ginning up sentiment and backlash?" The first one says that even Giuliani thinks the mayor is not fault, and Giuliani says crazy-dumb things. The second one is simply a statement of fact.
So de Blasio speaking the truth led to this shooting? Better to put a lid on truth because we wouldn't want it to look like it was even possible that the truth influenced a homocidal maniac? Better to let cops continue to kill people around the country rather than maybe give the idea of killing two cops to a man who just murdered his ex-girlfriend, because it would be better if he just killed her family, his boss, his coworkers, or random passersby?
The siege mentality of cops is disgusting. The culture of cop heroification is disgusting. Are you signing up to protect and serve or are you signing up to run the town like common thugs? It's far far more dangerous for cops out on America's highway systems, making lone stops on desolate roads, to approach cars than it is to be a beat cop in NYC. Overreacting to an isolated incident as if it were wartime is disgusting. This aggrandizing polemical bullshit is disgusting. People get killed all the time by homocidal maniacs. Sometimes those people happen to be cops. Fucking deal with it like everyone else, cops, you know what you signed up for.
now now, both 'sides' are allowed the emotional overreactions. there's a lot to be said on who's right and who's not etc, but the important thing i see is tremendous lost opportunity for honest reflection.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
So if they had had a reputation for abuse they would have deserved it? Framing it in terms of "reasons" is not intelligible. It used to be that the object of "protect and serve" was the public. It's become increasingly clear that for many police departments their priority has shifted to self-aggrandizement.
No, but the police wouldn't have to feel scared that this could happen to any cop on the street. The fact that this was a nut job killing two cops in their car makes it even more scary for all the cops that have to do patrols, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods or near the protesters most likely to be violent.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
So if they had had a reputation for abuse they would have deserved it? Framing it in terms of "reasons" is not intelligible. It used to be that the object of "protect and serve" was the public. It's become increasingly clear that for many police departments their priority has shifted to self-aggrandizement.
No, but the police wouldn't have to feel scared that this could happen to any cop on the street. The fact that this was a nut job killing two cops in their car makes it even more scary for all the cops that have to do patrols, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods or near the protesters most likely to be violent.
So should their union not be calling for calm and reasoned debate (from both sides) instead of drumming up their members? Putting them more on edge and practically waiting until the next cop shoots someone out of fear and paranoia?
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
So if they had had a reputation for abuse they would have deserved it? Framing it in terms of "reasons" is not intelligible. It used to be that the object of "protect and serve" was the public. It's become increasingly clear that for many police departments their priority has shifted to self-aggrandizement.
No, but the police wouldn't have to feel scared that this could happen to any cop on the street. The fact that this was a nut job killing two cops in their car makes it even more scary for all the cops that have to do patrols, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods or near the protesters most likely to be violent.
So should their union not be calling for calm and reasoned debate (from both sides) instead of drumming up their members? Putting them more on edge and practically waiting until the next cop shoots someone out of fear and paranoia?
No, it shouldn't. The union is not concerned with broader moral questions for society, it exists to serve the interests of its membership. Calm and reasoned debate doesn't make cops any safer when they go out on patrol and it doesn't inform their behavior with regards to the public to best protect themselves.
But as for "putting them more on edge", here are the sorts of things other police unions in the Tri-state area are telling their membership:
New Jersey’s state police union has issued an email alert to the group’s 33,000 members warning them to take extra caution after two NYPD officers were murdered.
New Jersey State PBA Executive Vice President Marc Kovar said in the email Sunday morning that all members and officers should take extra caution and change up routines in the coming weeks.
He cites heightened hostility from nationwide protests that he says has led to a “fever pitch of anti-police sentiment.”
“This open hostility has created more tense encounters with officers even on routine incidents such as motor vehicle stops,” the alert reads.
Kovar also advised officers to be vigilant for potential ambushes after two NYPD officers were ambushed and shot to death in Brooklyn Saturday.
As NJ.com reported, the Newark Police Department will take single officer-units off of the streets, according to the union president.
“The Newark Fraternal Order of Police is primarily concerned with the safety of the officers in the street,” James Stewart, the president of the union, said late Saturday. “In the climate we face today there is nothing more important. We are happy the Director agrees with our view and is putting the safety of the men and women in the street above all else.”...
The union says officers should be alert for any interaction where someone may be looking for a confrontation.
This is certainly less panicked than the other message from the NYPD union, as they are much more explicit that they are concerned for police safety rather than taking shots at the mayor or using provocative terms like "wartime police", but it has essentially the same message and they're taking the same measures.
The New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, the NYPD's union, has issued this statement following the deaths of two police officers in an ambush:
"Starting IMMEDIATELY: At least two units are to respond to EVERY call, no matter the condition or severity, no matter what type of job is pending, or what the opinion of the patrol supervisor happens to be.
“IN ADDITION: Absolutely NO enforcement action in the form of arrests and or summonses is to be taken unless absolutely necessary and an individual MUST be placed under arrest.
“These are precautions that were taken in the 1970's when police officers were ambushed and executed on a regular basis.
“The mayor’s hands are literally dripping with our blood because of his words actions and policies and we have, for the first time in a number of years, become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”
With the statement in this context, it's less about militarization per se and more about being more firm and decisive in their actions for the sake of police safety. I'm not sure exactly how the "in addition" part changes their actions day to day, but it's clear they don't want any more dead cops.
It's crazy that you would quote the whole thing as if it contextualized "wartime" excerpt. The full quote is just as full-on crazy. De Blasio has blood on his hands???
I think it contextualizes it as an emotional response and their recommendations for actions per se are for cops to be very cautious and only make arrests firmly and decisively. I don't read it as an actual declaration of war, which is how some of the commenters seem to read it.
Sure, it's hyperbolic and out there, but I would give them some rope because they're very upset by the nature and premeditation of the attack. This guy killed those two cops for no better reason than they happened to be the first ones he saw. They weren't white, they don't seem to have had reputations for abuse, and neither of them deserves to be dead.
So if they had had a reputation for abuse they would have deserved it? Framing it in terms of "reasons" is not intelligible. It used to be that the object of "protect and serve" was the public. It's become increasingly clear that for many police departments their priority has shifted to self-aggrandizement.
No, but the police wouldn't have to feel scared that this could happen to any cop on the street. The fact that this was a nut job killing two cops in their car makes it even more scary for all the cops that have to do patrols, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods or near the protesters most likely to be violent.
So should their union not be calling for calm and reasoned debate (from both sides) instead of drumming up their members? Putting them more on edge and practically waiting until the next cop shoots someone out of fear and paranoia?
No, it shouldn't. The union is not concerned with broader moral questions for society, it exists to serve the interests of its membership. Calm and reasoned debate doesn't make cops any safer when they go out on patrol and it doesn't inform their behavior with regards to the public to best protect themselves.
But as for "putting them more on edge", here are the sorts of things other police unions in the Tri-state area are telling their membership:
New Jersey’s state police union has issued an email alert to the group’s 33,000 members warning them to take extra caution after two NYPD officers were murdered.
New Jersey State PBA Executive Vice President Marc Kovar said in the email Sunday morning that all members and officers should take extra caution and change up routines in the coming weeks.
He cites heightened hostility from nationwide protests that he says has led to a “fever pitch of anti-police sentiment.”
“This open hostility has created more tense encounters with officers even on routine incidents such as motor vehicle stops,” the alert reads.
Kovar also advised officers to be vigilant for potential ambushes after two NYPD officers were ambushed and shot to death in Brooklyn Saturday.
As NJ.com reported, the Newark Police Department will take single officer-units off of the streets, according to the union president.
“The Newark Fraternal Order of Police is primarily concerned with the safety of the officers in the street,” James Stewart, the president of the union, said late Saturday. “In the climate we face today there is nothing more important. We are happy the Director agrees with our view and is putting the safety of the men and women in the street above all else.”...
The union says officers should be alert for any interaction where someone may be looking for a confrontation.
This is certainly less panicked than the other message from the NYPD union, as they are much more explicit that they are concerned for police safety rather than taking shots at the mayor or using provocative terms like "wartime police", but it has essentially the same message and they're taking the same measures.
And their measures make sense, single officer units are indeed more dangerous and it pays to be a bit more careful. but if you read my complaints you can see that my primary issue is with the language and intent being shown by the NYPD union. These messages urge police to be a bit more careful, not that they are at war, or that they should stop arresting people if they can help it.
On December 22 2014 17:26 oneofthem wrote: now now, both 'sides' are allowed the emotional overreactions. there's a lot to be said on who's right and who's not etc, but the important thing i see is tremendous lost opportunity for honest reflection.
Nope sorry there aren't two sides. On one side is a pattern of deadly excessive force by those who are tasked with protecting the public. The other side composed of a lone wolf psycho killer is dead.
EPT
