[UCGal]

[quote=Diego Mamani]Let’s see an example. “Bank” has a mortgage-backed security (MBS) with original par (nominal) value of $100. In 2008 Bank “marked-to-market” and now values the MBS at $95 in its books. But we all know that this MBS is worth a lot less, maybe less than $60, but Bank won’t acknowledge reality.

In 2009 we have the new Treasury plan, whereby “Peter” buys this MBS, for say, $90. That’s because the bank won’t take anything less. If it did, Bank would be shown to be insolvent and would be out of business.

Peter puts only $6 out of pocket. Uncle Sam puts another $6, and the remainder $78 is a nonrecourse loan from Uncle Sam to Peter. (Total, $90).

Then Peter turns around and sells the MBS to his pal “Paul” for $48. Paul pays $48 b/c he thinks the MBS is actually worth $58 as justified by what the homeowners will actually pay in monthly mortgage payments.

Peter’s $6 investment is wiped out. So is the govt’s $6. And the $48 Peter gets from Paul goes to pay back the govt loan of $78. So now, Peter lost $6 but Uncle Sam lost $36 ($84-$48).

Since Peter and Paul are buddies (co-conspirators), the latter can compensate Peter. Say, Paul gives Peter his $6 plus another $2 for his troubles. Paul pays $48 for something worth $58, but because he gave $8 to Peter, his profit is only $2. And the banks get fully $90 for paper that is worth actually $58.

Summary:
Peter puts in $6, makes $2 profit
Paul puts in $48, makes $2 profit
U.S. puts in $84, makes a $36 LOSS
Bank had paper that was really worth $58 but got $90 for it, makes a $32 profit

Yes, I agree with the OP, this is wholesale looting of the US Treasury. Us taxpayers foot the bill and will pay for it in a combination of higher inflation and higher taxes. The important thing is that the Wall Street types who caused this crisis will get to keep their Ferraris and juicy bonuses, and won’t have to fly coach or go without their manicures, god forbid.
[/quote]

One small quibble with this… as I read it, the non-recourse loan is backed by the FDIC. Now the FDIC doesn’t have enough money to bail out the banks that are failing, but they do have a line of credit… But, in theory, they will charge the remaining (non-failed) banks higher premiums to make up for these losses…

So at least some of the transfer of wealth is from healthy banks to sick banks – with the taxpayer covering the losses in the meantime.

I forgot where I read this, but it made sense.

[UCGal]

[quote=Diego Mamani]Let’s see an example. “Bank” has a mortgage-backed security (MBS) with original par (nominal) value of $100. In 2008 Bank “marked-to-market” and now values the MBS at $95 in its books. But we all know that this MBS is worth a lot less, maybe less than $60, but Bank won’t acknowledge reality.

In 2009 we have the new Treasury plan, whereby “Peter” buys this MBS, for say, $90. That’s because the bank won’t take anything less. If it did, Bank would be shown to be insolvent and would be out of business.

Peter puts only $6 out of pocket. Uncle Sam puts another $6, and the remainder $78 is a nonrecourse loan from Uncle Sam to Peter. (Total, $90).

Then Peter turns around and sells the MBS to his pal “Paul” for $48. Paul pays $48 b/c he thinks the MBS is actually worth $58 as justified by what the homeowners will actually pay in monthly mortgage payments.

Peter’s $6 investment is wiped out. So is the govt’s $6. And the $48 Peter gets from Paul goes to pay back the govt loan of $78. So now, Peter lost $6 but Uncle Sam lost $36 ($84-$48).

Since Peter and Paul are buddies (co-conspirators), the latter can compensate Peter. Say, Paul gives Peter his $6 plus another $2 for his troubles. Paul pays $48 for something worth $58, but because he gave $8 to Peter, his profit is only $2. And the banks get fully $90 for paper that is worth actually $58.

Summary:
Peter puts in $6, makes $2 profit
Paul puts in $48, makes $2 profit
U.S. puts in $84, makes a $36 LOSS
Bank had paper that was really worth $58 but got $90 for it, makes a $32 profit

Yes, I agree with the OP, this is wholesale looting of the US Treasury. Us taxpayers foot the bill and will pay for it in a combination of higher inflation and higher taxes. The important thing is that the Wall Street types who caused this crisis will get to keep their Ferraris and juicy bonuses, and won’t have to fly coach or go without their manicures, god forbid.
[/quote]

One small quibble with this… as I read it, the non-recourse loan is backed by the FDIC. Now the FDIC doesn’t have enough money to bail out the banks that are failing, but they do have a line of credit… But, in theory, they will charge the remaining (non-failed) banks higher premiums to make up for these losses…

So at least some of the transfer of wealth is from healthy banks to sick banks – with the taxpayer covering the losses in the meantime.

I forgot where I read this, but it made sense.

[UCGal]

[quote=Diego Mamani]Let’s see an example. “Bank” has a mortgage-backed security (MBS) with original par (nominal) value of $100. In 2008 Bank “marked-to-market” and now values the MBS at $95 in its books. But we all know that this MBS is worth a lot less, maybe less than $60, but Bank won’t acknowledge reality.

In 2009 we have the new Treasury plan, whereby “Peter” buys this MBS, for say, $90. That’s because the bank won’t take anything less. If it did, Bank would be shown to be insolvent and would be out of business.

Peter puts only $6 out of pocket. Uncle Sam puts another $6, and the remainder $78 is a nonrecourse loan from Uncle Sam to Peter. (Total, $90).

Then Peter turns around and sells the MBS to his pal “Paul” for $48. Paul pays $48 b/c he thinks the MBS is actually worth $58 as justified by what the homeowners will actually pay in monthly mortgage payments.

Peter’s $6 investment is wiped out. So is the govt’s $6. And the $48 Peter gets from Paul goes to pay back the govt loan of $78. So now, Peter lost $6 but Uncle Sam lost $36 ($84-$48).

Since Peter and Paul are buddies (co-conspirators), the latter can compensate Peter. Say, Paul gives Peter his $6 plus another $2 for his troubles. Paul pays $48 for something worth $58, but because he gave $8 to Peter, his profit is only $2. And the banks get fully $90 for paper that is worth actually $58.

Summary:
Peter puts in $6, makes $2 profit
Paul puts in $48, makes $2 profit
U.S. puts in $84, makes a $36 LOSS
Bank had paper that was really worth $58 but got $90 for it, makes a $32 profit

Yes, I agree with the OP, this is wholesale looting of the US Treasury. Us taxpayers foot the bill and will pay for it in a combination of higher inflation and higher taxes. The important thing is that the Wall Street types who caused this crisis will get to keep their Ferraris and juicy bonuses, and won’t have to fly coach or go without their manicures, god forbid.
[/quote]

One small quibble with this… as I read it, the non-recourse loan is backed by the FDIC. Now the FDIC doesn’t have enough money to bail out the banks that are failing, but they do have a line of credit… But, in theory, they will charge the remaining (non-failed) banks higher premiums to make up for these losses…

So at least some of the transfer of wealth is from healthy banks to sick banks – with the taxpayer covering the losses in the meantime.

I forgot where I read this, but it made sense.

[UCGal]

The ads I see on yahoo and yahoo mail I assume are targeted at some of the surfing I do… I say this because when I was researching buying music for my son’s piano lessons – I started seeing music ads. When my husband and I were dreaming about buying a boat and looking at boat websites a lot – I started seeing marina ads and yacht ads… And when I’ve been researching airfare for vacations, I start seeing lots of resort ads…

I’m not speculating why you’re getting bouncy girls with suggestive faces… Just saying that that the ads I see, tend to correlate to recent browsing.

[UCGal]

The ads I see on yahoo and yahoo mail I assume are targeted at some of the surfing I do… I say this because when I was researching buying music for my son’s piano lessons – I started seeing music ads. When my husband and I were dreaming about buying a boat and looking at boat websites a lot – I started seeing marina ads and yacht ads… And when I’ve been researching airfare for vacations, I start seeing lots of resort ads…

I’m not speculating why you’re getting bouncy girls with suggestive faces… Just saying that that the ads I see, tend to correlate to recent browsing.

[UCGal]

The ads I see on yahoo and yahoo mail I assume are targeted at some of the surfing I do… I say this because when I was researching buying music for my son’s piano lessons – I started seeing music ads. When my husband and I were dreaming about buying a boat and looking at boat websites a lot – I started seeing marina ads and yacht ads… And when I’ve been researching airfare for vacations, I start seeing lots of resort ads…

I’m not speculating why you’re getting bouncy girls with suggestive faces… Just saying that that the ads I see, tend to correlate to recent browsing.

[UCGal]

The ads I see on yahoo and yahoo mail I assume are targeted at some of the surfing I do… I say this because when I was researching buying music for my son’s piano lessons – I started seeing music ads. When my husband and I were dreaming about buying a boat and looking at boat websites a lot – I started seeing marina ads and yacht ads… And when I’ve been researching airfare for vacations, I start seeing lots of resort ads…

I’m not speculating why you’re getting bouncy girls with suggestive faces… Just saying that that the ads I see, tend to correlate to recent browsing.

[UCGal]

The ads I see on yahoo and yahoo mail I assume are targeted at some of the surfing I do… I say this because when I was researching buying music for my son’s piano lessons – I started seeing music ads. When my husband and I were dreaming about buying a boat and looking at boat websites a lot – I started seeing marina ads and yacht ads… And when I’ve been researching airfare for vacations, I start seeing lots of resort ads…

I’m not speculating why you’re getting bouncy girls with suggestive faces… Just saying that that the ads I see, tend to correlate to recent browsing.

[UCGal]

The Obama administration backed off on this, thank goodness. After hearing from every vets group out there that it was a bad idea, they conceded.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/19/Vets_pleased_VA_insurance_proposal_dropped/UPI-74101237472184/

FWIW – the VA regularly bills other insurance providers, even before this proposed change. My father in law, a purple heart decorated WWII vet, has Medicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. He gets his services from the VA. The VA social worker explained that basically, they bill the other insurers and the VA picks up what the other’s don’t cover… And since he’s in a wheel chair and has some neuro issues, he gets a lot of services – with zero out of pocket between the three coverages (medicare, blue cross, VA). His disability is considered to be 10% service related – that’s enough for the VA to be involved.

I am VERY impressed with the VA here in San Diego. It used to have a terrible rep, but they’ve turned it around.

[UCGal]

The Obama administration backed off on this, thank goodness. After hearing from every vets group out there that it was a bad idea, they conceded.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/19/Vets_pleased_VA_insurance_proposal_dropped/UPI-74101237472184/

FWIW – the VA regularly bills other insurance providers, even before this proposed change. My father in law, a purple heart decorated WWII vet, has Medicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. He gets his services from the VA. The VA social worker explained that basically, they bill the other insurers and the VA picks up what the other’s don’t cover… And since he’s in a wheel chair and has some neuro issues, he gets a lot of services – with zero out of pocket between the three coverages (medicare, blue cross, VA). His disability is considered to be 10% service related – that’s enough for the VA to be involved.

I am VERY impressed with the VA here in San Diego. It used to have a terrible rep, but they’ve turned it around.

[UCGal]

The Obama administration backed off on this, thank goodness. After hearing from every vets group out there that it was a bad idea, they conceded.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/19/Vets_pleased_VA_insurance_proposal_dropped/UPI-74101237472184/

FWIW – the VA regularly bills other insurance providers, even before this proposed change. My father in law, a purple heart decorated WWII vet, has Medicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. He gets his services from the VA. The VA social worker explained that basically, they bill the other insurers and the VA picks up what the other’s don’t cover… And since he’s in a wheel chair and has some neuro issues, he gets a lot of services – with zero out of pocket between the three coverages (medicare, blue cross, VA). His disability is considered to be 10% service related – that’s enough for the VA to be involved.

I am VERY impressed with the VA here in San Diego. It used to have a terrible rep, but they’ve turned it around.

[UCGal]

The Obama administration backed off on this, thank goodness. After hearing from every vets group out there that it was a bad idea, they conceded.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/19/Vets_pleased_VA_insurance_proposal_dropped/UPI-74101237472184/

FWIW – the VA regularly bills other insurance providers, even before this proposed change. My father in law, a purple heart decorated WWII vet, has Medicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. He gets his services from the VA. The VA social worker explained that basically, they bill the other insurers and the VA picks up what the other’s don’t cover… And since he’s in a wheel chair and has some neuro issues, he gets a lot of services – with zero out of pocket between the three coverages (medicare, blue cross, VA). His disability is considered to be 10% service related – that’s enough for the VA to be involved.

I am VERY impressed with the VA here in San Diego. It used to have a terrible rep, but they’ve turned it around.

[UCGal]

The Obama administration backed off on this, thank goodness. After hearing from every vets group out there that it was a bad idea, they conceded.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/03/19/Vets_pleased_VA_insurance_proposal_dropped/UPI-74101237472184/

FWIW – the VA regularly bills other insurance providers, even before this proposed change. My father in law, a purple heart decorated WWII vet, has Medicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. He gets his services from the VA. The VA social worker explained that basically, they bill the other insurers and the VA picks up what the other’s don’t cover… And since he’s in a wheel chair and has some neuro issues, he gets a lot of services – with zero out of pocket between the three coverages (medicare, blue cross, VA). His disability is considered to be 10% service related – that’s enough for the VA to be involved.

I am VERY impressed with the VA here in San Diego. It used to have a terrible rep, but they’ve turned it around.

[UCGal]

Since this thread has morphed to the AIG topic…
Interesting (depressing) article about the problems with AIG not being limited to the financial services side – but the insurance side is messed up too…

I hope it’s not as f*d up as this article suggests.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/189917

[UCGal]

Since this thread has morphed to the AIG topic…
Interesting (depressing) article about the problems with AIG not being limited to the financial services side – but the insurance side is messed up too…

I hope it’s not as f*d up as this article suggests.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/189917

[Author]

Posts