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: James Hutton who wrote (189373)	3/8/2009 1:15:22 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 306849

best I think we can do is regulate them like any other "security" or "insurance policy." Yes, but it is illegal to take out life insurance on another person. Currently the US taxpayers are paying out on insurance polices bought by gamblers who didn't own the MBS that defaulted. It should be illegal to purchase such "insurance" in the first place, because just like in life insurance, there is a built in conflict to see damage happen so you can collect.

To: James Hutton who wrote (189373)	3/8/2009 1:55:47 PM
From: Jim Fleming	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

James Hutton re derivatives Derivatives are necessary in the complicated global financial world. If the proper due diligence had been done at any stage of the credit balloon, especially by the rating agencies, we would not have a problem because most institutions would not have been able to buy junk rated securities and therefore the securities never would have been created . "Greed is good!" Due diligence is better. Jim F