<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>BloggingStocks</title>
<link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com</link>
<description>BloggingStocks</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Hedge funds still well short of high water marks]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/hedge-funds-still-well-short-of-high-water-marks/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/hedge-funds-still-well-short-of-high-water-marks/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/hedge-funds-still-well-short-of-high-water-marks/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/privateequity/" rel="tag">Private Equity</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/headline-news/" rel="tag">Headline News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><p><img width="160" vspace="4" hspace="4" height="170" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/05/burning-money.jpg" alt="" />Every investor knows this bit of math: if you lose 50%, you need a gain of 100% to recover. It sounds odd, but the math is easy. You have a stock worth $100 and take a 50% loss. It's now worth $50. To get back up to $100, you need to double your money -- that's a 100% gain. </p>
<p>This simple rule is painfully apparent to hedge fund managers right now. While we're all celebrating the big gains they've made this year, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE59B4ZR20091013" target="_blank">the funds themselves understand that there's still a long way to go</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/hedge-funds-still-well-short-of-high-water-marks/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Hedge funds still well short of high water marks</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/hedge-funds-still-well-short-of-high-water-marks/">Hedge funds still well short of high water marks</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/hedge-funds-still-well-short-of-high-water-marks/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19193831/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/10/13/hedge-funds-still-well-short-of-high-water-marks/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>fund managers</category><category>hedge funds</category><category>inthenews</category><category>losses</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom Johansmeyer]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:30:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Losses from natural disasters double in 2007]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/27/losses-from-natural-disasters-double-in-2007/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/27/losses-from-natural-disasters-double-in-2007/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/27/losses-from-natural-disasters-double-in-2007/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/international-markets/" rel="tag">International Markets</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/analyst-reports/" rel="tag">Analyst Reports</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="0" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2006/07/lightning_mttabor_oceanyamaha.jpg" />According to a leading re-insurer, <a href="http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/disaster-losses-for-insurers-double/n20071227101609990012">disaster losses for insurers nearly doubled</a> in the past year to reach almost $30 billion globally. The main culprits for the massive increase were calamitous winter storms in Europe, flooding in Britain and wildfires in the U.S.<br /><br />Taking into account weather change, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Re">Munich Re</a> anticipates an increased number of catastrophes in coming years and warns, "We should not be misled by the absence of mega-catastrophes in 2007," as "climate change is already taking effect" and "more such extremes are to be expected in the future."<br /><br /> The world's second-largest re-insurer estimates that losses to insurers from natural disasters jumped up to $75 billion this year. During 2006, losses from natural disasters totaled only $50 billion, while 2005 figures climbed up to $220 billion due primarily to  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_Orleans">Hurricane Katrina's ravaging of New Orleans</a>.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/27/losses-from-natural-disasters-double-in-2007/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Losses from natural disasters double in 2007</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/27/losses-from-natural-disasters-double-in-2007/">Losses from natural disasters double in 2007</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/27/losses-from-natural-disasters-double-in-2007/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1071852/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/27/losses-from-natural-disasters-double-in-2007/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>catastrophes</category><category>disaster</category><category>losses</category><category>Munich Re</category><category>MunichRe</category><category>re-insurers</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Eliza Popescu]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:30:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Does UBS's Q3 loss mean trouble for U.S. banks?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/30/does-ubs-q3-loss-mean-trouble-for-u-s-banks/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/30/does-ubs-q3-loss-mean-trouble-for-u-s-banks/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/30/does-ubs-q3-loss-mean-trouble-for-u-s-banks/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/earnings-reports/" rel="tag">Earnings Reports</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/c/" rel="tag">Citigroup Inc. (C)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bac/" rel="tag">Bank of America (BAC)</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="0" align="right" alt="UBS logo" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/09/ubs-ubs-logo.jpg" />According to <em>The Wall Street Journal, </em>Swiss bank giant <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/ubs-ag-new/ubs/nys">UBS</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/ubs-ag-new/ubs/nys">UBS</a>) will announce a tremendous loss for the third quarter. The problem is primarily in its fixed income division, which holds, among other things mortgage-related assets. </p>
<p>The loss will be in the $510 million to $600 million range, based on a write down of assets that could be six times that large. The <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119118330836544000.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news"><em>Journal</em> writes</a> that the "losses resulted from applying sharply lower market values to asset-backed bonds."</p>
<p>And, that is the core of the matter. Some of the fixed income instruments held by banks cannot be sold right now, or would have to be sold at a huge discount. Banking accountants use models to set asset values for reasons of earnings reporting, but those numbers are based to some extent on theory.</p>
<p>The problem is acute enough that it could spread to big U.S. money center banks like <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/citigroup-incorporated/c/nys">Citigroup</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/citigroup-incorporated/c/nys">C</a>) and <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/bank-of-america-corporation/bac/nys">Bank of America</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/bank-of-america-corporation/bac/nys">BAC</a>). After suffering sharp declines in August, Bank of America is now down only 5% for the year. Citi has not recovered as well and is off 15% over the same period.</p>
<p>Bad news out of a major U.S. bank would almost certainly cause the firms to test their lows again.</p>
<p><em>Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.</em><em> </em></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/30/does-ubs-q3-loss-mean-trouble-for-u-s-banks/">Does UBS's Q3 loss mean trouble for U.S. banks?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:45:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119118330836544000.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/30/does-ubs-q3-loss-mean-trouble-for-u-s-banks/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1001881/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/30/does-ubs-q3-loss-mean-trouble-for-u-s-banks/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>bac</category><category>bank of america</category><category>banking</category><category>BankOfAmerica</category><category>c</category><category>citygroup</category><category>earnings</category><category>financial</category><category>inthenews</category><category>losses</category><category>UBS</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Douglas McIntyre]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:45:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[eBay 1Q report predictions: Buy it now?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/04/18/ebay-1q-report-predictions-buy-it-now/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/04/18/ebay-1q-report-predictions-buy-it-now/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/04/18/ebay-1q-report-predictions-buy-it-now/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/after-the-bell/" rel="tag">After the Bell</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/annual-meetings/" rel="tag">Annual Meetings</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/ebay/" rel="tag">eBay (EBAY)</a></p><p>Shortly after the market closed today, Yahoo! posted its first quarter report. It was not too much of a surprise forthose of us who follow tech stocks, but Yahoo!'s profits fell to $160 million, or 11 cents a share, from $195 million,or 13 cents a year ago. </p>
<p>Profits down by $35 million?!  Yah-ouch!</p>
<p>What does this mean for the rest of thetech stocks like eBay and Google? Well, my guess is that as its competitors fall, so too will the rest of thesector.</p>
<p>So is this, in the words of eBay, a "Buy-It-Now" item? </p>
<p>Well, I guess we'll just haveto wait until the official announcement tomorrow after the bell. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to beholding my breath on this one.</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/04/18/ebay-1q-report-predictions-buy-it-now/">eBay 1Q report predictions: Buy it now?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:17:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/04/18/ebay-1q-report-predictions-buy-it-now/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/609712/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/04/18/ebay-1q-report-predictions-buy-it-now/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>1Q</category><category>ebay</category><category>losses</category><category>profits</category><category>tech</category><category>yahoo</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Anne Metz]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:17:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
