It never ceases to amaze me, of how people know a problem, see its coming, and would still go down that path of destruction, then turn around and complain they don't know it's coming after they self-destruct.
We heard the same story about the subprime mortgage mess, and how those subprime borrowers should never have been qualified for a loan, but were embraced and sought out in open arms by banks and mortgage brokers for mortgages (often exotic types like options ARM).
There's the usual defense that the borrowers don't know about it, predatory lending practices and what-not. It could well be true that those subprime borrowers who are ethnic minority and who know little English, could be naive enough to rely solely on the advice (often incomplete, and worse yet, untruthful) of banks and brokers.
But, could the student credit card holders claim the same defense? We all know that if the credit market and bank lending do not unfreeze in 2009, the credit card market could well be the next victim in this prolonged economic mess, starting from 2006 with the subprime debacle, to the implosion of property market, to high profile bank failures and bailouts.
These students, allegedly, are going to colleges. They are not supposed to be naive or ignorant. Could they have claimed that they don't know what's happening (the high interest rate on card balances), like the subprime borrowers did? Sure, I don't know it's ethical at all for colleges to "sell out" details of their students and alumni to banks and credit card companies, in exchange for financial rewards to help with their depleted school fundings. But there's no denying that the bucks stop with the students themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I still remember well, my very first credit card. It's an American Express card I got from my college days. I like it that Amex was still not as popular as Visa or Mastercard, which makes me feel somewhat "special" (kinda silly, huh!?!). I have had the same Amex ever since. I never carry a balance. In fact, there were long stretches of time when I didn't use it at all. But I carry it with me when I relocated to various parts of the world. (That is the other reason I like Amex, since it's truly international and global, unlike Visa or Mastercard, which are issued by local banks.) Come to think of it, call me an old fool, but I pay the few hundred bucks of annual fees to still keep the Amex with me, mostly for sentimental reason.
It never occurred to me that I should go out and buy/spend, simply because I have a credit card. This is not to say that I have the money, ever since college days. Quite far from it, I often worked more than a few jobs simultaneously through college days to earn the money, just to scrap by. But I never thought of putting expenses on my credit card, since I knew I need to pay back, with interest. If I don't have the money, I cut my expenses, or find more jobs. So, how hard is that to understand those simple rules?
Surely, those simple rules can be hard to stick with, judging from my husband's credit card debt back then in his college days, when he racked up balances on his card just to call me long-distance and send me flowers and heart-shaped pizza. I admired his courage and determination to get rid of the credit card debts when I told him he didn't need to do all those to impress me. So, he gave me his card for safe-keeping, resolved to using just cash, and repaid his $3,000 in credit card balance within a year, with his stipends and salaries as lab assistant and tutoring.
It's always easier to blame others for our own problems, but we have to own/face up to our problems, in order to try to resolves. There is no free lunch in life. As simple as that.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
2008: Taking stock - Looking ahead...
I'm really looking forward to my new nephew who's going to be due in April next year. I'm hopeful that all the younger generations, including my kids and all the nephews, are going to do well, both academically and socially.
Well, just when I thought my big sis has found her bearing with this guy, we found this in this past year of 2008 that she has took on some $2.6 million of debts, simply to finance his failed business attempts. I don't know if you could call her stupid or not, but she's now thick in debts, which I'm not sure how long it'll take her to repay. I hope this guy is honorable enough to pay her back the money, but unless and until he shows the money, I can only assume worst-case scenario. I hope I'm wrong.
Much is hinged on the economy. If it continues to go downhill, there won't be much happening in the watch venture. For me, I can only hunker down, beef up my resume with the masters degree, and maybe get a second job too. That would really free up some capital for various ventures and projects.
And to see the kids growing and learning by the day, I remain hopeful and happy. :)
Well, just when I thought my big sis has found her bearing with this guy, we found this in this past year of 2008 that she has took on some $2.6 million of debts, simply to finance his failed business attempts. I don't know if you could call her stupid or not, but she's now thick in debts, which I'm not sure how long it'll take her to repay. I hope this guy is honorable enough to pay her back the money, but unless and until he shows the money, I can only assume worst-case scenario. I hope I'm wrong.
Much is hinged on the economy. If it continues to go downhill, there won't be much happening in the watch venture. For me, I can only hunker down, beef up my resume with the masters degree, and maybe get a second job too. That would really free up some capital for various ventures and projects.
And to see the kids growing and learning by the day, I remain hopeful and happy. :)
2008: Taking stock...
Oh God, it's another year! Time slips by so fast that I hardly notice. Perhaps it's the daily and weekly for the kids, what with all their school and after-school activities, which take up most of my calendar, that I didn't even realize it until it's new year's eve.
I've come to appreciate this online blog, since it makes it so easy to "flip back" to my year-end review of 2007, and the looking-ahead part. It really gives me a perspective on what has happened, what plan I stick to, and when I drop the ball.
Let's see...
This year is probably the first year I've become fully engaged in the US politics and elections (both local and national). In the past, I never cared much about elections, simply watching the parade of candidates with amusement (and sometimes with disgust); but mostly I just didn't care. Perhaps this year I have truly cared and hoped for Hillary Clinton to be my president, so much so that I not only donated but fully engaged in sometimes rather acrimonious blog war. There was little that needs to be done with GOP (McCain and the like), but it's mostly with the ridiculously pompous and obnoxious Obama crowd.
Of course we now know that Clinton bowed out, and Obama beat McCain (out of impotence of the latter). Amid all the rah-rah of Obama, and whatever vague, ridiculous slogans (what is "change" anyways), I still do not believe in Obama, the guy who rises out from the dirty politics in Chicago (just look at the Blagojevich scandal). Main media and his supporters are more than eager in giving in passes, for his flip-flops in policy and positions. And although there was higher turnout of the college kids, the myth of record turnout from this demographics simply never happened. No matter, given the terrible economy and unpopular wars from Bush, everyone is more than willing to move on.
On a more personal level, our watch business venture has started moving. We tried some advertising options, some good, some not so good, which I consider good learning experience. It's also the first time I start doing some actually sales, which is another new thing to me. And I realize that I can do it.
When the subprime mess and the property market originally busted in late 2006, everyone had expected it to get better by the second half of 2007 or early 2008. Well, 2008 has now come and gone, and the mess is so deep and wide that it's beyond anyone's imagination. Some even suggested that the economy is in the worst shape in 40 years or more, with bailouts after bailouts, from banks, to automakers in Detroit. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that we have seen the last bailout already.
Honestly, I don't think Washington has a choice in not bailing out the banks (even though they took incredible risks which are now seemingly underwritten with taxpayers' money). And I certainly don't agree with the bailout to Detroit. Surely everyone says their industry/company is too big to fail. It's just disgusting, seeing all those jerks taking incalculable risks using someone's money, collecting obscene amount of bonus based on short-term gains, with no ramifications whatsoever.
To top that off, for the "change" that Obama had promised in his campaign, he's simply doing more of the same that the Bush administration has been doing (with someone like Hank Paulson who's flying by the seat of his pants), only that Obama is doubling down the chips, saying he's going to do MORE, and BIGGER bailouts. Well, how about that.
Oh well, I have got so sick and tired of Obama that I can't care less of what his "plans" are (assuming he has any). I have even stopped listening to NPR, after its skewed coverage of Hillary Clinton.
(
Looking back, perhaps one thing of small regret is my decision (much urged by my husband) to have given up on the second job at the startup. No doubt that extra salary (which, when combined, would push us well into the top 1% income bracket) will provide some ease of mind in this highly uncertain market and economic times.
In this last quarter, I've started doing some trading to profit from the volatility in the market, with reasonable success. I have no illusion that this kind of volatibility, thereby the profit, won't last forever. But I'll play it while it lasts.
And I didn't do anything for my other venture idea in Asia-Pacific. I ended up signing up to do a masters degree which would keep me busy for the next 2-3 years. Hopefully, we'll ride it out in the next year or so, and pave the way for a better time. Yes, I'm hopeful of that, and I'm still optimistic. :)
I've come to appreciate this online blog, since it makes it so easy to "flip back" to my year-end review of 2007, and the looking-ahead part. It really gives me a perspective on what has happened, what plan I stick to, and when I drop the ball.
Let's see...
This year is probably the first year I've become fully engaged in the US politics and elections (both local and national). In the past, I never cared much about elections, simply watching the parade of candidates with amusement (and sometimes with disgust); but mostly I just didn't care. Perhaps this year I have truly cared and hoped for Hillary Clinton to be my president, so much so that I not only donated but fully engaged in sometimes rather acrimonious blog war. There was little that needs to be done with GOP (McCain and the like), but it's mostly with the ridiculously pompous and obnoxious Obama crowd.
Of course we now know that Clinton bowed out, and Obama beat McCain (out of impotence of the latter). Amid all the rah-rah of Obama, and whatever vague, ridiculous slogans (what is "change" anyways), I still do not believe in Obama, the guy who rises out from the dirty politics in Chicago (just look at the Blagojevich scandal). Main media and his supporters are more than eager in giving in passes, for his flip-flops in policy and positions. And although there was higher turnout of the college kids, the myth of record turnout from this demographics simply never happened. No matter, given the terrible economy and unpopular wars from Bush, everyone is more than willing to move on.
On a more personal level, our watch business venture has started moving. We tried some advertising options, some good, some not so good, which I consider good learning experience. It's also the first time I start doing some actually sales, which is another new thing to me. And I realize that I can do it.
When the subprime mess and the property market originally busted in late 2006, everyone had expected it to get better by the second half of 2007 or early 2008. Well, 2008 has now come and gone, and the mess is so deep and wide that it's beyond anyone's imagination. Some even suggested that the economy is in the worst shape in 40 years or more, with bailouts after bailouts, from banks, to automakers in Detroit. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that we have seen the last bailout already.
Honestly, I don't think Washington has a choice in not bailing out the banks (even though they took incredible risks which are now seemingly underwritten with taxpayers' money). And I certainly don't agree with the bailout to Detroit. Surely everyone says their industry/company is too big to fail. It's just disgusting, seeing all those jerks taking incalculable risks using someone's money, collecting obscene amount of bonus based on short-term gains, with no ramifications whatsoever.
To top that off, for the "change" that Obama had promised in his campaign, he's simply doing more of the same that the Bush administration has been doing (with someone like Hank Paulson who's flying by the seat of his pants), only that Obama is doubling down the chips, saying he's going to do MORE, and BIGGER bailouts. Well, how about that.
Oh well, I have got so sick and tired of Obama that I can't care less of what his "plans" are (assuming he has any). I have even stopped listening to NPR, after its skewed coverage of Hillary Clinton.
(
Looking back, perhaps one thing of small regret is my decision (much urged by my husband) to have given up on the second job at the startup. No doubt that extra salary (which, when combined, would push us well into the top 1% income bracket) will provide some ease of mind in this highly uncertain market and economic times.
In this last quarter, I've started doing some trading to profit from the volatility in the market, with reasonable success. I have no illusion that this kind of volatibility, thereby the profit, won't last forever. But I'll play it while it lasts.
And I didn't do anything for my other venture idea in Asia-Pacific. I ended up signing up to do a masters degree which would keep me busy for the next 2-3 years. Hopefully, we'll ride it out in the next year or so, and pave the way for a better time. Yes, I'm hopeful of that, and I'm still optimistic. :)
Monday, December 29, 2008
On the gullible Oprah...
How hard is it to dupe Oprah? Apparently, quite easy, judging by her frequent track record of being duped. The latest episode is the impossible love story during the Holocaust by one Herman Rosenblat, whose book release in February 2009 is going to be canceled. Granted that Oprah was not the only one duped, but her endorsement of that silly book club provides the needed boost of authenticity to a fabricated story. It goes to show too, of how easy people with herd mentality can be duped, led by silly so-called mind leaders like Oprah.
No wonder Oprah gets riped in the blogsphere, of her endorsement of Obama. Who needs silly women like that.
No wonder Oprah gets riped in the blogsphere, of her endorsement of Obama. Who needs silly women like that.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
On the bygone days of flying glamorously...
Once in a while, one would read nostalgic columns or blogs that would remind us all of the days of old. Such is one about how glamorous it was back then to fly, and how proud the crew and passengers alike to be in the sky.
I remember well, of my first time flying, more than 20 years ago. Just the idea itself, of getting to the airport and a jumbo jet, flying off to a foreign exotic land, was glamorous enough back then. There was a kind of "exclusivity" in getting on a plane. Flight attendants (didn't we use to call them air-hostesses?!?) are always courteous. I've always flying international flights, and have always looked forward to sample the meals. (I remember the seafood on Lauda Air well. And the nice service on Cathay Pacific, British Airways, Thai Airways, and Singapore Airline.) To my innocent mind, air-hostesses looked like such a glamorous job, jet-set to fly anywhere on short notice. And those pilots look so smart in their uniform.
I think I lost my "innocence" when I got old enough to realize that air-hostesses are just a glorified version of a servant. Yes, they dressed nicely, had make-up (lots of it) on, wore high keels, and oftentimes, spoke multiple languages. For a brief period, I even thought of wanting to be one. Then, I realized a large part of their jobs was simply to attend to the needy passengers (mostly food handling and feeding), and I wasn't so keen anymore. The subsequent change of title, from air-hostesses to flight attendants, confirms my belief.
The myth back then, of the "exclusivity" of being part of the "elite club", and the fact that people in general love it (the service, the exclusivity), imply how we all enough a "class system", provided that we're part of the more superior class. The deregulation of the sky and airlines in general brought everything down to earth (crashing down, to some). Now, flying is no more glorified than taking a greyhound bus. People drag the prospect of flying, the long wait at airport, and cancellations of flights. Perhaps that's the "price" to pay, of opening up everything to the mass. And there will be no more myths.
I remember well, of my first time flying, more than 20 years ago. Just the idea itself, of getting to the airport and a jumbo jet, flying off to a foreign exotic land, was glamorous enough back then. There was a kind of "exclusivity" in getting on a plane. Flight attendants (didn't we use to call them air-hostesses?!?) are always courteous. I've always flying international flights, and have always looked forward to sample the meals. (I remember the seafood on Lauda Air well. And the nice service on Cathay Pacific, British Airways, Thai Airways, and Singapore Airline.) To my innocent mind, air-hostesses looked like such a glamorous job, jet-set to fly anywhere on short notice. And those pilots look so smart in their uniform.
I think I lost my "innocence" when I got old enough to realize that air-hostesses are just a glorified version of a servant. Yes, they dressed nicely, had make-up (lots of it) on, wore high keels, and oftentimes, spoke multiple languages. For a brief period, I even thought of wanting to be one. Then, I realized a large part of their jobs was simply to attend to the needy passengers (mostly food handling and feeding), and I wasn't so keen anymore. The subsequent change of title, from air-hostesses to flight attendants, confirms my belief.
The myth back then, of the "exclusivity" of being part of the "elite club", and the fact that people in general love it (the service, the exclusivity), imply how we all enough a "class system", provided that we're part of the more superior class. The deregulation of the sky and airlines in general brought everything down to earth (crashing down, to some). Now, flying is no more glorified than taking a greyhound bus. People drag the prospect of flying, the long wait at airport, and cancellations of flights. Perhaps that's the "price" to pay, of opening up everything to the mass. And there will be no more myths.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
On dynasty in politics and Caroline Kennedy...
As Hillary Clinton is set to become Secretary of State, she's vacating her Senate seat for New York. Media and politico are used to analyze to death of what Clinton can and should do. She was called many (nasty) names, including the infamous "carpetbagger" when she ran for the senate seat in 1999. As it turns out, she ran a memory campaign, won the race and the seat, and went on to honestly and fairly represent her district, to winning the hearts and minds of many of her constituents.
Now, as Clinton is moving on, Caroline Kennedy, who-else but the daughter of JFK, niece of Ted Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, cousin of Patrick Kennedy, all fellow senators, etc etc etc. By jove, just going through her long line of dynasty in politics in US exhausts me.
Admittedly, I know nothing about her except her last name. Sure, there are tons of stories about how she grew up in the White House during her father's short stay there, and how Jackie O would protect her privacy while she's growing up. But they don't really tell much about her as a person, and more to the point, her ability in public office.
I would not discount her desire to serve, or some of the (minor) charitable work she's done, like sitting on boards of charities. But a senator takes more than a last name, and occasional experience from a few boards, to serve the constituency.
It's entirely possible that she could end up being a very deserving senator, like Hillary Clinton has accomplished for her NY district. But right from the get-go, I have instant dislike of dynasty and pedigree that would open doors and buy one's way in. My sentiment is mirrored by some of the Letters To Editors to NY Times, of the fact that Kennedy has not paid her dues. If she is to earn her keep, she should do so in a proper election. That would surely avoid the kind of potential scandal and conflict of interests, as reflected in the political scandal in Chicago, in which the Dem governor, Rod Blagojevich, is alleged to want to sell the vacating seat of Obama for political and financial gains.
For those who take the instant mistrust and dislike of Hillary Clinton, for her ascent on the account that it's only due to Bill Clinton, they should have reflected that in the likes of the Bush family (but I don't hear anyone saying that to George W Bush, the incompetent and very mediocre son of Bush Sr). The level of double-talk and double-standards by voters and media alike is simply disgustingly astounding.
Now, as Clinton is moving on, Caroline Kennedy, who-else but the daughter of JFK, niece of Ted Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, cousin of Patrick Kennedy, all fellow senators, etc etc etc. By jove, just going through her long line of dynasty in politics in US exhausts me.
Admittedly, I know nothing about her except her last name. Sure, there are tons of stories about how she grew up in the White House during her father's short stay there, and how Jackie O would protect her privacy while she's growing up. But they don't really tell much about her as a person, and more to the point, her ability in public office.
I would not discount her desire to serve, or some of the (minor) charitable work she's done, like sitting on boards of charities. But a senator takes more than a last name, and occasional experience from a few boards, to serve the constituency.
It's entirely possible that she could end up being a very deserving senator, like Hillary Clinton has accomplished for her NY district. But right from the get-go, I have instant dislike of dynasty and pedigree that would open doors and buy one's way in. My sentiment is mirrored by some of the Letters To Editors to NY Times, of the fact that Kennedy has not paid her dues. If she is to earn her keep, she should do so in a proper election. That would surely avoid the kind of potential scandal and conflict of interests, as reflected in the political scandal in Chicago, in which the Dem governor, Rod Blagojevich, is alleged to want to sell the vacating seat of Obama for political and financial gains.
For those who take the instant mistrust and dislike of Hillary Clinton, for her ascent on the account that it's only due to Bill Clinton, they should have reflected that in the likes of the Bush family (but I don't hear anyone saying that to George W Bush, the incompetent and very mediocre son of Bush Sr). The level of double-talk and double-standards by voters and media alike is simply disgustingly astounding.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
On Jennifer Aniston talking about ex...AGAIN...
Man, Jennifer Aniston just won't shut up or move on. How long does it take for a woman to move on from a divorce that happens three years ago? Apparently, for Aniston, three years is not enough, and now she's STILL talking about the same thing AGAIN, doing the same thing again (to strip for GQ cover). I guess it must be hard for a woman to forget about a power marriage that thrusted her to the stratosphere in Hollywood circle, just to come back down again after the divorce. Surely it's doubly hard when she's unable to find another powerbroker like Brad Pitt, nor fire up her own career with pathetic, art-imitates-life movie like The Break-Up.
=====================
I would be the first to admit that, sometimes I still think back to some of my old days, the old flints, and have wonders about how those ex might be doing. But I have a life busy enough to keep me from drilling too much on those things that are best kept in private journals but nowhere else.
If Jennifer Aniston or anyone in similar boat as she does, I really would suggest you keep a busy life, and don't look back. It's just not healthy at all, my friend.
=====================
I would be the first to admit that, sometimes I still think back to some of my old days, the old flints, and have wonders about how those ex might be doing. But I have a life busy enough to keep me from drilling too much on those things that are best kept in private journals but nowhere else.
If Jennifer Aniston or anyone in similar boat as she does, I really would suggest you keep a busy life, and don't look back. It's just not healthy at all, my friend.
Monday, December 8, 2008
On the censoring of Wikipedia over nude underaged girl photo...
It could well be that I don't grow up in the United States, or rather, under the liberal establishment in the United States; but I have always found the free-speech movement irksome and even worrisome.
It's not unusual for the ACLU or some such liberal outfits filing lawsuits or appeals for those defendants who, in some cases, are clearly in the wrong, but yet ACLU would defend for them, for the sole purpose of holding up the rights of the convicted, and again the commonsense or decency of protection the victims, particularly in violent crimes.
True, wrongful convictions are not unheard of in the past. And ACLU does serve a purpose. But in those cases, where there is absolutely no defense, with overwhelming evidence, and in some cases, even the defendants said they're themselves very guilty, ACLU would file appeals against all cries, oftentimes in the name of procedural misgivings.
The latest episode of censoring of Wikipedia from UK in an album cover that features a very nude of clearly under-aged girl, is a case in point. The whole point of argument against the censoring of Wikipedia due to the picture is the "legality" of the picture in question. The argument being which, if the picture is not deemed (or has not yet been deemed) as illegal, then the picture is good to be posted on the web.
The idea that the web is the ultimate frontier for the free-for-all, which contributes not only to the dissemination of knowledge, but also drastically in the exponential growth in child pornography, is simply too great a social ill to ignore. While some would condemn my attitude as puritanical, I see the liberal establishments like ACLU in irrational debates about obvious social evils, as irrational and irresponsible.
I grew up in Hong Kong. It's an interesting to grow up, before its sovereignty was returned to China. Back then, one gets to bask in all cultures, both western and deeply oriental. There was little to no censorship, but most everyone was guided by a traditional moral compass (not out of government censorship), and simply commonsense of an ordinary man. To me, this Wikipedia fiasco fails the decency-of-a-common-man test. If I were to decide, it'll be illegal.
And if that's the smoking gun that Washington Post and ACLU are looking for, then there you have it. That nude picture of the underaged girl should be taken down. I have no doubt in my mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have always considered myself fiscally conservative but social liberal, but those who argue for this Wikipedia fiasco never meausre up to my liberal view. To me, they are arguing for the argument sake. It's pitiful.
It's not unusual for the ACLU or some such liberal outfits filing lawsuits or appeals for those defendants who, in some cases, are clearly in the wrong, but yet ACLU would defend for them, for the sole purpose of holding up the rights of the convicted, and again the commonsense or decency of protection the victims, particularly in violent crimes.
True, wrongful convictions are not unheard of in the past. And ACLU does serve a purpose. But in those cases, where there is absolutely no defense, with overwhelming evidence, and in some cases, even the defendants said they're themselves very guilty, ACLU would file appeals against all cries, oftentimes in the name of procedural misgivings.
The latest episode of censoring of Wikipedia from UK in an album cover that features a very nude of clearly under-aged girl, is a case in point. The whole point of argument against the censoring of Wikipedia due to the picture is the "legality" of the picture in question. The argument being which, if the picture is not deemed (or has not yet been deemed) as illegal, then the picture is good to be posted on the web.
The idea that the web is the ultimate frontier for the free-for-all, which contributes not only to the dissemination of knowledge, but also drastically in the exponential growth in child pornography, is simply too great a social ill to ignore. While some would condemn my attitude as puritanical, I see the liberal establishments like ACLU in irrational debates about obvious social evils, as irrational and irresponsible.
I grew up in Hong Kong. It's an interesting to grow up, before its sovereignty was returned to China. Back then, one gets to bask in all cultures, both western and deeply oriental. There was little to no censorship, but most everyone was guided by a traditional moral compass (not out of government censorship), and simply commonsense of an ordinary man. To me, this Wikipedia fiasco fails the decency-of-a-common-man test. If I were to decide, it'll be illegal.
And if that's the smoking gun that Washington Post and ACLU are looking for, then there you have it. That nude picture of the underaged girl should be taken down. I have no doubt in my mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have always considered myself fiscally conservative but social liberal, but those who argue for this Wikipedia fiasco never meausre up to my liberal view. To me, they are arguing for the argument sake. It's pitiful.
Monday, December 1, 2008
On the near uselessness of financial news...
Sometimes the financial news and data are so useless and outdated, that after I read through them, the only thing that I could do is to laugh.
So, we know economy is very beaten down since the subprime mortgage mess started 1.5 years ago, with HSBC being the first and seems to be most forthcoming (yet low-profiled) in terms of writedowns. Every other guy, including the outgoing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, professes to claim they know what's going on or they have a handle on things, are all pretty clueless, much like you and me. That much we know.
The five-day double-digit rally of Dow before Thanksgiving was an anomaly. Well, we the average folks also know that economy won't come back any time soon. Markets have their way of rise and fall, mostly trading too take short profits. And then there are those stocks and traders (or some such related parties) who get the inside scoop of news, taking profit within a day of rise-and-fall from news like Carl Icahn's buying more YHOO, essentially doubling down on the stock when he has lost a fair chuck on his initial $1.6 billion buying up YHOO, thereby pumping the stock from $10.20 to $11.50 before it buckles again today to the $10 range again. I have got tired of YHOO. So, on Friday, before the Icahn news, I sold at $10.50, essentially taking a 50% loss. Oh well, I'd rather have the liquidity (however reduced) for now, than to stick around for God-knows how long with YHOO.
The point, though, is that we know that extended five-day rally won't last, because it can't.
What got me laughing was the report from AP, after markets closed, that essentially says "yeah we are in recession because it's actually started (surprise!) in Dec 2007 (!?!?!?!?!)". I was thinking, WTF?!? AND THEN, all these *smart* financial reporters/analysts/news could try to have us believed that, they do know something, and that (surprise!) the five-day rally couldn't last...after the markets closed. I just couldn't stop laughing.
Mate, if you tell/report "news" 12 months too late, does it still have any news value? Do you even want to report about it, that the economists now FINALLY know and agree that we're in recession.
Oh, and the financial news. All these bozo who are simply trying to find a regiment of reasons from their stash, of why the markets rise or fall, AFTER the markets close. What good does that do to me?
...I think my kids do better predictions than these bozo...
So, we know economy is very beaten down since the subprime mortgage mess started 1.5 years ago, with HSBC being the first and seems to be most forthcoming (yet low-profiled) in terms of writedowns. Every other guy, including the outgoing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, professes to claim they know what's going on or they have a handle on things, are all pretty clueless, much like you and me. That much we know.
The five-day double-digit rally of Dow before Thanksgiving was an anomaly. Well, we the average folks also know that economy won't come back any time soon. Markets have their way of rise and fall, mostly trading too take short profits. And then there are those stocks and traders (or some such related parties) who get the inside scoop of news, taking profit within a day of rise-and-fall from news like Carl Icahn's buying more YHOO, essentially doubling down on the stock when he has lost a fair chuck on his initial $1.6 billion buying up YHOO, thereby pumping the stock from $10.20 to $11.50 before it buckles again today to the $10 range again. I have got tired of YHOO. So, on Friday, before the Icahn news, I sold at $10.50, essentially taking a 50% loss. Oh well, I'd rather have the liquidity (however reduced) for now, than to stick around for God-knows how long with YHOO.
The point, though, is that we know that extended five-day rally won't last, because it can't.
What got me laughing was the report from AP, after markets closed, that essentially says "yeah we are in recession because it's actually started (surprise!) in Dec 2007 (!?!?!?!?!)". I was thinking, WTF?!? AND THEN, all these *smart* financial reporters/analysts/news could try to have us believed that, they do know something, and that (surprise!) the five-day rally couldn't last...after the markets closed. I just couldn't stop laughing.
Mate, if you tell/report "news" 12 months too late, does it still have any news value? Do you even want to report about it, that the economists now FINALLY know and agree that we're in recession.
Oh, and the financial news. All these bozo who are simply trying to find a regiment of reasons from their stash, of why the markets rise or fall, AFTER the markets close. What good does that do to me?
...I think my kids do better predictions than these bozo...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)