about this blog
- Elizabeth MacDonald is the stocks editor for Fox Business Network. She is recognized as one of the top prize-winning business journalists in the country, and has received 14 awards, including the top prize in business journalism, the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business Journalism, and the Newswomen's Club of New York Front Page Award for Excellence in Investigative Journalism.
most popular posts
-
- There are no viewed posts at this time.
Gary Driscoll
Why not just have the Dow index track whatever are the 30 best performing stocks every day? That way it will usually go up, as you seem to think is the proper performance of the index. That would completely divorce the index from reality, instead of doing it this piecemeal way. And, once we formally give companies the freedom to lie about the valuation (suspend mark to market rules) of their assets, we should all correctly assume that all of these assets are completely fictional.
aaron
Who is covering the SEC during all this? Everyone seems to agree that the marked to market rule at least for long dated securities needs to go. We don't hear anything from the SEC on why the rule is still in place. Actually we don't hear anything from the SEC at all. Why not? I've written before about how my home is a 'long dated security' that I don't mark to the market. And I certainly don't deposit more money to cover whatever 'paper' value it might have lost during the past year. The uptick rule is another one of the common sense things that most seem to agree needs to be restored. While it won't have quite the effect as it used to when the tics were 12.5 cents, even with pennies only one short sale could be made at a lower price before a bid would have to come in. For years I have defended the uptick rule even though in theory it goes against some of the free market ideas I believe in. The stock market is unique. Unlike the futures market where there is one long for every short, 90-95% of the people in the stock market are long the market. Meaning at a higher price you will always be able to find an ask, (someone will want to take profits) but at a lower price you might not be able to find a bid. The only buyers you might find are the short sellers covering their shorts, then what, short it again the next day? So what is the SEC saying about these two issues? I don't know, and that is strange because I watch financial news on three different networks all day long. I even Tivo some of the after market shows that conflict with other after market shows on other channels. McCain wanted to fire Chris Cox; I'd just like to hear him say something. We hear about as much out of the SEC as Ben Stein heard out of Ferris Buehler.
sailor446
The skunk at the party happens to be the rating agencies. How can an investor who has seen his/her life savings invested in AAA rated securities disappear overnight, once again dive in. Isn't that the definition of insanity? An FDIC like agency should be set up to monitor these entities and like the FDIC, be paid for by S&P, AMBAC etc. I read your blog, watch you on FOX all the time and trust you.
Mike
Lowering interest rates by subsidizing them through the Treasury is a bad idea. Short term pop but it is just delaying the inevitable that needs to get flushed through the system. I think they should allow FHA, freddie, and fannie to lend at 100% and bring new buyers into the system instead of requiring a 3-5% down payment which many don't have or would take a year to save up for. You would have to make sure they could afford it with tight debt to income levels but I woul rather get a new buyer into a house with zero down here close to the bottom for $250,000 instead of 10-20% down at an inflated value like we saw the past few years at $400,000. This is also less of a risk to the banks and government because values are now down 20-30% so if they had to take the house back it would be easier to sell and get most if not all their money back instead of writing off thousands and doing short sales.