Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bsrsharma
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
Participant“Cash is available, and we should use that in larger amounts, as necessary, to solve the problems of the stress of this.”
WTF? He must be going senile.
Read this below; Our leaders are globe trotting with a begging bowl in hand.
————————————————————
Japanese Stocks Fall, Led by Banks on U.S. Credit-Line Request
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Japanese stocks fell, led by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., after Nomura Holdings Inc. said the country’s three largest lenders were being asked to contribute too much to a subprime-asset bailout fund.
Mizuho Financial Group Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. paced the drop after the Nikkei newspaper said they will have to reply this week to a request by U.S. banks that the banks each provide a $5 billion credit line for the fund.
U.S. lenders including Citigroup Inc. are organizing a bailout fund to buy assets at structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, in hopes of preventing a fire sale as the vehicles’ need for cash rise.
“For bank shareholders, this participation request is very unpalatable,” said Tomokatsu Mori, who helps oversee $7.4 billion at Fukoku Capital Management Inc. in Tokyo. “I don’t see the logic as to why Japanese banks are being asked to save the financial system when they’ve had very little to do with the subprime problem. If they put in money once, there will be more requests in the future.” …………
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=acqfl_owwIdE&refer=japan
Participant“Cash is available, and we should use that in larger amounts, as necessary, to solve the problems of the stress of this.”
WTF? He must be going senile.
Read this below; Our leaders are globe trotting with a begging bowl in hand.
————————————————————
Japanese Stocks Fall, Led by Banks on U.S. Credit-Line Request
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Japanese stocks fell, led by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., after Nomura Holdings Inc. said the country’s three largest lenders were being asked to contribute too much to a subprime-asset bailout fund.
Mizuho Financial Group Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. paced the drop after the Nikkei newspaper said they will have to reply this week to a request by U.S. banks that the banks each provide a $5 billion credit line for the fund.
U.S. lenders including Citigroup Inc. are organizing a bailout fund to buy assets at structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, in hopes of preventing a fire sale as the vehicles’ need for cash rise.
“For bank shareholders, this participation request is very unpalatable,” said Tomokatsu Mori, who helps oversee $7.4 billion at Fukoku Capital Management Inc. in Tokyo. “I don’t see the logic as to why Japanese banks are being asked to save the financial system when they’ve had very little to do with the subprime problem. If they put in money once, there will be more requests in the future.” …………
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=acqfl_owwIdE&refer=japan
Participant“Cash is available, and we should use that in larger amounts, as necessary, to solve the problems of the stress of this.”
WTF? He must be going senile.
Read this below; Our leaders are globe trotting with a begging bowl in hand.
————————————————————
Japanese Stocks Fall, Led by Banks on U.S. Credit-Line Request
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Japanese stocks fell, led by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., after Nomura Holdings Inc. said the country’s three largest lenders were being asked to contribute too much to a subprime-asset bailout fund.
Mizuho Financial Group Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. paced the drop after the Nikkei newspaper said they will have to reply this week to a request by U.S. banks that the banks each provide a $5 billion credit line for the fund.
U.S. lenders including Citigroup Inc. are organizing a bailout fund to buy assets at structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, in hopes of preventing a fire sale as the vehicles’ need for cash rise.
“For bank shareholders, this participation request is very unpalatable,” said Tomokatsu Mori, who helps oversee $7.4 billion at Fukoku Capital Management Inc. in Tokyo. “I don’t see the logic as to why Japanese banks are being asked to save the financial system when they’ve had very little to do with the subprime problem. If they put in money once, there will be more requests in the future.” …………
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=acqfl_owwIdE&refer=japan
Participant“Cash is available, and we should use that in larger amounts, as necessary, to solve the problems of the stress of this.”
WTF? He must be going senile.
Read this below; Our leaders are globe trotting with a begging bowl in hand.
————————————————————
Japanese Stocks Fall, Led by Banks on U.S. Credit-Line Request
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Japanese stocks fell, led by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., after Nomura Holdings Inc. said the country’s three largest lenders were being asked to contribute too much to a subprime-asset bailout fund.
Mizuho Financial Group Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. paced the drop after the Nikkei newspaper said they will have to reply this week to a request by U.S. banks that the banks each provide a $5 billion credit line for the fund.
U.S. lenders including Citigroup Inc. are organizing a bailout fund to buy assets at structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, in hopes of preventing a fire sale as the vehicles’ need for cash rise.
“For bank shareholders, this participation request is very unpalatable,” said Tomokatsu Mori, who helps oversee $7.4 billion at Fukoku Capital Management Inc. in Tokyo. “I don’t see the logic as to why Japanese banks are being asked to save the financial system when they’ve had very little to do with the subprime problem. If they put in money once, there will be more requests in the future.” …………
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=acqfl_owwIdE&refer=japan
Participant“Cash is available, and we should use that in larger amounts, as necessary, to solve the problems of the stress of this.”
WTF? He must be going senile.
Read this below; Our leaders are globe trotting with a begging bowl in hand.
————————————————————
Japanese Stocks Fall, Led by Banks on U.S. Credit-Line Request
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Japanese stocks fell, led by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., after Nomura Holdings Inc. said the country’s three largest lenders were being asked to contribute too much to a subprime-asset bailout fund.
Mizuho Financial Group Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. paced the drop after the Nikkei newspaper said they will have to reply this week to a request by U.S. banks that the banks each provide a $5 billion credit line for the fund.
U.S. lenders including Citigroup Inc. are organizing a bailout fund to buy assets at structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, in hopes of preventing a fire sale as the vehicles’ need for cash rise.
“For bank shareholders, this participation request is very unpalatable,” said Tomokatsu Mori, who helps oversee $7.4 billion at Fukoku Capital Management Inc. in Tokyo. “I don’t see the logic as to why Japanese banks are being asked to save the financial system when they’ve had very little to do with the subprime problem. If they put in money once, there will be more requests in the future.” …………
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=acqfl_owwIdE&refer=japan
ParticipantAfter the Money’s Gone
On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced plans to lend $40 billion to banks. By my count, it’s the fourth high-profile attempt to rescue the financial system since things started falling apart about five months ago. Maybe this one will do the trick, but I wouldn’t count on it.
In past financial crises — the stock market crash of 1987, the aftermath of Russia’s default in 1998 — the Fed has been able to wave its magic wand and make market turmoil disappear. But this time the magic isn’t working.
Why not? Because the problem with the markets isn’t just a lack of liquidity — there’s also a fundamental problem of solvency.
Let me explain the difference with a hypothetical example.
Suppose that there’s a nasty rumor about the First Bank of Pottersville: people say that the bank made a huge loan to the president’s brother-in-law, who squandered the money on a failed business venture.
Even if the rumor is false, it can break the bank. If everyone, believing that the bank is about to go bust, demands their money out at the same time, the bank would have to raise cash by selling off assets at fire-sale prices — and it may indeed go bust even though it didn’t really make that bum loan.
And because loss of confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, even depositors who don’t believe the rumor would join in the bank run, trying to get their money out while they can.
But the Fed can come to the rescue. If the rumor is false, the bank has enough assets to cover its debts; all it lacks is liquidity — the ability to raise cash on short notice. And the Fed can solve that problem by giving the bank a temporary loan, tiding it over until things calm down.
Matters are very different, however, if the rumor is true: the bank really did make a big bad loan. Then the problem isn’t how to restore confidence; it’s how to deal with the fact that the bank is really, truly insolvent, that is, busted………
ParticipantAfter the Money’s Gone
On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced plans to lend $40 billion to banks. By my count, it’s the fourth high-profile attempt to rescue the financial system since things started falling apart about five months ago. Maybe this one will do the trick, but I wouldn’t count on it.
In past financial crises — the stock market crash of 1987, the aftermath of Russia’s default in 1998 — the Fed has been able to wave its magic wand and make market turmoil disappear. But this time the magic isn’t working.
Why not? Because the problem with the markets isn’t just a lack of liquidity — there’s also a fundamental problem of solvency.
Let me explain the difference with a hypothetical example.
Suppose that there’s a nasty rumor about the First Bank of Pottersville: people say that the bank made a huge loan to the president’s brother-in-law, who squandered the money on a failed business venture.
Even if the rumor is false, it can break the bank. If everyone, believing that the bank is about to go bust, demands their money out at the same time, the bank would have to raise cash by selling off assets at fire-sale prices — and it may indeed go bust even though it didn’t really make that bum loan.
And because loss of confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, even depositors who don’t believe the rumor would join in the bank run, trying to get their money out while they can.
But the Fed can come to the rescue. If the rumor is false, the bank has enough assets to cover its debts; all it lacks is liquidity — the ability to raise cash on short notice. And the Fed can solve that problem by giving the bank a temporary loan, tiding it over until things calm down.
Matters are very different, however, if the rumor is true: the bank really did make a big bad loan. Then the problem isn’t how to restore confidence; it’s how to deal with the fact that the bank is really, truly insolvent, that is, busted………
ParticipantAfter the Money’s Gone
On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced plans to lend $40 billion to banks. By my count, it’s the fourth high-profile attempt to rescue the financial system since things started falling apart about five months ago. Maybe this one will do the trick, but I wouldn’t count on it.
In past financial crises — the stock market crash of 1987, the aftermath of Russia’s default in 1998 — the Fed has been able to wave its magic wand and make market turmoil disappear. But this time the magic isn’t working.
Why not? Because the problem with the markets isn’t just a lack of liquidity — there’s also a fundamental problem of solvency.
Let me explain the difference with a hypothetical example.
Suppose that there’s a nasty rumor about the First Bank of Pottersville: people say that the bank made a huge loan to the president’s brother-in-law, who squandered the money on a failed business venture.
Even if the rumor is false, it can break the bank. If everyone, believing that the bank is about to go bust, demands their money out at the same time, the bank would have to raise cash by selling off assets at fire-sale prices — and it may indeed go bust even though it didn’t really make that bum loan.
And because loss of confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, even depositors who don’t believe the rumor would join in the bank run, trying to get their money out while they can.
But the Fed can come to the rescue. If the rumor is false, the bank has enough assets to cover its debts; all it lacks is liquidity — the ability to raise cash on short notice. And the Fed can solve that problem by giving the bank a temporary loan, tiding it over until things calm down.
Matters are very different, however, if the rumor is true: the bank really did make a big bad loan. Then the problem isn’t how to restore confidence; it’s how to deal with the fact that the bank is really, truly insolvent, that is, busted………
ParticipantAfter the Money’s Gone
On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced plans to lend $40 billion to banks. By my count, it’s the fourth high-profile attempt to rescue the financial system since things started falling apart about five months ago. Maybe this one will do the trick, but I wouldn’t count on it.
In past financial crises — the stock market crash of 1987, the aftermath of Russia’s default in 1998 — the Fed has been able to wave its magic wand and make market turmoil disappear. But this time the magic isn’t working.
Why not? Because the problem with the markets isn’t just a lack of liquidity — there’s also a fundamental problem of solvency.
Let me explain the difference with a hypothetical example.
Suppose that there’s a nasty rumor about the First Bank of Pottersville: people say that the bank made a huge loan to the president’s brother-in-law, who squandered the money on a failed business venture.
Even if the rumor is false, it can break the bank. If everyone, believing that the bank is about to go bust, demands their money out at the same time, the bank would have to raise cash by selling off assets at fire-sale prices — and it may indeed go bust even though it didn’t really make that bum loan.
And because loss of confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, even depositors who don’t believe the rumor would join in the bank run, trying to get their money out while they can.
But the Fed can come to the rescue. If the rumor is false, the bank has enough assets to cover its debts; all it lacks is liquidity — the ability to raise cash on short notice. And the Fed can solve that problem by giving the bank a temporary loan, tiding it over until things calm down.
Matters are very different, however, if the rumor is true: the bank really did make a big bad loan. Then the problem isn’t how to restore confidence; it’s how to deal with the fact that the bank is really, truly insolvent, that is, busted………
-
AuthorPosts
