Yep I read that there are no insider restrictions for politicians..meaning if Monsanto slips some info and a politician gets stock or options and makes out on the trade, no problem.
This reality about who owns the government makes me hold little to no hope about anything getting better. We are all focused on which butt is in the chair when in reality that is the opposite party we need to be concerned with.
Term limits mean nothing..get the money out, that is the single ONLY hope of turning things around..and that will never happen.
I have read the same thing numerous times. That is why I said in a previous post that the easiest way to become a millionaire in the US is to go to Congress. I'll need to find the story that I read that showed what % of these jokers go to Congress not wealthy but come out millionaires after a term or two (depending on House or Senate).
Yep I read that there are no insider restrictions for politicians..meaning if Monsanto slips some info and a politician gets stock or options and makes out on the trade, no problem.
This reality about who owns the government makes me hold little to no hope about anything getting better. We are all focused on which butt is in the chair when in reality that is the opposite party we need to be concerned with.
Term limits mean nothing..get the money out, that is the single ONLY hope of turning things around..and that will never happen.
I have read the same thing numerous times. That is why I said in a previous post that the easiest way to become a millionaire in the US is to go to Congress. I'll need to find the story that I read that showed what % of these jokers go to Congress not wealthy but come out millionaires after a term or two (depending on House or Senate).
Even if the inside politician makes a million or even ten on inside info, think of what the market cap of the corporation did and the tainted wealth created to the corp in the process.
Even if the inside politician makes a million or even ten on inside info, think of what the market cap of the corporation did and the tainted wealth created to the corp in the process.
Yep I read that there are no insider restrictions for politicians..meaning if Monsanto slips some info and a politician gets stock or options and makes out on the trade, no problem.
This reality about who owns the government makes me hold little to no hope about anything getting better. We are all focused on which butt is in the chair when in reality that is the opposite party we need to be concerned with.
Term limits mean nothing..get the money out, that is the single ONLY hope of turning things around..and that will never happen.
Money is THE problem but I respectfully disagree with term limits. Life long politicians always = complacent + corruption. If a President can only has two terms, what make the Congress so SPECIAL?
Yep I read that there are no insider restrictions for politicians..meaning if Monsanto slips some info and a politician gets stock or options and makes out on the trade, no problem.
This reality about who owns the government makes me hold little to no hope about anything getting better. We are all focused on which butt is in the chair when in reality that is the opposite party we need to be concerned with.
Term limits mean nothing..get the money out, that is the single ONLY hope of turning things around..and that will never happen.
Money is THE problem but I respectfully disagree with term limits. Life long politicians always = complacent + corruption. If a President can only has two terms, what make the Congress so SPECIAL?
Here is something to think about- In order for the Stock Market to move up, especially more then double since 09, there has to be huge volume buying. But majority of Americans lost all their savings, homes, jobs leaving them with no money. So if the Majority of Americans have no money to buy food, never mind stocks, how the hell has the stock market more then doubled in last 4-5 yrs? Who the hell is doing all this buying? or is anyone and it is just Wall street creating themselves a bubble?
Do you all realize how many properties these banks own right now and are sitting on from the foreclosure debacle? TONS! Do you know what is going to happen to Bank Stocks in the very near future when they actually sit down and do an accounting of all these properties they own? SKY ROCKET! If you were smart and had money, you would have been buying bank stocks when they came crashing down 5 yrs ago, and you would still be buying them now. Wells Fargo was below 10 a share in 08-they are now over 40. Citi group went from 15 to 50. Bank of America is at 14 now- once they do a serious accounting of their assets, that stock with shoot through the roof. Bank of America's stock will sky rocket right pass Wells Fargo-they were and still are #1 holder of foreclosures.
and the joke of all jokes is that they also got bailout money from our govt.
So lets get back to the question-- what is driving Wall Street? The Banks Paper Worth!!!! Meaning the RICH got richer at the middle classes expense of losing their homes!!
Here is something to think about- In order for the Stock Market to move up, especially more then double since 09, there has to be huge volume buying. But majority of Americans lost all their savings, homes, jobs leaving them with no money. So if the Majority of Americans have no money to buy food, never mind stocks, how the hell has the stock market more then doubled in last 4-5 yrs? Who the hell is doing all this buying? or is anyone and it is just Wall street creating themselves a bubble?
Do you all realize how many properties these banks own right now and are sitting on from the foreclosure debacle? TONS! Do you know what is going to happen to Bank Stocks in the very near future when they actually sit down and do an accounting of all these properties they own? SKY ROCKET! If you were smart and had money, you would have been buying bank stocks when they came crashing down 5 yrs ago, and you would still be buying them now. Wells Fargo was below 10 a share in 08-they are now over 40. Citi group went from 15 to 50. Bank of America is at 14 now- once they do a serious accounting of their assets, that stock with shoot through the roof. Bank of America's stock will sky rocket right pass Wells Fargo-they were and still are #1 holder of foreclosures.
and the joke of all jokes is that they also got bailout money from our govt.
So lets get back to the question-- what is driving Wall Street? The Banks Paper Worth!!!! Meaning the RICH got richer at the middle classes expense of losing their homes!!
They are still getting bailout money from the government at 80 billion dollars a month via the FED. The only problem that regular joe's have is they do not have access to free money from the fed, because we didn't grease the wheels of the gatekeepers.
They are still getting bailout money from the government at 80 billion dollars a month via the FED. The only problem that regular joe's have is they do not have access to free money from the fed, because we didn't grease the wheels of the gatekeepers.
Alpha, im not a fan of banks, but I am one that believes the old saying that they are not fans of being in the real estate market. Through my business, I have quite a bit of dealings with foreclosd props. Banks would much rather get their monthly payments to invest for their own returns, than have to assume a property that is going start to decline. Most of the time if they take ownership they become responsible to keep maintained to a certain level depending on ordinance.
Alpha, im not a fan of banks, but I am one that believes the old saying that they are not fans of being in the real estate market. Through my business, I have quite a bit of dealings with foreclosd props. Banks would much rather get their monthly payments to invest for their own returns, than have to assume a property that is going start to decline. Most of the time if they take ownership they become responsible to keep maintained to a certain level depending on ordinance.
Yes I think the banks deserve valuation of what they had in 2008..
They have not changed anything at all, they still hold high leverage rates..the only difference is we allowed them to stock up on cheap debt and with that they are able to margin and generate profits while still being able to hide their risk and exposure to the same instruments which almost killed them during the drop.
Yes I think the banks deserve valuation of what they had in 2008..
They have not changed anything at all, they still hold high leverage rates..the only difference is we allowed them to stock up on cheap debt and with that they are able to margin and generate profits while still being able to hide their risk and exposure to the same instruments which almost killed them during the drop.
Alpha, im not a fan of banks, but I am one that believes the old saying that they are not fans of being in the real estate market. Through my business, I have quite a bit of dealings with foreclosd props. Banks would much rather get their monthly payments to invest for their own returns, than have to assume a property that is going start to decline. Most of the time if they take ownership they become responsible to keep maintained to a certain level depending on ordinance.
Not saying your points are not valid or what you say does not make sense, but ask...if banks did not want your home, why is modifying the loan a nightmare for people, why aren't the banks making it easier for people to stay in their homes? After all, if what you say is true, it makes more sense for the bank to keep people in the homes and collect something each month, then to kick them out and sit on the property? Here is why--there are so many properties that are sitting on banks accounting ledgers where the imputed value is much higher the the market value and nobody seems to know what exactly the market value is. Bank of America as an example is trading at 14 dollars a share for a reason.. because they have untold amounts of these properties sitting on their ledger sheets which they never put a value on. The moment they do, their stock will sky rocket to pluto!!
Alpha, im not a fan of banks, but I am one that believes the old saying that they are not fans of being in the real estate market. Through my business, I have quite a bit of dealings with foreclosd props. Banks would much rather get their monthly payments to invest for their own returns, than have to assume a property that is going start to decline. Most of the time if they take ownership they become responsible to keep maintained to a certain level depending on ordinance.
Not saying your points are not valid or what you say does not make sense, but ask...if banks did not want your home, why is modifying the loan a nightmare for people, why aren't the banks making it easier for people to stay in their homes? After all, if what you say is true, it makes more sense for the bank to keep people in the homes and collect something each month, then to kick them out and sit on the property? Here is why--there are so many properties that are sitting on banks accounting ledgers where the imputed value is much higher the the market value and nobody seems to know what exactly the market value is. Bank of America as an example is trading at 14 dollars a share for a reason.. because they have untold amounts of these properties sitting on their ledger sheets which they never put a value on. The moment they do, their stock will sky rocket to pluto!!
Alpha, im not a fan of banks, but I am one that believes the old saying that they are not fans of being in the real estate market. Through my business, I have quite a bit of dealings with foreclosd props. Banks would much rather get their monthly payments to invest for their own returns, than have to assume a property that is going start to decline. Most of the time if they take ownership they become responsible to keep maintained to a certain level depending on ordinance.
I would agree with this. Banks would rather not venture into the business of "assuming liability", and "selling" of foreclosed homes.
Alpha, im not a fan of banks, but I am one that believes the old saying that they are not fans of being in the real estate market. Through my business, I have quite a bit of dealings with foreclosd props. Banks would much rather get their monthly payments to invest for their own returns, than have to assume a property that is going start to decline. Most of the time if they take ownership they become responsible to keep maintained to a certain level depending on ordinance.
I would agree with this. Banks would rather not venture into the business of "assuming liability", and "selling" of foreclosed homes.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.