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: Poet who wrote (149286)	9/24/2008 9:29:55 AM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Those are good suggestions that cut to the heart of the problem: 1) "Taxpayers deserve an equity stake"-Paulson hasn't rejected this, but has said that if it's too large and dilutive, the banks won't go for it. 2) "How to value what is purchased". This is the main area of disagreement, IMO. Hank doesn't want fair value. He doesn't even want an auction. He wants to basically give the banks far-above-market value for their most radioactive assets and indicated as much in the Senate hearing. He said he'd get a bunch of "really smart money managers" to work out the details. I don't agree that the financial system is "unable to set a value". The problem is they won't pay what the banks will accept because the banks don't want to take the marks on their balance sheets when they sell at the true, fair prices. He promised us his after BSC, AIG, HR 3221, FNM/FRE that all the problems were solved. They aren't. Why is this any different, other than costing us a boatload more?