Spot The Odd One Out

Tyler Durden's picture

The major US financial stocks have generally rolled over heavily post their stress-test exuberance catching up to credit's much more sombre reality the whole time, however - who is right? There remains massive divergences among stock performance, e.g. Morgan Stanley -4.9% YTD or Bank of America +35% YTD and while some individual names have caught up to their credit pricing, US financial stocks have yet to catch up to the reality that broad US financial CDS markets have been pricing for two months...

YTD equity performance of US major financials...

US (and Europe) financials stocks vs CDS performance...

and while overall stocks look expensive to credit still (though catching up recently), BofA has actually normalized (from its near 80% YTD short-squeeze gains) back to CDS levels - once again - credit was right all along...


Charts: Bloomberg

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
pupton's picture

It's a good thing we have "Dodd-Frank" to fix all of this... <sarc>

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Wheee all the way down! Socialism is fun and gays should be allowed to marry, and for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of America, and pretty soon we'll all be equally broke...

You wanted change.

Ruffcut's picture

IT ain't socialism, it is corruptism. Self serving greedy fucktards abusing a capital system.

This way everyone will be begging for the NWO to complete its takeover and ask for mercy that will never come.

TWSceptic's picture

Well without some form of socialism you can't have corporatism, fact.

Bananamerican's picture

all isms devolve to Cronyism/Corporatism...on a long enough timeline...

BlueCollaredOne's picture

Just wanted to chime in on your marriage comment.  Im a 27 heterosexual male, so this isn't coming from a gay viewpoint

Marriage shouldn't be a legal institution.  PERIOD.  The government should neither penalize, nor reward how one chooses to live ones life socially.  Who the fuck cares about marriage when 50% end in divorce anyway?  Your holiness, sanctity, or whatever its called is pretty much worthless after that stat.

Not sure how old you are, but girls my age are selfish, have no domestic skills, have no awareness of what is going on around them, don't have any real interests besides facebook, etc.  I work hard for my money and don't feel like going into contract with a woman who I'm going to just going to have to give half my shit to 10 years down the road.

Doug Stanhope - On Marriage

watch as the 55+ crowd junk me....



Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Calm down dude... and after 21 years of marriage I can honestly say everyman should get married... it isn't fair that only some of us have to suffer.

And don't get me wrong... I don't care if anyone is gay... it would be pretty cool to marry someone that liked to watch football and fart, but a line has to be drawn somewhere... if not here where? Next can men marry young girls? Can men marry young boys? I think my friends horse is kinda hot. Can I marry that horse?




veyron's picture

What makes the current line (only man and woman) any more arbitrary than man v man and woman v woman? Given that we don't kill off infertile adults, the procreation argument is inapplicable

Nothing To See Here's picture

Mariage is a religious institution and should be defined by churches as they wish. Governments intruded there for the same reason they intrude everywhere else : power over human living.

j0nx's picture

If it were strictly about marriage then yeah you are correct and the thread should stop here but the only reason gays want to marry is to get insurance benefits, etc which require that you be married. I can't even get my pregnant fiance on my insurance because we aren't married and she is carrying my baby. Any time there are financial issues involved with marriage then the long arm of government will always get involved. Marriage is as much a financial arrangement these days as it is a religious arrangement, maybe even more so.

blunderdog's picture

If it's solely a religious institution, gays can already marry.  There are priests/pastors/rabbis/whoever who are perfectly happy to perform gay marriage ceremonies, you just have to look around a bit.

Problem is, some people want the government to step in and interfere with the process.

Random_Robert's picture

They don't want the government to interfere, they want the government to provide equal-opportunity for all who are governed... EXACLTLY as government should.

The entire concept of Marriage was FUCKED the second governmental legalities began stepping in and forming a contractual financial basis around it.

Oh, your married? Well then, we don't need as much tax from you, since you are merging your slaveness with your spouse's slaveness and will soon be breeding another generation of future slaves... Good on ya, Mate!   

Before this complete bastardization took place, marriage was simply a matter of some dude (or chick), and their chosen life-partner, taking a vow before whomever the fuck they chose to call God, all attested to by some robe-wearing "official" of the God-office in question.

Simplicity is the enemy of the beaurocrat.





blunderdog's picture

If government's telling people who can and can't get married, I consider that interference--I don't see the disagreement.  I don't really want to talk about it here, tho, it was just a passing comment.

GoldenTool's picture

I thought you guys realized the new religion is finance?  Economists are the high priests and governments are the old militant orders.  Don't see much difference between now and 1200 AD.  Corporations being the lords and ladys of course.

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Uh... procreation... 


BlueCollaredOne's picture

The economy really is the great unifier of this board. 

We all have different backgrounds, views, social statuses, etc. The fact that a majority of this board see's through the false left/right paradigm as well as realizes we can't continue on this economic path makes it so we all are really on the same team.

blunderdog's picture

One good way to never be taken seriously is to grind your personal axe at every opportunity.

BlueCollaredOne's picture

Im calm man, I don't mean to come across as aggressive.  Its just my nature.

There are already laws protecting adults from having sex with minors , but from what I understand teen marriage license laws allow adults to overide those laws through marriage.  Most states just require parental consent, and a judge approval.

Teen Marriage Laws

There are already laws protecting sheepfuckers from fucking sheep. 

If you want to marry a horse, you should have all the freedom in the world to do so.  I'd even probably ask to attend. 

sof_hannibal's picture

I have a thought-- does anyone really give a fuck?

Random_Robert's picture

"Next can men marry young girls? Can men marry young boys? I think my friends horse is kinda hot. Can I marry that horse?"

The only valid basis from which to address the answer to your question is the determinant of the true age of consent- a tough one because the age of consent is not chronological, it is intellectual and emotional in foundation.

The current US legal age of consent (18) seems to be the statistical peak of the bell curve; meaning there are some 18 year olds out there who are ready and able to lead large corporations, while there are other 18 year olds out there who are stupid to wipe their own noses after they sneeze...





RafterManFMJ's picture

How can you know 'tis election season?

Let's trot out the decrepit horses of the American Election Cycle so the mouth-breathers can be riled from their moronic stupor, shall we?

  • Gay Marriage! OOOOOOOO, marriage is between a Man and a Woman, or a priest and his boy.
  • Gay's in the military! This would get rid of unit cohesion, and lead to an ineffective military that cannot even defeat a nation of boy/goat fuckers. Oh, wait...
  • Abortion, in all it's magical permutations! Partial birth? After Dinner? Morning after Pill?
  • Welfare! Not corporate, no...not THAT welfare!
  • Gun Control! Well, you may not be able to feed yourself, but you have a gun. How long 'till you willingly trade it for a sack of potatoes?


This is Zerohedge not; You know the score and should know better by now than to be diverted by this pablum for the sheeple.  When someone asks me, should abortion be legal, my standard response is, "Hang the Banksters."  

francis_sawyer's picture

The government (cough cough 'corporation') needs you to have a marriage license so that when you have kids you'll act as legal entity to bond them (as collateral) into a life of slavery by getting them a social security number...

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

And see this is such a freaking distraction wish I had never mentioned it...

IT's THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who cares about all this other side show stuff.

If we don't fix the economy none of it will matter!

pods's picture

Actually this is on point.  The government needs collateral for it to borrow from the private Federal Reserve.

Citizens are that collateral via the 14th amendment.


Boxed Merlot's picture

It's more basic than that.  It's actually more basic than the "marriage" side show.

It's the voluntary adherence to the rule of law.  Gold possession, contract requirements, payments, receivables, deeds of trust, none of this matters unless the people see their (s)elected officials abiding by the same codes of conduct they are requiring of them.

Swift, sure and just punishment to any that violate these rules, to those governing as well as those being governed is needed first before even the economy sees relief.


The judiciary has become a failure as our last line of defense as it it populated by made attorneys that have recieved their silly black robes at the hands of political opportunists in exchange for future immunity.



Strom's picture

Surprisingly, children don't have to have a SSN. They give you an application at birth, and everyone does it, but it's not required (says so on the form). If the kid ever wants to work a job that's not under the table, or if you want to take them as a deduction on your tax return, you'll need the SSN, but it's not required.

veyron's picture

25 here, so this is certainly not a 50+ year old rant ...

On the other side there are certainly many women our age who actually work hard, eschew Facebook, and make money as well (more, in terms of count, than there were many years ago). I think it really depends on your social millieu.

francis_sawyer's picture

Well when I was your age I had to walk to school through a blizzard (uphill both ways)...

knightowl77's picture

Eh...I'm 55+ and you are exactly right to a point....

Individually you are making a good decision....


Though society can and probably should through its tax policies encourage certain behaviors that benefit society....Crime and poverty increase when their are single parent homes...Children being born to unwed mothers require generally more government aid than do children born to married mothers (providing they stay married)...The problems come in when gov't takes this and everything else to an extreeme...

Marriage should be a religous ONLY event which confers civil union status....If you skip the religous ceremony, you can still and should obtain the civil union for the reasons above.

Boxed Merlot's picture

Marriage should be a religous ONLY event...


Marriage IS a religious sacrament administered by the church.  The problem with the state interjecting itself into the church's domain is it allows for the church to enter the statehouse.

Marriage is a relationship whereby God joins together.  The state is allowed to establish laws related to contracts and unions and can allow the unions of people and trees, dogs and cats, or the sun and moon.  (S)elected officials have no right of diety to ordain the joining together in marriage and to do so violates the seperation of church and state.

Which way do you want it?  It can't be both.



Hayabusa's picture

Ok, I'm not 55+... having said that I'm 53.  In reference to your comments on marriage, women, divorce stats and government being involved... well, you're spot on.  Signing a marriage license is a financial decision (about the biggest you will ever make)... signing one and giving the government jusidiction over my marriage, assets, pension, investments, children, etc., was the most assinine financial/emotional decision I've ever made.  Get married if you must... BUT do NOT sign a marriage license, or live in a common law marriage state with cupcake - choosing to do so is an act of faith which has less than a 50% chance of paying off.  I reside in Nebraska... AFTER my divorce I did some research at the local courthouse and guess what, if you get married in a church she can still legally change her last name, you can live with her for 20 years and if you end up going your separate ways only custody/visitation/child support will be part of the process... no "equitiable distribution of the marital assets, or alimony"... what's in her name is hers, and visa versa.  Make sure you own the house and it's in your name only, your car, your bank account(s), pension, 401k, etc., and if she leaves you (roughly 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by women for "soft reasons"... e.g., "you left the toilet seat up"... "you forgot to fluff my pillow", etc., she can't take your house, vehicles, investments, or assets that are in your name.  Assure her with a will she will get everything you own if you die first when you marry, and if things go south at some point, change the will and leave it to your kids, etc.  Aside from all this... the history of marriage licenses is sordid:


A marriage license (spelled licence in British English) is a document issued either by a church or state authority authorising a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a licence varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licences began to be issued in the Middle Ages to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given).

So the license was a way to regulate who could marry. How was that applied in America (until reform came)?

In the early part of the twentieth century, the requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.


realitybiter's picture

amen bro


I'm twice your age and see the same thing the generation older than you, wife included.  This trend has gone on for a very long time.  I'd say last 2-1/2 generations.

Womens lib is a joke.  It just made being slutty cool.  When I dated in the 90's 90% of the hotties had so much stupid debt, largely to purchase clothing, it was embarrassing.  Why would you give up half?  And why buy the cow when the milk is not only free, but delivered???


Romney is an idiot for taking a position on this.  He should simply state, "marriage is a personal, not state decision."

BO made 2008 and now 2012 affirmative action elections.  great.

You can never fire affirmative action hires.

TWSceptic's picture

Exactly. Like with everything, govt should stay out of it and let the individual decide how he/she wants to live without penalizing or rewarding them.

Rip van Wrinkle's picture

I'm 57. So I'm in the over 55 crowd that you choose to belittle.


When you've grown out of your nappies, sorry, diapers, let me know and I'll listen to you. Sorry to say but every, yes every social survey says children do better with married parents than any other form of partnership,... or no partnership, as the case may be.


If you want littlle sh*ts causing mayhem to get worse and worse, you're going down the right course. Yer kids are more important than your money. You'll learn. I think.

JeffB's picture

The primary end of marriage is children. A family. Not a tax deduction, or a handy sex partner, friend for life or whatever.

A girlfriend or hookup partner, or domestic partner or any similar situation just isn't a stable family providing the most healthy environment for raising children.

I came to my senses late and married late, but fwiw, I'm one 55+ (barely) who didn't junk you. I bought into the societal distorted view of reality for a long time & can't fault anyone else for doing so.


I am a Man I am Forty's picture

I have a fantastic girlfriend that is nothing like you describe.  I was married once to a crazy bitch so I've seen both sides.  I don't think the state or the feds should have anything to do with marriage.  When you sign that piece of paper with the state you put your ass in the state's hands.  In NC you have to be separated for a year before being officially divorced, so guess whose on the hook if the crazy bitch does something stupid?  I would prefer not to get married again (because the state's involvement) but I am probably going to, my crazy bitch radar is pretty tight and I think I have a good one this time.

I think gay people should have to go through the torture of marriage and divorce as well, so I'm all for it.

BlackholeDivestment's picture

...BlueCollaredOne, love is not on any leash, the mark of the beast defines the host image through tax, which is not apportioned to labor. The Constitution does not abort individual liberty, freedom and justice for all, however, in agreement, people accept (tax and laws) the mark of the beast, which is the (corruption) image of the aborted Constitution. In the case of agreement, defining two bodies, labor and government, standing as ''one'' (black hole) in contempt of life, the market image is clear. The Suicide Vampire Squid image is reflected in this case of abortion, which is equal (you must assume the position) in nature with the homosexual claim (the black hole) of dominion. The evidence, Lloyd's (g)ods work as a market maker, lol, is clear enough, as is the image of a man and women as the cause, in agreement with the image, in the mirror, which does not offer foundation or cause equal with the homosexual claim of marriage. The Constitution stands in agreement with labor, and as with Babylon, labor is fallen fallen

...there is a black hole in your heart that needs filling.;AMP;KJV It is unbecoming to stand in contempt of your own life, because you agree with the image and false claim of dominion.

SDS Trader's picture

Interesting thought.  Eliminate the quarrel by removing the point being quarreled over.

I'm in my mid-40's, male, married, and hetero.  I think much of what you say about many womens' interests and non-interests is true. And I'm sure more than a few decent, hard-working women have similar opinions about a large segment of the 20-something males out there.  I think a lot of it comes from raising generations of children who have been taught that they can't be happy unless they are just doing what they want to do for themselves all the time. 

I'm with you - if you want money, you generally need to work darn hard to get it.  I would not want to share it with a lazy spouse either, whether it was a woman who texted all day on her cellphone or a guy who sat on the couch, drank beer, and watched ESPN all day and basically took a 10-year vacation only to grab half of the goodies at the end.

But again, I think you make an interesting point about not having a legalized institution to quarrel over in the first place. About the only thing you'd need to make provision for would be taking care of children, but that should not be any big deal if both partners were required to have a custody arrangement in place or take whatever their state decided would be a standard custody agreement.  Other than that, I agree.

Besides, it would be fun to see all the parasitic lawyers who make a living over resolving divorces and such go out of business...

jonan's picture

it's fun being fascist /don't junk me sarc

Diatribe's picture

Tyler:  This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.

Zero Govt's picture


...if you take Aspirin it slows it down (apparently)

Rahm's picture

^^^ U got junked, inspite of your avatar!!!  :)

Quinvarius's picture

I am surprised the Bernanke, with all his foresight, has not connected the dots on the global banking implosion that has already began.  At least the economy is already dead.  It could not possibly get any worse... 

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

It could not possibly get any worse... 

Oh sure it can - watch the youtube video about Clayton County GA running out of food stamps - coming soon to a city near you! Then what? Will the dependant class suddenly develop into self reliant citizens, or will they look for self reliant citizens to rob?

Vince Clortho's picture

The global financial system died in 2008.  The corpse has been re-inflated, lipstick applied and is now being manipulated by the puppeteers.

pupton's picture

You can force people to lend, but you can't force people to borrow, right?  All the free money in the world can't FORCE people to borrow and can't make people more creditworthy.  I have no idea what the next round of QE will hope to acheive, and how.  Mortgage rates are at record lows already, banks have tons of cash and no borrowers...What else will The Chairsatan think up to slow the decline of western civilization???

blunderdog's picture

That's an interesting idea, actually.  Just give the money to people and see what happens. 

Betcha most folks would "reluctantly" agree to spend that $25K dollar "loan" that was just deposited into their checking.  Just like how those mailings used to work where "cashing this $1.00 check signifies your acceptance of terms."

Problem would be, most folks wouldn't be able to pay anything back. 

asteroids's picture

As Kojak used to say "who luvs ya baby?". When it comes to the banks, we now know.