I noticed the BBC had Nicola “Superwoman” Horlick on this morning, explaining why one of the hedge funds her company manages had assets worth $20.9 million invested with the alleged fraudulent hedge fund run by Bernard Madoff. Bramdean, whose shares crashed 23.75p to 42.75p on the news, said that the sums tied up with Mr Madoff represented 9.5 per cent of its assets. I was entertained by Horlick’s line that in the worst case scenario, if everything is lost on this fund, investors will be only down 4%. Happy days, eh? So why did the BBC have her on in the first place given its hatred of capitalism? I suggest that it is because Nicola merrily went on to divert attention from her own company’s pooor judgement in this investment by claiming that the crisis was caused by poor regulation in the States. This fits into the ongoing BBC/Brown narrative that everything bad starts on the other side of the Atlantic. If all else fails, as it look it has in the Madoff situation, just blame Bush!
IT ALL STARTED IN AMERICA
Bookmark the permalink.
Depends on what you mean by added value. Added value as in someone chopping down a tree and making a chair from it? If the guy can’t get financing to buy himself a chainsaw he’s not going to get far is he.
there has been real growth in capital held by the city over the years –stocks held in every conceivable asset have seen real monetary growth, and it’s not just an illusion. Without the city investors or too much government interference this countrys economy will be buggered. The anti city hysteria must be addressed for everyones benefit.
EG A private equity firm that borrows money to reinvigorate a company that is being failed by poor management is adding value I agree. But that doesnt seem like a recent innovation to me.
Unfortunately like the rest of us, they are also being fucked because of the actions of people who EG repackaged low quality debt into dubious financial instruments which were suddenly deemed less risky. These are the ‘innovations’ that are a big part of the problem.
Agreed there has been poor internal inspection by some of the banks, but most bankers do a good job assessing risk and debt pretty well.
The average banker is not an idiot nor a greedy bastard as portrayed by the Leftie media, but an individual who facilitates money movements.
The idiots who failed to oversee the ridiculous packages tied up by certain individuals should be punished, but let’s not let this present crisis allow the control freaks at no10 to interfere in our financial markets too much!!!
An economic model where the entire economy is dependent on the financial sector (which does not provide enough jobs to sustain the population) is suicidal.
Only the industrial sector provides stability, and it also creates far more jobs.
SJ, trading of distressed debt in itself isn’t necessarily a problem. If there was no market for distressed debt this would be disasterous (as we’re now seeing) as only the already wealthy and well capitalised would be able to raise finance. That sounds like pretty much the end of the start up enterprise.
I also don’t see that there’s any fundamental problem in packaging up different grades of debt into marketable products, all that does is assist in making more risky (entrepreneurial if you like) finance commercially available.
The problem has been the valuation of these products, not the products themselves. It comes down to over-reliance of investors on the ratings agencies and the failure of the ratings agencies to appropriately rate the products. Partly this is down to the model whereby their customers are those that they’re appraising. Amidst all the chucking public cash about I haven’t seen any concerted push to sort situation out which seems a bit strange…
An economic model where the entire economy is dependent on the financial sector (which does not provide enough jobs to sustain the population) is suicidal.
Only the industrial sector provides stability, and it also creates far more jobs.
Agreed in an ideal world we would have more industry, but we have priced ourselves out of the world market with our shoddy overpriced goods and in many cases not given enough USP to guarantee a faithful market base.
If we want to improve our worldwide market share we need to follow the German model
1)high quality products
2)product kudos
3)buying our own national products
Small high quality manufacturing firms (I have experience in the furniture market) are showing the way, but are often frustrated by red tape and government bureaucracy.
Unfortunately most of these firms only employ from 10 to 50 people.
“let’s not let this present crisis allow the control freaks at no10 to interfere in our financial markets too much!!!”
frankos | 16.12.08 – 4:45 pm |
I think that horse has already bolted. We’ve seen the government step in to help recapitalise the banks by part nationalising them, but they were not insolvent before nationalisation; their assets exceeded their liabilities and their risk weighted assets (as defined by Basel II) also exceeded their liabilities. The British government, unilaterally and without consulation, decided the banks’ risk weighted assets needed to exceed their liabilities by a higher margin than previously, thus creating the need for recapitalisation at a time when raising more capital would be very difficult (witness the trouble Barclays had doing so).
Was the British government’s action really to protect bank customers, or was it a well hidden excuse to nationalise the banks, as they have wanted since the Labour party was formed? Blair’s deletion of clause 4 from the party constitution was a purely cosmetic exercise; the aspiration remained, and has now been acted on. Lets see how quickly the banks escape the clutches of government now.
Cockney – your last para is pretty much what I was trying to say – innovations which package debt in such a way that the true risk becomes, er, unclear have created a confidence problem for other better priced instruments and the consequence seems to be that a lot, if not all, of the growth created in the last decade has been wiped out.
Or at least, that’s how it feels!
Anyway, we’re way OT here…
Has anyone heard from the BBC about the $37 million the Elie Wiesel Foundation lost because of Madoff’s crime? Or is he just a Holocaust extortionist and his charity is not worthy of BBC time?
How about all the other charities which have either lost everything and have shut their doors or lost a significant portion of their capital? I thought the BBC cared about charity organizations, but I guess not when they’re Jewish.
None of this deserved even a brief mention on Peston’s blog, never mind on air or on the News website. Isn’t the fact that so many charities were either wholly destroyed or substantially damaged by this crime an integral part of understanding its scope? I’d like to hear from any Beeboid or defender of the indefensible on this one.
This isn’t even about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. No Israeli involvement at all. None. So nobody can use the usual defense of “It’s not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel”. Equally invalid is the position that the BBC is duty-bound to report only on how Madoff’s crime affects the UK. You’ve heard from the BBC about how this affects the owner of the New York Mets, as well as French, Spanish, Swiss, and Japanese banks, so it’s clear that the BBC is willing to mention foreign organizations with no UK connection which have been affected.
This is pure, mean-spirited, anti-Jewish prejudice by BBC editors. I think we have to include Robert Peston in this, as he’s the BBC business editor. Even if it’s a case of them not feeling that this is worth mentioning, rather than a deliberate decision not to report anything that might evoke sympathy for Jews, it’s still prejudice.
Unless somebody can give me a valid alternative explanation…..
Mr Preiser
Since you ask, equally valid:
1/ No reason to ignore Occam’s Razor
2/ Peston’s dumb as a bag of hammers
3/ You babble too much
knacker,
1/ Are you saying that this entire blog is pointless?
2/ Peston isn’t dumb. Not even close. Foolish, maybe, but not dumb.
3/ Playing the man and not the ball again, I see.
Do you have anything serious to contribute besides insulting me? Again? Why do you even visit this blog?
My, my, we’re getting a good look at your inner workings.
So…your wild, loopy insinuation that the hapless Peston is anti-semitic isn’t ad hominem? But calling you a blowhard is?
That would make you, er, a blowhard. And that’s being kind.
your wild, loopy insinuation that the hapless Peston is anti-semitic
Hold on, you guys.
RobertPeston is probably Jewish.
I dunno who is mum is, but his dad Maurice P was. And that generation didn’t marry out so much.
Peston is Jewish. Yet another of those pesky anti-Semitic Jews employed by the BBC in a senior position.
knacker,
If you’ve got actual constructive criticism about how I’m wrong about an example of BBC bias, or where I’ve missed explaining some of it correctly, then by all means, let’s hear it.
If it’s only personal insults you’re after, don’t waste my time. You’re not a moderator, so there’s nothing you can do about my style, tone, or even the fact that I post comments here at all. You can always just scroll past my name. Don’t you have anything to contribute other than this?
If you’re just trying to clean up the comments section of Biased-BBC – all in the interests of improving everyone’s experience, of course – aren’t any other commenters worth your sophisticated efforts?
Sarah Jane | Homepage | 18.12.08 – 2:46 pm |
If Peston is Jewish, then he’s guilty of the sort of self-censorship that the New York Times used to engage in, and still does occasionally. Schulzberger, the Jewish publisher and owner, admitted a while back that the NY Times deliberately withheld stories, or context within stories, that would appear too sympathetic to Israel, because he didn’t want anyone to think the paper was showing favoritism towards Jews.
The accusations of dual loyalty and “Jew York Times” had a real effect on their editorial policy. Peston may feel similarly.
In any case, nobody has given me an explanation of why the wiping out, or deep wounding, of all these prominent Jewish charities isn’t an important part of the Madoff story. Nobody has come up with any editorial excuse, or even tried to tell me why this isn’t a significant part of the whole story of what this crime has caused.
Notice I’ve never brought out the “If it was a Muslim charity…..” chestnut, because I don’t need to.
David – there is no ‘if’ about it.
Maybe he thought that ‘Wealthy Jew rips of Jewish Charities as well as your bank/pension fund/LA’ wasn’t an angle the story needed.
But more likely your angle – in fact that (self-censorship) probably explains a lot of what some of the people here perceive as anti-Semitism, because it certainly isnt the case that the beeb discriminates in terms of employment/career advancement.
Sarah Jane | Homepage | 18.12.08 – 4:37 pm |
in fact that (self-censorship) probably explains a lot of what some of the people here perceive as anti-Semitism, because it certainly isn’t the case that the beeb discriminates in terms of employment/career advancement.
They only promote their preferred sort of Jews, apparently. Seriously, though, this just raises further questions about Peston’s ability to function as a proper business editor.
The charity angle is a serious issue, and a significant part of the story. I can’t understand it. It’s not like I’m asking for all stories about this to focus on the charity angle. Just one mention somewhere, as part of the context.
Mr Preiser
Well now, you keep digging.
If you want a grown-up (partial) explanation of Madoff’s Jew-on-Jew behavior — I’m not convinced you do, since you’re all about ego — go here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122956340954216799.html
There’s more to Madoff than this, but it beats the thin, whiny assertions and cheap smears you cough up and won’t retract.
You seem to regard any personal criticism as lèse-majesté, though you demand a free hand to dish it out. God alone knows, and cares, what drives you — your inner nebbish beating up on your inner Walter Mitty, maybe? Are you bipolar? Rainman?
The irony, from my POV, is that Sarah Jane sounds on the money here. It’s also probably true, generally speaking, that the BBC hates Israel but isn’t anti-Semitic.
You’ll be relieved I don’t post here often.
But I’ll shit in your sandbox anytime I feel like it.
knacker,
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about regarding Madoff. You seem to be replying to an entirely different argument.
In any case, you’re a bully, and wasting your time.
Just use that little wheel between the buttons on your mouse, and you’ll feel much better about yourself.