9/11 in photos, then and now, via the Boston Globe. My own unplanned remembrance this morning just stretched out much longer courtesy of these alternately inspiring and heartbreaking pictures.

Lots of people still suggesting sovereign wealth funds as the eventual saviors of the U.S. financials. While that is, of course, possible, it's worth having a gander back at how their last attempt at picking a bottom in the sector is going. Here is a live spreadsheet I created a while back to track their ongoing investments. (And if I'm missing anything noteworthy, let me know.)

Yves over at Naked Capitalism is saying that she has two sources telling her that Lehman is at its end, with Goldman set to buy the firm. The stock is certainly trading today like a take-under is coming, down sharply on high volume.

Rumors are rumors, of course, so take it for what it's worth in these nutty times. The folks at FT Alphaville think this particular rumor, however, is a non-starter -- at least the Goldman part.

A reader just pointed out to me that mischievous sorts are messing with Wikipedia by inserting supposed "facts" in the entry there about troubled investment bank Lehman Brothers. Here is the insert, which was removed a scant few minutes later as unsourced:

Liquidation

On September 12, 2008 Lehman was told by banking regulators it will have to acquired by a solvent entity. Lehman executives have pleaded to delay the bad news by until September 13th, so that they can have a hand who acquires Lehman. Lehman has made a valid case in suggesting two or three buyers to the banking regulators.

I guess the traveling wolf pack at Wikipedia has moved on from Sarah Palin edits to doing Lehman edits.

Given someone's mischievous attempt today to anonymously insert Lehman Brothers bankruptcy news into that troubled company's Wikipedia entry, I thought it would be fun/interesting to have a closer look at that page's recent edit history. So, here is a graph of the number of edits of its Wikipedia page by day since the beginning of 2008. I have included the share price over the period as well.

Interesting stuff.

Everyone loves to prattle endlessly about how much higher personal savings is in China compared to the U.S. The U.S. rate has, until recently, saved a shrinking percentage of income, because of, among other things, the ease with which consumers felt they could make wealth gains via rapidly appreciating home and equity assets. But those asset games are now both over, so, all else being equal, personal income savings must climb in the U.S.

But the reverse is true in China. Everything there has conspired to make personal savings a necessity, from an uncertain economic environment, to a massive discrepancy between personal incomes and home prices, to an undeveloped financial/credit sector. All of those look set to change radically over the next five years (politics and economic apocalypse aside), with credit becoming more abundant, incomes increasing faster than asset prices, and some economic/political uncertainty disappearing into history.

So, here is my bet: Over the next ten years the U.S. personal savings rate triples from its current 2% level, while the Chinese rate halves. Any takers? If true it would definitely alter the calculus of those who think the U.S. can outsource its savings to China, who, in turn, continue to buy U.S. government debt.

A few quick links to some things elsewhere of interest:

• Volume and price patterns around a stock's 52-week high (SSRN)
• Less than 62% of the $6.88-trillion on deposit at U.S. banks is insured (Bankrate)
• Economist Ken Rogoff: Current crisis is not over (NPR)
• Does the Fed/Treasury now have too much skin in the game to play its proper disinterested role? (WSJ/Bianco)
• Thin film solar company raises $200m (Bits)
• Gas finds are propping up real estate in some U.S. towns, like Grand Junction CO (Zillow)