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: Jim McMannis who wrote (543369)	1/12/2010 8:29:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574483

Because he had a big hand in causing the problem. How did he have "a big hand" in causing the problem? And please, don't come back with the fact that Greenspan kept interest rates low.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (543369)	1/15/2010 6:09:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574483

Made $46 billion on a $1 trillion investment. Better than nothing I guess. MM rates. Apparently $1.8 trillion, so about two and a half percent return. And those rates with a much higher risk. Basically you have very high risk loans making the return one would expect from a very low risk loan. From the article Ted posted - "The Fed, similarly, takes money that banks keep on deposit, at a rate of 0.25 percent, and lends it to the U.S. government by buying Treasury securities and, lately, to home buyers and other private borrowers though more exotic investments." If someone's going to hand me massive amounts of money at 0.25% with no restrictions on what I could do with it, I think I could get a decent return as well. The money going to the private borrowers should get a much higher rate of return since some of those "more exotic investments" are risky.