Duhh... Clinton did it (you pick which one) because Karl (Achtung) Rove said
so.

Yeah, they, in the developing world, know what the definition of poor is.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 7:16 am, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT), RichH said:

Two 'characters' are essentially and primarily responsible for all
this - senate banking and house banking committees. ...

You left Chuck Shumer out of your cavalcade of heroes. He was right there
alongside Barney a few weeks ago leading the cheering section for Fan and
Fred to buy more mortgages.

It's all political name calling at this point but
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
is interesting.

To put a sailing bent on it my plan is to go cruising in the
developing world; a place where everyone understands that most folks
are broke.

-- Tom.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote

It's all political name calling at this point but
*http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...tory-exem.html
is interesting.


That *is* interesting, thanks.

(brief quote)
"...the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the
results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms
to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30
years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-
to-1.
...... the five that received this special exemption? You won't be
surprised to learn that they were Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear
Stearns, and Morgan Stanley. " (end quote)

I dunno if it's the same with fiscal regulations as it is with
environmental & safety regs, but federal agencies handing out 'get-out-
of-jail-free' cards defeats the whole purpose of regulation. Why
didn't the competing companies call foul, and why didn't our
supposedly free press get the word out? Betcha this was not mentioned
in any of the five's report to their stockholders, either.


To put a sailing bent on it my plan is to go cruising in the
developing world; a place where everyone understands that most folks
are broke.


Good thinking.

I lost enthusiasm for piddling around in the tribal areas, myself...
not as afraid of being knocked on the head as I am of picking up
intestinal parasites or malaria or something. Besides, it's easy to
go to someplace along the swampy south-east US coast where there
aren't any people at all.

As for good boat bargains, the window of opportunity may be rather
short, since the time frame between sellers needing cash deciding to
unload cheap, and sellers needing cash deciding to simply duck out
from under and letting the boat go to pot, may be short

An awful lot of the boats I saw destroyed in pics of Hurricane Ike's
aftermath were obviously not taken care of. Case in point- I would not
buy a boat from the sort of owner who left a roller-furler jib in
place with a hurricane imminent, no matter how good a deal it is. You
just don't know what other sorts of dumbass things he's done with/to
the boat, and those kinds of surprises are usually unpleasant.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:33:15 -0400, Gogarty
said:


I used to write extensively for banking and finance magazines.
Glass/Steagall
is no buzz word.

So how is Gramm-Leach-Bliley responsible for the current mortgage-related
securities problems?


I take the following from a comment on
http://www.newsweek.com/id/159346/page/1.

The Gramm-Leach-Biley Act stripped away the regulations separating banking
from investment companies, insurance companies and mortgage guaranty
companies. Those regulations were added after the Great Depression when it
became obvious that allowing banks to be in bed with the stock market was a
sure way to rig the system to collapse, as it did in 1929.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Dave wrote:

First, the description of GLB is totally inaccurate. Second, you haven't
explained how GLB is responsible for the current mortgage-related
securities problems.

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:

First, the description of GLB is totally inaccurate. Second, you haven't
explained how GLB is responsible for the current mortgage-related
securities problems.

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

Cheers
Marty


Yes. He advises regulators, so perhaps he's got a few skeletons in the
closet about the mess.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty wrote:

Dave wrote:

First, the description of GLB is totally inaccurate. Second, you
haven't explained how GLB is responsible for the current
mortgage-related securities problems.

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

what's that sound?
oh yeah...it's a deafening silence...
seemed like such a simple question too...
pity...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress and
"bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."

Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB,
which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999, made some significant changes in the ways our financial institutions
may be structured. Among other things it made it somewhat easier for banks
that were well capitalized (or more accurately their holding companies) to
compete in areas outside the traditional financial services area, such as
brokerage and insurance. Generally bank holding companies were allowed to
enter these areas by becoming a "financial holding company" to own both
the
bank and separate corporations conducting these other businesses. However,
it generally left unchanged the kinds of things banks could invest in
directly.


Huh??? The Congress (both houses!) was controlled by Republicans from 1995
until recently. Sounds like revisionist history to me.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sep 19, 11:35*am, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?
....
Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB, which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999...

What Democrat controlled Congress?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_U...tates_Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_Congress
Facts have a well known liberal bias. And, just for fun:
http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

-- Tom.

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:25:00 -0400, Marty said:

Well Dave, since you are our resident expert, could you be so kind as to
precis this bill for us?

In the US, we call something that hasn't yet been passed by Congress and
"bill" and something that has been passed and signed into law a "law."

Much too long and complicated for an even half complete summary. GLB, which
was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by Clinton in
1999,


Hmmm, that would be the 106th Congress, Republican Majority, Newt
Gingrich the speaker, Thurmond President pro tempore of the Senate,
(same Congress that impeached Clinton, I thought you'd remember that!).
So having got that basic fact wrong, why should I trust the rest of
your summary?

Cheers
Martin

On 2008-09-18 07:55:14 -0400, "Roger Long" said:

"Gogarty" wrote

So you may be able to buy a boat cheap but you might have to pay cash for
it.

You may be *able* to pay cash for it!

We helped sell a sister-boat which was in better shape than Xan, with a
nearly unused 2GM20F, for $3,500 (or less). Having surveyed her, I
wouldn't have hesitated to throw on some bottom paint, splash, and head
nearly directly to the Caribbean -- going slow at first to stay near
the plethora of parts stores on the Chesapeake as we discovered things
not working.

Under 40' boats are going for a song of late; the volume will increase.
Under 30 have been nearly pocket change for most of the last decade.

I expect some larger boats will be "exchanged" for smaller, but that
won't be but a blip on the chart.

At probable prices, that shouldn't be a problem for anyone who can afford
the upkeep and maintenance. Used sailboats are going to be like some of
those cell phone deals or how Gillette became big in razor blades. The boat
will be essentially free but it's still going to cost a lot to keep and
maintain them. Yard and dockage costs are the same for the 32 footer I
bought for 15 grand as they would be for a brand new, 250 grand, 32 foot
Morris.

Normal upkeep and dockage for boats our size is about the same as a
one-week vacation at the shore or mountains around here. If we want to
get cheap, we could go to a mooring (which I actually prefer) for $2k
less.

Those who can't afford that belong in trailer-ables (though the costs
don't actually drop much if you have to get a new tow vehicle.)

It's all choices.

OTOH the stock of used sailboats got dramatically reduced last week except
for those interested in restoration projects.

Not *that* much. The trio of storms that smacked Florida a few years
ago did a better job.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/