NEW E*TRADE Baby - Girlfriend
![[Digg]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.marketmixup.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Bringing Subprime Sexy Back
by Andrew Leonard - Mar. 1, 2010 19:11 est
Salon.com
Near the end of “The Big Short,”
“How do you explain to an innocent citizen of the free world the importance of a credit default swap on a double-A tranche of a subprime collateralized debt obligation?” writes Lewis.
I’m betting Lewis was grinning as he wrote that sentence, because if you wanted to summarize “The Big Short” in just one line, it might be: the most lucid explanation yet offered to readers as to the importance of a credit default swap on a double-A tranche of a subprime collateralized debt obligation. Which might not sound like a whole lot of fun, but turns out to be a blast. As someone who has struggled for years to penetrate the obtuse world of structured finance and the role it played in blowing up Wall Street, I must give credit where credit is due. “The Big Short” is superb: Michael Lewis doing what he does best, illuminating the idiocy, madness and greed of modern finance.
Even though I have long been a huge Lewis fan, dating all the way back to “Liar’s Poker,” his hilarious and enlightening account of life as a bond broker in the go-go ’80s, I did not anticipate something this good, something capable of carrying its weight as a bookend to “Liar’s Poker’s” delights. My heart actually sank when the galleys of “The Big Short” arrived in the mail. A library of books exploring the financial crisis has already been published, with many, many more yet to come. My bedside table groans under the weight of their unfinished tomes. What could Lewis have to say that hadn’t already been said a million times over?
But then I made the mistake of glancing at the first chapter and literally could not put “The Big Short” down. Lewis achieves what I previously imagined impossible: He makes subprime sexy all over again.
The secret to Lewis’ success is a mixture of strategy and craft. Most books on the financial crisis find their locus inside the Wall Street firms at the heart of the action. The general theme: Hubristic banksters are oblivious to what they’ve wrought until it is too late. Chaos ensues. Lewis takes a different tack. “The Big Short” tells the stories of an odd collection of brilliant misfits who recognize that Wall Street is wearing no clothes, become convinced a massive calamity is nigh, and seek feverishly to profit off of their understanding. They are, in Wall Street parlance, the “shorts” — speculators who bet that the price of a given stock or bond or commodity or any derivative thereof will fall, rather than rise. Most shorts pick on a single company, or have a dour view of the direction of the price of corn or pork bellies. “The Big Short” is a little more ambitious: It’s a bet on financial sector collapse.
That’s the strategy. Today you can find plenty of people who claim to have seen financial disaster looming, but in “The Big Short” Lewis captures protagonists who put their money on the line. That they did so by employing Wall Street’s latest financial innovations against itself makes the story all the more fascinating. A typical Lewis “short” first figures out which mortgage lenders are making the absolutely crappiest loans, then determines which mortgage bonds (or collateralized debt obligations created out of slices of crappy mortgage bonds) are constructed from those loans, and then buys insurance, via credit default swaps, against the chance of those bonds or CDOs going bust.
In doing so these money managers have to war against their own self-doubt, the trepidation of their investors, the arrogance of Wall Street bankers, and the giddy momentum of financial markets that defy all logic for far longer than makes any rational sense. (There’s also a good question as to whether what they are doing should even be legal — the “shorts” are buying insurance on “properties” that they don’t even own!) But the loner-against-the-crowd mentality delivers a dynamic sense of tension that propels “The Big Short” merrily along. We know, as readers, exactly what will happen at the end, and yet still the ride feels nail-biting.
But what truly sets Michael Lewis apart from other writers is his craft. Watch him describe Steve Eisman, a man whose desire to make money shorting subprime mortgage-backed concoctions is inseparable from his growing sense of rage that Wall Street is getting away with a rigged game.
States may ban credit checks on job applicants
Mar. 1st, 2010 01:29 PM mt
MSNBC.com
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - It’s hard enough to find a job in this economy, and now some people are facing another hurdle: Potential employers are holding their credit histories against them.
Sixty percent of employers recently surveyed by the Society for Human Resources Management said they run credit checks on at least some job applicants, compared with 42 percent in a somewhat similar survey in 2006.
Employers say such checks give them valuable information about an applicant’s honesty and sense of responsibility. But lawmakers in at least 16 states from South Carolina to Oregon have proposed outlawing most checks, saying the practice traps people in debt because their past financial problems prevent them from finding work.
Wisconsin state Rep. Kim Hixson drafted a bill in his state shortly after hearing from Terry Becker, an auto mechanic who struggled to find work.
Becker said it all started with medical bills that piled up when his now 10-year-old son began having seizures as a toddler. In the first year alone, Becker ran up $25,000 in medical debt.
Over 4½ months, he was turned down for at least eight positions for which he had authorized the employer to conduct a credit check, Becker said. He said one potential employer told him, “If your credit is bad, then you’ll steal from me.”
“I was in a deep depression. I had lost a business, I was behind on my bills and I was unable to get a job,” he said.
Hixson calls what happened to Becker discrimination based on credit history and said his bill would ban it.
“If somebody is trying to get a job as a truck driver or a trainer in a gym, what does your credit history have to do with your ability to do that job?” Hixson said. He said he knows of no research that shows a person with a bad credit history is going to perform poorly.
Under federal law, prospective employers must get written permission from applicants to run a credit check on them. But consumer advocates say most job applicants do not feel they are in a position to say no.
Most of the bills being proposed this year resemble laws in Hawaii and Washington that prevent employers from using credit reports when hiring for most positions. The laws contain exceptions in cases where such information could be relevant to the job — for example, if the person is applying to work in a bank or an accounts-payable office.
On a national level, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., introduced a similar bill last summer in Congress, where it is still bottled up in committee.
Even though more companies are using credit checks, only 13 percent perform them on all potential hires, according to the Society for Human Resources Management’s most recent survey. Mike Aitken, the group’s director of government affairs, said a blanket ban could remove a tool employers can use to help them make good hiring decisions.
Aitken pointed to a 2008 survey by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners that found the two most common red flags for employees who commit workplace fraud are living beyond their means and having difficulty meeting financial obligations. The same survey estimated American companies lost $994 billion to workplace fraud in 2008.
Aitken said someone who cannot pay his or her bills on time may not be more likely to steal, but might not have the maturity or sense of responsibility to handle a job like processing payroll checks.
In Maryland, where the state Chamber of Commerce opposes a bill banning most credit checks, employers at a recent legislative hearing said they are not interested in applicants’ credit scores.
Instead, they said, they are concerned about things like debt collections and legal judgments rather than poor credit because of medical bills or school loans. They also said companies give job applicants a chance to explain their credit problems.
Last year California lawmakers voted to curb the use of such checks, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill under pressure from Chamber of Commerce leaders who called it a “job-killer.”
But Maryland Delegate Kirill Reznik, who drafted the bill being considered in his state, said people struggling to get jobs need help.
“We are in the great recession and this creates a vicious cycle,” Reznik said. “People lose their jobs, that naturally precipitates them getting behind on bills, their credit scores go down, they are trying to find a job to pay off the bills, and employers won’t hire them because of their credit score.”
Maryland public school employee Jen Harwood said running credit checks on job applicants “perpetuates the divide between the haves and the have-nots.”
“If you continue digging into people’s past and not looking into what people have to give today, you are making a bigger divide,” Harwood said.
Consumer advocacy groups are also lining up behind the legislation, pointing out that credit reports can contain inaccurate information.
Becker, the Milton, Wis., resident with bad credit, has found work dismantling cars at an auto recycling company that did not ask to run a credit check. He worries, though, about friends in the auto industry are looking for work and coming up empty-handed because of credit problems.
“It just seems like once you fall behind, you’re behind,” he said. “It’s really hard to get back on the right financial track.”
- The Associate Press
Judge Decides Some Madoff Victims Are Out of Luck
Posted by admin in Mixed Economy on March 2nd, 2010
by Bruce Watson - Mar. 01, 2010 06:25 PM
Daily Finance
On Monday, some of Bernard Madoff’s former clients received bad news, as bankruptcy Judge Burton R. Lifland decided that many of them are not eligible to receive compensation for their losses. The ruling, which seems likely to be appealed, endorsed the methods established in April 2009 by Irving Picard, trustee for the case.
Picard decided to use a “cash in/cash out” measure to determine which of Madoff’s victims deserved compensation and which might be liable for some of the investment company’s losses. Under this system, Picard measured customers’ losses by weighing their withdrawals against their deposits; people who received less money than they deposited were net losers, while those who received more money than they deposited were net winners.
Other members of Madoff’s fund have received even worse news: In the last few years before Madoff’s scheme came to light, many of his customers withdrew their money under suspicious circumstances. This trend accelerated in the last three months of 2008, when Madoff’s friends and family withdrew $735 million from the fund. If these customers withdrew money because they knew or suspected that the Madoff fund was a fraud, they may be guilty of fraudulent conveyance, which could make them legally responsible for returning at least part of their money.
Madoff’s net winners have argued that Picard’s cash in/cash out method is unfair and that they should be compensated based on their account balances at the time of Madoff’s arrest. In his published opinion, Lifland’s noted that his decision was based on the fact that Madoff’s account statements were entirely fraudulent
Judge Lifland’s decision also limits the number of victims who can claim recompense from the government. While Madoff’s former clients are each eligible for up to $500,000 from the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), if Lifland’s decision stands, Madoff’s net winners will not be able to claim SIPC compensation. Given that more than half of Madoff’s clients are net winners — Picard has identified 2,568 net winners and 2,335 net losers — this will have a major effect on the ultimate dispensation of the case. It will also have a major impact upon the ultimate cost to taxpayers.
But even Picard’s net losers are unlikely to get their money back: while Lifland’s decision drops the fund’s losses from $65 billion to $20 billion, investigators have only recovered $1.5 billion thus far, suggesting that some of Madoff’s biggest victims may still be left out in the cold.
Retailers Caught Selling Used Lingerie
Posted by admin in Market Mix Up, Mix Up TV on March 2nd, 2010
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Really???
Green Tech Gone Fake
Posted by admin in Mixed Economy on March 2nd, 2010
by Rachael King - Mar. 1, 2010 10:02 PM est
Businessweek.com
Reused electronics may be good for the environment, but they are feeding the counterfeit tech industry and poisoning some foreign workers
Recycling used tech gear—a practice generally considered good for the environment—has a far less desirable, unintended consequence. It is contributing to a rise in fake computer chips and other products that make their way into everything from satellites to weapons systems, medical devices, and routers that connect corporate networks. “Electronic waste has turned into an abundance of electronic components and microcircuits for counterfeit parts,” according to a January 2010 report from the U.S. Commerce Dept.
A foremost destination for e-waste and source of resulting counterfeit parts is China, according to reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations. By 2020, electronic waste in China will have reached a level 200% to 400% over that of 2005, according to a UN Environment Programme report released on Feb. 22. That document cites the “alarming and increasing reports on the e-waste situation” in China and other nations.
Much of the waste comes from inside the country: China produces about 2.3 million tons of its own e-waste each year and has banned imports of it. Still, some electronic waste finds its way into China from developed countries via unscrupulous recyclers, according to environmental groups that include Greenpeace and the Basel Action Network.
Some developed countries, including the U.S., do not bar exports of electronic waste. An estimated 50% to 80% of the e-waste collected for recycling in the U.S. is exported to developing countries, according to Greenpeace.
Once at their destination, used electronics are mined for reusable parts and some are repurposed by counterfeiters. “The world is sending their e-waste to unregulated regions where e-waste is converted to counterfeits,” says Debra Eggeman, general manager of Independent Distributors of Electronics Assn., a trade organization of distributors striving to meet high quality standards.
At home, families dismantle e-waste
Tom Sharpe, vice-president at SMT, an independent distributor of electronic chips and other parts, watched the creation of counterfeit tech first hand as he traveled to Shantou, China, in July 2008. “Everything was being taken apart for chips and they were being sanded down and counterfeited while we were in Shantou,” Sharpe says of an area that lies near Guiyu, a town often called the electronic waste capital of the world. He watched scraps of computers growing into huge piles in the front and back yards of homes and saw women washing components in a river after they were sanded. “E-waste generates the feedstock for counterfeiters and as the e-waste problem grows, so does the counterfeiting problem,” he says.
The environmental and health risks of improper handling of e-waste have been well-documented. Workers—often parents and their children—dismantle these parts by hand, releasing toxic chemicals that contaminate the air, soil, rivers, and groundwater of Guiyu. In response, some corporations have banned the export of electronic waste. On Feb. 11, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) said it would no longer permit its e-waste to be exported from developed countries to nondeveloped countries, either directly or through intermediaries. In May, Dell (DELL) became the first major computer manufacturer to ban the export of e-waste to developing countries.
It’s too early to tell how the moves by HP and Dell might ultimately affect counterfeiting activity. Meanwhile, distributors and companies are taking further steps to fight fakery by helping create standards and sharing knowledge about the detection of counterfeit parts. SMT is investing in sophisticated equipment to test and verify their authenticity of components, Sharpe says.
The tide of fake chips and other components bound for the U.S. is nevertheless rising, he says, driven in part by extreme poverty in developing nations. “There are areas of China or India where there’s poverty and nothing else,” he says. For some, producing fake tech is “a way of life and a means to feed a family,” he says. Still, Sharpe is confident that SMT and other distributors are better equipped to fight the tide. Says Sharpe: “The problem is worse, but more counterfeiters are being caught and identified.”
King is a writer for BusinessWeek.com in San Francisco.
Pot smugglers in scuba gear stopped in sewer
Posted by admin in Mix Up News on March 2nd, 2010
by Allison Hurtado - Feb. 26, 2010 06:02 PM
The Arizona Republic
A person wearing scuba gear apparently tried to sneak two bundles of marijuana across the Mexican border through a sewer system on Friday, Border Patrol officials said.
Border Patrol agents operating infrared cameras noticed several individuals illegally crossing into the United States near a sewer outlet.
The Douglas Station’s bike patrol went to the sewer system and saw one person carrying two bundles that were suspected to be marijuana.
That person was wearing a wet suit and scuba gear and was wading through waist-high water with the bundles, officials said.
The person saw the agents, dropped the bundles and began wading back toward Mexico. Apparently the other people spotted by the Border Patrol also fled, officials said.
The marijuana weighed 55 pounds and was estimated to be worth $44,000.
The would-be smugglers were not found, according to Omar Candelaria, spokesperson for the Border Patrol.
