Then try the 1980's. Mortgage securities were created in the 1980's to finance us out of the S&L Crisis. Congress did not regulate them. They did not regulate them because these securities were propping up the real estate market. Failure by Congress to regulate (Senate Banking Committee, Democrats and Republicans) precipitated the 'housing part' of the 2008 crash.
Who might have been better? Don't know. Great Presidents are rare. Too rare.
Housing was part of it . . . from 10% down payments in the 1970's to zero down taking risk to sky high levels; 1980's 'disintermediation' solutions begin exposing all financial sectors to real estate risk; by the 1990's the federal government is effectively running the mortgage market; enactment of 'reverse mortgages' destroying the inheritance wealth base; from 1980's onward banks and insurers are becoming high risk market players and Congress does nothing; 1990's Congress fails to regulate emerging hedge funds; 1990's Congress fails to regulate new mortgage securities which had initially been created to address the 1980's S&L crisis. . . . and on and on.
So it goes way back - both parties.
I guess it depends on which history is read - the comic book version or White House scholars - and which scholars. Clearly, the 2008 crash was a thirty year pent-up House of Cards situation. GW happened to be the poor slob on station when the near-collapse occurred. I think all responsible historians will agree on that. The subsequent enacted solutions (which you or may not agree with) were by broad consensus of the leaders in both parties. I think the record shows that as well. In fact, it anything Obama's fiscal stimulus package was less than his party's economists wanted.
You and I see racism differently. Residual racism by blacks and whites is a sad reality. But I think 80% of us have moved on.
Obama's claim on history is being the first non-white - and that's important. Otherwise, he will be remembered as promising lost potential - a man who had never studied history, who did not know how to exercise power and seemed intellectually lazy.
Exactly. Their 'one price for everything' model does not monetize premium content.
Netflix should offer premium content PPV as a supplemental service. When and if they do, all sorts of things happen - Producer/Netflix joint promotion and revenue sharing, sports broadcasting, a significant new income stream, etc.
You are right about streaming popularity and weak competition. But eventually Netflix's growth streak will end. That is certain. The question is when. They appear more vulnerable this quarter - their library is weaker than it was a year ago, their EMMY attempt was a bust and nothing compelling came on line this quarter.
Get your facts straight. Soros is a huge believer in capitalism.
With a 14X Fwd PE the stock is hardly a steal. Nor does anything suggest $25-$26 is a bottom.
Don't blame management. WHY did you buy it? GE has been a slow mover dividend stock forever. Occasionally it range trades down to a level where it is attractive. Otherwise it is not - except for dividends.
I usually like your incite insight. But sometimes (like now) you are just using up oxygen.
Original content improving their negotiating position? Can't see that. Seems to me original content is a 'helps hold subscribers' deal. So far none of their original content has created 'must have' demand a la The Sopranos, Thrones, Sex in the City, etc. That's very difficult to do. So purchased content is still driving the bus. My guess: having Breaking Bad has more subscriber value than all of their original content put together.
2/3rds of those are suicides. People in nations where they cannot get guns do it differently. The USA suicide rate is typical among developed nations.
'Will it ever grow into the valuation?' is the salient issue. From my perspective the problem is not content cost. The competition has that too. To me it's more akin to Amazon's low margin situation - a company whose profitability may always be 'next year.'
What intrigues me is future revenue growth. Maintaining annual growth of 22%-25% will not be easy.
The Scottish have been 'off and on' on independence for seven hundred years. Even Robert the Bruce switched sides. Nationalism vs practicality. Making something from this vote is foolish.
Agree. It is inherently easier to call a bottom than a top, particularly with a momo.
Profit 'from 40 international countries' beats 40 domestic countries.
If can see it's (sp) you are a moron.
Banks, Brokerage Houses and Hedges all benefit from options - indirectly both political parties. So whatever the merits of a solution, it's clout that counts.