Comments on: Here We Go Again

By: chernevik

chernevik — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:06:50 +0000

When Congress authorizes the money, it should specify that prices paid should 1) not force the banks to realize crippling losses and 2) not force the taxpayer to take losses.
Problem solved! Next up: replacing oil with windmills.

By: Anal_yst

Anal_yst — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:08:15 +0000

@26 (“LA”)
The reliance on ratings is part of the problem, and frankly I’m at a complete loss as to why the Ratings Agencies have not been absolutely freighttrained by the Gov’t for their role in this whole debacle.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that institutional investors still have BS clauses in their charters (etc) that determine what they can/cannot hold based off ratings. This sh!t boggles the mind, argh…

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:16:12 +0000

Bernanke figured this out already. What’s the question again? Read the transcripts of the congressional hearings where Paulson and Bernanke were given the time to explain. Though Paulson was characteristically evasive, Bernanke was basically saying mark to model.
By the way, I don’t like the bad bank idea. It’s a bad idea.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:53:19 +0000

What the heck did Jim Cramer say that has “everyone’ in a lather?

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:53:08 +0000

@5: People should not fear their government, but government should fear their people.
also: “any political system eventually evolves into an oligarchy. This theory is called the “iron law of oligarchy”.”
and if you’re just figuring this out now, welcome back.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:47:46 +0000

@24
“And the participants in said markets would be, who, exactly?”
that’s very easy to answer. Market participants!
@27
there are no market prices for CDOs unless you take ML’s 0.22 (really 0.07) at which = Citi can just close shop. There is a better way.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:42:51 +0000

HAHAHA…I laugh b/c we are right back to same problem of original TARP. If “bad bank” buys said toxic assets where they’re (over)marked, tax payer eats the loss. If bad bank buys toxic assets at market prices, banks eat the loss (presumably a big one). So until banks mark down these assets, bad bank/toxic asset removal is NEVER GOING TO WORK.
Why is this so difficult to understand? More writedowns are needed. If assets were priced properly, they wouldn’t need to be taken off balance sheets.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:35:35 +0000

Anal,
You know I love you, but value continues to plummet day in/day out. Do you honestly think the majority of aaa’s are priced fairly? The market is a mixture of people and time (time being most important). No one knows what they’re holding, because the market continues to deteriorate. Time doesn’t heal, but it surely shows where we fucked up.
LA

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:35:07 +0000

Please folks, repeat after me:
B
A
N
K
R
U
P
T
C
Y
Imagine there’s no Wall Street. It’s easy if you try!

By: Anal_yst

Anal_yst — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:27:56 +0000

“people can’t price this, only markets can”
And the participants in said markets would be, who, exactly?

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:27:20 +0000

@16 I think it’s possible to arrive at a fair value for this stuff that is close to the model price with reasonable assumptions. I don’t think the government will make the banks pay the liquidity premium, at least I doubt it. But, unless the government has miraculously learned how to price this stuff, they’ll be getting numbers from the dealers anyway, which is not smart.
-15

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:25:33 +0000

18,
Are you fucking retarded?

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:21:31 +0000

Too Kevin Nealon, didn’t Weekend Update.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:20:37 +0000

@18 don’t worry. if the govt. lets the markets price toxic structured finance assets the way it should be done in the absence of any visible market for these securities, there will be plenty of blame placed where the blame is due, expressed as losses to senior bondholders.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:15:01 +0000

too here, didn’t again