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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (269043)	9/16/2008 9:52:24 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Respond to of 793905

I am all for the markets. However, the concept of too big to fail has merit. The shareholders should bear the financial burden of failure and the management should leave with no parachute. I am sure there will be shareholder suits over disclosure. Bob

To: skinowski who wrote (269043)	9/16/2008 10:44:23 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793905

so, the Fed committed 85 bil for 80% of the company. Besides the socialistic implications of this move - What if it doesn't work? If it avoids a Trillion dollar meltdown from the disorderly unraveling of those CDS's, it will be money well spent. Sad to say that, but it's the reality of the situation. What's really just incredibly cynical is how the rating agencies (S&P, Moody's) have suddenly "found religion" when it comes to properly assessing risk and downgrading company assets. Might have served us all a lot better had they not had their hand in the cookie jar when they were hyping the AAA credit worthiness of all of those toxic CDOs/MBS's laced with sub-primes and Alt-A liar loans. Their arbitrary upgrades/downgrades have become financial WMD's that just feed into the rampant Naked Short Selling that's going on. And that short-selling against the financials is undermining the market's (and the public's) confidence in the system. Hawk