Clayton Watches Price List in India

Filters : Clayton X     Clear All Filters  
Showing Records 1 to 23 of 23

Recently Reviewed

  • Clayton FC1550 Wht Watch For Women
    What I have yet to hear is an explanation of how that law had anitnyhg to do with the present state of affairs Ok, you seem to be genuinely interested in an answer, so I'll take a stab. The repeal wasn't so much an unwise policy move as it was reckless in its implementation. The free marketeers didn't think through all the implications, partly because key players like Graham and Rubin had sweetheart payoff gigs awaiting on Wall Street. But it was also because the free marketeers have an abiding belief that the market isn't intelligently designed; it just magically evolves and self-organizes.The repeal effectively eliminated the investment banking industry in an instant, because it unleashed the big commercial banks into the defenseless indy brokerages' theretofore protected pen. The latter's fate was sealed; it just took eight years for them to suffer a slow and painful death.The brokerages' immediate response was of course panic. Their new, uber-capitalized competitors could grab their traditional bread and butter by dangling sweet loans in front of customers to get equity offerings and public debt financials, etc. etc. (the banks had "promised" Congress they wouldn't do this; that lasted about 10 seconds).The brokerages' mistakes were twofold, and both had big consequences for the market. First, they believed they could compete with the banks' size using their wits (and outsized egos), inventing complex derivatives out of whole cloth. That in turn made the market unfathomably more complex and, more importantly, more opaque. They also began to dabble in the banks' traditional territory. They were babes in the woods, yet they soon went nuts...private equity, investing in ginormous California real estate developments, on and on. And, being undercapitalized compared to their bank competitors, they went into hock. Deeply. Lehman, for example, increased its leverage from 28-to-1 in 2003 to 45-to-1 in 2008. All this was viewed as "innovation," not "desperation," so the gubmint stayed out of the way, letting everyone make the rules up as they went along. At least as long as everyone was making money. When the music stopped, the complex and opaque tangle of "innovation" prevented anyone from quickly determining why and making necessary adjustments. And the once nimble, liquid brokerages that 10 years ago were able to weather bear markets were now up to their eyeballs in debt.Again, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was not a horrible idea on its face; financial conglomeration in Europe has been relatively successful, especially when it comes to efficiency/cost (but it also has its tradeoffs). It was also a recognition and formalization of many changes that had taken place anyway (thanks to stupid exceptions granted by Congress in exchange for cash). BUt GrahamRubin's recklessness translated into recklessness in the market. Conglomeration takes a lot of time - and regulation - to get right.