Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (54339)	9/1/2009 3:56:08 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217837

Fluttering eyelash alert... ;) SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 Accumulators Are Collecting Fans Again By LAURA SANTINI HONG KONG -- An infamous destroyer of Asian wealth is making a surprise comeback. Financial derivatives known as accumulators generated controversy last year after wiping out enormous sums among high net-worth individuals in Asia. Now, bankers say private-wealth managers at Citigroup Inc., UBS AG, HSBC Holdings PLC and other firms are back to selling stock accumulators. The return of the accumulator -- dubbed the "I kill you later" for the financial pain these investments inflicted when markets went south last year -- reflects how rapidly the appetite for risk globally has recovered as investors bet that the worst of the economic downturn is over. memo: online.wsj.com

To: TobagoJack who wrote (54339)	9/1/2009 4:20:32 AM
From: Amark$p	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217837

This is indeed an interesting development. It involves contract and agency law, with all sorts of ramifications. To me, the issue centers around whether the signers of these contracts had authority to bind the corporation. Another issue is that once the Corporation discovered that unauthorized, unqualified staff had improperly signed these contracts, did the Corporation immediately notify its counterparties of this fact. Regardless of whether these products were sold to unqualified staff without proper licensing, etc, it would seem to me the Corporation would need to immediately notify its counterparties rather than waiting to see if these investments rose or fell in value, and then notifying its counterparties. This also involves Agency law, and I wonder how this has developed in China. I am sure that Chinese law differs with Western law in this respect...? "The reciprocal rights and liabilities between a principal and an agent reflect commercial and legal realities. A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a business. In the case of a corporation, since a corporation is a fictitious legal person, it can only act through human agents. The principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so long as the agent performs within the scope of the agency. A third party may rely in good faith on the representation by a person who identifies himself as an agent for another. It is not always cost effective to check whether someone who is represented as having the authority to act for another actually has such authority. If it is subsequently found that the alleged agent was acting without necessary authority, the agent will generally be held liable." There is also the issue of Authority or "agency by estoppel", which shows that the Agency relationship exists (in Western law). Authority There are three bases by which parties may be held to have assumed the duties of principal and agent. These are actual authority, apparent authority, and implied authority. Actual authority Actual authority arises where the principal's words or conduct reasonably cause the agent to believe that he or she has been authorized to act. This may be express in the form of a contract or implied because what is said or done make it reasonably necessary for the person to assume the powers of an agent. If it is clear that the principal gave actual authority to agent, all the agent's actions falling within the scope of the authority given will bind the principal. This will be the result even if, having actual authority, the agent in fact acts fraudulently for his own benefit, unless the third party with whom the agent is dealing was aware of the agent's personal agenda. If there is no contract but the principal's words or conduct reasonably led the third party to believe that the agent was authorized to act, or if what the agent proposes to do is incidental and reasonably necessary to accomplish an actually authorized transaction or a transaction that usually accompanies it, then the principal will be bound. Apparent authority Apparent or ostensible authority exists where the principal's words or conduct would lead a reasonable person in the third party's position to believe that the agent was authorized to act, even if the principal and the purported agent had never discussed such a relationship. For example, where one person appoints a person to a position which carries with it agency-like powers, those who know of the appointment are entitled to assume that there is apparent authority to do the things ordinarily entrusted to one occupying such a position. If a principal creates the impression that an agent is authorized but there is no actual authority, third parties are protected so long as they have acted reasonably. This is sometimes termed "agency by estoppel" or the "doctrine of holding out", where the principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if third parties have changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made. Implied authority Implied authority considered held by the agent by virtue of being reasonably necessary to carry out his express authority. As such, it can be inferred by virtue of a position held by an agent. For example, partners have authority to bind the other partners in the firm, their liability being joint and several, and in a corporation, all executives and senior employees with decision-making authority by virtue of their position have authority to bind the corporation. ________ It would also appear that if the Corporation cannot be bound, then the agent (i.e. unqualified staff) will be held liable for damages under Western law. _______ FWIW, I have no dog in this fight. Just find this a highly interesting development in contract/agency law.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (54339)	9/1/2009 5:31:53 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217837

Commercial banks are in trouble. Similar trouble the IMF and World Bank are facing. They hold a commodity that no longer is scarce: Capital. What they do? They risk as they did in the subprime case. Packaged toxic assets and sold to the incautious.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (54339)	9/1/2009 5:33:17 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217837

Zero % created scammers who prey upon people who live off capital. Madoff for instance They were easy prey because there was a time one could accumulate and lend capital for a high fee. Today the fee earns them a gasosinha. Gasosinha is soft drink in Angolan parlance. Scammers come out with a plan to pay high fees today from the guys who invest tomorrow and there is Mr. Madoff in calaboush.Calaboush is Arabic for jail. Am I worried about so much capital almost free? I live off work so I am not worrying. The surplus I earn I repatriate to Curitiba as Brazil is inside demographic window and dealing away with 25 years back log of housing to eat it through. Government needs to put all . cabeça de bagres (catfish heads) to work as the US and Europe did on their way to get wealthy Thus Brazil opens the capital tap to construction. Lots get dearer because they stopped manufacturing ground to build long time ago. Therefore no one can make a mistake putting money inside Brazil.