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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (30439)	3/27/2008 9:33:02 AM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78750

Paul, I am with you on that, but apparently there are people who think differently. :/ You are right though that it will depend on numbers. I don't foresee it to be massive, but if it is then it's really bad news. :/

To: Paul Senior who wrote (30439)	3/27/2008 10:34:19 AM
From: Keith J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78750

Paul, I agree with you. But nobody likes to be in a losing position. Watching the CCU dealings with the banks regarding the LBO and financing. Per CCU's legal complaint, it appears that the banks are trying to get out of their obligations because they would have to take a mark-to-market loss on debt to be issued (even if there is no default on the debt, which to me sounds absurd). I view this as little different than homeowners walking away from a house. This could get real interesting. KJ

To: Paul Senior who wrote (30439)	3/27/2008 11:55:12 AM
From: Madharry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78750

hey what goes around comes around. i dont recall the banks showing any ethics at all helping enron to perpetrate a fraud on millions of investors, some of whom lost their life savings. To my knowledge not one ceo of a bank involved apologized for this despicable behavior. they knew they were helping enron to produce deceptive financial statements which investors relied upon. they didnt care, so why shouldnt individuals avail themselves of the legal system in place to better themselves financially?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (30439)	3/28/2008 4:41:09 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78750

If one is better off walking away than sucking it up and paying a mortgage on a depreciating asset, why not walk away? The government bails out investment banks when they commit errors of judgement, while profits are privatized. A politician can leave office after having made costly errors with no personal liability. A CEO can screw up a company and destroy shareholder value and get a $100MM termination bonus and a pension. A popular music star can drunkenly crash into a utility pole, yet escape jail and be applauded for her "bravery" in rehab. A murderer is freed because his skin color matches that of his jury. All of these things are tolerated and condoned in the twilight of our culture, and yet you expect the office worker to stoically pay off the mortgage on his value-plummeting house? Perhaps Nietzsche was right, and tradition imposes a "slave morality" on the masses, while the elite help themselves to life's bounty.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (30439)	3/29/2008 6:37:34 AM
From: valueminded	Respond to of 78750

Paul: The issue is pretty large and getting larger. It is legal in many states to simply walk away if the mortgage (1st mortgage is greater then the home is worth) Now legal doesn't make it ethical, but I think what you are finally seeing is the common guy say hey, if it is legal for wall street and the Ben Bernake club and if it is legal for me, then why not. The failure of democracies is fiscal, so to that extent, the "free money" handouts destroying the value of our currency are part of that. In terms of size, I think this will affect hundreds of billions of dollars and the "common" man is taking advantage of the legality of the situation.