for my next trick….

[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.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved.
[/quote]

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.[/quote]

I see some glaring contradictions in your comments.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).

The non-FDIC insured institutions such as AIG would have been allowed to fail and that would taken down Goldman Sacks, Morgan Stanley, Societe Generale, Deutshe Bank, etc… The Europeans would have had to nationalize their banks also.

You would have ended up with a government-controlled system banking which we are far from today.

Economic history will show that America bailed out the banks to PRESERVE the private banking sector. It was a matter of economic philosophy, national prestige (perhaps national security) because we’ve had always preached to the world that a private system was superior. We now have a big egg on our face.

Dominique Strass-Kahn, the chief of the IMF acknowledged as much. During the Mexico and Asian Financial crisis, the IMF (indeed America) preached letting the markets self-correct and implementing austerity measures such as cutting government spending.

America is now doing the exact opposite but can’t afford to publicly acknowledge it and nationalize the banks. We are doing it surreptitiously at cost of more moral-hazard and preserving the very management that got us into this mess in the first place. Not much different than the management of Argentina.

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.
[/quote]

Which banks do you think funded the local strip malls and the commercial buildings Poway and Carlsbad?

When commercial real estate loans default, the smaller banks will be in world of s–t. And they won’t be bailed out.

That’s beginning to happen.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved.
[/quote]

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.[/quote]

I see some glaring contradictions in your comments.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).

The non-FDIC insured institutions such as AIG would have been allowed to fail and that would taken down Goldman Sacks, Morgan Stanley, Societe Generale, Deutshe Bank, etc… The Europeans would have had to nationalize their banks also.

You would have ended up with a government-controlled system banking which we are far from today.

Economic history will show that America bailed out the banks to PRESERVE the private banking sector. It was a matter of economic philosophy, national prestige (perhaps national security) because we’ve had always preached to the world that a private system was superior. We now have a big egg on our face.

Dominique Strass-Kahn, the chief of the IMF acknowledged as much. During the Mexico and Asian Financial crisis, the IMF (indeed America) preached letting the markets self-correct and implementing austerity measures such as cutting government spending.

America is now doing the exact opposite but can’t afford to publicly acknowledge it and nationalize the banks. We are doing it surreptitiously at cost of more moral-hazard and preserving the very management that got us into this mess in the first place. Not much different than the management of Argentina.

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.
[/quote]

Which banks do you think funded the local strip malls and the commercial buildings Poway and Carlsbad?

When commercial real estate loans default, the smaller banks will be in world of s–t. And they won’t be bailed out.

That’s beginning to happen.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved.
[/quote]

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.[/quote]

I see some glaring contradictions in your comments.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).

The non-FDIC insured institutions such as AIG would have been allowed to fail and that would taken down Goldman Sacks, Morgan Stanley, Societe Generale, Deutshe Bank, etc… The Europeans would have had to nationalize their banks also.

You would have ended up with a government-controlled system banking which we are far from today.

Economic history will show that America bailed out the banks to PRESERVE the private banking sector. It was a matter of economic philosophy, national prestige (perhaps national security) because we’ve had always preached to the world that a private system was superior. We now have a big egg on our face.

Dominique Strass-Kahn, the chief of the IMF acknowledged as much. During the Mexico and Asian Financial crisis, the IMF (indeed America) preached letting the markets self-correct and implementing austerity measures such as cutting government spending.

America is now doing the exact opposite but can’t afford to publicly acknowledge it and nationalize the banks. We are doing it surreptitiously at cost of more moral-hazard and preserving the very management that got us into this mess in the first place. Not much different than the management of Argentina.

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.
[/quote]

Which banks do you think funded the local strip malls and the commercial buildings Poway and Carlsbad?

When commercial real estate loans default, the smaller banks will be in world of s–t. And they won’t be bailed out.

That’s beginning to happen.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved.
[/quote]

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.[/quote]

I see some glaring contradictions in your comments.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).

The non-FDIC insured institutions such as AIG would have been allowed to fail and that would taken down Goldman Sacks, Morgan Stanley, Societe Generale, Deutshe Bank, etc… The Europeans would have had to nationalize their banks also.

You would have ended up with a government-controlled system banking which we are far from today.

Economic history will show that America bailed out the banks to PRESERVE the private banking sector. It was a matter of economic philosophy, national prestige (perhaps national security) because we’ve had always preached to the world that a private system was superior. We now have a big egg on our face.

Dominique Strass-Kahn, the chief of the IMF acknowledged as much. During the Mexico and Asian Financial crisis, the IMF (indeed America) preached letting the markets self-correct and implementing austerity measures such as cutting government spending.

America is now doing the exact opposite but can’t afford to publicly acknowledge it and nationalize the banks. We are doing it surreptitiously at cost of more moral-hazard and preserving the very management that got us into this mess in the first place. Not much different than the management of Argentina.

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.
[/quote]

Which banks do you think funded the local strip malls and the commercial buildings Poway and Carlsbad?

When commercial real estate loans default, the smaller banks will be in world of s–t. And they won’t be bailed out.

That’s beginning to happen.

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]
However I do believe a slower more orderly takeover and liquidation could have been achieved.
[/quote]

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.[/quote]

I see some glaring contradictions in your comments.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the FDIC would have taken them over which equates to wholesale nationalization (like the Northern Rock nationalization in Britain).

The non-FDIC insured institutions such as AIG would have been allowed to fail and that would taken down Goldman Sacks, Morgan Stanley, Societe Generale, Deutshe Bank, etc… The Europeans would have had to nationalize their banks also.

You would have ended up with a government-controlled system banking which we are far from today.

Economic history will show that America bailed out the banks to PRESERVE the private banking sector. It was a matter of economic philosophy, national prestige (perhaps national security) because we’ve had always preached to the world that a private system was superior. We now have a big egg on our face.

Dominique Strass-Kahn, the chief of the IMF acknowledged as much. During the Mexico and Asian Financial crisis, the IMF (indeed America) preached letting the markets self-correct and implementing austerity measures such as cutting government spending.

America is now doing the exact opposite but can’t afford to publicly acknowledge it and nationalize the banks. We are doing it surreptitiously at cost of more moral-hazard and preserving the very management that got us into this mess in the first place. Not much different than the management of Argentina.

[quote=SD Realtor]
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.
[/quote]

Which banks do you think funded the local strip malls and the commercial buildings Poway and Carlsbad?

When commercial real estate loans default, the smaller banks will be in world of s–t. And they won’t be bailed out.

That’s beginning to happen.

[briansd1]

What I was trying to say is that those of you who rail against the government’s take over of Fan/Fred (secondary market) should take comfort in the bailout so far.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the government would have owned the whole financial supply chain.

For Republican readers:

Remember that the bailout was dreamed up by Bush, Geithner, Bernanke and Paulson. It was implemented by Geithner at the NY Fed.

The bailout of AIG was a godsend to Societe General (a socialist French organization). The French bank regulator threatened that French law would not allow SG to take anything less than 100% face value. Geithner used that pretext to bailout AIG and make his Wall Street friends whole. And SG got the biggest payout from AIG.

If the Rush Limbaugh listeners don’t see the socialist undertones of the bailout, then they are truly hopeless.

They rail against Obama but fail to look in the mirror.

[briansd1]

What I was trying to say is that those of you who rail against the government’s take over of Fan/Fred (secondary market) should take comfort in the bailout so far.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the government would have owned the whole financial supply chain.

For Republican readers:

Remember that the bailout was dreamed up by Bush, Geithner, Bernanke and Paulson. It was implemented by Geithner at the NY Fed.

The bailout of AIG was a godsend to Societe General (a socialist French organization). The French bank regulator threatened that French law would not allow SG to take anything less than 100% face value. Geithner used that pretext to bailout AIG and make his Wall Street friends whole. And SG got the biggest payout from AIG.

If the Rush Limbaugh listeners don’t see the socialist undertones of the bailout, then they are truly hopeless.

They rail against Obama but fail to look in the mirror.

[briansd1]

What I was trying to say is that those of you who rail against the government’s take over of Fan/Fred (secondary market) should take comfort in the bailout so far.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the government would have owned the whole financial supply chain.

For Republican readers:

Remember that the bailout was dreamed up by Bush, Geithner, Bernanke and Paulson. It was implemented by Geithner at the NY Fed.

The bailout of AIG was a godsend to Societe General (a socialist French organization). The French bank regulator threatened that French law would not allow SG to take anything less than 100% face value. Geithner used that pretext to bailout AIG and make his Wall Street friends whole. And SG got the biggest payout from AIG.

If the Rush Limbaugh listeners don’t see the socialist undertones of the bailout, then they are truly hopeless.

They rail against Obama but fail to look in the mirror.

[briansd1]

What I was trying to say is that those of you who rail against the government’s take over of Fan/Fred (secondary market) should take comfort in the bailout so far.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the government would have owned the whole financial supply chain.

For Republican readers:

Remember that the bailout was dreamed up by Bush, Geithner, Bernanke and Paulson. It was implemented by Geithner at the NY Fed.

The bailout of AIG was a godsend to Societe General (a socialist French organization). The French bank regulator threatened that French law would not allow SG to take anything less than 100% face value. Geithner used that pretext to bailout AIG and make his Wall Street friends whole. And SG got the biggest payout from AIG.

If the Rush Limbaugh listeners don’t see the socialist undertones of the bailout, then they are truly hopeless.

They rail against Obama but fail to look in the mirror.

[briansd1]

What I was trying to say is that those of you who rail against the government’s take over of Fan/Fred (secondary market) should take comfort in the bailout so far.

Had the banks been allowed to fail, the government would have owned the whole financial supply chain.

For Republican readers:

Remember that the bailout was dreamed up by Bush, Geithner, Bernanke and Paulson. It was implemented by Geithner at the NY Fed.

The bailout of AIG was a godsend to Societe General (a socialist French organization). The French bank regulator threatened that French law would not allow SG to take anything less than 100% face value. Geithner used that pretext to bailout AIG and make his Wall Street friends whole. And SG got the biggest payout from AIG.

If the Rush Limbaugh listeners don’t see the socialist undertones of the bailout, then they are truly hopeless.

They rail against Obama but fail to look in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SD Realtor]The govt has a great track record running other massive programs so I am sure this one will be awesome.[/quote]

I hear some variation of this quite a bit these days. It’s easy to get nods of agreement when bashing the government.

But does the government really have such a bad track record?

Social security is a common example of a big government “failure.” But it did work for more than 70 years, and it will probably be a few more decades before it could fail. A century of success before it ends. Not a bad run.

The Federal Reserve (another popular target) has been around for around 100 years — coincidentally the most prosperous century any nation has seen in history.

Our highway system is a marvel of the world, and our military (the most massive of all programs, ever) seems to get the job done.

(I could go on, but by now the reader is actually considering my point or has cynically dismissed it.)

Some problems are inherently big. I think if were to take the time to objectively look at history and list the successes vs. the failures, we’d realize that government can actually do a pretty good job with many of these.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SD Realtor]The govt has a great track record running other massive programs so I am sure this one will be awesome.[/quote]

I hear some variation of this quite a bit these days. It’s easy to get nods of agreement when bashing the government.

But does the government really have such a bad track record?

Social security is a common example of a big government “failure.” But it did work for more than 70 years, and it will probably be a few more decades before it could fail. A century of success before it ends. Not a bad run.

The Federal Reserve (another popular target) has been around for around 100 years — coincidentally the most prosperous century any nation has seen in history.

Our highway system is a marvel of the world, and our military (the most massive of all programs, ever) seems to get the job done.

(I could go on, but by now the reader is actually considering my point or has cynically dismissed it.)

Some problems are inherently big. I think if were to take the time to objectively look at history and list the successes vs. the failures, we’d realize that government can actually do a pretty good job with many of these.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SD Realtor]The govt has a great track record running other massive programs so I am sure this one will be awesome.[/quote]

I hear some variation of this quite a bit these days. It’s easy to get nods of agreement when bashing the government.

But does the government really have such a bad track record?

Social security is a common example of a big government “failure.” But it did work for more than 70 years, and it will probably be a few more decades before it could fail. A century of success before it ends. Not a bad run.

The Federal Reserve (another popular target) has been around for around 100 years — coincidentally the most prosperous century any nation has seen in history.

Our highway system is a marvel of the world, and our military (the most massive of all programs, ever) seems to get the job done.

(I could go on, but by now the reader is actually considering my point or has cynically dismissed it.)

Some problems are inherently big. I think if were to take the time to objectively look at history and list the successes vs. the failures, we’d realize that government can actually do a pretty good job with many of these.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SD Realtor]The govt has a great track record running other massive programs so I am sure this one will be awesome.[/quote]

I hear some variation of this quite a bit these days. It’s easy to get nods of agreement when bashing the government.

But does the government really have such a bad track record?

Social security is a common example of a big government “failure.” But it did work for more than 70 years, and it will probably be a few more decades before it could fail. A century of success before it ends. Not a bad run.

The Federal Reserve (another popular target) has been around for around 100 years — coincidentally the most prosperous century any nation has seen in history.

Our highway system is a marvel of the world, and our military (the most massive of all programs, ever) seems to get the job done.

(I could go on, but by now the reader is actually considering my point or has cynically dismissed it.)

Some problems are inherently big. I think if were to take the time to objectively look at history and list the successes vs. the failures, we’d realize that government can actually do a pretty good job with many of these.

[Author]

Posts