Obama lacks decorum

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
You need to look at history again. Allowing banks to fail and effectively be nationalized was part of what changed a potential late 1920’s recession to a full depression. One run on bank capitalization resulted in further runs on capitalization. [/quote]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

Too late now.

[ucodegen]

One thing I found interesting when watching Congress grill Gietner and Paulson, was how little Congress really understood what caused this recession and how little Congress understood businesses, business law and corporate structures.

It was not hedge fund activity and ‘proprietary trading’ that caused this problem. It was poor mortgage lending based upon flawed foreclosure recovery models and flawed CDS premiums. Yet, instead of looking at making CDS(s) a true insurance product and requiring extra capitalization to cover potential losses when being the insuring entity, they look at putting restriction on banks that may fit the ‘too-big-to-fail’. This also ignores the activities within the Fed that may have put at least one healthy bank at risk by forcing it to buy out another. Congress also looks at ‘taxing’ the banks that may have made it past the initial problems. This penalizes banking entities that may have made rational decisions allowing them to survive. Note to Congress: We may still have problems with the hidden inventory that was caused by HAMP and all of the other restrictions placed on banks pursuing foreclosure.

Congress also didn’t seem to understand why the money to AIG was loaned to the parent vs just the insurance arm that handled CDS(s). The reason why you do this is so that AIG can’t shed their responsibility to the government money by shedding their subsidiary with the associated bonds. With the present structure, if AIG defaults on the bonds, the US government has the potential to own a good portion of AIG itself instead of just a problematic subsidiary. AIG has other parts of its business that are presently profitable.

[ucodegen]

One thing I found interesting when watching Congress grill Gietner and Paulson, was how little Congress really understood what caused this recession and how little Congress understood businesses, business law and corporate structures.

It was not hedge fund activity and ‘proprietary trading’ that caused this problem. It was poor mortgage lending based upon flawed foreclosure recovery models and flawed CDS premiums. Yet, instead of looking at making CDS(s) a true insurance product and requiring extra capitalization to cover potential losses when being the insuring entity, they look at putting restriction on banks that may fit the ‘too-big-to-fail’. This also ignores the activities within the Fed that may have put at least one healthy bank at risk by forcing it to buy out another. Congress also looks at ‘taxing’ the banks that may have made it past the initial problems. This penalizes banking entities that may have made rational decisions allowing them to survive. Note to Congress: We may still have problems with the hidden inventory that was caused by HAMP and all of the other restrictions placed on banks pursuing foreclosure.

Congress also didn’t seem to understand why the money to AIG was loaned to the parent vs just the insurance arm that handled CDS(s). The reason why you do this is so that AIG can’t shed their responsibility to the government money by shedding their subsidiary with the associated bonds. With the present structure, if AIG defaults on the bonds, the US government has the potential to own a good portion of AIG itself instead of just a problematic subsidiary. AIG has other parts of its business that are presently profitable.

[ucodegen]

One thing I found interesting when watching Congress grill Gietner and Paulson, was how little Congress really understood what caused this recession and how little Congress understood businesses, business law and corporate structures.

It was not hedge fund activity and ‘proprietary trading’ that caused this problem. It was poor mortgage lending based upon flawed foreclosure recovery models and flawed CDS premiums. Yet, instead of looking at making CDS(s) a true insurance product and requiring extra capitalization to cover potential losses when being the insuring entity, they look at putting restriction on banks that may fit the ‘too-big-to-fail’. This also ignores the activities within the Fed that may have put at least one healthy bank at risk by forcing it to buy out another. Congress also looks at ‘taxing’ the banks that may have made it past the initial problems. This penalizes banking entities that may have made rational decisions allowing them to survive. Note to Congress: We may still have problems with the hidden inventory that was caused by HAMP and all of the other restrictions placed on banks pursuing foreclosure.

Congress also didn’t seem to understand why the money to AIG was loaned to the parent vs just the insurance arm that handled CDS(s). The reason why you do this is so that AIG can’t shed their responsibility to the government money by shedding their subsidiary with the associated bonds. With the present structure, if AIG defaults on the bonds, the US government has the potential to own a good portion of AIG itself instead of just a problematic subsidiary. AIG has other parts of its business that are presently profitable.

[ucodegen]

One thing I found interesting when watching Congress grill Gietner and Paulson, was how little Congress really understood what caused this recession and how little Congress understood businesses, business law and corporate structures.

It was not hedge fund activity and ‘proprietary trading’ that caused this problem. It was poor mortgage lending based upon flawed foreclosure recovery models and flawed CDS premiums. Yet, instead of looking at making CDS(s) a true insurance product and requiring extra capitalization to cover potential losses when being the insuring entity, they look at putting restriction on banks that may fit the ‘too-big-to-fail’. This also ignores the activities within the Fed that may have put at least one healthy bank at risk by forcing it to buy out another. Congress also looks at ‘taxing’ the banks that may have made it past the initial problems. This penalizes banking entities that may have made rational decisions allowing them to survive. Note to Congress: We may still have problems with the hidden inventory that was caused by HAMP and all of the other restrictions placed on banks pursuing foreclosure.

Congress also didn’t seem to understand why the money to AIG was loaned to the parent vs just the insurance arm that handled CDS(s). The reason why you do this is so that AIG can’t shed their responsibility to the government money by shedding their subsidiary with the associated bonds. With the present structure, if AIG defaults on the bonds, the US government has the potential to own a good portion of AIG itself instead of just a problematic subsidiary. AIG has other parts of its business that are presently profitable.

[ucodegen]

One thing I found interesting when watching Congress grill Gietner and Paulson, was how little Congress really understood what caused this recession and how little Congress understood businesses, business law and corporate structures.

It was not hedge fund activity and ‘proprietary trading’ that caused this problem. It was poor mortgage lending based upon flawed foreclosure recovery models and flawed CDS premiums. Yet, instead of looking at making CDS(s) a true insurance product and requiring extra capitalization to cover potential losses when being the insuring entity, they look at putting restriction on banks that may fit the ‘too-big-to-fail’. This also ignores the activities within the Fed that may have put at least one healthy bank at risk by forcing it to buy out another. Congress also looks at ‘taxing’ the banks that may have made it past the initial problems. This penalizes banking entities that may have made rational decisions allowing them to survive. Note to Congress: We may still have problems with the hidden inventory that was caused by HAMP and all of the other restrictions placed on banks pursuing foreclosure.

Congress also didn’t seem to understand why the money to AIG was loaned to the parent vs just the insurance arm that handled CDS(s). The reason why you do this is so that AIG can’t shed their responsibility to the government money by shedding their subsidiary with the associated bonds. With the present structure, if AIG defaults on the bonds, the US government has the potential to own a good portion of AIG itself instead of just a problematic subsidiary. AIG has other parts of its business that are presently profitable.

[ucodegen]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?

The banks with no chance of recovering from these issues are gone. Many of the banks that got TARP money still had positive book value though they were at risk from a Capitalization Ratio issue. They have paid back their TARP money with additional interest. The Fed made money off of lending TARP money to JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America just to name a few.

[ucodegen]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?

The banks with no chance of recovering from these issues are gone. Many of the banks that got TARP money still had positive book value though they were at risk from a Capitalization Ratio issue. They have paid back their TARP money with additional interest. The Fed made money off of lending TARP money to JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America just to name a few.

[ucodegen]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?

The banks with no chance of recovering from these issues are gone. Many of the banks that got TARP money still had positive book value though they were at risk from a Capitalization Ratio issue. They have paid back their TARP money with additional interest. The Fed made money off of lending TARP money to JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America just to name a few.

[ucodegen]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?

The banks with no chance of recovering from these issues are gone. Many of the banks that got TARP money still had positive book value though they were at risk from a Capitalization Ratio issue. They have paid back their TARP money with additional interest. The Fed made money off of lending TARP money to JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America just to name a few.

[ucodegen]

There was no FDIC back in the 20s that’s why there were runs on banks as people were afraid of losing their money.

I’m talking about nationalization of the banks like Northern Rock in Britain where the shareholders get wiped out and the government take over the bank then resells it later.

So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?

The banks with no chance of recovering from these issues are gone. Many of the banks that got TARP money still had positive book value though they were at risk from a Capitalization Ratio issue. They have paid back their TARP money with additional interest. The Fed made money off of lending TARP money to JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America just to name a few.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?[/quote]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?[/quote]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?[/quote]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

[briansd1]

[quote=ucodegen]
So you want to penalize the stockholders and bondholders because people/entities with accounts within the banks decided to withdraw their money reducing the banks capitalization for existing loans? Or because banks were being hit by naked short attacks? Because an external event temporarily reduced the value of types of assets that were on the books?[/quote]

That’s tough luck. With capitalism, investors win some and lose some. But the always win the in the long run. That’s why the system works.

But if the government intervenes, the government should reap the profits just like if Warren Buffet came in to save a smaller bank or company.

[Author]

Posts