Money

Acquire or Supply Money

The life that we are having is sufficient enough to understand the whole world. But if we start to think and wish to begin following the market would be something unjust with the limited period it carries. I remember from what instance I become the die heart fan of this culture of money. I begin to read the articles related to this fashion of world. I tried to understand the pros and cons of the slope that I was making towards the path of imaginary Money.

I come to understand the value of money when I first lost 400,000 NRS (Nepali Rupees) following the emotional intelligence of my heart. I realize everything were a myth and wish to have more negotiable instruments that I can exchange for my hope. Everybody in the society is feeling that Money is the only pertinent factor that we cannot forget for making the healthy and wealthy society.

I remember I had once debated in the debate competition in my school on the topic “Money or Knowledge”. I was asked to speak for the team favoring knowledge. Now I would like to share something to the world that Money is the only motivating factor of knowledge, whereas Money or wealth is independent of anything.

I did not understand the difference amongst speculator, hedger and the arbitrageur. I did not know Debt or Equity. I did not know primary and secondary market. I did not know Securities Exchange Commission or Federal Bank. I did not know BRIC or G7. I did not know Asia and Europe or Americas. Many things really I did not know, and frankly quoting here, even I do not know why all these nonsense regulators are for. The only thing that I remember and understand is the combination of four words motivating me, viz. to live, to love, to learn and to leave a legacy.

The forth thing is the only thing that pull me to the world of finance, and the world of human being. I cannot ignore any of the four parameters, but enjoying the very fundamental of the world I am more concern on the aspect to leave a legacy.

Nonetheless, I will be regarded by the mass for thinking in that aspect as a very young person. My response to the world is the same fundamental and diplomatic answer of being Unique. My responsibility as a human being is associated to promote the organization. Here I am referring the organization as the association of cultures and tradition. I damn the fact of what religion I am belonging to.  The only thing I find the entire world is united is for the same motivating factor money.

When I first read the article in Motley fool (www.fool.com), I really could not imagine the way the bloggers were focusing for the creation of money. When I read the news of business and economics, I could not understand the base for such high and technical aspiration that the writer s were willing to establish. I did not understand the focus on the recession of 2008 and its comparison with the recession of 1930. The thing what I think I coached myself was the huge profit made by the firm Goldman Sachs. The firm which was on the news of it’s nearly collapse, made the tremendous and the jump in profit in the year 2009.  Everything was towards the market of money. All want to buy money but they have nothing more to offer but think money as the power that can buy everything. Now I am offering you that money are in supply in the market. The thing you require is the demanding power. Money will be a waste if you do not buy it.

People say Practice Makes Man Perfect. But I oppose the traditional landmark quotation by saying Practice makes man mechanic. He will try to solve everything in the mechanic form only. What I am asking is new thought and innovation, which is free from the practicing session. I will supply money for that. You may be thinking what I will do with that. My answer is obvious. I will create the market for your innovation and idea and bargain more money from the market and distribute that to the different challenging part of the world. 

In the world money is in power because it can buy things. The change I am bringing to the world is that I can buy everything. I can even buy the money what all are thinking can buy the whole thing in the world. I am not a speculator, but I want to speculate that money will be nothing more than the means to leave a legacy.

What could be the innovation…? If you can make the people to understand and prove what you were saying, you can attract the world and that will be the spiritual innovation. There must be an uncommon sense of common sense. Everything must be validated with the common sense. You should not disturb the society, you cannot provide any harm to the environment, you will not compete with the follower of the market, you will not criticize what the other are doing, you will not comment on the doings of the person or society, you will not compare with the market, you will not contend what you said, but leave the world to know you.

So whether to invest in others asset? Yes because you are having nothing more than your idea. You should juggle here and there and promote your ideas in such a way that other is willing to barter anything for that.

Whether to invest in Equity or Debt? If the economy is progressive, invest in Equity and if the same is falling below the line Debt is the good option.

I think the whole world is interested in creating money and not in buying. Everybody wants the Federal Reserve to give them new dollars unconditionally. Since all are in the same race of controlling money and enjoying the very moment of life gifted to live in the world, we should buy money with the sufficient knowledge that we have and barter the same with the likes that we are interested in the society.

Spotlight falls on role of consultancies

The revelation this week that Citigroup's disastrous expansion into the complex mortgage securities that lay at the heart of the financial crisis was based in part on a study by outside consultants has raised serious questions about the bank's managerial judgment.

But is has also highlighted how management consultancy groups exploited Wall Street's collective paranoia about ceding ground to rivals building up big businesses during the boom years.

It emerged on Wednesday in testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in Washington that, partly on the back of a 2005 Oliver Wyman analysis of potential growth in the fixed-income market, Citi decided to ramp up its business in collateralised debt obligations, or CDOs, backed by high-risk or "subprime" mortgage loans.

This ultimately led to a US government bail-out after Citi racked up more than $50bn in losses in the wake of the implosion of the subprime market.

In the heady pre-crisis years, firms such as Oliver Wyman and McKinsey were frequently called in to assess how banks could bolster profits in underperforming divisions, as bank executives looked to stave off shareholder complaints about lagging returns.

Oliver Wyman, for example, marketed a yearly analysis of how banks were faring relative to each other in hard-to-measure areas such as fixed income and commodities, offering previously unavailable competitive intelligence.

Citi was not the only bank that increased its exposure to CDOs at an inopportune moment. UBS was singling out structured credit and securitised products as big opportunities for growth as late as March 2007, again partly on the back of a strategic review of its fixed-income business led by Oliver Wyman.

In a 50-page report into the Swiss bank's near-collapse, published in April 2008, UBS revealed that the consultancy group "recommended that UBS selectively invest in developing certain areas of its business to close key product gaps, including in credit, rates... subprime and adjustable- rate mortgage products."

Oliver Wyman repeatedly declined to comment on either report, citing client confidentiality.

But people familiar with the analysis provided to Citi say it included ample warnings about the risks of diving into the structured product market, as well as other precautions that should be considered.

Citi insiders say that those precautions may have been overlooked amid mounting pressure on senior executives within Citi's midtown Manhattan headquarters and at 388 Greenwich Street, the downtown home of the company's investment bank.

By 2005, whatever honeymoon Charles Prince had enjoyed in the two years since he succeeded Sandy Weill as the bank's CEO was long gone, and investors had become increasingly vocal in questioning whether the financial-services conglomerate's growth could keep pace with either large US commercial lenders, including Bank of America, or stand-alone securities firms such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers.

Citi's consumer businesses had stagnated; reviving them meant spending billions of dollars in acquiring regional lenders or opening new branches, and it would take years to reap fully the benefits of those investments - time Mr Prince did not have. His easiest option was to depend on Citi's investment bank, specifically on a fixed-income franchise whose core came from the once-dominant bond trader Salomon Brothers.

Relying in part on the Oliver Wyman study, Robert Rubin, then chairman of Citi's executive committee, and Thomas Maheras, head of capital markets, conducted a review of the fixed-income business. They then sought Mr Prince's approval for an ambitious investment plan to ensure Citi would keep its edge as the debt markets evolved.

Citi would end up spending more than $300m in 2006 to hire traders, bankers and cutting-edge software systems. CDOs and other structured credit products were a part of that build-out.

Based in part on a careful study from outside consultants hired by our senior-most management, the company decided to expand certain areas of our fixed income business that we believed at the time offered opportunities for long-term growth.