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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gregor_us who wrote (85559)	8/26/2007 3:39:09 PM
From: Ken98	Respond to of 110194

That was a very interesting article. My favorite part: <<As a boy, John Seo learned everything he could about the Titanic. “It was considered unsinkable because it had a hull of 16 chambers,” he says. The chambers were stacked back to front. If the ship hit something head on, the object might puncture the front chamber, but it would likely have to puncture at least three more to sink the ship. “They probably said, What are the odds of four chambers going?” he says. “There might have been a one-in-a-hundred chance of puncturing a single chamber, but the odds of puncturing four chambers, they probably thought of as one in a million. That’s because they thought of them as independent chambers. And the chambers might have been independent if the first officer hadn’t gambled at the last minute and swerved. By swerving, the iceberg went down the side of the ship. If the officer had taken it head on, he might have killed a passenger or two, but the ship might not have sunk. The mistake was to turn. Often people associate action with lowering risk or controlling risk, but experience shows more often than not that by taking action you only make the risk worse.” >> Question: Is Bernanke in the process of "swerving" by changing decades of FRB policy after we have hit the liquidity iceberg? In particular, by easing collateral requirements for banks (taking private label MBS, etc.) and by letting Citi loan money to its brokerage affiliate, etc. - in so doing is flooding other independent chambers? IMO it looks like he is betting the farm that this is a 1 in a 100 year event, and not a 1 in a 1,000 year event. He is placing risk in other 'chambers' that has not previously existed.