Emily's class is learning about Poetry. Each student was to memorize and present a poem to a group of parents. She's still learning the art of public speaking, and as a result, speaks very quickly.
So, for your following along pleasure (from The Light in the Attic):
Hot Dog
I have a hot dog for a pet
the only kind my folks would let me get
he does smell sort of bad and yet
he absoluely never gets the sofa wet.
We have a butcher for a vet
the strangest vet you've ever met
guess we're the wierdest family yet
to have a hot dog for a pet.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Update
Back on Dec 19, 2008, I noted that Credit Suisse was distributing "toxic assets" as part of an employee bonus pool. As you can see from the post, I argued it was a terrific idea. I said at the time, "This is a very creative idea, and in the end could work out well for everyone."
See today's news:
"ZURICH—Shares in a $5 billion pool of formerly illiquid assets distributed as bonus pay for Credit Suisse Group investment bankers returned 72% last year, people familiar with the situation said.
Roughly 2,000 investment bankers at the Zurich-based bank, who were told of the pool's performance Tuesday evening, can't withdraw their portion of the fund until 2014, but will receive some semiannual interest payments.
The pool is largely made up of commercial mortgage-backed securities and leveraged loan products that Credit Suisse sought to offload late in 2008 as part of a major scaling back of its risk-taking.
The plan to use the then "toxic assets" as bonus pay, made public last January, sparked an outcry with some Credit Suisse bankers, who argued that they hadn't contributed to the bank's 2008 net loss.
The fund's favorable performance in 2009, which compares with a 23.5% rise in the Standard & Poor's index on the year and an 18.8% gain in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, reflects the easing of markets for some of the securities last year. At the time the fund was set up late in 2008, markets for them was near-frozen, but have since become far more liquid."
See today's news:
"ZURICH—Shares in a $5 billion pool of formerly illiquid assets distributed as bonus pay for Credit Suisse Group investment bankers returned 72% last year, people familiar with the situation said.
Roughly 2,000 investment bankers at the Zurich-based bank, who were told of the pool's performance Tuesday evening, can't withdraw their portion of the fund until 2014, but will receive some semiannual interest payments.
The pool is largely made up of commercial mortgage-backed securities and leveraged loan products that Credit Suisse sought to offload late in 2008 as part of a major scaling back of its risk-taking.
The plan to use the then "toxic assets" as bonus pay, made public last January, sparked an outcry with some Credit Suisse bankers, who argued that they hadn't contributed to the bank's 2008 net loss.
The fund's favorable performance in 2009, which compares with a 23.5% rise in the Standard & Poor's index on the year and an 18.8% gain in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, reflects the easing of markets for some of the securities last year. At the time the fund was set up late in 2008, markets for them was near-frozen, but have since become far more liquid."
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Alexandre Bilodeau, I'm not
Peter doesn't have the steadiest hand in the business, but here's a quick clip of me skiing down the hill.
Sleeping in Seattle
Presidents' Day Weekend. The plan was perfect. Alison and the kids would go to New York and I would go to Colorado or Utah and ski. One catch. I couldn't find anyone to go to Colorado or Utah. So when my college friend, Peter, said he couldn't fly out of town, he invited me to Seattle...to ski. News to me.
Turns out it was excellent. Crystal Mountain is approximately two hours East of Seattle and in the same range as Mount Ranier, which could be seen from the summit (see left). As another Seattle-ite told me, Crystal is a place you will ski, and then ask yourself, "why have I never heard of this place before." That was accurate.
Peter and I with Ranier in the background
Crystal had every type of skiing you could ask for. Greens, Blues, Blacks, and Double Diamonds. There were great bowls and great verticals. In fact, my favorite run was my last.
Turns out it was excellent. Crystal Mountain is approximately two hours East of Seattle and in the same range as Mount Ranier, which could be seen from the summit (see left). As another Seattle-ite told me, Crystal is a place you will ski, and then ask yourself, "why have I never heard of this place before." That was accurate.Not only was there are terrific view of Ranier, but one could see the Olympic Mountains one way and Mount St. Helens the other. Pretty unbelievable.
Peter and I with Ranier in the background
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Look closely and Mt. St. Helens behind me (and in need of a comb)
.
.
.
.
.
.
Although it was raining in Seattle - SHOCK - the mountain was above the snow line and it snowed for each of Saturday and Sunday. Although it made for great snow, the visibilty was tough. However, by Monday, the skies were blue and the skiing remained great.
.
Crystal had every type of skiing you could ask for. Greens, Blues, Blacks, and Double Diamonds. There were great bowls and great verticals. In fact, my favorite run was my last. .
The Powder Bowl called all weekend. A straight down verticle run, the Powder bowl hovers over the South side of the resort.
.
It looks steep, and isn't easy to get to. And when you get there, it looks even steeper.
.
The first step is a doosey. I skied a number of challenging trails. I even took a small leap off a rock into a bowl. But standing on the edge, it was my only "oh s***" moment.
.
Soon...
Good pictures from my ski trip to Seattle, yes Seattle. They'll be up soon. In the meantime, here's a good post re: the Deficit Commission from Harvard Economics Professor Greg Mankiw:
"Here is a question I have been pondering. If you were a member of the fiscal commission, what would you try to achieve?
The answer for liberals is easy: They want to raise taxes to fund the existing, and even an expanded, social safety net, while politically insulating the Democrats as much as possible from the charge of being the "tax and spend" party. President Obama can then campaign in 2012 that he did not break his no-taxes-on-the-middle-class pledge, but rather a bipartisan group broke it. That is, the President wants to take credit for fixing the fiscal situation but duck responsibility for having imposed higher taxes...
A reasonable position is, perhaps, that the commission should not succeed. After all, it is the president's responsibility to put out a budget. The one he just released is, as I argued in my recent Times column, not a sustainable one at all. He just passed the buck to the fiscal commission. Perhaps conservatives should not allow him to do that but, instead, should try to force him to put out a sustainable budget on his own. After all, isn't that Peter Orszag's job?"
"Here is a question I have been pondering. If you were a member of the fiscal commission, what would you try to achieve?
The answer for liberals is easy: They want to raise taxes to fund the existing, and even an expanded, social safety net, while politically insulating the Democrats as much as possible from the charge of being the "tax and spend" party. President Obama can then campaign in 2012 that he did not break his no-taxes-on-the-middle-class pledge, but rather a bipartisan group broke it. That is, the President wants to take credit for fixing the fiscal situation but duck responsibility for having imposed higher taxes...
A reasonable position is, perhaps, that the commission should not succeed. After all, it is the president's responsibility to put out a budget. The one he just released is, as I argued in my recent Times column, not a sustainable one at all. He just passed the buck to the fiscal commission. Perhaps conservatives should not allow him to do that but, instead, should try to force him to put out a sustainable budget on his own. After all, isn't that Peter Orszag's job?"
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Groundhog
Groundhog saw his shadow the other day - 6 more weeks of winter. Although the kids are starting their "Spring fundraiser," I had no doubts that winter here will be longer than 6 more weeks - shadow or no.
However, baseball season is getting close. We took the kids to Twins Fest 2010 at the Metrodome. Cool event where you got to meet Twins players and play games. Well the lines to get autographs from players was WAY too long, but the games were fun and there was plenty of memorobilia. Funny enough, the line to get autographs from 5 unknown minor leaguers was probably 1 1/2 hours long. Yet, the line to meet 3 non-Twin Hall of Famers and 2 former MVP/CY Youngs was non-exisistent. Fergie Jenkins, Rollie Fingers, Vida Blue, George Foster and [name unknown] were sitting at a table with no wait. We met Fergie Jenkins. Although his stint with the Red Sox was short ('76-'78), that was my first years really following them, and I remember him fondly. The kids were excited to meet a Red Sox, even though they had no idea who he was.
Otherwise, our time has been spent planning trips. In a couple weeks, the ladies head off to New York and Simultaneously, I head the opposite direction to go skiing. In a surprise turn of events, I'll be going west of Seattle to ski near Mount Rainer.
After that, we head to Hawaii in March. After trading in our timeshare, we are going to spend nine days in Oahu. We've cornered Hennepin County Library's books and DVDs on Hawaiian travel as we look for things to do.
In April, we are considering one more trip back east, and I may have a golf trip at the end of the month. By then, maybe it really will be Spring!
However, baseball season is getting close. We took the kids to Twins Fest 2010 at the Metrodome. Cool event where you got to meet Twins players and play games. Well the lines to get autographs from players was WAY too long, but the games were fun and there was plenty of memorobilia. Funny enough, the line to get autographs from 5 unknown minor leaguers was probably 1 1/2 hours long. Yet, the line to meet 3 non-Twin Hall of Famers and 2 former MVP/CY Youngs was non-exisistent. Fergie Jenkins, Rollie Fingers, Vida Blue, George Foster and [name unknown] were sitting at a table with no wait. We met Fergie Jenkins. Although his stint with the Red Sox was short ('76-'78), that was my first years really following them, and I remember him fondly. The kids were excited to meet a Red Sox, even though they had no idea who he was.
Otherwise, our time has been spent planning trips. In a couple weeks, the ladies head off to New York and Simultaneously, I head the opposite direction to go skiing. In a surprise turn of events, I'll be going west of Seattle to ski near Mount Rainer.
After that, we head to Hawaii in March. After trading in our timeshare, we are going to spend nine days in Oahu. We've cornered Hennepin County Library's books and DVDs on Hawaiian travel as we look for things to do.
In April, we are considering one more trip back east, and I may have a golf trip at the end of the month. By then, maybe it really will be Spring!
Friday, January 22, 2010
the Truth
WSJ: Mean Street: Obama is Killing America by Killing Wall Street
By Evan Newmark
What has become of America?
Today, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein announced record annual profits of $13.4 billion for his bank.
He has repaid the U.S. taxpayer $11.42 billion for taking TARP money he didn’t want.
He will contribute another $6.4 billion in taxes to the general public. And within weeks, if President Obama gets his way, Blankfein has a good shot at becoming the most hated man in our nation.
Apparently, this is now how we treat success in America. We damn it, and then we punish it by enacting loopy, politically expedient measures such as caps on Wall Street trading and principal investments.
Why is our country so self-destructive?
We need people to come together, but we engage in populist divisiveness. We need millions of jobs, but we kill the incentives and destroy the capital that will create them.
Please don’t accuse me of not “getting it.” I do “get it.” I “get” that Main Street is suffering. I “get” that Wall Street is full of selfish, greedy people. I “ get” that Wall Street engages in reckless trading. I “get” that no bank should be too big to fail.
But does anyone actually believe the new White House war on Wall Street will remedy any of that? I know I don’t.
This war is about politics. It’s about a big election loss in Massachusetts. It’s about pushing the blame for the nation’s misery from Washington onto Wall Street.
Is President Obama talking to Tora Bora terrorists or Park Avenue bankers when he says: “So if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have.”
Unfortunately, it’s a fight — that at least on the PR front — Washington is already winning. Just read today’s subdued Goldman Sachs earnings release.
Total profits were a “record” at the bank, even if earnings per share weren’t. But you wouldn’t know that from the Goldman press release. Instead, the big PR highlight is “Compensation and Benefits Down By $4 billion or 20% From 2007. Lowest Annual Compensation.”
How perverse. Job creation in our economy comes from profits and growing incomes. But here is America’s best-run company almost ashamed of its profits and bragging about how much less it’s paying its people.
Make no mistake — this war will damage the nation’s psyche. Just look at today’s stock market. In fact, the war’s unforeseen consequences are just now beginning to appear .
It’s bound to get very, very messy because in fact, contrary to the President’s assertion, the 2008 collapse had little to do with the dissolution of Glass-Steagall or proprietary trading by banks.
Sure, Wall Street was way too vulnerable because it was way too leveraged. But AIG wasn’t a bank. Neither Lehman Brothers nor Bear Stearns took consumer deposits. And the hundreds of billions in losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — as well as the destruction of Wachovia, Washington Mutual and Countrywide had nothing to do with prop trading. That was caused by banks lending money to millions of Americans to buy houses they couldn’t afford. You won’t hear much of that coming from Washington. After all, “It’s Actually Your Fault, America” is not a good slogan for a re-election campaign.
By Evan Newmark
What has become of America?
Today, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein announced record annual profits of $13.4 billion for his bank.
He has repaid the U.S. taxpayer $11.42 billion for taking TARP money he didn’t want.
He will contribute another $6.4 billion in taxes to the general public. And within weeks, if President Obama gets his way, Blankfein has a good shot at becoming the most hated man in our nation.
Apparently, this is now how we treat success in America. We damn it, and then we punish it by enacting loopy, politically expedient measures such as caps on Wall Street trading and principal investments.
Why is our country so self-destructive?
We need people to come together, but we engage in populist divisiveness. We need millions of jobs, but we kill the incentives and destroy the capital that will create them.
Please don’t accuse me of not “getting it.” I do “get it.” I “get” that Main Street is suffering. I “get” that Wall Street is full of selfish, greedy people. I “ get” that Wall Street engages in reckless trading. I “get” that no bank should be too big to fail.
But does anyone actually believe the new White House war on Wall Street will remedy any of that? I know I don’t.
This war is about politics. It’s about a big election loss in Massachusetts. It’s about pushing the blame for the nation’s misery from Washington onto Wall Street.
Is President Obama talking to Tora Bora terrorists or Park Avenue bankers when he says: “So if these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have.”
Unfortunately, it’s a fight — that at least on the PR front — Washington is already winning. Just read today’s subdued Goldman Sachs earnings release.
Total profits were a “record” at the bank, even if earnings per share weren’t. But you wouldn’t know that from the Goldman press release. Instead, the big PR highlight is “Compensation and Benefits Down By $4 billion or 20% From 2007. Lowest Annual Compensation.”
How perverse. Job creation in our economy comes from profits and growing incomes. But here is America’s best-run company almost ashamed of its profits and bragging about how much less it’s paying its people.
Make no mistake — this war will damage the nation’s psyche. Just look at today’s stock market. In fact, the war’s unforeseen consequences are just now beginning to appear .
It’s bound to get very, very messy because in fact, contrary to the President’s assertion, the 2008 collapse had little to do with the dissolution of Glass-Steagall or proprietary trading by banks.
Sure, Wall Street was way too vulnerable because it was way too leveraged. But AIG wasn’t a bank. Neither Lehman Brothers nor Bear Stearns took consumer deposits. And the hundreds of billions in losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — as well as the destruction of Wachovia, Washington Mutual and Countrywide had nothing to do with prop trading. That was caused by banks lending money to millions of Americans to buy houses they couldn’t afford. You won’t hear much of that coming from Washington. After all, “It’s Actually Your Fault, America” is not a good slogan for a re-election campaign.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Fed Profits, Let's Tax Again
Hank Paulson, the former Secretary of the Treasury, and Ben Bernake, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, have come under tremendous reputational pressure in the last month for their handling of the economic crisis.
Recall WAY back in 2008, when the world was on fire. Lehman Bros. had failed, Morgan Stanley and Goldman were on the brink. AIG needed saving. I argued here that the TARP (and other alphabet soup on Fed actions) was good both for the economy and the taxpayer. It was money well spent (unlike the crap that was the Federal Stimulus bill).
Fast forward to now. Today, it was reported that the Federal Reserve made record profits from their extreme market crisis actions. They reported a $45 billion profit in 2009. That profit will be distributed to the Treasury. To quote the Washington Post, "The numbers are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful...in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy." The Fed's aggressive action of buying mortgage-backed securities and other collateral from the banking system and issuing emergency loans to banks was quite effective.
Although the Fed recorded a $3.8 billion decline in the value of the loans it made in bailing out Bear Stearns and AIG, but that loss was offset by $4.7 billion in interest payments from those loans.
That's just the Fed, you say? True. But it was also reported in December that $165 billion of bank TARP funds have been returned - almost three quarters of the money distributed to banks. As per MarketWatch.com, "Bank investments of $245 billion in Treasury's 2009 fiscal year were initially projected to cost $76 billion, but are now forecast to generate a profit. 'Taxpayers have already received over $16 billion in profits from all TARP programs and that profit could be considerably higher as the Treasury sells additional warrants in the weeks ahead,' the Treasury said in a statement. "
TARP hasn't been all roses. The mistake using TARP money for other worthless items not on the original agenda like bailing out the auto industry and giving more money to AIG. Nevertheless, the White House has asked to use the returned TARP money for other hairbrained items. But clearly the banks will get some vindication, right?? ah... No.
WHY WASTE GOOD POPULIST RHETORIC EVEN IF THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT IT?
NY Times - Obama Considers Bank Fee to Help Cut Deficit January 11, 2010, 11:39 am —
President Obama is likely to propose a fee on financial institutions to help reduce the federal deficit when he releases his budget plans in February... The bank fee would recover some of the money that taxpayers put up to bail out the financial system after its near-collapse in the fall of 2008, a rescue effort that has contributed to the largest annual budget deficits since World War II, The New York Times’s Jackie Calmes reports from Washington...With popular anger building as big banks show profits and pay sizable bonuses while unemployment remains high, the Obama administration has come under pressure at home and abroad to support a financial transactions tax on institutions and to heavily tax their executive compensation.
This is WRONG is so many ways! Here's two: 1. ummm, the BANKS aren't the one's the are going to blow up the deficit. Meanwhile, the $80 billion TARP investment in GM and Chrysler is likely ... GONE. AIG... who knows. 2. Anyone who understand economics knows that fees charged to a business institution are a hidden tax on the consumer of that institution. Fortunately (read: sarcasm), the tax won't apply to community banks. So, if you bank at Citibank, you'll help fund the deficit, but if you bank at Lakeshore Community Bank, you won't. Absurd.
Recall WAY back in 2008, when the world was on fire. Lehman Bros. had failed, Morgan Stanley and Goldman were on the brink. AIG needed saving. I argued here that the TARP (and other alphabet soup on Fed actions) was good both for the economy and the taxpayer. It was money well spent (unlike the crap that was the Federal Stimulus bill).
Fast forward to now. Today, it was reported that the Federal Reserve made record profits from their extreme market crisis actions. They reported a $45 billion profit in 2009. That profit will be distributed to the Treasury. To quote the Washington Post, "The numbers are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful...in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy." The Fed's aggressive action of buying mortgage-backed securities and other collateral from the banking system and issuing emergency loans to banks was quite effective.
Although the Fed recorded a $3.8 billion decline in the value of the loans it made in bailing out Bear Stearns and AIG, but that loss was offset by $4.7 billion in interest payments from those loans.
That's just the Fed, you say? True. But it was also reported in December that $165 billion of bank TARP funds have been returned - almost three quarters of the money distributed to banks. As per MarketWatch.com, "Bank investments of $245 billion in Treasury's 2009 fiscal year were initially projected to cost $76 billion, but are now forecast to generate a profit. 'Taxpayers have already received over $16 billion in profits from all TARP programs and that profit could be considerably higher as the Treasury sells additional warrants in the weeks ahead,' the Treasury said in a statement. "
TARP hasn't been all roses. The mistake using TARP money for other worthless items not on the original agenda like bailing out the auto industry and giving more money to AIG. Nevertheless, the White House has asked to use the returned TARP money for other hairbrained items. But clearly the banks will get some vindication, right?? ah... No.
WHY WASTE GOOD POPULIST RHETORIC EVEN IF THE FACTS DON'T SUPPORT IT?
NY Times - Obama Considers Bank Fee to Help Cut Deficit January 11, 2010, 11:39 am —
President Obama is likely to propose a fee on financial institutions to help reduce the federal deficit when he releases his budget plans in February... The bank fee would recover some of the money that taxpayers put up to bail out the financial system after its near-collapse in the fall of 2008, a rescue effort that has contributed to the largest annual budget deficits since World War II, The New York Times’s Jackie Calmes reports from Washington...With popular anger building as big banks show profits and pay sizable bonuses while unemployment remains high, the Obama administration has come under pressure at home and abroad to support a financial transactions tax on institutions and to heavily tax their executive compensation.
This is WRONG is so many ways! Here's two: 1. ummm, the BANKS aren't the one's the are going to blow up the deficit. Meanwhile, the $80 billion TARP investment in GM and Chrysler is likely ... GONE. AIG... who knows. 2. Anyone who understand economics knows that fees charged to a business institution are a hidden tax on the consumer of that institution. Fortunately (read: sarcasm), the tax won't apply to community banks. So, if you bank at Citibank, you'll help fund the deficit, but if you bank at Lakeshore Community Bank, you won't. Absurd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)