Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Wednesday, 22 January 2014
[font size=3]STOCK MARKET WATCH, Wednesday, 22 January 2014[font color=black][/font]
SMW for 21 January 2014
AT THE CLOSING BELL ON 21 January 2014
[center][font color=red]
Dow Jones 16,414.44 -44.12 (-0.27%)
[font color=green]S&P 500 1,843.80 +5.10 (0.28%)
Nasdaq 4,225.76 +28.18 (0.67%)
[font color=green]10 Year 2.81% -0.03 (-1.06%)
[font color=black]30 Year 3.74% 0.00 (0.00%) [font color=black]
[center][/font]
[HR width=85%]
[font size=2]Market Conditions During Trading Hours[/font]
[center]
[/center]
[font size=2]Euro, Yen, Loonie, Silver and Gold[center]
[/center]
[center]
[/center]
[/center]
[HR width=95%]
[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Market Data and News:[/font][/font]
[center]
Economic Calendar
Marketwatch Data
Bloomberg Economic News
Yahoo Finance
Google Finance
Bank Tracker
Credit Union Tracker
Daily Job Cuts
[/center]
[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Economic Blogs:[/font][/font]
[center]
The Big Picture
Financial Sense
Calculated Risk
Naked Capitalism
Credit Writedowns
Brad DeLong
Bonddad
Atrios
goldmansachs666
The Stand-Up Economist
The Automatic Earth
Wall Street on Parade
[/center]
[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Essential Reading:[/font][/font]
[center]
Matt Taibi: Secret and Lies of the Bailout
[/center]
[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Government Issues:[/font][/font]
[center]
LegitGov
Open Government
Earmark Database
USA spending.gov
[/center][font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Videos:[/font][/font]
[center]
Charlie Rose talks with Roubini
Charlie Rose talks with Krugman
William Black: This Economic Disaster
Bill Moyers with Kevin Drum and David Corn
[/center]
[div]
[font color=red]Partial List of Financial Sector Officials Convicted since 1/20/09 [/font][font color=red]
2/2/12 David Higgs and Salmaan Siddiqui, Credit Suisse, plead guilty to conspiracy involving valuation of MBS
3/6/12 Allen Stanford, former Caribbean billionaire and general schmuck, convicted on 13 of 14 counts in $2.2B Ponzi scheme, faces 20+ years in prison
6/4/12 Matthew Kluger, lawyer, sentenced to 12 years in prison, along with co-conspirator stock trader Garrett Bauer (9 years) and co-conspirator Kenneth Robinson (not yet sentenced) for 17 year insider trading scheme.
6/14/12 Allen Stanford sentenced to 110 years without parole.
6/15/12 Rajat Gupta, former Goldman Sachs director, found guilty of insider trading. Could face a decade in prison when sentenced later this year.
6/22/12 Timothy S. Durham, 49, former CEO of Fair Financial Company, convicted of one count conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, 10 counts of wire fraud, and one count of securities fraud.
6/22/12 James F. Cochran, 56, former chairman of the board of Fair, convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, one count of securities fraud, and six counts of wire fraud.
6/22/12 Rick D. Snow, 48, former CFO of Fair, convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, one count of securities fraud, and three counts of wire fraud.
7/13/12 Russell Wassendorf Sr., CEO of collapsed brokerage firm Peregrine Financial Group Inc. arrested and charged with lying to regulators after admitting to authorities he embezzled "millions of dollars" and forged bank statements for "nearly twenty years."
8/22/12 Doug Whitman, Whitman Capital LLC hedge fund founder, convicted of insider trading following a trial in which he spent more than two days on the stand telling jurors he was innocent
10/26/12 UPDATE: Former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta sentenced to two years in federal prison. He will, of course, appeal. . .
11/20/12 Hedge fund manager Matthew Martoma charged with insider trading at SAC Capital Advisors, and prosecutors are looking at Martoma's boss, Steven Cohen, for possible involvement.
02/14/13 Gilbert Lopez, former chief accounting officer of Stanford Financial Group, and former controller Mark Kuhrt sentenced to 20 yrs in prison for their roles in Allen Sanford's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
03/29/13 Michael Sternberg, portfolio mgr at SAC Capital, arrested in NYC, charged with conspiracy and securities fraud. Pled not guilty and freed on $3m bail.
04/04/13 Matthew Marshall Taylor,fmr Goldman Sachs trader arrested, charged by CFTC w/defrauding his employer on $8BN futures bet "by intentionally concealing the true huge size, as well as the risk and potential profits or losses associated."
04/04/13 Matthew Taylor admits guilt, makes plea bargain. Sentencing set for 26 June; faces up to 20 years in prison but will likely only see 3-4 years. Says, "I am truly sorry."
04/11/13 Ex-KPMG LLP partner Scott London charged by federal prosecutors w/passing inside tips to a friend in exchange for cash, jewelry, and concert tickets; expected to plead guilty in May.
08/01/13 Fabrice Tourré convicted on six counts of security fraud, including "aiding and abetting" his former employer, Goldman Sachs
08/14/13 Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout charged with wire fraud, falsifying records, and conspiracy in connection with JP Morgan's "London Whale" trade.
08/19/13 Phillip A. Falcone, manager of hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, agrees to admit to "wrongdoing" in market manipulation. Will banned from securities industry for 5 years and pay $18MM in disgorgement and fines.
09/16/13 Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout officially indicted on charges associated with "London Whale" trade.
[HR width=95%]
[center]
[font size=3][font color=red]This thread contains opinions and observations. Individuals may post their experiences, inferences and opinions on this thread. However, it should not be construed as advice. It is unethical (and probably illegal) for financial recommendations to be given here.[/font][/font][/font color=red][font color=black]
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
armed and unarmed robberies and assaults but no money to figure out why they now have to do this. Just 9% of the poor have a shot at anything other than being poor in America today, still no paying jobs, no safety net and health care is still bankrupting many families if they can get it.
Is Obama looking forward to former Presidential golf junkets? He did all the right things to get elected and a whole bunch of wrong things afterwards and his legacy will be forever written if that new trade pact, NAFTA on steroids is passed. Insane corruption, no common will to take back our freedoms and prosperity that was stolen.
The DFL controls the Legislature and the Governorship now BUT they cannot get enough votes to raise the minimum wage but hey they got that football and baseball stadium for the rich owners funded. The last lawsuit saying that the people of Minneapolis should have had a vote before putting money into it was dismissed by the MN Supreme Court. It delayed the selling of bonds a few days is all. We have a brand new place for the Minnesota Orchestra to play and now no Professional Orchestra. Busting that union was orchestrated, not the arts in MN. Those that could took better jobs.
Maybe tomorrow will be better. 
Time consuming, but worth it. Especially when other people want a cohesive board too.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/georgias-debtors-prisons-belong-in-a-dickens-novel/283204/
Largely lost with a Sunday posting during a holiday weekend were two pieces of excellent reporting by Rhonda Cook in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Cook shone a light on private probation companies and the damage they have wrought in Georgia. Both pieces, sadly, are still hidden behind the Journal-Constitution's paywall (I've asked the good folks there to "tear down those walls!"
but this is a national scandal—other states have tried to privatize their probation services—and it deserves national attention.
The main piece from Cook is titled "Spotlight Falls on Private Probation Companies Over Fees, Supervision," and it tells the story of how one state has outsourced its probation services to private companies, the executives of which have huge financial incentives for charging as many people as much as possible for "services" that would keep them out of jail. The result is a form of the statewide "debtors' prison" you've probably read about in Dickens (whose father, incidentally, spent time in such a prison). Cook's story begins with this:
In 2000, Georgia cleared the way for private companies to supervise low-level offenders, claiming it freed up overburdened state probation workers while costing taxpayers nothing.
But records reviewed by the Atlanta Journal Constitution show some in the industry have pocketed large fees while, in at least some cases, doing little to supervise those under their watch. And despite promises that taxpayers would pay nothing to supervise the offenders, they have footed the bill when the probationers are arrested and jailed because they owe money to the company, not the courts.
A string of lawsuits argue the system effectively criminalizes poverty and that some companies have illegally forced offenders to pay for things, such as electronic monitoring and drug testing, beyond what was ordered by the courts.
Siding with that argument, a Georgia judge last year temporarily stopped the state's largest private probation company from doing business in east Georgia. the Georgia Bureau of Investigations is also looking into whether another company has illegally tacked on fees.
Largely lost with a Sunday posting during a holiday weekend were two pieces of excellent reporting by Rhonda Cook in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Cook shone a light on private probation companies and the damage they have wrought in Georgia. Both pieces, sadly, are still hidden behind the Journal-Constitution's paywall (I've asked the good folks there to "tear down those walls!"
but this is a national scandal—other states have tried to privatize their probation services—and it deserves national attention.
The main piece from Cook is titled "Spotlight Falls on Private Probation Companies Over Fees, Supervision," and it tells the story of how one state has outsourced its probation services to private companies, the executives of which have huge financial incentives for charging as many people as much as possible for "services" that would keep them out of jail. The result is a form of the statewide "debtors' prison" you've probably read about in Dickens (whose father, incidentally, spent time in such a prison). Cook's story begins with this:
In 2000, Georgia cleared the way for private companies to supervise low-level offenders, claiming it freed up overburdened state probation workers while costing taxpayers nothing.
But records reviewed by the Atlanta Journal Constitution show some in the industry have pocketed large fees while, in at least some cases, doing little to supervise those under their watch. And despite promises that taxpayers would pay nothing to supervise the offenders, they have footed the bill when the probationers are arrested and jailed because they owe money to the company, not the courts.
A string of lawsuits argue the system effectively criminalizes poverty and that some companies have illegally forced offenders to pay for things, such as electronic monitoring and drug testing, beyond what was ordered by the courts.
Siding with that argument, a Georgia judge last year temporarily stopped the state's largest private probation company from doing business in east Georgia. the Georgia Bureau of Investigations is also looking into whether another company has illegally tacked on fees.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/01/will-there-be-any-poor-countries-left-in-the-world-in-20-years/283223/
In their foundation’s just-released annual letter, Bill and Melinda Gates attempt to debunk three pervasive myths in development economics:
"Poor countries are doomed to stay poor."
"Foreign aid is a big waste."
"Saving lives leads to overpopulation."
From the letter’s introduction:
We hear these myths raised at international conferences and at social gatherings. We get asked about them by politicians, reporters, students, and CEOs. All three reflect a dim view of the future, one that says the world isn’t improving but staying poor and sick, and getting overcrowded.
We’re going to make the opposite case, that the world is getting better, and that in two decades it will be better still.
In their foundation’s just-released annual letter, Bill and Melinda Gates attempt to debunk three pervasive myths in development economics:
In their foundation’s just-released annual letter, Bill and Melinda Gates attempt to debunk three pervasive myths in development economics:
"Poor countries are doomed to stay poor."
"Foreign aid is a big waste."
"Saving lives leads to overpopulation."
From the letter’s introduction:
We hear these myths raised at international conferences and at social gatherings. We get asked about them by politicians, reporters, students, and CEOs. All three reflect a dim view of the future, one that says the world isn’t improving but staying poor and sick, and getting overcrowded.
We’re going to make the opposite case, that the world is getting better, and that in two decades it will be better still.
In their foundation’s just-released annual letter, Bill and Melinda Gates attempt to debunk three pervasive myths in development economics:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/congress-irs-law-regulate-political-groups
***SNIP
The relevant section is buried on page 439 of the gigantic bill. Just nine lines long and 68 words, the two clauses say money designated for the IRS cannot be used to "target citizens of the United States for exercising any right guaranteed under the first Amendment" or to target "groups for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs."
The section is a clear response to the IRS scandal from 2013. Conservatives were outraged that the agency flagged groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names for extra scrutiny. It wasn't a political vendetta—progressive groups with "occupy" in their name also garnered closer investigation before their applications were approved—just a means to sort through an onslaught of applications before the 2010 election. Nevertheless, Congress slipped in this measure as what seems like a nudge to the agency and a reminder that IRS agents shouldn't single out political groups of a certain ideological stripe. Staff from the Senate Appropriations Committee—where at least part of the language appears to have originated—didn't respond to requests for clarification about the intention of the new law.
Except the mild critique is poorly written. All of the tax experts reached by Mother Jones were mystified by the use of the word "target," an unusual term to be applied to the IRS. "I'm not even sure what targeting means,” says Owens. “Each taxpayer has its own set of circumstances—simply because they're not all cookie cutter—and the IRS has to analyze the tax law as it applies to particular facts and circumstances. It can't literally treat everybody the same. It has to make distinctions."
Owens, who oversaw the section charged with assessing nonprofit applications when he was at the IRS, singled out two types of tax-exempt organizations as possible problem areas under the new law: 501(c)3s and 501(c)4s. These designations encompass a wide swath of what most people think of as nonprofits: social welfare organizations, religious institutions, even media companies (such as Mother Jones). But this sector has also seen an explosion of groups whose general mission is to sway politics, ranging from think tanks to campaign organizations that run issue ads. These are the dark-money groups who hide their donors following Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court case that opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending.
***SNIP
The relevant section is buried on page 439 of the gigantic bill. Just nine lines long and 68 words, the two clauses say money designated for the IRS cannot be used to "target citizens of the United States for exercising any right guaranteed under the first Amendment" or to target "groups for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs."
The section is a clear response to the IRS scandal from 2013. Conservatives were outraged that the agency flagged groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names for extra scrutiny. It wasn't a political vendetta—progressive groups with "occupy" in their name also garnered closer investigation before their applications were approved—just a means to sort through an onslaught of applications before the 2010 election. Nevertheless, Congress slipped in this measure as what seems like a nudge to the agency and a reminder that IRS agents shouldn't single out political groups of a certain ideological stripe. Staff from the Senate Appropriations Committee—where at least part of the language appears to have originated—didn't respond to requests for clarification about the intention of the new law.
Except the mild critique is poorly written. All of the tax experts reached by Mother Jones were mystified by the use of the word "target," an unusual term to be applied to the IRS. "I'm not even sure what targeting means,” says Owens. “Each taxpayer has its own set of circumstances—simply because they're not all cookie cutter—and the IRS has to analyze the tax law as it applies to particular facts and circumstances. It can't literally treat everybody the same. It has to make distinctions."
Owens, who oversaw the section charged with assessing nonprofit applications when he was at the IRS, singled out two types of tax-exempt organizations as possible problem areas under the new law: 501(c)3s and 501(c)4s. These designations encompass a wide swath of what most people think of as nonprofits: social welfare organizations, religious institutions, even media companies (such as Mother Jones). But this sector has also seen an explosion of groups whose general mission is to sway politics, ranging from think tanks to campaign organizations that run issue ads. These are the dark-money groups who hide their donors following Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court case that opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending.
