fundamentals

I’m getting quite frustrated with the continuing governmental inclusions into the market. Its a serious problem when the general publics consensus on equity analysis is figuring out where bailout money is going next- it crates a basic breakdown of a transparent and efficient market. I’m just ranting here but it is really disturbing because I fear there are so many conflicts of interest everywhere. Admittedly, I am not be the most inclined to believe in a government’s effectiveness in these types of situations but it all reeks of incompetence and ulterior motives. If GM- a crap company that needs to take its course- is bailed out I will have 0 faith left. CFA institute will have to add a new “gov’t bailout” analysis into the curriculum.

Fundamentals do not work in this market. Company comes with a 8 billion losses and stock ends up in green.

Fundamentals are so yesterday. Lobbyists are the hot ticket.

mwvt9 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fundamentals are so yesterday. Lobbyists are the > hot ticket. Exactly- but I think this more detrimental than the ppl in charge recognize. For all the good they think they are doing, they fail to see that many simply do not want to participate in a market that makes ZERO sense on fundamentals. How does one feel confident in their analysis when the gov’t will probably throw in a couple more variables w/in the week? I’m ok with a crappy but transparent market.

i think most of us never studied political economics, which is a pity, because i think it could help us forecast regulatory risk much better. in my MBA program, we had a nonmarket course, which reminded us not just stick our heads in the “free markets” ostrich hole. in a democracy, interest groups that are able to organize will shape regulation, whether free markets worshippers like it or not. remember - we are not just an economy - we are a society. the only way for this to change is if: the majority agrees with free markets, or we turn into an oligarchy or dictatorship run by free marketers. i don’t know about you, but i’ll take democracy please, thank you very much. yes, i’ll lose a bit of money once in a while during crises, but i’ll deal with that.

I have and I think its more of an issue in non-democratic states. Thats why there is so much more political risk priced into EM’s- for example I don’t want to buy and Argentine or Venezuelan electricity producer because it is not beyond possibility that it will be privatized. What is happening here is different and less predictable in my opinion. “the only way for this to change is if: the majority agrees with free markets, or we turn into an oligarchy or dictatorship run by free marketers.” I don’t see where free markets and a democracy don’t mix- or I misunderstood your post. From everything I’ve seen the public at large is vastly opposed to a majority of the actions taken thus far.

“dictatorship run by free marketers” an oxymoron if one existed. there have been no free markets in the us. its funny free markets get the rap when all you have is cronyism

well then quit shoving this 100% free markets crap down everyone else’s throat just because you think its your religion. if the public wasn’t opposed to your rancid kool aid, we wouldn’t have the election results we have.

what koolaid. free market is not something wall st or big businesses practise. big corporations HATE free markets. enlighten yourselves: http://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/when-corporations-hate-markets/

Dsylexic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- there have been no free markets in > the us. > its funny free markets get the rap when all you > have is cronyism Nail>>Head completely confirmed by Paulson’s despicable about face today. rohufish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if the public wasn’t opposed to your rancid kool aid, we wouldn’t have the election results we have. Thats twisted logic. You think BO’s win was a confirmation that national sentiment is anti-free market? What? There were two choices and plenty of other reasons ppl voted against JM & SP.

yes, that’s what ordinary people i talk to everyday tell me. do you have friends in ‘regular nonfinance jobs’? ask them what they feel about deregulation.

rohufish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yes, that’s what ordinary people i talk to > everyday tell me. > > do you have friends in ‘regular nonfinance jobs’? > ask them what they feel about deregulation. I think you are confused about my commentary- I never said I take issue with regulation. I take issue with the gov’t throwing money at defunct companies. I take issue with how they have dealt with the crisis and in doing so created a market that does not have anything to do with fundamentals: profitability, strategy, etc. Regulation is necessary but bailing out GM is not what I view as regulation. Read above and take note of my opinions. From all I’ve seem in the media the mass public is strongly against bail-outs, be they to wall street or main street. Remember the 10/1 against/pro that was polled during the tarp negotiations??

i see your point - yes, i thought initially that you were advocating totally hands off govt. unfortunately, the govt is stuck between the devil and the deep sea. the auto sector accounts for 10% of jobs in this country it seems. they can’t just let the big 3 disappear overnight - along with all the suppliers and dealers etc. i really don’t know the answer to this one - clearly this is a legacy industry and needs to die. whether a sudden death will shock the system too much at a time the system is very very edgy is the question. you can’t turn a GM dealer or supplier into a toyota dealer/supplier - they will need to liquidate. thats the problem. think of the job losses and the vicious circle back into the financials, credit markets, consumer spending, housing etc. so how do you arrange a slower, but still certain death, with lower economic externalities? i don’t have a clue - this is a terrible situation.

I don’t know what the best route is either- but I’d rather have the gov’t increase various R&D/ educational programs that might reap great long term economic and social results than pouring money into a company that is going nowhere. Have a vocational training program to get GM workers in IT for petes sake… we actually have a need for that- as opposed to hideous crappy cars.

Every other country in the world is bailing out somebody - that’s just how the world works. And bailing out GM is a done deal - nobody wants a union backlash: republicans do not want to turn midwest into another new england (0 republican congressmen), and democrats are funded by them. Ya’ll just need to stop whining about free markets and look for a new place to make money. Civil service exam is not that hard, plus you get those union breaks every 2 hours.

akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t know what the best route is either- but > I’d rather have the gov’t increase various R&D/ > educational programs that might reap great long > term economic and social results than pouring > money into a company that is going nowhere. > > Have a vocational training program to get GM > workers in IT for petes sake… we actually have a > need for that- as opposed to hideous crappy cars. i don’t think anyone disagrees about the LT. the issue is what damage laying off 5-8% of the nation’s labor force at this time will cause, and what negative feedback loops that will start in the ST. your argument is just fine in theory - the problem is the practical facts of the ST impact.

this blows all around- I quit :slight_smile: Does that mean ‘capitulation’? time to buy?? lol!

the only buying i am doing right now is senior secured bank loans and corporate debt. and even there, i shudder with fear every single day. ordinarily, you could go short to make money, but there is such a huge risk of a massive relief rally, that you can’t even do that - we’re in a purgatory with no way out, except to wait it out.

fundiis dont work here, dude. if they did, stocks growing EPS @18% wouldnt be trading @ 2x fwd. Boom!

akanska Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rohufish Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > yes, that’s what ordinary people i talk to > > everyday tell me. > > > > do you have friends in ‘regular nonfinance > jobs’? > > ask them what they feel about deregulation. > > > I think you are confused about my commentary- I > never said I take issue with regulation. I take > issue with the gov’t throwing money at defunct > companies. I take issue with how they have dealt > with the crisis and in doing so created a market > that does not have anything to do with > fundamentals: profitability, strategy, etc. > Regulation is necessary but bailing out GM is not > what I view as regulation. Read above and take > note of my opinions. > > From all I’ve seem in the media the mass public is > strongly against bail-outs, be they to wall street > or main street. Remember the 10/1 against/pro > that was polled during the tarp negotiations?? Couldnt have said it better myself and I know a thing or two about saying.