[Show all top banners]

Captain Haddock
Replies to this thread:

More by Captain Haddock
What people are reading
Subscribers
:: Subscribe
Back to: Kurakani General Refresh page to view new replies
 Bumper Yield on Wall Street (for some)

[Please view other pages to see the rest of the postings. Total posts: 89]
PAGE: <<  1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE
[VIEWED 22051 TIMES]
SAVE! for ease of future access.
The postings in this thread span 5 pages, View Last 20 replies.
Posted on 12-20-06 9:53 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Thought some of you might find this article on financial services firms interesting:

From The Economist

Investment banks
Coining it

Dec 20th 2006
From Economist.com


American securities firms have had a bumper year


IT HAS been a year to make even Croesus blush for the big Wall Street securities firms. Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers have all announced record profits and beaten analysts’ expectations in the process. Bloomberg, a financial-information firm, calculates that the industry will make $29.1 billion after tax in fiscal 2006, a 43% rise on last year, which was itself a bumper one. New York’s tabloids have had a field day, splashing headlines like “Sachs of Loot” and fantasising about all the things outsized bonuses could buy.

Goldman, the best performer, is setting aside an unprecedented $16.5 billion to reward its talent, equal to $620,000 per employee across the firm. But it is now so profitable that the ratio of pay to revenue has actually fallen, to 43.7%, well below the 50% seen as a ceiling in the industry. And on Tuesday November 19th Goldman revealed that the bank’s boss, Lloyd Blankfein, would pocket $53.4m this year. This paypacket broke an industry record set only last week at Morgan Stanley—its chief, John Mack, will get around $40m for his work in 2006. The huge sums of cash and the attendant publicity prompted Mr Blankfein to call for humility as his troops reflect on their stellar year.

Even if some bankers do exercise a little modesty when it comes to spending their vast earnings this is unlikely to dampen the mood of purveyors of luxury goods and fancy homes, who hope to pick up more than a few crumbs from Wall Street’s table. Orders for bespoke suits are up on last year, says Jack Mitchell, who kits out some of Wall Street's financial bigwigs. New York officials are delighted, too. They have slashed the city’s budget-deficit forecast, in part because of the sharp rise in tax receipts from investment banks.

The banks can thank near-perfect markets for their good fortune. Mergers and private equity are booming, as are stockmarkets (the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit another record high on Tuesday). Volatility is low, credit still plentiful. Hedge funds and others are trading derivatives at a furious pace, providing a further lift to the banks’ prime-brokerage businesses. In these conditions, the banks have (so far) profited handsomely from ratcheting up their own risk-taking. Across the industry, value-at-risk—a measure of potential losses on a bad trading day—has risen steadily. Some 70% of Goldman’s net revenues now come from trading and investing on its own account.

Everyone knows this cannot last forever. The banks are hoping that their scope will help them when markets turn. Growth prospects look good in Asia and Europe, and all of the leading firms apart from Bear Stearns now do a big chunk of their business outside America. They are also beefing up their distressed-debt and bankruptcy teams, a source of profit that should mitigate any pain from a rise in defaults and tougher debt markets.

But with investment banks outperforming their commercial-banking counterparts on almost every measure, including share price, the gloating will be hard to contain. Just now, much of it is directed at Citigroup, which is under pressure to cut costs and raise its share price. Strikingly, the financial conglomerate is paying slightly higher interest on its five-year debt than Lehman or Bear Stearns.

Moreover, any investment banker worth his salt will tell you that there is not much money in meekness. After a day or two reacquainting themselves with their families at Christmas, most will race back to their desks next week, hungry to make another killing.
 
Posted on 12-20-06 10:46 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Those are entry level firms with high spreads; stay out. Try oanda.com , north finance to avoid capital gains taxes too.
 
Posted on 12-20-06 10:46 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Nah, not nepali. A white guy, who traded stocks for 20 years, then moved to forex.
 
Posted on 12-20-06 10:47 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Oanda? hell no. Oanada raises their spread during news. I hate that from the bottom of my freaking heart!
 
Posted on 12-20-06 10:47 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 
 
Posted on 12-20-06 10:49 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

U must be kiddin; the platform does freeze..during news: but if you trade news and a individuat trader..sure way to loose money!
 
Posted on 12-20-06 10:53 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

I just dont trade news bro. I straddle/scalp, long and short all the time. I use EMAs and MACD.

Meta 4, FX and some have spreads of 5 pips. Oanda goes at 3 i believe, but during news it hits 10-13.

and i know, from experience that trading news will get you a call from Oanda for sure. And its not always profitable.
 
Posted on 12-20-06 10:59 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

not trying to argue with u? but the name of the game is to trade like the institutions: Trend, fiboanacci...and Elliot waive ; in a daily chart.

But glad to see Neps on trading; I know nep at smith barney but he is into equities..i am at trading desk ..undisclosed rite now out in 3 mins .

Good luck; never give up u will make it.
by the way try: crude future on lind waldock; its fun too.
 
Posted on 12-20-06 11:03 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

still have to learn Elliot tho! tried, but was difficult to figure out waves, and to make sure i got right waves marked.

oh well...no arguement. im not a pro, i learn each step
 
Posted on 12-21-06 6:26 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Nice...peeps into forex!! I've had an acct with FXCM since 2002 (Ask them for a 4 pip spread on the GBP/USD if you hold above $25K with them). BTW, I've now moved onto the FX options side for a major investment bank...On the desk training and not yet trading the firm's capital. FYI, very different from being an idividual trader as here its more about hedging and making money off spreads than through speculation...Guess that comes with the territory of being the market maker.
All the best with your trading and the only pointers I could give is to use your leverage wisely. And stay away from those 5 pip commisions (every pip saved adds up).
 
Posted on 12-21-06 8:05 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorests people.

The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.
While global GNP grew 40 percent between 1970 and 1985 (suggesting widening prosperity), the number of poor grew by 17 percent.
Although 200 million people saw their incomes fall between 1965 and 1980, more than 1 billion people experienced a drop from 1980 to 1993.
In sub-Saharan Africa, twenty nations remain below their per capita incomes of two decades ago while among Latin American and Caribbean countries, eighteen are below their per capita incomes of ten years ago.
UNDP reported in 1996 that 100 countries were worse off than 15 years ago.
Three decades ago, the people in well-to-do countries were 30 times better off than those in countries where the poorest 20 percent of the world's people live. By 1998, this gap had widened to 82 times (up from 61 times since 1996).
In 1998, that 20 percent of the world's people living in the highest-income countries accounted for 86 percent of total private consumption expenditures while the poorest 20 percent accounted for only 1.3 percent. That's down from 2.3 percent three decades ago.
At present, 3 billion people live on less than $2 per day while 1.3 billion get by on less than $1 per day. Seventy percent of those living on less than $1 per day are women. With global population expanding 80 million per year, World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn cautions that, unless we address "the challenge of inclusion," 30 years hence we will have 5 billion people living on less than $2 per day.
Two billion people worldwide now suffer from anemia, including 55 million in industrial countries. Given current trends in population growth and prosperity-hoarding, three decades from now we could have a world in which 3.7 billion people are anemic.
These related phenomena led UN development experts to observe that the world is heading toward "grotesque inequalities," concluding: "Development that perpetuates today's inequalities is neither sustainable nor worth sustaining."
UNDP calculates that an annual 4 percent levy on the world's 225 most well-to-do people (average 1998 wealth: $4.5 billion) would suffice to provide the following essentials for all those in developing countries: adequate food, safe water and sanitation, basic education, basic health care and reproductive health care. At present, 160 of those individuals live in OECD countries; 60 reside in the United States.
As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent.
From 1983-1995 only the top five percent of households saw an increase in their net worth while only the top 20 percent experienced an increase in their income.
Wealth projections through 1997 suggest that 86 percent of stock market gains between 1989 and 1997 went to the top ten percent of households while 42 percent went to the most well-to-do one percent.
Stock market participation is broad but remarkably shallow. Though more American adults own stocks and stock mutual funds than at any time in history, 71 percent of households own no shares at all or hold less than $2,000, including mutual funds and popular 401(k) plans.
Adjusting for inflation, the net worth of the median American household fell 10 percent between 1989 and 1997, declining from $54,600 to $49,900. The net worth of the top one percent is now 2.4 times the combined wealth of the poorest 80 percent.
The modest net worth of white families is 8 times that of African-Americans and 12 times that of Hispanics. The median financial wealth of African-Americans (net worth less home equity) is $200 (one percent of the $18,000 for whites) while that of Hispanics is zero.
Between 1983 and 1995, the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent of their net worth. The middle fifth lost 11 percent. By 1995, 18.5 percent of households had zero or negative net worth (an average -$5,600, down from -$3,000 in 1983).
By 1995, the middle quintile of income-earners had only enough savings to maintain their current standard of living for 1.2 months (i.e., if they lost their jobs). That's down from 3.6 months in 1989.
Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997.
In 1997, 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy. That works out to roughly 7,000 bankruptcies per hour, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Though average household income rose 10 percent between 1979 and 1994, 97 percent of that gain was claimed by the most well-to-do 20 percent.
In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that perioo. Had pay kept pace with productivity, the average hourly wage would now be $18.10, rather than $12.77. That translates into a difference in annual pay of $11,000 for a full-time, year-round worker.
Between 1970 and 1990, the typical American worked an additional 163 hours per year. That's equivalent to adding an additional month of work per year - for the same or less pay.
In 1996, the Census Bureau reported record-level inequality, with the top fifth of U.S. households claiming 48.2 percent of national income while the bottom fifth gets by on 3.6 percent.
In 1973, the income of the top 20 percent of American families was 7.5 times that of the bottom 20 percent. By 1996, it was 13 times.
Business Week reports that in 1999 top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326:1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42:1.
In 1982, inclusion on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans required personal wealth of $91million. The list then included 13 billionaires. By 1998, $500 million was required and the list included 189 billionaires. Note, however, that Forbes 1998 figures were based on a September 1, 1998 Dow-Jones Industrial Average of 7827. The Dow topped 10,000 in early 1999.
The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 was $738 billion on September 1, 1998. That's up from $624 billion in 1997. That's an average one-year increase of $285 million per person. That works out to $780,000 per day or $32,500 per hour ($541 per second).
Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.
Spending on luxury goods grew by 21 percent from 1995 to 1996 while overall merchandise sales grew only 5 percent.
 
Posted on 12-21-06 10:09 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Thanks for sharing those ideas folks - it's good to see the variety of experiences you bring. You guys are way more into this stuff than I currently am or ever was

I used to trade personally a long time ago prior to and right after the dark days of the dot com bust but due to shifting priorities and a thinning wallet, I decided to contribute directly to the wallets of the fat cats on the Street :) Might sound paradoxical but it has worked for me. I figured I had bigger fish to fry (yes, believe it or not) for the same amount of effort and the bust was a bit of a morale sagger. At this point, I am quite happy with the fees I pay versus the returns I get. It has been well worth the peace of mind :) However, every now and then, I have gone off and bought a little something here and there but I dunno how long I can sustain that :P

So that's all the experience I have in direct trading. Forex has fascinated me but never got into it. Can someone tell me what the annualized ROI on forex trading has been of late?

Hope you're having a good day.
 
Posted on 12-21-06 10:12 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Bathroom - Thats an ugly disparity. I was reading somewhere else that 6 families control 60% of the world's oil. I'll try and find that article.

The world ain't fair, huh? :)
 
Posted on 12-21-06 10:19 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Thanks for sharing. Sharing is caring. But what caring is what?

I am going to post here the entire War and Peace novel one of these days.
LOLZ ;P
 
Posted on 12-21-06 10:28 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Very funny! Ha ha .. ho ho

Dare I say, you "absolutely" don't get it :P
 
Posted on 12-21-06 10:35 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

You can say anything you want as long as you don't get silly or act like an educated fool like your PhD-pursuing-friend in GA did. HEHEHE!

I guess I need some more lighting in my world which is right now just a twilight zone. Come back with something witty now...;P
 
Posted on 12-21-06 10:46 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Hey Haddock,

"the annualized ROI on forex trading" depends on each individual trader and what currency is used to calculate the ROI. Your open ended question can have no definite answer since there are an innumerable amount of FX pairs. These pairs are being traded either short or long and each pair can be perceived as an individual corp listed on the Stock Xchange. Just as a corp's shares fluctuate with the data releases/litigations/mergers, so too the FX prices are constantly fluctuating on the news/economic data releases, etc. (FYI, the major movements are caused by technicals rather than the fundamentals).

Leverage too can determine the ROI. For instance, if you traded with a 100:1 leverage (as FXCM and most firms provide) and the market moved 142 pips today (GBP high 1.9699 and low 1.9557 so far today 12/21/06) and hypothetically you were the most luckiest man on earth and got to take the entire movement from the high to the low: all these 142 pips, then your return on each $1000 you took INTO the market would be $1,420 or 142%...Or you could also end up on the opposite side and take the 142% hit (Therefore, any trader would tell you that stops are necessary to protect you from the downside).

Note that I am NOT promoting the FX markets in any way as this vehicle is EXTREMELY EXTREMELY risky due to the major volatility present every day. But as they say here on the trading floow, no volatility then no need for us traders (depends whcih side you fall under). If you do decide to go with it anyway, do so with only the capital that even if you lose all of it, will not affect your financial well-being in any manner...But first, set up a demo acct and see how that goes for you.
 
Posted on 12-21-06 11:02 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

My PhD pursuing friend in Georgia? No idea who!

Nah, dude, I am not interested in making a fool out of anyone here. It was the reference to W&P that prompted my comment. If you were implying we should not discuss articles, or lengthy ones, on current events published in the media - by what I thought was a caustic reference to a voluminous book - I'd say why not? The media does a fairly good job of covering stories that are of interest to people and that's why folks on Sajha pick them up to share with others who might be similarly inclined. I think it is well within the bounds of reason to do so. It's nice to talk to people who have something to say on an issue of interest to you - that's all.

PS: As much as I'd like to say something witty, unfortunately, I realized I am not an infinite mine of wit or wisdom :) I only wish I were!
 
Posted on 12-21-06 11:06 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Thanks Samsara, for the helpful comment. I am prolly going to stay focussed on my current portfolio of mostly mutual funds and some direct holdings. I was just curious about what to expect in ROI compared to the effort needed.

Have a good one.
 
Posted on 12-21-06 11:09 AM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 
 
Posted on 12-21-06 1:28 PM     Reply [Subscribe]
Login in to Rate this Post:     0       ?    
 

Hi redstone bro...appreicate the info!

06 was one heck of a year for me in the stock market from ridiculous gains one day to horrible loss the next. but thank god there were few moe good days than bad ones LOL but i am still very paranoid about the health of US economy going into 07. Dow, Nasdaq, S&P all are at their highest they've ever been without any soild base to support them. value of dollar keeps deprecating, inflation is on the rise, housing market has slowed down significantly, and on top of all this we still have the ongoing war on terror (or war of terror as Borat would say). even with all these looming facts / data around here, wall street somehow seems speculatively optimistic.

so i am looking for alternative to stocks for investing in 07. Forex seems pretty legit so i'm gonna look more into it. thanks for sharing your experiences and ideas everyone.

have a nice day!
 



PAGE: <<  1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE
Please Log in! to be able to reply! If you don't have a login, please register here.

YOU CAN ALSO



IN ORDER TO POST!




Within last 365 days
Recommended Popular Threads Controvertial Threads
TPS Re-registration case still pending ..
TPS Re-registration
What are your first memories of when Nepal Television Began?
निगुरो थाहा छ ??
ChatSansar.com Naya Nepal Chat
Basnet or Basnyat ??
Sajha has turned into MAGATs nest
NRN card pros and cons?
Toilet paper or water?
TPS EAD auto extended to June 2025 or just TPS?
Biden out, Trump next president, so what’s gonna happen to TPS, termination?
and it begins - on Day 1 Trump will begin operations to deport millions of undocumented immigrants
मन भित्र को पत्रै पत्र!
Will MAGA really start shooting people?
Democrats are so sure Trump will win
Tourist Visa - Seeking Suggestions and Guidance
From Trump “I will revoke TPS, and deport them back to their country.”
I hope all the fake Nepali refugee get deported
Anybody gotten the TPS EAD extension alert notice (i797) thing? online or via post?
Top 10 Anti-vaxxers Who Got Owned by COVID
Nas and The Bokas: Coming to a Night Club near you
NOTE: The opinions here represent the opinions of the individual posters, and not of Sajha.com. It is not possible for sajha.com to monitor all the postings, since sajha.com merely seeks to provide a cyber location for discussing ideas and concerns related to Nepal and the Nepalis. Please send an email to admin@sajha.com using a valid email address if you want any posting to be considered for deletion. Your request will be handled on a one to one basis. Sajha.com is a service please don't abuse it. - Thanks.

Sajha.com Privacy Policy

Like us in Facebook!

↑ Back to Top
free counters