Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › The View From Inside a Depression
- This topic has 250 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 19, 2009 at 4:29 PM #471890October 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM #471061
ucodegen
ParticipantSemantics, it all came from the taxpayer. Specifically, the AIG went directly from Tarp to Goldman. Oh, but it was default swaps so it’s ok????
The semantics are what is important.. which side of the loan.. who owes who money.. its all semantics. The only way to prevent this transfer was to have AIG go under.. which would have caused more than $137Billion in underwritten CDS to go under.. affecting several other banks that also bought CDSs from AIG.
Specifically, AIG was insuring loans that Goldman had underwritten. Goldman was paying AIG money to do this. Goldman thought there was a possibility of the loans going bad, so they bought insurance on the principal of the loan.. this loan is known as a Credit Default Swap. Same semantic that brought down Bear Stearns.. they were on the wrong end of the Credit Default Swap.
My personal opinion is that the Fed should have allowed AIG to fail, to take possession of AIG and make the CDS(s) that it did originate good. Sell off the other parts of AIG to clear up the loss. Several banks understood the risk of the loss of principal and took out insurance, paying into AIG so that if the loan went bad, they could at least get their principal back.
October 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM #471241ParticipantSemantics, it all came from the taxpayer. Specifically, the AIG went directly from Tarp to Goldman. Oh, but it was default swaps so it’s ok????
The semantics are what is important.. which side of the loan.. who owes who money.. its all semantics. The only way to prevent this transfer was to have AIG go under.. which would have caused more than $137Billion in underwritten CDS to go under.. affecting several other banks that also bought CDSs from AIG.
Specifically, AIG was insuring loans that Goldman had underwritten. Goldman was paying AIG money to do this. Goldman thought there was a possibility of the loans going bad, so they bought insurance on the principal of the loan.. this loan is known as a Credit Default Swap. Same semantic that brought down Bear Stearns.. they were on the wrong end of the Credit Default Swap.
My personal opinion is that the Fed should have allowed AIG to fail, to take possession of AIG and make the CDS(s) that it did originate good. Sell off the other parts of AIG to clear up the loss. Several banks understood the risk of the loss of principal and took out insurance, paying into AIG so that if the loan went bad, they could at least get their principal back.
October 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM #471600ParticipantSemantics, it all came from the taxpayer. Specifically, the AIG went directly from Tarp to Goldman. Oh, but it was default swaps so it’s ok????
The semantics are what is important.. which side of the loan.. who owes who money.. its all semantics. The only way to prevent this transfer was to have AIG go under.. which would have caused more than $137Billion in underwritten CDS to go under.. affecting several other banks that also bought CDSs from AIG.
Specifically, AIG was insuring loans that Goldman had underwritten. Goldman was paying AIG money to do this. Goldman thought there was a possibility of the loans going bad, so they bought insurance on the principal of the loan.. this loan is known as a Credit Default Swap. Same semantic that brought down Bear Stearns.. they were on the wrong end of the Credit Default Swap.
My personal opinion is that the Fed should have allowed AIG to fail, to take possession of AIG and make the CDS(s) that it did originate good. Sell off the other parts of AIG to clear up the loss. Several banks understood the risk of the loss of principal and took out insurance, paying into AIG so that if the loan went bad, they could at least get their principal back.
October 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM #471678ParticipantSemantics, it all came from the taxpayer. Specifically, the AIG went directly from Tarp to Goldman. Oh, but it was default swaps so it’s ok????
The semantics are what is important.. which side of the loan.. who owes who money.. its all semantics. The only way to prevent this transfer was to have AIG go under.. which would have caused more than $137Billion in underwritten CDS to go under.. affecting several other banks that also bought CDSs from AIG.
Specifically, AIG was insuring loans that Goldman had underwritten. Goldman was paying AIG money to do this. Goldman thought there was a possibility of the loans going bad, so they bought insurance on the principal of the loan.. this loan is known as a Credit Default Swap. Same semantic that brought down Bear Stearns.. they were on the wrong end of the Credit Default Swap.
My personal opinion is that the Fed should have allowed AIG to fail, to take possession of AIG and make the CDS(s) that it did originate good. Sell off the other parts of AIG to clear up the loss. Several banks understood the risk of the loss of principal and took out insurance, paying into AIG so that if the loan went bad, they could at least get their principal back.
October 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM #471900ParticipantSemantics, it all came from the taxpayer. Specifically, the AIG went directly from Tarp to Goldman. Oh, but it was default swaps so it’s ok????
The semantics are what is important.. which side of the loan.. who owes who money.. its all semantics. The only way to prevent this transfer was to have AIG go under.. which would have caused more than $137Billion in underwritten CDS to go under.. affecting several other banks that also bought CDSs from AIG.
Specifically, AIG was insuring loans that Goldman had underwritten. Goldman was paying AIG money to do this. Goldman thought there was a possibility of the loans going bad, so they bought insurance on the principal of the loan.. this loan is known as a Credit Default Swap. Same semantic that brought down Bear Stearns.. they were on the wrong end of the Credit Default Swap.
My personal opinion is that the Fed should have allowed AIG to fail, to take possession of AIG and make the CDS(s) that it did originate good. Sell off the other parts of AIG to clear up the loss. Several banks understood the risk of the loss of principal and took out insurance, paying into AIG so that if the loan went bad, they could at least get their principal back.
October 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM #471066SD Realtor
ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
October 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM #471246ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
October 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM #471605ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
October 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM #471683ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
October 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM #471905ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
October 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM #471081ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
I didn’t read the Rolling Stones link, do you have a copy of the link or know where it was? I have just been paying attention to where the money is going, ignoring the politics(which I consider a distraction like the games in the Roman Colosseum). I always try to explain my position, particularly when there is a lot of anger floating around.
People want these big bloated institutions to fail, in a kind of taxpayer revenge feeling. Unfortunately many don’t realize that if they have a pension, health insurance, retirement investments in stock funds.. that taking down some of these big institutions may also take down their own future. Screw around with credit.. or make banks not want to loan.. investors to buy bonds and there may go people’s jobs. This whole credit problem has to be unwound carefully.
October 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM #471261ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
I didn’t read the Rolling Stones link, do you have a copy of the link or know where it was? I have just been paying attention to where the money is going, ignoring the politics(which I consider a distraction like the games in the Roman Colosseum). I always try to explain my position, particularly when there is a lot of anger floating around.
People want these big bloated institutions to fail, in a kind of taxpayer revenge feeling. Unfortunately many don’t realize that if they have a pension, health insurance, retirement investments in stock funds.. that taking down some of these big institutions may also take down their own future. Screw around with credit.. or make banks not want to loan.. investors to buy bonds and there may go people’s jobs. This whole credit problem has to be unwound carefully.
October 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM #471620ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
I didn’t read the Rolling Stones link, do you have a copy of the link or know where it was? I have just been paying attention to where the money is going, ignoring the politics(which I consider a distraction like the games in the Roman Colosseum). I always try to explain my position, particularly when there is a lot of anger floating around.
People want these big bloated institutions to fail, in a kind of taxpayer revenge feeling. Unfortunately many don’t realize that if they have a pension, health insurance, retirement investments in stock funds.. that taking down some of these big institutions may also take down their own future. Screw around with credit.. or make banks not want to loan.. investors to buy bonds and there may go people’s jobs. This whole credit problem has to be unwound carefully.
October 19, 2009 at 4:56 PM #471698ParticipantExplained well uco. Did you read that Rolling Stone link that was posted awhile back on AIG? Sorry to trip the thread up. Anyways like I said, you explained it well.
I didn’t read the Rolling Stones link, do you have a copy of the link or know where it was? I have just been paying attention to where the money is going, ignoring the politics(which I consider a distraction like the games in the Roman Colosseum). I always try to explain my position, particularly when there is a lot of anger floating around.
People want these big bloated institutions to fail, in a kind of taxpayer revenge feeling. Unfortunately many don’t realize that if they have a pension, health insurance, retirement investments in stock funds.. that taking down some of these big institutions may also take down their own future. Screw around with credit.. or make banks not want to loan.. investors to buy bonds and there may go people’s jobs. This whole credit problem has to be unwound carefully.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.