bills_fan

And once I am in a place that I plan to stay in for a while, that would be a great idea. As is, I just follow the Jeffersons motto...movin' on up!

Berkshire Hathaway's holdings are made public every year/quarter via filings with the SEC. The filings are easily searchable on the EDGAR database. Also, Buffet's moves are usually reported in the news.

I don't necessarily agree about buying property. I used my first year-end bonus ($7,500), plus what I had saved (not including 401K savings) as a down payment on a tiny little studio apartment in Hoboken NJ. It was about 300 square feet. I was able to get tax deductions and build equity. I sold it just over three years later and made enough to put a down payment on a small one bedroom on the UES. I just kept trading up from there. I'm on my 5th place right now. I think buying something modest and trading up is a very good way to go.

I once knew a guy who played the market. All he did was whatever Warren did. Didn't know squat. Went out drinking every night, played hoops at lunch and left at 6. But he followed St. Warren. The rest of us worked our tails off trying to figure it all out. He beat us at the end of the year. Bigger bonus, made more cash for his clients. Never told them he was following St. Warren...but they loved him.

and cnbc...some really good stuff here. Warren Buffet Interview I love him...even in the darkest days...still an optimist!!

Anyone suprising in the 25 or Hillary/Schumer?

Senate votes in 15 minutes, House likely on Friday.

A savings account...no. But a really safe bond..yes. TIPS

She certainly does not sound "rich" to me. She sounds like her and her husband are doing what they can to get by...just like many of the rest of us. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_...palins_finances

I knew I liked you!

See, now in NYC, $215k with 5 kids....thats definately middle class. But according to Obama, she's about 35k away from being "rich" and should be taxed accordingly, when in NYC she would be hard-pressed to own a home big enough for those kids. And Biden says she should be patriotic and pay. No friggin clue.

Easiest district in the country to steal for the GOP...something like "He voted against your job, will you vote for his?"

I would ask that the commish ban it immediately. Some kid could get seriously hurt. Absent an immediate ban, get the email list for the coaches (even the guy in the last game) and circulate an email agreement among coaches to 1- Not teach the practice 2- Bench any kid that tackles that way for at least a half. If you get all the other coaches to sign on, my guess is the **** will cave. That would also be pretty powerful ammo for the commish to ban it immediately.

That is shocking. Every NY Rep, save one, voted for it.

William Danko was one of my professors in college. Nice guy, but got just a bit full of himself his 2nd year on the NYT bestseller list.

I love the fact that people on this site keep pressing him with follow up questions. Good show!

Anyone who purchased a home, with at least an 80% mortgage, since 2003 will soon be toast. Whether they went for a fancy 0% down ARM deal or went traditional 20% down, 30 year fixed. If those people want to sell their house, they will not be able to recoup their purchase price. For example, if you bought a $300,000 house in 2006, with 20% down, your mortgage is likely just under $240,000. If you had/wanted to sell now, you are unable without losing most of your down payment. And soon, sellers will have to show up at closing ready to write a check to cover the outstanding mortgage balance, their down payment now gone. Add to that a 6% broker commission and no one will sell. Until my example family can at least get close to the $300,000 they paid, this will not be over. You have to figure that people need to recoup at least most of their down payment to sell, simply because they will probably use that on another house. The market will be locked up for a while, even after banks are more willing to lend. Take my conservative example, multiply by a factor of 5 for the people living way beyond their means/low income with goofy ARMs people.

Interesting update...it appears yesterday's floor debacle has triggered a remarkable shift in the nature of incoming email/phone calls/letters from constituents. Whereas just 48 hours ago, some offices were hearing strident opposition from nearly all their constituents (some offices were north of 400-to-1 against), the tide has shifted considerably since then. Perhaps they're finally hearing from those with day jobs (and 401(k)s) who don't have time to pelt their elected reps with angry emails or protest all day in front of the Capitol.

Fantastic question. If you want a bit more detail... JPMorgan Chase & Co., through its lead bank subsidiary JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, acquired all of the deposits, assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual, Inc.'s banking operations from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) immediately after the Office of Thrift Supervision closed Washington Mutual's lead thrift, and appointed the FDIC as receiver. Washington Mutual's closure marked the largest bank failure in U.S. history. As part of the transaction, JPMorgan Chase made a payment of approximately US$ 1.9 billion to the FDIC. The acquisition included the assumption by JPMorgan Chase of US$ 182 billion in deposits, and extended its retail branch network to six additional states. The combined operations include 5,400 branches, and deposits of US$ 900 billion. Now, contrast the WaMu deal with the Wachovia transaction. The transaction involves the purchase by Citigroup of the banking operations of Wachovia, and the assumption of the senior and subordinated debt securities (including trust preferred) of Wachovia, and the payment to Wachovia of a cash price of US$ 2.2 billion. Wachovia's holding company would continue in existence, controlling the brokerage (Wachovia Securities), asset management (Evergreen) and insurance businesses. Wachovia's common and preferred shareholders would own the continuing company. By contrast with the Washington Mutual situation, Wachovia is not a failed bank deal — meaning that Wachovia's bank subsidiaries were not closed and no receiverships were involved. Further, all the debt securities of Wachovia and its bank subsidiaries were protected. The transaction does involve a loss protection arrangement in which the FDIC would absorb losses on a US$ 312 billion portion of Wachovia's loan portfolio, including a US$ 122 billion option ARM mortgage portfolio. The real "why," I suspect, is management. WaMu was still trying to stay independent and, in fact, did not know that OTS had stepped in until the very last minute. Wachovia knew a deal had to get done and worked with the regulators.

To simplify greatly, Bank Holding Companies are permitted to segregate assets that they plan to hold to maturity and value them at original cost basis, rather than mark-to-market.

I would not say that. I would say that relaxed lending standards to all parties caused this. Basically, banks were pressured to relaxed the old 20% down, 30 year fixed rate mortgage that my parents had. They were pressured by groups (such as ACORN) to do this so that socioeconomic groups unable to meet the standard could own a home. This relaxation, by itself is not a problem. Subprime lending was, for years, a niche market that helped everyone. But now the banks applied the relaxed lending standards to everyone...low income minorities, people wanting a $500k McMansion on $100k a year etc. Each successive administration since Carter has pledged to "bring the American dream of home ownership" to more and more people. Banks kept relaxing their lending standards to more and more borrows (and making a boatload of cash in the process). More and more borrowers that had no business qualifying for a loan. You have seen the ads..."No Job, No Money, No Problem...$200,000 home loan for $300 a month!" Nothing wrong with increasing home ownership, it just has to be done properly. New York City (not exactly the model of efficiency) ran a program where they made 1706 home loans to low income minority borrowers to increase home ownership. They capped the amount they lent, required down payments and courses in home ownership. Of those 1706 loans, only 5 were in default. Thats an astonishingly low number and the City should be applauded for running the program the right way and imposing limits/constraints, where people may not have done so themselves.

I'm listening to it now...great stuff. Please keep up the good work.

Ok, I am a corporate lawyer who practices broker-dealer and banking regulatory law. I do practice at a major New York City law firm, with real Wall Street clients. Its really my job to understand this stuff. I have been involved on either the acquirer or acquiree side of every transaction that has been in the papers, with respect to structuring and advising. Prior to attending law school, I worked in an investment bank.

I will guarantee you that I am far more involved than you are. Trust me, I have done plenty to try and work out as much as I could here. You know, Denninger actually has some relevant points that are worth salient discussion. If you back him, why not start a thread on it? I think he overall misses the forest from the trees, but his points WILL help. His points plus some type of rescue may actually work. EDIT: I'll even link it...not bad ideas. http://www.denninger.net/letters/fixit.pdf They may address the root accounting/derivative problem (not the root of falling home prices), but with a rescue, these are decent ideas and wish I heard more about them from Washington.

Thanks for the laugh. And the reality check. Working 20/24 hours for three weeks in a row will tend to make someone a little batty!