[equalizer]

IF Sec Paulson & friends state that “In the interst of national security no dudes are allowed access to my files”, supremes would say we can not second judge, case closed.

[equalizer]

From John P. Hussman, Ph.D., mutual fund manager:

An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis

In 2006, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis noted “Everyone knows that a policy of bailouts will increase their number.” This week, Congress is being asked to hastily consider a monstrous bailout plan on a scale nearly equivalent to the existing balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.

As an economist and investment manager, I am concerned that the plan advocated by Treasury is essentially a plan to bail out the bondholders of financial institutions that made bad lending decisions, with little help to homeowners that are actually in financial distress. It is difficult to believe that the U.S. government is contemplating taking on the bad assets of these institutions at probable taxpayer loss and effectively immunizing the bondholders (and shareholders) of these companies.

While it is certainly in the public interest to avoid the dislocations that would result from a disorderly failure of highly interconnected financial institutions, there are better ways for public funds to accomplish this, other than by protecting corporate bondholders while homeowners remain in distress. …..

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080922.htm

[equalizer]

From John P. Hussman, Ph.D., mutual fund manager:

An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis

In 2006, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis noted “Everyone knows that a policy of bailouts will increase their number.” This week, Congress is being asked to hastily consider a monstrous bailout plan on a scale nearly equivalent to the existing balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.

As an economist and investment manager, I am concerned that the plan advocated by Treasury is essentially a plan to bail out the bondholders of financial institutions that made bad lending decisions, with little help to homeowners that are actually in financial distress. It is difficult to believe that the U.S. government is contemplating taking on the bad assets of these institutions at probable taxpayer loss and effectively immunizing the bondholders (and shareholders) of these companies.

While it is certainly in the public interest to avoid the dislocations that would result from a disorderly failure of highly interconnected financial institutions, there are better ways for public funds to accomplish this, other than by protecting corporate bondholders while homeowners remain in distress. …..

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080922.htm

[equalizer]

From John P. Hussman, Ph.D., mutual fund manager:

An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis

In 2006, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis noted “Everyone knows that a policy of bailouts will increase their number.” This week, Congress is being asked to hastily consider a monstrous bailout plan on a scale nearly equivalent to the existing balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.

As an economist and investment manager, I am concerned that the plan advocated by Treasury is essentially a plan to bail out the bondholders of financial institutions that made bad lending decisions, with little help to homeowners that are actually in financial distress. It is difficult to believe that the U.S. government is contemplating taking on the bad assets of these institutions at probable taxpayer loss and effectively immunizing the bondholders (and shareholders) of these companies.

While it is certainly in the public interest to avoid the dislocations that would result from a disorderly failure of highly interconnected financial institutions, there are better ways for public funds to accomplish this, other than by protecting corporate bondholders while homeowners remain in distress. …..

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080922.htm

[equalizer]

From John P. Hussman, Ph.D., mutual fund manager:

An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis

In 2006, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis noted “Everyone knows that a policy of bailouts will increase their number.” This week, Congress is being asked to hastily consider a monstrous bailout plan on a scale nearly equivalent to the existing balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.

As an economist and investment manager, I am concerned that the plan advocated by Treasury is essentially a plan to bail out the bondholders of financial institutions that made bad lending decisions, with little help to homeowners that are actually in financial distress. It is difficult to believe that the U.S. government is contemplating taking on the bad assets of these institutions at probable taxpayer loss and effectively immunizing the bondholders (and shareholders) of these companies.

While it is certainly in the public interest to avoid the dislocations that would result from a disorderly failure of highly interconnected financial institutions, there are better ways for public funds to accomplish this, other than by protecting corporate bondholders while homeowners remain in distress. …..

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080922.htm

[equalizer]

From John P. Hussman, Ph.D., mutual fund manager:

An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress Regarding the Current Financial Crisis

In 2006, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis noted “Everyone knows that a policy of bailouts will increase their number.” This week, Congress is being asked to hastily consider a monstrous bailout plan on a scale nearly equivalent to the existing balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.

As an economist and investment manager, I am concerned that the plan advocated by Treasury is essentially a plan to bail out the bondholders of financial institutions that made bad lending decisions, with little help to homeowners that are actually in financial distress. It is difficult to believe that the U.S. government is contemplating taking on the bad assets of these institutions at probable taxpayer loss and effectively immunizing the bondholders (and shareholders) of these companies.

While it is certainly in the public interest to avoid the dislocations that would result from a disorderly failure of highly interconnected financial institutions, there are better ways for public funds to accomplish this, other than by protecting corporate bondholders while homeowners remain in distress. …..

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080922.htm

[equalizer]

WSJ: The plan offered to Congress also gives the Treasury legal immunity from any lawsuits. “Decisions by the secretary pursuant to the authority are non-reviewable … and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency,” the proposal says.

So Congress must sign complete blank check with no review. Any member who signs that version needs to know they will face extreme protest and be voted out.

[equalizer]

WSJ: The plan offered to Congress also gives the Treasury legal immunity from any lawsuits. “Decisions by the secretary pursuant to the authority are non-reviewable … and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency,” the proposal says.

So Congress must sign complete blank check with no review. Any member who signs that version needs to know they will face extreme protest and be voted out.

[equalizer]

WSJ: The plan offered to Congress also gives the Treasury legal immunity from any lawsuits. “Decisions by the secretary pursuant to the authority are non-reviewable … and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency,” the proposal says.

So Congress must sign complete blank check with no review. Any member who signs that version needs to know they will face extreme protest and be voted out.

[equalizer]

WSJ: The plan offered to Congress also gives the Treasury legal immunity from any lawsuits. “Decisions by the secretary pursuant to the authority are non-reviewable … and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency,” the proposal says.

So Congress must sign complete blank check with no review. Any member who signs that version needs to know they will face extreme protest and be voted out.

[equalizer]

WSJ: The plan offered to Congress also gives the Treasury legal immunity from any lawsuits. “Decisions by the secretary pursuant to the authority are non-reviewable … and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency,” the proposal says.

So Congress must sign complete blank check with no review. Any member who signs that version needs to know they will face extreme protest and be voted out.

[equalizer]

From WSJ How Safe Is Safe 9/17/08

“Now, growing numbers of people are turning to other means that allow them to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars safely stowed away under FDIC protection.

One product that has been attracting attention lately is an informal trust account known as a “payable on death,” or POD, account. To set up a POD account, depositors must name a beneficiary or beneficiaries who will receive money if the primary account holder dies. For each qualified beneficiary, the FDIC will boost insurance coverage by up to $100,000.

On the basis of ease alone, POD accounts appear to be finding a larger audience lately. The FDIC doesn’t publish data on the number of these accounts, but the agency confirms it is getting more questions from consumers about how to set them up and has been seeing more of them on the books when it takes over banks after they fail. So far this year, there have been 11 bank failures, and 117 banks that were on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s “watch list” at the end of the second quarter.

POD accounts do come with certain limitations. For starters, only certain relatives count as qualified beneficiaries. Spouses, children, grandchildren, parents and siblings are OK. Nieces, nephews and grandparents aren’t. The depositor retains control of the account until his death, in which case the money is distributed to the beneficiaries.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122169783324750379.html

[equalizer]

From WSJ How Safe Is Safe 9/17/08

“Now, growing numbers of people are turning to other means that allow them to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars safely stowed away under FDIC protection.

One product that has been attracting attention lately is an informal trust account known as a “payable on death,” or POD, account. To set up a POD account, depositors must name a beneficiary or beneficiaries who will receive money if the primary account holder dies. For each qualified beneficiary, the FDIC will boost insurance coverage by up to $100,000.

On the basis of ease alone, POD accounts appear to be finding a larger audience lately. The FDIC doesn’t publish data on the number of these accounts, but the agency confirms it is getting more questions from consumers about how to set them up and has been seeing more of them on the books when it takes over banks after they fail. So far this year, there have been 11 bank failures, and 117 banks that were on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s “watch list” at the end of the second quarter.

POD accounts do come with certain limitations. For starters, only certain relatives count as qualified beneficiaries. Spouses, children, grandchildren, parents and siblings are OK. Nieces, nephews and grandparents aren’t. The depositor retains control of the account until his death, in which case the money is distributed to the beneficiaries.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122169783324750379.html

[equalizer]

From WSJ How Safe Is Safe 9/17/08

“Now, growing numbers of people are turning to other means that allow them to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars safely stowed away under FDIC protection.

One product that has been attracting attention lately is an informal trust account known as a “payable on death,” or POD, account. To set up a POD account, depositors must name a beneficiary or beneficiaries who will receive money if the primary account holder dies. For each qualified beneficiary, the FDIC will boost insurance coverage by up to $100,000.

On the basis of ease alone, POD accounts appear to be finding a larger audience lately. The FDIC doesn’t publish data on the number of these accounts, but the agency confirms it is getting more questions from consumers about how to set them up and has been seeing more of them on the books when it takes over banks after they fail. So far this year, there have been 11 bank failures, and 117 banks that were on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s “watch list” at the end of the second quarter.

POD accounts do come with certain limitations. For starters, only certain relatives count as qualified beneficiaries. Spouses, children, grandchildren, parents and siblings are OK. Nieces, nephews and grandparents aren’t. The depositor retains control of the account until his death, in which case the money is distributed to the beneficiaries.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122169783324750379.html

[equalizer]

From WSJ How Safe Is Safe 9/17/08

“Now, growing numbers of people are turning to other means that allow them to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars safely stowed away under FDIC protection.

One product that has been attracting attention lately is an informal trust account known as a “payable on death,” or POD, account. To set up a POD account, depositors must name a beneficiary or beneficiaries who will receive money if the primary account holder dies. For each qualified beneficiary, the FDIC will boost insurance coverage by up to $100,000.

On the basis of ease alone, POD accounts appear to be finding a larger audience lately. The FDIC doesn’t publish data on the number of these accounts, but the agency confirms it is getting more questions from consumers about how to set them up and has been seeing more of them on the books when it takes over banks after they fail. So far this year, there have been 11 bank failures, and 117 banks that were on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s “watch list” at the end of the second quarter.

POD accounts do come with certain limitations. For starters, only certain relatives count as qualified beneficiaries. Spouses, children, grandchildren, parents and siblings are OK. Nieces, nephews and grandparents aren’t. The depositor retains control of the account until his death, in which case the money is distributed to the beneficiaries.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122169783324750379.html

[Author]

Posts