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 : 50% Gains Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Keith Feral who wrote (65091)	9/23/2008 10:33:24 PM
From: White Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 118717

Thank you, I respect your insight. I've had you marked for some time.

To: Keith Feral who wrote (65091)	9/24/2008 12:53:19 AM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

Keith, i somehow fail to follow your logic. Awhile ago you stated that the treasury should not buy assets at "firesale" prices.Paulson said the same thing about that matter to pay "hold at maturity pricing". I assume that hold to maturity pricing means a higher pricing than current quotes. If this indeed were to happen it would amount to a massive transfer of taxpayers money into the pockets of financial companies who started this mess to begin with. As a taxpayer I would object to this. seekingalpha.com This would also mean that Paulson reverses course on the "inverse auction" plan detailed earlier. As I understood he plan first is that the reverse auction would reserve a chunk of the 700B$ on yet to be determined assets classes and then take in sellers bid. The fact alone that there is now a huge buyer should hold up prices - if it won't because there are so many sellers it can only mean that it's truly junk, IMO. The huge total amount of 700B$ buying power makes this unlikely that an asset is truly mispriced (and even if it were nobody is forced to sell it). Hold to maturity pricing would employ either massive fraud and/or favorism. Who for example would prevent an institution to buy up junk assets and sell them to the FED for " hold to maturity pricing". Sounds like the deal of the century to me. OK now we let only institutions sell that need it and/or are eligible.. Who will determine that? Who prevents institutions to sell there assets to the fed for a good price and then buy them back at open market cheaper? I'd rather stick with the free market. If an institution does not like it, give it the standard FRE/FNM/AIG treatment - 80% equity to the FED in exchange for a senior credit line. It's simple and straightforward IMO and brings liquidity back again and gives the taxpayer a chance of a decent return.