Does Obama scare Wall Street?

[moonman]

Jon Markman (linked below) writes an interesting piece for msn money today wherein he claims much of Wall street, with a couple of exceptions actually fear an Obama presidency. I agree with him, in part. When Markman writes FIRE industries, finance, insurance and real estate fear Obama I agree. It is these industries that have benefit most from favorable tax treatment and the economic bias that is permeating and corrupting our legal system.

When Markman suggests that our industrial based or real economy fear Obama, I disagree. Agriculture, represented by the food giants and corporate farmers haven't expressed any particular fear of Obama. Either has distributors such as retail giants, grocery chains, trucking and transportation, manufacturing and Silicon Valley shown any particular fear of Obama.

So why would the FIRE industries fear Obama. They have the most to lose from free and fair markets rather than the rigged markets created by the Reagan Revolution. Under Obama, banks, insurance companies and real estate developers might be allowed to fail rather than get a Fed subsidized bailout. In other words the corporate welfare bums on Wall Street fear Obama.

Those involved in the real economy who create real wealth have nothing to fear from an Obama administration. It's merely the paper money boys who are shivering in their boots.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...edOfObama.aspx

[blenderboy5]

Wall Street should fear both candidates, as neither knows jack**** about economics and have little experience at it.

[Raidaz4Life]

With good reason he should...

[sboyajian]

I gotta be honest with you when I say..

I get very tired of hearing how the government is bailing out Airlines and Banks and Auto Manufacturers and Insurance Companies and blah blah ****ing blah..

it's our money that's bailing them out and they still gouge us for a round trip flight, they still make us pay $3000 for leather seats, they still increase our rates even if it was the ******* behind you who rear-ended you.

If you can't manage your funds and track history to see your next fiscal years potential future.. you deserve to be out of business.. to hell with bailing them out.

They'll muck it up again and they'll want another bail out.. just like the people who are banking on the government bailing them out of forclosure.. you bought more than you could afford.. you know what? Sucks to be you. Maybe next time you'll decide if you really need the sunroom, finished basement, designer kitchen and 12" slate tile in the bathroom on your $40,000 a year income just because you got a great deal on an 5/1 ARM.

[moonman]

I hear ya soboyjian, it's socialism for the rich and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps for working men and women.

I heard a story on my drive in this morning about a woman in foreclosure. She had a house here in California and she also bought a condo in one of Donald Trump's Las Vegas developments for ONE MILLION DOLLARS. The lender required nothing down but took the condo in Las Vegas and her California home as security.

So what qualified her for the ONE MILLION DOLLAR, NO DOWN PAYMENT loan, you ask? Well she made $12.00 an hour at her job. Some lender loaned ONE MILLION DOLLARS to a person earning $12.00 per hour.

Frankly, not only should the bank be out of biz but everyone involved in such loans should be prevented from working in finance again. That won't happen, the same lo rent ho's who brought on this crisis will be back in biz with another scam.

And Wall street should fear Obama? That's the wrong question. The one that needs to be asked is should Americans fear Wall Street?

[God of War]

Wall Street should fear both candidates, as neither knows jack**** about economics and have little experience at it.

If that's the case, why doesn't Obama select Vijay Vaitheeswaran as his running mate?

[blenderboy5]

I hear ya soboyjian, it's socialism for the rich and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps for working men and women.

I heard a story on my drive in this morning about a woman in foreclosure. She had a house here in California and she also bought a condo in one of Donald Trump's Las Vegas developments for ONE MILLION DOLLARS. The lender required nothing down but took the condo in Las Vegas and her California home as security.

So what qualified her for the ONE MILLION DOLLAR, NO DOWN PAYMENT loan, you ask? Well she made $12.00 an hour at her job. Some lender loaned ONE MILLION DOLLARS to a person earning $12.00 per hour.

Frankly, not only should the bank be out of biz but everyone involved in such loans should be prevented from working in finance again. That won't happen, the same lo rent ho's who brought on this crisis will be back in biz with another scam.

And Wall street should fear Obama? That's the wrong question. The one that needs to be asked is should Americans fear Wall Street?

Now who's at fault? I see two people at fault here. I see an incredibly greedy business trying to make some money. But I also see an uneducated dolt who 1) felt the need to own two houses on $12/hour, 2) doesn't understand "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," and 3) doesn't understand her basic finances.

And yes, I know, I know. Why isn't the government bailing her out? The government shouldn't bail out either *******, but this $12/hour woman isn't supplying jobs for other people. I suppose that's the only "good" reason to bail out businesses, as they provide jobs for thousands. Though I personally don't believe either should be bailed out, I guess that's the argument.

[PHX-SOXFAN]

Now who's at fault? I see two people at fault here. I see an incredibly greedy business trying to make some money. But I also see an uneducated dolt who 1) felt the need to own two houses on $12/hour, 2) doesn't understand "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," and 3) doesn't understand her basic finances.

And yes, I know, I know. Why isn't the government bailing her out? The government shouldn't bail out either *******, but this $12/hour woman isn't supplying jobs for other people. I suppose that's the only "good" reason to bail out businesses, as they provide jobs for thousands. Though I personally don't believe either should be bailed out, I guess that's the argument.

that $12/hour dolt is such a small percentage of the problem. the real problem is occuring to average families who were taken advantage of by predatory lending, depreciating value, and an unethical lending industry.

It's amusing how the conservatives are so anti-regulation, anti-subsidy, until a corporation needs help or a law written in their favor. The irony is endless with those who follow reaganomics. It's a wonder how anyone who still pushes this stuff can be respected by anyone.

[blenderboy5]

I'm against bailing both of them out. So there, Mr. Generalizer.

[sboyajian]

that $12/hour dolt is such a small percentage of the problem. the real problem is occuring to average families who were taken advantage of by predatory lending, depreciating value, and an unethical lending industry.

It's amusing how the conservatives are so anti-regulation, anti-subsidy, until a corporation needs help or a law written in their favor. The irony is endless with those who follow reaganomics. It's a wonder how anyone who still pushes this stuff can be respected by anyone.

Blenderboy is right.. the problem is both..

even average families are to blame, not just the predatory lenders.. some of the problems didn't happen from predatory lending. They tell you about these interest only and adjustable rates and families only see one thing "more house for less money".. they assume they'll be making more in 5 years so it's not a problem.

They don't plan for the future they planned for the current. They bought more than they could afford.

When we looked at our house I didn't look at what I could afford in 10 years, I looked at what I could afford right now and I refused to take anything but a 30 year fixed. I don't want my payment to change. I want to know and have the security in knowing that if in 10 years I am making 50% more than I make now, then it's 50% more in my pocket because my house is the same.

[PHX-SOXFAN]

Blenderboy is right.. the problem is both..

even average families are to blame, not just the predatory lenders.. some of the problems didn't happen from predatory lending. They tell you about these interest only and adjustable rates and families only see one thing "more house for less money".. they assume they'll be making more in 5 years so it's not a problem.

They don't plan for the future they planned for the current. They bought more than they could afford.

When we looked at our house I didn't look at what I could afford in 10 years, I looked at what I could afford right now and I refused to take anything but a 30 year fixed. I don't want my payment to change. I want to know and have the security in knowing that if in 10 years I am making 50% more than I make now, then it's 50% more in my pocket because my house is the same.

actually the problem with the interest only and adjustable rates is not that they cannot afford them, it's that their property depreciated and now the banks won't let them alter their loan to a fixed rate. They could certainly afford a fixed rate, that's what they were prequalified for in the first place, however the banks won't budge since the loan value is more than the house is worth. Therefore, people are inclined to let the house go to foreclosure. Sounds pretty smart of the banks to not modify the loan to a fixed rate huh?

[blenderboy5]

^^^ They also don't sit down and think "what happens if my wife loses her job?" Instead it's "everything's gonna stay the same forever so we'll be fine."

[ari1013]

Something that I'm sure the well-researched investors have noticed:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...A6A4FC6C2A8%7D

Consider the data compiled by Ned Davis Research, an institutional research firm. In a communication to his clients Thursday morning, Davis reported that the Dow Jones Industrial Average produced an annualized return of 7.21% during Democratic presidents, in contrast to an average of 3.6% during Republican presidents -- or almost precisely half as much, in other words.

Davis hastened to add that he is a political independent, and I should add that during my lifetime I have voted more often for Libertarian presidential candidates than for candidates of either of the major parties. So please don't accuse Davis of biasing his results, or my choosing to write a column on his research, for partisan political reasons.

To be sure, inflation is also higher on average during Democratic presidencies, so on an inflation-adjusted basis there is a smaller difference between the stock market's average returns during presidencies of the two parties. But the Democratic Party still comes out ahead: 2.5% annualized during Democratic presidencies, versus 1.7% during Republican presidencies.

When I mentioned Davis' results to several people on Thursday, the not-infrequent reaction was anger. This baffles me.

[sboyajian]

^^^ They also don't sit down and think "what happens if my wife loses her job?" Instead it's "everything's gonna stay the same forever so we'll be fine."

exactly.. you and I don't agree on much.. but we do agree people are naive and stupid.. they did this to themselves. No bank can convince you to sign something.. people saw the cheaper price and jumped on it without thinking about what could happen.

[moonman]

Some schlepp laborer making $12.00 an hour finds herself in an office and is being told, "You can have this ONE MILLION DOLLAR condominium built by DONALD TRUMP no less for nothing more than your signature on this piece of paper. Can't make the payments? Don't worry you can always sell it and put the profit in your purse and walk away."

This is a bank doing the talking of course. Those conservative, prudent money managers of utmost integrity. The one's she was taught to respect and trust. The one's who promised to make her rich beyond her wildest dreams. Yeah okay it's her fault.

Forget about fiduciary duty, like any of you have the slightest clue to what that means anyway. LMAO.