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.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (48678)	9/24/2008 7:53:40 PM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224738

lolol...

To: LLCF who wrote (48678)	9/24/2008 9:28:11 PM
From: LLCF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224738

I like this part: <On November 12, 1999, President Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act,> Well at least "some" of the nutcases are seeing they're going to HAVE to admit that was huge...much to the chagrin of the WingNutz on this board... but.... so, uummmmm, let's seee.... there must be a democrat involved here somewhere, OH YEA... Clinton signed it! Fagetabout Gramm and his wife and the fact that it was slipped in at the last minute in the middle of the night... BILL DID IT! ROFLMAO OK folks, now that at least a few on the Right are starting to look at Gramms deregulation as a "possible factor" (we wont' use cause), I'll let you in on a little info you'll see in the news going forward and one of the BIG REASONs these guys are running around like chicken's with their heads cut off on these bailouts: All those tasty tox-o-products that P. Gramm deregulated?? Yea, those ones, well they're all over the counter (of course, what isn't) and "marked" however the bank sees fit (yea, like higher at bonus time... you get it). Well there are trillions (notional value... so it's not TOO bad, lol) of these things stuffed in everyones balance sheets (actually, thanks to "netting agreements", {thanks Phil}, they actually DONT SHOW UP ON THE BALANCE SHEETS). So? Well, if one of these banks actually goes BANKO, then the COUNTERPARTY risk (that you may not get paid on one end) becomes oh, so real. Well, it's real already... but they pretend it isn't (thanks PHIL!) and are allowed to "net" it out. What is "net"? Well, if I owe Ann a billion and she owes Geoff a billion and Geoff owes me a billion (or some more elongated chain) THEN, I don't have to show it on my balance sheet as a liability or asset! Kuhl huh! So? Well, what if a company is in BANKO and everyones fighting over assets?? Debt comes due... too bad, gotta wait!! OH NO!! Can't wait, WHY? Well THERE ARE LIKE TRILLIONS of these things floating around !!!!!!!! You got it... T for Trillion.... wait, maybe that was a while ago, I haven't worked on WS for quite some time.... let me check............... {oh, my.... I was wrong} jsmineset.com We won't repeat THAT number in public. Well, you get the picture... keep your ears open for the keywords to come in future news releases this fall: Derivatives, netting agreements, off balance sheet, notional value, counter party risk... and of course "leverage"... DAK Yea, I think McCain has a chance... the probability has about as many zero's as that "number that shall remain unsaid" but with a decimal point in front of it.