Skip to main content

Video Link and Summary of Senate Banking Committee Testimony

Took some time to watch the testimony earlier. It started with some intensity and it ended with a softer and more understanding tone towards the end of the testimony.

Chairman Bernanke expressed his anger towards AIG, and explained that AIG's investment operations were operating like a hedge fund, and because of such unmanaged risk that were taken by them, where it also went through the regulatory loopholes, thus causing the worries. If AIG is to fail now, the effect may be catastrophic and detrimental to the current financial woes of the economy. The Fed did really think and consider about the consumers of such insurance products who had given premiums to the insurer, and the possible effect if AIG is to fail, there will be another vacuum that could cost adverse effects in the health care system as well.

One of the Senator did bring up to Bernanke's attention to ask if AIG was labeled as a 'zombie institution'. I thought that was a pretty interesting one, but Bernanke replied neutrally to the question, which panned out to be a 'no'.

As for future plans to AIG, they hope to be able to break up the company, and subsequently sell the company at a later stage.

After the testimony today, where I will express in my personal opinion, I feel that the U.S economy is currently going through a very rough patch. The existing problem on hand is indeed extremely challenging for the Obama Administration and Ben Bernanke:

1) They have a huge deficit that may take 2 generations to clear.
2) They have to find ways to acquire national income and maintain a healthy Debt to GDP ratio for the country. In my opinion, now, not only the big financial institutions are technically insolvent, I think the U.S economy is technically in it as well.
3) They have to work hard to maintain the credibility of the U.S government securities.
4) They are still currently using good money (TARP, Stimulus Package, TALF and more to come) to chase after bad money (Citibank, AIG, GM and etc), after 8 months of rescue to the economy.

Simply, such problems could not be resolved over the next 2 years. It will take a longer than expected time to recover from this impact. If you had followed closely, Dow at 7,100 was the 50% mark between the high in Oct 2007 to the low in 1932. Thus by taking less than 2 years, all these gains were simply wiped out.

Continue to look into the stock market for clues for the recovery, as this is where most sovereign wealth funds, governments, great investors and gurus' monies are in now. If you have time to watch a 6 part (10-min) clip, I urge you to watch this interesting video documentary on the Great Depression of 1929.

Here is the video link to the testimony

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Elliott Wave FreeWeek Feb 12 to 18

Greetings, Our friends at Elliott Wave International have just announced the beginning of their wildly popular FreeWeek event, where they throw open the doors to some of their most popular paid services to non-subscribers for one week only. If you’re not taking part right now, you’re already missing the valuable opportunities your peers are getting for free. This unique opportunity only comes along once or twice a year. Learn more about EWI’s FreeWeek here Cheers

Video: Lesson On Elliott Wave

Hi mates, Just received this in the morning. It is a short interlude of the Elliott Wave course. If you are a serious trader, and would like to have a roadmap to the markets, I would suggest you take a good look at this, this has worked for me. Enjoy... Watch this full $79 course, FREE. Click Here!

Think That Central Banks Move the Markets? Think Again

April 23, 2009 By Mark Galasiewski The following is excerpted from Elliott Wave International’s Global Market Perspective. The full 120-page publication, which features forecasts for every major world market, is available free until April 30. Visit Elliott Wave International to download it free . Conventional wisdom says that central banks can influence or even direct financial markets and the macroeconomy. The very existence of Elliott waves challenges such assumptions. For if markets responded to every central bank directive, how could Elliott waves exist? Parallel trend channels, Fibonacci price relationships, the similarity of form between waves of different sizes and time periods—none of that would be possible. Central bank decisions would have to coincide perfectly with turning points in Elliott waves, and we know that just doesn’t happen. But even without using waves, we can expose the conventional wisdom for the fallacy that it is. Take, for example, this assertion in ...