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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sea Otter who wrote (151417)9/28/2008 12:11:38 AM
From: MulhollandDriveRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
yes indeed, it does look like the chattering class is doing it's best to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and yet despite the dire nature of it all, the dem leadership cannot resist the temptation to load the desperate measure bailout with PORK:

SEPTEMBER 27, 2008
Re-Seeding the Housing Mess

Taxpayers are naturally suspicious that political insiders and contributors on Wall Street are going to make out like bandits once Washington starts spending the $700 billion in the financial market rescue. But Democrats have already decided to spin off potentially billions of taxpayer dollars from the bailout fund to their own political buddies -- not on Wall Street but on nearby K Street.

The House and Senate Democratic drafts contain an indefensible and well-hidden provision. It would mandate that at least 20% of any profit realized from the sale of each troubled asset purchased under the Paulson plan be deposited in either the Housing Trust Fund or the Capital Magnet Fund. Only after these funds get their cut of the profits are "all amounts remaining . . . paid into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."

Here's the exact, amazing language from the Democratic proposal, breaking out how the money would be divided and dispensed:

"Deposits. Not less than 20% of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

"Use of Deposits. 65% shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act . . . ; and 35% shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund . . .

"Remainder Deposited in the Treasury. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."

What we have here essentially are a pair of government slush funds created in July as part of the Economic Recovery Act that pump tax dollars into the coffers of low-income housing advocacy groups, such as Acorn.

Acorn, one of America's most militant left-wing "community activist groups," is spending $16 million this year to register Democrats to vote in November. In the past several years, Acorn's voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Washington, while several of their employees have been convicted of voter fraud.


Along with other potential recipients of these funds, including the National Council of La Raza and the Urban League, Acorn has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans. Thus, we'd be funneling more cash to the groups that helped create the lending mess in the first place.

This isn't the first time this year that Democrats have tried to route money for fixing the housing crisis into the bank accounts of these community activist groups. The housing bill passed by Congress in July also included a tax on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to raise an estimated $600 million annually in grants for these lobbying groups. When Fannie and Freddie went under, the Democrats had to find a new way to fill the pipeline flowing tax dollars into the groups' coffers.

This is a crude power grab in a time of economic crisis. Congress should insist that every penny recaptured from the sale of distressed assets be dedicated to retiring the hundreds of billions of dollars in public debt that will be incurred, or passed back to taxpayers who will ultimately underwrite the cost of the bailout.

The idea that special-interest groups on the left or right should get a royalty payment for monies that are repaid to the Treasury is a violation of the public trust. We're told the White House and House Republicans are insisting that the Acorn fund be purged from the bailout bill. The Paulson plan is supposed to get us out of this problem, not start it over again.

online.wsj.com.



To: Sea Otter who wrote (151417)9/28/2008 12:21:17 AM
From: AsymmetricRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
Derivatives Pose New Wrinkle in Lehman Case
'A Huge Amount of Uncertainty'
By JULIE SATOW, NY Sun September 25, 2008
nysun.com

Bankruptcy lawyers and law professors are preparing for a journey into uncharted territory as the credit default swaps market gets dragged into the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy proceeding.

"The courts have dealt with credit default swaps very infrequently, and certainly not at the scale they are now out there," a lawyer at Washington, D.C.-based Caplin & Drysdale, James Wehner, said. "We have a new law and a new financial phenomenon, so there is a lot of uncertainty."

In recent weeks, regulators and the financial press have zeroed in on credit default swaps, a type of private contract that insures a bond in case of default. As of the first quarter of this year, more than $16 trillion worth of bonds were covered by credit default swaps, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The trade group the International Swaps and Derivatives Association places that number much higher, at $62 trillion, and estimates that about one-third of the credit default swaps contracts lack collateral, that is, the issuers of the contracts failed to set aside assets in case the bonds default. Concern yesterday that a $700 billion federal bailout may not pass Congress and worry over the health of the financial industry sent the cost of protecting Morgan Stanley's and Wachovia's bonds from defaults, or their credit default swap rates, soaring.

Meanwhile, two of the largest players in the credit default swaps market, American International Group and Lehman, issued billions of dollars of these insurance contracts over the past several years, and also issued billions of dollars in bonds on which other firms had issued credit default swaps. Market insiders had fretted that were the companies unable to cover the insurance contracts they had issued, or were they to default on their bonds, it would create waves of losses. While the federal government stepped in to save AIG with an $85 billion loan, Lehman had no such luck.

The investment bank, which filed for Chapter 11 last week, was one of the 10 largest parties in the credit default swaps market, according to Fitch Ratings. Lehman's exact exposure to credit default swaps is unknown, but the firm's bankruptcy is apparently the first large-scale default of a major credit default swaps player.

One of the most pressing issues is the new bankruptcy law enacted in 2005. While claims from bondholders, shareholders, and others are frozen once an entity like Lehman declares bankruptcy, holders of derivatives are exempt from this mandatory stay under the revised code.

"Most of these exotic financial derivative products are exempt from the bankruptcy laws, and this is creating a huge amount of uncertainty," a professor of law at the University of Texas, Jay Westbrook, said. "In bankruptcy, there is a freeze, an automatic stay, creating an element of order and control, even transparency. That isn't true with these financial assets."

The exemption means that investors who own credit default swaps on Lehman bonds can immediately claim the bonds, leaping in front of the traditional bondholders who must wait until the bankruptcy filing is settled. It also means that funds that bought credit default swaps from Lehman, which are now busted because the bank is unable to cover the insurance, can immediately claim assets from Lehman as collateral.

This exemption raises a number of questions, people said. For example, while it might sound like a good deal for holders of credit default swaps to jump the line in front of bondholders and receive a Lehman bond, "my guess is that bondholders will get little or nothing," Mr. Westbrook said.

And for those funds that own credit default swaps they bought from Lehman, and are now able to collect collateral, many are reportedly waiting it out, fearful that if they were to seize Lehman's collateral and sell it, it would create a fire sale and drive down the prices of the bank's assets.

A professor of corporate law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, David Skeel, who specializes in derivatives, said he is fielding calls from lawyers at major firms confused as to how to handle these issues. "I just keep telling them that I myself am still trying to figure it out," Mr. Skeel said.

There are other complications, including the interconnected web of derivatives that make it nearly impossible to know which funds own which credit default swaps, and the value of these instruments.

"Some hedge funds have entered into so many different contracts with Lehman that no one knows what the net positions are," a professor of law at Columbia Law School, Edward Morrison, said.

There is also the issue of speculative credit default swaps, where hedge funds and others bought credit default swap contracts for bonds they didn't own. With this in mind, the trade group ruled that the parties didn't need to present a physical bond to settle the contract. Known as a cash settlement, versus a physical settlement, it has become increasingly popular, making it even harder to value or track the instruments.

"Cash settled credit default swaps don't have the same relationship to the bankruptcy process as physically settled credit default swaps, where the party essentially just becomes a bondholder," Mr. Skeel said. "It is unclear what will happen in these instances."

There is also confusion about the effects of the potential $700 billion federal bailout. If the federal government buys much of the toxic mortgage debt that the banks hold, it is not clear what will happen to the credit default swaps written to insure these mortgage bonds, Mr. Morrison said.

With so much remaining unclear, it is likely just the beginning of an arduous process, market insiders said. As Lehman's defaults trigger more defaults, and the slowing economy puts additional pressure on hedge funds, the bankruptcy court will be forced to contend with more of these instruments.

"We don't know how deep this goes, which hedge funds have big stakes in credit default swaps, but it is certain this will be the next thing we will have to contend with," Mr. Skeel said. "A hedge fund is going to pose all these same nuclear problems as we are seeing with Lehman, and there won't be much the federal government can do about it. At least with investment banks the federal government was in a position to respond."



To: Sea Otter who wrote (151417)9/28/2008 12:22:08 AM
From: MulhollandDriveRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Peter Spencer, economic adviser to the Ernst & Young Item Club, said: “This is the time you have to bail people out and ask questions later. It is very difficult to see how the US banking system would survive without that.This has the potential to make 1929 look like a walk in the park.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said: “We hope sometime [Sunday] evening we can announce some kind of agreement in principle. We may not have another day.”


yep.....

one of the most calamitous financial situations in the last 100 years and we gotta slam through legislation before the ASIAN MARKETS OPEN on sunday.....

right.



To: Sea Otter who wrote (151417)9/28/2008 12:37:58 AM
From: patron_anejo_por_favorRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Wow, another Mushroom Cloud! They're popping up, like, well, mushrooms!



To: Sea Otter who wrote (151417)9/28/2008 3:40:55 AM
From: XBritRespond to of 306849
 
“What’s being put around behind the scenes is that we’re looking at 1930s stuff. We’re looking at catastrophe, huge, amazing catastrophe. Everybody is extraordinarily scared. It’s going to be really, really nasty.”

Whew that's a relief. I was worried it might be really, really, really, really nasty.



To: Sea Otter who wrote (151417)9/28/2008 11:15:14 AM
From: Live2SailRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Did you see Jon Stewart overlay Bush's request for the Iraq war with Bush's request for 700Bil for bailout. It was the best reason to vote against the bailout:
thedailyshow.com

Then go down to Clusterf$#k to the Poorhouse.