![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mi Caja su Caja
May. 21st, 2009 12:50 pmIt looks like the shit is beginning to hit the fan in Spain before Ireland. Caja Madrid is going to skip interest payments on two bonds due to rising defaults on mortgages backing the debt; it's the first halt in such payments by a Spanish bank during the current downturn.
The default, worth $1.65m on junior bonds, comes because defaults on underlying mortgages rose to cut-off levels stipulated by terms of the funds. This is likely to be the first of many such defaults in Spain, which entered the home-ownership stakes in a far more reckless and immature way (by which I mean, it was starting from a more primitive home-ownership base) than even Ireland. With the recession hitting the country harder than anywhere else in the EU and likely to be deeper and longer-lasting than anywhere else in the EU, the propsects for lenders in Spain's fragmented mortgage market looks like shit.
++++++++
The idiocy of some companies when it comes to even the basics of Enterprise Risk Management sometimes defies belief. Not only did Pringles manufacturer Proctor & Gamble blithely walk into court and say that Pringles were not crisps because they were 33% fat and flour (ummm, yummmmm, clearly aiming for the Homer Simpson market) and only 42% potato, but they managed to lose the case (an attempt to avoid VAT). Even afterwards, the PR man, who must have been desperately looking for a hole in the ground to swallow him up, insisted on referring to the company's "savoury snack product".
Did the company actually think about this before attempting to dodge the VAT? Didn't anyone say "look, it's a bit hard to market something when you proudly boast that it's mainly fat, flour, emulsifier and wheat starch".
Muchos applause to the judges, who basically told Proctor & Gamble, "stop talking bollocks".
++++++++++++
Some poker decisions:
$100 BI, 5pm. Pokerstars. You pick up Th 7h on the button, with about $100 in front of you.
Curiously, four players limp, all of them in around the 20% VPIP / 8% raise range. Do you fold, limp behind, or raise?
I chose to limp. No raise came from the blinds, making $7 in the pot.
Flop comes Ks Kh 5h, givving you a flush draw. Six players check to me. Do you bet or check?
Decision 2:
You pick up KK in the Cut-off with $100 in front of you in $100 BI. Passed round to you. You rase to 3x and are called in the Big blind by a standard PS player, perhaps a bit tighter and more passive than usual (say, 11%/6%), making it a $6.50 pot.
Flop comes T53 rainbow.
You bet $3. Blind check raises to $9. You call. $23.50 in the pot
Turn brings a Jack. Big blind bets $15. You call. $52.50 in the pot. You still have $73 in front of you, as has opponent.
River brings another 3, making JT533, no possible flush. Big blind checks. Do you check behind or bet?
What arguments are there for reraising (a) on the flop or (b) on the turn? Is there ever an argument for a fold?
_______________________
The default, worth $1.65m on junior bonds, comes because defaults on underlying mortgages rose to cut-off levels stipulated by terms of the funds. This is likely to be the first of many such defaults in Spain, which entered the home-ownership stakes in a far more reckless and immature way (by which I mean, it was starting from a more primitive home-ownership base) than even Ireland. With the recession hitting the country harder than anywhere else in the EU and likely to be deeper and longer-lasting than anywhere else in the EU, the propsects for lenders in Spain's fragmented mortgage market looks like shit.
++++++++
The idiocy of some companies when it comes to even the basics of Enterprise Risk Management sometimes defies belief. Not only did Pringles manufacturer Proctor & Gamble blithely walk into court and say that Pringles were not crisps because they were 33% fat and flour (ummm, yummmmm, clearly aiming for the Homer Simpson market) and only 42% potato, but they managed to lose the case (an attempt to avoid VAT). Even afterwards, the PR man, who must have been desperately looking for a hole in the ground to swallow him up, insisted on referring to the company's "savoury snack product".
Did the company actually think about this before attempting to dodge the VAT? Didn't anyone say "look, it's a bit hard to market something when you proudly boast that it's mainly fat, flour, emulsifier and wheat starch".
Muchos applause to the judges, who basically told Proctor & Gamble, "stop talking bollocks".
++++++++++++
Some poker decisions:
$100 BI, 5pm. Pokerstars. You pick up Th 7h on the button, with about $100 in front of you.
Curiously, four players limp, all of them in around the 20% VPIP / 8% raise range. Do you fold, limp behind, or raise?
I chose to limp. No raise came from the blinds, making $7 in the pot.
Flop comes Ks Kh 5h, givving you a flush draw. Six players check to me. Do you bet or check?
Decision 2:
You pick up KK in the Cut-off with $100 in front of you in $100 BI. Passed round to you. You rase to 3x and are called in the Big blind by a standard PS player, perhaps a bit tighter and more passive than usual (say, 11%/6%), making it a $6.50 pot.
Flop comes T53 rainbow.
You bet $3. Blind check raises to $9. You call. $23.50 in the pot
Turn brings a Jack. Big blind bets $15. You call. $52.50 in the pot. You still have $73 in front of you, as has opponent.
River brings another 3, making JT533, no possible flush. Big blind checks. Do you check behind or bet?
What arguments are there for reraising (a) on the flop or (b) on the turn? Is there ever an argument for a fold?
_______________________
