www.transicionestructural.NET es un nuevo foro, que a partir del 25/06/2012 se ha separado de su homónimo .COM. No se compartirán nuevos mensajes o usuarios a partir de dicho día.
0 Usuarios y 16 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
¿Cómo co*ones ha podido aprobar alguien como la cospedal? No me lo explico
Lo que está sucediendo es que nos están sometiendo a un proceso de *saqueo* CALCADO, a los procesos neoliberales que practicaron con latinoamérica con la excusa de la "crisis de la deuda" desde los 70, 80 y 90
Cita de: Маркс en Abril 18, 2013, 17:12:47 pmCita de: procastinator en Abril 18, 2013, 16:21:40 pm¿Cómo co*ones ha podido aprobar alguien como la cospedal? No me lo explico!!No sea malo!! Por favor.Además me invita a ser de lo más procaz. No aprobó, "le aprobaron". Tenía buena madrina sociata. En aquellos años, había amaños de muchos tipos: desde el nombramiento de determinados miembros de los tribunales de oposición, pases de parte del cuestionario a miembros de partidos políticos, sindicatos y familiares, varios días antes del exámen, encerronas a medida de determinado opositor, etc., etc.Balbín en su famoso programa de TV, una vez trató este tema de las oposiciones (a raíz del escándalo de los interinos en el Ministerio de Educación) y uno de los invitados que trajo expuso un montón de formas de meter la gente deseada, legalmente, guardando todas las apariencias formales exigidas, bajo una oposición corriente de las de aquella época (unas 10 trampas). ____________Un saludo a todos y gracias por sus aportaciones.
Cita de: procastinator en Abril 18, 2013, 16:21:40 pm¿Cómo co*ones ha podido aprobar alguien como la cospedal? No me lo explico!!No sea malo!! Por favor.Además me invita a ser de lo más procaz.
A un hermano o primo (no recuerdo bien) de Balbín le intentaron robar un concurso-oposición en el Principado de Asturias, lo asombroso es que sacó él la plaza hecha a medida para un enchufado, le hicieron todo tipo de perrerías, resistió y ganó y al final inventaron otra plaza par el enchufado y a él le dejaron cobrando pero arrinconado (que es un mobbing muy típico en las zonas de enchufados de las AAPP).
Acabo de ver este video que me han mandado. Adelson explica porque ha elegido España para su proyecto. Los que controlen ingles que digan cuan ajustada es la traduccion porque creo haber piullado alguna errata. Asi nos ven desde fuera. Si esta publicado, borrenlo, por favorhttp://youtu.be/qdr8KR-pwKU
Cita de: Pagador de Fuckturas en Abril 18, 2013, 17:57:21 pmAcabo de ver este video que me han mandado. Adelson explica porque ha elegido España para su proyecto. Los que controlen ingles que digan cuan ajustada es la traduccion porque creo haber piullado alguna errata. Asi nos ven desde fuera. Si esta publicado, borrenlo, por favorhttp://youtu.be/qdr8KR-pwKUNo hay tal traducción, en el video Adelson habla de otros temas. Es una coña.
...SÁNCHEZ-CAMACHO QUIERE ABANDERAR LA MEDIDAEl PP catalán urge a Rajoy a dar una financiación especial a Cataluña después del veranoMas se ha fijado como prioridad la celebración del referéndum independentista y la creación paulatina de “estructuras de Estado”, y ha dejado de lado la consecución del pacto fiscal que había abanderado durante la pasada legislatura. Ante ello, los populares catalanes están dispuestos a aprovechar la brecha para liderar la reivindicación de un “modelo singular” de financiación que actúe como bálsamo sobre las maltrechas finanzas de la Generalitat.http://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2013/04/18/el-pp-catalan-urge-a-rajoy-a-dar-una-financiacion-especial-a-cataluna-despues-del-verano-119112/...
Cita de: visillófilas pepitófagas en Abril 18, 2013, 17:50:38 pm...SÁNCHEZ-CAMACHO QUIERE ABANDERAR LA MEDIDAEl PP catalán urge a Rajoy a dar una financiación especial a Cataluña después del veranoMas se ha fijado como prioridad la celebración del referéndum independentista y la creación paulatina de “estructuras de Estado”, y ha dejado de lado la consecución del pacto fiscal que había abanderado durante la pasada legislatura. Ante ello, los populares catalanes están dispuestos a aprovechar la brecha para liderar la reivindicación de un “modelo singular” de financiación que actúe como bálsamo sobre las maltrechas finanzas de la Generalitat.http://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2013/04/18/el-pp-catalan-urge-a-rajoy-a-dar-una-financiacion-especial-a-cataluna-despues-del-verano-119112/...Ya estamos como siempre... ¿A cuenta de qué hay que dar un trato especial a Cataluña? ¿O a ninguna otra CC.AA?
Central Bankers Say They Are Flying Blind Published: Thursday, 18 Apr 2013 | 1:06 AM ETBy: Chris Giles Alex Wong | Getty Images NewsGrowing concern at the International Monetary Fund over the long-term side-effects of interest rates close to zero came as some of the leading figures in central banking conceded they were flying blind when steering their economies.Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, the former member of the European Central Bank's executive board, captured the mood at the IMF's spring meeting, saying: "We don't fully understand what is happening in advanced economies."In this environment of uncertainty about the way economies work and how to influence recoveries with policy, Sir Mervyn King, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England, said that "there is the risk of appearing to promise too much or allowing too much to be expected of us".It is troubling for monetary policy experts that their crisis-fighting tools - rates stuck at zero, money printing operations to bring down longer-term interest rates and encourage private sector spending, and efforts to calm financial market fears - might have nasty side-effects.The central bankers were clear that they had got it wrong before the crisis, allowing themselves to be lulled, by stable inflation, into thinking they had eliminated financial vulnerabilities.Speaking to the IMF's conference on rethinking global macro-economies, Janet Yellen, vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, said: "In the years before the crisis, financial stability became a 'junior partner' in the monetary policy process, in contrast with its traditionally larger role."The question now was whether central bankers are making the same mistake in their efforts to secure a recovery. Might they be storing up financial distortions that will bite in the future?The IMF was clear in its global financial stability report that it did not want to see an end to the extraordinarily loose monetary policy being implemented across rich countries.José Viñals, its head of financial stability, said central banks' efforts were "absolutely necessary". But the fund urged countries to use the breathing space offered to repair financial systems and also to address the unintended consequences.It cited three new risks that were all potentially associated with easy money. In the US it sees lax underwriting standards on corporate borrowing at a level normally associated with a late stage in a boom-bust credit cycle.More From The FT:IMF sees progress on deficit reductionIMF cuts 2013 global economic outlookStagflation menaces economic horizonIt also sees easy money policies spilling over to emerging economies, particularly in the form of foreign currency borrowing by emerging market corporates, leaving those companies vulnerable to foreign currency risks and emerging markets sensitive to hot money international capital flows.Third, it worries that the exit from monetary easing could lead to a surge in market interest rates that could destabilise credit markets and the US economy."Put simply, we are in uncharted territory," said Mr Viñals.Central bankers are divided on the relevance of such concerns. While Mr Bini Smaghi said central bankers had become cornered into ever more exotic monetary experimentation, Ms Yellen sought to reassure her audience that the Fed was getting the balance right."I don't see pervasive evidence of rapid credit growth, a marked build-up in leverage, or significant asset bubbles that would threaten financial stability. But there are signs that some parties are reaching for yield, and the Federal Reserve continues to carefully monitor this situation," she said.The problem outlined by Sir Mervyn was that the uncertainty is so pervasive that no one can be sure that the expansionary monetary policy is appropriate in a world where nations are learning they are poorer than they expected, but are not sure by how much. How can we be sure "we really are [not] running the risk of reigniting the problems that led to the financial crisis in the first place?" Mr Bean asked the IMF panel.His question underpinned the fear that the abilities of economies have been so damaged that expansionary policy is likely to go on for too long as central banks and governments seek to recover lost ground. Central bankers were not worried that monetary policy had already gone too far, but they were nervous the exit from easy money would prove too troublesome.
Big Banks Worth More to Investors Broken Up Into Components than as Giant Conglomerates Posted on April 12, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog Shareholders Join Bankers, Economists, Financial Experts, Regulators and the American People In Calling for a Break Up of the Giant Banks The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard Fisher, has long said that the component parts of the biggest banks would be “worth more broken up than as a whole.”Last year, Crain’s New York estimated that Citi’s component parts are worth 40% more than Citigroup’s current market price.Forbes’ Robert Lezner argues: <blockquote>The proper solution obviously is to break-up the banks into their stand-alone parts. Without government pressure, voluntarily, strategically, with the proper stated purpose of benefiting the banks shareholders, who have not gotten anywhere near back to the price of the their shares in late 2006 or 2007. (C is selling at 5% of its peak price; BAC at 25%, GS at 60%) I’m told there are hints of this solution bubbling amongst the bank analyst fraternity.Spin off the asset management division that manages several hundred billion of other people’s money into a public company that will have the multiple of a T. Rowe Price, or a BlackRock, which will have a transparent cash flow and sell at some price-earnings multiple higher than a bank today and behave according to the way the stock market behaves. It would be regulated by the SEC and be dependent on its own performance and not a bunch of financial activities with leverage that few can understand, much less put a dollar value on.Then, spin off the consumer banking operation into a separate stand-alone business. Its profit margins will be transparent as the spread between the bank’s borrowing costs and the yield on the loans or mortgages it finances. I’d be willing to bet these operations, with more predictable earnings and a steady dividend would also sell at greater than 10 times earnings. These spin offs would be regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC), which might well strongly suggest a cap on the leverage that can be used of between 10 and 15 times.Thirdly, the wholesale banking operations, the collateralized loans, the derivative positions, the futures, puts and calls would be in their own unit. Investors and analysts and regulators would be able to evaluate these institutions more rationally, especially if they are forced to disclose more exactly what they are doing globally and with whom.</blockquote> Now, analysts at even the giant banks themselves are starting to agree.Bloomberg reported yesterday: <blockquote>Shareholders at the biggest U.S. banking conglomerates may demand breakups if valuations remain depressed, according to analysts at Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC)So-called universal banks such as Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. (C) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) are trading at a 25 percent to 30 percent discount to more-focused competitors, analysts led by Matthew H. Burnell wrote in a research report today. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS), which concentrate on investment banking, trading and money management, are within 8 percent of the estimated value of their parts, the analysts wrote.***“If regulators and/or legislators don’t demand it, shareholders could also intensify demands to ‘break up the banks.’ ”***Burnell’s team calculated that pieces of Bank of America are worth 41 percent more than their tangible book value, a measure of how much shareholders would receive if the firms’ assets were sold and liabilities paid off.Citigroup should get a 24 percent premium, JPMorgan should get 69 percent and Goldman Sachs should be valued at 19 percent more than tangible book, the analysts said.Citigroup, ranked third by assets and based in New York, and Bank of America, ranked second and based in Charlotte, North Carolina, trade at about 14 percent and 7 percent less than tangible book value, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, and Goldman Sachs, the fifth-biggest, trade for 28 percent and 9 percent more than tangible book value, respectively. The valuation for the two New York-based companies compares with the 281 percent premium fetched by Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp (USB), the nation’s largest regional bank.New York-based Morgan Stanley should be valued at a 13 percent discount to tangible book value, compared with the current discount of about 19 percent, the note said.***Michael Mayo, CLSA Ltd.’s bank analyst, wrote in a separate note yesterday that shareholders in the biggest firms are more likely to agitate for changes than in prior years.“Almost every large investor from our meetings and conversations over the past four months agrees that bank managements should be held more accountable and more often intend to vote against directors, compensation plans, and other actions,” Mayo wrote in an April 9 research note.</blockquote> In a separate story yesterday, Bloomberg noted: <blockquote>JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the largest U.S. bank by assets and the top investment bank by fees, is questioning the so-called universal bank model’s future.Top-tier investment banks are “uninvestable at this point with a risk of spinoff from universal banks,” JPMorgan analysts led by London-based Kian Abouhossein wrote in a research note today. They cited potential rule changes and curbs on capital and funding.</blockquote> Who Wants to Break Up the Big Banks … And Who Wants to Maintain the Status Quo? Financial experts, economists and bankers say we need to break up the big banks.The overwhelming majority of Americans want to break up the giant banks as well.Given that shareholders are now starting to understand that breaking up the giants would be better for their own portfolios, the power of the markets may finally weigh in to split up the too big to fail banks.So who is is against breaking up the giant banks?Apparently, the only people opposing a break up are the handful of welfare queens – er, I mean current top corporate brass – who mooch off the public to reap insane windfalls, and the bought and paid for D.C. politicians who make money hand over fist by literally pimping out the American people to their buddies.