Could 10:1 be the new leverage in US Forex?

By the same logic, CFTC's proposed margin limitation is "protection" as well. The public does not need to be protected from itself - if somebody wants to trade a risky asset, again, caveat emptor.

Bringing this gargantuan casino game between banks into clear view under some kind of regulation is necessary. Better yet, limit what the banks can do and eliminate their ability to speculate completely. The banks that are benefitting from government guarantees of depositors' funds and that borrow PUBLIC money at ridiculously low rates need to be fulfilling a primary function of lending that money, not speculating with it. If that doesn't pay enough for John Q. Bankster then f*ck him, he can go to work for a forex bucketshop or laundering money for the crack cartels, or whatever.

None of this crap is to regulate banks, they are exempt from it, the CFTC cannot regulate banks, who do as they please.
They borrow your money at 0 per cent, do not lent it to you, but buy treasuries with your money that pay 3.5 % and pocket the interest...nobody does anything about it, and definitely not the CFTC. So all these regulations will not do a dam thing to protect the public or to regulate banks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

There are no regulatory limitations on commercial banks' "investment" in arcane derivatives. Not yet anyway...

And which investment banks are NOT commercial banks now, with their thumb in the Fed's pie....?

Isn't this what Barry Obama is trying to do(or claiming to try to do)? I recall something to the effect of preventing institutions that hold depositor funds from doing their own speculating. I assume the result would be the speculating/trading parts of the institutions will be split from the other parts...so that if the trading branches go bankrupt it wont harm the depositors, hence no "need" for any bailouts in the future.

I don't see any downside to this plan, I'm not sure if its part of the current banking reform proposals though.

Pretty interesting site on government oversight
http://www.pogo.org/investigations/f...-agencies.html

now he wants to pretend to be against Wall Street, laughable stuff...,this guy changes teams more often than Terrell Owens...

"And as Chairman Gensler explained, it's actually the big Wall Street dealers, not the end-users, that benefit most from keeping OTC derivative trades in the dark:

When a Wall Street bank enters into a bilateral derivative transaction with a customer, the bank knows how much its last customer paid for similar transactions, but that information is not generally made available to other customers or the public. The bank benefits from internalizing this information....
As a driver can best decide which gas to buy based on public prices posted at each gas station, corporations could better decide how to manage the risks associated with their business if they knew how much others were paying to manage similar risks. As such, it is the Wall Street banks that benefit from the so-called "end-user exemption" from transparency, not the businesses that use derivatives."
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alert...-20100119.html....


OH boy there he goes again with stupid comparisons, comparing buying financial instruments with buying gas at a gas station(by the way, the station does not post what it paid for the gas)....I would trust what the The FCIC has to say on the matter, not Gensler, as Brooksley Born chairs it, but their budget is very small, the big boys are all probably against her.....

"—with its $8 million budget, its authority to subpoena witnesses and documents, and the collective wisdom and experience of its 10 Commissioners, including former Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Brooksley Born—FCIC has the potential to thoroughly investigate the relationship between OTC derivatives and the financial meltdown, and to formulate meaningful recommendations for regulating this market. Unfortunately, the FCIC's final report won't be released until December 2010, long after the Senate is scheduled to pass its version of legislation to overhaul the nation's financial regulatory regime."

That makes a lot of sense, pass the law before the FCIC's report that would help in passing a better law is due out....This is all nonsensical stuff, and proof that the laws will be geared to allow Wall Street to start another round of financial instrument innovation to make them rich and screw the general public. After alll, the bill will be drafted by WallStreet lawyers, just like the Farm Bill... and Cap and Trade is dead, of which Hank Paulson is part owner of the exchange, so now they need another cash cow... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/sc...26climate.html

I would love to see Brooksley Born debate Gensler.

Has anyone else thought about trading the Emircros on the futures exchange? I've been starting to look into that in case we can only get 10-1. I've been looking at Etrades for right now, seems like they are the best at a lower end of investments.

Anyone's opinion?

E-mails released this morning show top executives at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. boasting about the money the firm was making as the national housing market collapsed in 2007.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...olded/19452863

those contracts have no volume and etrade sucks. If you want to trade futures your best bet to start is in the most liquid contracts. Get a demo account at Global or Amp and find out what they are.

And then hope that none of the floor traders are playing the game called stop hunting with the small retail traders.

People still trade on the floor? How quaint...

It is if the Lincoln bill goes through. Fat chance though....unless maybe the Teamsters get busy on Dodd (the crook)...Jim Hoffa (?) ....omg what year is this...?

(From today's WSJ):

Derivatives Provisions Are Dividing Democrats

WASHINGTON—Ahead of a pivotal vote Monday on financial regulation, divisions are emerging among Senate Democrats over how best to strengthen oversight of the market for the exotic financial instruments known as derivatives.

All 59 members of the Democratic caucus are still expected to stand together Monday on whether to begin action on legislation overhauling regulation of the financial system. But the differences underscore the complexity of the coming debate, and will have to be resolved later this spring.

At issue is whether the derivatives oversight bill written by Senate Agriculture Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.) will be folded into the broader regulatory overhaul. The Lincoln measure would beef up oversight and increase transparency of the market, and includes a proposal that could push Wall Street banks to spin off their derivatives trading operations. "I want to make sure that without a doubt...I have a privileged ability to be able to be a part of this bill," Sen. Lincoln said in a statement forwarded Friday by her office.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.), who is leading the broader overhaul effort, has pushed a competing proposal that would increase oversight but not push banks to spin off derivative operations. He's opened negotiations with Sen. Lincoln.

With no agreement in hand, unions including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are lobbying on behalf of the Lincoln bill. Teamsters president Jim Hoffa on Friday said Sen. Lincoln's bill "would bring derivatives out of the back rooms."

Senate allies of Sen. Lincoln, such as Sen. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.), are also weighing in, pushing the Lincoln bill as "the Senate's starting point," a spokesman said.

A Dodd spokeswoman said "we've made a lot of progress over the last few days" in working through differences. A spokeswoman for Sen. Lincoln added: "We are hopeful, but nothing is resolved yet."

Derivatives are used by many companies, including agricultural concerns, to hedge against economic risks, such as changes in farm prices. Banks also trade derivatives for profit, a business that contributed to market instability in 2008, in part because of the lack of ready information about companies' holdings and exposure.

The broader legislation poised for action in the Senate is designed to revamp the U.S. system of financial regulation to better protect the economy against the kind of catastrophic financial collapse that occurred in 2008.

Democrats need one Republican to join in efforts to open debate. A partisan fight on the issue could be averted if Sen. Dodd and Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the Banking Committee's senior Republican, reach accord on a bipartisan package of changes to the Democratic-backed legislation. The senators are negotiating across a range of issues, including the scope of consumer protections.

One key issue in the talks is whether state attorneys general can sue national banks for violating federal consumer protection laws. Currently, federal regulations trump state enforcement for nationally chartered banks.
National banks have fought hard, but so far unsuccessfully, to prevent state attorneys general—who tend to want to flex their enforcement powers—from having any prosecutorial powers. The issue is still on the Shelby-Dodd negotiating table, and Mr. Shelby said that he wants full pre-emption of state consumer protection rules in the legislation.

Without an agreement, Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) said he expects Republicans will stand together Monday, which he hopes will force Democrats to come to terms with Mr. Shelby.

"We've got 41 senators that understand it is important that we get a bipartisan template before going forward."

yup, so i just got an online subscription to the WSJ. Pretty sweet. If you get tired of me putting up alot of WSJ content here just say bad words to me and I will stop. Everybody is just waiting to find out "What's my max margin, dammit?" anyway - didn't you hear? - Gary G. dropped it to 2:1. You have a couple days to square all your positions.

Just kidding.

When everything is said and done, the bill will help WallStreet continue as is and the little guy will not get any help from the bill
http://www.aolnews.com/politics/arti...-spot/19454578

And this grilling of Goldman is just posturing, congress is acting as "the cooler" in this little drama and pretending to show that they care, in the end Goldman will pay a relatively small fine, and continue on their warpath. The relatives of congressman will get jobs at Goldman and history will repeat itself.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04...-senate-panel/

"The Wall Street Journal reports Tourre, who made $2 million the year he hedged mortgage trades for Goldman, spent a less-than-fabulous weekend in a nine-hour interview with Senate investigators on Saturday. On the same day, his bosses at Goldman Sachs yanked his U.K. trader's license and also released e-mails of their own, including some to old girlfriends, in which Tourre jokes about selling toxic assets "to widows and orphans" and observes, "The poor little sub-prime borrowers will not last so long!!"
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04...-senate-panel/





http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...IqoUZk14&pos=3

Great example for kids, it tells them if you want to be wealthy, be a crook

In the mean time, Greece is junked,

Its about time, criminal probe opened...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6447426.shtml

Workers March on Wall Street
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/...street_protest

Here's an example how Good greed really is....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/bu...er=rss&emc=rss


what a high finance crook looks like:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/..._CA0-popup.jpg


Who is laughing now???

They haven't left much of a legacy for the grandchildren have they.
How will the children get through all that has been created from these people in government and on wall street. It deeply saddens me what they have created.

Poetic justice!!!! What goes around comes around. The Goldman clan is being investigated for giving out insider info and now they are being downgraded by BoA and others. The ultimate upgrade/downgrage manipulator is getting downgraded. They are getting a taste of their own medicine. In addition, one of their big shots, who they soon will make the fall guy, is being investigated for giving out insider info to hedge funds. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...aV489qc9uADzhI

And the FSA is also investigating http://www.hfmweek.com/news/527262/f...-goldman.thtml

Great weekend reads

Gensler on bloomberg now

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=LiveBTV