The Market - A Bucketshop.

So, a fellow on Bloomberg was talking about Bucketshops this morning.

We modernised ourselves into this ice age.

Wikipedia on the Bucketshop.

Basically, they were businesses on the sidelines that would play bets with customers on the stock market, but were not actually connected to the stock market. It's as if I were to bet someone $50 on LDK to go up, and vice versa, but neither of us would actually ever trade a share of LDK, and certainly we wouldn't be regulated as if we were actually trading in the market. It's very close to what has happened with Derivatives in the last 10 years. A great many of them, Trillions of Dollars had no fundamental basis in any physical ownership of ANYTHING whatsoever. They're side bets, pure and simple, and many of those making the wagers had no ability to pay up in the case of losses. The idea of running bucketshops didn't stop when they were outlawed... it was expressed later by those that led the US Government to deregulate via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and it was implemented by the "Derivatives Desk."

Of course, the Bucketshop is illegal, but the insideous concept finds its way even into the regulated markets, by way of the DTCC. Is the DTCC just throwing your trades in a bucket in the back room? In some cases, at least, it certainly is; only, we the customers don't ever get to look behind the curtain to see for ourselves. Does the share that my brokerage claims on my account really represent a legitimate link to a physical asset? All I know is what my broker tells me. If my broker were a bucketshop, would it be obvious to me, the customer? Would they admit it?

The DTCC needs to get cracked open. Let's find out what's going on in there. The Investing Public has the RIGHT to know how the DTCC handles their PROPERTY.

Excellent News. Chinese Banks to invest in US Securities.

China Permits U.S. Investments

Chinese banks will be allowed to invest their clients' money in U.S.-traded stocks and mutual funds, China's banking regulator said after signing an agreement with SEC regulators. While China has been a major buyer of U.S. Treasuries, Beijing has had strict limits on foreign investing. Analysts expect Chinese investors will slowly, but steadily, begin trading in U.S. stocks.


Here's another link that describes this process.

Community Reinvestment Act

This is the original law that brought us Securitized Sub-Prime Mortgages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The original law was passed in 1977, and it was modified in 1995 under Bill Clinton. The first Subprimes were Securitized in 1997, and the law was revisited in 2002 with changes occuring in 2005.

I remember Bill Clinton talking about how he was going to stimulate investment in Urban areas, particularly poor ones. He was somewhat successful in this, and I'm now thinking that this law might have had something to do with it.

So, is it to blame for today's problems? Was it a bad law, or bad idea? It would be tempting to throw Bill under the bus on this, considering that he's a political opponent at this point in time, but no, I think it was a sensible idea, and probably benefitted alot of very legit sub-prime borrowers since '97. On the other hand, it definately appears to have been taken too far, whether this was because the Government Incentive was so powerful that Banks would continue to fall all over themselves to rack up more Mortgage debt? Or did Banks take on this tremendous mountain of debt because they discovered that there wwere incredible profits in it... as long as the number of defaults remained very low.

Personally, I suspect that it was the profit motive for Banks, along with the convenience in distributing the Mortgages through Securitization, that caused the excess.

Off the Subject: Recession, Bailout, Bush's Sweeping Plan.

This is breaking news tonight. The Bush Administration has a plan out, to be unveiled Monday.

Bush seeks financial regulation overhaul


Like any plan supported by Bush, this makes me nervous. It's tough to squeeze an Honest plan out of a Corrupt Administration.


The proposal would designate the Fed as the primary regulator of market stability, greatly expanding the central bank's ability to examine not just commercial banks but all segments of the financial services industry.


Congress needs to look very carefully at how the bolded statement is defined.


In the case that "market stability" is at risk, what resources does the Independent Fed have at its disposal to stabilize it? Does the Plunge Protection Team, in concept at least, become a truly legitimate part of the Market?

We've already seen the Fed giving Billions of Dollars in Emergency Loans to Bear Stearns and other struggling Financials, which, for collateral "will essentially allow the government to hold as collateral a wide variety of investments that include hard-to-sell securities backed by mortgages." This seems to be saying that in the case that Securities crash in value and put at risk the Financials that own them, the Fed is authorized to lend unlimited amounts of real money in exchange for control of those possibly valueless securities. If the value of the securities goes to zero, then the Fed, and somewhere down the line, the taxpayer, loses. It would then be the equivalent of a "bailout" to the institutions that loaded up on bad investments in the first place. The possibility that it could potentially be a bailout of unlimited scope is worrisome. Even in the best case, the Fed is saddled with the administrative costs of managing a large number of diverse investments.


Another potentially disturbing quote that I've seen, was included in the above-linked Yahoo article when I originally read it, but now is gone. I've found it in another source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/356976_fedbush29.html

"The blueprint also suggests several areas where the SEC should take a lighter approach to its oversight. Among them are allowing stock exchanges greater leeway to regulate themselves and streamlining the approval of new products, even allowing automatic approval of securities products that are being traded in foreign markets."

I'd like to know what the hell this entails, because it sounds sketchy to me. Isn't one of the reasons that US Echanges are considered to be among the safest in the world is because there are safeguards in place to assure (at least to some extent) that Securites on those exchanges are vetted according to consistant standards? I don't know. I'd like to know more.

Peak Oil Paper - For future Reference.

http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf

For good Recession-related info:

The_Recession

Also, Robert Reich has a Blog.