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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (75634)	3/4/2008 4:27:35 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Another word for moral hazard is communism <g> As much as everyone in the US claims hates Communism on their lips (the US immigration forms still list it along with Nazism), but seems like a lot bankers, and people who borrow more than they can afford love it in practice!

To: mishedlo who wrote (75634)	3/4/2008 6:35:10 PM
From: rich evans	Respond to of 116555

Washinton state has a program to help poor people buy a house which could be used by the banks in a similar way. The bank reduces the loan value and takes an equity position in the house. When the house is sold the bank gets some percentage of the house proceeds above the mortgage. I think in Washington, the state can put up $100,000 . They share in the house appreciation if it goes up in price to the tune of about 75%. The poor homeowner gets to live in the house, pay the reduced mortgage and shares in the house appreciation. Of course if the house goes down in value, the homeowner bears first loss and then the state for its comtribution. Banks could do a similar program. Rich

To: mishedlo who wrote (75634)	3/4/2008 7:12:35 PM
From: dave9	Respond to of 116555

Mish, Bernake is not asking. The way the other Fed presidents gave interviews all at the same time is a message to the executive and other branches. Looks like demanding. Also, it looks like the start of blame shifting to me. After all, the fed is not responsible for this mess. Meanwhile, those Arabs that invested in C came out and said that "that it will take more than the combined efforts of the Gulf's wealthiest investors to save Citigroup" Since they have all the money in the world, now that says something. I wonder if they got enough concessions out of Citi to prevent Citi from getting cash from others? If they did, they can short Citi and with hold further investment. You got to wonder about what their motivation is to say such a thing after giving Citi 12.5 billion. Or is the 12.5 billion payment to trash Citi and by doing so, trash the US economy. biz.yahoo.com