are you for or against the recent government financial bailouts?

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: rise

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
One thing everybody should keep in mind...

We will be buying these assets on a DISCOUNT. The assets YIELD INTEREST. If you amortize the discount over the holding period, or just sell the assets, WE WILL MAKE MONEY.

The only reason why banks can't hold the assets and get the return themselves is because they are being squeezed. Trust me, they'd rather make money than sell for a loss.

Make money + keep job + save the economy = WIN!

I've heard we would be paying close to full value for them now, and that realizing a profit on them in the future depends on some guaranteed growth of the economy.

That's not gonna happen. It'd be ridiculous to pay par.

so what are we gonna pay, how much of a discount? just asking, haven't seen anything on it.

30 cents on the dollar

It all depends on the series, collateral, rating, performance...etc.

This isn't a one-price fits all.

Personally, I think waiting for this to solidify and perhaps seek to be involved.

I have experience in the relevent areas.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
One thing everybody should keep in mind...

We will be buying these assets on a DISCOUNT. The assets YIELD INTEREST. If you amortize the discount over the holding period, or just sell the assets, WE WILL MAKE MONEY.

The only reason why banks can't hold the assets and get the return themselves is because they are being squeezed. Trust me, they'd rather make money than sell for a loss.

Make money + keep job + save the economy = WIN!

Finally an answer to the question I asked a hundred posts ago.

With this answer I can vote for supporting the bailout.

Viper GTS

Glad I can help.

To anybody else who has questions, I would be willing to help people understand.

 

[dquan97]

I like the idea, but the proposal by the White House and Treasury needs A LOT more work...more oversight, no golden parachute, and aggressive investigation by Eliot Spitzer

 

[Terzo]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Glad I can help.

To anybody else who has questions, I would be willing to help people understand.

I initially (about two weeks ago) was against the bailouts, but after enough reading I've been convinced that the bail outs are for the best.

I don't pretend to understand anything though.
For one, I read that Sweden had a similar crisis in the early 90's, and part of what they did is buy equity from banks. I really don't understand what this means, I merely read that (at this point) it's not planned for in the US bailout.
1. What is meant by buying out equity, and how will it benefit us?

I've also read that even though we are going through with bail outs we still have some economic turmoil ahead, roughly three years worth.
2. Is this true and why/why not?

I recently learned about teh Keating Five and the Savings & Loan crisis. The situation sounds awfully similar to what happened recently.
3. Are there any lessons from the Savings & Loan crisis that we should have learned, but ignored and repeated in our recent crisis?

That's all I can think of for now.

 

[thomsbrain]

I am for the basic idea of the plan, but I think there sure as fuck better be oversight.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Newsflash for you son, the world worked fine for a few thousand years before financial markets. They're not necessary. My paycheck comes when it's agreed on, or I stop working. The two have NOTHING to do with each other, except if the company I was working for tried to draw a false connection.

People were stupid, not my problem. Be smarter next time. Until then, reap what you've sown and if it kills you, too fucking bad.

Yeah, that was when we were pig farmers and serfs. Get with the program old geezer. Progress is a bitch and I'm not willing to sink the world economy so you can feel nostalgic.

If you don't think letting the financial system fail won't affect you, then you really have no idea.

It will affect everybody.

Sure, prices will raise, and commodities will become scarcer...for a while. Then we'll reach natural equilibrium and everything will work out, hopefully with peeps a little wiser along the way.

I don't use credit, don't use banks, have no investments, operate cash only, own my home and cars, can do a multitude of jobs, don't live in a city, can hunt/farm/fish...tell me again how tied up in the financial markets I am?

Well the company that sells your beloved gun is tied up to the financial market. The company that sells your truck is tied up to the financial market. And we can go on and on.

I already own plenty of guns, and plenty of ammo. Besides, the every day gun is Brazillian.

My cars are fine, and won't need to be replaced any time soon since I maintain them.

Except for food shopping I probably only buy something once a month or so at most. Again, it will have a short term impact on me, but eventually it will all balance out without impacting my holdings, or my future (since I don't plan on working in the private sector when I start teaching).

Seriously, I'm more or less self-sufficient. Washington DC and New York could be nuked tomorrow and I'd do the same things on Friday that I did today. The world is NOT all about money, finance, business, government, etc. Civilization predates everything we have today and we'll go on just fine when the current system collapses utterly - which it will someday.

Do you live in a tent? Log cabin? You realize the majority of people do not inherit a house correct? At some point that house was paid for using...gasp....credit, unless you built it with your own 2 hands.

And all the things you listed that you think have no relation the financial world? Who magically pays for the schools, airplanes, etc? Society doesn't have a large piggy bank or bars of gold hidden under their mattress like you. If the financial markets collapse and nobody can get credit, all of that goes away....how do you not see that?

 

[videogames101]

It sets a precedent, and I can't agree with it.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Terzo

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Glad I can help.

To anybody else who has questions, I would be willing to help people understand.

I initially (about two weeks ago) was against the bailouts, but after enough reading I've been convinced that the bail outs are for the best.

I don't pretend to understand anything though.
For one, I read that Sweden had a similar crisis in the early 90's, and part of what they did is buy equity from banks. I really don't understand what this means, I merely read that (at this point) it's not planned for in the US bailout.
1. What is meant by buying out equity, and how will it benefit us?

I've also read that even though we are going through with bail outs we still have some economic turmoil ahead, roughly three years worth.
2. Is this true and why/why not?

I recently learned about teh Keating Five and the Savings & Loan crisis. The situation sounds awfully similar to what happened recently.
3. Are there any lessons from the Savings & Loan crisis that we should have learned, but ignored and repeated in our recent crisis?

That's all I can think of for now.

1. Equity = stock. Trade cash for shares. Govt would be part owner of corporations. I think some members of Congress want warrants (which are rights to buy stock - like options) in exchange for purchasing the assets. This would bring a higher return to the taxpayers, but cause share dilution for shareholders.

2. Maybe, probably. No one has a crystal ball (that works). People were saying the same thing after dot bomb, 9/11. Americans are generally resilient and have a hunger to consume (and consequently produce more). I would say if we fix this problem now, weak economy should not last longer than a year.

3. This is different than the S&L crisis. Traditionally mortgage backed securities were generally considered "safe" investments vs junk bonds and equity stakes in real estate projects that was the cause of the demise of the S&Ls. Plus, investment banks are not under the same rules as traditional banks. But the theme is the same in all these crises: Greed. Greed of S&Ls to get higher returns by investing in high risk products. Greed of homebuyers, mortgage brokers, realtors, wall st securitizers, and investors.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Glad I can help.

To anybody else who has questions, I would be willing to help people understand.

What do you think about the NY Times article I posted?

How Sweden Solved its Bank Crisis

 

[Terzo]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Glad I can help.

To anybody else who has questions, I would be willing to help people understand.

What do you think about the NY Times article I posted?

How Sweden Solved its Bank Crisis

It says you need to be a registered member of NY Times to view the article.

 

[LegendKiller]

Got stuck in a 3hr meeting. I'll try to get to this stuff later on tonight.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Terzo

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Glad I can help.

To anybody else who has questions, I would be willing to help people understand.

What do you think about the NY Times article I posted?

How Sweden Solved its Bank Crisis

It says you need to be a registered member of NY Times to view the article.

What? Weird.

I'm not a member.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Terzo

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Glad I can help.

To anybody else who has questions, I would be willing to help people understand.

What do you think about the NY Times article I posted?

How Sweden Solved its Bank Crisis

It says you need to be a registered member of NY Times to view the article.

What? Weird.

I'm not a member.

?

 

[erub]

I'd like to see real estate prices come down from their artificially inflated highs. Especially here in Phoenix, so I can buy something. They've already fallen quite a bit - the condo I'm renting according to the tax roll sold for 208.7K to my landlord in March 2007 (after the bubble was deflating..), the identical unit 3 doors down is selling for 130K. 100K sounds more reasonable to me.

maybe it still will?

Don't let that credit get too loose in the future..

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Throw the CEO in the clink and seize his assets. That'll send a proper message.

I agree. What happened here is bad enough to warrant some very severe penalties for those at fault.

 

[Pocatello]

I'm against it. This administration and Congress have not convinced me why we should give Wall Street $700 billions. Wall Street has to face the consequences from the seeds they've sown. Another thing, the US government is too good at throwing our hard earned money into black holes.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
I'm against it. This administration and Congress have not convinced me why we should give Wall Street $700 billions. Wall Street has to face the consequences from the seeds they've sown. Another thing, the US government is too good at throwing our hard earned money into black holes.

Isn't your job enough?

Look, it's pretty simple. United we stand, divided we fall.

 

[SagaLore]

I don't think any tax money should go towards this. Let the successful companies that haven't failed buy up those that have. That is out the market should work.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I don't think any tax money should go towards this. Let the successful companies that haven't failed buy up those that have. That is out the market should work.

So you like your job?

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Pocatello
I'm against it. This administration and Congress have not convinced me why we should give Wall Street $700 billions. Wall Street has to face the consequences from the seeds they've sown. Another thing, the US government is too good at throwing our hard earned money into black holes.

Isn't your job enough?

Look, it's pretty simple. United we stand, divided we fall.

This administration had convinced many Americans going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. After Colin Powell showed up at the UN with a bunch of satellite pictures, I really believed that Saddam was rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction, and he must be stopped. For years, Wall Street's practice of rewarding companies for moving jobs to countries with cheap labor to maximize profit. People who lost their jobs can't pay their mortgages.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Newsflash for you son, the world worked fine for a few thousand years before financial markets. They're not necessary. My paycheck comes when it's agreed on, or I stop working. The two have NOTHING to do with each other, except if the company I was working for tried to draw a false connection.

People were stupid, not my problem. Be smarter next time. Until then, reap what you've sown and if it kills you, too fucking bad.

Yeah, that was when we were pig farmers and serfs. Get with the program old geezer. Progress is a bitch and I'm not willing to sink the world economy so you can feel nostalgic.

If you don't think letting the financial system fail won't affect you, then you really have no idea.

It will affect everybody.

Sure, prices will raise, and commodities will become scarcer...for a while. Then we'll reach natural equilibrium and everything will work out, hopefully with peeps a little wiser along the way.

I don't use credit, don't use banks, have no investments, operate cash only, own my home and cars, can do a multitude of jobs, don't live in a city, can hunt/farm/fish...tell me again how tied up in the financial markets I am?

Well the company that sells your beloved gun is tied up to the financial market. The company that sells your truck is tied up to the financial market. And we can go on and on.

I already own plenty of guns, and plenty of ammo. Besides, the every day gun is Brazillian.

My cars are fine, and won't need to be replaced any time soon since I maintain them.

Except for food shopping I probably only buy something once a month or so at most. Again, it will have a short term impact on me, but eventually it will all balance out without impacting my holdings, or my future (since I don't plan on working in the private sector when I start teaching).

Seriously, I'm more or less self-sufficient. Washington DC and New York could be nuked tomorrow and I'd do the same things on Friday that I did today. The world is NOT all about money, finance, business, government, etc. Civilization predates everything we have today and we'll go on just fine when the current system collapses utterly - which it will someday.

Do you live in a tent? Log cabin? You realize the majority of people do not inherit a house correct? At some point that house was paid for using...gasp....credit, unless you built it with your own 2 hands.

And all the things you listed that you think have no relation the financial world? Who magically pays for the schools, airplanes, etc? Society doesn't have a large piggy bank or bars of gold hidden under their mattress like you. If the financial markets collapse and nobody can get credit, all of that goes away....how do you not see that?

I already said I understood first home mortgages, so that's moot.

I didn't say it doesn't go away, I said it SHOULD go away. If people are too arrogant, too stupid, too lazy, and too shortsighted to be able to support themselves and survive on their own then they SHOULD be weeded out. Fuck them. I had to learn to do it, so can they. I shouldn't have to pay (not that I personally pay much in taxes, but the idea remains) so that they can be nannied by incompetent greedy corporations.

Survive or die, on your own.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Pocatello
I'm against it. This administration and Congress have not convinced me why we should give Wall Street $700 billions. Wall Street has to face the consequences from the seeds they've sown. Another thing, the US government is too good at throwing our hard earned money into black holes.

Isn't your job enough?

Look, it's pretty simple. United we stand, divided we fall.

This administration had convinced many Americans going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. After Colin Powell showed up at the UN with a bunch of satellite pictures, I really believed that Saddam was rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction, and he must be stopped. For years, Wall Street's practice of rewarding companies for moving jobs to countries with cheap labor to maximize profit. People who lost their jobs can't pay their mortgages.

What does that have to do with anything? He is trying to communicate to you that if Congress does not pass this rescue (PLEASE STOP CALLING IT A BAILOUT) there is a great chance of a complete financial meltdown and 25% unemployment.

So let's ask again, DO YOU LIKE YOUR JOB?

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
One thing everybody should keep in mind...

We will be buying these assets on a DISCOUNT. The assets YIELD INTEREST. If you amortize the discount over the holding period, or just sell the assets, WE WILL MAKE MONEY.

The only reason why banks can't hold the assets and get the return themselves is because they are being squeezed. Trust me, they'd rather make money than sell for a loss.

Make money + keep job + save the economy = WIN!

700$ billion doesn't grow on trees. You pay INTEREST on that 700$ billion and that money has to be borrowed from somewhere (hint China). That 700$ billion is called debt in itself, even though the assets purchased (if you can call bad debt that) themselves may yield some interest.

While the final tally may not be 700$ billion, it sure as heck isn't going to be making money unless the interest and sales offset the massive interest the taxpayers will be paying for an extra 700$ billion in debt. This is also the Bush administration we are talking about.

If the US was running a surplus it would be a different story, but it sure as heck isn't.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Pocatello
I'm against it. This administration and Congress have not convinced me why we should give Wall Street $700 billions. Wall Street has to face the consequences from the seeds they've sown. Another thing, the US government is too good at throwing our hard earned money into black holes.

Isn't your job enough?

Look, it's pretty simple. United we stand, divided we fall.

This administration had convinced many Americans going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. After Colin Powell showed up at the UN with a bunch of satellite pictures, I really believed that Saddam was rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction, and he must be stopped. For years, Wall Street's practice of rewarding companies for moving jobs to countries with cheap labor to maximize profit. People who lost their jobs can't pay their mortgages.

I didn't know about WMD's, but trust me, I *do* know that we are facing a potential financial WMD. I see it every day. Every day, things get worse. My bank, and others, are contracting credit, stoping lending, cutting off liquidity, not rolling financing facilities.

These facilities aren't special. They lend money to leasing companies, agricultural loans, infrastructure leases, trade receivables. Not one consumer based facility, not one mortgage based facility. Yet, ALL are being cut off.

Eventually this *WILL* filter down to main street.

 

[her209]

I am for the people responsible for the mess getting what they deserve.