SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (65112)9/24/2008 9:10:53 AM
From: Dale BakerRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 118717
 
If you take away mark to market and allow banks to claim a certain amount of reserves based on mark to maturity or mark to model, that will not convince other banks that a particular institution has enough real reserves to survive serious pressures from depositors or damage from BK's in institutions whose debt they hold in their asset base.

I suspect your idea was considered and discarded in favor of creating an actual, functioning market in distressed debt for the major players.

Just my guess from outside.



To: Keith Feral who wrote (65112)9/24/2008 11:31:59 AM
From: Paul KernRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 118717
 
I don't see the logic in making banks mark 30 year mortgages to market. Whatever the case, it's cheaper to go revise the accounting rules to mark to maturity than spend $700 billion to force the market to observe the value embedded in the firesale prices.

Keith,

They can mark this paper to any thing they want and still no one will loan them money because no will believe the value.

The credit markets have been frozen since before the rule 157.

Say your friend has a beat 1990 Buck that leaks oil and has a crushed right front fender that he bought for $20,000 and asks you to lend him $18,000 on it because he thinks it's worth $20,000. Are you going to make the loan?

If you answer "yes", please PM me and we can do some businesses.