Central Perk

marți, 16 august 2011

SEOptimise

The Google+ Honeymoon is Over: How to Deal With It

Posted: 15 Aug 2011 05:00 AM PDT

Initially Google+ was the darling of most media pundits. It was shiny, new and it grew like no other social network before. It was a typical infatuation with a new hype. Now that most Internet power users have already joined and been trying Google+ for a while the honeymoon seems to be over.

Several issues have marred the rise of the new Google social network.

Most of the issues are home grown. The dynamics of a top down social media launch, where the tech celebrities and social media mavens get the invitations first, can scare off the average user. However, these people are the backbone of Facebook’s success.

Real name fiasco

Probably the most covered Google+ problem is the massive number of deletions of user accounts by Google. Seemingly everybody suspected of not using her or his real name got banned. Prominent business accounts such as Mashable have been removed as well, in preparation for the launch of regular business accounts. Even well known users who actually were using their own names were banned. Last time I checked there were still many “keyword accounts” on Google+, so the crack down on fake names isn’t as successful as it might seem.

Traffic down

After the initial frenzy and explosive growth of the Google+ user base, the actual usage of the site tanked. There were conflicting reports, but at least two independent analytics providers confirmed that downward trend.

Endless and obnoxious discussions

Two things I haven’t yet encountered on Facebook and Twitter are endless and partly obnoxious discussions. I’ve already argued that Google+ is basically like a huge forum and that it encourages discussion with strangers but also some rather obnoxious ways of arguing. I have been disrespected almost like on old school ”social” sites, such as Digg, Reddit or StumbleUpon. These might not be downright flame wars that were common in the early days of the Web but encountering complete strangers in heated discussions can contribute to such behavior, despite users arguing using their real names.

Tech celebs flooding the stream

When Google started sending out Google+ invitations, it was mostly their social media cheerleaders who got them at first. The usual suspects, such as Robert Scoble, tried to convince their following to join Google+ as well. Google+ also suggested some of the tech pundits by default for you to add to your circles. I did add just a few of them and they almost immediately flooded my Google+ stream, making my regular peers almost disappear.

How Google+ deals with Google +1 votes

The way Google+ deals with the +1 votes on third party websites and search results is not self-explanatory. On Facebook you send the likes from other sites directly to your stream. On Google+ you don’t see the +1 votes from elsewhere. They get displayed in a separate tab on your Google Profile, which nobody really checks. Also, the website buttons do not count +1 votes from Google+ itself. Both types of +1 votes seem to be disconnected completely.

Adware infested tools for G+

While we are used to having lots of third party tools for Twitter and Facebook and most of them being trustworthy, the first tool I installed for Google+ was a rogue attempt to hijack my browser search and other preferences without my prior consent. Why? They replaced my default search engine with a Google Custom search that they make affiliate money on. Most other tools are limited to Google’s own Chrome browser. So apparently they want to bundle Chrome and Google+ in a way like Microsoft did with Windows and Internet Explorer back in the days. Do you really have to use Chrome for advanced functionality on Google+?

So how do we deal with all these issues? Are there enough annoyances to leave Google+ already? I don’t think so. I’m not an early adopter for the sake of early adopting anymore. I use tools when and how it makes sense.

For now, Google+ is a worthwhile addition for some use cases.

For example, it can be a good substitute for blog comments that are dominated these days by people who want to sneak in a link. Here you can get real feedback from people who are actually interested in what you write.

As I had a Google Profile with my real name long before Google+ I didn’t have to use a fake identity or a pseudonym. If you don’t want to use your real name you should stick with Twitter, or even better Tumblr, where people mostly use nicknames. Otherwise wait for the official business profiles.

Whether the traffic is really down or not, the growth in users does not equal the same level of growth in engagement. Well, this was to be expected as people do barely have the time to socialise on the several sites they are already members of. Some people will be less active on Twitter and Facebook to make time for Google+. Other people may return to the networks they are used to.

I was less active on both Twitter and Facebook during the initial testing phase of Google+. Now I use it only when I really want to. I seldom do, because the use cases for Google+ are not useful enough yet. It’s too small for sharing yet, and I don’t have the time to discuss much, so I will only show up once or twice daily, mostly to check my notifications. Is this a sign of a premature death of the network? Not really, it’s just the routine arriving.

Discussing on Google+ sometimes reminds me of the days of so-called Newsgroups, aka Usenet. Back then you had to use your real name as well, and despite this people lashed out at you. Many “experts” were keen to show off their skills by making you feel inferior. IMHO that’s one of the reasons why the Usenet is now almost forgotten. I simply contribute less to discussions or do not return once I notice that the discussion starts getting personal and over the top. You will always find people who disagree for the sake of disagreeing, but you can get away from such futile discussion without much fuss despite the notifications.

Ignoring technology celebrities who talk all day long is not that easy when they flood your stream. You have to remove them from your circles and then the flood stops. Google+ suggests you add them again afterwards, but you can simply click the “x” then. You also have to look out for which discussions you take part in. Tech celebs get dozens or hundreds of comments, so you keep getting notification for days with stuff not related to your own reply. Just engage with your peers and everything will be OK.

When the Google +1 button appeared on Google search results I wasn’t impressed. Later the website button was released as well and I found out that for me it was much better to be able to approve of great content and sites without having to share each one of them. The number of sites I plussed quickly grew but I didn’t annoy anybody. Entering Google+, I assumed that I would at least be able to +1 an article from the Google+ stream so that it would show up on the site as well. It doesn’t work though. So I have to click +1 twice. It seems the buttons are connected to entirely different databases.

I click +1 on Google+ to express gratitude and approval to someone who has shared a good piece of content, while I do it on websites and search results to say “thank you good post” to the webmasters themselves. This way I can or have to click +1 on the same item several times, as many people can share it and I can +1 it each and every time. Sometimes I do. It’s like on Twitter: you can retweet the same post more than once.

On Twitter I’m also used to lots of third party tools I could improve Twitter with. The first thing I wanted to install on Google+ was a Twitter client for it, but it not only did not work, it was also a scam. As I mentioned earlier, the rogue software changed my browser preferences without asking me to make money off my search usage. It took me a while to fix the problem even after uninstalling that rogue script. I haven’t installed any Google+ enhancements ever since. I only occasionally use Google Chrome in its Google spyware free version called Iron. I do not intend to install lots of Chrome extensions to enhance my Google+ experience. Indeed I don’t feel the need to.

The Google+ notifications are distracting enough. I’d prefer not to use G+ more than once daily. I use Twitter throughout the day and I don’t need Google+ to add more work to my schedule. Ideally I can check it once daily along with my emails. I have disabled most notifications though, as I got flooded with them via email. So I only check them when logged into my account.

So all in all, these Google+ annoyances are manageable. Google+ is not perfect but it’s not yet bad enough to abandon it. Like Facebook it probably never will. We will swallow everything once we depend on it, but that’s another story.

* CC image by Christine.

Seth's Blog : Three things clients and customers want

Three things clients and customers want

Not just the first one.

And not all three.

But you really need at least one.

1. Results. If you can offer a return on investment, an engineering solution, more sales, no tax audits, a cute haircut, the fastest rollercoaster, a pristine beach, reliable insurance payouts at the best price, peace of mind, productive consulting or any other measurable result, this is a great place to start.

2. Thrills. More difficult to quantify but often as important, partners and customers respond to heroism. We are amazed and drawn to over the top effort, incredible risk taking on our behalf, the blood, sweat and tears that (rarely) comes from a great partner. A smart person working harder on your behalf than you'd be willing to work--that's pretty compelling.

3. Ego. Is it nice to feel important? You bet. When you greet us at the door with a glass of white wine, put our name in the lobby of the hotel, actually treat us better than anyone else does (not just promise it, but do it)... This can get old really fast if you industrialize and systemize it, though.

This explains why the local branch of the big insurance company has trouble growing. It's hard for them to outdeliver the other guys when it comes to the cost effectiveness of their policy (#1). They are unsuited from a personality and organizational point of view to do #2. And they just can't scale the third.

Put just about any business with partners into this matrix and you see how it works. Book publishing, for sure. Hairdressers. Spas. Even real estate.

The Ritz Carlton is all about #3, ego, right? And on a good day, there's a perception that the guys at Apple are hellbent on amazing us yet again, delivering on #2, taking huge career and corporate risks on our behalf. As soon as they stop doing that, the tribe will get bored.

(There's a variation of ego, #3, that comes from being in good company. This is what gets people to sign up for Davos, or to choose ICM as their agent. Your ego is stroked by knowing that only people as cool as you are part of this gig. Sort of the anti-Groucho opportunity. Nice position, if you can get it, because it scales.).

It's tempting, particularly for a small business, to obsess about the first—results—to spend all its time trying to prove that the ROI is higher, the brownies are tastier and the coaching is more effective. You'd be amazed at how far you can go with the other two, if you commit to doing it, not merely talking about it.

• Email to a friend •

luni, 15 august 2011

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Smallest Yield Curve Gap Between US and Japan in 19 Years; What's it Mean?; Curve Comparison US, Japan, Germany, UK; Idiocy of Central Bankers
Defense Industry Bribes and Legislative Whores
Global Recession Warning
BNP Paribas leveraged 27:1; Société Générale Leveraged 50:1; Sorry State of Affairs of U.S. Banks; Global Financial System is Bankrupt

Smallest Yield Curve Gap Between US and Japan in 19 Years; What's it Mean?; Curve Comparison US, Japan, Germany, UK; Idiocy of Central Bankers

Posted: 15 Aug 2011 09:53 PM PDT

Curve Watchers Anonymous notes amazingly low yields across the entire yield curve for the US, Japan, Germany, and the UK. Here is a chart I put together this evening.

Yield Curve Comparison US, Japan, Germany, UK as of 2011-08-15

Data from Bloomberg Government Bonds as of 2011-08-15.

Mighty European Recession on the Way

Note the inversion in the German yield curve. Typically this means a recession is on the way, but the results may be skewed by all the EU bailout concerns.

Regardless, other data points especially falling industrial production also suggest Europe is headed for a recession. The austerity measures in Italy, Greece, Ireland, Spain, and Portugal will turn the recession into a mighty one.

Spain and Greece are clearly in recession now, the rest of Europe will soon follow (if it is not in recession already).

Elsewhere curves are flat as a pancake everywhere for three years. With both US and Japan flirting with zero for that three-year duration.

Smallest Yield Curve Gap Between US and Japan in 19 Years

Please consider Smallest Yield Gap in 19 Years Adds to Yen Struggle for Bank of Japan

The Bank of Japan, struggling to keep the strengthening yen from derailing efforts to repair the world's third-largest economy, is facing a new challenge -- the shrinking yield gap between two-year sovereigns and Treasuries.

The extra yield two-year Treasuries offer over similar- maturity Japanese notes fell today to the least since 1992. BOJ Governor Masaaki Shirakawa said on Aug. 4 there's a "relatively high" correlation between that rate gap and the dollar-yen rate, as falling yield premiums in the U.S. damp dollar-buying demand from Japanese investors.

The central bank may need to lengthen the maturity of bonds in its asset purchase program to stop the yen's appreciation, according to Mizuho Securities Co. The BOJ, whose policy rate is already near zero, bolstered stimulus by 10 trillion yen ($130 billion) on Aug. 4, the same day Japan intervened in the currency market for the first time since March.

The difference between the U.S. and Japanese two-year yields narrowed to a 19-year low of 3.7 basis points today.

US Back in Deflation

For Japan and the US, these are deflationary curves. This is 1 of 14 signs the US is once again in deflation. Please see Yes Virginia, U.S. Back in Deflation; Inflation Scare Ends; Hyperinflationists Wrong Twice Over for additional details.

That said, this talk of the Bank of Japan going further out on the yield curve to suppress yields at the long end of the curve is sheer madness. Japan has been pursuing such policies for 20 years and has nothing to show for it. Worse yet, its fiscal policies fighting deflation has landed Japan the largest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world (of any major country).

Bernanke has not learned a thing from this. Bernanke wants Keynesian fiscal policies in Congress while he follows the Bank of Japan on monetary policy. It's sheer idiocy doing the same thing over and over hoping for a better result.

Turning Japanese

Barry Ritholtz has this interesting chart of SPX vs MSCI Japan Index (10 Year Lag)

The past does not predict the future. However, please remain open to the possibility the US is following the footsteps of Japan in more ways than one.

Here is the table of values that make up the lead yield-curve chart.

US, Japan, Germany, UK Yield Curve Data Points

Duration	U.S.	Japan	Germany	UK
3-Month	0.00	0.10	1.12	0.51
6-Month	0.07	0.10	0.81	0.63
12-Month	0.10	0.12	0.68	0.57
2-Year	0.19	0.15	0.71	0.67
3-Year	0.34	0.19	0.84	0.70
5-Year	0.99	0.35	1.39	1.32
7-Year	1.59	0.61	1.86	1.83
10-Year	2.30	1.04	2.33	2.54
30-Year	3.77	2.00	3.18	3.95

These data points are a sign of enormous global weakness. Those banking on a huge second-half recovery are doing more wishing than thinking.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Defense Industry Bribes and Legislative Whores

Posted: 15 Aug 2011 01:06 PM PDT

In case you ever wondered how it is that Republicans do not want deficits and Democrats do not want deficits, yet we have massive and growing deficits, the following two articles will explain the reasons nicely.

Special Interests Gave Millions to Budget Panel

The Boston Globe reports Special interests gave millions to budget panel

The 12 lawmakers appointed to a new congressional supercommittee charged with tackling the nation's fiscal problems have received millions in contributions from special interests with a direct stake in potential cuts to federal programs, an Associated Press analysis of federal campaign data has found.

The newly appointed members -- six Democrats and six Republicans -- have received more than $3 million total during the past five years in donations from political committees with ties to defense contractors, health care providers and labor unions. That money went to their re-election campaigns, according to AP's review.

The congressional committee, created as part of the debt limit and deficit reduction agreement enacted last week, is charged with cutting more than $1 trillion from the budget during the coming decade. If the committee doesn't decide on cuts by late November -- or if Congress votes down the committee's recommendations -- spending triggers would automatically cut billions of dollars from politically delicate areas like Medicare and the Pentagon.

The committee's co-chairs -- Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas -- each received support from lobbyists and political committees, including those with ties to defense contractors and health care lobbyists. Hensarling's re-election committee, for instance, received about $11,000 from Lockheed Martin and $8,500 from Northrop Grumman.

Companies like Lockheed rely heavily on government contracts: More than 80 percent of Lockheed's net sales during the first six months of 2011 came from the U.S. government, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records. And in SEC filings two weeks ago, Northrop expressed concern of a "material adverse effect" on its finances had the debt ceiling not been raised.

'Doomsday' Defense Cuts Loom Large for Select 12

Yahoo!Finance reports 'Doomsday' defense cuts loom large for select 12

For the dozen lawmakers tasked with producing a deficit-cutting plan, the threatened "doomsday" defense cuts hit close to home.

The six Republicans and six Democrats represent states where the biggest military contractors -- Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics Corp., Raytheon Co. and Boeing Co. -- build missiles, aircraft, jet fighters and tanks while employing tens of thousands of workers. The potential for $500 billion more in defense cuts could force the Pentagon to cancel or scale back multibillion-dollar weapons programs. That could translate into significant layoffs in a fragile economy, generate millions less in tax revenues for local governments and upend lucrative company contracts with foreign nations.

The cuts could hammer Everett, Wash., where some of the 30,000 Boeing employees are working on giant airborne refueling tankers for the Air Force, or Amarillo, Texas, where 1,100 Bell Helicopter Textron workers assemble the fuselage, wings, engines and transmissions for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

Billions in defense cuts would be a blow to the hundreds working on upgrades to the Abrams tank for General Dynamics in Lima, Ohio, or the employees of BAE Systems in Pennsylvania.

For committee members such as Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., the threat of Pentagon cuts is an incentive to come up with $1.5 trillion in savings over a decade. Failure would have brutal implications for hundreds of thousands workers back home and raise the potential of political peril for the committee's 12.

"I think we all have very good reasons to try to prevent" the automatic cuts, Toomey told reporters last week when pressed about the impact on Pennsylvania's defense industry. "That is not the optimal outcome here, the much better outcome would be a successful product from this committee."

The panel has until Thanksgiving to come up with recommendations. If they deadlock or if Congress rejects their proposal, $1.2 trillion in automatic, across-the-board cuts kick in. Up to $500 billion would hit the Pentagon.

Those cuts, starting in 2013, would be in addition to the $350 billion, 10-year reduction already dictated by the debt-limit bill approved by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama this month.

Not surprisingly, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has described the automatic cuts as the "doomsday mechanism." He's warned that the prospect of nearly $1 trillion in reductions over a decade would seriously undermine the military's ability to protect the United States.

For the Pentagon, "we're talking about cuts of such magnitude that everything is reduced to some degree," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a think tank. "At that rate, you're eliminating the next generation of weapons."

Next Generation of Weapons Not Needed

A defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a think tank bemoans "At that rate, you're eliminating the next generation of weapons."

My reply is "I sure hope so".

For the most part, we do not need a next generation of weapons. The US spends $trillions on "next generation" silliness and most of it does not work or is unneeded. How much did we waste of SDI (Star Defense Initiative) only to be thwarted by a group of knife-wielding terrorists?

How many more submarines does the US need? Tanks? Missiles? Anything?

Bribes and Whores

Defense contractors bribe member of the Senate and House to pass their legislation. Any representative not supportive of defensive industry bribes is labeled "weak on defense". Those supportive of aggressive US militarism receive hundreds of millions of campaign contributions. That is the way the game is played.

Moreover, Republican hypocrites who warn about spending do not have the courage to pass tax hikes to support this idiocy. The legislative whores from both parties play the game because it means jobs for their district.

No one gives a flying **** about whether any of this spending makes any sense for the nation. Instead they bemoan "brutal implications for hundreds of thousands workers back home", workers who should never have been hired in the first place, to build weapons that are not needed, to fight an enemy that is imaginary.

The War in Vietnam and the most recent war in Iraq is proof enough of the madness. Neither was justified. Idiots like Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara formulated the "Domino Theory" to justify the war. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq was a threat to the US in any way shape or form.

We have had absurdly stupid wars and continuation of stupid war policy under presidents Johnson, Nixon, Bush, and Obama. Clearly this is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. This is a "Defense Industry Bribes and Legislative Whores" issues.

Campaign Finance Reform Badly Needed

Worse yet, the policy does not pertain just to defense. In tit-for-tat trading, Republicans and Democrats trade favors for pet projects, bloating up the budget for all kinds of reasons.

The situation is so out of line that I have sarcastically proposed on several occasions "Instead of electing Congressional representatives, we should eliminate Congress and let lobbyists write our bills. They do no anyway, so lets cut out the middleman".

Lobbyists are the only group who knew what was in the health-care bill rammed through by Democrats. Recall House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's statement: "We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it".

It is pointless to expect change as long as lobbyists write legislation that our legislators never bother to read.

Clearly, something needs to be done about campaign finance reform. Speaking of which, have you ever noticed how challengers bemoan lack of campaign finance reform as a campaign issue, yet as soon as they are elected, nothing happens?

The reason is simple: Payouts and campaign contributions eventually makes whores out of the most of them. Is it any wonder public approval of Congress is at an all-time low?

Many representatives will point out they genuinely believe in the policies they vote for.

For some it is likely true. It is how they got elected in the first place (with help of donations of course). Others fail to understand the role bribery and payoffs have on their beliefs over time.

Addendum:

My friend BC writes ....

Consider this. As a share of the private GDP (total GDP less government spending, including personal transfers, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.), government spending, oil consumption, and household interest payments account for an equivalent of 75-80% of private GDP!!!

Of the equivalent 56% of private GDP attributable to government spending, 10% of private GDP is for never-ending imperial wars!!!

In simple terms, it costs us 75-80% of the output of the non-government sector to pay for imperial government and war so we can import and consume oil for car and truck transport, which in turn allows us to borrow more money than we can ever afford to pay back to buy import oil and goods.

And we have been conditioned to believe for 30-40 years that this is a reasonable arrangement and sustainable indefinitely.

We are insane.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Global Recession Warning

Posted: 15 Aug 2011 11:59 AM PDT

Daiwa Capital Markets economist Kevin Lai says Hong Kong Recession Risk Is Global Warning

Of nine economists in a Bloomberg News survey, Lai came closest to predicting a 0.5 percent contraction in the city's economy in the second quarter. Only two of the analysts expected gross domestic product to decline from the previous three months. The government released the data Aug. 12.

"Global demand is really weak and we expect the U.S. and Europe will see a sharp slowdown, or near-zero growth, next year," Lai said in a phone interview in the city today. "A recession is a reality for Hong Kong."

An 11 percent decline in Hong Kong's merchandise exports in the second quarter from the previous three months highlights the weakness, Lai said. In a note, he described the economy as the world's "most externally-driven" and said that a slump has "grave implications."

The world economy is "entering a new danger zone" and international policy makers need to take steps to restore confidence, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said yesterday in Sydney. A U.S. debt-rating downgrade and a widening European debt crisis triggered a global rout of equities.

Some economists define a global recession as a slowdown in combined global growth under 2%. That is a near-given.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

BNP Paribas leveraged 27:1; Société Générale Leveraged 50:1; Sorry State of Affairs of U.S. Banks; Global Financial System is Bankrupt

Posted: 15 Aug 2011 09:44 AM PDT

BNP Paribas leveraged 27:1

Jean-Pierre Chevallier reports on his Business économiste monétariste béhavioriste blog, that BNP Paribas leveraged: 27!.

The real leverage of BNP Paribas is … 27.2!

Indeed, the French bank counts in its equity item 2: Undated Super Subordinated Notes eligible as Tier 1 capital which are actually a form of liabilities related interests subject to some conditions.

Chevallier posts a series of graphs taken from consolidated financial statements to support his claim.

Société Générale Leveraged 50:1

Yesterday Chevallier reported Société Générale leveraged: 50!

The real leverage of Société Générale is… 50!

Indeed, the French bank counts in its equity item 2: Equity instruments and associated reserves which are actually different forms of liabilities related interests subject to some conditions.

Equity published in item 1: Sub-total equity, Group share should be reduced by Equity instruments and associated reserves (item 2) to determine the true equity at fair value (item 3) i.e. 22,535 billion of euros.

Total liabilities are equal to total assets (item 4) less the true equity at fair value (item 3): 1,135.473 billion of euros.

So, the leverage is the ratio of total liabilities on equity: 50.4 i.e. a Tier ratio at 2.0%.

Société Générale did not respect the rules of prudential borrowing as they were defined by Alan Greenspan.

As above, Chevallier posts a series of graphs taken from consolidated financial statements to support his claim.

Blaming the Shorts

What did officials do in the wake of share price collapse? You should know the answer, blame the shorts: France Selectively Bans Short-Selling of 11 Banks; Spain Bans Shorting and Derivatives Based Shorting;Why the Bans Will Fail

Shorts did not play games with tier-1 capital, banks did. Shorts did not leverage 50-1, banks did. Officials blame the shorts.

Moreover, Société Générale had the gall to "deny all rumors" as noted in European Banks Hammered; Societe Generale "Denies All Rumors"; French Bank Option Prices Soar; Credit Default Swaps on France Under Attack

Are they denying this excess leverage? Apparently. Without stating what the rumors were, they denied all of them.

This prompted me to say "Societe Generale did not even say what they were denying. The bank simply denied everything. Whatever the rumors are, I assure you at least some of them are true. This denial sounds just like Lehman's denial to me."

More than anything else, excessive leverage sunk Lehman.

Excuses for various things got so silly, I asked Do These Idiots Realize How Stupid They Sound?

Things matter When They Matter

Things don't matter until they do. In the past few weeks the market decided these things finally mattered.

Everyone should realize that nearly every bank is playing games with tier1 capital, still hiding assets off the books in SIVs, and not marking commercial and residential real estate loans to market.

Sorry State of Affairs of US Banks

For a look at the sorry state of affairs of US banks, please consider

July 18, 2011: Bank of America Clobbered on $50 Billion Capital Shortfall Related to Mortgage Losses

August 10, 2011: Bank of America CEO Discusses Letting Countrywide Financial Go Bankrupt as Separate Legal Entity; Conference Call Shows Signs of Delusion

The Fed, SEC, and FDIC all turn a blind eye to leverage that is still excessive, to assets still not marked-to-market, and to assets still hidden off the books in SIVs and by other means. They do this to support share prices.

Share prices of US and French banks, shows the market has had enough of this practice.

Time is up, more capital needs to be raised. Banks should have done so when share prices were up and they could have easily., Now they will do so when prices are down.

Global Financial System is Bankrupt

The entire global financial system is bankrupt. There is no way for these loans to be paid back, and the Fed and Central bankers in general are at the end of the line as to what monetary policy can do.

Please don't tell me that central banks will "print their way out of it". No they won't, but they will likely try.

Simple Facts of the Matter

Central banks can print money but not capital.
Central banks can initiate "swaps" but swaps are temporary.
Of the money central banks do print, they cannot give away, they can only lend it.
Right now, there are no takers of printed money as evidenced by excess reserves deposited at the Fed.
Those excess reserves will not eventually flood the system with cash, spawning off a 10-1 multiplier as many think.

Reserves have little to do with lending. In practice, the major constraints to lending are insufficient capital and willingness of credit worthy borrowers to seek loans.

For further discussion and numerous details and rebuttals of widely believed fallacies, please consider Fictional Reserve Lending And The Myth Of Excess Reserves

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Damn Cool Pics

London Looters and Their Celebrity Lootalikes

Posted: 15 Aug 2011 12:25 PM PDT

With the UK government and press issuing photofits of the culprits, celebs hide in fear. Not content with fame and fortume these celebrities have taken to the streets to steal sneakers, cell phones and set fire to cop cars.