Showing posts with label Share Market. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Share Market. Show all posts

Saturday, 12 March 2011

The basic of short selling in stock market

What is short-selling?
Short-selling is the sale of shares that the seller does not own at the time of trading. Despite being a long-standing market practice worldwide, short-sales have been the subject of considerable debate and divergent views in most securities markets.
The first thought popping up in your mind would be – where do these shares come from which you are selling without possessing them in your portfolio of stocks. These come from your broker/brokerage firm that lends you the shares in lieu of your investment as collateral. You short sell these shares but subsequently you have to close the short by buying back the shares from market and then return it to your broker/brokerage firm. You are also charged some interest for the loan of shares you have taken.
shortselling
Looking at the flow of shares in above flowchart, one would ponder why to borrow shares for selling in market and then transfer them back to the lender? The logic behind shorting is very simple; earning profit margin. Let’s see how??

If you think a stock is overvalued and expect that the price would come down in future for sure; you would wish to sell the shares at current levels at higher price. So you borrow the shares and sell them at higher price. And when the stock actually falls as you had speculated; you buy it from market at lower price and return it to the lender and the difference between the selling price (higher) and buy price (lower) is what you earned in the deal. So at the end you must close the short by paying back the shares and this is called as “covering the short”.Concluding this, investors who anticipate fall in the stock price go short to take advantage of market fall. An investor can hold the short for as long as he wants but he is charged an interest as it is similar to a loan taken in the form of shares. Also if during the course of loan, the company declares dividend or rights issue, it must be paid to the lender who is the actual owner of shares because you are just a borrower.
Short selling is considered to destabilize markets directly or indirectly. In 2001, the stock prices crashed heavily owing to short selling by big operators after which SEBI banned it. After a gap of 6 years in December 2007 SEBI came up with updated norms of short selling to cover the loopholes and ultimately institutional investor were also permitted to short sell.
Concluding this, short selling no doubt gives you an opportunity to earn profit by taking advantage of downturn of markets, it might bring in huge loss to your investment if stock price moves up. Because in real sense, shorting is a bet against the current market trend. When stock is at current higher levels, you are expecting it to fall down and entering the arena. Speculation is what makes shorting a riskier job. So beware of the dark side of shorting before you actually go for it!

Plan before investing in stock

Since there are risks in investing in most cases, you need to have an investment strategy prepared before you get your money to work for you. It is like a game where you won't know the outcome for sure until it has been decided and most of the time you need a winning strategy. Much like in investing, you will need a winning strategy to be successful.

Having a plan on how to invest your money in various investment vehicles serves as your strategy. You investment strategy will help you achieve your financial goal in time. You must choose from a number of investments from different investment vehicles. The stock market has as one of those investment types have numerous type of stocks from various companies which you can choose to put your money in.

It can become very confusing and difficult if you don't have enough knowledge and haven't yet learn enough since there are so many investment types to choose from. The investment strategy you will develop together with your investment style and risk tolerance should make all the confusion and difficulties be at minimum. If you are new to investing in general, working closely with a good financial planner should be a great benefit to you before making any investment. They should be able to guide and help you create your investment strategy to achieve your financial goals all within the bounds of your risk tolerance and investment style.

It's a waste of time and money to invest without a strategy to reach a specific goal. It is important that you know where your money is going and what your money is doing before you give it away before you expect it to come back with some returns. Always have a plan and a goal before doing anything.

Insider Trading

Since the depths of the Great Depression, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has tried to prevent insider trading in U.S. securities markets. Insiders - a firm's principal owners, directors, and management, as well as its lawyers, accountants, and similar fiduciaries - routinely possess information that is unavailable to the general public. Because some of that information will affect the prices of the firm's securities when it becomes public, insiders can profit by buying or selling in advance. Even before the thirties, insiders were liable under the common law if they fraudulently misled uninformed traders into accepting inappropriate prices. But the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 went further by forbidding insiders from even profiting passively from superior information.

One of the most famous instances of insider trading was Charles F. Fogarty's purchase of Texas Gulf Sulphur shares during 1963 and 1964. Fogarty, an executive vice president of Texas Gulf, knew that the company had discovered a rich mineral lode in Ontario that it could not publicize before concluding leases for mineral rights. In the meantime Fogarty purchased 3,100 Texas Gulf shares and earned $125,000 to $150,000 (in 1991 dollars).
The basic argument against insider trading is that insiders should not be permitted to earn such sums at the expense of uninformed traders. Yet in almost all other markets where information is important, insider trading is well established and widely accepted. For example, mineral leases are routinely bought by those better able than the sellers to evaluate a site's potential, as Texas Gulf Sulphur's behavior exemplified. Cattle buyers rely on superior estimates of what packers will pay when negotiating with ranchers. And so it goes, in markets for art, for real estate, for professional athletes - indeed in practically every market with substantial variations in prices. In all those markets a few buyers routinely profit from knowledge that most sellers do not possess, and a few sellers profit from knowledge that most buyers do not possess. Commentators rarely cast aspersions on such traders' ethics or contend that their transactions should be regulated because of the asymmetry in information. Why should securities markets be treated differently?
One reason frequently cited by policymakers and commentators is that insider trading undermines public confidence in the securities markets. If people fear that insiders will regularly profit at their expense, they will not be nearly as willing to invest. A similar argument is that companies prefer that their securities trade in "thick" markets - that is, markets with many traders, substantial capital available, and frequent opportunities to trade at readily observable prices. Efficient securities markets, it is argued, require a "level informational playing field" to avoid frightening away speculators, who contribute to securities market liquidity, and investors, who could invest their savings in markets with less risk of insider predation. Working on such a premise, over the last quarter-century the SEC has brought new and ever more stringent enforcement initiatives against insider trading.
Related to this argument is the harm that insider trading causes for "specialists." A specialist is someone whom the stock exchange appoints to ensure that a buyer of a particular security listed by the exchange can readily find a seller, and vice versa. These specialists must buy from or sell to any trader whose order cannot be offset against other orders arriving simultaneously. If, for example, a buyer wants a hundred shares of IBM, but no one wants to sell at that moment, the IBM specialist sells from his inventory of IBM stock. The specialist charges a "bid-ask spread" to cover the cost. A bid-ask spread implies that a slightly higher price is asked from someone who wishes to purchase a security than will be contemporaneously offered to someone who wishes to sell.
An inside trader, however, will sell securities to the specialist when only he knows that the securities will soon be worth less. After the price has fallen, the insider is free to repurchase the securities from the specialist for the lower price. If that occurs, the specialist loses money. If insider trading recurs, the security's specialist cannot continue indefinitely without recouping the funds being lost to informed traders. Therefore, specialists will insist on larger bid-ask spreads if insider trading is permitted and occurs often.
To investors, the bid-ask spread is a trading cost. If insider trading increased the spread but did nothing else, it would decrease a security's attractiveness relative to certificates of deposit, government bonds, and other assets. Raising new capital would, thus, be more costly for a firm whose securities were subjected to repeated insider trading. Hence, all else being equal, insider trading makes it harder for a firm to raise money when opportunities to undertake new projects arise.
But insider trading might also have offsetting benefits. Insider trading can be profitable only if securities prices move. Therefore, insiders hoping to trade on inside information may try to get the price to move by cutting the company's costs, seeking new products, and so on. While such actions benefit the insider, they also benefit the firm's security holders as a group.
Of course, insiders can also profit by borrowing and then selling securities when the price is apt to fall. Some argue that insider trading is more likely to harm companies because damage is easier to inflict. That argument, in turn, has been countered; major actions by a company require teams, not individuals. Efforts to damage a firm would likely be brought to the attention of higher management or shareholders by some ambitious team member looking to capitalize on the resulting gratitude. Unfortunately, no evidence has been presented to help resolve this debate.
A number of financial economists and law professors take the position that insider trading ought to be legal. They base their case on the proposition that insider trading makes the stock market more efficient. Presumably, the inside information will come out at some point. Otherwise, the insider would have no incentive to trade on the information. If insider trading was legal, this group argues, insiders would bid the prices of stocks up or down in advance of the information being released. The result is that the price would more fully reflect all information, both public and confidential, about a company at any given time.
Even if insider trading sometimes creates more harm than good, rules against it could be contractual (e.g., "employees of our company who trade on material, nonpublic information forfeit their pension rights") rather than mandated by government. Because the circumstances facing companies differ, insider trading might be advantageous for some companies and not for others. And if so, would it not be sensible to permit firms to "opt out" of insider trading enforcement? Interestingly, Texas Gulf insider Charles Fogarty was subsequently elevated to chief executive officer of his company. Moreover, following Fogarty's death, another insider, who was also known to have traded on the same information, was elevated to replace him. Clearly, Texas Gulf's board of directors and shareholders must not have found the trading completely reprehensible. Yet the law makes no provision for opting out, implicitly assuming that insider trading injures all companies. Policymakers never seriously ask who is harmed, who is helped (other than the insiders), and by how much.
Of course, insider trading can injure a firm if the trading elevates prices that the firm itself has to pay. For example, if Fogarty had purchased Ontario mineral rights before Texas Gulf Sulphur agents could acquire them, Texas Gulf would have been injured. Similarly, if Alpha, Inc., quietly tries to acquire control of Gamma Corp., unauthorized purchases of Gamma securities by Alpha's president could drive up Gamma's share price, thus making the acquisition more costly. But most litigated cases reflect trading in competition with ordinary participants in the securities markets, not with the insider's own firm.
Considered narrowly, most investors are on average neither hurt nor helped by insider trading because most investors are "time-function traders." That is, they buy securities (and other assets) when their income exceeds their expenditures, and sell securities when an emergency, the period of their life, or a propitious moment to initiate some project necessitates expenditures that exceed income. Hence, time-function traders do not try to "beat the market." Since statistical examinations show that insider trading affects securities prices even before nonpublic information is released, time-function traders can be harmed or helped by insiders. Suppose that an insider's trading has elevated a security price. Those time-function traders who, by chance, want to buy that security must pay a higher price for it, one closer to the price it will reach when the insider's information becomes public. But those time-function traders who chance to sell unwittingly realize a higher price as a result of the insider's action. Consequently, some time-function traders have lost, but others have gained. Over a time-function trader's lifetime, the reasonable expectation would be to break even.
Besides specialists the one group systematically injured by insider trading are "price-function traders" - those who trade securities because they believe the present price is inappropriate. If an insider secretly buys securities, the result is an increase in price. Because some price-function traders believe that the security is now overpriced, they sell, but soon regret their action. Few people, however, have the expertise to realize trading profits repeatedly. Those who "play the market" without such expertise soon lose their capital. Thus, few active investors - even the professionals who manage pension funds - are properly considered price-function traders.
Sometimes, through luck or effort, individuals with no formal relationship with a firm discover important nonpublic information about it. Like true insiders they can profit by trading prior to public awareness of the information. A peculiar feature of insider trading law is that informed trading is treated more leniently if the trader is such a "quasi insider" (often a market professional who holds a seat on an organized securities exchange) than if the trader is a true insider.
For example, in 1975 and 1976 Vincent Chiarella netted more than $60,000 (1991 dollars) by trading on important nonpublic information about firms other than his employer, a financial printing firm. Even though clients tried to mask sensitive information in documents that Chiarella's employer was hired to print, Chiarella was often able to "crack the code." By buying from uninformed individuals, Chiarella became a successful trader. Yet the Supreme Court ruled that Chiarella did not violate the insider trading regulations because he did not work for and thus was not an insider of any firm whose inside information he had discovered.
This decision is puzzling. Whether the benefits to companies from true insider trading outweigh the costs, at least there are potential benefits. Quasi-insider trading, in contrast, imposes many of the same costs on firms with no obvious benefits. Although there has been pressure to strengthen the rules against quasi insiders, the legal constraints on them are still not as stringent as those on true insiders.
One matter is clear. Because insider trading has little effect on time-function traders, they do not participate in the debate. Most proponents of stronger insider-trading laws are price-function traders - arbitragers, floor traders, investment bankers, and others who earn a living from the securities exchanges. Insiders are such traders' most potent competitors for trading profits from new information. Price-function traders benefit from laws curtailing insider trading whether or not firms, and hence common investors, do also.
Far from the clearly settled moral issue that naïve media pieces, movies, and novels would have it be, both the theory and the evidence of insider trading remain primitive and equivocal. Present rhetoric and law have far outrun present understanding.
About the Author
David D. Haddock, who holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, is a professor of law at Northwestern University, where he teaches corporation law. He previously worked in the Office of the General Counsel of the Ford Motor Company, where he was chief of economic studies for antitrust matters.

US jobless rate dips to 8.9 per cent, nears 2-year low - Summary

Washington - US unemployment edged down to 8.9 per cent in February, the lowest level in nearly two years as employers added 192,000 jobs to the economy, the Labour Department reported Friday.
It marked the first time the jobless rate fell below 9 per cent since April 2009. The rate dropped from 9 per cent in January and is down from 9.8 per cent in November, a sign that the long-struggling US labour market is beginning to show signs of a turnaround.The February gains were led by sectors that have suffered since the 2008-09 recession, including manufacturing and construction. The 192,000 net jobs added was the largest amount since May 2010."It's a very solid number," said White House economic advisor Austan Goolsbee told US broadcaster CNBC. "What we see today is a promising move forward."Yet US stocks fell slighly on opening in New York as the data was in line with economists' expectations. There was also caution as the size of the labour force remained unchanged, meaning many people who quit during the recession remain reluctant to re-enter the market.President Barack Obama has long been frustrated by a labour market that has remained week despite the country's return to growth. The US economy expanded by 2.8 per cent in 2010, yet unemployment remained between 9-10 per cent through the year.Policymakers have remained cautious about predicting a quick strengthening of the job market. The Federal Reserve has forecast that the unemployment rate will remain near its current level for the remainder of 2011.Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned it will be "several years" until the jobless rate returns to the 4-6 per cent levels seen before the 2008 financial crisis plunged the world into its worst recession in generations.

America’s jobless picture is alarmingly bleak

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this 

We are drifting. We take comfort in bits of good news, but we are in dangerous waters; the Great Recession is being starkly revealed as a global crisis with the US, the traditional engine of recovery, sputtering on every cylinder. The US government responded with dramatic financial support by transferring money to the household sector. But outside of these transfers the personal income of Americans is still declining; the residential market remains stagnant at best; consumer growth is nominal. The only real energy in the economy has come from the cessation of inventory liquidation, which is now the main factor in rising industrial output and any modest improvement in the economy.
The mood of US households is despondent. In May only 11.3 per cent believed they would see their income rise in the following six months, while 16.6 per cent thought they would see it decline. This is the first time in over four decades that more people believe they will be worse off than better. Any massive fiscal and monetary stimulus that might reverse the trend is likely to be politically unsustainable given the growing concern over the exploding national deficit.
Wherever you look the scene is bleak. Leading economic indicators fell in April – unusual at such an early stage in the up-cycle. Jobless claims were up by 25,000 to 471,000. And up again above expectations in the first three weeks of May – raising the four-week moving average to a level consistent with 100,000, or more, net job losses. For the past several months, claims have been nowhere near the levels of 400,000 and less that in the past were consistent with sustained job creation. We are not enjoying the normal cycle of economic improvement. If we were, employment would already have reached a new high and made up all of the jobs lost, as it did during the previous postwar recessions. This time we remain short of the old peak of employment, by an astounding 8.4m jobs. One in six Americans is either unemployed or underemployed. This is not a normal cycle when compared with a typical recession, which sees no more than 2m to 3m jobs lost.
Research by David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff, reveals jobless statistics behind the headline numbers that are downright scary. More than 6.5m people (more than 45 per cent of the jobless) have not worked for 27 weeks or more, compared with 3.2m this time last year.
Wages are falling; wage cuts are spreading as employers continue to curb costs and remain reluctant to hire. And the amount of excess labour continues to increase. For example, the April payroll surged by 290,000 jobs but the labour force soared by 805,000. In effect, jobseekers are overwhelming the number of jobs that are being created. The broader definition of unemployment, which includes partial unemployment and people who have applied for a job within the past year, is roughly 17 per cent. The headline unemployment rate is back up to slightly under 10 per cent, but this covers only people who sought a job in the previous four weeks.
What is the result of an excessive number of people seeking work, with an average of 5.6 people vying for each job opening? Wage deflation. Average hourly pay has not budged since the turn of the year, including one month in which we had a 0.1 per cent decline in average hourly earnings, something that has not happened since April 2003.
This is an unnervingly jobless recovery. After the kind of strong growth in gross domestic product of approximately 6 per cent we had in the fourth quarter of last year, we would normally anticipate job gains of 250,000 a month. Instead we had an average of 31,000 new jobs in the January and February reports – an unprecedentedly minimal growth after such a strong GDP quarter.
We are going to have to develop policies and government support to deal with the long-term jobless who become less employable the longer they lack a regular job. And long-term unemployment has gone from 2m in June 2004 to 6.7m in April 2010. We may have as many as five to eight years of moderate economic growth. To create the 12m jobs to get back to full employment for both the unemployed and new entries into the labour force, when job losses have not even come to an end, seems almost impossible.

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32229d12-7195-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1GOKeAt55
I seriously do not understand how intelligent people posting here can be so blind to the obvious realities:
1) please don't keep quoting in terms of current dollars and compare salaries or costs to other years without compensating for inflation;
2) please don't pretend that any politician has any idea how to fix this mess.

We have been increasingly operating beyond our collective experience, operating blind in a totally new world. The BP blow out is a good metaphor for our situation is economics and many other branches of what we used to call "science", but more properly today should call raw experimentation.

The rule when doing experiments: control all inputs, measure all outputs, and make changes only slowly, one variable at a time. And when you measure outputs, don't use a "rubber band" as the meansuring stick.

The first part of this translates to practicing extreme financial conservatism until we can develop the knowledge base to move to more dynamic strategies. It was wrong for Bush to leap into TARP without more controls / restrictions on how the money should have been spent; it was at least doubly wrong for Obama to vastly extend the deficit spending and surge forward with massive chances to the economics of the healthcare system.

The second part translates into providing much greater emphasis on REAL results for REAL people rather than the typically easily "spun" double-speak of the media. Without a stable yardstick of what people are actually feeling in the form of their purchasing power, markets will swing and twist in the wind, offering little clear guidance to anyone.

As we sit here.... there is virtual certainty that we will have another recession before we can hope to restore employment to levels we had just a few years ago. You may not want to call this a "double dip recession", and strictly speaking, there may be enough quarters of growth to claim we've exited the recession.... but unless we get jobs back, this nation will never be whole again..... we will institutionalize idleness in ways "America" never before symbolized. It will multiply what is worst in society and destroy the hope of many citizens.

This is not an idle fear, it is a fear of being idle in profound ways... something America has never experienced since the Great Depression. ....and that is very depressing indeed.

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32229d12-7195-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1GOKh0p3N
Ever since Mort Zuckerman said the record gas price spikes were due to supply and demand and not speculation, I lost a good deal of respect for his opinion. Imagine highest gas prices ever and not a single line at a single gas station. He also said that China poses no threat to high tech American jobs. Which on the face of it seems absurd both in the long term and the short term. The real reason America is not bouncing back is because a parasitic class of investors specialize in gobbling up successful companies, laying off the redundancies and outsourcing every possible part of their captured business to what amounts to slave labor in other countries. HP just laid off 6000 US workers and is expanding oversees. When these companies bounce back they are not investing here. We are a country run by people who see them selves as citizens of the world. National loyalty is a quaint idea.

Look no further than Foxconn to see how truly soulless some of these titans of industry truly can be..Jobs' reaction to the suicides was not a convincing one. When you realize a 20 % raise means $1.20 instead of $1.00 the lauded wunderkind seems positively reptilian. However we Americans have only our selves to blame for doing nothing. While outside forces ( Murdoch( Fox), Israel(AIPAC), China(US Chamber of commerce) ( to name a few ) tear us apart from the inside and subvert the popular will through never ceasing manipulations of our political process, we fret about American Idol. These destroyers are deconstructing many of the greatest aspects of the American phenomenon. Democracy, economic vitality, tolerance, a love of peace and the rule of justice are all being whittled down one sleazy election and egregious appointment at a time. Can a country that can't bring Israel to heel or get China to play fair, be long for this world as a power player r?. A tiny lunatic minority has seized control of the reins of power and we are letting them drive us to ruin

Spending trillions fighting the longest war in American history to stop the Taliban from creating more Saudi terrorists seems as ludicrous as the idea that states are cutting vital services, raising the cost of education instead of getting some of these war funds.The traitors in congress ( and they are not all traitors) have bankrupted the country lining the pockets of war profiteers. America will not get well until we reestablish the rule of law in the business world and truly punish the corrupt. How many people are in jail for the great recession? Its time to see virtually unregulated mergers an acquisitions and various financial market manipulations as the true enemies of prosperity and American recovery.

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32229d12-7195-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1GOKk0xby
Government (Congress, White House) would have us believe there is some one person or entity (Goldmen Sachs - Warren Buffet) to blame for this mess. The culprit is everyone, all of us collectively. The only ones who knew the sub-prime loans were bad and would be uncollecible were the borrowers who wanted a fancy house for nothing, the realtor and lender who paid a crooked real estate appraiser to appraise the property at an inflated price to increase the real estate commision and the amount of the loan (granted to anyone walking and breathing), and the 'agent who wrote the inflated loan and got a percentage of that amount for just writing it. Low participants. The lender then sold the loan to a larger bank or inurance company who had no inkling of the quality of the loan. 'Factoring' and selling of loans is thousands of years old and not illegal. At this stage all knowledge of the fact that the loan was made to someone who could never in a thousand years repay it was non existent. The banks and insurance companies (Goldman Sachs. Freddie, and Fanny included) were simply doing what they had been doing for decades.

Thw loans were bundled and rebundled countless times so that an original amount of bundled loans of say 10 million dollars was actually the collateral for perhaps 5, 10, or more times that amount in bonds issued to individual investors but particularly to banks, large and small who bought the bonds not knowing that the collateral behind them was not only insufficient to cover the bond (MAYBE 10 PERCENT) most probably totally uncollectable. When a miilion in loans defaulted tens (or more) of bonds were worthless (pennies on the dollar). Congress quickly passed a law allowing banks to keep the bonds on their balance sheets at their face amounts, although the banks should have been showing them for what they were really worth: what they could sell them for in the open market. Congress therefore became a co-conspirator in perpetuating a frau. There are still trillions of these worthless loans still on the balance sheets of banks for their face value and not their real worth.

Now cap that with insurance companies (say AIG) and big banks (say Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan Chase, etc.) who sold Credit Default Swaps (say bets, as at a crap table), betting on the failure ot the bonds, a practice several centuries old, a common and not illegal business practice.

But then, thousands of borrowers, all over the country began defaulting on the loans: no surprise to the borrowers who knew they could never repay the loans, and the crooked realtors and crooked appraisers and 'crooked loan agents.'

The same thing that caused the market crash and depression of 1929 caused this market crash and depression: widespread, nation wide greed. In 1929 it was cheap money at the stock brokers who let anyone who could walk and breathe buy 1,000 dollars in stock for 100 dollars. Everyone had a stock broker. Even a few shoe shine boys. It created a stock market bubble. When enough of these little guys (and some big) were unable to service theloans to their brokers, it all unravelled. This time it was cheap money for inflated-value real estate: hey - the price if the house is going to up forever. Right? Wrong.

And the cheap mkoney? George W. Bush had to be a 'war president' because Sadaam (sic?) wanted 'to kill my daddy.' Gimme a break. Greenspan and Bernanke gave the public cheap money (include a credit card for walking and brething) to let them buy junk gadgets and take their minds away from the wholesale slaughter because 'he wanted to kill my daddy

In 1992 Clinton did away with Glass Steagal, opening the door for banks to once again to bet (stocks and bonds) with dpositors'; money We let him dew it.

Whose fault? Ours. We were, and still are, asleep at the wheel.

We brag about being a 'service economy.' Well. You can't export those. And now we export virtually nothing.

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32229d12-7195-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1GOKmNZQZ
The answer is simple.

Buy American or domestic produced products wherever you live.

Thw WalMarts oof the World buy 95% of what they sell from China eliminating domestic jobs.

Every time you get sucked into the price rol back another decent paying American or domestic job is ELIMINATED.

A bit like eating yourself

The Private equity short term attitude breeds this thinking.

If you are a skilled worker in manufacturing you are an endangered species smack bang in the sights of Private equity and the WalMarts

Its the old story money talks s*** walks and we the people are taking the s***

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32229d12-7195-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1GOKpcuaF
Paul Volcker recently pointed out a series of erroneous assumptions and judgments that caused this crisis in an article called "The Time We Have is Growing Short."

Among them was the erroneous assumption a trade deficit over 5% of GDP ($750 billion in 2008 and $500 billion now) was sustainable and good for America because of the flood of low-priced goods.

Bear in mind that if a job is worth say $50K, this means that over 10 million jobs held by foreigners are producing U.S. goods. We need those jobs here. This is a huge wealth transfer to foreign countries and those cheap goods have a cost in terms of enormous unemployment compensation.

We need to get those jobs back in this country. That is the primary challenge of the President now, as there is no sustainable budget path with 17% of the workforce unemployed or under-employed.


Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article 

Carryon - your response to my comments is baffling. On the other hand, it simply confirms that progressives and liberals simply don't understand basic economics. Corporations pay tax at the corporate level and then again on distributions - thats double taxation. That is why businesses have left the United States in droves over the past 40 years. If there are so many darn loopholes, why is it that the top 10% of earners pay 80% of all taxes and the bottom 50% pay NO taxes. You have simply inserted your predjudice for economic thought. As for Death taxes, what in heavens name makes you think that someone with an estate to tax has not paid their fair share of taxes and that their DEATH is a reason to take up to 55% of their accumulated, after-tax wealth? That is simply robbery of the defenseless. You are neither kind or compassionate, you are simply jealous.... and lousy at economics to boot!


Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. 
I disagree with the opinion that the long term jobless somehow lose their skills.
I owned a bakery for twenty years. And relied on both new trainees and old timers who needed money to supplement their retirement income. The bakery required a high level of physical and mental skills to produce a large variety of recipes.


The trainees would require constant attention for at least the first two months, and help when something new came along. The old timers who often were away from baking for a year or more, after being told what we needed would go to work without any help, and contributed greatly to the training of the new hires. I'm sure that recruiters and H.R. reps believe the above and other myths being repeated in many articles and reports. It's hard enough for people who have been out of work in this economy to find work, without such inaccuracies being circulated.

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32229d12-7195-11df-8eec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1GOLC4Ylp
It should be clear enough that we need a comprehensive set of system level changes, and that the 'global economy' as is, is not self sustaining.

The US can not longer be the engine of growth when investments flow abroad, and jobs and industries continue to be exported.

Consider the report today that consumer credit is at an annual rate of 0.5% in April while revolving credit in the US decreased at an annual rate of 12%. Given that M1 is up 6.7% with new consumer borrowing at 0.5%, this implies deflation of 6.2%.

Proof enough that the US will not fund further Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, etc. growth.

When the Chinese realized this several months ago, they stopped pouring in funds from the government into export industries. Last year container ships were sitting in the world's ports stacked hundreds deep and all empty, due to Wall Street's fixation on artificial investments bringing the world economy to the brink, and given that the present world mercantile arrangements are fundamentally unsustainable.

Europe's financial crises and US spending billions on wars for the benefit of the oil industry will not provide for a way out of the debt crises.

Is Obama addressing any of these greater trends? Obama can't even get the Chinese to float their currency, and as is, they (China) are not only stealing jobs from the US, they are stealing them from their Asian neighbors as well.

Didn't Democrats follow Republicans down the path of giving away American jobs, destroying oversight of financial institutions, providing the largest corporations with every tax loophole possible?

Sure, we have the people and material resources to produce wealth, within the US and in the other major world economies, but not when growth in one nation means stealing the jobs and industries from another, or importing cheap labor into the US to undercut the middle class. And the same process is underway in Europe with the importation of an underclass into all of the European nations.

NAFTA forces many tens of thousands of poor Mexican families depending on peasant farming off of the land and into the cities of Mexico, and then into the US.

NAFTA took US jobs in manufacturing and sent them to Mexico where the people who work those jobs live in abject poverty, living in environmentally degraded circumstances, and it leaves them without the resources to deal with public health criseses (including the drug menace) that will be imported into the US with the migrant Mexican population.

No one should expect any real economic recovery until these fundamental problems are resolved with new arrangements, and in fact, we in the US have been on the wrong track for decades in all of these factors.
Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this 

America has a ton of resources, a largely educated and professional work-force, ambition and good infrastructure for conducting commerce. What we don't have is a reasonable and free form of exchange. Every time a dollar gets created, it has interest tied to it. If we get rid of the central bank and have the government issue our currency at no interest (like the constitution says), the market will take care of itself. As long as we have a central control of our money - the same central control that has caused every depression and recession we've ever had - we have no chance. Only the bankers get rich. Meanwhile, the rest of us argue about deficits (enabled by a central bank as it makes it simple for the government to "borrow"), debt (ditto), socialism versus capitalism (by definition, there is nothing free about a central bank and fractional reserve)... We are missing the forest for the trees. All problems in the economy are due to INTEREST on money created. It's not hard math, people. If every time I create a dollar (of YOUR money) and charge you interest on it, you have absolutely no way of escaping my clutches and will remain indebted to me FOREVER.

Trading Picks

A beginner usually feels very attracted to the stock market while for example discovering a penny stock that's being reported in CNBC or the news program and watching it rise steady fast and make new highs from $1 to $7 in just 2 months.

While learning about this successful news story he's saying to himself "Oh boy if I was one of those lucky guys who bought that cheap stock back when it was priced at $10 I easily would have tripled my money by now… That means my 10 grand would transformed in to a whooping 70 K! hassle free … I would have been able to grab one of those big HUMMERs on the spot and probably pick up a nice Rolex by the way!"

The stock market news constantly reports of hot small cap stocks that are breaking out and making tremendous gains on the same day or doubling in price in just a few hours. Back in the bull market of the late 90's you could easily see a good number of hot stocks sprouting out every week.

Those years surely made it look like every body could easily take LONG SHOTS and make a shiny pile of gold every day in the stock market. But today's market is a different story. A totally different animal.

Some say that the stock market has gotten more realistic. Fantasy land is over and GAMBLING YOUR WAY TO RICHES is not an option anymore. You might get lucky a few times, but your constant loses can wipe you out sooner or later.

The fact that the bull market period has ended for now doesn't mean that you can't make a great deal of money in today's market. A lot folks from many walks of life keep making excellent profits on a daily basis, pocketing hundreds & thousands of dollars by trading penny stocks online.

Success in penny stock trading starts by applying a wiser and REALISTIC methodology for choosing hot penny stocks as well as for getting in and out of them with profits in mind.

You need to look at the stock market more realistically. You got to learn that you can benefit when stocks go up and also when they FALL down.

You got to WORK SMARTER and get more selective about the hot stock trading opportunities that you choose. You need to embrace the nature of day trading and be fully prepared to take advantage of stocks that are poised for a BIG RISE on the same day.

The bottom line is you have to PREPARE YOUR SELF to be successful, just like you would do it in other areas of your life in order to achieve success.

Thursday, 10 March 2011

market, live dow stock market



psycic morton economy stock market
R.Balan.Elliott Wave Principle Applied to The Forex MarketR.Balan.Elliott Wave Principle Applied to The Forex Market forex training, hidden forex market, learning to trade forex, elliot wave forex, Hidden forex trading strategies. forex currency trade. learn forex.. Contrarian Investment Strategies The NEXT GENERATION by D. DremanContrarian Investment Strategies The NEXT GENERATION by D. Dreman Hidden trader info how does the stock market work. Excellent stock market education...
stock market close 12 31 07
ATTENTION!! Some photo materials, screenshots and videos are copyrighted, you can learn more about ipo calender for chinese stock market.
ruger 1 after market stock
Some strategies very accurate and you must trade weeks, example about stock market inauguration day after 2009, 1920s stock market crash was, more facts about 2008 stock market predictions stock market oversold ossilator or stock market precognition
stocks with low market cap
How to start and trade with profit? Learn more about stock market for beef and stock market crash of 1929-1939, arcelormittal stock market effect
Environmental Stock Market Index
Our site have more materials for themes: "fed rate cuts stock market effects", "dowsing stock market", "average lost on stock market 2008", "stock market symmbols". Browse pages for more details about stock market board games
stock market growth historical table
Chart Pattern Recognition For MetaStock and MetaStock Pro 7.0 (and higher)Chart Pattern Recognition For MetaStock and MetaStock Pro 7.0 (and higher) Hidden manual for Stock market trading. Trader info stock market for beginners. how to make money in the stock market. stock market journal articles. stock market info, stock market publications. new york stock exchange commodities market prices.. Developing Short Term Stock Trading Strategies Developing Short Term Stock Trading Strategies How to Win the Stock Market Game. This publication is for short term traders, i.e. for traders who hold stocks for 1 to eight days. Short-term trading assumes buying and selling stocks often. After 2 to 4 months a trader will have good statistics...
Hidden information for stock market symbol and sweden stock market, stock market game prizes find on photo 2514.
australian stock market exchange
uranium stock market
The Dynamic Trading ebook by Robert MinerThe Dynamic Trading ebook by Robert Miner has been named the Dynamic Trading eBook of the Year by the 1999 Supertraders Almanac. If you don't have this ebook, you don't have the best trading educational material available. It is basics of stock market investing. learning about the stock market.. Day Trader's Bible! Or... My Secrets of Day Trading In StocksDay Trader's Bible! Or... My Secrets of Day Trading In Stocks How to make over $30.000 per Month Stock Trading for Profit. Best beginner stock market investing. stock market today...
stock market order flow
How to trade or dunkin donuts and the stock market on photo 2213 also find about how the stock market works video and price index market stocks earnings investors, stock market indice
rating system for stock market news
More comments for articles about luis vuitton stock market symbol: dr z and the stock market and stock market yearly close, a a stock market report
india stock market outlook
chart stock market 1929
All about traders clubs 2457 and video 1529 for stock market fraud and stock market prices home builders, kuwait stock exchange market
stock market plummet
stock market outlook for next year
TRADING SYSTEMS & METHODS Full Encyclopedia by P. KaufmanTRADING SYSTEMS & METHODS Full Encyclopedia by P. Kaufman Quantitative stock methods for evaluating price movement and making stock trading decisions have become a dominant part of stock market analysis. At one time, the only acceptable manner of trading was by understanding the factors that make prices move. Only WD Gann investing techniques Plus Gann Courses And Trading Software: gann square of 9Only WD Gann investing techniques Plus Gann Courses And Trading Software: gann square of 9 all gann investing techniques in pdf, pasquale reda trading gann gann square of 9 gann trading course william gann gann trading gann analysis..
Download software and tools for stock market oversold ossilator. Best for official board markets paper stock prices and next prediction of stock market crash
stock market ticker tape machine
the shrinking stock market
nancy pelosi high stock market profits

Stock Market - Share Market

Stock Market is a public market for the trading of listed company stocks (shares) and derivatives at an agreed price by traders through stock brokers. "Equity Market" or "Share Market" or "Capital Market" are alternative names to "Stock Market" in India
Stock Market

Stock Market Function and Purpose
"Stock Market" is the most important source for companies to raise money for various business plans. This allows businesses to be publicly traded, additional capital raise for expansion by selling shares of the company in a stock market. The liquidity enables investors to quickly and easily sell securities in "Stock Exchange". This is an important feature of investing in stocks than such as real estate. Stock Market Index is often considered as the primary indicator of a country's economic strength and development.

Stock Exchanges clearing each and every transaction, meaning that they collect and deliver the shares to clients and guarantee payment to the seller of a shares. This eliminates the risk of an individual buyer or seller.

Stock Market Index
The movements of the stock prices in a market is captured in price indices called "stock market index". Stock markets mostly maintains many indices to show the performance of various sectors. Indices are usually market capitalization weighted methodology, which reflecting the contribution of the stock to the index. Some bourses following "Free Float Market capitalization Methodology" to calculate indices. For example, NSE Nifty follows market capitalization weight, BSE Sensex free float market capitalization method.

Stock Market - Risk Management System
Risk management is the key factor to protect "Investor" wealth in stock market system. Stock prices fluctuate widely than bank deposits or bonds. This is affect not only the retail investor or trader, but also the economy of country on large scale. Stock market regulatory authorities regulate the trading system to avoid sudden losses for newcomers have entered the stock market. Average returns of stock market investments, annual return is 8.5% and compound annual return is 3 percent. Investors should plan to build best portfolio to get best annual compound returns.

New issuance of shares
Companies offer the shares to public to raise capital via "Primary Market". After the completion of primary market process shares allowed to list in the stock exchanges to "Trade". "Secondary Market" provides facilities to sell the shares buying in primary market.

Margin Trading Method
In "Margin Trading", the trader borrows money (at interest for delivery) to buy a stock. A margin trading call is made if the total value of the trader's account cannot support the loss of the trade. The investor is responsible for any shortfall of Margin buying.

Stock Market Crashes
A stock market crash is defined as a sharp dip or fall in share prices of equities listed on the stock exchanges. Stock market crashes occur due to panic, investing public's loss of confidence and speculative economic bubbles create negative sentiment. There have been famous stock market crashes that have ended in the loss of billions of cash and wealth destruction on a massive level.
Most famous stock market crashes started October 24, 1929 - Black Thursday. Another famous crash took place on October 19 of 1987 – Black Monday. Largest one-day decline in stock market history - the Dow Jones fell by 22.6% in a single day. After the crash of 1987, Computer systems were upgraded in the stock exchanges to handle larger trading volumes in a more accuracy.