Here’s what I’m reading over my Sunday morning coffee:

• 2008 FOMC Laugh Track: Gallows Humor at the Federal Reserve (Real Time Economics)
Zweig: The ABCs of Investors’ DNA  (MoneyBeat)
• Two-Speed Recovery: US vs. EU (World Affairs)
• Are You Ready for a Long Retirement? (WSJ) see also   Five Really Dumb Money Moves Retirees Make (WSJ)
• The Exotic Animal Trade (Pricenomics)
• Cooling U.S. Home Sales Only Partly Due to Weather (Bloomberg) see also Wall Street Landlords Buy Bad Loans for Cheaper Homes (Bloomberg)
• Drone Meet DroneShield (Climateer Investing)
• How Obamacare Could Unlock Job Opportunities (NYT Mag) see also Stop Saying “Do What You Love, Love What You Do.” It Devalues Actual Work. (Slate)
Fun & Interesting article: A Young Inventor, Finding the Crunch Factor (NYT)
• Beck talks about his new album ‘Morning Phase’ and why it’s simple and subdued (WSJ)

What’s for brunch?


New View Into Fed’s Response to Crisis


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.

14 Responses to “10 Sunday Reads”

  1. VennData says:

    Another materialist subjugating and entire nation, killing… for things.

    If you Bible-banging GOP voters only knew how like this the rich you support in their tax cuts. But no, they don’t want you to read the New York Times. So you’re ignorant.

    Go GOP voter.

  2. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    Where our 25 active space missions are (

    “…From twin satellites photographing the sun in 360° to rovers on Mars to a ’70s-era probe passing out of the heliosphere and into interstellar space, mankind has more than two dozen currently active spacecraft outside simple Earth orbit. We created this infographic to showcase where all Earth’s interplanetary explorers are today, and what they’re up to….”

  3. constantnormal says:

    The Fed’s responses as 2008 unfolded present pretty much a picture of unyielding support for the banksters, with not a hint of reform or behavioral adjustment … which is understandable, as at the time, the only alternatives would have crushed our entire economy unmercifully …

    But now that we have a modicum of stability, and the banksters are able to stand on their own, perhaps some “remediation” is due (or past-due) in our financial sector.  

    The Fed could adopt a two-tiered rate structure, with favorable rates only for those banks that keep leverage below the limits that existed prior to 2004 (about 12:1), and it could exclude banks that fail to comply with its suggestions from access to the Fed’s discount window, and it could even impose a requirement that credit availability and rates paid by the consumer be held to the same levels that the Fed offers to the banks partaking of its generosity … I’m pretty sure that those actions can all be taken without consulting any part of the government, and can be imposed at any time by the Federal Reserve, as within its domain, its word is Law.

  4. RW says:

    This will fail to prevent the next financial crisis of course but in the meantime you’ll be in-the-know FWIW.

    Credit Value Adjustment (CVA) implementation comes of age

    Why are traders, quants, and risk officers at large institutions feverishly trying to deal with this topic all of a sudden? ..,

    CVA is the premium charged on a specific derivatives contract or a portfolio of contracts that takes into account both the volatility of the contract(s) as well as the probability of the counterparty’s default. Major banks view the implementation of this measurement as one of their top strategic priorities.

  5. ch says:


    7 out of 10 of the wealthiest counties in the US are surrounding Washington DC, a city that by definition is a net taker (funded by taxes from the balance of the country.)

    #1 – they don’t all play for the red team.
    #2 – in times when the economic pie is shrinking (see global cheap energy production), history tells you political corruption rises meaningfully. just because it’s called “lobbying” in the US doesn’t change what it is.

  6. Bob is still unemployed   says:

    Playlists to Milk By (

    “The modern milking parlors of today’s dairies are noisy, busy places filled with the clang and whoosh of automated milkers. It can be tough for a cow to find a moment’s peace, and a stressed cow is not a productive cow. …”

  7. hue says:

    The End of Work? (Outside the Beltway)

    The War on Reason (The Atlantic)

    Long-exposure night gunfire photos from Vietnam (Boing Boing)

  8. rd says:

    My main conclusion after reading some of the Fed minutes is that we keep creating more and more complex financial systems at the behest of lobbyists and our response to problems resulting from that complexity is to create more complexity.

    David Brooks has an interesting column on the economic philosophies of Arthur Brooks at American Enterprise Institute. I wonder what the ceremony will look like when Brooks is officially drummed out of the US right wing and his US flag lapel pin is torn off.

  9. rd says:

    Now this is funny about the latest NIMBY – Rex Tillerson:

    Apparently a prospective water tower near his ranch has raised his ire as it is a “monstrosity”. It will be used to supply water for both people and hydro-fracking, neither of which Rex Tillerson (ex-Exxon CEO)appears to be in favor of near him (just near other people).

  10. sellstop says:

    “The lack of supply is greatly hindering the buyer enthusiasm,” Yun said. Buyers “don’t want to see two homes, they want to see 10 homes before deciding” on such a major purchase, he said.

    I just can’t see that. If someone is looking to buy a home they will buy a home. They may just insist on a lower price. But we can’t admit that, can we?