G20 leaders seal $1tn global deal

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by edesignuk, Apr 2, 2009.

  1. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #1
    BBC. [more on the Historic IMF Changes]

    So, spend more money. I wonder what the sanctions are exactly against tax havens.

    Solution?
     
  2. edesignuk thread starter Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    And on the back of this...

    BBC.

    FTSE is back to >4100, and the Dow Jones >8000. It's been a while! Wonder how long it'll last...
     
  3. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    And so did the price of oil, what a surprise.
     
  4. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #4
    This is all good but so far im only hearing words, lots and lots of words.
     
  5. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #5
    Call me stupidly optimistic, but pending further bombshells, we could start to see the turn around in 2010. What I'm particularly interested is after the turn-around occurs whether or not people will call the combative measures over-reactions or not (I know the die-hard conservatives will always insist on that).
     
  6. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #6
    The markets have been steadily climbing for a few months now, slowly but surely. They're still pretty volatile, though, as is oil.

    I've always said that the economy will turn around and begin to recover as soon as 3 of the right important people come out publicly and say something to the effect of, "It's okay." The Fed chairman was the first, and people's confidence began to turn around. The G20 can take the next step (and by today's market rise, they may have) by saying something similar.

    The problem is certainly real and worldwide, but it was no doubt made worse by panic. Once we can get our collective panic under control we can start to press on the actual financial issues.
     
  7. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #7
    Looks like Merkel and Sarkozy got what they wanted...
     
  8. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #8
    What market have you been watching? The S&P 500 and Dow indexes have all been down for the past few months, they've only started to turnaround slight starting in March. So they've turned around for what, 3 or 4 weeks now? Its a start, but with most short sellers betting it won't stay up, I'd tend to go the same way.
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    The markets main dive was September, it stayed steady but lower after that. The current bottom seems to be early March.
     
  10. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #10
    No they didn't, China vetoed it, plus put in massive delays for any further negotiations on topics such as Tax Heavens, mainly due to Honk Kong and Macau (two of China's main cities) being the worlds biggest Tax Heavens right now.
     
  11. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #11

    It's the markets rallying that worries me. If they're happy then the tax havens and whatnot must not be too badly affected.

    Also, where is this new money going to come from? Presumably it's being printed out of thin air?

    (Yes, I am that sceptical!)
     
  12. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #12
    OK. I'm going to have to investigate this more:
    OK. From what I can find, you must be going off of an earlier news report. Obama, according to this article, negotiated a deal between the French and Chinese:
    http://www.france24.com/en/20090402-obama-broke-france-china-tax-haven-logjam-us-official-g20-summit
     
  13. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #13
    after the last weeks (no make this months) i doubt germany would even remotely consider walking away without getting any concessions in terms of tax heavens or bank anonymity etc...

    in fact Uruguay, Costa Rica, Malaysia and Philippines already have been put up on the blacklist (those without any cooperation)... and switzerland nearly missing it with compromising in the last moment

    and then there is the grey list of countries which still haven't followed/ratified international treaties about banking: including
    Luxemburg
    Switzerland
    Austria
    Belgium
    Singapor
    Chile
    Liechtenstein
    Monaco
    Cayman Isles

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/14/42497950.pdf

    this whole discussion is about _following_ where the money goes

    edit: for amusment: german/british banker Julius Meinl V. got arrested on wednesday because of his shady business and ripping of customers of his hedge fonds or whatever it is stationed in Jersey the channel island

    then on thursday the judge decided that he was in danger of fleeing the country (having the habit of an fuel filled private jet on wien-schwechat on stand-by 24/7 and all that), so the judge went with a bail sum of 100 million euro

    and now the kicker: which was paid within 54 minutes (being a banker/investor should he have such amounts .. you know.. invested and not _that_ liquid ?)... from a private account ... owner unknown located in a bank in liechtenstein
     
  14. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #14
    Trees, and cotton, until they run out, :rolleyes:
     
  15. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    There are how many thousand companies in the NYSE? The Dow is what, 21 biggies? Of those, how many are actually up? And of the thousands of the NYSE, how much action has there been, and what's the ups/downs ratio?

    "Bear market bounce" has been a factor for many cycles.

    How can this mess be over before the debts are cleared? We haven't even begun the serious write-downs in commercial real estate. Same for credit-card defaults.

    We've been 2/3 a consumer economy, and irrational spending got us into this mess. Those who still have jobs and money are now saving, which means lower consumption. 8.5% unemployment and more layoffs coming. Consumption? And if you look at U6, the unemployment really looks bad.

    And all this in the face of oncoming increases in consumer price inflation.

    Happy noises, talky-talk, print that paper...

    'Rat
     
  16. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #16
    There are 30, I believe.

    Fortunately, housing rebounded a little, so that's a good sign that a handful of people are more willing to spend and banks are more willing to lend. Getting rid of the panic was the first step, getting banks to lend and people to spend will be next, I think.

    And unfortunately, it often happens that unemployment is the last facet of the economy to rebound after a recession. Firms like to make sure the rebound is sustainable before permanently adding too much to payrolls. I've been reading that unemployment won't even peak until about a year from now, although I don't know that it will take quite that long (maybe the end of '09, hopefully?).
     
  17. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #17
    NYSE trades over 2500 securities trading on it. The DJIA is composed of 30 large, "industry leading" stocks, that are supposed to represent 30% of the total stock value of all U.S. equities. I prefer the S&P 500 since it represents about 80% of the over all stock market capitalization. The S&P is also based on share price times shares outstanding which makes it a little less volatile if one stock drops a lot in comparison to the DJIA (which is based just on stock price). Both are considered decent measures of the stock market as whole though, and both clearly show the same events when you look at their historical graphs. For the graph to go up most of the companies (generally) in either index would have to be up, so its a good bet that on any day that shows a gain in either index the majority to stocks in that index (and likely on the market) would be up.

    Part of what caused the problem in the first place was the write down in real estate. With the changes being made by the FASB in mark-to-market accounting rules hopefully there won't be too many more large write downs that will cause the markets to take another serious dive. If no one would have asked what the value of those mortgage backed securites, derivatives, etc, actually was (or the value of what was backing them), we probably wouldn't have had this whole mess in the first place. Don't get me wrong, there will still be write downs, but they won't be as large and banks will be allowed to value some assets at fair market value instead of writing them totally down, it should ease some of the pressure.

    Its kind of funny though, most of the people calling for an ease in mark-to-market accounting rules are the same ones that were so disgusted when Enron collapsed partly by using mark-to-market to its extreme advantage. Its funny to hear the same people who called for such extreme regulation suddenly calling for deregulation in the same area. Though the accounting rules are still fairly strict, its still funny to hear. Although I'm of a strong capitalist mindset I'm usually pretty weary of anything that calls for a company to use significant judgement when reporting something on its financials.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Hmmm... funny that we haven't heard from our blusterous conservative friends who were blaming Obama for the market's actions in early March. They were quite happy to apportion blame at that time, yet they won't give credit now that the markets are up.

    I wonder why... :confused::p:D
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    mac, there are so many disconnects between the stock market, bullion prices, bailouts, paper printing and unemployment that anything anybody says about the "why" of ups and downs is pretty much a matter of somebody fooling himself. The overall down-drop of the last several months reflects the losses in profitability and the writeoffs. That's a mix of several things which we've talked about at length here, and only in part Obama--and there, IMO, it's a result of the expansion of the money supply. Gotta include Bernanke and Geithner on that.

    As near as I can tell, most of the action involves the big financials, with a "buy the dips, sell the highs" deal as we saw during the dot-com bubble. I can't at all see it as any sort of improvements in corporate worth.

    My overall viewpoint of this G20 meeting, as more details come out, is that nothing of note happened. The trillion or so will mostly be US printed paper, which doesn't help matters, but hurts the value of the dollar. And, the IMF says it will sell gold, which IMO makes for a buying opportunity. "Buy the dips." Otherwise just a bunch of neck-hugging and make nice but for one notable item: Many countries are totally POed at the US and blaming the US for this mess. Dollars to donuts that there will be a bunch of studying about finding a new reserve currency within two, maybe three or four years. That will depend on dollar behavior later this year or maybe by next spring.

    Does anybody know if the text of this URL is for real? Actually verbatim?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question

    "Barack Obama, the World's Greatest Orator (™all news organisations), didn't exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking ..."

    If it is, I'm appalled. But, I've no way to tell...

    'Rat
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    You won't get any argument from me there, but you can't deny that there was a contingent of conservatives both in the national media, and in this very forum, that were happy to point out drops in the market that coincidentally occurred on days Obama plans were announced, and that they were trying to imply -- if not outright state -- that it was Obama's policies that were causing drops in the DOW. And you also can't deny that none of those same people have come out and said anything about the stock market rising lately...
     
  21. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #21
    The main difference you would have is that the market has been rising consistently lately, not just on days Obama or Geinther have made announcements. Have their accouncements caused both short-term drops and gains in the market? Certainly. Unfortunately, they don't have the ability to cause long-term gains solely with an announcement, which is where it really matters. Those drops and gains really aren't coincident though, they happen because investors either like the announcement and become slightly more confident or they don't. It is certainly fair to suggest that Obama's announcements have caused both gains and drops, but the market usually levels out back to a level somewhere between the gains and drops that its been near for a while. Any person on the right suggesting that Obama is only responsible for drops don't understand the market, but I don't think there is a terribly large amount of people on the right suggesting that. The Chairman of the Fed seems to have more sway over the market these days anyway.

    His knowledge of markets, economics, and finance definitely is not his strong point. I'd be surprised if he could argue for or against some of the measures his administration has started taking in response to the crisis. However, I'd say the same about most past presidents or congressmen. He hasn't impressed me with his ability to answer unscripted questions, but again, neither have most presidents (I wish he was better at making stuff up that sounds good on the spot like Clinton or that he'd say I'm just not sure and refer us to good old Geinther or Bernanke). If he actually did say that its pretty funny, on the level with some of the crap Bush said.

    What really peeves me is the pressure that was put on the FASB to relax accounting rules. Its an outside organization for a reason and it should not be subject to governmental pressure to change accounting rules.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    The market was dropping pretty consistently prior to this recent bottom. That was considered grist for Obama-bashers, as well as the day-to-day drops.

    Any rational person knows that governing by DOW is a stupid position. But that didn't stop the claim from being made. I just don't recall any of our anti-Obama posters attempting to straighten out those around here using the DOW to criticize Obama at the time it was dropping. Now that the DOW is rising; however, everyone is more than happy to point out that there is no correlation between Obama's policies and the DOW moves.

    I just prefer people to be consistent. If the president deserves blame for drops in the DOW, he also deserves credit for increases.
     
  23. rhsgolfer33 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    #23
    I'm with you, if your going to criticize someone for causing the decrease with an announcement you have to give them credit when it increases on an announcement. I prefer to give credit for neither since its so short term and based so much on market sentiment. :p

    When the DJIA crests 12,000 again I'll decide who I think gets credit.
     
  24. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #24
    Just remembered. (Amazing what will bubble up while messing around on a backhoe. :)) The change in the accounting rules away from "market to market" to "mark to whatever".

    That is, the Big Boys assets were carried on the books at the value they would bring in an open-market sale--which, right now, is essentially a distress sale. The rules just got changed so they can carry these assets at some internally-evaluated number--which bears little relation to reality, but cooks the books nicely.

    So, now that there is the appearance of a better degree of financial health, their stock looks better as a "Buy" instead of "Avoid like the plague".

    "More money is stolen with a pen than with a gun."

    'Rat
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    This whole FASBY thing was a load of crap from the git-go. More Corporatist sop to the wealthy, with the effect of further weakening the small banks that didn't get carried away in this derivative insanity.

    Who's gonna buy these "assets" if their market value can successfully be obscured by the seller? The corporate honchos complain bitterly about having to sell these things at fire-sale prices. As one pundit noted, what if there really was a fire? Without a standard method of valuation, who can know?

    One of the primary reasons we're in this mess is because the lack of regulation of the derivative market allowed -- nay, encouraged -- these best-and-brightest-and-hardworkingest financial wizards to cook the value of these CDOs and their associated investment vehicles in order to maximize their bonuses. Surprise! They weren't worth nearly as much as was claimed.

    And yet, here we go again...
     

Share This Page