My afternoon train reads:

• Meaning of 200-day average’s violation (MarketWatch)
• Deep Truths about the Markets and Investing (Crossing Wall Street)
Art Cashin: Late-Day Fades Are Troubling (MarketBeat)
• 10 things 401(k) plans won’t tell you (MarketWatch) see also Retirement Plan Shift Is Creating a Generation of Workers Unable to Retire (Yahoo Finance)
• Treasuries See U.S. Falling Over Cliff as Yields Converge (Bloomberg)
• Big data will be big business in India (Quartz)
• Housing Agency Close to Exhausting Reserves  (WSJ)
• Are Your Political Beliefs Hardwired? (Smithsonian)
• A More Impressive Win Than in 2008  (The Atlantic) see also Bankers Abandoned Obama — But the Rest of the Rich Held Surprisingly Strong (The New Republic)
• Brilliant! The greatest Up Yours, Media response ever:  David Petraeus Affair Photos

What are you reading?

 

Decline in China’s Traditional Loans More Than Offset by Surge in Social Financing

Source: Bloomberg Brief

 

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

15 Responses to “10 Midweek PM Reads”

  1. RW says:

    The David Petraeus Affair Photos at http://petraeusaffair.tumblr.com/ win the intertubes award, hands down.

  2. RW says:

    But this one ranks high too:

    Here, finally, is the entire taped interview at http://tinyurl.com/aplvnhe in which “the late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater [laid out the "Southern Strategy" and] explained how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves”

  3. jonas says:

    Is “social financing” the new euphemism for “shadow banking”?

  4. willid3 says:

    think your 401k is being run for your benefit? think again

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsiedle/2012/08/29/flawed-401k-plan-structures-to-blame-for-systemic-failure/

    it might not be. some companies hire them selves to run them. care to guess to whose benefit that would be/

    its certainly not yours.

    consider the pensions. pensions were to be run for the benefit of employees. and were run by employers. but for several years they actually benefited the employer more than the employee. then employers added pensions for executives. and when employers figured out that pensions (usually after not contributing enough to make the pensions whole) were under funded. they either doubled down on that underfunding. or froze or cancelled them. but guess what? they kept the pensions for executives. which in the end were in much worse shape than the ones for the rest of their employees. wonder why that was.

  5. rd says:

    The main problem with 401ks is that many employers are not putting in the same amount into them that they would have put into their pension plan in a normal year. If they were contributing employee at rates of 4% to 6% with some incentives for employees to be saving at least 6% a year, then we would likely see many of the savings issues go away over time.

    The primary problem with pensions is that they are not portable. An employee has to work somewhere for many years to see the benefit. Employers have treated employees as disposable commodities, so the concept of long-term employment at one firm has eroded substantially over the past generation making pensions less effective in any case. we will start to see that trend in the public sector over the next two decades as well.

  6. willid3 says:

    but in 401ks you only have what you have put in, until you have been at a company for several years. last i heard that was 5 years. and while you can roll over your 401k assets. there are many rules about that, and some times employers can take advantage of the money and frittering away your money

    remember that story about the US being the biggest producer? not so fast, the report didn’t consider the economics of it. consider the reason that US could produce a lot of oil, is based shale oil. which is expensive compared to how say the middle east or others produce oil now. if prices were say collapse before the US got into full production, a lot of that shale oil would not be produced.

    http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2012/11/why-the-u-s-wont-join-opec/

  7. RW says:

    @ami_in_deutschland

    Wow! the super pac to 501c4 connection is the perfect money laundering scheme and it’s all legal. Wonder how much of the millions in super pac money was actually never spent on anything having to do with the election?

  8. DiggidyDan says:

    When Will the Easing End?
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/fed-says-a-number-on-fomc-saw-need-for-additional-qe.html

    “A number of participants indicated that additional asset purchases would likely be appropriate next year after the conclusion of the maturity-extension program,” according to the record of the Federal Open Market Committee’s Oct. 23-24 gathering released today in Washington. . . .

    The minutes also show a detailed discussion about whether the central bank should link its policy of holding the main interest rate at zero to numerical measurements of unemployment and inflation, an approach that participants “generally favored” over the current approach of specifying a calendar date through which rates will remain low.

    Vice Chairman Janet Yellen and three other central bank officials have publicly endorsed linking the zero-rate policy to economic thresholds. In September the central bank pledged to hold the benchmark interest rate at a record low at least through mid-2015. Tying policy instead to a threshold would provide more clarity on the policy outlook, Yellen said yesterday.

    The idea for quantitative targets first came from Chicago Fed President Charles Evans, who has suggested holding rates near zero until unemployment reached 7 percent so long as inflation did not breach 3 percent.”

    As I have said recently, market is featuring a “3-way tug-of-war between QE ∞, unemployment, and inflation” with lots of external factors out of the Fed’s control to deal with as well. Not much upside, really.

  9. willid3 says:

    @ami_in_deutschland

    wow..

    legalized fraud

    hm. wonder why there were so many super pacs.

    with million and millions of dollars

  10. Mike in Nola says:

    Obligatory Hitler’s Reaction to Mitt Romney Loss

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upLf6CoSsZs

    You can tell the English is not the subtitler’s but it’s good in spots. They thing I thought was most striking was the expressions of the women in the hall outside the door. They actually looked like some of the Romney supporters. I suppose that’s what happens when religiously-held beliefs (like Romney’s victory) are dashed.

  11. formerlawyer says:

    Regulators are being strangled by legislation requiring effectiveness cases be made for every regulation – courtesy of K Street. An example is the Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act (S. 3468).

    ” For example, there’s another bill out there called the Regulatory Accountability Act that may do even more damage to financial reform than the IARAA. It would essentially give any industry the right to challenge any rule that it does not like on the basis that there must be a less-costly alternative available. The bill has already passed the House and could be considered as soon as the next Congress. The Obama administration has threatened to veto the RAA, but it could always get included in horse trading on the fiscal cliff or other high-priority legislation.

    Even if Wall Street loses on both bills, there are more to come. It’s clear that banks will never stop fighting.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/senate-bill-financial-regulation-cost-benefit-analysis_n_2123460.html?utm_hp_ref=business

    USA about to join OPEC – not so fast…
    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/PR-at-its-Worst-IEA-Spins-Oil-Stats-to-Make-US-Top-Oil-Producer.html
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-us-wont-be-energy-independent-even-if-we-pump-more-oil-than-saudi-arabia/265136/

  12. frodo1314 says:

    Funny which items get deemed “frivolous” and which do not. Judging by the Petraeus link I’m interpreting it’s being here to mean “why are we worried about this when there are so many more important issuesto focus on.” Yet, the day after debate #2 (or was it #3?) the world awas agog at Romney’s “binders of women” comment. Laughable, the bias.