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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (458686)	2/22/2009 9:38:26 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572773

Nationalizing is the wrong word. It is really receivership, and that happens all the time. I saw those blogs, too -- talkingpointsmemo.com But it really is NOT the wrong word. Receivership is the wrong word. This is what happens when a blogger leaps outside his area of knowledge ("Aren't they really the same thing?". Hell, no). A "receivership" involves a receiver or trustee who is appointed -- by the government or a court or whatever. But the distinguishing characteristic is in whom the ownership of property and liability for debts vests (there are also issues of control, but these are relatively minor). We're talking about nationalization -- in which the federal government will take ownership of the net assets of these entities, as well as become responsible for their liabilities. If, instead of this, they are forced into bankruptcy, then you could end up with a receivership. I don't hear anyone talking about this and frankly, these organizations probably don't meet the criteria for anything other than a liquidation, which would apparently not serve the intended purpose. Nationalization of some of these banks may be the best way to deal with them. Most of us agree that some of them are plainly too big to fail, and all the merging and acquiring that can be done probably has been done. Any solution now is going to be more complicated. Still, a RTC-like approach would be preferable, but I don't see anyone talking about that. And RTC did have some fairly major mis-steps. But a lot of the people who ran RTC are still around (a couple are good friends of mine) and could quickly have an operation up and running again. I'm not sure how a receivership is helpful, unless it is used to obscure the fact that they're nationalizing some banks.

To: combjelly who wrote (458686)	2/22/2009 11:42:18 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572773

"Several have already come out in support of nationalizing the banks." Nationalizing is the wrong word. It is really receivership, and that happens all the time. Some of these people don't even know what nationalization of the banks means. It was announced this evening that the gov't will be taking shares in Citi for the funds it loaned Citi. When some winger heard about it on another board, he immediately announced to the board that Citi had been nationalized.