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: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (149236)	9/22/2008 11:14:16 PM
From: SGJ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

True thats why the candidates are sort of on the sidelines regarding it. Americans are going to have to debate to solve a serious problem that doesn't involve political partisanship. The stakes are high. Possibly why Paulson is moving so easily into the void. We have forgotten how? Where is Ann Coulter? Al Franken?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (149236)	9/22/2008 11:32:33 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

it's a "financial-residential-industrial complex versus everybody else" problem. Ok, but the "financial-residential-industrial complex" is about everyone in the USA. Thats the problem.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (149236)	9/23/2008 7:46:21 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Here's a news analysis piece from today's NY Times business section which describes many of the issues-- and some suggestions as to how to deal with them (rather than screaming "vote against the bailout!"). Highlights: In Mr. Paulson’s plan, the Treasury would have the right to buy as much as $700 billion worth of troubled investments, with the taxpayer recouping the proceeds when those investments were sold over coming years. But many economists — Mr. Elmendorf among them — argue that taxpayers should get more out of the deal, securing stock in the banks that make use of the bailout. The government could then sell off that stock at a profit when conditions improve. A similar approach was used successfully in Sweden in the early 1990s when its financial system melted down. Others argue that any bailout must pinch the people who have run the companies now needing rescue, along with their shareholders, addressing the unseemly reality that executives have amassed beach houses and fat bank accounts while taxpayers are now stuck with the bill for their reckless ways. “It absolutely has to be punitive,” Mr. Baker said. “If they sell us the junk, then we own the company. This isn’t a way to make these companies and their executives rich. This should be about keeping them in business so the financial system doesn’t collapse.” Other questions center on how to value what the Treasury aims to purchase — an issue that goes to the heart of the crisis itself. The financial system got to its dangerous perch by betting extravagantly on real estate. When housing prices began plummeting and borrowers stopped making payments, financial institutions found themselves with huge inventories of bad loans. Not simple loans, but complex investments created by pooling millions of mortgages together and then slicing them into pieces. These were the investments that Wall Street bought, sold and borrowed against in cooking up the money it poured into housing. The trouble is that these investments are so intertwined and complex that no one seems able to figure out what they are worth. So no one has been willing to buy them. This is why banks have been in lockdown mode: with mystery enshrouding both the value of their assets and their future losses, banks have held tight to their remaining dollars, depriving the economy of capital. Link: nytimes.com