|
OhFunny posted:It appears efforts to raise private money have failed. Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena's board has sent a letter to the European Central Bank asking for an extension to mid-January to raise the 5 billion it needs. The European Central Bank has rejected Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena's request for more time to raise private money. The bank's board should be meeting soon to request a bailout. The real question now is how Italy goes about it. Does Rome follow EU rules and wipe out the savings of small time investors? Fueling anti-EU and strengthening anti-EU parties? Or attempt to shield them? Defying EU rules and undercutting the union. I don't see any good options. UniCredit, Italy's largest bank, will announce being attempting to raise 13 billion starting Tuesday. I don't see them getting it.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Oh, for some reason I thought they'd compare daughters to mothers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Mothers didn't hold jobs outside the home in appreciable numbers until the mid-late 70s/early 80s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Mothers didn't hold jobs outside the home in appreciable numbers until the mid-late 70s/early 80s. You're confusing the white middle class with women in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're confusing the white middle class with women in general. He's exaggerating a bit, but not that much:  That's as far back as the data goes, but it'd probably look even more extreme before WW2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Mothers didn't hold jobs outside the home in appreciable numbers until the mid-late 70s/early 80s. Sure, does that make the comparison invalid in terms of economic mobility? It seems like it tells a story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:He's exaggerating a bit, but not that much: 25%-30% seems like an appreciable number, especially when you consider that those numbers aren't broken down by race. About 10% of the American population in 1950 were black so aggregating the labour force participation ratio of women in general can easily hide the actual experience of distinctive subgroups. The number of black mothers working outside the house was definitely higher than one in four.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Sure, does that make the comparison invalid in terms of economic mobility? It seems like it tells a story. The most accurate and unbiased way to do it would be to go off the head of household's income, regardless of gender, since that would capture interesting data given the increase in single parent households
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
That sounds like it would capture head-of-household economic mobility, but not necessarily evaluate progress women have made in terms of their own economic capability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
How's Intesa Sanpaolo doing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:How's Intesa Sanpaolo doing? All I could find was a chart showing that of it's loans 15.7% are bad. http://www.businessinsider.com/statistics-non-performing-loans-npls-italy-banking-system-2016-11?r=UK&IR=T
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:All I could find was a chart showing that of it's loans 15.7% are bad. haha oh my god they are so hosed. 15.7% NPL? that's horrific.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Helsing posted:25%-30% seems like an appreciable number, especially when you consider that those numbers aren't broken down by race. About 10% of the American population in 1950 were black so aggregating the labour force participation ratio of women in general can easily hide the actual experience of distinctive subgroups. The number of black mothers working outside the house was definitely higher than one in four. Yep, it looks like you're right about that:  Not only that, but labor force participation for black women is still higher than it is for women in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Mothers didn't hold jobs outside the home in appreciable numbers until the mid-late 70s/early 80s.  Paradoxish posted:Yep, it looks like you're right about that: Sorry, that graph conflicts with confident understanding that black mothers are unemployed welfare queens. Does not compute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
cheese posted:
30-35% is higher than I expected, I was thinking more along the lines of 25%. This was definitely higher among both the poor and women of color (as it remains). I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Noone was suggesting anything about the race of said mothers until Helsing brought it up after my statement. Noone was making any kind of value judgement about minorities wrt work but enjoy your popcorn I guess? He was making a joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Depending on how this plays out we may have to scratch low oil prices off the OP list. OPEC and non-OPEC producers have come to an agreement to slash production by 1.8 million barrels produced per day. Saudi Arabia has stated it may cut production even more than it's agreed too. Although there's speculation that, like most times, some nations (especially Russia) will not cut back or cut back less than agreed. At the moment though the news has oil prices up 20% from Nov 30. Analysts predict it will take a year for the US and other Shale producers to pick up production enough to offset the cut back. Bank of Americas Blanch forecast $70 by mid-2017.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Noone was suggesting anything about the race of said mothers until Helsing brought it up after my statement. Noone was making any kind of value judgement about minorities wrt work but enjoy your popcorn I guess? MiddleOne posted:He was making a joke.  OhFunny posted:Depending on how this plays out we may have to scratch low oil prices off the OP list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Oracle posted:30-35% is higher than I expected, I was thinking more along the lines of 25%. This was definitely higher among both the poor and women of color (as it remains). I stand corrected. The graph that was posted was for all women, not specifically mothers, or even married women. So presumably the actual percentage of mothers who were working could very well be significantly lower than 30-35%, once you account for childless women.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Monte Paschi is pulling out all the stops. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-11/monte-paschi-is-said-to-plan-reopening-debt-swap-to-avoid-rescue Bloomberg posted:
A debt for equity swap in a failing institution as your "Plan A" is...well it definitely is bold. Stupid, but bold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Why doesn't anbang or some other Chinese industrial concern go and bail it out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
quote:The chief executive of Carriers parent company says many of those jobs at that plant in Indiana will now be lost to automation. Maybe Trump will make robots illegal. So what's the current plan for the eventuality where majority of the population is unemployed because they are simply worse choice than some piece of code?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
throw to first drat IT posted:Maybe Trump will make robots illegal. Make unemployment illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Make unemployment illegal. Eh... Like in Belarus? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4412427.ece
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
throw to first drat IT posted:Maybe Trump will make robots illegal. The same as the plan for the eventuality where half the coast disappears into the sea due to climate change: "gently caress it, hopefully by the time it becomes an immediate problem, I'll have made a huge fortune by ignoring the problem, so I can retire to a fortified compound somewhere and dealing with the fallout can be someone else's problem".
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
throw to first drat IT posted:Maybe Trump will make robots illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Why doesn't anbang or some other Chinese industrial concern go and bail it out? Because you're throwing good money after bad. You're not going to make any money on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
axeil posted:Because you're throwing good money after bad. You're not going to make any money on it. I'm currently under the impression the chinese don't care how well their investments perform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:I'm currently under the impression the chinese don't care how well their investments perform. They'll have to eventually or face the consequences, this is why fiat currencies are tricky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
A few things I've been reading about : 1. Monte Paschi I think we've pretty much covered the various scenarios that can occur with Monte Paschi, but recall how earlier in the thread when Mozi said it takes some time for people to notice just how bad things might be? It appears people (or rather investors) have noticed and are pulling their money out. Monte Paschi's deposits lost 6 billion worth of euros between September 30 and December 13. 2 billion since a December 4 referendum. The government stepping in I think is all but certain. 2. American credit card debt reaches all time high. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Credit underlines our economic system. You buy with credit and then pay later. What concerns me is that the high amount of credit card debt per household, almost $8,000, suggests that our growth is being fueled by credit instead of income. Unemployment is low, but part-time jobs and stagnant wages means credit is supplementing low incomes. Defaults are low at 2.86%, but I think it's something to watch. 3. Stock Market and US economy Interesting talk from David Rosenburg. He points out that for the first half of the year that US GPD growth was essentially flat at 1%. It was stronger in the 3rd quarter, but estimates from UBS, JP Morgen, etc for 4th quarter growth are below 2%. The return of higher rates and more traditional monetary policy from the Fed signals slower 1st quarter growth in 2017. Trump sending plan (if it happens) won't kick in until the later half of 2017 and is way everyone is talking about stronger US growth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
I had a (pretty uneducated) thought. If we do see another crash and depression, does that present an opportunity to buy up a bunch of cheap stock, or is that inadvisable? If everyone has the same idea, won't that cause stock prices to rise back up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I had a (pretty uneducated) thought. If we do see another crash and depression, does that present an opportunity to buy up a bunch of cheap stock, or is that inadvisable? If everyone has the same idea, won't that cause stock prices to rise back up? The problem is, some of that stock can become worthless is the company fails entirely. In the near future, the companies that get bailed out are going to be at the whims of Trump and his friends. I guess it depends on how sure you are in buying the stocks of companies that Trump and friends favor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:If we do see another crash and depression, does that present an opportunity to buy up a bunch of cheap stock, or is that inadvisable? Baron Rothschild, an 18th century British nobleman and member of the Rothschild banking family, is credited with saying that "The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:The problem is, some of that stock can become worthless is the company fails entirely. NewForumSoftware posted:Baron Rothschild, an 18th century British nobleman and member of the Rothschild banking family, is credited with saying that "The time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."  I think I'm gonna find some other way to make a living/save up for retirement and stuff. edit: I also just can't really see a genuine, reliable way to make more than marginal profit off of the stock market without both a major crash and a whole bunch of luck. Honestly, it really terrifies me that we have things like the 401k that play with our futures based on the stock market - if there's a crash, there's a LOT of people that suddenly don't have the money to continue living past 65. How could anyone think this is a good idea? Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
please stop peeking behind the curtain
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:edit: I also just can't really see a genuine, reliable way to make more than marginal profit off of the stock market without both a major crash and a whole bunch of luck. Insider trading quote:Honestly, it really terrifies me that we have things like the 401k that play with our futures based on the stock market - if there's a crash, there's a LOT of people that suddenly don't have the money to continue living past 65. How could anyone think this is a good idea?  
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:How could anyone think this is a good idea? It's not........if your goal is a stable fund for long term needs such as retirement. If your goal is to get your hands on the biggest pot of money possible so you can gamble it on the markets and skim as much personal wealth off the top in fees while off loading the risk burden to others then suddenly it's a really, really good idea. Guess which of those two types has enough individual wealth laying around to pay for an army of lobbyists and get financial laws written to benefit themselves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Well, 2016 is over and this thread didn't deliver. 2017 will likely be a shitshow tough, so stay tuned. My unimaginative guess: trump trade fuckery with China starts a chain reaction which will involve house bubbles in China, Canada and Australia to burst. Europe stays poor and stagnant, and keep electing far right whackos. Latin America sparks some spectacular financial crises. So yeah, happy new year everyone!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:
The "creator" of the 401k never intended it to be what it is today, and concept of retiring solely on a 401k is a giant experiment. The classic three legs of retirement no longer exist for most people: government (Social Security), pension, and savings. If you're aware of the risks, 401k's are beautiful, but they are indeed risky. In my opinion it's all asking too much. It should be enough to simply do something useful, do it well, and be taken care of later in life. This would be where you receive a fair pension for doing good work over your work life. Why do you also need to be a financial analyst? It's asking too much. Alas, that's the way it be. No use from wishing it weren't. We live in a capitalist society and you have to play by capitalist rules. The advantage, if you take time to understand it and work at it, is a lot of potential freedom. Again, should it be this way? No, I wish it weren't. But then I used to work with a lot of older guys, brilliant at their careers, decades of good and useful work in the rearview, but totally clueless in their investments and financial life. When it's all said and done, the guy who was mediocre at his job but learned some financial savvy will be better off in retirement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
paternity suitor posted:The "creator" of the 401k never intended it to be what it is today, and concept of retiring solely on a 401k is a giant experiment. The classic three legs of retirement no longer exist for most people: government (Social Security), pension, and savings. Mind sharing quotes of the intention of the 401k, by somebody who had a hand in making them? Honestly I'm curious as to how it started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:44
|
|