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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tyc:> who wrote (60481)	7/22/2008 10:40:27 PM
From: loantech	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78437

Hello Tyc, As you know there is an old saying when your neighbor is out of work it is a recession when you are out of work it is a depression. I think this guy has an idea but me I am a skeptic having worked 23 years in the mortgage industry. I think the multiplier effect will be worse BWDIK? I have gold stocks too bad I picked the juniors. LOL. GOOD VIDEO WITH STORY. <<Roubini: More Than $1 Trillion Needed to Solve Housing Crisis Posted Jul 22, 2008 05:42pm EDT by Aaron Task in Newsmakers, Recession, Banking Related: FNM, FRE, XLF, WM, WB, WFC, BAC Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has been putting on a full-court press in the last 24 hours, making the case for his plan to shore-up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "I would rather not be in the position of asking for extraordinary authorities to support the GSEs," Paulson said in a speech Tuesday in NYC. "But I am playing the hand that I have been dealt. There is a need to support efforts that strengthen Fannie and Freddie's ability to continue to play their important role in financing mortgages and in our capital markets more broadly." The timing of Paulson's speech -- and various and sundry media appearances -- is not coincidental. This week, Congress is expected to vote on housing legislation that includes Paulson's plan, which a GAO report said is likely to cost the government $25 billion. But $25 billion -- or even the GAO's worst-case $100 billion estimate -- pales in comparison to the cost of doing nothing, says Nouriel Roubini, NYU professor and chairman of RGE Monitor. "We have to find a solution where government intervention prevents a disorderly outcome" in the housing market that leads to a "systemic banking crisis," Roubini says. The housing bill, which earmarks $300 billion to backstop mortgages after lenders agree to lower mortgage payments, is "a step in the right direction" but "doesn't do enough," he says, predicting the government will ultimately need to spend more than $1 trillion. Roubini's main concern stems from a view that the "housing recession is not bottoming by any standards," in contrast to hopeful comments from Paulson on Fox News and Barron's last weekend. The economist believes U.S. home prices will ultimately fall 30% from their peak -- vs. 18% to date according to the S&P Case-Shiller Index -- "before bottoming out some point in 2010." In the interim, the negative wealth effect of declining home values and increase in "underwater" mortgages will lead to more Americans walking away from their homes. Such "jingle mail" threatens to ultimately cost $1 trillion in credit losses, wiping out 75% of the capital of U.S. financial institutions, Roubini warns. It is that "disorderly" outcome Roubini says the government cannot afford to let happen. With "the charade" that Fannie and Freddie weren't already government agencies over, he believes a nationalization of the 50% of mortgages not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie will be necessary, and the Frank-Dodd Bill is a small step down that road. From Roubini's view, nationalizing housing avoids the government having to nationalization the entire banking system, making it the lesser of two evils.>> finance.yahoo.com

To: tyc:> who wrote (60481)	7/22/2008 11:43:42 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 78437

<You seem to be emphasizing that there are reasons why the brokerage house would not allow a short to be made. Of course that is so, Well, that' the first time anyone has agreed with that... up till now any schmuck can short whatever 5 acrynom symbol they dig up off of some grungy bull board... I'm emphasising that shorts are not allowed when stocks are hard to borrow because this conversation started with claims that anyone shorting any stock was normal, naked or not. <but we are not talking about shorts that are prevented. We are talking about the normal course of events when a short is made.> Good, which is that stock is borrowed and delivered to the purchaser... I'm glad that after umpteen posts we've come around to the normal course of events being that shorts being borrowed and not "naked" or "counterfeit" as has been tossed about. dAK