Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
JP Morgan likes junk bonds, emerging market in 2012 - Barrons
Thanks for finding this story. I did see a blip about this, but had not looked for the story yet.
The "Funds Boat" today, mentions a bit about how our HY/HI funds are starting to become face slapped more in the past two weeks.
I/we appreciate any links; but I still take a deep breath when digesting some of the recommends from the big houses; some of whom have really missed the boat regarding interest rates/yields for the past two years. I am sure you read such articles with eyes wide open, too.
Unless you believe that 2012 will be a rip-roaring global bull market or, at worst, trade sideways, avoid both junk bonds and emerging market bonds. They are clearly "risk-on" assets and when equities tank these two sectors will do likewise, although a bit less so.
Don't believe me? Look at how your favorite junk bond and emerging market funds or ETFs did from Q4 2007 to Q2 2009.
Caveat emptor.
P.S. Haven't we learned by now not to give two grains of salt to whatever the large brokerage houses, Barron's, Abby Joseph Cohen, etc., say or recommend??
after reading these articles, maybe it's good to spread out your investments and they may work for you long term.
You'll probably find bunch of these crazy ideas and articles predicting the future of the market the next few weeks since 2011 is coming to an end...best probably to have a diversified bond portfolio as well as stock portfolio
Reply to @catch22: JP Morgan's comment is just an "opinion", nothing more. Time like today it is ever important not merely listening to anyone without questioning further. Personally I try to read as many views as possible.
Over the several weeks junk bonds fell along with the declining with the global equity. Global unrest also cause decline in local currencies and emerging market bonds. In the near term, these two asset classes are likely to be volatile relative to US treasury.
Best to be diversified. Agreed. I remain overweight in EM bonds (TRP PREMX) and Asia (Matthews) equities. Even if the equity markets do relatively well in 2012, the significant push-and-pull volatility is not going away anytime soon. But I just can't bear to treat myself like a yo-yo, jerking up and down and this way and that, every other day or every other week. Meanwhile, my dividend grows monthly, and I re-invest it all. I fearlessly predict that what's going to happen no later than after a few more years' time is this:
A new-looking crop of political leaders will once again be elected all over the place, around the world. These will be "leaders" (quotation marks intentional) who will allow Big Business to screw everyone (again) as some other previous administrations have done. But their non-policies which put all oversight and regulations to bed will be great for the bourses everywhere. It will be Money-a-go-go once again. And all will bow to the new incarnation of the old god, called "Mammon" in some old-fashioned references.
Here's a few goodies that will impress you...one way or another. These are not my original links from back in the day when I used to post a political/invesmtent thingy every few weeks; but a quick search landed these, and there are many more. I pushed a lot of info about this when John McCain was a think'in about being the Pres and had Mr. Gramm as an advisor...........a most serious OMG if I've ever seen one.
Weave some of this together from these sites. NOTE: I do not pay attention to or care whether some of these sites may be left leaning........you may search the names and find everything you need from other sites. The info is what it is; until someone may prove otherwise.
This Bloomberg article clearly has a leftward bias. I don't think that more regulations and more bureaucracy will fix the mistakes of Congress as detailed here:
Right on target, Catch........ Kevin, I hate the way a lot of my tax dollars get used. More precisely, WASTED. But only government has by definition the authority and power to protect people from the greed-factor. Even when corporate profits are obscenely, insultingly huge when stood side by side with the poor all around this once-great country, at least such sweaty, putrid, hugely obscene profits do not wreck companies and entire financial systems --- as did the dismantling of regulations since the Reagan years. And after hearing an NPR report last night, the beat goes on even under the current Dem. Prez. Government must do the regulating, because no one else will. Ever read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"?
Hey Max, didn't you see the movie "Wall Street," and don't you believe that most of the great things that we enjoy daily in America were products of greed, and not merely greed of material wealth, but greed for innovation, for fame, for historical significance, for eternal reward ? I am sure that you will agree that greed motivated all of the great innovators since the inception of our great country, including Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, Hewlett and Packard, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and even Warren Buffett of the Buffett Rule (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520).
The OWS crowd needs to realize that greed and capitalism have been very good to all of them, and they should really throw away all of their Apple products, computers, smartphones, and other capitalistic amenities that they enjoy on a daily basis so that they avoid the appearance of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, protecting the people from the "greed-factor" is not really a function of government. If you restrain greed irresponsibly, you restrain innovation and economic growth, and society will be destined to the economic quagmire which is socialism.
Greed is indeed good, but unrestrained greed is bad. Government should have a minor, inexpensive, and effective role in restraining only egregious acts of greed which causes harm. The problem is that unrestrained government tends to want to have a major, expensive, and usually ineffective role in restraining greed.
Fact: We can't afford more government. We need a smaller, less costly government which is effective.
Reply to @kevindow: Good try Kevin. If you want to dilute the meaning of something, just associate it with other stuff. This is exactly what you are doing with the word "greed".
No, really we are talking about common sense meaning of greed that is desire of increase wealth even if that means assuming great risk and potentially causing havoc to the society.
I would be hard pressed to call late Steve Jobs greedy.
You can confuse some weak minds but not all of us.
The word "greed" is actually more complex than what you acknowledge:
"it may, however, be applied to all avid desires, and need not be always uncomplimentary: greediness for knowledge, fame, praise." (Dictionary.com)
Trust me: I want to broaden, not dilute your view of the term "greed."
Furthermore, "potentially causing havoc to the society" is not included in any accepted definition of greed, but it is unfortunately central to your definition of greed.
Trust me: Steve Jobs, like most, if not all, of the great innovators in the history of mankind, was greedy, just check the facts.
This National Review article clearly has a rightward bias. One reason that we cannot afford much of anything these days is because Wall Street owns both Congress and most the so-called regulatory agencies. If we'd had decent regulation to start with we wouldn't be here where we are right now.
What a good idea, downsizing "everything that is government". Oh by the way, let's start with public safety, education, law enforcement, highway construction & maintenance, public transportation, public works, the Nation Institute of Health, air traffic control, the Coast Guard and the military. You know, having been to a number of "undeveloped" countries, I think that you'd really like it in one of those.
"unrestrained greed is bad. Government should have a minor, inexpensive, and effective role in restraining only egregious acts of greed which causes harm. The problem is that unrestrained government tends to want to have a major, expensive, and usually ineffective role in restraining greed. "
Lessee if I've got this right now... Government should restrain "egregious acts of greed" but do it on the cheap (without resources), and be restrained in their role as restrainer.
Way to go, Kevin. See any possible logical contradictions there?
Reply to @kevindow: Lets say it a different way, perhaps. This country spent during good times and it spent during the bad times. Blame whichever political side you would feel better about blaming, but it happened. No one would like to see the US turn into a third world country (obviously...) but is there a point where we have to face the reality that we can't continue to have this, that and the other and can maybe have this, some of that, and the other every few months instead of every month. Obviously, those aren't exact numbers but you get the idea.
However, voters want this, that and the other every month. Being in politics is more lucrative than ever, so any decision that is hard or unpopular is a no no. So, what happens? Give the people what they want and within that or alongside it or whereever, trojan horse a good deal of what they probably don't want but what is lucrative for the government.
Do I want this, that and the other? Sure. Everyone does. Do I think that I can expect this, that and the other when I'm older? NFW (and I think you all probably are aware of what that stands for.) However, if the country isn't put on a more sustainable path, I think there will likely be significant other economic problems to worry about in the country before then.
I accept the reality is that we can't afford to continue down the path both of getting this, that and the other and proceeding to have the government spend on this, that and the other in the manner that this country has. Blame it on whoever you'd like, it's happened.
The reality is probably (and unfortunately) that the people will be given this, that and the other and spending on this, that and the other by government will continue until it can't - and that could be longer than anyone could think. However, it will happen if the current path continues, and at that point, harder decisions than those that could be made now will have to be faced. Or, the easier decision will be faced and we can just print money.
That's all. I don't like it and those "meanies" on the other side of whichever political party you belong to don't want to see "armageddon" or the US turned into a "third world" country, either. Everyone is simply trying to get through the day, whether right wing or left wing and the divisive nature of the red vs. blue debates helps nothing.
The unfortunate reality is that we didn't save during the good times for the bad times and we continue to resist doing that (and I won't even get into a whole thing about how this country has to look for something more substantial than Black Friday and how well Black Friday did - people were near-fighting over $1.88 towels at a Wal-Mart, there's video and everything). We have to live as a leaner country, and that's not going to be fun, but that's the unfortunate reality when you go through years and years of spending during both good times and bad and acting like "debt doesn't matter."
Additionally, in an attempt to keep this thread from becoming way off course, I do like EM corporate bonds (TGINX can hold those and sovereign/quasi-sovereigns, which I may think about getting into again next year), but EM bonds can be seriously volatile and those who are conservative investors should look at the underperforming Templeton Global Bond, which I'd recommend on weakness, as I think that fund - or sister fund Templeton Global Total Return - will continue to do well over the longer-term.
Reply to @MaxBialystock: I think my only concern is that when people get screwed, there's the risk of it going the other way. To use an example, if MF Global screws people in the manner they did (taking from customer accounts to prop up their own bad bets), people who got screwed are angry, but others who didn't get screwed go, hey - that could happen to me, too and you may get people who take some or all of their money out. If those behind the MF Global situation are not dealt with by the authorities (where's John Corzine, and has he even been questioned yet?), there aren't answers (people still don't even seem to know how much money is missing), etc etc - you may get further flight of capital when people feel like this could happen and those behind it aren't dealt with in a satisfactory manner or at all.
I think there's a point where, whether it's MF Global or some other organization or governments, where people don't tolerate it anymore. I think that level of toleration in other countries is varying degrees lower, but I think you're going to start to see it here more often if things continue in that manner. Additionally, non-policies and no oversight will likely lead to more MF Global-style situations, which will lead the retail investor (and to some degree larger investors; hedge funds have also seen significant outflows) to continue to leave the markets.
First and foremost; while any of us may disagree upon who or what is good, bad or ugly about the system of money and all related matters in this country, I fully expect and want no one to become pissed off and not remain at this site for discussion, observations, investment ideas and all areas related. All at this forum lend their free time to express wonderful ideas of where one's monies should be invested for the maximum benefit as related to one's tolerance for risk and reward.
Not having an opportunity to have one hour of time to fully discuss matters of greed or otherwise for those folks you noted in your post; I am not able to offer a personal opinion as to what motivated these folks. I will note that it has been reported that Steve Jobs "hung out" in his home town at the local businesses, visited the local Apple store and could be seen "just walking down the street". His vast wealth did not cause him to choose to build a mega-mansion and similar related items that could indicate a form of greed and grandeur often associated with some of these type of persons. I will also add to your list of names, Nikola Tesla.
No, I can not agree that greed was a primary motivator of those you noted; for the reasons above and not being able to chat with these folks directly.
As to your statement about government "not" having a function to protect the citizens from greed; one would have to fully define the greed factor. One could and may argue that your view of greed may indeed provide for growth. The major problems that grow from the greed is the unethical and immoral issues that raise their ugly heads and are not a form or function that are productive. Theses areas do need to be monitored. As I do not have the time in my day to write a book about this; I will offer that one area of concern is readily apparent, and that is the ability of investment houses and similar to play in the "insurance" sector of trying to cover their bets with the various derivative products that are levered 40 to 1 or whatever. This area is danger to all, and should be regulated. And these items of leverage are not named insurance products; as they would they then would be regulated by existing laws.
As to the FactCheck: " Gramm’s legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists – not to mention President Clinton – praise it for having softened the crisis." No facts are offered as to what/how this legislation actually softened the crisis. Someone wanna give me the actual facts on the matter? And as to trusting the judgment of economists noted in this quote; well, I have more faith in the broad based opinions here at MFO than from the vast majority of economists, many of whom may rely on computer models and should get out of their ivory towers and walk among the folks in the streets of the many towns and cities of this country.
Overall, there are several areas from your write that I view: greed, passion, ethics and/or OPM (other peoples money).
---greed: I view the word greed with negative implications; being in bed with unethical considerations and without regard for others and not caring about the ramifications of actions, aside for the betterment of the person or persons directly involved with the greed....Mr. Gordon Gecko, eh?
---passion: regarding the folks you noted; one could suspect that they had/have a great deal of passion for what they believe in and of themselves and this may not have any connection to greed. Might there be a monetary reward from such passion?........yes, indeed. One may presume that the late Johnny Carson and many similar folks had such skills and passion for what they did or who they were; that the reward of money found its way into their lives. I surely can not say that they became greedy from such wealth.
---ethics: this word should be well understood by everyone at this forum.
---OPM: Ah, when one does not have "their own skin in the game"; this is the beginning of the danger zones.
From 1982-1988, I performed the task of investing OPM's via an investment club and individual accounts; as none of these people knew much about investments and had full faith in me as a person of ethics and knowledge. I could have just as well "hung" their money out into the danger zones of investments; as what should I care, its not my money, its not my skin in the game. But, I did not do this; as this is not my moral or ethical code, and any related failures/losses of OPM's would be a reflection upon my character, as a "decent" person.
The failures that surround many of the problems in "our" monetary system comes from those in the "inside clubs" (of which, we will never be invited). Some of these folks are indeed greedy, some have misguided passion, some don't give a rip, because it is OPM's and some are just plain ignorant of monetary policies and/or legislative actions and spending at government levels, that may have profound affects upon the system to the negative side. This relates to the 535 playing with the oversight and forming the rules and laws. I will note that the vast majority of these 535 in congress have little knowledge of money and monetary policy. Most of them would be will suited to learn about all of this from this forum. This, of course; does not even begin to speak about the lobby crowd plowing monies into D.C.
I can only summarize for myself and family, that I have a passion to continue to grow our monies at this house for our futures. We are not rich, we have always been prudent with our spending habits, excellent savers, very good with the home budget carefully measuring the "need and want" sectors. We don't have grand retirement plans, no post retirement healthcare plans and no known rich folks who are going to drop a load of money into our pockets; upon their death. Because we have our own skin/money in the game; unlike so many in the congress or those in the big money houses of the world; we indeed have our limits related to the risk/reward game.
Yes, their is a great deal of greed, unethical behavior, criminal activity and all matters related in the world of money. We may only do our best to steer through all of this for our own benefit and protection of our familes for a better future.
I can not fix the wrongs I see in place for those who do not have what we have. Hell, I'm lucky to find a proper response from our folks in D.C. to anything I have ever expressed to them. They are part of the other club and not of the same social status or structure as I/we. I will proudly state that we help locally with those in need; and that I have personally steered two young couples into the proper direction of their own monetary programs/budgets that had been a ball of confusion to sort their priorities of wants and needs.
The one absolutely hilarious assertion in this thread is that Bloomberg has now or has ever had "a leftward bias." I truly appreciate the laugh-out-loud start to my day!
Comments
Thanks for finding this story. I did see a blip about this, but had not looked for the story yet.
The "Funds Boat" today, mentions a bit about how our HY/HI funds are starting to become face slapped more in the past two weeks.
I/we appreciate any links; but I still take a deep breath when digesting some of the recommends from the big houses; some of whom have really missed the boat regarding interest rates/yields for the past two years. I am sure you read such articles with eyes wide open, too.
Take care,
Catch
Don't believe me? Look at how your favorite junk bond and emerging market funds or ETFs did from Q4 2007 to Q2 2009.
Caveat emptor.
P.S. Haven't we learned by now not to give two grains of salt to whatever the large brokerage houses, Barron's, Abby Joseph Cohen, etc., say or recommend??
AAA companies w/ 3% dividends [ot]
http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/stocks/aaarated-companies-with-3-dividends-1321942601958/?cid=djem_sm_WeekontheStreet_h
after reading these articles, maybe it's good to spread out your investments and they may work for you long term.
You'll probably find bunch of these crazy ideas and articles predicting the future of the market the next few weeks since 2011 is coming to an end...best probably to have a diversified bond portfolio as well as stock portfolio
Over the several weeks junk bonds fell along with the declining with the global equity. Global unrest also cause decline in local currencies and emerging market bonds. In the near term, these two asset classes are likely to be volatile relative to US treasury.
A new-looking crop of political leaders will once again be elected all over the place, around the world. These will be "leaders" (quotation marks intentional) who will allow Big Business to screw everyone (again) as some other previous administrations have done. But their non-policies which put all oversight and regulations to bed will be great for the bourses everywhere. It will be Money-a-go-go once again. And all will bow to the new incarnation of the old god, called "Mammon" in some old-fashioned references.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-27/republicans-try-to-starve-wall-street-watchdog-william-d-cohan.html
Here's a few goodies that will impress you...one way or another.
These are not my original links from back in the day when I used to post a political/invesmtent thingy every few weeks; but a quick search landed these, and there are many more. I pushed a lot of info about this when John McCain was a think'in about being the Pres and had Mr. Gramm as an advisor...........a most serious OMG if I've ever seen one.
Weave some of this together from these sites. NOTE: I do not pay attention to or care whether some of these sites may be left leaning........you may search the names and find everything you need from other sites. The info is what it is; until someone may prove otherwise.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/09/15/599447/-The-Legacies-of-Phil-and-Wendy-Gramm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3350681
Take care,
Catch
This Bloomberg article clearly has a leftward bias. I don't think that more regulations and more bureaucracy will fix the mistakes of Congress as detailed here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274289/dodd-frank-wrong-wrong-wrong-conrad-black?pg=1
Oh by the way, we cannot afford more government. Everything that is government needs to be downsized.
Kevin
The OWS crowd needs to realize that greed and capitalism have been very good to all of them, and they should really throw away all of their Apple products, computers, smartphones, and other capitalistic amenities that they enjoy on a daily basis so that they avoid the appearance of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, protecting the people from the "greed-factor" is not really a function of government. If you restrain greed irresponsibly, you restrain innovation and economic growth, and society will be destined to the economic quagmire which is socialism.
Greed is indeed good, but unrestrained greed is bad. Government should have a minor, inexpensive, and effective role in restraining only egregious acts of greed which causes harm. The problem is that unrestrained government tends to want to have a major, expensive, and usually ineffective role in restraining greed.
Fact: We can't afford more government. We need a smaller, less costly government which is effective.
And here is an objective link for you and Catch:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/
Take care my friends.
Kevin
No, really we are talking about common sense meaning of greed that is desire of increase wealth even if that means assuming great risk and potentially causing havoc to the society.
I would be hard pressed to call late Steve Jobs greedy.
You can confuse some weak minds but not all of us.
The word "greed" is actually more complex than what you acknowledge:
"it may, however, be applied to all avid desires, and need not be always uncomplimentary: greediness for knowledge, fame, praise." (Dictionary.com)
Trust me: I want to broaden, not dilute your view of the term "greed."
Furthermore, "potentially causing havoc to the society" is not included in any accepted definition of greed, but it is unfortunately central to your definition of greed.
Trust me: Steve Jobs, like most, if not all, of the great innovators in the history of mankind, was greedy, just check the facts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-factory-workers-suicides-humiliation
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/10/rip_steve_jobs_capitalist_pric.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-admits-using-child-labour.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_OtsvQTigOIpAABWNPXA74N;jsessionid=F2CE9ED81CE4E711FBE2269A3F646776
http://siliconfilter.com/is-apple-getting-too-greedy-demands-30-cut-of-in-app-subscriptions/
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/a_round-up_of_reactions_apples_greedy_anti-competi.php
http://jessee-ring.blogspot.com/2011/10/government-greed.html
Objective minds understand my reasoning. I am trying to convince the rest.
Kevin
What a good idea, downsizing "everything that is government". Oh by the way, let's start with public safety, education, law enforcement, highway construction & maintenance, public transportation, public works, the Nation Institute of Health, air traffic control, the Coast Guard and the military. You know, having been to a number of "undeveloped" countries, I think that you'd really like it in one of those.
Lessee if I've got this right now... Government should restrain "egregious acts of greed" but do it on the cheap (without resources), and be restrained in their role as restrainer.
Way to go, Kevin. See any possible logical contradictions there?
However, voters want this, that and the other every month. Being in politics is more lucrative than ever, so any decision that is hard or unpopular is a no no. So, what happens? Give the people what they want and within that or alongside it or whereever, trojan horse a good deal of what they probably don't want but what is lucrative for the government.
Do I want this, that and the other? Sure. Everyone does. Do I think that I can expect this, that and the other when I'm older? NFW (and I think you all probably are aware of what that stands for.) However, if the country isn't put on a more sustainable path, I think there will likely be significant other economic problems to worry about in the country before then.
I accept the reality is that we can't afford to continue down the path both of getting this, that and the other and proceeding to have the government spend on this, that and the other in the manner that this country has. Blame it on whoever you'd like, it's happened.
The reality is probably (and unfortunately) that the people will be given this, that and the other and spending on this, that and the other by government will continue until it can't - and that could be longer than anyone could think. However, it will happen if the current path continues, and at that point, harder decisions than those that could be made now will have to be faced. Or, the easier decision will be faced and we can just print money.
That's all. I don't like it and those "meanies" on the other side of whichever political party you belong to don't want to see "armageddon" or the US turned into a "third world" country, either. Everyone is simply trying to get through the day, whether right wing or left wing and the divisive nature of the red vs. blue debates helps nothing.
The unfortunate reality is that we didn't save during the good times for the bad times and we continue to resist doing that (and I won't even get into a whole thing about how this country has to look for something more substantial than Black Friday and how well Black Friday did - people were near-fighting over $1.88 towels at a Wal-Mart, there's video and everything). We have to live as a leaner country, and that's not going to be fun, but that's the unfortunate reality when you go through years and years of spending during both good times and bad and acting like "debt doesn't matter."
Additionally, in an attempt to keep this thread from becoming way off course, I do like EM corporate bonds (TGINX can hold those and sovereign/quasi-sovereigns, which I may think about getting into again next year), but EM bonds can be seriously volatile and those who are conservative investors should look at the underperforming Templeton Global Bond, which I'd recommend on weakness, as I think that fund - or sister fund Templeton Global Total Return - will continue to do well over the longer-term.
I think there's a point where, whether it's MF Global or some other organization or governments, where people don't tolerate it anymore. I think that level of toleration in other countries is varying degrees lower, but I think you're going to start to see it here more often if things continue in that manner. Additionally, non-policies and no oversight will likely lead to more MF Global-style situations, which will lead the retail investor (and to some degree larger investors; hedge funds have also seen significant outflows) to continue to leave the markets.
First and foremost; while any of us may disagree upon who or what is good, bad or ugly about the system of money and all related matters in this country, I fully expect and want no one to become pissed off and not remain at this site for discussion, observations, investment ideas and all areas related.
All at this forum lend their free time to express wonderful ideas of where one's monies should be invested for the maximum benefit as related to one's tolerance for risk and reward.
Not having an opportunity to have one hour of time to fully discuss matters of greed or otherwise for those folks you noted in your post; I am not able to offer a personal opinion as to what motivated these folks.
I will note that it has been reported that Steve Jobs "hung out" in his home town at the local businesses, visited the local Apple store and could be seen "just walking down the street". His vast wealth did not cause him to choose to build a mega-mansion and similar related items that could indicate a form of greed and grandeur often associated with some of these type of persons.
I will also add to your list of names, Nikola Tesla.
No, I can not agree that greed was a primary motivator of those you noted; for the reasons above and not being able to chat with these folks directly.
As to your statement about government "not" having a function to protect the citizens from greed; one would have to fully define the greed factor. One could and may argue that your view of greed may indeed provide for growth. The major problems that grow from the greed is the unethical and immoral issues that raise their ugly heads and are not a form or function that are productive. Theses areas do need to be monitored. As I do not have the time in my day to write a book about this; I will offer that one area of concern is readily apparent, and that is the ability of investment houses and similar to play in the "insurance" sector of trying to cover their bets with the various derivative products that are levered 40 to 1 or whatever. This area is danger to all, and should be regulated. And these items of leverage are not named insurance products; as they would they then would be regulated by existing laws.
As to the FactCheck: " Gramm’s legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists – not to mention President Clinton – praise it for having softened the crisis." No facts are offered as to what/how this legislation actually softened the crisis. Someone wanna give me the actual facts on the matter? And as to trusting the judgment of economists noted in this quote; well, I have more faith in the broad based opinions here at MFO than from the vast majority of economists, many of whom may rely on computer models and should get out of their ivory towers and walk among the folks in the streets of the many towns and cities of this country.
Overall, there are several areas from your write that I view: greed, passion, ethics and/or OPM (other peoples money).
---greed: I view the word greed with negative implications; being in bed with unethical considerations and without regard for others and not caring about the ramifications of actions, aside for the betterment of the person or persons directly involved with the greed....Mr. Gordon Gecko, eh?
---passion: regarding the folks you noted; one could suspect that they had/have a great deal of passion for what they believe in and of themselves and this may not have any connection to greed. Might there be a monetary reward from such passion?........yes, indeed. One may presume that the late Johnny Carson and many similar folks had such skills and passion for what they did or who they were; that the reward of money found its way into their lives. I surely can not say that they became greedy from such wealth.
---ethics: this word should be well understood by everyone at this forum.
---OPM: Ah, when one does not have "their own skin in the game"; this is the beginning of the danger zones.
From 1982-1988, I performed the task of investing OPM's via an investment club and individual accounts; as none of these people knew much about investments and had full faith in me as a person of ethics and knowledge. I could have just as well "hung" their money out into the danger zones of investments; as what should I care, its not my money, its not my skin in the game. But, I did not do this; as this is not my moral or ethical code, and any related failures/losses of OPM's would be a reflection upon my character, as a "decent" person.
The failures that surround many of the problems in "our" monetary system comes from those in the "inside clubs" (of which, we will never be invited). Some of these folks are indeed greedy, some have misguided passion, some don't give a rip, because it is OPM's and some are just plain ignorant of monetary policies and/or legislative actions and spending at government levels, that may have profound affects upon the system to the negative side. This relates to the 535 playing with the oversight and forming the rules and laws. I will note that the vast majority of these 535 in congress have little knowledge of money and monetary policy. Most of them would be will suited to learn about all of this from this forum. This, of course; does not even begin to speak about the lobby crowd plowing monies into D.C.
I can only summarize for myself and family, that I have a passion to continue to grow our monies at this house for our futures. We are not rich, we have always been prudent with our spending habits, excellent savers, very good with the home budget carefully measuring the "need and want" sectors. We don't have grand retirement plans, no post retirement healthcare plans and no known rich folks who are going to drop a load of money into our pockets; upon their death.
Because we have our own skin/money in the game; unlike so many in the congress or those in the big money houses of the world; we indeed have our limits related to the risk/reward game.
Yes, their is a great deal of greed, unethical behavior, criminal activity and all matters related in the world of money. We may only do our best to steer through all of this for our own benefit and protection of our familes for a better future.
I can not fix the wrongs I see in place for those who do not have what we have. Hell, I'm lucky to find a proper response from our folks in D.C. to anything I have ever expressed to them. They are part of the other club and not of the same social status or structure as I/we.
I will proudly state that we help locally with those in need; and that I have personally steered two young couples into the proper direction of their own monetary programs/budgets that had been a ball of confusion to sort their priorities of wants and needs.
Respectfully,
Catch