SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The coming US dollar crisis

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (18042)3/1/2009 11:24:42 PM
From: axial1 Recommendation   of 71474
 
You make a good argument. Remembering that we're all guessing (and will be until the truth finally comes out) I hold a slightly different view.

That is, the insurers knew (just as we did in 2004) there was systemic risk in the range of their derivative practices. Not just swaps - the whole practice of ART in all its variants.

How did they know? LTCM (more than any other preceding financial event) revealed the danger of a Black Swan event, derivative dominoes, and systemic risk.

The web of economics and finance interlinks at many levels - were the IBs and Rating Agencies Prime Movers, or accessories?

In my view, they were corrupted, yes - but AIG willingly and knowingly engaged in practices which required IBs and Rating Agencies to support their actions. Not to initiate them, to support them. They were accessories to AIG's actions.

AIG (and many other global insurance players) were calamities waiting to happen - and worst of all there's still no evidence the practice of ART - by insurers, CBs and others - has been terminated.

The practice hasn't been subjected to oversight, and it hasn't been stopped. So where's the gain in all this pain?

JMO

Jim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext