Off Topic- general chat!

[destiny1]

Looks like the site redesign is coming along well and will be completed sometime next week. While the programmers are doing their thing I won't be able to load the updated flow chart. Though things are a bit quiet this week (news wise) at Rim Semi, its pretty clear with Brad representing Rim Semi at the CTM meeting in San Jose, things are anything but quiet in the telco world. I'm working on a new article which looks at Rim Semi's new relationship with former competitors which I hope to post within the few days.

Till then

D1;)

[HopefulOne]

Certainly off-topic, but I sincerely hope that every shareholder in the San Diego area is safe and well, and their home(s) are still intact.

In my case, we're close enough to the water that I think we'll be fine. But, there are some, both here and on other posting boards, about whom I have great concerns.

My best wishes for good luck to all who's homes are being threatened, or who have already lost their homes.

H.1.

[jjz34]

I join in your prayers and well wishes for all those threatened or affected by the fires. Regardless of where we stand on this stock, this would be a time to take a moment to think about those suffering down there and pray for safety and recovery.

[destiny1]

Guys,

It's a surreal feeling watching my old neighborhood in SD burn down. Word is a home I use to own was one of the over 500 destroyed in the Rancho Bernardo area. I talked to Ray yesterday. (He's still in New York working on a financing package.) The entire city is covered in smoke. Though his family is not directly threatened, everyone is leaving the area just so they can breathe.

D1

[destiny1]

Chargers Win, Chargers Win!

D1:)

[destiny1]

This treatise is ascribed to Jay Leno. I have no idea whether this is true. Whoever the author is, he/she should be commended.



I hope you will all read to the end. Jay Leno puts it into perspective and
makes us think about the pathetic negativity.

Jay Leno wrote this, it's the Jay Leno we don't often see....


"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll
data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source,
right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with
the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is
unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the
citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, "What are we so
unhappy about?" Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week?

Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and
heating in the winter?

Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see
more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic
Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through
each state?

Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the
way that can provide temporary shelter?

I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around
the world is just not good enough.

Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and
provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to
the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may
be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of
trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to
extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar
or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof
vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias
raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of
teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy
that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world
has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain
for its citizens . They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in
the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what
we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no
plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval
rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days
after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of
recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in
the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe
from terrorist attacks?

The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out ther defending
you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk
show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't
take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused
you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to
kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have
volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom.
There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They
are able to refuse to go and end up with either a 'general' discharge, an
'other than honorable' discharge or, worst case scenario, a 'dishonorable'
discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of
Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds,
it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car
crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at
the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit
corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend
their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why
they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about
"how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this
way"...Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the
TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird
cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country.

There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed
people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be
thankful and appreciative.

"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding,
severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and
with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a
good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Jay Leno 2007
Release Date: 1/28/2008

[HopefulOne]

Words of wisdom to be sure, but NOT to the credit of Jay Leno. My understanding that he may have said a few "bits and pieces" of this, but 99% of those words belong to someone else.

H.1.

[destiny1]

This is for anyone who loves this country and served in the armed forces.

This is a great song.

D1

Make sure to click on the link and play the song at the end of this story....

The elderly parking lot attendant wasn't in a good mood! Neither was Sam
Bierstock. It was around 1 a.m., and Bierstock, a Delray Beach, Fla. , eye
doctor, business consultant, corporate speaker and musician, was bone
tired after appearing at an event. He pulled up in his car, and the
parking attendant began to speak. "I took two bullets for this country and
look what I'm doing," he said bitterly.

At first, Bierstock didn't know what to say to the World War II veteran.
But he rolled down his window and told the man, "Really, from the bottom
of my heart, I want to thank you."

Then the old soldier began to cry. "That really got to me," Bierstock says.

Cut to today.

Bierstock, 58, and John Melnick, 54, of Pompano Beach - a member of
Bierstock's band, Dr. Sam and the Managed Care Band - have written a song
inspired by that old soldier in the airport parking lot. The mournful
"Before You Go" does more than salute those who fought in WWII. It
encourages people to go out of their way to thank the aging warriors
before they die.

"If we had lost that particular war, our whole way of life would have been
shot," says Bierstock, who plays harmonica. "The WW II soldiers are now
dying at the rate of about 2,000 every day. I thought we needed to thank
them."

The song is striking a chord. Within four days of Bierstock placing it on
the Web, the song and accompanying photo essay have bounced around nine
countries, producing tears and heartfelt thanks from veteran s, their sons
and daughters and grandchildren.

"It made me cry," wrote one veteran's son. Another sent an e-mail saying
that only after his father consumed several glasses of wine would he
discuss "the unspeakable horrors" he and to her soldiers had witnessed in
places such as Anzio, Iwo Jima, Bataan and Omaha Beach. "I can never thank
them enough," the son wrote. "Thank you for thinking about them."

Bierstock and Melnick thought about shipping it off to a professional
singer, maybe a Lee Greenwood type, but because time was running out for
so many veterans, they decided it was best to release it quickly, for
free, on the Web. They've sent the song to Sen. John McCain and others in
Washington. Already they have been invited to perform it in Houston for a
Veterans Day tribute - this after just a few days on the Web. They hope
every veteran in America gets a chance to hear it.


CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO HEAR THE SONG AND SEE THE PICTURES:


http://www.managedmusic.com/Music/PlayBeforeYouGo.php (http://www.managedmusic.com/Music/PlayBeforeYouGo.php)

[destiny1]

Last Updated: March 13, 2008: 2:52 PM EDT

From Money Magazine:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/markets/morebailouts.fortune/index.htm?eref=yahoo

Meet your new banker: Uncle Sam
Some say this year's financial sector upheaval could leave the feds buying stocks and bonds.

Colin Barr (cbarr@fortunemail.com;letters@fortunemail.com), senior writer


http://i.l.cnn.net/money/2008/03/13/markets/morebailouts.fortune/henry_paulson_f.03.jpgTreasury Secretary Henry Paulson has been unusually candid in discussing the financial sector's pain.
More from Fortune (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/)How a lender bailout hurts the economy (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/12/markets/fedfollies.fortune/index.htm)

Diller fights for his job (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/newsmakers/diller_simons.fortune/index.htm)

EA's need for speed (http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/03/13/eas-bid-for-take-two-gets-hostile/)

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- With a vicious storm pelting the markets, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is urging bankers to batten down the hatches - possibly foreshadowing an expanded government role as a financial-sector investor.
Paulson spoke Thursday morning (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/economy/paulson/index.htm?postversion=2008031313) in Washington as the President's Working Group on Financial Markets unveiled its suggested policy responses to the past year's credit market unrest. Paulson said the group's recommendations - including stronger oversight of players in the mortgage industry - aim to make markets more transparent and less prone to breakdowns such as the one that began last summer, when investors began fleeing mortgage-related securities.
But the process of devising new regulations will inevitably take months and years to play out, as legislators and securities watchdogs debate which measures to adopt. In the meantime, financial institutions are under considerable stress. Bank and brokerge stocks have suffered steep declines over the past year, as asset prices have fallen and some leveraged players have been forced to sell at fire-sale prices.
Those facts haven't escaped the attention of Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs (GS (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=GS&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/575.html?source=story_f500_link)) executive. He warned investors in no uncertain terms Thursday to expect the ride to get even bumpier, as firms seek once again to bolster their balance sheets.
"We are encouraging financial institutions to continue to strengthen balance sheets by raising capital and revisiting dividend policies," he said in remarks addressed to the National Press Club. "We need these institutions to continue to lend and facilitate economic growth."
Trying to replace capital
The candid comments show that Paulson has come a long way since last summer, when he said to some derision that economic damage from the decline of U.S. house prices was "largely contained." Since then, shares in financial institutions with heavy exposure to housing-related debt, ranging from Fannie Mae and Washington Mutual (WM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=WM&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1554.html?source=story_f500_link)) to Bear Stearns (BSC (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=BSC&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/1341.html?source=story_f500_link)) and Citi (FNM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=FNM&source=story_quote_link)), have lost more than half their value amid worries about the declining value of their mortgage holdings.
The firms have already taken action to boost their capital, which has been depleted by big writedowns of deteriorating loans and derivatives holdings. Citi raised $30 billion in December and January, mostly by selling convertible preferred stock to deep-pocketed foreign investors. Fannie Mae raised almost $8 billion in a sale of preferred stock in December, while its government-sponsored mortgage-investing sibling Freddie Mac (FRE (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=FRE&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/543.html?source=story_f500_link)) raised $6 billion the same way. Fannie and Freddie's regulator, the Office for Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, recently deemed the firms well-capitalized as of Dec. 31.
But that was before the latest downturn in the mortgage securities market. For months, investors have been shunning mortgage bonds issued by private-sector banks, fearing the bonds would lose value as home prices fall and defaults rise. Since last month, however, the market for so-called agency bonds - those issued by Fannie and Freddie, which carry the implicit backing of the government - has turned fearful as well. That's at least partly because President Bush recently signed into law a measure lifting the limits on the size of mortgages Fannie and Freddie can buy. Investors fear it will add to looming credit losses at the GSEs. Meanwhile, a steep drop in the value of the dollar, along with a bear market in U.S. financial stocks, may have reduced the appetite of many private investors to pour more capital into the banks.
Those dynamics have spurred a debate about how far the government should go in its efforts to keep big financial firms pumping money into the economy. David Merkel, chief economist at broker-dealer Finacorp Securities, believes the government - already having cut interest rates repeatedly and expanded the terms of its bank lending programs - might try to break the market panic by buying Fannie and Freddie's subordinated debt.
Feds may step in
A federal purchase of Fannie or Freddie debt could make sense for all involved if the securities convert into common stock or carry equity warrants. Merkel says a government purchase of, say, convertible subordinated debt would help the companies reliquefy their balance sheets while allowing taxpayers to participate in the gains of an eventual market recovery.
"In this environment, would the U.S. government step away from the mortgage agencies?" he asks in a recent post at his Aleph Blog. Of course not, he says, adding, "The agencies will need more capital for lending, so I would expect more preferred stock issues, and perhaps an equity issuance, if to a key investor, like the U.S. government."
The sight of the government taking a stake in a private company will raise hackles among those who believe the feds should minimize their involvement in the economy. But the feds have done so before: several airlines that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks issued warrants to the government as part of their plans to re-emerge as public companies.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, notes that Fannie and Freddie's very existence is predicated on the favorable rates they borrow at due to the implicit government guarantee of their bonds. The firms "would be bankrupt otherwise," Baker says. He adds that possible federal efforts to recapitalize Fannie and Freddie are understandable as part of an attempt to avert a "cascading effect" started by debt-market failures.
That's very much the thinking of Nobel-winning economist Myron Scholes, who tells The Wall Street Journal that the government should be looking to buy into all sorts of private-sector financial firms. Thursday's David Wessel column finds Scholes advocating that the feds invest in senior debt and senior preferred stock, to avoid favoring one class of existing investors over another - and to avoid a rash of bank liquidations that slow the economy by reducing lending.

Whatever course policymakers choose, it's unlikely to be one everyone is happy with, as Paulson suggested in Thursday's question-and-answer session at the National Press Club. "This is a real challenge," he said of the effort to make regulation more robust without crimping private-sector innovation. "These large global institutions are not easy to manage." http://i.cnn.net/money/images/bug.gif (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/markets/morebailouts.fortune/index.htm?eref=yahoo#TOP) First Published: March 13, 2008: 1:47 PM EDT

[destiny1]

We’ve completed this round of ticktockstock.com updates! Most of the changes have been behind the scenes including a new web hosting company and enhanced SEO features.

Publicly, we’ve added a new search function and integrated the forum and the other site pages into a single unit.

Now you can search anywhere on the site or the entire web from a single source right here on ticktockstock.com. Simply type your keywords into tick tock’s search function and instantly you’ll have the entire web world at your fingertips.

We continue to experience steady growth in March. We’re on pace to go over 500,000 hits this month including over 2,000 unique visitors.

We thank each and everyone for being here and continuing make ticktock the site for emerging new growth opportunities.

D1;)

[destiny1]

PAGE ONE
His Legacy Tarnished,
Greenspan Goes on Defensive

Future of U.S. Financial Reform
Is at Stake; 'I Am Right'
By GREG IP
April 8, 2008; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan's reputation is under siege, and he's incredulous.
Hailed three years ago as "the greatest central banker who ever lived," the retired chairman of the Federal Reserve now is being criticized for his management of the U.S. economy before he retired in 2006. The Fed's low rates and laissez-faire regulatory oversight during his final years are widely blamed for sowing the seeds of today's financial crisis -- one that began in the U.S. housing market and is now battering banks, stock markets, borrowers and consumers around the world.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AL115_Greens_20080407184713.jpgFormer Fed chief Alan Greenspan calls some of the criticisms of his tenure 'quite unfair.'
For much of his 18 years atop the world's most-influential economic institution, Mr. Greenspan was lionized for the economy's performance. Now, he notes, he's being second-guessed for it.
"I was praised for things I didn't do," Mr. Greenspan said during one of three interviews at his sun-drenched office in downtown Washington, D.C. "I am now being blamed for things that I didn't do."
Now 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan wants to set the record straight before the ink dries on the first draft of the financial crisis' history. The former Fed chief doesn't deny that he cares about his reputation. But the larger issue at stake, he says, is getting the lessons of the crisis right.
"The [wrong] evaluation of this period -- and how to avoid the problems associated with it -- will give you the wrong answers and the wrong policies," he says.
The scrutiny of Mr. Greenspan's record has taken on urgency now that the Bush administration and congressional Democrats are skirmishing over how to overhaul U.S. financial regulation. If Mr. Greenspan's critics prevail, then financial companies will likely face tighter oversight and less freedom in the products they offer. If Mr. Greenspan's views carry the day, the trend toward self-policing will continue. A repudiation of Mr. Greenspan's monetary policies could tempt the Fed to raise interest rates relatively quickly after the current crisis passes, and even attempt to deflate future bubbles with higher interest rates.

con't

[destiny1]

Mr. Greenspan says he doesn't regret a single decision. In his view, many critics are ignoring evidence in his favor and failing to assess the process by which he made decisions. To prove his point, he draws on texts of old speeches and news clippings and even a letter, written by a now-deceased colleague, downplaying a policy disagreement the two once had.
His tone modulates between earnest, bemused and dismayed. No stranger to controversy, he easily brushes off the comments of longtime antagonists. He chuckles at political cartoons, such as one likening his recent memoir, "The Age of Turbulence," to O.J. Simpson's "If I Did It."
'Where's the Evidence?'
The criticisms that get under his skin are those from friends and former colleagues, many of them respected economists who backed his policies at the time but now say, in hindsight, that the calls were wrong. "I do take it seriously if my peers think I have misstated the facts," he says. "But where's the evidence? Too many people make accusations by assertion. I think it's improper."
Mr. Greenspan still has many admirers. His memoir has sold about a million copies. He collects six-figure fees to answer questions for audiences, typically assemblies of financial professionals. He has signed consulting contracts with three firms, including Germany's biggest bank, Deutsche Bank AG; the world's biggest bond-fund manager, Pacific Investment Management Co.; and Paulson & Co., a hedge fund that made billions betting against housing. Sen. Hillary Clinton recently called for his inclusion on a panel to advise on the foreclosure crisis.
The prevailing view among critics faults Mr. Greenspan on two main counts.

First, they say, his Fed lowered rates too much from 2001 to 2003 to cushion the economy from the bursting dotcom bubble. Then it took too long to raise them again. Low rates fueled mortgage borrowing, driving home prices to unsustainable heights.
Second, they say, the Fed was lax in its regulatory role. The central bank failed to press for stiffer rules for underwriting mortgages to people who ultimately couldn't afford them, they say. Also, they say, the Fed failed to anticipate banks' exposure to risky home buyers, leaving them with too little capital to absorb the eventual losses on those mortgages.
At the time, Mr. Greenspan expected his policy to boost housing because the rest of the economy was relatively unresponsive to lower interest rates. Based on decades of his own research, he believed a buoyant housing market would spur consumers to borrow against home values and spend more. This would not produce a housing bubble, he predicted, because it was difficult to speculate in homes and the memory of the 2000 tech-stock bust remained fresh.
Mr. Greenspan now admits he was wrong about the improbability of a housing bubble. Yet he has long maintained that bubbles are an unavoidable feature of a dynamic economy. He pulls out a 1999 speech and shows, underlined in green marker, passages in which he warned of recurring but unpredictable patterns of overconfidence followed by investor panic. He does not share some foreign central bankers' belief that their job is to defend against excessive asset-price inflation: No sensible policy, he maintains, could have prevented the housing bubble.
"I am reasonably certain that I am right here," Mr. Greenspan says. If proved wrong, he says, "I will change. I do not have a vested interest in holding wrong ideas."
Dour Inflation Fighter
Mr. Greenspan was born in New York in 1926. An acolyte from an early age of the libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand, he was convinced that private self-interest regulates markets and businesses better than government can. He ran an economic-consulting firm and served as an economic adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. In 1987, President Reagan appointed him chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Mr. Greenspan's first years were rocky. He was credited with swiftly responding to the 1987 stock-market crash. But his slowness to lower rates in the early 1990s led to frequent clashes with President George H.W. Bush. He was seen as a dour inflation fighter quick to snuff out strong economic growth.
But in the 1990s, economic expansion lengthened and the U.S. successfully negotiated several financial crises. Admiration for Mr. Greenspan grew. Some accused him of being a cheerleader for the stock-market boom of the late 1990s. But his aggressive interest-rate cuts in response to the bursting bubble, and the mildness of the recession in 2001, restored his luster.
The unlikely popularity of this central banker -- known for inscrutable comments and idiosyncratic syntax -- became the stuff of satire. When the journalist Stephen Glass, later discredited for fabricating stories, spun a tale about an investment firm that had erected a shrine to Mr. Greenspan, it seemed plausible. The Onion, a satirical Web site, wrote of him in 2001: "Several thousand excited young Japanese fans mobbed and tipped over his tour bus after a speech."
When Mr. Greenspan left the Fed in January 2006, the economy was strong, inflation was low and prices of stocks and houses were buoyant.
But seeds of crisis began to germinate a few months later. Home prices stopped rising. House construction turned down. Delinquencies mounted on subprime mortgages, home loans made to borrowers who didn't qualify for, or weren't offered, regular mortgages. That triggered the collapse of several mortgage lenders and hedge funds.
In August 2007, the troubles spread to banks in Europe and the U.S. In September, Mr. Greenspan released his memoir. As discussion of the book saturated newspapers and television, his successor, Ben Bernanke, delivered the first of six interest-rate cuts to date aimed at countering the crisis.


Opinions of Mr. Greenspan trended down with the economy. Last month, Sen. Chris Dodd -- a Connecticut Democrat who in 2005 said Mr. Greenspan commanded "tremendous respect" in the Senate -- laid the blame at his feet. Mr. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, charged that Mr. Greenspan's policies have left "millions and millions of American consumers" facing foreclosure.
Anti-Greenspan sentiment has cropped up on blogs such as The Mess That Greenspan Made and Greenspan's Body Count, the latter a tally of deaths purportedly linked to the real-estate bust. Hedge-fund manager William Fleckenstein's book "Greenspan's Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve," released in January, is now in its fourth printing.
Mr. Greenspan says many of the criticisms against him are unjust. He is particularly perturbed by attacks over a 2004 speech in which he suggested that more borrowers would benefit from adjustable-rate mortgages. Interest rates were at a historical low at the time, which means that those who held on to the mortgages would have seen rates adjusted upward.
Mr. Greenspan says the speech merely pointed out that many people who get a 30-year mortgage move or refinance long before it matures. Eight days after giving the speech, he says, he clarified his comments to say he didn't mean to disparage 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. "I find it profoundly disturbing" that critics cite the recommendation and not the retraction, he says, tapping his fingers on the table in front of him. "In all seriousness, this is really quite unfair."

con't

[destiny1]

Analyzing the Crisis


He has also thrown himself into analyzing the current crisis, immersing himself in economic data as he did at the Fed -- though now without 200 Ph.D. economists to assist him. The questions his clients currently ask go to the heart of his own legacy: What drove the housing and mortgage bubbles? How far will they deflate? What will happen to the economy?
Unable to find out how many homes are bought with subprime mortgages, Mr. Greenspan spent several months designing his own data system. Some of what he has learned is going into a new chapter for the paperback edition of his book, to be released Aug. 26. It will explain events after last June, when he finished writing the original.
The biggest question mark over Mr. Greenspan's record is his decision to slash interest rates to 1% in 2003 and wait to raise them until 2004, and then only slowly. In this debate, Mr. Greenspan and his critics seem to speak different languages.
Critics talk about the events that followed -- an overheated housing market and a rapid buildup of debt on Main Street and Wall Street, much of which is now painfully unwinding. Such critics are now in the majority: In a recent Wall Street Journal survey of 55 economists, 84% said the Fed was too slow to raise rates. Two members of the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee at the time -- William Poole and Robert Parry, presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of St. Louis and San Francisco -- have both recently argued that, in hindsight, rates were too low for too long.
Mr. Greenspan focuses not on events that followed the policy but on the thinking behind it. "I don't remember a case when the process by which the decision making at the Federal Reserve failed," he says.
He says rock-bottom interest rates actually went against his "19th century" aversion to easy money. "My inner soul didn't feel comfortable," he says. He justified the policy by noting that at the time, inflation was falling persistently and the risk of deflation -- though small -- seemed real, despite his prior assumptions that it was impossible with a dollar unlinked to gold.
To prevent deflation, the Fed spurred growth by keeping interest rates low. At the time, he notes, the only dissenting votes on the Fed policy committee were those who wanted to set rates even lower. The Fed, he said, initially raised rates gradually to give businesses and investors time to prepare. In 2004 and 2005, it raised rates faster than private economists expected.
That judgment is now being questioned by Mr. Greenspan's peers, including Stanford University economist John Taylor. The Treasury Department's top international hand from 2001 to 2005, Mr. Taylor is famous in academic circles for his Taylor Rule, a formula the Fed and other central banks use as a guide to setting interest rates.
At a 2005 Fed conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo., where the world's monetary elite gather each year, Mr. Taylor agreed with a study presented there by two Princeton economists who concluded that Mr. Greenspan was history's greatest central banker. Mr. Taylor credited Mr. Greenspan for the nation's "extraordinary economic performance," praising in part his "timely" rate cuts in 2001 to 2003 and, later, his "well telegraphed" rate hikes.
Mr. Taylor struck a different note last August. Speaking at the same Jackson Hole event, Mr. Taylor used his own model to argue that rates were kept too low for too long, overheating housing prices and setting the stage for a bust. He repeated the charge before Congress in February.
The critique is painful for Mr. Greenspan. The men have been friends since the mid-1970s, when Mr. Greenspan was chairman of President Ford's Council of Economic Advisers and Mr. Taylor was on staff. Mr. Greenspan later hired Mr. Taylor to work with his consulting firm, Townsend-Greenspan & Co.


Vintage Greenspan
Earlier this year, Mr. Greenspan invited Mr. Taylor to lunch at his office and challenged his former protégé's assessment. In Mr. Greenspan's view, if the Fed's policies were to blame, the housing bubble would have been mostly limited to the U.S. Yet, he argued, many other countries had housing bubbles, too. A better culprit, he suggested, was the glut of savings globally. Savers were competing to make loans, keeping long-term interest rates low in many countries and fueling housing demand.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GG772_Greens_20070524133642.gif
Mr. Taylor countered that there was no savings glut, citing data that showed world savings equaled world investment. Mr. Greenspan called Mr. Taylor's data "irrelevant." Interest rates are affected by intended investment rather than actual investment, Mr. Greenspan argued, adding that intentions are hard to measure.
The discussion, if arcane, was vintage Greenspan. The former Fed chief has long differed from conventional economists in his disdain of models and his readiness to second-guess economic data. While that has given him insights that escape his peers, it has also created chasms in the ways he and they see the world.
Mr. Taylor says he stands by his 2005 praise of Mr. Greenspan's tenure as a whole. "Monday-morning quarterbacking" of a few episodes, he says, "shouldn't change the overall assessment."
Mr. Greenspan's regulatory record has also come under review. The Federal Reserve is charged with supervising banks and enforcing and interpreting consumer-protection laws such as the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act. Today, Mr. Greenspan's hands-off oversight is routinely cited for lax lending standards that steered many borrowers toward mortgages they ultimately couldn't afford.
Mr. Greenspan says that on regulatory issues, he deferred to the Fed's staff or to the Fed governor in charge of consumer matters. Former Fed officials concur but some add that senior staff reflected Mr. Greenspan's distrust of regulation. Without a prod from its chairman, they say, the Fed was often slow to expand consumer protection.
Mr. Greenspan scorns the notion that he intimidated others into falling in line. "What I find amusing is that history is being rewritten with me being portrayed as a force that overwhelms and persuades all these highly educated, very intelligent people to do my bidding," he says. "That's just silliness. It's a terrible rewrite of history."
The Fed took several steps to tighten oversight of subprime lending, but until last year, none were aimed at the type of adjustable-rate subprime mortgages whose phenomenal growth in 2005-06 is at the root of the current crisis. Mr. Greenspan notes the Fed lacked good data on those mortgages.
Fed Seal of Approval
On at least one occasion, Mr. Greenspan did resist colleagues who urged further oversight. In 2000, then-Fed governor Edward Gramlich, who was in charge of the Fed's consumer affairs, proposed to Mr. Greenspan that the Fed's staff examiners look for abusive lending practices in banks' lightly regulated mortgage affiliates.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal last June, three months before his death, Mr. Gramlich said that at the time, he generally considered subprime loans a good thing. He didn't then know the extent to which the loans would become a problem, but he wanted the "Fed to be a leader" in cracking down on predatory lending.
Mr. Greenspan recalls that he demurred, saying that the Fed shouldn't have oversight of these lenders. Shady operations could portray their Fed-regulated status as a seal of approval, he suggested, giving them unearned credibility with customers.
Since the interview with Mr. Gramlich was published, it has been cited repeatedly as evidence of Mr. Greenspan's neglect. Asked about it, Mr. Greenspan draws a piece of paper from his desk. It is a letter in Mr. Gramlich's shaky handwriting, written a few days before his death last September.
"You were a magnificent central banker and a great leader," Mr. Gramlich wrote. "I truly wish the press would stop kicking you around on this subprime supervision issue. What happened was a small incident." (read (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120760341392296107.html?mod=djemalertNEWS))
Write to Greg Ip at greg.ip@wsj.com (greg.ip@wsj.com)

[destiny1]

Interesting Motley Fool article
Note: Deutsche Telecom

http://msn.fool.com/investing/international/2008/08/06/the-death-of-the-american-billionaire.aspx?logvisit=y&source=eedmsnlnk0010001&published=2008-08-06

[destiny1]

Now this was a great President!
Mr. Reagan, why aren't there more like you?
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmmgVFByeaI)

D1;)

[destiny1]

McCain picks Sarah Palin, govenor of Alsaka for V.P.
(read)
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes)
Wiki on Govenor Palin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin)
This is who my wife and I hoped all along he would pick.
Deft move Senator McCain, deft move indeed!


D1;)

[destiny1]

Website will be down tonight 9/22/09 for about 2 hours between 10 PM - 12 AM MST for scheduled maintainence. Thanks for your patience.

D1;)

[smtm]

Once again, something just for this industry. Is RIM doing anything at all? There are still investors patiently waiting.
The NAB Show
"Call for Broadband Papers and Presentations
As you may already know, for years Team Lightbulb has co-produced with NAB the Telecom Conference at the NAB Show. This year we are focusing on the importance of broadband technology, standards, applications, and devices for all broadband service providers.

We are accepting broadband papers and presentations that focus on this very important (and growing) business for telecom, cable and wireless service providers and technology suppliers. The deadline for broadband proposals is this Friday - January 15! The deadline for other NAB Show conferences has passed."

Well?????????????????????????????????????????