Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientlywaiting
ParticipantI’ve said that this is best way to go because:
– Buying equity gets capital immediately into the banks.
– Protects upside potential for taxpayers.
Banks lobbied for the bailout where they can dump the bad debt onto the Federal govt without diluting shareholder’s equity.
There was also an element of wanting not to “appear” socialist. But the velocity of the crash was such that capital needs to be immediately injected into the failing banks.
Why should the govt buy the bad paper and let the bank get off scot-free? It’s much better to invest in the banks the Warren Buffet way.
ParticipantI’ve said that this is best way to go because:
– Buying equity gets capital immediately into the banks.
– Protects upside potential for taxpayers.
Banks lobbied for the bailout where they can dump the bad debt onto the Federal govt without diluting shareholder’s equity.
There was also an element of wanting not to “appear” socialist. But the velocity of the crash was such that capital needs to be immediately injected into the failing banks.
Why should the govt buy the bad paper and let the bank get off scot-free? It’s much better to invest in the banks the Warren Buffet way.
ParticipantI’ve said that this is best way to go because:
– Buying equity gets capital immediately into the banks.
– Protects upside potential for taxpayers.
Banks lobbied for the bailout where they can dump the bad debt onto the Federal govt without diluting shareholder’s equity.
There was also an element of wanting not to “appear” socialist. But the velocity of the crash was such that capital needs to be immediately injected into the failing banks.
Why should the govt buy the bad paper and let the bank get off scot-free? It’s much better to invest in the banks the Warren Buffet way.
ParticipantI’ve said that this is best way to go because:
– Buying equity gets capital immediately into the banks.
– Protects upside potential for taxpayers.
Banks lobbied for the bailout where they can dump the bad debt onto the Federal govt without diluting shareholder’s equity.
There was also an element of wanting not to “appear” socialist. But the velocity of the crash was such that capital needs to be immediately injected into the failing banks.
Why should the govt buy the bad paper and let the bank get off scot-free? It’s much better to invest in the banks the Warren Buffet way.
ParticipantI see more foreclosures on the horizon.
*
About 75.5 million U.S. households own the homes they live in. After a housing slump that has pushed values down 30 percent in some areas, roughly 12 million households, or 16 percent, owe more than their homes are worth, according to Moody’s Economy.com.
ParticipantI see more foreclosures on the horizon.
*
About 75.5 million U.S. households own the homes they live in. After a housing slump that has pushed values down 30 percent in some areas, roughly 12 million households, or 16 percent, owe more than their homes are worth, according to Moody’s Economy.com.
ParticipantI see more foreclosures on the horizon.
*
About 75.5 million U.S. households own the homes they live in. After a housing slump that has pushed values down 30 percent in some areas, roughly 12 million households, or 16 percent, owe more than their homes are worth, according to Moody’s Economy.com.
ParticipantI see more foreclosures on the horizon.
*
About 75.5 million U.S. households own the homes they live in. After a housing slump that has pushed values down 30 percent in some areas, roughly 12 million households, or 16 percent, owe more than their homes are worth, according to Moody’s Economy.com.
ParticipantI see more foreclosures on the horizon.
*
About 75.5 million U.S. households own the homes they live in. After a housing slump that has pushed values down 30 percent in some areas, roughly 12 million households, or 16 percent, owe more than their homes are worth, according to Moody’s Economy.com.
ParticipantThat Bernard Lo tries too hard to be “all American” financial talking head. I hate that kind of talking head who uses the vernacular. It’s strange coming from an Asian guy.
It would be much better for the host ask succinct journalistic question.
ParticipantThat Bernard Lo tries too hard to be “all American” financial talking head. I hate that kind of talking head who uses the vernacular. It’s strange coming from an Asian guy.
It would be much better for the host ask succinct journalistic question.
ParticipantThat Bernard Lo tries too hard to be “all American” financial talking head. I hate that kind of talking head who uses the vernacular. It’s strange coming from an Asian guy.
It would be much better for the host ask succinct journalistic question.
ParticipantThat Bernard Lo tries too hard to be “all American” financial talking head. I hate that kind of talking head who uses the vernacular. It’s strange coming from an Asian guy.
It would be much better for the host ask succinct journalistic question.
ParticipantThat Bernard Lo tries too hard to be “all American” financial talking head. I hate that kind of talking head who uses the vernacular. It’s strange coming from an Asian guy.
It would be much better for the host ask succinct journalistic question.
-
AuthorPosts
