[QUOTE=Sidney]Does anyone know?[/QUOTE]If I remember right, he was able to sell them tax free, because he was taking on a federal job, which could conflict with his shares. He had huge gains, and paid 0 tax. Capital gains where waved.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Sidney]Does anyone know?[/QUOTE]If I remember right, he was able to sell them tax free, because he was taking on a federal job, which could conflict with his shares. He had huge gains, and paid 0 tax. Capital gains where waved.
[QUOTE=Tessan]If I remember right, he was able to sell them tax free, because he was taking on a federal job, which could conflict with his shares. He had huge gains, and paid 0 tax. Capital gains where waved.[/QUOTE]Do you have any support for this statement? [b]Who[/b] "waved" [i][sic][/i] the tax? If someone other than the trustees knows what's in the trust, wouldn't that mean it couldn't possibly be a "blind" trust? I'm old enough to remember when the United States was a country and not a Nigerian e-mail scam.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Do you have any support for this statement? [b]Who[/b] "waved" [I][sic][/i] the tax? If someone other than the trustees knows what's in the trust, wouldn't that mean it couldn't possibly be a "blind" trust? I'm old enough to remember when the United States was a country and not a Nigerian e-mail scam.[/QUOTE]I remember hearing it on cnbc, while it was happening. I do not remember all the detales. Thats why I wrote "If I remember right" because I had no plan to look it up. You could have found it as easy as me. Anyway I looked it up.
=========================
June 22, 2006, 8:33 am.
Hank Paulson Will Be a Very Liquid Treasury Secretary.
Posted by Peter Lattman.
So much for Daniel Gross's modest proposal that Hank Paulson should be allowed to hang on to his Goldman Sachs stock.
The White House said yesterday that Hank the Hammer will dump his GS holdings to conform with federal conflict-of-interest rules. Paulson's 3.23 million shares of Goldman stock are currently valued at more than $480 million, and he is estimated overall to be worth some $700 million. (Here's the WSJ story.
He is also planning to take advantage of Section 1043 of the Internal Revenue Code, which allows White House employees who are forced to sell stock for conflict-of-interest reasons to defer paying capital gains tax, so long as the proceeds are reinvested in government bonds, index funds or other similar instruments. The provision, passed during the Bush I administration, is intended to "minimize the burden of government service" resulting from required stock sales.
Here's a question: Assuming he trades through his old firm, how much will Goldman Sachs charge Paulson to sell his shares?
[url]http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/06/22/hank-paulson-will-be-a-very-liquid-treasury-secretary/[/url]
=============================================
Treasuries he brought are worth more today then, then. Interest rates are down. And he did not have to pay big capital gain to buying them. Goldman stock is down since then. He is way ahead.
"[b]defer[/b] paying capital gains tax": That's what I figured happened.
Deferral is not [b]waiving[/b] the tax; it's taxing it upon the sale of the government bonds. Look at the contradiction. If he'd held the GS stock, he'd have no gain since it's in the toilet. In fact he'd have a loss he could (partially) write off against his salary. Now you say he has gains on the bonds (which I certainly don't doubt for the moment). So, from a tax collection standpoint, the final result is not known but as of right now there is more potential tax revenue from him having government bonds in a blind trust than from him having been allowed to hold the GS stock (which I certainly would have been against). It is true that right now it looks like he is in a better situation than if he had been forced to sell but it could have gone the other way. Certainly anyone holding government bonds is going to have some worries about this plan to "borrow" $700 billion. That's clearly inflationary and not good for fixed income holders (bondholders)
Having said that, it looks like there was an amendment to Section 1043(b) in 2006 that changed the definition of who was eligible for this tax break. I'm sure someone will find a way to blame the Democrats for that but that would be some pretty magical thinking even for neocons. Read the amendment but it doesn't seem to be designed for Paulson since the amendment expands the eligibility to the judiciary. Looks to me like it always applied to the executive branch so every other treasury secretary since the Code section was enacted would have enjoyed the same privilege and I'm sure many of them had substantial stock holdings.
Here's a link:
[url]http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Internal_Revenue_Code:Sec._1043._Sale_of_property_to_comply_with_conflict-of-interest_requirements[/url]
Yes it is not the same, but I did say "if I remember right." I remember talk on cnbc talking about not paying tax. I did not look it up, because I was basicly telling sid he sold it. I did qualify it with "If I remember right"
Sure, I understand that. I just thought if you posted it you could be the one to look it up. Thanks. I do realize most mongers don't want to sit around reading the Internal Revenue Code but I think what Section 1043 is trying to accomplish is fairly valid. We don't want powerful politicians to own individual equities whose value they could then manipulate through legislation and so forth. Then again, I'm not sure having the [b]Treasury Secretary[/b] owning a bunch of [b]treasury securities[/b] is the way to go either. Maybe that needs to change
Note also that he could have bought any "diversified investment fund" (meaning mutual fund yes but hedge fund no) and achieved the same result. We don't know what he bought when he dumped GS. Of course if he'd bought an index fund around that time he'd be pretty well hosed now too, although not as badly.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]I don't think giving Treasury authority to buy up $700 billion in "loans" is the way to go, but a knee jerk reaction to save "Wall Street" by a Treasury Secretary from Wall Street who just wants to save his friends.
We are not going to know the value of our financial institutions or the housing market until they are allowed to bottom out at their true value, which is going to be expensive and painful. Attempting to shore it up by the Treasury with our tax dollars will only delay the bitter pill all American's are going to have to swallow at some point and probably make it worse.
I also don't think CEO's should be walking away with tens of millions of dollars in golden parachutes after crashing their companies. There is just something basically wrong in lavishly rewarding failure. I think the guys who ran these firms should be stripped of their wealth and sent to prison; their families thrown out on the streets broke. A few of them swinging from ropes from the lamp posts along Wall Street as an example would be better, but I doubt anyone has the stomach for it. It would not help the situation now but it would set the example for future CEO's thinking of taking the same path in the future that there is responsibility at the end of the road and Uncle Sugar will not come save the day with my money!
I fully believe in the free market, but what we have gotten under both Democrats and Republicans beginning with Clinton is corruption, greed, and theft, not free market. I doubt McCain or Obama have either the brains or the balls to do what it will take to clean it up since no one is going to want to really face up to what this is going to do to the country.[/QUOTE]I do believe in free markets, but I also believe Paulson is doing the right thing. The big problem banks are having is they have to Mark-to-Market. If a security traded in a fire sale for 10 cents on the dollar, which some have, then all banks have to Mark a similar security at 10 cents. Which causes their reserves to be too low, and can force then into bankruptcy.
The vast majority of mortgages are not in default, but some of the prices on the mortgages are assuming default. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to mark down mortgages that where written before the housing bubble, which where not likely to default, since the houses are probably worth more then the mortgages, but since they had to mark-to-market, they had to lower the value, which meant they did not have enough capital. My understanding is that over 90% of their mortgages where written pre housing bubble, I think I even heard on CNBC it was 95% but I don't want to stand by that number.
When a mortgage goes into default, the house is foreclosed and sold, so the bank does not lose 100% of it money, but it can lose 50-70% in this market. Assuming 100% defaults on one particular set of mortgages, which I think has never happen, why would something sell at 10 cents on the dollar? The reason is they had to Mark-to-market, which meant they did not have enough capital, which forced them to sell out their position.
One way that was suggested to address this problem, was to allow banks to Mark-to-Model. That way they cannot be forced into bankruptcy, by someone selling something too cheaply. The problem with Mark-to-Model is that people lose trust in the value of the holdings of these banks.
Paulson came up with a plan to set a floor on the prices of these mortgage backed stuff. The government would put a bid on them, causing a minimum price. So no more banks go under, and they will keep the mark-to-market model. Depending on what price the government buys this stuff, it can make money, if they hold the mortgages until the housing market come up again, which could be years away. Treasury has to pay just enough to keep the bank afloat, but losing money, and not too much more. If Treasury pays too much more, then it will be rewarding bad behavior.
One guy on CNBC 2 days ago, said, once there is a floor on the price, some bank will not sell them, since they can make more money by holding them, and they are not forced to sell, because of Mark-to-market.
The reason it had to be done is that one money market broke the bank. People started pulling their money out all over the country, which was causing good stuff to sell at fire sale prices, which would have cause other money markets to break the buck, which would cause more panic. Money Markets do not hold mortgages, but the panic was spreading. As Values of stuff sold went down, more and more bank would have become insolvent, because they have to mark-to-market. Any many banks doe hold good paper too, which would have to be marked-to-market.
I think he did the right thing, but this does not address credit-default swaps, which is HUGE!
Blaming mark-to-market is a red herring. It's a superior accounting practice. These securities are fungible. If bank X holds security Y and bank Z sells security Y in the open market for N dollars then security Y is also worth N dollars to bank X, [i]by definition[/i], if you really believe in free markets! The concept of a "fire sale" price might make sense in a shallow or illiquid market but the markets in question are broad and liquid.
[QUOTE=Dickhead] The concept of a "fire sale" price might make sense in a shallow or illiquid market but the markets in question are broad and liquid.[/QUOTE]You are wrong, has not been liquid for a while, the mortgage stuff is not liquid now. Ask any trader, only the very best stuff is selling, the less quality stuff is not.
The banks have to Mark-to-market.
"Oil of coal, of course, is a fungible commodity and they don't flag, ya know, the molecules where, where it's going to, where it's not, but and in the, in the sense of the Congress today they know our very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So I believe that what Congress is going to do also is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans who get stuck holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here; it's gotta flow into our domestic markets first."
[url]http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/24/sarah_palin_energy/[/url]
I think Sarah Palin is caught in the middle of the so called global warming conflict. She doesn't believe in global warming but her running mate does. Consequently she has a hard time telling the global warming advocates to stick a lump of coal up their ass.
Nobody disagrees that we have global warming. The issue is whether it is man made global warming. We have been coming out of a mini ice age for several centuries and there have been minimal increases in temperatures which appear to have peaked in 1998.
As far as I can tell there was a plateau in atmospheric temperatures in 1998 and since 1998 there has been a slight dectreases in atmospheric temperatures.
The real test is Artic ice coverage. This year I. E 2008 there was 10 to 20% more artic ice coverage than in the summer of 2007. This is a trend that I think is going to continue.
I have made a living off the stupidity of others. I will bet the ranch that in the next 5 years the issue of artic ice coverage will disappear. We are entering an age of global cooling.
My source in the Old Farmers Alamanac. They are serious meterologists, although you might not believe it, who recently predicted that this winter will be brutal because we are entering a era of global cooling.
I might be dead wrong but I am willing to bet the ranch that man made global warming, not global warming, is an idea that will rank up with the idea that the world is flat or the moon is made of blue cheese.
Shit, that be@tch is so tight, if you [b]could[/b] shove a lump of coal up her ass before long you'd have a diamond. Love that line about "making a living off other people's stupidity."
Senator Joe Biden Democrat Vice Presidential Nominee held an interview with Katie Couric of CBS Evening News. Biden said [highlight] “Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence is demonstrate that he or she knows what their talking about and communicates to people, if you listen to me and follow what I ’m suggesting we can fix this. When the stock market crashed Franklin Roosevelt got on television and didn ’t just talk about the you know the princes of greed, look, here's what happened,'" [/highlight]
[I]Update: Television was the size of a credit card and was experimental definitely not mainstream. Liberals should quit trying to make Joe Bidens lie a truth by saying President Roosevelt did appear on TV from the Worlds Fair but not speaking about the depression. :rolleyes:
"And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, 'Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?'" [/i]
"Chuck, stand up, let the people see you, Oh, God love ya," Biden said. "What am I talking about?" :eek:
Maybe I'll push that debate back a little!
Hey, El Alamo, you and I may be in a minority, but we are on the same page concerning the manmade theory of global warming.
Claims that the principal cause of global warming is CO2 is a hoax, perhaps just a pretext to enact a worldwide carbon tax, create more bureaucracy and create jobs for failed politicians. It also distracts our attention from the real environmental degradation taking place.
Strange how the media manages to ignore the hundreds of reputable scientists and academics who have poked holes in the CO2 theories and computer models.
The most persuasive theory behind global warming and now global cooling, is sunspot activity. Yes people, it's that simple. When the sun gets hotter, so does the earth and vice versa. But hey, you can't win nobel prizes and generate tax revenues on that. Nope, you have to do that on people's stupidity.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]I think Sarah Palin is caught in the middle of the so called global warming conflict. She doesn't believe in global warming but her running mate does. Consequently she has a hard time telling the global warming advocates to stick a lump of coal up their ass.
Nobody disagrees that we have global warming. The issue is whether it is man made global warming. We have been coming out of a mini ice age for several centuries and there have been minimal increases in temperatures which appear to have peaked in 1998.
As far as I can tell there was a plateau in atmospheric temperatures in 1998 and since 1998 there has been a slight dectreases in atmospheric temperatures.
The real test is Artic ice coverage. This year I. E 2008 there was 10 to 20% more artic ice coverage than in the summer of 2007. This is a trend that I think is going to continue.
I have made a living off the stupidity of others. I will bet the ranch that in the next 5 years the issue of artic ice coverage will disappear. We are entering an age of global cooling.
My source in the Old Farmers Alamanac. They are serious meterologists, although you might not believe it, who recently predicted that this winter will be brutal because we are entering a era of global cooling.
I might be dead wrong but I am willing to bet the ranch that man made global warming, not global warming, is an idea that will rank up with the idea that the world is flat or the moon is made of blue cheese.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sidney]All his mannerisms and facial contortions seem to confirm this to me. What does Doggboy think? And you other armchair psychologists?
-------
I had a long, miserable, contentious relation with his Goldman predecessor, Robert Rubin, a totally untrustworthy man and 100% for Goldman to the detriment for the company we served. I can't help but believe Pauley is the same! It seems obvious to me that Pauley is serving Goldman's interest, Wall Street's interest, and that next hugely lucrative Wall Street job, that will be waiting for him!
------
Bernie seems like a naive, lifelong academic ''going along for a ride'' with Pauley. Of course, a lucrative Wall Street job will be there for him as well.
-------
Everything both have done in approximately 2 years in office has been late and disaster. I want no part of giving $700 billion to spend at their discretion. Besides that, the Plan sucks![/QUOTE]Hey Sid-I only saw the first few hours of the first day of hearings. Pauley looked damn nervous and uncomfortable-but who wouldn't be? And for Bernie-an ivory tower, decent guy, I suppose, but out of his element. Cox-a used car salesman, slick and in bed with all the Wall St. Head honchos.
My take on Pauley is that he is anxious because he can't give honest answers to specific questions about the plan-BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC ANSWERS! All he knows is that they have to throw a ton of money at the mess, and they want to work out the nasty details AFTER Congress signs off. So, he comes off as a dissembling, half ignorant, reluctant cheerleader.
I never liked Biden since the plagiarism accusation but even sillier is that the stock market crash happened in Oct. 1929 and FDR took office in March of 1933. Sure glad I don't care which of these two clowns becomes the next vice president. But I guess the clown running with the 46-year-old is less of an issue than the clown running with the 68-year-old.
Christ, if a bunch of mongers can recognize all these gross inaccuracies, what kind of fact-checkers are they hiring? Maybe the media budget precluded hiring fact checkers? If I still lived there I'd be pretty scared.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]I never liked Biden since the plagiarism accusation but even sillier is that the stock market crash happened in Oct. 1929 and FDR took office in March of 1933. Sure glad I don't care which of these two clowns becomes the next vice president. But I guess the clown running with the 46-year-old is less of an issue than the clown running with the 68-year-old.
Christ, if a bunch of mongers can recognize all these gross inaccuracies, what kind of fact-checkers are they hiring? Maybe the media budget precluded hiring fact checkers? If I still lived there I'd be pretty scared.[/QUOTE]Funny you don't hear much about the plagiarism thing. Maybe they are talikng about it up there, but we don't hear about it down here.
Mongers,
As the debates approach, and the economy falters further, Obama is padding his lead down the home stretch.
Suerte,
Rock Harders.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080924/pl_politico/13876;_ylt=A0S00aSX.dpImrQANAFsnwcF[/url]
[QUOTE=Doggboy]Funny you don't hear much about the plagiarism thing. Maybe they are talikng about it up there, but we don't hear about it down here.[/QUOTE]It was really pretty minor and it was a long time ago, but I did not like the way he tried to weasel out of it when he could have just admitted it. It wasn't the kind of plagiarism that would have gotten him expelled. Mostly a failure to cite sources.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,
As the debates approach, and the economy falters further, Obama is padding his lead down the home stretch.
Suerte,
Rock Harders.[/QUOTE]Yes Sirree Bob, looks like a landslide, we probably don ’t really need to have that November 4th election, after all we ’ve seen this kind of thing before.
"[strike] DEWEY [/strike] OBAMA AHEAD! RACE CLOSE"
"Give 'em hell, [strike] Harry [/strike] John!"
[QUOTE=Sidney]''They know nothing about finance, markets, Wall Street, economy, etc. They are an embarassment''! -----------An empathizing Sid[/QUOTE]But Jim Rogers says that about nearly every human being on the planet, including nearly everybody on Wall Street!:)
[QUOTE=Sidney]Just my take![/QUOTE]Hey, don't get me wrong. I like Jim Rogers. A more interesting bio would be hard to find. In the past few years he sold his sumptuous apartment in Manhatten, transferred his dollars to other currencies, mostly Asian currencies, moved to Singapore and is having his young daughter learn Manderin. Not your typical behavior from an Alabama boy.:)
Interesting how one could say that either candidate has a true 'lead' or especially one that has been recently padded, given that 136 electoral votes are in "toss-up" states (poll margins all below the margin or error)
If you look at the electoral college, distribute, toss-up states to the current leader in that state, you get 273/265 for Obama / Mccain.
The 2000 election (closest electoral race ever) was 271/266. I think Al Gore still has the 'lead' in that one.
All of the polls are fallible and should be taken with a grain of salt. If one wants to be heard, go vote.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,
As the debates approach, and the economy falters further, Obama is padding his lead down the home stretch.
Suerte,
Rock Harders.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080924/pl_politico/13876;_ylt=A0S00aSX.dpImrQANAFsnwcF[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sidney]Just wondering![/QUOTE]Googling shows Yale and then Oxford.
[QUOTE=Doggboy]Afeared?
Maybe I'll push that debate back a little![/QUOTE]"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."
[QUOTE=Punter 127]"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."[/QUOTE]Billy C sure don't like Obama! But then, most charming guys don't like other charming guys. Competition and all.
[QUOTE=Doggboy]Billy C sure don't like Obama! But then, most charming guys don't like other charming guys. Competition and all.[/QUOTE]He's just telling it like it is! I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton... lol
[QUOTE=Punter 127]He's just telling it like it is! I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton. Lol[/QUOTE]It's not that hard to imagine. Remember, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Regards,
BM.
[QUOTE=BadMan]It's not that hard to imagine. Remember, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Regards,
BM.[/QUOTE]Perhaps in your world.
[QUOTE=Punter 127]Perhaps in your world.[/QUOTE]Perhaps, but your comment illustrated my point. So I assume it is your world as well, and just about every single politicians world also.
Regards,
BM