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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (296745)	3/17/2009 9:12:56 AM
From: Bill	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

The treasury is funding each counter-party, even if their obligations to each other offset. This is the greatest swindle in history.

To: carranza2 who wrote (296745)	3/17/2009 1:32:21 PM
From: Neeka	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

carranza2, I respect your opinion. I read your posts, and remember your warnings early on......starting in 2007. I could be wrong to give you so much credit, but I believe you have a more solid understanding of the financial markets than many, if not most, and what, how and why events have unfolded the way they have. Your statement: Obama and Bernanke rail against AIG while paying off Goldman, Deutsche Bank, et al, for bets whose validity they have not bothered to challenge and which any insurance lawyer will tell you are not subject to collection. is bold and accusatory. My question is.........iyo......why are Obama and Bernake (and others) doing this? I don't buy the notion that they are being played for fools.

To: carranza2 who wrote (296745)	3/17/2009 2:38:15 PM
From: JustLearning	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793955

Hi Carranza2: For better or for worse, unwinding CDSs has been deemed to be a taxpayer problem. Couldn't the government follow the approach outlined in an earlier post: Message 25354862 The relevant portions are: "Mr. Raynes's proposal would treat hedgers — buyers who bought C.D.S.'s to protect themselves because they actually hold the underlying debt — differently from speculators who bought C.D.S.'s simply to bet against a troubled company" "Those guys, the gamblers, would receive only the premiums they paid to an insurer. Hedgers would have their premiums refunded, in addition to the difference between the underlying debt's face value and an independent assessment of its intrinsic value" It appears from your post that the administration is not following Mr. Raynes's approach. [Although I don't understand why Mr. Raynes is proposing that hedgers should also get the premium back]. I am not a finance expert to figure out the administration's plan. Do you know whether the president's plan will treat those CDS holders who also hold the underling debt differently from those who simple hold the derivative? Thanks in advance. It is ironic that we (tax payers) are bailing out those who bet against the economy, and the act of bailing them out will result in massive deficits, which will weaken the economy further. [I have nothing against those who bet against the economy and shorts serve a useful purpose, but this seem ridiculous to me].