- This topic has 345 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by LuckyInOC.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 19, 2009 at 4:37 AM #370271March 19, 2009 at 8:31 AM #369864DWCAPParticipant
So I have this really long post about “what I would do….” but it is kinda rambeling and I am not sure it is addressing what Dave is talking about.
So before I post something that has nothing to do with anything and confuses everyone, what are we asking for here? Better ideas on how to solve the current crisis for the next 6 months, or better ideas on how to solve the crisis for the next 60?
March 19, 2009 at 8:31 AM #370153DWCAPParticipantSo I have this really long post about “what I would do….” but it is kinda rambeling and I am not sure it is addressing what Dave is talking about.
So before I post something that has nothing to do with anything and confuses everyone, what are we asking for here? Better ideas on how to solve the current crisis for the next 6 months, or better ideas on how to solve the crisis for the next 60?
March 19, 2009 at 8:31 AM #370318DWCAPParticipantSo I have this really long post about “what I would do….” but it is kinda rambeling and I am not sure it is addressing what Dave is talking about.
So before I post something that has nothing to do with anything and confuses everyone, what are we asking for here? Better ideas on how to solve the current crisis for the next 6 months, or better ideas on how to solve the crisis for the next 60?
March 19, 2009 at 8:31 AM #370360DWCAPParticipantSo I have this really long post about “what I would do….” but it is kinda rambeling and I am not sure it is addressing what Dave is talking about.
So before I post something that has nothing to do with anything and confuses everyone, what are we asking for here? Better ideas on how to solve the current crisis for the next 6 months, or better ideas on how to solve the crisis for the next 60?
March 19, 2009 at 8:31 AM #370476DWCAPParticipantSo I have this really long post about “what I would do….” but it is kinda rambeling and I am not sure it is addressing what Dave is talking about.
So before I post something that has nothing to do with anything and confuses everyone, what are we asking for here? Better ideas on how to solve the current crisis for the next 6 months, or better ideas on how to solve the crisis for the next 60?
March 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM #370099BGinRBParticipantAction bias is hard to overcome.
So is lack of copy/paste on an iphone.March 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM #370386BGinRBParticipantAction bias is hard to overcome.
So is lack of copy/paste on an iphone.March 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM #370552BGinRBParticipantAction bias is hard to overcome.
So is lack of copy/paste on an iphone.March 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM #370594BGinRBParticipantAction bias is hard to overcome.
So is lack of copy/paste on an iphone.March 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM #370708BGinRBParticipantAction bias is hard to overcome.
So is lack of copy/paste on an iphone.March 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM #370159CA renterParticipantAllan wrote:
The market hasn’t made any determination as to the value of the assets in question and that’s the crux of the problem: Institutions aren’t lending because they don’t know who is holding what assets, bad or good. Thus, the credit market froze.
———————-But much of this paper **has** traded, and there is a market price, even though it’s far below book value.
There are banks that did not participate in fraudulent or risky loans, and have fairly healthy balance sheets, relatively-speaking. Instead of having the govt support the a$$holes who got us into this mess, why not nationalize them, sell of what we can, and work with the institutions that tried to do the right thing? They are being punished via unfair competition from govt-funded/backed banks.
How is buying worthless paper NOT a misallocation of resources? Exactly what would happen if we let the big boys fail? If we simply need to keep credit flowing, we can do that through the healthier banks that took fewer risks.
Personally, I think this story has much more to do with political and financial connections than it does with what’s good for the nation.
March 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM #370447CA renterParticipantAllan wrote:
The market hasn’t made any determination as to the value of the assets in question and that’s the crux of the problem: Institutions aren’t lending because they don’t know who is holding what assets, bad or good. Thus, the credit market froze.
———————-But much of this paper **has** traded, and there is a market price, even though it’s far below book value.
There are banks that did not participate in fraudulent or risky loans, and have fairly healthy balance sheets, relatively-speaking. Instead of having the govt support the a$$holes who got us into this mess, why not nationalize them, sell of what we can, and work with the institutions that tried to do the right thing? They are being punished via unfair competition from govt-funded/backed banks.
How is buying worthless paper NOT a misallocation of resources? Exactly what would happen if we let the big boys fail? If we simply need to keep credit flowing, we can do that through the healthier banks that took fewer risks.
Personally, I think this story has much more to do with political and financial connections than it does with what’s good for the nation.
March 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM #370612CA renterParticipantAllan wrote:
The market hasn’t made any determination as to the value of the assets in question and that’s the crux of the problem: Institutions aren’t lending because they don’t know who is holding what assets, bad or good. Thus, the credit market froze.
———————-But much of this paper **has** traded, and there is a market price, even though it’s far below book value.
There are banks that did not participate in fraudulent or risky loans, and have fairly healthy balance sheets, relatively-speaking. Instead of having the govt support the a$$holes who got us into this mess, why not nationalize them, sell of what we can, and work with the institutions that tried to do the right thing? They are being punished via unfair competition from govt-funded/backed banks.
How is buying worthless paper NOT a misallocation of resources? Exactly what would happen if we let the big boys fail? If we simply need to keep credit flowing, we can do that through the healthier banks that took fewer risks.
Personally, I think this story has much more to do with political and financial connections than it does with what’s good for the nation.
March 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM #370654CA renterParticipantAllan wrote:
The market hasn’t made any determination as to the value of the assets in question and that’s the crux of the problem: Institutions aren’t lending because they don’t know who is holding what assets, bad or good. Thus, the credit market froze.
———————-But much of this paper **has** traded, and there is a market price, even though it’s far below book value.
There are banks that did not participate in fraudulent or risky loans, and have fairly healthy balance sheets, relatively-speaking. Instead of having the govt support the a$$holes who got us into this mess, why not nationalize them, sell of what we can, and work with the institutions that tried to do the right thing? They are being punished via unfair competition from govt-funded/backed banks.
How is buying worthless paper NOT a misallocation of resources? Exactly what would happen if we let the big boys fail? If we simply need to keep credit flowing, we can do that through the healthier banks that took fewer risks.
Personally, I think this story has much more to do with political and financial connections than it does with what’s good for the nation.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.