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: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (95871)	7/27/2008 12:22:01 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 110194

There may be an 'no impairment of contracts' argument but I am not sufficiently familiar with the doctrine to say.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (95871)	7/27/2008 12:57:40 PM
From: Metacomet	Respond to of 110194

I wonder if the whole thing (the 15% cramdown to the mortgage holders) is even legal... Somehow I doubt that the shit holders will complain too much if they are secured at 85%. They were probably sweating bullets after that Aussie bank marked their toxic mortgage stuff down by 85%. They would probably only need to agree to a reduced, guaranteed, mortgage face amount, which would legally be a novation to the original agreement. They could probably refuse, but won't. (You seen this? youtube.com )