| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
Wupadupa
184 Posts |
 Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:05:20 PM
|
| ???? |
|
k10602
81 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:06:57 PM
|
| AGAINST |
|
|
CreditTechnologi
502 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:09:21 PM
|
| Against |
|
|
benjamin
2196 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:10:50 PM
|
| Against |
|
|
jstar
713 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:13:02 PM
|
For.
stalling on 700 billion has allready cost 1.2trillion |
|
|
khoiey
1573 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:14:00 PM
|
| Against but this bill will probably pass on Thursday. |
|
|
sc312001
1047 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:14:05 PM
|
| I am against without major tweaking. Too much govey interference. |
|
|
waymon2005
178 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:18:54 PM
|
| can I ask why your not for it |
|
|
mykal5
2764 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:20:48 PM
|
| For to my core. |
|
|
mganovsky
2049 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:21:21 PM
|
Against the way it is structured. The bail out will do nothing to help out the average citizen. And it will not really help out the U.S. Banks but the foriegn investors who hold the paper on a lot of the loans. I do agree that something has to be done real soon or our economy will be down the tubes fast. The excuss that credit will dry up or ATM's will be empty is not good enough
I would be in favor of a bail out if it included a provision to stop all foreclosures in the U.S. period for a period of 1 year. During that time the U.S. Gov can buy all the bad debt and modify each loan across the board to say a 5.5% 30 year fixed. This will stabilize the housing industry and save homes.
And also allow a Bankruptsy Judge to modify the terms of a Mortgage that a consumer can afford. He does it on all other debt so why not allow mortgages to be included. |
|
|
Managing Prime
2801 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:22:39 PM
|
| Against. |
|
|
RANDY P
2828 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:25:35 PM
|
Foe..
rjp |
|
|
Rene Viloria
1826 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:33:11 PM
|
| Against... |
|
|
pwoolfolk
86 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 12:52:46 PM
|
| Against |
|
|
hlsi
201 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 1:10:18 PM
|
Here's one thing I can't understand about the bailout:
The guy at MortgageNewsDaily with the mortgage rate blog keeps insisting the bailout will improve rates.
But every time the bailout looks unlikely, rates get better, and when the market thinks the bailout is coming, rates get kicked in the teeth.
Why does this guy think the bailout will be good for rates? Anything that hurts the safe haven bid for Treasuries seems to drag mortgage bonds into the gutter just by proximity. |
|
|
RGK2394
1213 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 1:43:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by hlsi
Here's one thing I can't understand about the bailout:
The guy at MortgageNewsDaily with the mortgage rate blog keeps insisting the bailout will improve rates.
But every time the bailout looks unlikely, rates get better, and when the market thinks the bailout is coming, rates get kicked in the teeth.
Why does this guy think the bailout will be good for rates? Anything that hurts the safe haven bid for Treasuries seems to drag mortgage bonds into the gutter just by proximity.
They are basically going to be guaranteeing bank's bad debts, i.e. mortgage backed securities. A gov't backing/guarantee ensuring a mtg backed security, regardless of whether it performs or not, will be a GREAT thing for rates.
I am all for it, only because I know it will pick up my biz. Selfish. Yes. |
|
|
Rene Viloria
1826 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 1:49:53 PM
|
| Rgk i was thinking the same thing, Btw, all the political junkies in the outpost, some democrats, yes, are against it, just as some republicans are against it and some are for it... |
|
|
MichaelMason
21 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 1:51:20 PM
|
| Against. Prefer temporary change to mark-to-market accounting rules. |
|
|
MortgageBoarder
3976 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 1:52:15 PM
|
| Against. |
|
|
inhouseLO
34 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 1:53:01 PM
|
Against:
The version yesterday was not debated long enough, and there were serious issues with it. Some major tweaking needs to be done.
As for the market losing $1.2 trillion, considering the DOW made back 485 of the 777 it lost yesterday, I'd say that argument isn't accurate totally (although there will be a net loss on short term investing). The DOW was down 300 before voting went south, so at 10,850, we're almost exacty where we were before voting began on the bill.
|
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3661 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:10:54 PM
|
| Against the version voted on yesterday ... otherwise I am supportive of a tweaked version that would be acceptable to a larger number of House members on both sides. |
|
|
NobleHouse
341 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:12:04 PM
|
| Against..they don't need no water let the *** burn! |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3661 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:18:02 PM
|
OK ... assume that you get that. How would you value those MBSs in in illiquid market?
Please enlighten me.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelMason
Against. Prefer temporary change to mark-to-market accounting rules.
|
|
|
RGK2394
1213 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:18:34 PM
|
I'm surprised to see so many mtg professionals against a bill that will significantly help our biz.
Have you all looked at rates today? Am I the only one that got a repirce for the worse at least 4 times today? 6% paying 1.5-1.7% first thing a.m., now paying 0.5-0.75..? |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3661 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:20:40 PM
|
Did you notice that some folks are smart enough to want a solution but not necessarily the version voted down yesterday?
I still say that most who simply don't want ANY intervention do not really understand how the financial markets work.
quote:
Originally posted by RGK2394
I'm surprised to see so many mtg professionals against a bill that will only help out biz.
Have you all looked at rates today? Am I the only one that got a repirce for the worse at least 4 times today? 6% paying 1.5-1.7% first thing a.m., now paying 0.5-0.75..?
|
|
|
GetLoans4me
116 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:23:29 PM
|
AGAINST.
Paulson will be leaving within four months and he is ready to smoke cigars with his greedy CEOs and Board Members. |
|
|
RGK2394
1213 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:23:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
Did you notice that some folks are smart enough to want a solution but not necessarily the version voted down yesterday?
I still say that most who simply don't want ANY intervention do not really understand how the financial markets work.
quote:
Originally posted by RGK2394
I'm surprised to see so many mtg professionals against a bill that will only help out biz.
Have you all looked at rates today? Am I the only one that got a repirce for the worse at least 4 times today? 6% paying 1.5-1.7% first thing a.m., now paying 0.5-0.75..?
I did, and agree with your following statement.
But let's not let this bill sit for another month while the markets suffer and par becomes 7%. Today is nothing more than discount buying after the largest DOW drop in history. |
|
|
RGK2394
1213 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:26:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GetLoans4me
AGAINST.
Paulson will be leaving within four months and he is ready to smoke cigars with his greedy CEOs and Board Members.
What makes you think Paulson will be leaving soon? Willing to put your money where your mouth is? |
|
|
RGK2394
1213 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:26:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GetLoans4me
AGAINST.
Paulson will be leaving within four months and he is ready to smoke cigars with his greedy CEOs and Board Members.
What makes you think Paulson will be leaving soon? Willing to put your money where your mouth is? |
|
|
jstar
713 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:27:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by inhouseLO
Against:
The version yesterday was not debated long enough, and there were serious issues with it. Some major tweaking needs to be done.
As for the market losing $1.2 trillion, considering the DOW made back 485 of the 777 it lost yesterday, I'd say that argument isn't accurate totally (although there will be a net loss on short term investing). The DOW was down 300 before voting went south, so at 10,850, we're almost exacty where we were before voting began on the bill.
Agreed; However, today's rally is based on the future assumption of the bill passing. If the bill does not pass I would expect a market free fall that would dwarf 1.2 trillion.
|
|
|
MortgageBoarder
3976 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 2:46:48 PM
|
Yohan, (Is that your real name?) I hear you loud and clear, and I do understand how our financial system works. My problem is, this bill is simply being pressured so we can get the markets back on the move again. Investors & wall street have no wiggle room right now so they NEED this bill to go through to continue "flourishing" the market.
What is that going to solve though? We will have the same money hungry bulls doing the same thing they have done with the markets in the past. They will suffer no consequence and there will be no realization of, "wow, we f***ed up and need to change something big time in order for this economy to ever move in a different direction". I don't think we can progress without feeling the pain. We built this bubble and now we have to deal with the bursting of it.
The writing is on the wall and it is inevitable for this market to crash, why keep prolonging it? We would still get by, it would be hard for a while, but we would learn and grow as a country. I don't see how any progress will be made from a "save the day" bill. (Notice I did not call it a bail out)
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
Did you notice that some folks are smart enough to want a solution but not necessarily the version voted down yesterday?
I still say that most who simply don't want ANY intervention do not really understand how the financial markets work.
quote:
Originally posted by RGK2394
I'm surprised to see so many mtg professionals against a bill that will only help out biz.
Have you all looked at rates today? Am I the only one that got a repirce for the worse at least 4 times today? 6% paying 1.5-1.7% first thing a.m., now paying 0.5-0.75..?
|
|
|
homer5
362 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 3:19:49 PM
|
Dead set against.
This bailout/rescue sham is just doing something for the sake of doing something. It bails out the very people who are responsible for the meltdown in the first place. That includes the politicians like Dodd, Schumer and Frank.
Everyone is trying to cover the azz at the taxpayer's expense. We didn't get the bailout yesterday and the market rallied today. The MSM is shamelessly trying to spin the rally being due to hope of passage while the futures were already rallying this morning. Apparently some of you bought the spin.
The problem is asset values. More specifically home values which need come down to reflect the level of income needed to qualify. This bailout will attempt to reflate the balloon that got us into this mess in the first place.
The bailout won't work and we'll be 700 billion poorer to boot. And the poster who said we lost 1.2 trillion due to no bailout is dead wrong. The plunge in value didn't cost the taxpayer a penny and we already got back more than half the decline. Don't drink the kool aid being served up by the elitist politicians, media Wall Street. |
|
|
anthonyt2325
1387 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 3:22:51 PM
|
| Against |
|
|
LaCostaLoanGuy
12 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 3:32:14 PM
|
quote:
The bailout won't work and we'll be 700 billion poorer to boot.
Completely agree.
I am against the bailout because it is just temporarily propping up a house of cards. |
|
|
assassin17
4155 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 3:49:08 PM
|
The way it is currently set up... Absolutely against.
This is only going to delay the inevitable. We cannot delay it forever with taxpayer money. That will only make the fall ten times as hard. |
|
|
GetLoans4me
116 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 4:03:42 PM
|
Sources said that he is leaving. That's why he jumped the gun and asking for $700 billions without a plan. Smart dude huh? NOT
quote:
Originally posted by RGK2394
quote:
Originally posted by GetLoans4me
AGAINST.
Paulson will be leaving within four months and he is ready to smoke cigars with his greedy CEOs and Board Members.
What makes you think Paulson will be leaving soon? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
|
|
|
stewpot
442 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 4:20:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by mykal5
For to my core.
Against, to my core |
|
|
lunarhamster
4001 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 4:29:09 PM
|
| AGAINST |
|
|
SoCalRay
2698 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 4:29:56 PM
|
| It is interesting that even Michael Moore is against it |
|
|
jstar
713 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 4:30:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
Dead set against.
The bailout won't work and we'll be 700 billion poorer to boot. And the poster who said we lost 1.2 trillion due to no bailout is dead wrong. The plunge in value didn't cost the taxpayer a penny and we already got back more than half the decline.
So your saying the loss in the equities market did not directly affect the American taxpayer? Do you have a recent 401K, stock account, or mutual fund statement handy? |
|
|
homer5
362 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 4:45:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jstar
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
Dead set against.
The bailout won't work and we'll be 700 billion poorer to boot. And the poster who said we lost 1.2 trillion due to no bailout is dead wrong. The plunge in value didn't cost the taxpayer a penny and we already got back more than half the decline.
So your saying the loss in the equities market did not directly affect the American taxpayer? Do you have a recent 401K, stock account, or mutual fund statement handy?
Private losses vs public losses. No one is forced to own stocks, everyone is forced to pay taxes. Stock losses are avoidable, taxes aren't. Those who don't own stocks shouldn't have to subsidize the losses of those that do. Pretty fundamental actually. |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3661 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 5:05:38 PM
|
Yep .. Yohan is my real name.
I do not agree that anything is inevitable when it relates to the financial market. The financial market operates within regulatory guidelines and those guidelines are manipulated by the gov all the time to influence behaviour on Wall Street. It is a bit like the way the Feds manipulate the money supply by tweaking monitory policy.
Now, I truly believe that the gov can make the markets behave in a more responsible way by being more proactive with the regulatory controls they have at their disposal. If the toolbox is empty, then more tools can be created through legislative action. I suggest to you that some of the regulatory controls now being considered should have been done two years ago. I doubt that many will disagree that if the Gov had stepped in and implemented two years ago some of the changes they will now do, this crisis may have been avoided. Bottom line is that the Gov created the problem to some extent and it can change the course of this crisis through intervention and limit losses to taxpayers by being proactive and forceful with regulatory controls in the future. This is something that the GOP has trouble with as it goes against a basic belief that no controls is better. See my point? This in fact is one reason that I am voting for the Dems this year as they will have no problem implementing necessary regulatory controls.
The real pain of failed intervention will hit consumers bigtime within days. Have you tried to get a car loan lately? How about if you own a small business and you need to buy and finance materials and equipment and cannot find financing, what do you do? You shut down your shop. Small businesses are responsible for much more employment that all of the Fortune 500 companies combined ... did you know that? Companies and consumers cannot live without credit ... it is the way our system works. We are a rich country because of credit and insurance. Unless you have lived in a cash society, you may not appreciate what that means. We must keep credit flowing or we will shut down. This effort is about keeping credit flowing ... not a bailout.
Do not misinterpret what I am saying as something that like because I do not. I am not a big proponent for regulations either but I know that enough must be used to keep the wheels of our economy turning. Mull this over a bit. Ask yourself why the US is such a rich country? Why the US is able to evolve and grow and prosper? I believe it is because we are not afraid to fail ... then we get back up and kick ass and then maybe fail again ... but we never stay down. The best thing that happened in this country yesterday is that political representatives in Washington heeded the voices of the citizens of this great country and acted appropriately. We should be applauding them but unfortunately they themselves are behaving like children. Both sides are behaving like children. They all did a lousy job of educating the citizens what the problem is, what impact it can have on their lives if not addressed and how they plan to address it BEFORE THEY RAN OFF TO VOTE!
quote:
Originally posted by MortgageBoarder
Yohan, (Is that your real name?) I hear you loud and clear, and I do understand how our financial system works. My problem is, this bill is simply being pressured so we can get the markets back on the move again. Investors & wall street have no wiggle room right now so they NEED this bill to go through to continue "flourishing" the market.
What is that going to solve though? We will have the same money hungry bulls doing the same thing they have done with the markets in the past. They will suffer no consequence and there will be no realization of, "wow, we f***ed up and need to change something big time in order for this economy to ever move in a different direction". I don't think we can progress without feeling the pain. We built this bubble and now we have to deal with the bursting of it.
The writing is on the wall and it is inevitable for this market to crash, why keep prolonging it? We would still get by, it would be hard for a while, but we would learn and grow as a country. I don't see how any progress will be made from a "save the day" bill. (Notice I did not call it a bail out)
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
Did you notice that some folks are smart enough to want a solution but not necessarily the version voted down yesterday?
I still say that most who simply don't want ANY intervention do not really understand how the financial markets work.
quote:
Originally posted by RGK2394
I'm surprised to see so many mtg professionals against a bill that will only help out biz.
Have you all looked at rates today? Am I the only one that got a repirce for the worse at least 4 times today? 6% paying 1.5-1.7% first thing a.m., now paying 0.5-0.75..?
|
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3661 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 5:08:58 PM
|
There is nothing fundamental about your silly statements. Have your heard of retirement account, college saving funds, savings to buy houses and pay mortgage originators like you? You do not know what you are talking about so step back please.
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
quote:
Originally posted by jstar
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
Dead set against.
The bailout won't work and we'll be 700 billion poorer to boot. And the poster who said we lost 1.2 trillion due to no bailout is dead wrong. The plunge in value didn't cost the taxpayer a penny and we already got back more than half the decline.
So your saying the loss in the equities market did not directly affect the American taxpayer? Do you have a recent 401K, stock account, or mutual fund statement handy?
Private losses vs public losses. No one is forced to own stocks, everyone is forced to pay taxes. Stock losses are avoidable, taxes aren't. Those who don't own stocks shouldn't have to subsidize the losses of those that do. Pretty fundamental actually.
|
|
|
RGK2394
1213 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 5:26:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GetLoans4me
Sources said that he is leaving. That's why he jumped the gun and asking for $700 billions without a plan. Smart dude huh? NOT
quote:
Originally posted by RGK2394
quote:
Originally posted by GetLoans4me
AGAINST.
Paulson will be leaving within four months and he is ready to smoke cigars with his greedy CEOs and Board Members.
What makes you think Paulson will be leaving soon? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Oh, well there you go- you have completely proven your case by prefacing your statement with "Sources said"....smart guy..not? Are you 11?
Apparently you think I'm smarter than you've given me credit for as I haven't heard you take me up on my bet. So you are in fact NOT willing to put your money anywhere, just willing to run your mouth with "Sources said"... |
|
|
homer5
362 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 6:01:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
There is nothing fundamental about your silly statements. Have your heard of retirement account, college saving funds, savings to buy houses and pay mortgage originators like you? You do not know what you are talking about so step back please.
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
quote:
Originally posted by jstar
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
Dead set against.
The bailout won't work and we'll be 700 billion poorer to boot. And the poster who said we lost 1.2 trillion due to no bailout is dead wrong. The plunge in value didn't cost the taxpayer a penny and we already got back more than half the decline.
So your saying the loss in the equities market did not directly affect the American taxpayer? Do you have a recent 401K, stock account, or mutual fund statement handy?
Private losses vs public losses. No one is forced to own stocks, everyone is forced to pay taxes. Stock losses are avoidable, taxes aren't. Those who don't own stocks shouldn't have to subsidize the losses of those that do. Pretty fundamental actually.
Looks like Cool lost his cool. Refute a single point I made instead of telling me to step back. There is nothing silly about my statements. No one is forced to own debt or equities and taxpayers don't have the responsibility to artificially inflate their value. Never have and never will. You can save for any goal you mention without investing in equities or debt. It's called an fdic savings account.
Now that you've made yourself look silly with your hollow attack on my comments, digest these points that are outlined in a letter designed to be faxed to Congress to oppose the corporate welfare bill.
"Today the Irish government announced a surprise decision to safeguard the Irish banking system for two years, guaranteeing all deposits, covered bonds, senior debt and dated subordinated debt of the four main banks.
The Result
Investors welcomed the news. By 0755 GMT, Allied Irish Banks PLC (AIB) rose 14%, Anglo Irish Bank PLC (ANGL.DB) rose 22%, Bank of Ireland PLC (IRE) rose6.7% , and Irish Life & Permanent PLC (IPM.DB) rose 22%.
Why Ireland's Plan Works
What Ireland is fighting is the same thing that the Fed is trying to fight here (outflows from banks and money market funds into short term government debt.)
The problem is NOT mom and pop pulling bank deposits, it is corporate treasurers and state treasurers whose jobs are on the line pulling deposits from weak banks and putting them into stronger ones.
The fastest way for the US and other governments to solve this is to raise deposit insurance ceilings. This is a far better option than ballooning the Fed's balance sheet more.
Furthermore, I would highlight that fully guaranteed deposits would put the US government even more at the top of the capital structure of banks. Existing senior debt is all of a sudden now fully subordinated to a potentially unlimited amount of insured deposit debt.
Why the Paulson Plan Fails
The Paulson plan fails because it does not stop mistrust between banks or mistrust by depositors. All it does is throw $700 billion in taxpayer money down a black hole.
The Paulson plan is also unconstitutional. There is no constitutional authority for the US Government or the Federal Reserve to use public (taxpayer) money for what is definitely a private purpose (bailing out Wall Street).
Finally, the Paulson plan takes time to implement fairly, and there are many holes in the oversight process.
How To Stop The Run On Banks
Temporarily guarantee all deposits at US Banks. Implement rules to ensure weak banks do not misuse this privilege by adopting risky lending practices. Conduct an orderly shut down all undercapitalized banks.
Modified Paulson Proposal Is A Disgrace
The modified Paulson bill is so full of holes and toothless provisions it is a disgrace to suggest it is close to being ready for a vote. Most importantly, the bill will not create a single job, nor will it solve the underlying economic problems. Over 190 major economists agree.
Fox Oversees Henhouse
The bill sets up an oversight board, which is directed to “ensure that the policies implemented” by Mr. Paulson are proper. Mr. Paulson is to be one of the five members of the board watching over his own actions. He is joined by the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Housing Secretary and the director of the Federal Home Finance Agency.
The oversight committee is a complete joke.
New Proposal Cedes Congressional Authority To The Administration
Paulson, or whoever the next Treasury Secretary is, can buy whatever he wants, at whatever price he wants. Why should Congress give such authority to anyone at any time?
http://tinyurl.com/3mmnb8
I assume you know more than the 190 economists opposed to the plan and more than Nouriel Roubini who offers these points, among others, on the welfare legislation.
"A recent IMF study of 42 systemic banking crises across the world provides evidence on how different crises were resolved. First of all only in 32 of the 42 cases there was government financial intervention of any sort; in 10 cases systemic banking crises were resolved without any government financial intervention. Of the 32 cases where the government recapitalized the banking system only seven included a program of purchase of bad assets/loans (like the one proposed by the US Treasury). In 25 other cases there was no government purchase of such toxic assets. In 6 cases the government purchased preferred shares; in 4 cases the government purchased common shares; in 11 cases the government purchased subordinated debt; in 12 cases the government injected cash in the banks; in 2 cases credit was extended to the banks; and in 3 cases the government assumed bank liabilities. Even in cases where bad assets were purchased – as in Chile – dividends were suspended and all profits and recoveries had to be used to repurchase the bad assets. Of course in most cases multiple forms of government recapitalization of banks were used.
But government purchase of bad assets was the exception rather than the rule. It was used only in Mexico, Japan, Bolivia, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Malaysia, and Paraguay. Even in six of these seven cases where the recapitalization of banks occurred via the government purchase of bad assets such recapitalization was a combination of purchase of bad assets together with other forms of recapitalization (such as government purchase of preferred shares or subordinated debt).
In the Scandinavian banking crises (Sweden, Norway, Finland) that are a model of how a banking crisis should be resolved there was not government purchase of bad assets; most of the recapitalization occurred through various injections of public capital in the banking system. Purchase of toxic assets instead – in most cases in which it was used – made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico).
Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification. This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit – at a huge expense for the US taxpayer - the common and preferred shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get in exchange of this massive injection of public money is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size of such warrants is totally vague and fuzzy."
http://tinyurl.com/4nokgz
No Cool it's you who should step back from the msm/wall street kool aid bowl. |
|
|
CoolMtgGuy
3661 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 6:09:42 PM
|
Whatever you're smoking, keep inhaling. You post is becoming more entertaining ... foolish but entertaining.
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
There is nothing fundamental about your silly statements. Have your heard of retirement account, college saving funds, savings to buy houses and pay mortgage originators like you? You do not know what you are talking about so step back please.
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
quote:
Originally posted by jstar
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
Dead set against.
The bailout won't work and we'll be 700 billion poorer to boot. And the poster who said we lost 1.2 trillion due to no bailout is dead wrong. The plunge in value didn't cost the taxpayer a penny and we already got back more than half the decline.
So your saying the loss in the equities market did not directly affect the American taxpayer? Do you have a recent 401K, stock account, or mutual fund statement handy?
Private losses vs public losses. No one is forced to own stocks, everyone is forced to pay taxes. Stock losses are avoidable, taxes aren't. Those who don't own stocks shouldn't have to subsidize the losses of those that do. Pretty fundamental actually.
Looks like Cool lost his cool. Refute a single point I made instead of telling me to step back. There is nothing silly about my statements. No one is forced to own debt or equities and taxpayers don't have the responsibility to artificially inflate their value. Never have and never will. You can save for any goal you mention without investing in equities or debt. It's called an fdic savings account.
Now that you've made yourself look silly with your hollow attack on my comments, digest these points that are outlined in a letter designed to be faxed to Congress to oppose the corporate welfare bill.
"Today the Irish government announced a surprise decision to safeguard the Irish banking system for two years, guaranteeing all deposits, covered bonds, senior debt and dated subordinated debt of the four main banks.
The Result
Investors welcomed the news. By 0755 GMT, Allied Irish Banks PLC (AIB) rose 14%, Anglo Irish Bank PLC (ANGL.DB) rose 22%, Bank of Ireland PLC (IRE) rose6.7% , and Irish Life & Permanent PLC (IPM.DB) rose 22%.
Why Ireland's Plan Works
What Ireland is fighting is the same thing that the Fed is trying to fight here (outflows from banks and money market funds into short term government debt.)
The problem is NOT mom and pop pulling bank deposits, it is corporate treasurers and state treasurers whose jobs are on the line pulling deposits from weak banks and putting them into stronger ones.
The fastest way for the US and other governments to solve this is to raise deposit insurance ceilings. This is a far better option than ballooning the Fed's balance sheet more.
Furthermore, I would highlight that fully guaranteed deposits would put the US government even more at the top of the capital structure of banks. Existing senior debt is all of a sudden now fully subordinated to a potentially unlimited amount of insured deposit debt.
Why the Paulson Plan Fails
The Paulson plan fails because it does not stop mistrust between banks or mistrust by depositors. All it does is throw $700 billion in taxpayer money down a black hole.
The Paulson plan is also unconstitutional. There is no constitutional authority for the US Government or the Federal Reserve to use public (taxpayer) money for what is definitely a private purpose (bailing out Wall Street).
Finally, the Paulson plan takes time to implement fairly, and there are many holes in the oversight process.
How To Stop The Run On Banks
Temporarily guarantee all deposits at US Banks. Implement rules to ensure weak banks do not misuse this privilege by adopting risky lending practices. Conduct an orderly shut down all undercapitalized banks.
Modified Paulson Proposal Is A Disgrace
The modified Paulson bill is so full of holes and toothless provisions it is a disgrace to suggest it is close to being ready for a vote. Most importantly, the bill will not create a single job, nor will it solve the underlying economic problems. Over 190 major economists agree.
Fox Oversees Henhouse
The bill sets up an oversight board, which is directed to “ensure that the policies implemented” by Mr. Paulson are proper. Mr. Paulson is to be one of the five members of the board watching over his own actions. He is joined by the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Housing Secretary and the director of the Federal Home Finance Agency.
The oversight committee is a complete joke.
New Proposal Cedes Congressional Authority To The Administration
Paulson, or whoever the next Treasury Secretary is, can buy whatever he wants, at whatever price he wants. Why should Congress give such authority to anyone at any time?
http://tinyurl.com/3mmnb8
I assume you know more than the 190 economists opposed to the plan and more than Nouriel Roubini who offers these points, among others, on the welfare legislation.
"A recent IMF study of 42 systemic banking crises across the world provides evidence on how different crises were resolved. First of all only in 32 of the 42 cases there was government financial intervention of any sort; in 10 cases systemic banking crises were resolved without any government financial intervention. Of the 32 cases where the government recapitalized the banking system only seven included a program of purchase of bad assets/loans (like the one proposed by the US Treasury). In 25 other cases there was no government purchase of such toxic assets. In 6 cases the government purchased preferred shares; in 4 cases the government purchased common shares; in 11 cases the government purchased subordinated debt; in 12 cases the government injected cash in the banks; in 2 cases credit was extended to the banks; and in 3 cases the government assumed bank liabilities. Even in cases where bad assets were purchased – as in Chile – dividends were suspended and all profits and recoveries had to be used to repurchase the bad assets. Of course in most cases multiple forms of government recapitalization of banks were used.
But government purchase of bad assets was the exception rather than the rule. It was used only in Mexico, Japan, Bolivia, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Malaysia, and Paraguay. Even in six of these seven cases where the recapitalization of banks occurred via the government purchase of bad assets such recapitalization was a combination of purchase of bad assets together with other forms of recapitalization (such as government purchase of preferred shares or subordinated debt).
In the Scandinavian banking crises (Sweden, Norway, Finland) that are a model of how a banking crisis should be resolved there was not government purchase of bad assets; most of the recapitalization occurred through various injections of public capital in the banking system. Purchase of toxic assets instead – in most cases in which it was used – made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico).
Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification. This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit – at a huge expense for the US taxpayer - the common and preferred shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get in exchange of this massive injection of public money is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size of such warrants is totally vague and fuzzy."
http://tinyurl.com/4nokgz
No Cool it's you who should step back from the msm/wall street kool aid bowl.
|
|
|
frank drigotas j
1503 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 6:12:27 PM
|
Against.
dollar |
|
|
homer5
362 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2008 : 6:15:46 PM
|
So thats it? That's the best reply you can make when confronted with the factual points I've made? You lend credence to the saying "Casting pearls before swine".
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
Whatever you're smoking, keep inhaling. You post is becoming more entertaining ... foolish but entertaining.
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
quote:
Originally posted by CoolMtgGuy
There is nothing fundamental about your silly statements. Have your heard of retirement account, college saving funds, savings to buy houses and pay mortgage originators like you? You do not know what you are talking about so step back please.
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
quote:
Originally posted by jstar
quote:
Originally posted by homer5
Dead set against.
The bailout won't work and we'll be 700 billion poorer to boot. And the poster who said we lost 1.2 trillion due to no bailout is dead wrong. The plunge in value didn't cost the taxpayer a penny and we already got back more than half the decline.
So your saying the loss in the equities market did not directly affect the American taxpayer? Do you have a recent 401K, stock account, or mutual fund statement handy?
Private losses vs public losses. No one is forced to own stocks, everyone is forced to pay taxes. Stock losses are avoidable, taxes aren't. Those who don't own stocks shouldn't have to subsidize the losses of those that do. Pretty fundamental actually.
Looks like Cool lost his cool. Refute a single point I made instead of telling me to step back. There is nothing silly about my statements. No one is forced to own debt or equities and taxpayers don't have the responsibility to artificially inflate their value. Never have and never will. You can save for any goal you mention without investing in equities or debt. It's called an fdic savings account.
Now that you've made yourself look silly with your hollow attack on my comments, digest these points that are outlined in a letter designed to be faxed to Congress to oppose the corporate welfare bill.
"Today the Irish government announced a surprise decision to safeguard the Irish banking sys | |
Search for: