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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Bob who wrote (32510)	10/17/2008 10:50:26 AM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Respond to of 78702

I agree with your thoughts. :)

To: SI Bob who wrote (32510)	10/17/2008 10:51:36 AM
From: Paul Senior	Respond to of 78702

SI Bob, I vote it's an idea worth trying. Especially now when confidence and stocks are down. Should be a good time if right stocks are bought at good prices. Government has money and could have the patience to buy and hold for better times.

To: SI Bob who wrote (32510)	10/17/2008 11:05:30 AM
From: Oblomov	Respond to of 78702

OT Bob, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, the blurring of lines between the public and private spheres can be deleterious to both government accountability to the public, and to the integrity of the market. It's possible that the government might overlook malfeasance or misfeasance at the firms they invest in. Also, it puts the government rather than the market in the role of picking winners and losers. The market is a far better mechanism for doing this than politicians or bureaucrats. On the other hand, I think this program could be a prototype for a solution to our unfunded entitlement liabilities. Whether or not you agree with the concept of private accounts (disclosure: I am an staunch advocate of them - it works well in Chile, Sweden, and other countries), the US is facing a financial catastrophe in 10 years or so if something is not done to shore up Social Security and Medicare. Even if the fund isn't subdivided into individual accounts, something like this program could make these systems solvent in a matter of years.

To: SI Bob who wrote (32510)	10/17/2008 6:26:02 PM
From: Tapcon	Respond to of 78702

The key is, as you say, if it is done correctly. The opportunity is there to have this crisis become a value investment for the government. The challenge is theory vs. practice. It requires independence, skilled management and, perhaps the trickiest part, sustained discipline to act like a business rather than a political tool. When govt gets involved in business, politicians find it almost irresistible to exert influence. You can easily see if govt gets involved in banking industry that pols will want to influence mortgage policy, loan policy, interest rate policy. And the first heart-breaking mortgage foreclosure story from a bank with partial government ownership that hits the media... well, you can just imagine the "righteous indignation."

To: SI Bob who wrote (32510)	10/18/2008 7:13:26 PM
From: Jay k.	Respond to of 78702

I agree it's necessary, but the way Paulson is going about it is nutso. No accountability, no strings for the guys who got us into this mess. instead they get 700billion (250billion) bonus. guardian.co.uk [quote]Financial workers at Wall Street's top banks are to receive pay deals worth more than $70bn (£40bn), a substantial proportion of which is expected to be paid in discretionary bonuses[/quote] [quote]In the first nine months of the year Citigroup, which employs thousands of staff in the UK, accrued $25.9bn for salaries and bonuses, an increase on the previous year of 4%. Earlier this week the bank accepted a $25bn investment by the US government as part of its bail-out plan. At Goldman Sachs the figure was $11.4bn, Morgan Stanley $10.73bn, JP Morgan $6.53bn and Merrill Lynch $11.7bn. [/quote]