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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (89955)	5/9/2012 9:52:51 AM
From: Hawkmoon	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220313

the institutions that failed where banks sponsored and licensed by the State of Island government which was elected by the people, not some private equity fund set up for the sole purpose to invest and try to have higher returns. So if some Icelandic fishing company goes belly up, the taxpayers are obligated to bail it out because their government "licensed" them to operate within their borders? And if that fishing company is essentially harvesting fish from international waters, and then re-exporting them to other countries, are the people even more obligated to bail it out? Banks are ultimately just "businesses". They borrow money from depositors and re-lend it out at a higher interest rate. Some, like the Icelandic banks, were borrowing from foreigners and re-lending it out, both domestically and abroad.. I also believe they were heavily involved in derivatives, as I recall reading. I personally think the TBTF banks should have been nationalized and restructured, or split up among banks that are still thriving. There's going to be a lot of pain involved, I admit. But the pain is going to last even longer if taxpayers are obligated to recapitalize them by issuing out more national debt for those rent-seeking banks to buy, hold, and collect interest from, while borrowing cheap money from the Fed and other CBs. Hawk

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (89955)

5/9/2012 9:55:00 AM

From: Cogito Ergo Sum

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 220313

To: profile_14 who wrote (168192)	5/9/2012 6:32:56 AM
From: Ed Ajootian	of 168216

First Enercast is calling for just a 29 bcf fill tomorrow, which if accurate should take natty back up over $2.50. Assuming natty can hold up over this threshold this would provide the first "demand destruction" test for natty, due to the fact that Powder River Basin coal becomes competitive with natty at prices higher than that. I've found First Enercast to be pretty good at calling the weekly storage #s, and there is a guy that posts on one of their forums, "ben2008", who is even more accurate, and he's calling for a fill of just 26 bcf. I believe the causes for these much lower than normal fills, even on a weather-adjusted basis, are not only the coal to gas switching but also we likely are finally seeing the effects of the reduction in natty-directed rig count that started around last November. This degree of delay between when the rig count reductions started and when the production decreases started makes sense, given that the average time from spud to sales for gas wells is about 5 months.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (89955)	5/10/2012 3:09:15 AM
From: RJA_	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220313

>>the institutions that failed where banks sponsored and licensed by the State of Island government which was elected by the people Yes, we disagree. Your word sponsored, I do not believe applies. Licensed would apply. In our town, most businesses are required to be licensed. That does not make the town responsible for the businesses debt should it fail. The town could have regulations on business directing how they may invest (if it were constitutional), but because it does not, this does not make the town responsible if the business fails (say a licensed insurance business, which fails to have adequate reserves). It may or may not be regulated by a state body, but if not, the state is also not liable to make the insurance purchaser whole. Like most other things in capitalism, this is a case of "let the buyer beware". Investors (in their right minds) should not expect to be rescued by 300,000+ small fisherman, whether or not some of their relatives worked in those failed institutions. Even if these institutions were partnerships, with each partner jointly liable (as Wall Street used to be years ago) only the assets of the owners could be attacked, and not the government. To argue that the populace of Iceland benefited from the salaries and other purchases made by these failed banks, and therefore is responsible for their debts is just silly... there is no direct contract assuming liability, therefore in law, none exists. The arguement to the contrary has not worked well in Iceland (the only place it matters, really). You could go there and try it... might be worth some entertainment value. Your arguement that the US did it, and therefore must be correct has no merit as IMHO it is an example of a wrong action, benefiting a small politically connected minority, which has made captive its regulators and purchased its politicians. Hardly an example to follow.