Does this bother anyone else? This little new world currency was introduced on September 10, 2009. What will it mean for us? How soon will we be asked to pay in Wocu since the US Dollar is devalued so much due to overprinting by the current administration?
Just wondering..
New World Currency Introduction
/PRNewswire/ -- This week the world's financial markets will see the first ever execution and settlement of a trade conducted in Wocus(TM) (World Currency Unit), the newly-introduced world currency. The Wocu has been developed as a derived world currency unit to allow corporations, financial institutions, governments and even individuals to trade across national boundaries and hold foreign assets with minimal risk of losses caused by exchange rate fluctuations.
Whilst international trade is conducted in US dollars or Euros a sharp change in exchange rates causes huge differentials, vastly complicating risk management and forward planning. With the emergence of Russia, China and India into the world markets a less volatile world currency is needed. As the Wocu is a derivative of the exchange rates of the world's top 20 currencies as measured by GDP it substantially reduces the risk factors. WDX Organisation, the company behind the Wocu, has weighted its algorithm in line with these GDPs, creating a demonstrably less volatile and totally apolitical currency unit.
Howard Flight, fund manager, consultant, politician and author of 'ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT EXCHANGE RATES' was the keynote speaker at the launch. He said: "I expect this to be an important moment for the history of currency - a new currency reference is being born which should be very useful for both major buyers and sellers of world commodities." He adds: "The questions are as to who will use it? WDX commercial arrangements are lining up major banks to both trade in and settle international trade transactions on behalf of corporate clients in Wocus. Banks and InterDealer Brokers will also trade Wocu derivatives for clients. It is surprising the IMF has not modernised the SDR, which new technology would enable. The Wocu does just that".
How does the Wocu differ from the IMF's SDR? The SDR, while a valuable tool, is based on 4 currencies and re-weighted only every 5 years, unlike the Wocu which is re-weighted by an independent institute every six months (when the IMF releases its GDP figures).
Michael King, WDX managing director, said: "Market participants and academics are telling us that the Wocu will be well-received. We are offering organisations, governments, and, through them, individuals, a new instrument of great elegance and power. Its use will herald less risk, less volatility and more certainty. Some even see it as the answer to the reserve currency issue. I am delighted that the Wocu, the result of much academic research and technical development, is now a reality."
Flight comments: "Corporate Treasurers and ACT members really like the Wocu concept as it reduces volatility and exchange rate risk and the concept of the Wocu is happily straightforward."
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis
VWV Note: Thought this style of media mismanagement would be of interest:
"Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's (December 21) front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed. The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises."
- White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 12/21/08
The New York Times wrongly accuses President Bush and his Administration of disregarding signs of danger from Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and ignores the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises, arguing that "as early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming." (Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Stephen Labaton, "White House Philosophy Stoked On Mortgage Bonfire," New York Times, 12/21/08)
The New York Times completely ignores the fact that while the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
The New York Times notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, saying "in the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics."
The article neglects to acknowledge that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:
Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
The New York Times wrongly accuses the President of encouraging reckless lending in order to expand the Republican base: "For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters."
The facts show that, throughout his eight years, the President was actually encouraging careful and wise lending and emphasized the obligations and responsibilities that come with homeownership. "We've got to be wise about how we deal with the closing documents and all the regulations, but also wise about how we help people understand what it means to own their home and the obligations and the opportunities." (President George W. Bush, Remarks On Homeownership, Atlanta, GA, 6/17/02)
"Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on '20-20 hindsight'. Today's (December 21) front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed. The Times' 'reporting' in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn't fit their point of view. To prove the point, when they filed their story, NYT reporters were completely unfamiliar with the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises."
- White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 12/21/08
The New York Times wrongly accuses President Bush and his Administration of disregarding signs of danger from Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and ignores the President's prime time address to the Nation where he laid out in detail all of the causes of the housing and financial crises, arguing that "as early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming." (Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Stephen Labaton, "White House Philosophy Stoked On Mortgage Bonfire," New York Times, 12/21/08)
The New York Times completely ignores the fact that while the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress had for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
The New York Times notes the political contributions of some banks to Republicans, saying "in the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics."
The article neglects to acknowledge that political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac overwhelmingly supported Democratic officials - in particular members of Democratic leadership:
Since 1989, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, "Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers," Center For Responsive Politics' "Capital Eye" Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08)
The New York Times wrongly accuses the President of encouraging reckless lending in order to expand the Republican base: "For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters."
The facts show that, throughout his eight years, the President was actually encouraging careful and wise lending and emphasized the obligations and responsibilities that come with homeownership. "We've got to be wise about how we deal with the closing documents and all the regulations, but also wise about how we help people understand what it means to own their home and the obligations and the opportunities." (President George W. Bush, Remarks On Homeownership, Atlanta, GA, 6/17/02)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
