To: TimF who wrote (29577 ) 9/17/2008 8:38:11 PM From: DuckTapeSunroof Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588 "Or SAYS it has no choice, and acts as if it didn't have one." I agree with that comment. But that's one of the points: no one really knows and, in the press of the moment, no one wants to run the risk of calamity.With Lehman the feds decided --- small enough that the system can handle it. I agree with that decision. (Probably because counter-parties had already had the better part of a year to unwind their exposures to Lehman's paper - plenty of warning makes a big difference. Even so, today one money fund --- first retail one in history since the Great Depression to ever do so --- 'busted the buck', fell below one dollar valuation... because of Lehman paper it held in it's assets).With Bear Sterns --- I think if there had been a little more warning the feds could have let that one collapse (with no unreasonable out-sized risks to the world's financial systems either). But, caught on the horns of a dilemma they opted to not run the risk. That one I'll give the feds the 'benefit of the doubt' on... but I WISH there had been no bail-out for it. My opinion is that BS did not pose as great a systemic risk as was being sold.With Long Term Credit --- no way should an unregulated hedge fund ('registered investors' - multi-millionaires and foreign investors - were the only ones who legally could invest there) have been bailed out with taxpayer money. So mark me down as very much against that one. (And, IMO, the Fed has learned from that... and won't do that again....)But with AIG the Feds *really* had no other sane choice at this very late date. Talks with private investors had collapsed (they refused to invest without a government guarantee), so why not just 'cut out the middle-man' since the government was going to be stuck with the risks anyway... and give Uncle Sammy a chance at pocketing all the (possibly very large) potential PROFITS too that stand to come a year or two down the road when all the assets are liquidated? After all --- AIG has *three* very profitable world class insurance divisions... and it was just the outrageous risks run by *one* division (their financial products division in London that made a market in those unregulated Credit Default Swaps for mortgage paper that went south...) that was bringing down the roof over their heads. And THAT was because of the ILLIQUIDITY of that unregulated, non-standardized market. ALL bids on CDSes have dried up all over the world because NO ONE ANYWHERE wants to take on the counter-party risk. Doesn't mean that all the paper is bad --- just that the market is frozen now. Given time... and perhaps something along the lines of the Resolution Trust Corporation created at the end of the 1980s to handle the S&L messes... something to buy and later sell in a methodical way the mortgage insurance derivatives... the Feds might actually turn a big profit on the whole thing. My one big complaint (at this late date) is that Uncle Sammy should probably have demanded ALL, 100%, of AIG's equity --- not just 79.9% of it. But, letting this unregulated CDS market (what's left of it) continue running in the dark --- that would just be dumber then dumb. Anyway, with AIG the risk of letting it play out without the government stepping in was just too HUGE a risk --- " Weapons of Mass Financial Destruction" indeed, they would have truly been risking a world-wide credit freeze and the collapse of international trade --- the same things that gave us last century's Great Depression. Bernanke --- being well-known as a student of the Great Depression, having written his doctoral thesis on it, and a book... was certainly NOT going to, through inaction, allow that to happen on his watch... if he could possibly avoid it.