Lehman Brothers files for Bankrupcy

[ygolo]

AFP: Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, US crisis hits European stocks (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMG74jHIgVBnsKTuTgc3sAemW4Kg)

In addition:
AFP: Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch for 50 billion (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hC1JzfspjtsDEYJA09BheW89RuOg)

AIG Asks the Fed for Help — Global Strategy Watch (http://www.globalstrategywatch.com/independent-insight/f1112152945c01b337d02d8d1cd2eff8)

Political Radar: Greenspan to Stephanopoulos: This is 'By Far' the Worst Economic Crisis He's Seen in His Career (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/greenspan-to-st.html)

Thoughts?

[563 740]

I saw this on the news at my parent's house yesterday. I jokingly said "I'll buy it!", my dad responded with "Yeah, you probably will. You, me, and every other tax payer..."

[Enyo]

I'm amazed that there's no bail-out. Glad that there's no bail-out, but still surprised.

[Antisocial one]

Few months ago I have said that US economy will collapes with time, and I am still watching the situation. So far I remain at my claim and I am curious to see where will this lead.

[Geoff]

This page is quite interesting - particularly the acceleration in sub prime lending and the end game. It's all so obvious, with hind sight!

BBC NEWS | Business | Global credit crunch, facts and figures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7302341.stm)

[pure_mercury]

Let it die.

[Jack Flak]

Few months ago I have said that US economy will collapes with time, and I am still watching the situation. So far I remain at my claim and I am curious to see where will this lead.
I'd love to see the death throes of the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Watch out.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I remember several years ago I read a blurb about how Congress during the Bush administration loosened lending regulations. My response was, "this will probably have some subtle economic effect that most people won't notice much like changes to the tax codes." Well I have to admit that I was wrong. The effects are by no means subtle.

[Lateralus]

If the government keeps intervening, collapse is inevitable. It'll probably take a collapse for most people to realize that Keynesian economic philosophy is horseshit.

[pure_mercury]

I remember several years ago I read a blurb about how Congress during the Bush administration loosened lending regulations. My response was, "this will probably have some subtle economic effect that most people won't notice much like changes to the tax codes." Well I have to admit that I was wrong. The effects are by no means subtle.


The Bush administration isn't a particularly regulation-averse one (Carter and Reagan were a lot better about cutting red tape, for instance). The problem isn't a lack of regulations. It's that the Bush administration has little-to-no oversight. They make hack political appointments throughout the federal government.

[Lateralus]

What is responsible for the housing bubble is not the lack of regulation, it is the Fed's loose money policy. The deregulation made the housing market more enticing for banks, but if that deregulation hadn't occurred, there would have been massive speculation in another segment of the economy. So the solution is to either heavily regulate everything or kick the Fed in the ass and force them to follow a tight money policy.

[FDG]

If the government keeps intervening, collapse is inevitable. It'll probably take a collapse for most people to realize that Keynesian economic philosophy is horseshit.

This type of intervention is by no means in line with a Keynesian philosophy, by no means. It's exclusively statalism, which is absolutely NOT representative of what Keynes spoke about.

[Lateralus]

The DOW is down over 500 points. Good or bad for the economy?

[pure_mercury]

The DOW is down over 500 points. Good or bad for the economy?

I foresee a big bull market in the second half of 2009 and 2010.

[Lateralus]

I foresee Lateralus doing some bargain hunting over the next few days.

[entropie]

The DAX went below 6000 this day for the first time in 12 years...
Whats going on with the boom in America ?

[Lateralus]

Market correction. It's a good thing.

[phoenix13]

We're screwed... and we're taking the world with us. :(

[Oberon]

Lesson 1: Do not lend money to people who can't pay it back.
Corollary 1: ...unless you can pass the loan off to a federal agency at a profit.
Corollary 2: If you're a federal agency, see Lesson 1.
Corollary 3: If you're a taxpayer, hold federal agencies responsible for Lesson 1. Better still, get the government out of the lending business.

[Jack Flak]

I foresee a big bull market in the second half of 2009 and 2010.
Probably. It's all cyclic. Whoever happens to be president will be loved (through no merit of their own, whatsoever).

[Lateralus]

Probably. It's all cyclic. Whoever happens to be president will be loved (through no merit of their own, whatsoever).
If Obama wins the election, he'll be lauded as the savior of the economy (if this happens). It's nothing more than dumb luck, just like what happened with Clinton.

[Enyo]

Gosh, Lat, of *course* Obama is the savior.

Didn't you see the Daily Show intro where he parts the Red Sea and takes down Goliath? </sarcasm>

[IlyaK1986]

Obama may not be a savior--but I'll certainly take him over McSame.

[Lateralus]

My bargain hunting comment may have been misinterpreted by a lot of people. I don't mean that I'm going to start shopping at dollar stores. What I mean is, stocks are cheaper, so it's getting easier to find undervalued stocks.

Edit: The Dow recovered 140 points today. :( I was hoping the market decline would continue. Oh well, there's always tomorrow!

[01011010]

We're screwed... and we're taking the world with us.

lol Not necessarily, but the old ways aren't as effective as everyone would like to believe they are.

[IlyaK1986]

We're screwed... and we're taking the world with us. :(

Hah...you little sheep.

Screwed? We have backups on top of backups to prevent complete collapse. Sure, life might not be particularly amazing in the near future, but I don't think this is bigger than the honest/intelligent people of Wall Street+the Fed+the treasury+Washington all working round the clock to make sure this doesn't spell complete disaster.

GS still posted a profit, as did Morgan Stanley.

Is everything peachy? No. But all of the people that are in a panic are putting a lot of securities on sale.

[Modern Nomad]

Edit: The Dow recovered 140 points today. :( I was hoping the market decline would continue. Oh well, there's always tomorrow!

Bernanke was brilliant. Such an elegant solution given whats happened over the past 10 days.

Bernanke appointment is just about the only thing the Bush administration did right for the economy. Rich people don't give jobs with tax cuts. they buy condos in the riviera.

hedged my positions before the announcement. made a pretty good profit on the announcement

tomorrow, the aig bailout completion has not been priced in yet. dow futures show moderate uptick

[Modern Nomad]

If Obama wins the election, he'll be lauded as the savior of the economy (if this happens). It's nothing more than dumb luck, just like what happened with Clinton.

Not sure about "dumb luck". In general "trickle up" economics seems more valid than "trickle down". Also clinton did a shietload for improving business infrastructure by encouraging business investment and technology infrastructure spending. He is intellectually on a whole nother level than Bush ever was.

[pure_mercury]

Not sure about "dumb luck". In general "trickle up" economics seems more valid than "trickle down". Also clinton did a shietload for improving business infrastructure by encouraging business investment and technology infrastructure spending. He is intellectually on a whole nother level than Bush ever was.

His policies had no bearing on the insane productivity gains made by American workers in the 1990s, though. That was the #1 reason our economy grew. Bill Gates >>>>>> Bill Clinton when it comes to affecting economic growth in the '90s.

[Jack Flak]

His policies had no bearing on the insane productivity gains made by American workers in the 1990s, though. That was the #1 reason our economy grew. Bill Gates >>>>>> Bill Clinton when it comes to affecting economic growth in the '90s.
And lest we forget that the late 90s boom was fueled primarily by speculation leading to heavy investment and spending. Speculation which fell flat circa 2000.

[ygolo]

So now we're bailing out AIG.

I wonder how the experts determine who gets bailed out and who doesn't.

[ptgatsby]

So now we're bailing out AIG.

I wonder how the experts determine who gets bailed out and who doesn't.

A lot of it has to do with what we define bailing out to be. Right now, the bailout is more like 'controlled bankruptcy'. For all intents and purposes, it allows the company to unravel itself over the coming years, much the way LTCM was handled (although that was less government intervention).

With that in mind, it's easier to see which ones will - the ones that pose a particular threat to the markets if their business suddenly ceased.

The central difference, and why things could get ugly, is because the ability for the private market to raise the money is dependent on their ability to... raise money! This does create a slight moral hazard - the banks won't rescue each other if the government will - but as it stands, they aren't able to either.

Fascinating stuff, actually. I'm a bit irritated with the unwinding right now, since I fully invested myself a month or so ago (broad market). *shrug*

[ThePenIsMightier]

13 Week T-Bill (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^IRX#chart1:symbol=^irx;range=5d;indicat or=volume;charttype=candlestick;crosshair=on;ohlcv alues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined)

So who's ready for an emergency rate cut? 13 Week T-Bill yielding 0.02 :shocking:

[IlyaK1986]

So now we're bailing out AIG.

I wonder how the experts determine who gets bailed out and who doesn't.

We determine it by saying "who's dumb enough to just destroy their own company", and who's just incredibly dumb as to cause a chain reaction if they go under.

Interesting that Wall Street claims to hire the best and the brightest. Because in this case, 26000 best and brightest at Lehman either

A) clearly weren't the best and the brightest because they couldn't see this bomb waiting to go off
B) were so greedy that despite seeing this, they thought they could get away with it anyway

Those that went under because of this housing and credit crisis deserved what hit them. Fools don't deserve forgiveness.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

So now we're bailing out AIG.

I wonder how the experts determine who gets bailed out and who doesn't.

I'm not sure about AIG. I know that Fanny and Freddie were bailed out, because the government caused their mess by privatizing them. They took bigger risks than would normally be reasonable, and most people didn't think anything of it. Since they used to be publically owned, most investors were betting that the government would back their loans if anything bad happened. Looks like the investors were right.

[ptgatsby]

Looks like the investors were right.

Heh, I don't think that was... exactly the plan, but if it was, I don't think many understood that "government help" is not... a wise investment. Most investors got in because it was privatized, sure (well, by definition it had to be to get in!), but more because they were granted a monopoly and connections. In theory, anyway.

But, as is the nature with razor thin margins and selling risk... rush to the bottom!

(FNM: 52 week high? 68.60. 52 week low? 0.35 FRE: Almost identical! Preferreds? Not much better!)

[pure_mercury]

I'm not sure about AIG. I know that Fanny and Freddie were bailed out, because the government caused their mess by privatizing them.

Uhhhh, what? Freddie Mac was always a GSE, and Fannie Mae has been "private" since 1968. The problems started very recently.

[millerm277]

So now we're bailing out AIG.

This isn't really a "bail-out". We aren't GIVING them money, we're loaning it to them until they have time to sell the assets to pay it back. They have more than enough in assets, the reason this occured is because they needed money in a day, and selling $50 billion chunks like their aircraft leasing arm takes time.

[ygolo]

OK. May be it is a matter of degree.

It seems like the gov't gave more help to AIG than Lehman Brothers for some reason.

I just wanted to know how they (whoever they are) reason about such things. I was making no value judgements.

[ptgatsby]

OK. May be it is a matter of degree.

It seems like the gov't gave more help to AIG than Lehman Brothers for some reason.

I just wanted to know how they (whoever they are) reasons about such things. I was making no value judgements.

Oh!

In that case, it was because with the bailout of FMs, the market began to expect government bailouts across the board. Central to this issue is that management began making sub-par choices, such as AIG turning down other bank buyouts because a change of management was required. Letting Lehman fail was more or less a demonstration that the government was going to let you fail if they wanted.

Why AIG? My instincts tell me that Lehman was left to fail because the government it wouldn't severely rock the markets. Places like AIG were more of a threat because they undermined the instruments themselves (ie: insurance via segregated funds would undermine an lot more than just the markets). The same goes with the FMs, although with the housing market (the sudden inability to get mortgage funding would literally collapse the market into the depths of the worst depression). It's actually notable - I was looking as Las Vegas, and the banks there won't issue mortgages to foreigners (including Canadians). This means that the prices won't have that support (ie: Rent multiple is reaching 100 - normally investors would step in here).

It also sent a message that the government 'bailouts' are not nice, and that they had better pursue other options and/or take what is being offered. They come with big personal costs (ie: AIG has a new CEO), no protection for investors (it is in bankruptcy, as far as things go. Debt holders, perferred then common shares as it gets picked apart). The government is buying its assets just like a private company would, and is liquidating them. It's just doing it slowly and in a (hopefully) regulated way.

(IMO, of course)

[Modern Nomad]

His policies had no bearing on the insane productivity gains made by American workers in the 1990s, though. That was the #1 reason our economy grew. Bill Gates >>>>>> Bill Clinton when it comes to affecting economic growth in the '90s.

it is amazing that this entire time that bush has not said anything about restoring confidence in money markets and bank deposits because im sure this guy was around during the s&l crisis. polls have totally leaned towards obama during the last 10 days. this guy has a total nervous breakdown during tough times... the market ticked down during bush's "speech" today when he said he is "working hard". man...

lets say we had two economies to bet on in the future. one is clinton led, one is bush led, with all other variables remaining the same. lets say we have bernanke/greenspan, gates, etc... the same. im pretty sure i know which way i would lean towards for economic growth.

[IlyaK1986]

Oh!

In that case, it was because with the bailout of FMs, the market began to expect government bailouts across the board. Central to this issue is that management began making sub-par choices, such as AIG turning down other bank buyouts because a change of management was required. Letting Lehman fail was more or less a demonstration that the government was going to let you fail if they wanted.

Why AIG? My instincts tell me that Lehman was left to fail because the government it wouldn't severely rock the markets. Places like AIG were more of a threat because they undermined the instruments themselves (ie: insurance via segregated funds would undermine an lot more than just the markets). The same goes with the FMs, although with the housing market (the sudden inability to get mortgage funding would literally collapse the market into the depths of the worst depression). It's actually notable - I was looking as Las Vegas, and the banks there won't issue mortgages to foreigners (including Canadians). This means that the prices won't have that support (ie: Rent multiple is reaching 100 - normally investors would step in here).

It also sent a message that the government 'bailouts' are not nice, and that they had better pursue other options and/or take what is being offered. They come with big personal costs (ie: AIG has a new CEO), no protection for investors (it is in bankruptcy, as far as things go. Debt holders, perferred then common shares as it gets picked apart). The government is buying its assets just like a private company would, and is liquidating them. It's just doing it slowly and in a (hopefully) regulated way.

(IMO, of course)

This is correct.

[Modern Nomad]

Yeah, i've worked as a research associate at one of the biggest CDO^2 shops in the US and AIG is huge in the insurance of mortgage backed securities, providing liquidity, waterfall insurance, etc... basically most products to hedge the risk of investing in CDO's, MBS, ABS. If the insurance is gone, i can't emphasize how big the panic will be on a psychological, economic, and legal level, given the way that many of these MBS, CDO's are structured.

[pure_mercury]

it is amazing that this entire time that bush has not said anything about restoring confidence in money markets and bank deposits because im sure this guy was around during the s&l crisis. polls have totally leaned towards obama during the last 10 days. this guy has a total nervous breakdown during tough times... the market ticked down during bush's "speech" today when he said he is "working hard". man...

lets say we had two economies to bet on in the future. one is clinton led, one is bush led, with all other variables remaining the same. lets say we have bernanke/greenspan, gates, etc... the same. im pretty sure i know which way i would lean towards for economic growth.

I didn't say one politician couldn't be better than another (I've been vocal about Clinton being a more consistent free marketeer than Bush several times), but that the POTUS is less important to economic growth than are the management of our largest corporations. As a figurehead, he has some value, and he can make good or bad policy decisions, but too much credit (or discredit) are attributed to Presidents by average people. Ever hear someone say "Gas is expensive because of George Bush?" That's idiotic.

[ptgatsby]

Ever hear someone say "Gas is expensive because of George Bush?" That's idiotic.

I'm not so sure it is. You don't need direct control to have influence. Take, for example, the ability to wage war, or terminate an agreement to trade with oil-rich countries, or to put environmental protection acts that target refineries, or direct taxation.

Granted, it takes groups of people to make things happen, but the people at the top have a lot of indirect power at their hands. Wrong, maybe, not but so impossible to be idiotic.

Anyway, it is congress that needs to step up here, from what I know of American politics. Although I can say that I don't think any regulation would of passed the R-R congress/president, I doubt anything would of passed a R-D or D-R regulation. Maybe a D-D, but it is unlikely that would of happened without Bush to undermine the R dominated congressmen (scandals aside, of course).

[pure_mercury]

I'm not so sure it is. You don't need direct control to have influence. Take, for example, the ability to wage war, or terminate an agreement to trade with oil-rich countries, or to put environmental protection acts that target refineries, or direct taxation.

Granted, it takes groups of people to make things happen, but the people at the top have a lot of indirect power at their hands. Wrong, maybe, not but so impossible to be idiotic.

I am so sure it is. Dubya hasn't done any of those things except start an unnecessary war, and that hasn't affected oil prices NEARLY as much as have the gigantic rise in demand in Asia and OPEC enjoying very tidy profits. That type of comment comes from those who are simplistic politically and ignorant economically.


Anyway, it is congress that needs to step up here, from what I know of American politics. Although I can say that I don't think any regulation would of passed the R-R congress/president, I doubt anything would of passed a R-D or D-R regulation. Maybe a D-D, but it is unlikely that would of happened without Bush to undermine the R dominated congressmen (scandals aside, of course).

What kind of regulation would help here? Personally, not bailing out private organizations would be the best "regulation" I can think of. Losing money is supposed to be a risk. That is how the market lets you know you are doing something wrong. I can abide a government loan to keep an insurance company from completely collapsing, but not bailouts (for either corporations or for stupid people who took home loans they couldn't afford) that will be paid for by the American taxpayers. That really burns my ass.

[Modern Nomad]

I didn't say one politician couldn't be better than another (I've been vocal about Clinton being a more consistent free marketeer than Bush several times), but that the POTUS is less important to economic growth than are the management of our largest corporations. As a figurehead, he has some value, and he can make good or bad policy decisions, but too much credit (or discredit) are attributed to Presidents by average people. Ever hear someone say "Gas is expensive because of George Bush?" That's idiotic.

yeah i can see your point. then again, there is too much protection of CEO's and figureheads that resided over this crisis as well. thats a systemic risk along with the concept of "moral hazard" to some degree as well. while fingerpointing in general will lead to a crippling of the ability to find a solution, in the end, you have to reward the solution finders and the ones who had success. but the people who fail, should be punished. my personal opinion is that is as much of an issue as problem solving and moral hazard these past few weeks/years.

clinton had a pretty good interview on cnbc right now about how he would handle this crisis. i'd love to see clinton, bernanke, and paulson in a room together right now figuring out the details.

[ptgatsby]

I am so sure it is. Dubya hasn't done any of those things except start an unnecessary war, and that hasn't affected oil prices NEARLY as much as have the gigantic rise in demand in Asia and OPEC enjoying very tidy profits. That type of comment comes from those who are simplistic politically and ignorant economically.

I was talking about how you portrayed it as idiotic, when the people at the top wield a great deal of power to make the changes.

I don't particularily think it had much to do with Bush's legacy, although I am not about to dismiss it as a factor. In the short and long run, it is always prices that end up changing the dynamics. Just as we are seeing lower consumption now, and will continue to see it for a while regardless of prices, prices should start to return to historical norms again soon. Probably.

FWIW, demand has been increasing, but what factor analysis have you done that would tell you what is responsible? The closest I have seen come from the oil majors, but I don't look at pricing reports, only volume (I work for a company that ships oil). I highly doubt that supply is responsible for the run on gas prices - there are definite supply shocks (and in particular with gas, hurricanes have played a large role). And so has US laws, as I hear it.


What kind of regulation would help here? Personally, not bailing out private organizations would be the best "regulation" I can think of. Losing money is supposed to be a risk. That is how the market lets you know you are doing something wrong. I can abide a government loan to keep an insurance company from completely collapsing, but not bailouts (for either corporations or for stupid people who took home loans they couldn't afford) that will be paid for by the American taxpayers. That really burns my ass.

Not bailing out is not regulation. It is the faith that an unregulated market won't fail. The regulation that was needed was to close the loopholes around exotics and accounting standards. In short, the government needs to audit a certain level of financial companies to ensure that both of these things are properly accounted for. Then, the government needs to set acceptable standards for what constitutes exotics and define leverage limits.

I rather like Canada's banking system, actually. You can see our newer review system here - http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/osfi/index_e.aspx?DetailID=294 The problem in the states were known, but no one was willing to call them on it. They were likely insolvent for years.

No, I don't think an actual solution would ever of passed. Americans seem to treat the government like an enemy rather than a tool and tend to end up with exactly that.

Now, I don't think we disagree on this particular situation (meaning the AIGs of the world), but regulation would of done a lot to prevent this. It's going ok so far, but all you need is a LTCM to pop up in the middle of this and all hell is going to break loose.

I know how anti-interventionist Americans are, but I don't think many understand the depth of what is happening now. We aren't talking about a few companies that will learn their lessons and start over. There is no 'over'. If Fred and Fannie had collapsed, there would be no mortgage industry. It's important to understand how banks protect each other, normally, but here, the same banks were starting to fail. It could of been liquidated for assets - data centers, land, buildings - but the cascading effect would of been astounding. There was no one to bail out their business - to take over, I mean.

It has been handled very well, in my opinion. It's going to continue to hurt, but it won't be shock that does traumatic damage now. There will be fallout - investors, confidence, etc. Lots of write downs coming. Probably some stagnation. Nothing like it could of been.

[Lateralus]

I'm not sure about AIG. I know that Fanny and Freddie were bailed out, because the government caused their mess by privatizing them. They took bigger risks than would normally be reasonable, and most people didn't think anything of it. Since they used to be publically owned, most investors were betting that the government would back their loans if anything bad happened. Looks like the investors were right.
Seeing people write crap like this makes me want to scream. The government did cause the problem, but not by privatizing anything. Everything, EVERYTHING, originated with the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply. Greenspan kept interest rates low by printing money. That made credit cheaper than the market dictated, which encouraged businesses to engage in counter-productive behavior. Intervention by the Fed distorted market signals. Bank behavior was actually very predictable, acting on these distorted market signals. Attempts to change bank behavior (calling them greedy and whatnot) will be counter-productive, because that only treats the symptoms, not the disease. The Federal Reserve is the culprit.

The Fed is going to try to inflate its way out of this problem, too. And if they fail, they'll blame the 'market'.

[Modern Nomad]

Seeing people write crap like this makes me want to scream. The government did cause the problem, but not by privatizing anything. Everything, EVERYTHING, originated with the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply. Greenspan kept interest rates low by printing money. That made credit cheaper than the market dictated, which encouraged businesses to engage in counter-productive behavior. Intervention by the Fed distorted market signals. Bank behavior was actually very predictable, acting on these distorted market signals. Attempts to change bank behavior (calling them greedy and whatnot) will be counter-productive, because that only treats the symptoms, not the disease. The Federal Reserve is the culprit.

The Fed is going to try to inflate its way out of this problem, too. And if they fail, they'll blame the 'market'.

I agree that the Greenspan days led up to this problem, my gawd. that guy lied thru his teeth to congress that one time to protect his legacy at the cost of the entire usa... damm ayn rand philosophy... but i think there is one more systemic issue. the wall between i banking and commercial is gone. the commercial banks want to lower their BIS ratios and get loans off their books, and the ib guys want deal flow and package loans into credit investment vehicles. and the lawyers are more than happy to opaque the hell out of the products. having both commercial and ib under one roof... its too tempting to do this all over again later...

[Lateralus]

I agree that the Greenspan days led up to this problem, my gawd. that guy lied thru his teeth to congress that one time to protect his legacy at the cost of the entire usa... damm ayn rand philosophy... but i think there is one more systemic issue. the wall between i banking and commercial is gone. the commercial banks want to lower their BIS ratios and get loans off their books, and the ib guys want deal flow and package loans into credit investment vehicles. and the lawyers are more than happy to opaque the hell out of the products. having both commercial and ib under one roof... its too tempting to do this all over again later...
I highlighted the important portion of your post. Do this all over again? As I stated before, the reason the situation is so bad is because the Fed distorted market signals. If the Fed didn't do that, banks wouldn't have gotten into the trouble they're in.

[Modern Nomad]

I highlighted the important portion of your post. Do this all over again? As I stated before, the reason the situation is so bad is because the Fed distorted market signals. If the Fed didn't do that, banks wouldn't have gotten into the trouble they're in.

a lot of people got screwed in latter 2005-2006 who called it early...

[Lateralus]

a lot of people got screwed in latter 2005-2006 who called it early...
You're not getting it.

[Modern Nomad]

You're not getting it.

bond traders have been calling it for years now. its the equity guys who were late to be honest. the yield curve inverted early 2006

[Lateralus]

bond traders have been calling it for years now. its the equity guys who were late to be honest. the yield curve inverted early 2006
Eh, you didn't even need to analyze yield curves to predict any of this. Just read up on monetary theory.