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

To: energyplay who wrote (172058)	12/17/2008 3:13:43 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Why? If "Inland Empire Zero Down MBS No. 5" isn't in default, why should you be protected? If my neighbor's Ford Explorer is totaled in an accident, should I get a pay out because I own a Ford Explorer Sport? What if I buy insurance on his vehicle, even though I don't own it? Why should it be legal to do something like that? If you don't own the underlying asset, you didn't buy insurance, you placed a bet no different from betting on the outcome of a sporting event in Las Vegas. I don't have a problem if people want to do such things with bookies in LV, its a free country. Just don't allow such transactions to be co-mingled with my banks health, and don't confuse what is going on with somehow contributing to the efficiency and stability of the financial system (such as our next Treasury Sec is on record as having been confused over). IMO, Insurance has become fundamentally bogus in the USA, from health care to risk management. It is causing more problems than it is worth, largely by deluding people.

To: energyplay who wrote (172058)	12/18/2008 5:10:06 AM
From: dealmakr	Respond to of 306849

>>> " It is criminal if any taxpayer money bails out 1 dime of CDS where the party buying protection does not own the underlying asset IMO. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for casino bets placed with insolvent casinos. " <<< That statement pretty much sums up why this whole thing got out of control and the debacle will continue until regulation hopefully eliminates this. If say $100 in debt is written than it should be able to be insured for $100 by the counter party not multiples of same by those that don't have any fundamental interest in the underlying debt. Reminds me of a scheme where something like life insurance on a person could be bought by other people that don't even know the insured, but the policies become so valuable if that person died, that the person runs the risk of having some untold fatal harm come to them. I think when this happens they lock up the perps. Same thing happening today with companies instead of people. dealmakr