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 coming US dollar crisis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 2sigma who wrote (2332)	11/14/2007 6:08:22 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71477

Haps, good to dialog with you again. Been a long time, Sir. The languaging regarding their rights to refuse to execute orders based upon their need to maintain THEIR solvency in a priority position/advance of my need to protect my investments, particularly stuck in my craw, Haps. I knew about the arbitration preferences, etc., but having been through arbitration in other matters in my professional life, I know that arbiters are selected from panels of people in the business genre which dictates the need for arbitration arising from a disagreement, [pick a genre], vis a vis hardly an unbiased panel. But, ...the entire concept that "they" can countermand or tell me "no," or "not now," or "maybe/pretty soon" when it comes to requesting my funds out for whatever reason--whether in cash or in certs---definitely is not what I signed on for when I initially opened these accounts umpty years ago. Someone called it "fractional banking" for lack of a better term. That's exactly what is being practiced in my opinion. I think it's come to the point, systemically, that we need to be able to look'em square in the eyes, place their backs against the wall, and get out our funds, before we also have to add "hands around the throat" to the forceful actions to re-obtain what is "ours" in the first place. Then there is that whole 'lending shares for shorting' business/languaging that is in the account agreement. It is not commonly known, but MUTUAL FUNDS are the primary source of shares for borrowing by the shorts. Now, doesn't THAT thought make one all cozy and warmly inclined toward that mutual fund? Seems like Fidelity tops the "shares lending' list if my aging memory serves me correctly. PS...[edit]...did you see the sudden sell-off in the last few minutes on the DOW? Turns out GE has "broken the buck" in one of their "versions" of money market funds, outside the insured portion of their "normal MMF" accounts. Settling for 96c on the dollar. OUCH! Glad I'm not in theirs nor anyone else's reach right now. OH!! And, the reason GE gave for breaking the buck? Residential mortgage backing failings. A pundit on Fast Money just now, publically chastised GE for their lousy sense of corporate fiduciary response to that particular broke the buck MF. She stated, that for $200 million, GE was willing to shiv ( <---my word) the MF depositors who trusted GE with their "liquid cash" for safekeeping and access! And GE isn't the first, just the latest and perhaps the largest "household name." G_T