My morning reads:

Duh: High-frequency trading tactic lowers investor profits (Phys Org)
• Quantitative easing may be most powerful when it ends (Telegraph) but see QE addiction may be hard to kick (FT.com)
Stan Druckenmiller: ‘Do I Have A Competitive Advantage Left?’ (Moneybeat)
• FHFA Hires Insurance Lobbyist as Insurance Consultant (American Banker) see also Rigged-Benchmark Probes Proliferate From Singapore to UK (Bloomberg)
• When Stocks Move in Unison, Look Out (Barron’s) see also Second-quarter profit warnings target record (MarketWatch)
Jubak: Next bust creeps a little closer (MSN Money) see also Dow balloon really pinata (New York Post)
Fascinating: Trying to build a bomb that won’t blow up (Washington Post)
• Get Rid of the App Store’s “Top” Lists (Macro.org)
• The Feminist Taylor Swift Twitter Account Is Hilarious (BuzzFeed)
• Trailer Critic: The Wolf of Wall Street (Slate)

What are you reading?

 

Will the Stock Market Party On? It’s All Up to the Fed.
Graphic
Source: WSJ

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.

10 Responses to “10 Tuesday AM Reads”

  1. swag says:

    Awesome Bank of America is still Awesome

    “Bank of America’s mortgage servicing unit systematically lied to homeowners, fraudulently denied loan modifications, and paid their staff bonuses for deliberately pushing people into foreclosure: Yes, these allegations were suspected by any homeowner who ever had to deal with the bank to try to get a loan modification – but now they come from six former employees and one contractor, whose sworn statements were added last week to a civil lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts.”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/06/18/bank_of_america_whistleblowers_bombshell_we_were_told_to_lie/

  2. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    I had previously thought that HSBC was the only bank reported to money launder.

    Then I read this article, and I wonder why there still are no bank executives in jail.

    “Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Wachovia (acquired by Wells Fargo in 2009), HSBC Holdings, ING Bank, Standard Chartered, American Express Bank International, and not a few others, have a common bond beyond ranking among the largest banks in the world.

    All have been accused within the past five years (and several this year) of failing to comply with US anti-money laundering laws — thereby enabling, collectively, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of suspicious transactions to move through the banking system absent adequate monitoring or oversight.

    Yet not one these banks, nor any of their top executives, has been hit with criminal sanctions….”

  3. SkepticalOx says:

    Wow @ Druckenmiller article. I find his honesty/humility quite refreshing, especially for a guy with his success.

  4. nofoulsontheplayground says:

    Zero Hedge – “Stanley Druckenmiller on China’s Future and Investing in the New Normal”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-14/stanley-druckenmiller-chinas-future-and-investing-new-normal

    Key Quote: There has been vigourous debate on the veracity of Rogoff and Reinhart’s research on the consequences of countries exceeding 90% debt-to-GDP. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that historically, such levels of indebtedness has resulted in extreme implications. Countries tend to go into a full-blown monetisation or a default or inflation on average 23 years after they cross the 90% threshold according to their research. So these debt levels are less relevant for you and me today, but will be extremely crucial for our children. If we continue to borrow and spend like we do now, this can become a serious problem in 15 years.

    • willid3 says:

      maybe, maybe not. is the high level of debt a result of the low level of economic activity? or because of an external event (like loosing a war, like Germany did in WW1)? was it because of a major down turn, like the great depression? or was because of a major war (like maybe WW2 was in the US, where we had a very high debt to GDP level)? the real issue is whether high debt to GDP causes a drastic economic event, or did the external events do it? or was caused by a large economic event that preceded the high debt?

  5. willid3 says:

    7 examples where ‘free markets’ fail to fail to work as some expect them too

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/06/18/7-Important-Examples-of-How-Markets-Can-Fail.aspx#page1

    think one can sum up the common reasons

    moral hazard, where some one can do nothing because they will get help. and society can’t avoid helping with out becoming barbaric

    the other is where there one side of the deal has more information that the other. finance health care
    are big examples of this

  6. RW says:

    7 Important Examples of How Markets Can Fail

    It’s true that competitive markets have desirable properties, but very special conditions must be present for competitive markets to emerge. When these conditions are not met, as is often the case in the real world, free markets can perform very poorly. In these cases – as illustrated in the following examples – government intervention that eliminates troublesome ‘market freedoms’ can often be used to move these markets closer to the competitive ideal.

  7. willid3 says:

    hm…so maybe this is why we dont trust corporate America?
    http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/utilities/regulator-throw-the-book-at-pge.html

    because when they make a huge mess, they really dont care if they did or not?

  8. bear_in_mind says:

    Wow, Druckenmiller’s comments are pretty sobering, no? I don’t know that his perspective is that different from retail investors. I think they’ve really taken their cues from what they’re experiencing on Main Street versus being hobbled by recency bias. Well, maybe a little bit, but geez, it’s not hard to fathom why people are reticent to return to the roulette wheel. And here Druckenmiller shares a sentiment that something about this market melt-up (absent fundamentals follow-through) just seems too-good-to-be-true.