On MTM, insolvency, and market over-corrections

[jpinpb]

Yes, I know. Just wanted to highlight it so if someone didn’t want to read the whole thing, at least they’ll get the gist.

[jpinpb]

I really enjoyed this show, so I’m sharing it w/the Piggs. Charlie Rose – update on the economy. They talk about every issue.

[jpinpb]

I really enjoyed this show, so I’m sharing it w/the Piggs. Charlie Rose – update on the economy. They talk about every issue.

[jpinpb]

I really enjoyed this show, so I’m sharing it w/the Piggs. Charlie Rose – update on the economy. They talk about every issue.

[jpinpb]

I really enjoyed this show, so I’m sharing it w/the Piggs. Charlie Rose – update on the economy. They talk about every issue.

[jpinpb]

I really enjoyed this show, so I’m sharing it w/the Piggs. Charlie Rose – update on the economy. They talk about every issue.

[barnaby33]

The danger of these institutions, and why they should be taken under by the govt is not that they “couldn’t” become profitable. The danger is the institutional greed and stupidity that created this mess isn’t going to be dissipated unless the companies that engage in this kind of behavior go out of business.

It isn’t the job of govt to coddle the banks, well apparently it is the job because that’s whats happening.

I may be solvent someday, but if I stop making my mortgage payments today, they take my house away. The difference with the banks (citi bofa wells etc) is they are politically well connected.

Our elected leadership doesn’t even bother to lay out the case of WHY allowing these banks to either go bankrupt, or be taken under poses a systemic risk. They just tell us that this is necessary and pour TRILLIONS down the rat hole. There is no free lunch davelj. Whats left of the middle class is getting royally buttfucked to bail out people who made some of the worst choices imaginable.

These institutions have become poisonous in many respects. They have committed huge amounts of fraud. They have distorted markets, played a huge role in blowing a massive bubble and probably are not able to stand on their own. Citi for certain, several other large money center banks most likely.
Josh

[barnaby33]

The danger of these institutions, and why they should be taken under by the govt is not that they “couldn’t” become profitable. The danger is the institutional greed and stupidity that created this mess isn’t going to be dissipated unless the companies that engage in this kind of behavior go out of business.

It isn’t the job of govt to coddle the banks, well apparently it is the job because that’s whats happening.

I may be solvent someday, but if I stop making my mortgage payments today, they take my house away. The difference with the banks (citi bofa wells etc) is they are politically well connected.

Our elected leadership doesn’t even bother to lay out the case of WHY allowing these banks to either go bankrupt, or be taken under poses a systemic risk. They just tell us that this is necessary and pour TRILLIONS down the rat hole. There is no free lunch davelj. Whats left of the middle class is getting royally buttfucked to bail out people who made some of the worst choices imaginable.

These institutions have become poisonous in many respects. They have committed huge amounts of fraud. They have distorted markets, played a huge role in blowing a massive bubble and probably are not able to stand on their own. Citi for certain, several other large money center banks most likely.
Josh

[barnaby33]

The danger of these institutions, and why they should be taken under by the govt is not that they “couldn’t” become profitable. The danger is the institutional greed and stupidity that created this mess isn’t going to be dissipated unless the companies that engage in this kind of behavior go out of business.

It isn’t the job of govt to coddle the banks, well apparently it is the job because that’s whats happening.

I may be solvent someday, but if I stop making my mortgage payments today, they take my house away. The difference with the banks (citi bofa wells etc) is they are politically well connected.

Our elected leadership doesn’t even bother to lay out the case of WHY allowing these banks to either go bankrupt, or be taken under poses a systemic risk. They just tell us that this is necessary and pour TRILLIONS down the rat hole. There is no free lunch davelj. Whats left of the middle class is getting royally buttfucked to bail out people who made some of the worst choices imaginable.

These institutions have become poisonous in many respects. They have committed huge amounts of fraud. They have distorted markets, played a huge role in blowing a massive bubble and probably are not able to stand on their own. Citi for certain, several other large money center banks most likely.
Josh

[barnaby33]

The danger of these institutions, and why they should be taken under by the govt is not that they “couldn’t” become profitable. The danger is the institutional greed and stupidity that created this mess isn’t going to be dissipated unless the companies that engage in this kind of behavior go out of business.

It isn’t the job of govt to coddle the banks, well apparently it is the job because that’s whats happening.

I may be solvent someday, but if I stop making my mortgage payments today, they take my house away. The difference with the banks (citi bofa wells etc) is they are politically well connected.

Our elected leadership doesn’t even bother to lay out the case of WHY allowing these banks to either go bankrupt, or be taken under poses a systemic risk. They just tell us that this is necessary and pour TRILLIONS down the rat hole. There is no free lunch davelj. Whats left of the middle class is getting royally buttfucked to bail out people who made some of the worst choices imaginable.

These institutions have become poisonous in many respects. They have committed huge amounts of fraud. They have distorted markets, played a huge role in blowing a massive bubble and probably are not able to stand on their own. Citi for certain, several other large money center banks most likely.
Josh

[barnaby33]

The danger of these institutions, and why they should be taken under by the govt is not that they “couldn’t” become profitable. The danger is the institutional greed and stupidity that created this mess isn’t going to be dissipated unless the companies that engage in this kind of behavior go out of business.

It isn’t the job of govt to coddle the banks, well apparently it is the job because that’s whats happening.

I may be solvent someday, but if I stop making my mortgage payments today, they take my house away. The difference with the banks (citi bofa wells etc) is they are politically well connected.

Our elected leadership doesn’t even bother to lay out the case of WHY allowing these banks to either go bankrupt, or be taken under poses a systemic risk. They just tell us that this is necessary and pour TRILLIONS down the rat hole. There is no free lunch davelj. Whats left of the middle class is getting royally buttfucked to bail out people who made some of the worst choices imaginable.

These institutions have become poisonous in many respects. They have committed huge amounts of fraud. They have distorted markets, played a huge role in blowing a massive bubble and probably are not able to stand on their own. Citi for certain, several other large money center banks most likely.
Josh

[jpinpb]

The question I have is once the banks sell their assets to private companies (backed by taxpayers) will they start to sort through their box of goodies? At that point, they have little to lose, since the taxpayers are taking the hit.

Does that mean if they have assets that include properties being defaulted, that they’ll finally foreclose on those who have been squatting for free for a year?

I mean, the interview made it sound that the banks don’t want it on the books, so if they don’t foreclose, the asset won’t be a loss. So they sell their assets to the privated tax-payer backed group.

Now the new holder has to decide what to do. Are they going to foreclose? Are they going to reduce principle? Are they re-working all the loans? Basically, they can do just about anything they feel like, b/c the buck stops w/the taxpayer

[jpinpb]

The question I have is once the banks sell their assets to private companies (backed by taxpayers) will they start to sort through their box of goodies? At that point, they have little to lose, since the taxpayers are taking the hit.

Does that mean if they have assets that include properties being defaulted, that they’ll finally foreclose on those who have been squatting for free for a year?

I mean, the interview made it sound that the banks don’t want it on the books, so if they don’t foreclose, the asset won’t be a loss. So they sell their assets to the privated tax-payer backed group.

Now the new holder has to decide what to do. Are they going to foreclose? Are they going to reduce principle? Are they re-working all the loans? Basically, they can do just about anything they feel like, b/c the buck stops w/the taxpayer

[jpinpb]

The question I have is once the banks sell their assets to private companies (backed by taxpayers) will they start to sort through their box of goodies? At that point, they have little to lose, since the taxpayers are taking the hit.

Does that mean if they have assets that include properties being defaulted, that they’ll finally foreclose on those who have been squatting for free for a year?

I mean, the interview made it sound that the banks don’t want it on the books, so if they don’t foreclose, the asset won’t be a loss. So they sell their assets to the privated tax-payer backed group.

Now the new holder has to decide what to do. Are they going to foreclose? Are they going to reduce principle? Are they re-working all the loans? Basically, they can do just about anything they feel like, b/c the buck stops w/the taxpayer

[jpinpb]

The question I have is once the banks sell their assets to private companies (backed by taxpayers) will they start to sort through their box of goodies? At that point, they have little to lose, since the taxpayers are taking the hit.

Does that mean if they have assets that include properties being defaulted, that they’ll finally foreclose on those who have been squatting for free for a year?

I mean, the interview made it sound that the banks don’t want it on the books, so if they don’t foreclose, the asset won’t be a loss. So they sell their assets to the privated tax-payer backed group.

Now the new holder has to decide what to do. Are they going to foreclose? Are they going to reduce principle? Are they re-working all the loans? Basically, they can do just about anything they feel like, b/c the buck stops w/the taxpayer

[Author]

Posts