for my next trick….

[scaredyclassic]

which gives me an idea! maybe the government can make some cash by selling the rights to be the official ____ of the USA. so for instance, coke and pepsi can bid cash to be the Official Cola of the United States of America. Say that title goes for a billion dollars. cool. use the billion to buy a bitchin plane for some senators or pay down the deficit or whatnot. we could do that for every single product — cell phones, underwear, everything. that would bring in a lot of money, would it not. and it wouldn’t cost the government anything…

[gandalf]

SDR, I hate banks too. This bailout is bullshit. But here, what’s your take on this — serious question here that I honestly have no answer for:

If the banksters had gone down, especially the big ones, our money goes with them. Actually, and here’s the rub, they’ve lost a good deal of it already, obligations they can’t pay, hence the bailout.

Imagine a scenario where 10,000 business in San Diego County suddenly find their banks are insolvent, and as a result, they’ve been wiped out? No assets. Nothing to pay invoices, no payroll. What would happen if say, the neighborhood ‘Ralphs’, suddenly had no cash?

What should have happened other than the bailout?

[gandalf]

SDR, I hate banks too. This bailout is bullshit. But here, what’s your take on this — serious question here that I honestly have no answer for:

If the banksters had gone down, especially the big ones, our money goes with them. Actually, and here’s the rub, they’ve lost a good deal of it already, obligations they can’t pay, hence the bailout.

Imagine a scenario where 10,000 business in San Diego County suddenly find their banks are insolvent, and as a result, they’ve been wiped out? No assets. Nothing to pay invoices, no payroll. What would happen if say, the neighborhood ‘Ralphs’, suddenly had no cash?

What should have happened other than the bailout?

[gandalf]

SDR, I hate banks too. This bailout is bullshit. But here, what’s your take on this — serious question here that I honestly have no answer for:

If the banksters had gone down, especially the big ones, our money goes with them. Actually, and here’s the rub, they’ve lost a good deal of it already, obligations they can’t pay, hence the bailout.

Imagine a scenario where 10,000 business in San Diego County suddenly find their banks are insolvent, and as a result, they’ve been wiped out? No assets. Nothing to pay invoices, no payroll. What would happen if say, the neighborhood ‘Ralphs’, suddenly had no cash?

What should have happened other than the bailout?

[gandalf]

SDR, I hate banks too. This bailout is bullshit. But here, what’s your take on this — serious question here that I honestly have no answer for:

If the banksters had gone down, especially the big ones, our money goes with them. Actually, and here’s the rub, they’ve lost a good deal of it already, obligations they can’t pay, hence the bailout.

Imagine a scenario where 10,000 business in San Diego County suddenly find their banks are insolvent, and as a result, they’ve been wiped out? No assets. Nothing to pay invoices, no payroll. What would happen if say, the neighborhood ‘Ralphs’, suddenly had no cash?

What should have happened other than the bailout?

[gandalf]

SDR, I hate banks too. This bailout is bullshit. But here, what’s your take on this — serious question here that I honestly have no answer for:

If the banksters had gone down, especially the big ones, our money goes with them. Actually, and here’s the rub, they’ve lost a good deal of it already, obligations they can’t pay, hence the bailout.

Imagine a scenario where 10,000 business in San Diego County suddenly find their banks are insolvent, and as a result, they’ve been wiped out? No assets. Nothing to pay invoices, no payroll. What would happen if say, the neighborhood ‘Ralphs’, suddenly had no cash?

What should have happened other than the bailout?

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[SD Realtor]

I would agree that in this instance, we had a gordian knot like problem that made the S/L problem of the 90s seem like a cakewalk. In this instance the securitization of the debt instruments with almost geometric leveraging made it close to impossible to even find a starting point.

Thus an RTC like solution would have only been one part of a much much more complex solution.

The hard part is that we had/have everyday municipal and state investments in these instruments and the immediate loss of them would have resulted in the virtual halt of society. No that could not have been allowed to happen, I agree.

However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved. That is, rather then the government pushing hundreds of billions to these entities, that money could have been earmarked to make the interest payments on the investments to keep all of the investors cash flow alive. I think that we have been conditioned that the survival of the investment banks is essential to the survival of the economy. I used to really belive that but I am not so sure anymore. I think that there WAS tremendous opportunity for midlevel banks who were actually prudent through the bubble and those guys all got CRUSHED by this bailout.

So yes this would have been an extremely tough one to solve or resolve HOWEVER I do think that it could have been possible.

Going back to the subject I am not comfortable with the govt being my loan originator, and the secondary market provider, and the entity I pay my taxes to. Again, I guess some people are quite comfortable with the expansion of govt. I am not. I dont think the private market is perfect at all and I think some regulatory measures when enacted correctly are beneficial. It is a hard line to walk.

[CA renter]

Totally agree you, SDR.

Truth be told, there is no reason to have GSEs (IMHO). The only problem I see is that the private market could still misprice risk (keep rates too low) if they buy derivatives that are supposed to mitigate the default risks.

Personally, I don’t like derivatives (full disclosure: I use options from time to time). They have the potential to offer a false sense of security, and cause risk to be mispriced. The counterparty risks are too great for them not to be traded on the open market. They also need a regulator to monitor the health of the issuer and their ability to pay under extreme conditions…IF they are to be used at all.

[CA renter]

Totally agree you, SDR.

Truth be told, there is no reason to have GSEs (IMHO). The only problem I see is that the private market could still misprice risk (keep rates too low) if they buy derivatives that are supposed to mitigate the default risks.

Personally, I don’t like derivatives (full disclosure: I use options from time to time). They have the potential to offer a false sense of security, and cause risk to be mispriced. The counterparty risks are too great for them not to be traded on the open market. They also need a regulator to monitor the health of the issuer and their ability to pay under extreme conditions…IF they are to be used at all.

[CA renter]

Totally agree you, SDR.

Truth be told, there is no reason to have GSEs (IMHO). The only problem I see is that the private market could still misprice risk (keep rates too low) if they buy derivatives that are supposed to mitigate the default risks.

Personally, I don’t like derivatives (full disclosure: I use options from time to time). They have the potential to offer a false sense of security, and cause risk to be mispriced. The counterparty risks are too great for them not to be traded on the open market. They also need a regulator to monitor the health of the issuer and their ability to pay under extreme conditions…IF they are to be used at all.

[CA renter]

Totally agree you, SDR.

Truth be told, there is no reason to have GSEs (IMHO). The only problem I see is that the private market could still misprice risk (keep rates too low) if they buy derivatives that are supposed to mitigate the default risks.

Personally, I don’t like derivatives (full disclosure: I use options from time to time). They have the potential to offer a false sense of security, and cause risk to be mispriced. The counterparty risks are too great for them not to be traded on the open market. They also need a regulator to monitor the health of the issuer and their ability to pay under extreme conditions…IF they are to be used at all.

[Author]

Posts