A
Mike
Well-known member
Now I know the R-Clone bunch is nuts. :roll:
The clearly have no idea what's in the Bill.
The clearly have no idea what's in the Bill.
Oldtimer said:
More power for a tax cheat like Tim Geithner? A crooked, sleazy bastard like Chris Dodd applauding the "accountability" of this legislation? Is that what R-CALF is pleased about?
==========================
Timothy Geithner's realm grows with passage of financial regulatory reform
By David Cho
Saturday, July 17, 2010; A01
Half a year after some predicted he would be booted from the Obama administration, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner stands to inherit vast power to shape bank regulations, oversee financial markets and create a consumer protection agency.
Few Treasury secretaries have had such sweeping influence over such a wide realm as Geithner will wield once President Obama signs the new financial overhaul legislation passed this week by Congress.
The effort to dramatically expand financial regulation bears the stamp of no one more than Geithner. The bill not only hews closely to the initial draft he released last summer but also anoints him -- as long as he remains Treasury secretary -- as the chief of a new council of senior regulators. The legislation also puts him at the head of the new consumer bureau until a director is confirmed by the Senate, allowing Geithner to mold the watchdog in coming months. And it will be up to him to settle a raft of issues left unresolved by the bill -- for instance, which financial derivatives will be subject to the tough new trading rules and which risky activities big banks will be required to spin off.
The legislation "will help restore the great strength of the American financial system, which -- at its best -- develops innovative ways to provide credit and capital, not just for our great global companies, but for the individual with an idea and a plan," Geithner said to reporters shortly after the bill was approved. Obama will sign the bill in the middle of next week, according to White House officials.
It has been a remarkable turnaround for the 48-year-old Treasury secretary, who endured repeated calls for his head from lawmakers a few months ago. Anger over the Treasury's bailout of troubled banks was high. The unemployment rate was soaring. In a January interview, Geithner called the hubbub over his job security "a price of this office."
In the wake of the bill's passage, there is recognition within the administration as well as on Capitol Hill that Geithner is not going anywhere anytime soon. White House officials said the speculation earlier this year about his tenure misunderstood his standing within the administration.
These officials said Geithner endeared himself to Obama and senior White House advisers by advocating a response to the financial crisis that later proved correct. Geithner vigorously resisted calls by some lawmakers and financial experts to nationalize the nation's largest and most troubled banks during the most perilous days. Instead, he helped get the financial system back on its feet, in particular by pressing for stress tests of big banks. The results of these tests showed that nearly all the banks would be able to weather the financial storm and quickly restored investor confidence.
The campaign to win passage of the financial regulatory bill has been driven primarily by the Treasury, showing that Geithner has gained significant latitude within the administration, a far cry from the early days when senior White House officials kept close watch over his public statements and sought to burnish his image.
"This is a very substantial victory for the president, and it is a credit to Tim's leadership that we have achieved so comprehensive a reform so quickly," said Lawrence H. Summers, director of the National Economic Council and a senior adviser to Obama.
Geithner has not won every battle over the legislation. Notable losses include measures added by lawmakers that would exempt auto dealers and banks with less than $10 billion in assets from new consumer protection rules. These firms represent a significant proportion of the financial industry.
But the bill broadly reflects his faith in regulators and his overriding belief that large financial companies can be protected from upheaval if they set aside large enough capital reserves. His has been a middle course, rejecting the era of deregulation that preceded the financial meltdown but also dismissing proposals to fundamentally restructure the financial industry, for instance by cutting the nation's biggest banks down to size.
In an interview last summer, as his team was drafting its version of the bill, Geithner said the heart of any financial reform effort must consist of "three things: capital, capital, capital."
That statement reflected Geithner's evolution from the time he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, starting in 2003. The New York Fed allowed Citigroup to create massive pools of mortgage loans and other assets worth more than $2 trillion, but it also allowed the company to hold a relatively thin cushion in its capital reserves to cover losses in case those investments went bad.
The New York Fed pressed Citigroup to raise its capital levels in the fall of 2007, just as the financial crisis was gathering steam, but by then it was too late for the company. When its portfolio blew up, Citigroup ended up needing $45 billion in direct aid and federal guarantees on $335 billion of its worst assets -- a bailout exceeding that of any other bank.
The legislation passed this week does not specifically set new capital levels for banks but directs U.S. regulators to work with their counterparts in other countries to set international standards. Geithner is leading this effort -- just one of the ways he will be able to put his imprint on the banking industry.
Some Treasury officials sought to play down the influence Geithner will have.
One aide said the bill merely details the authority that Treasury secretaries could exercise during a crisis -- powers that Geithner's predecessor, Henry M. Paulson Jr., largely made up on the fly as the financial world teetered in 2008.
"It essentially enshrines their ability to handle this stuff," the official said. "In the middle of a crisis, now you have real, defined responsibilities."
The official added that "in the near term, Tim has a lot of new powers, but I don't think he'll use them."
But government analysts say the bill greatly enhances the Treasury secretary's role within government.
"The Treasury Department and the Treasury secretary in particular pick up significant influence compared to what they formally had in the past," said Douglas Elliott, a financial analyst at the Brookings Institution.
Geithner's influence might go beyond what is delineated in the law, Elliott noted. As head of the Financial Services Oversight Council, the Treasury secretary will be able to use the bully pulpit to shape the thinking of other agencies on matters such as capital reserve levels at banks. In theory, these agencies are supposed to work independently of any political actor, such as Cabinet secretaries.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who shepherded the financial overhaul package through the Senate, said it wasn't his preference to put the Treasury secretary in charge of the new council. He said he would rather have a member of the Fed board fill that role. Still, he said, having a member of the president's Cabinet in charge could make the council "more politically responsive."
"It gives you some accountability," Dodd said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071603732.html?hpid=topnews
I'm not much for raising cane.........but I do believe it is time to take back our markets. 
I think first off we need to make our own gov. "transparent" and we need to get tough on these so called trade negotiators who continually sell us out to other countries. a Prime example is how the EU put restrictions on milk produced in the US saying 500 cell count was no longer good enough for them but they are still able to import into our markets with qualities that are subpar compared ours currently. This is a classic case of do onto others and then split. I'm tired of sittin on my hands and doing nothing or next to nothing. time to act.
Will be posting a new thread here to gather info and individual experiances to send to Washington. I will greatly appreciate facts and info gathered from various sources and will try my best to disseminate the info. and put it into some form that our president will understand. It is my belief the our Gov. has forgotten it's base. If you would like to join with me I will greatly appreciate any extra help to send a clear message to Washginton that we are tired of "Rookie leaders" who Know nothing about what it takes to build a farm based business, small business, or country for that matter.
I think first off we need to make our own gov. "transparent" and we need to get tough on these so called trade negotiators who continually sell us out to other countries. a Prime example is how the EU put restrictions on milk produced in the US saying 500 cell count was no longer good enough for them but they are still able to import into our markets with qualities that are subpar compared ours currently. This is a classic case of do onto others and then split. I'm tired of sittin on my hands and doing nothing or next to nothing. time to act.
Will be posting a new thread here to gather info and individual experiances to send to Washington. I will greatly appreciate facts and info gathered from various sources and will try my best to disseminate the info. and put it into some form that our president will understand. It is my belief the our Gov. has forgotten it's base. If you would like to join with me I will greatly appreciate any extra help to send a clear message to Washginton that we are tired of "Rookie leaders" who Know nothing about what it takes to build a farm based business, small business, or country for that matter.
A
Anonymous
Guest
A few years back the packer blamers demanded an investigation into commodity trading practices by the major packers at the CME. The results of that investigation proved that the feeders held far more short speculative positions than the packers. If packers are not able to minimize their financial risk by protecting their investments on the board, they will have to buy cattle with a safety margin built in to account for the risks of market volatility.
Most who oppose CME trading have never used it yet they buy insurance and it's no different.
Just one more baseless market manipulation conspiracy theory in the light of $1.00 fat cattle.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
A large group of many participants such as the feeders having more contracts than a smaller group of a handful of participants such as the packers doesn't mean that a member of the smaller group can't move the markets. One doesn't have to take out all of the offsetting contracts, all you have to do is dump enough contracts to take out some stops, those shorts turn to longs, and the ball takes off from there.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I repeat, the packers had very few short positions during te investigation. The feeders had the bulk of the short positions. Long positions are not speculative as short positions are. Either way, both are legal and neither constituted market manipulation.
~SH~
~SH~
Texan, thanks for your post. You have it exactly right. This will do nothing to stop the real perpetrators, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, nad the CONGRESSMEN who cheated and profitted from/through them!
It will harm only legitimate, honest banks, both large and small.
Obama and his handlers have found in R-CALF yet another group of "Useful Idiots" to manipulate by throwing them a few bones and using them to divide agriculture into easily controllable 'small' communes.
mrj
It will harm only legitimate, honest banks, both large and small.
Obama and his handlers have found in R-CALF yet another group of "Useful Idiots" to manipulate by throwing them a few bones and using them to divide agriculture into easily controllable 'small' communes.
mrj
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
"Long positions are not speculative as short positions are."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Whaaaaa?
Mike
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
That caught my attention too. Whaaaaaaa?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Let me explain that better, long positions generally are not used by speculators nearly as much as short positions hence the concern with packers using short positions.
Those who take long positions on the market are usually doing it to lock in their profit on the other end. A short position is generally used by those trying to outguess the direction of the market which is far more speculative and can have an influence on market direction on a short term basis.
As an example, if I buy feeder calves in Oct. according to the August feeder cattle board and I lock them on the feeder board for August as yearlings, I am probably trying to manage my financial risk.
In contrast, if I buy a short position at any time during that time period, I would more likely be speculating on the short-term movement of the market rather than managing my financial risk.
~SH~
Those who take long positions on the market are usually doing it to lock in their profit on the other end. A short position is generally used by those trying to outguess the direction of the market which is far more speculative and can have an influence on market direction on a short term basis.
As an example, if I buy feeder calves in Oct. according to the August feeder cattle board and I lock them on the feeder board for August as yearlings, I am probably trying to manage my financial risk.
In contrast, if I buy a short position at any time during that time period, I would more likely be speculating on the short-term movement of the market rather than managing my financial risk.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "Let me explain that better, long positions generally are not used by speculators nearly as much as short positions hence the concern with packers using short positions. "
WRONG.
WRONG.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Not wrong!
I am talking about how producers, feeders, and packers use the board to manage their risk. When the board is used for "risk management" and not "speculation", long positions are used to lock in profits at the other end. Short positions are far more speculative from the standpoint of taking risk management positions.
Done correctly, cattle that are purchased are locked in as they are purchased.
~SH~
I am talking about how producers, feeders, and packers use the board to manage their risk. When the board is used for "risk management" and not "speculation", long positions are used to lock in profits at the other end. Short positions are far more speculative from the standpoint of taking risk management positions.
Done correctly, cattle that are purchased are locked in as they are purchased.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
So.... You're telling us that;
Feeders held most of the short positions.
Short positions are mostly for speculating and longs for locking in profit.
Done correctly, bought cattle are locked in for profit.
Connecting the dots, that would mean that the feeders are net speculating instead of locking in profits and that they're doing the exact opposite of how you say things should be "done correctly".
Lets try a real life scenario; Mr. Feeder buys a couple loads of calves. He figures they will be done in Oct. and that he will have $98 into them. The Oct contract is $100 at the time of purchase. Wishing to lock in his profits, he follows your advice and goes long Oct. @ 100.
When sale day comes in October and the cattle are ready to go and the contract is expiring, the spot price is $92. How much did Mr. Feeder make?
Feeders held most of the short positions.
Short positions are mostly for speculating and longs for locking in profit.
Done correctly, bought cattle are locked in for profit.
Connecting the dots, that would mean that the feeders are net speculating instead of locking in profits and that they're doing the exact opposite of how you say things should be "done correctly".
Lets try a real life scenario; Mr. Feeder buys a couple loads of calves. He figures they will be done in Oct. and that he will have $98 into them. The Oct contract is $100 at the time of purchase. Wishing to lock in his profits, he follows your advice and goes long Oct. @ 100.
When sale day comes in October and the cattle are ready to go and the contract is expiring, the spot price is $92. How much did Mr. Feeder make?
A
Anonymous
Guest
First I said "the feeders held more short positions than the packers" during the GIPSA investigation into CME trading. That is not to say the feeders held more short positions than long positions. Are we clear?
Not enough information.
What did he pay for the feeders?
What was the cost of gain on a dry matter basis from pay weight to pay weight?
What did the cattle gain pay weight to pay weight?
What did the contracts cost?
How many contracts did he buy?
Who paid for trucking from the feedlot to the packing plant?
What was the death loss?
Premium for source verification?
Like I said, you obviously have not fed cattle.
~SH~
Not enough information.
What did he pay for the feeders?
What was the cost of gain on a dry matter basis from pay weight to pay weight?
What did the cattle gain pay weight to pay weight?
What did the contracts cost?
How many contracts did he buy?
Who paid for trucking from the feedlot to the packing plant?
What was the death loss?
Premium for source verification?
Like I said, you obviously have not fed cattle.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Trying to baffle with BS? I said he had $98 into them.
Ah, heck, let's just make this quick. The feeder LOST money on both the cattle and the contract. That is because you don't go long to lock in profits when you're selling, you go SHORT. That way, if the markets go to hell on you, you make your money on the contract and not the commodity.
Good grief. :roll:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Every question I asked is a legitimate question regarding the costs of feeding cattle. Anyone that has fed cattle could provide realistic numbers. You diverted the questions because you don't know how to answer them because you've obviously never fed cattle.
$98 INTO WHAT??? The purchase price per cwt? The cost of feeding them? The purchase cost and the feeding cost per cwt?
You don't have a clue what you are even talking about do you?
How could the feeder lose money on the contract if he locked his profit in on the board by going long? I am going to assume, which is a dangerous thing with you, that by saying "he had $98 into them" it would include the purchase cost and the cost of feeding them and together he has $98 per cwt into them. If he locked them on the board for $100 per cwt, and they weighed 1200, he would have made $24 per head minus the basis. Doesn't matter what the cash ("spot") price is, because the board will pay him the difference minus the basis.
You're in over your head again so throw some other meaningless bs out there to try to sound like you know what you're talking about.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
I"ll type slow so that maybe you can get it.... YOU CAN'T LOCK IN PROFITS BY GOING LONG IF YOU'RE THE SELLER! You're just doubling down and exposing yourself to more risk.
Give it up, Scotty. You're just digging a deeper hole.
Give it up, Scotty. You're just digging a deeper hole.
A
Anonymous
Guest
You gotta be kidding me?
Enter the debate Sandhusker. Lets use some real numbers and you can show everyone reading this where I am wrong.
Today, lets say I have 125 black steers weighing 850 lb. I have been offered $110 for them for delivery on Aug. 15th. The December board for Live cattle closed at $96.26. I have to decide whether I would be better off to sell them or whether I would be better off to feed them.
Lets say that i have fed my own yearlings before. I know they can gain 5 lb. per day in an average year and have to be on feed for 100 days to finish.
Lets also say that I can lock in my cost of gain (including interest) for $.63 per pound.
100 days on feed x 5 lb. gain = 500 lb. of gain
850 lb. initial weight + 500 lb. = 1350 finished weight
500 lb. x $.63 cost of gain = $315 feeding costs (including interest)
1350 finished weight x $96.25 = $1299. finished price
Trucking costs are the same whether I feed them or sell them.
$1299 finished price - $935 initial value of 850 lb. steer - $315 feeding costs = $50 per head profit.
If I lock these cattle in on the board for $96.25, my only risk is basis, death loss, and weather. Historically the basis has only been $1.00 so I am only risking $14 per head on basis. Death loss has historically been 1% at the most which would be $10 per head. These cattle will be finished before any bad weather can be expected.
So even with $25 per head of risk on basis and death loss, I am still locking in $25 per head on the board at $96.25.
So tell me oh wise one, why is it that I can't lock in a profit by going long when feeders are doing it every day?
Now let's see who is going to try to baffle with bs.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
If you will be selling the physical commodity, you would short the board, not go long. That is why the feeders were net shot.
If you go long and the price at delivery is down 30 cents, you lose money on both the cattle and your "lock". That is why you would short the market - so that the money you would lose on the commodity would be made on the contract.
You've got it completely bass-ackwards, as one would expect.
If you go long and the price at delivery is down 30 cents, you lose money on both the cattle and your "lock". That is why you would short the market - so that the money you would lose on the commodity would be made on the contract.
You've got it completely bass-ackwards, as one would expect.