Click for Ferretti
Click for Pacific Mariner
Click for McConaghy
Click for Lurssen
Click for Burger
Click for Nordhavn
Go Back   YachtForums.Com > GENERAL YACHTING DISCUSSION > General Yachting Discussion > From $2.00 gas to $5.00 gas in 4 years

Login to YachtForums
Username
Password

Closed Thread

From $2.00 gas to $5.00 gas in 4 years

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2008, 02:21 PM   #211 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Marmot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 9114 S. Central Ave
Posts: 2,866
"Gasoline ranging from CDN$.95 to 1.09/litre so 4.27 to4.93 US$ per USGallon."

I'm not the greatest mathematician but with the Canadian $ at .82 to the US $ and 3.8 liters to the US gallon, I figure gas costs from $2.96 to $3.39 per gallon in US dollars.
Marmot is offline  
Old 10-21-2008, 02:32 PM   #212 (permalink)
YF Wisdom Dept.
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marmot
"Gasoline ranging from CDN$.95 to 1.09/litre so 4.27 to4.93 US$ per USGallon."

I'm not the greatest mathematician but with the Canadian $ at .82 to the US $ and 3.8 liters to the US gallon, I figure gas costs from $2.96 to $3.39 per gallon in US dollars.

Thanks. Keying in anything with a flippin cast on is error prone at best.
Codger is offline  
Old 10-21-2008, 04:02 PM   #213 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Marmot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 9114 S. Central Ave
Posts: 2,866
I couldn't key in my house door with a cast on!

And I almost didn't post that since I have been bit on the butt so many times before making those calculations ... they almost cry out for trasnposing something or the other.
Marmot is offline  
Old 10-21-2008, 06:09 PM   #214 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
K1W1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: My Office
Posts: 6,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by hat4349
attention to their putting the economy in the toilet.
Hi,
Do you really thing GWB is alone amongst the serious offenders who put the world wide economy this way?

It is a global thing and I am not afraid to be seen as saying that the US has a lot of blame owing to it's loose and often reckless bank operations, I feel that there is now a need to unite and defend the normal (You, Me, Mom and Pop investors) people's stake in the modern economy.

Obama or McCain aint going to be able to fix this no matter who wins next month.
K1W1 is offline  
Old 10-21-2008, 06:58 PM   #215 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 2,351
just paid 2.93 (over 500usg) at Utsch, in Cape May NJ...
Pascal is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 11:58 AM   #216 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
brian eiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington DC, Annapolis MD, Thailand
Posts: 2,427
SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse

Quote:
Originally Posted by K1W1
Hi,
Do you really thing GWB is alone amongst the serious offenders who put the world wide economy this way?

It is a global thing....
Obama or McCain aint going to be able to fix this no matter who wins next month.

How SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse

The losses incurred by Bear Stearns and other large broker-dealers were not caused by "rumors" or a "crisis of confidence," but rather by inadequate net capital and the lack of constraints on the incurring of debt.

--Lee Pickard, former director, SEC trading and markets division.
__________________________________________________ ______


Is Financial Innovation just another word for excessive and reckless leverage?


Apparently so.

As we learn this morning via Julie Satow of the NY Sun, special exemptions from the SEC are in large part responsible for the huge build up in financial sector leverage over the past 4 years -- as well as the massive current unwind

Satow interviews the above quoted former SEC director, and he spits out the blunt truth: The current excess leverage now unwinding was the result of a purposeful SEC exemption given to five firms.

You read that right -- the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1.

Instead, the 2004 exemption ---- given only to 5 firms ---- allowed them to lever up 30 and even 40 to 1.

Who were the five that received this special exemption? You won't be surprised to learn that they were Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley.

As Mr. Pickard points out that "The proof is in the pudding — three of the five broker-dealers have blown up."

So while the SEC runs around reinstating short selling rules, and clueless pension fund managers mindlessly point to the wrong issue, we learn that it was the SEC who was in large part responsible for the reckless leverage that led to the current crisis.

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

Here's an excerpt from The Sun:
"The Securities and Exchange Commission can blame itself for the current crisis. That is the allegation being made by a former SEC official, Lee Pickard, who says a rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

The SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults.

Making matters worse, according to Mr. Pickard, who helped write the original rule in 1975 as director of the SEC's trading and markets division, is a move by the SEC this month to further erode the restraints on surviving broker-dealers by withdrawing requirements that they maintain a certain level of rating from the ratings agencies.

"They constructed a mechanism that simply didn't work," Mr. Pickard said. "The proof is in the pudding — three of the five broker-dealers have blown up."

The so-called net capital rule was created in 1975 to allow the SEC to oversee broker-dealers, or companies that trade securities for customers as well as their own accounts. It requires that firms value all of their tradable assets at market prices, and then it applies a haircut, or a discount, to account for the assets' market risk. So equities, for example, have a haircut of 15%, while a 30-year Treasury bill, because it is less risky, has a 6% haircut.

The net capital rule also requires that broker dealers limit their debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1, although they must issue an early warning if they begin approaching this limit, and are forced to stop trading if they exceed it, so broker dealers often keep their debt-to-net capital ratios much lower.

Chalk up another win for excess deregulation . . .





Source:
SEC's Old Capital Approach Was Tried - and True
Lee A. Pickard
SECTION: VIEWPOINTS; Pg. 10 Vol. 173 No. 153
American Banker, August 8, 2008 Friday
http://www.americanbanker.com/articl...id=2110207978&

Ex-SEC Official Blames Agency for Blow-Up of Broker-Dealers
They constructed a mechanism that simply didn't work'
JULIE SATOW,
NY Sun, September 18, 2008
http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec...blow-up/86130/

American Banker excerpt after the jump.

Lee A. Pickard, former director, SEC trading and markets division, on Leverage and Net Capital exemptions :

A brutal combination of bad financial decisions and serious misjudgments about the inherent value and liquidity of securitized instruments, coupled with the use of excessive leverage, contributed to the demise of Bear Stearns and seriously weakened the capital structure of other major broker-dealers.

The Securities and Exchange Commission oversees the financial condition of all broker-dealers, and it used from 1975 to 2004 a "net capital rule" as its primary tool to ensure that broker-dealers had adequate capital bases and sufficient liquidity.

The rule, which I participated in formulating, required that every broker-dealer compute its net capital daily by doing two things. First, it had to value all liquid assets at market prices and then subject that value to a "haircut" of a specified percentage, depending on the assets' expected market risk. (A 30-year Treasury bond was carried for net capital purposes at 94% of its market value because changes in interest rates would affect its market value; riskier securities were subject to bigger haircuts.) Second, the broker-dealer was limited in the amount of debt it could incur, to about 12 times its net capital, though for various reasons broker-dealers operated at significantly lower ratios.

The SEC's basic net capital rule, one of the prominent successes in federal financial regulatory oversight, had an excellent track record in preserving the securities markets' financial integrity and protecting customer assets. There have been very few liquidations of broker-dealers and virtually no customer or interdealer losses due to broker-dealer insolvency during the past 33 years.

Under an alternative approach adopted by the SEC in 2004, broker-dealers with, in practice, at least $5 billion of capital (such as Bear Stearns) were permitted to avoid the haircuts on securities positions and the limitations on indebtedness contained in the basic net capital rule. Instead, the alternative net capital program relies heavily on a risk management control system, mathematical models to price positions, value-at-risk models, and close SEC oversight.

As the SEC itself has noted, this alternative program requires significant judgment, as contrasted with the numerical tests and capital charges (the haircuts) imposed on broker-dealers under the basic net capital rule. The alternative approach also requires substantial SEC resources for complex oversight, which apparently are not always available.

The SEC has maintained that the Bear Stearns collapse was precipitated by rumors and an unprecedented crisis of confidence, driven by lack of liquidity for the large securities positions it held. If, however, Bear Stearns and other large broker-dealers had been subject to the typical haircuts on their securities positions, an aggregate indebtedness restriction, and other provisions for determining required net capital under the traditional standards, they would not have been able to incur their high debt leverage without substantially increasing their capital base.

The losses incurred by Bear Stearns and other large broker-dealers were not caused by "rumors" or a "crisis of confidence," but rather by inadequate net capital and the lack of constraints on the incurring of debt.

The SEC should reexamine its net capital rule and consider whether the traditional standards should be reapplied to all broker-dealers. Moreover, broker-dealer losses should give the SEC pause regarding its recent proposal effectively to abandon the objective debt ratings of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations in favor of "subjective" tests of broker-dealers in determining adequate levels of regulatory net capital.

As the Bear Stearns collapse showed, no broker-dealer is "too big to fail" — unless the federal government comes to the rescue.
brian eiland is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 01:17 PM   #217 (permalink)
YF Associate Writer
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Coral Gables/Ft. Laud., FL
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian eiland
How SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse


The SEC has maintained that the Bear Stearns collapse was precipitated by rumors and an unprecedented crisis of confidence, driven by lack of liquidity for the large securities positions it held. If, however, Bear Stearns and other large broker-dealers had been subject to the typical haircuts on their securities positions, an aggregate indebtedness restriction, and other provisions for determining required net capital under the traditional standards, they would not have been able to incur their high debt leverage without substantially increasing their capital base.
[Rant ON]
Gosh, this kind of leaves out the non-regulated hedge funds and other private equity companies whose jillions just vaporized due to CDOs & CMOs gone bad.
Add to the mix those who smelled the rot and (correctly) shorted all the securitized mess once they saw that the emperor indeed had no clothes---I'd call that a "crisis of confidence".
If one believes Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which has a couple of hundred years for proving the worth of free markets, plus a few other worthy ideas, no one person or one regulatory body mandates a collapse of a market. Stuff happens.
From the Dutch Tulip bubble on out to the end of time--there will be bubbles.

Cuba and Russia will never have bubbles...oh, nor prosperity, for that matter, 'cuz they each got a one-man SEC.

With the world awash in liquidity following the 'Greenspan Put', there was no way for anyone anywhere to make any decent money unless *they*--from Calpine on down to the lowly individual investor--bought into the highly leveraged schemes that might not have crashed so hard without Fannie & Freddie & the Dems pushing Joe Sixpack into places he could ill afford. And, in all fairness, even without F & F and Barney Frank's machinations, the housing bubble would have collapsed anyway.
But, so what. In 6 or 8 or 10 years' time, the Dow will be past 20,000, the boat biz will be booming mightily, and most will have forgotten this ugly patch.
IMHO.
[Rant OFF]
Loren Schweizer is offline  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:30 AM   #218 (permalink)
YF Wisdom Dept.
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 990
75 cents a litre this morning. Uncontrollable twitching sets in as I pass by the gas stations at this price. Diesel at .93/litre.

It's a good day to run the dvd of the scene in The Pink Panther movie where Dreyfus is at the asylum.
Codger is offline  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:36 AM   #219 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
NYCAP123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 7,776
That just goes to show how easily we get used to being screwed. We then get giddy when we get screwed a little less. It's a game the oil companies have been playing successfully for quite a while.
NYCAP123 is offline  
Old 11-23-2008, 04:30 PM   #220 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Miami, FL and the Keys
Posts: 121
What is diesel now in South Florida? Gas dock vs. truck?
VikHatBer is offline  
Old 11-23-2008, 04:54 PM   #221 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 2,351
it changes almost every day...

on Wed. I got 1255 USG at 2.45 + tax from Admiral Oil, delivered at the Rickenbacker MArina fuel dock.

I had found a little cheaper from Dade Oil, $2.38, but couldn't find a place to get it delivered.

MArinas are still well over $3...

Perterson, the fuel barge, was 3.65 on friday, off bayside, no minimum. but no price break under 3000USG
Pascal is offline  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:39 PM   #222 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
brian eiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington DC, Annapolis MD, Thailand
Posts: 2,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codger
.... Uncontrollable twitching sets in....
It's a good day to run the dvd of the scene in The Pink Panther movie where Dreyfus is at the asylum.
Isn't that the truth.

I just hope the real lessons of this past price rise aren't lost in this temporary reduction....short sightness might reappear
brian eiland is offline  
Old 11-24-2008, 08:34 AM   #223 (permalink)
YF Wisdom Dept.
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian eiland
Isn't that the truth.

I just hope the real lessons of this past price rise aren't lost in this temporary reduction....short sightedness might reappear
It would make sense that since many are faced with daily reminders of what happens when one spends beyond ones means, that a more conservative approach to personal finances will prevail.
Codger is offline  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:03 AM   #224 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
K1W1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: My Office
Posts: 6,304
Hi,

Just think the original title of this post was $2.00 Gas and was started4 1/2 yrs ago.

Here is a bit of history. http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/2278-post1.html
K1W1 is offline  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:20 AM   #225 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
NYCAP123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codger
It would make sense that since many are faced with daily reminders of what happens when one spends beyond ones means, that a more conservative approach to personal finances will prevail.
That's contrary to human nature. People will spend everything they have and everything they can get their hands on. The question is whether it will be spent on petrol or everything else. Now is the time to regulate the devil out of the oil industry before they have the opportunity to jack the prices again (which will happen as soon as the economy shows any sign of improving). Take the commodity traders and the speculators out of the equation. We've realized that we have to take a world approach to the ecconomy; let's take a world approach towards the oil companies. If the oil companies try to jack prices above the rate of inflation call it what it is "price gouging". Then jail the CEO's and sue for 3x the excess profit. Either that or nationalize them.
NYCAP123 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are EST. The time now is 02:48 AM.

Click for Walker
Click for Elling
Click for Walker
Click for Westport
Click for Nordlund
Click for Cape Scott


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2