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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44473)	7/28/2010 7:31:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

An "implicit assumption of risk by the government" (as with the examples I gave of Fannie, Freddie, etc.) is exactly what it sounds like: What what sound like? The cap on liability for drilling accidents? Doesn't seem like that to me. It exempts the costs the government is going to occur, at least the main costs that it definitely will or has incurred (the portion of cleanup related costs that the government is paying directly will be or has been reimbursed). The liability the could theoretically be covered by the cap (but probably wouldn't be even if BP fought for it to be covered, and in this case will not be covered as BP has agreed to pay the costs and has pledged tens of billions to go in to an escrow account to cover the costs), is liability to individuals and businesses. Its quite possible that if somehow the cap really did apply (which it won't) that the government would not assume the cost itself. Sure with the "spending money is stimulus" theme from the government they might choose to assume the cost, but its hardly even an implicit guarantee, even under the counterfactual assumption that the cap would really apply.