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 Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (148795)	9/22/2008 1:42:54 AM
From: Sr K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

No. Bernanke told all the banks in March, "Raise more capital, much more, more than you think you need." Now they all know it. If the "Plan" passes, and Friday's gains hold (futures are down), banks can sell half the shares they would have at their lows. They might go back and back for 3 raises. This is the 'trust me' part. Pass the bill. The banks raise $400B or $600B of capital. And if they have to, they raise another $600B later. Guess who is left to make 6% of the money raised? GS, MS, and MER/BAC and a few non-US firms. Ask for Convertible Senior Preferred, like Krugman wants, and the stocks get slaughtered, like AIG last week. To be consistent any Senior Preferred will have to be 3-month LIBOR +8. Krugman didn't think ahead to how the "good" banks will raise capital. Paulson's Plan is a success plan. Both of their ideas could be addressed by a non-zero exercise price, which for banks could have windows where the exercise price goes down if they take too long to raise capital. Congress should take time to get more input, depending on how the financial markets operate this week.

To: Moominoid who wrote (148795)	9/22/2008 1:56:42 AM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Of course it would...that's why Paulson's trying to silence dissent before the taxpayer's interests are actually suppported. I say, for every dollar of taxpayor funding used to buy assets through this facility, the treasury receive a dollars worth of preferred stock which is placed above bondholders should a BK occur down the road. It's quick and clean. I'd also insist hon immediate and binding audits from the Fed of any institution requesting funding through the RTC-2 facility, and that any institutions currently found to be insolvent be closed and their assets placed in receivership immediately. For starters. Almost anything (or nothing at all) would work better than what's been proposed.

To: Moominoid who wrote (148795)	9/22/2008 10:17:13 AM
From: Metacomet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Wouldn't Krugman's proposal make more sense? Absolutely... George Ure has a similar take. Not exactly one'o them liberal elitists. "The first thing you need to understand is that any media reference to the Resolution Trust Corp's bailout of the Savings and Loan mess is a deliberate misleading of American public opinion so that our collective life savings can be hijacked by the bankers cabal. The key difference to keep in mind is this: In the case of the RTC, when the assets were rolled up and resold, the main players went out of business. In the flim-flam now being pulled on the American public, the main players will not only stay in business, they will make new fortunes paid for with your tax dollars. Oh, and if you think this stinks, that's the smell of greed." urbansurvival.com