(04-06-2012 07:31 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 11:47 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:20 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 07:48 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Of course you haven't heard of them LOL Egan Jones just got its license in 2007 and is literally two guys named Egan and Jones; LOL @ conservatives pretending they hold anything near the influence of the Big Three (Moody's, S&P and Fitch) which control 95% of the market. You can't draw a line in the sand and say debt that reaches 100% GDP is unsustainable; it's completely dependent on the GDP gtowth and interest rates on that debt. Morons.

Of course the left also attacked S&P for their downgrade and accuse the Big Three of being in bed with Wall Street. EJ also warned about the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, while the Big Three did not.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fort...index.html

I know it's a knee jerk reaction to attack and try to discredit anyone who criticizes government, but maybe try to educate yourself next time.

I think it is funny/sad that these guys are using "threats" to force the US to destroy it's economy by forcing us to make drastic cuts just like happened in Greece.

Robert I think it was sufficiently proven you don't know what the hell you're talking about the last time you brought Greece up.

Learn from your mistakes.

I know what I am talking about. If you cut a large number of jobs in a short period, like Greece was forced to do, their economy has fallen sharply. THat is fact. THat is EXACTLY what will happen if we follow the same path. But I think that is the plan. Force the country to shed massive numbers of government workers and programs destroying the economy so in 2016 the Republicans can re-take the White House because the voters won't trust the Democrats -even though it was the Republican policies that destroyed the economy.

(04-06-2012 08:33 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 08:20 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 07:48 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Of course you haven't heard of them LOL Egan Jones just got its license in 2007 and is literally two guys named Egan and Jones; LOL @ conservatives pretending they hold anything near the influence of the Big Three (Moody's, S&P and Fitch) which control 95% of the market. You can't draw a line in the sand and say debt that reaches 100% GDP is unsustainable; it's completely dependent on the GDP gtowth and interest rates on that debt. Morons.

Of course the left also attacked S&P for their downgrade and accuse the Big Three of being in bed with Wall Street. EJ also warned about the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, while the Big Three did not.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fort...index.html

I know it's a knee jerk reaction to attack and try to discredit anyone who criticizes government, but maybe try to educate yourself next time.

They warned about the subprime crisis in 2008? You mean while/after it was unfolding? Oh, what a prognosticator! Hey you realize it's a lot easier to make such prognostications when nobody knows or cares who you are?

There's a whole sector of financial "experts" who forecast doom and gloom (Schiff, North, your heros at Zerohedge), and a broken clock is right twice a day.

I knew there would be a crash long before 2008.

(04-06-2012 10:37 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I know what I am talking about. If you cut a large number of jobs in a short period, like Greece was forced to do, their economy has fallen sharply. THat is fact. THat is EXACTLY what will happen if we follow the same path. But I think that is the plan. Force the country to shed massive numbers of government workers and programs destroying the economy so in 2016 the Republicans can re-take the White House because the voters won't trust the Democrats -even though it was the Republican policies that destroyed the economy.

I will now repost what I did the last time you brought this up so you can ignore it again like you did the last time I brought it up. Why did you ignore it? Because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Quote:Robert how exactly does a country finance deficit spending? Specifically a country that can't print its own currency?

Sure I like regulation but rating governments themselves is one of the functions of these agencies. Talk about a conflict of interest! I mean, I want us to get our AAA rating back, but not because we're overregulating credit agencies.

The issuer-pay system and subscriber pay system both have their benefits and drawbacks. Moody's and S&P switched from subscriber to issuer 40 years ago because a free rider problem developed with the advent of the fax machine and Xerox, so one subscriber could make copies and fax/mail to all his friends (which is far worse today, which is why your Egan friend operates in a rinky dink office and has to meet BusinessWeek reporters at the train station). But a benefit is that they got more information from the issuers themselves which helped improve accuracy. The conflict of interest is a big drawback and while they say they've installed firewalls keeping analysts separate and blind to sales, studies do show the conflict has resulted in higher ratings.

After the subprime crisis the issuer paid firms now have to be more transparent and reveal their methodology but subscriber paids do not, which I think should be changed. Here Egan gives a glimpse into his methodology finally (debt meeting GDP=Alarm!) and it's highly suspect. Also, his ratings are subject to wild fluctuations on a whim like in the Pfizer example I gave above because he has little reputation to worry about. His motivation as a subscriber paid grader is to never rate bonds too high for his subscribers, so he's much more prone to downgrade bonds in any case, which makes him more likely to catch weaker bonds but it doesn't make him objective necessarily.

(04-06-2012 10:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Sure I like regulation but rating governments themselves is one of the functions of these agencies. Talk about a conflict of interest! I mean, I want us to get our AAA rating back, but not because we're overregulating credit agencies.

The issuer-pay system and subscriber pay system both have their benefits and drawbacks. Moody's and S&P switched from subscriber to issuer 40 years ago because a free rider problem developed with the advent of the fax machine and Xerox, so one subscriber could make copies and fax/mail to all his friends (which is far worse today, which is why your Egan friend operates in a rinky dink office and has to meet BusinessWeek reporters at the train station). But a benefit is that they got more information from the issuers themselves which helped improve accuracy. The conflict of interest is a big drawback and while they say they've installed firewalls keeping analysts separate and blind to sales, studies do show the conflict has resulted in higher ratings.

After the subprime crisis the issuer paid firms now have to be more transparent and reveal their methodology but subscriber paids do not, which I think should be changed. Here Egan gives a glimpse into his methodology finally (debt meeting GDP=Alarm!) and it's highly suspect. Also, his ratings are subject to wild fluctuations on a whim like in the Pfizer example I gave above because he has little reputation to worry about. His motivation as a subscriber paid grader is to never rate bonds too high for his subscribers, so he's much more prone to downgrade bonds in any case, which makes him more likely to catch weaker bonds but it doesn't make him objective necessarily.

It's pretty bad that you have to keep relying on the Pfizer example (show me where numerous investors have lost their asses on that one), while completely ignoring the Big Three's poor track record on major cases, like the subprime crisis, Enron, etc.

Quote:The Federal Reserve has released studies showing that Egan Jones provides ratings that are more timely and accurate than those of Moody's et al. Egan, for instance, warned investors about Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing months before the companies cratered.

By contrast, the three main agencies didn't warn investors about Enron until four days before the energy giant filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/28/news/com.../index.htm

Quote:Also, his ratings are subject to wild fluctuations on a whim like in the Pfizer example I gave above because he has little reputation to worry about.

Little reputation to worry about? Are you insane? That's ALL he has, as again he is paid by investors, Wall Street. If he's wrong, he loses money. The Big Three makes money regardless.

(04-06-2012 10:44 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:37 AM)RobertN Wrote:  I know what I am talking about. If you cut a large number of jobs in a short period, like Greece was forced to do, their economy has fallen sharply. THat is fact. THat is EXACTLY what will happen if we follow the same path. But I think that is the plan. Force the country to shed massive numbers of government workers and programs destroying the economy so in 2016 the Republicans can re-take the White House because the voters won't trust the Democrats -even though it was the Republican policies that destroyed the economy.

I will now repost what I did the last time you brought this up so you can ignore it again like you did the last time I brought it up. Why did you ignore it? Because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Quote:Robert how exactly does a country finance deficit spending? Specifically a country that can't print its own currency?

Yep.

Egan Jones downgrades US again.

Quote:Up, up, and away - the FED's QE3 will stoke the stock market and commodity prices, but in our opinion will hurt the US economy and, by extension, credit quality. Issuing additional currency and depressing interest rates via the purchasing of MBS does little to raise the real GDP of the US, but does reduce the value of the dollar (because of the increase in money supply), and in turn increase the cost of commodities (see the recent rise in the prices of energy, gold, and other commodities). The increased cost of commodities will pressure profitability of businesses, and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power. Hence, in our opinion QE3 will be detrimental to credit quality for the US.

Some market observers contend that a country issuing debt in its own currency can never default since it can simply print additional currency. However, per Reinhart & Rogoff's " This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly " , p.111, 70 out of 320 defaults since 1800 have been on domestic (i.e., local currency) public debt. Note, US funding costs are likely to slowly rise as the global economy recovers or the FED scales back its Treas. purchases (75% recently).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/egan-jones...s-us-aa-aa

Queue Max and the rest of the libs to rush to the defense of the Wall Street-funded ratings agencies.

Quote:Up, up, and away - the FED's QE3 will stoke the stock market and commodity prices, but in our opinion will hurt the US economy and, by extension, credit quality. Issuing additional currency and depressing interest rates via the purchasing of MBS does little to raise the real GDP of the US, but does reduce the value of the dollar (because of the increase in money supply), and in turn increase the cost of commodities (see the recent rise in the prices of energy, gold, and other commodities). The increased cost of commodities will pressure profitability of businesses, and increase the costs of consumers thereby reducing consumer purchasing power. Hence, in our opinion QE3 will be detrimental to credit quality for the US.

You mean the same businesses and shareholders whose share prices will soar as a result of QE3, and can borrow even more cheaply now?

Quote:Some market observers contend that a country issuing debt in its own currency can never default since it can simply print additional currency. However, per Reinhart & Rogoff's " This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly " , p.111, 70 out of 320 defaults since 1800 have been on domestic (i.e., local currency) public debt. Note, US funding costs are likely to slowly rise as the global economy recovers or the FED scales back its Treas. purchases (75% recently).

Obviously it's possible to default even when you can print your own currency (see: last year's debt ceiling fiasco caused by ********* obstruction). The point is you're never forced to (or at least not in our instance).

I don't think QE3 is what we should be doing necessarily, but it's not justification for a credit downgrade. In fact, the Max Power Credit Agency hereby announces the US credit rating is upgraded from AAA to AAA++! Take that, Egan Jones!

(04-05-2012 04:41 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Damn Tea Party!

Quote:Inflection point - when debt to GDP exceeds 100%, a country's financial flexibility becomes increasingly strained. For the first time since WWII, US debt exceeds 100%. From 2008 to 2010, debt rose a total of 23.6% while GDP rose a total of 1.6%. Unfortunately, with an annual federal budget deficit in the area of $1.4T, debt is likely to reach $16.7T as of the end of 2012 while assuming GDP grows 2.5%, total GDP is likely to reach $15.7T. Therefore, as of the end of 2012, debt to GDP is likely to be in the area of 106%. Assuming the federal deficit for 2013 remains at $1.4T and GDP growth is 2.5%, the total debt will rise to $18.1T and GDP will rise to $16.1T, resulting in debt to GDP of 112%. In comparison, France's and Italy's debt to GDP are 81% and 117% respectively. Regarding efforts to address budget problems, the Super Committee was seeking spending cuts of $1.5T over 10 years or merely $150B per year, and was a failure. Obviously, the current course is not enhancing credit quality.

Without some structural changes soon, restoring credit quality will become increasingly difficult. Yields on 10-year treasury notes have fallen to their lowest since early Feb 2010 with US Federal Reserve's aggressive purchases of US Treasuries. A concern is the rise in interest rates placing higher pressure on the US's credit quality. Excess growth of money supply (i.e., debt monetization) harms creditors and ultimately, the economy. Weak debt reduction efforts force a neg. watch.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/egan-jones...k-negative

S&P's issue was the lack of the revenue side and doubts that the GOP would raise revenues. There are to sides to deficit reduction - reducing spending and raising revenues. Getting people back to work would help raise revenues, reduce spending on safety net spending, and generate more jobs as they have money to spend. Can a;so raise taxes on the upper class to help bring in revenue.

Shut it down!!!

(04-05-2012 04:41 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Damn Tea Party!

Quote:Inflection point - when debt to GDP exceeds 100%, a country's financial flexibility becomes increasingly strained. For the first time since WWII, US debt exceeds 100%. From 2008 to 2010, debt rose a total of 23.6% while GDP rose a total of 1.6%. Unfortunately, with an annual federal budget deficit in the area of $1.4T, debt is likely to reach $16.7T as of the end of 2012 while assuming GDP grows 2.5%, total GDP is likely to reach $15.7T. Therefore, as of the end of 2012, debt to GDP is likely to be in the area of 106%. Assuming the federal deficit for 2013 remains at $1.4T and GDP growth is 2.5%, the total debt will rise to $18.1T and GDP will rise to $16.1T, resulting in debt to GDP of 112%. In comparison, France's and Italy's debt to GDP are 81% and 117% respectively. Regarding efforts to address budget problems, the Super Committee was seeking spending cuts of $1.5T over 10 years or merely $150B per year, and was a failure. Obviously, the current course is not enhancing credit quality.

Without some structural changes soon, restoring credit quality will become increasingly difficult. Yields on 10-year treasury notes have fallen to their lowest since early Feb 2010 with US Federal Reserve's aggressive purchases of US Treasuries. A concern is the rise in interest rates placing higher pressure on the US's credit quality. Excess growth of money supply (i.e., debt monetization) harms creditors and ultimately, the economy. Weak debt reduction efforts force a neg. watch.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/egan-jones...k-negative

Nobody cares. Those ******** are tea baggers. That is why they did it. Is it really just coincidence that these ******* did this just before the election? I think not. THey have an agenda. Screw them and you.

(04-05-2012 06:15 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 06:05 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 05:56 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I wonder if S&P and Moody's follows

They've already threatened. EJ was the first to pull the trigger last time, too.

I honestly can't say that I've heard of EJ. How much earlier did EJ pull the trigger the last time compared to the other ratings agencies?

You never heard of them because nobody outside a few tea baggers and nobody really gives a damn about what they say except for the insane.

(04-05-2012 07:51 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 04:45 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  That's ok, we'll just lend out money at a better interest rate than we borrow it.

He still doesn't understand LOL

He doesn't understand anything-including the Bible.

(04-05-2012 08:20 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 07:48 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Of course you haven't heard of them LOL Egan Jones just got its license in 2007 and is literally two guys named Egan and Jones; LOL @ conservatives pretending they hold anything near the influence of the Big Three (Moody's, S&P and Fitch) which control 95% of the market. You can't draw a line in the sand and say debt that reaches 100% GDP is unsustainable; it's completely dependent on the GDP gtowth and interest rates on that debt. Morons.

Of course the left also attacked S&P for their downgrade and accuse the Big Three of being in bed with Wall Street. EJ also warned about the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, while the Big Three did not.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fort...index.html

I know it's a knee jerk reaction to attack and try to discredit anyone who criticizes government, but maybe try to educate yourself next time.

Of course. THey all have agendas. Whether it be the tea bagger agenda(austerity) or trying to save face from their derivatives debacle and are trying to stay relevant.

(09-15-2012 10:06 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-05-2012 04:41 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Damn Tea Party!

Quote:Inflection point - when debt to GDP exceeds 100%, a country's financial flexibility becomes increasingly strained. For the first time since WWII, US debt exceeds 100%. From 2008 to 2010, debt rose a total of 23.6% while GDP rose a total of 1.6%. Unfortunately, with an annual federal budget deficit in the area of $1.4T, debt is likely to reach $16.7T as of the end of 2012 while assuming GDP grows 2.5%, total GDP is likely to reach $15.7T. Therefore, as of the end of 2012, debt to GDP is likely to be in the area of 106%. Assuming the federal deficit for 2013 remains at $1.4T and GDP growth is 2.5%, the total debt will rise to $18.1T and GDP will rise to $16.1T, resulting in debt to GDP of 112%. In comparison, France's and Italy's debt to GDP are 81% and 117% respectively. Regarding efforts to address budget problems, the Super Committee was seeking spending cuts of $1.5T over 10 years or merely $150B per year, and was a failure. Obviously, the current course is not enhancing credit quality.

Without some structural changes soon, restoring credit quality will become increasingly difficult. Yields on 10-year treasury notes have fallen to their lowest since early Feb 2010 with US Federal Reserve's aggressive purchases of US Treasuries. A concern is the rise in interest rates placing higher pressure on the US's credit quality. Excess growth of money supply (i.e., debt monetization) harms creditors and ultimately, the economy. Weak debt reduction efforts force a neg. watch.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/egan-jones...k-negative

Nobody cares. Those ******** are tea baggers. That is why they did it. Is it really just coincidence that these ******* did this just before the election? I think not. THey have an agenda. Screw them and you.

Yeah, their "agenda" is to provide their customers with the most unbiased information available. What a concept. Naturally, you would side with the other ratings agencies who are funded by Wall Street firms. I'd love to see the evidence you used to come to the conclusion that EJ are "tea baggers."

What about the Fed announcing QE right before the election, considering Romney has already said he wouldn't reappoint Bernanke? I guess that wasn't political?