Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (32645)	10/31/2000 1:23:25 PM
From: re3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

i liked how on one of the financial summaries on the tube yesterday one of the reporters said "people don't want to PAY 100 pe's any more". ho ho... i think even luc predicted that would end <vbg>

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (32645)	10/31/2000 1:48:46 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<The more I think about HR4541 and what has been said about it the more uneasy I get. I note the quote "...and Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, have been lobbying Congress to approve legislation dealing with a potential derivatives crisis...". Is that the same Alan Greenspan who said a few months ago that derivatives did not create a risk because they were "a zero sum game." If that was the case why do they suddenly need this legislation. If the statement was true and derivatives are a "zero sum game then there is no need for HR4541 at all. All that any legislation can do is to make the zero sum game into a "win/lose game" by protecting one side ( the loser ) to the detriment of the other party ( the winner ) . Despite the stated purpose of "to avoid tying up trading contracts in bankruptcy proceedings" the actual effect would be to limit the losses incurred in the bad trade and protect the assets of the institution which made that trade. > This logic is flawed.... netting simply avoids going through a bankrupcy proceeding taking each contract alone and assessing it's standing. Instead the 'net' with each institution is taken. So for example when these banks market make in this OTC stuff, they may have longs and shorts in exactly the same contract [Dec 31 '02 Gold] with the SAME BANK! ie. when they write up a sell of Xoz of gold with Solly, they don't go through some file to see if they're already long gold from solly and rip that one up! Even if it is the same date etc. Without netting, in a Bankrupcy, there can be arguments that each of these contracts is separate and distinct, so dates of trades can be important vs claims elsewhere on the balance sheet on earlier dates, etc. With listed securities this is already done for you, that's all... they're trying to make the OTC market like the listed one, autonetting. You can see why the exchanges don't like it... takes away their competative advantage. This is still zero sum, etc etc... this guy is a bone head IMO. Now, that's not to say that this "hurry up and pass the law" is not suspicious. DAK

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (32645)	10/31/2000 1:52:27 PM
From: Lucretius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

they never expect it... neither does anybody else... its a myth myth myth.. trading range rules.. ask mythman.