the original and best
well, that's me. because there was just no way to buy when prices were high before, and now that they're affordable, i probably can't get a mortgage despite making six figures and having pristine credit.Originally Posted by Biff
Banned by Administrators
Burg is right on the money. Hell even I have a hard time seeing why a guy from AIG who was in a position to correct their mistakes and didn't is going to take home 65 million bucks. However, you are worth what you're paid, sometimes more, never less.
Banned by Administrators
Buy an obnoxious car, use it as collateral for a bank loan (with your income they should not slap a lien on it), and then retun it in a week.
the original and best
even if a guy is taking home that kinda money (and they probably aren't - i haven't read a word about anyone getting deals like this) $65M isn't SHIT compared to what's going on now
Banned by Administrators
Watch what the CFO will bank on this.
the original and best
i haven't tried yet, i'm just guessing. i don't have 20% for anything i want yet, so i hope within a year credit will loosen up yet prices will still be depressed.
credit has to loosen up by then or the world is gonna end
Last edited by burgundy; 26 Sep 2008 at 04:30 PM.
No handle, no identity.
Well piercing the corporate veil is pretty hard to do but we may see the standard lowered and courts maybe more willing to second guess the business judgment of boards from here on out. I'd put that in the maybe category though.
I still think this is overblown.
700 billion says it is not overblown. Maybe overspent.
Ha ha
Here's an interesting proposal:
With so much riding on the pending bailout, I would ask Congress to hold a hearing this weekend, with two people testifying: Ben Bernanke and Roger Cole. Cole is head of the Federal Reserve's Division of Bank Supervision and Regulation, fondly known as "soup and reg."
Here is how mortgage securities markets could affect good borrowers:
1. The securities lose market value.
2. The banks mark the value of their securities to market. This eats into their capital.
3. The banks have to cut back lending to good borrowers in order to comply with capital requirements.
To help good borrowers, you have to intercept one of these three steps. The Paulson plan and all its variants are an attempt to intercept step 1. Getting rid of mark-to-market accounting is an attempt to intercept step 2. Easing up on capital requirements is an attempt to intercept step 3.
The Paulson plan is awful. For one thing, I don't see how the Paulson plan can really kick in for several months, because it will take that long to figure out implementation. With capital forbearance, you could have new rules up and running within a week.
Getting rid of mark-to-market is not what I would want if I were a bank regulator. That's why I would want Cole at the hearing. Ask him: if you had to choose between relaxing capital requirements and getting rid of mark-to-market, which would you choose? If he disagrees with me, then go with what he says. Incidentally, there is an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal that says we should keep mark-to-market accounting.
The question for Bernanke is this: if the Paulson plan is defeated, can he do enough with capital requirements and other tools to keep money flowing to good borrowers, particularly small business? If the answer is "yes," then I think there is a credible alternative to the Paulson plan. Wall Street may not like it, but the public will be protected from a Great Depression scenario. If Bernanke says he doesn't have the tools to free up bank lending, and if he thinks that things are going to really freeze up for good borrowers, then I guess we have to default to the Paulson plan.
No handle, no identity.
700 Billion was the proposed top end for it to make sure they would would be able to cover everything in a worst case scenario. I say that they do not need to cover everything, nor should they.
As for lawyers, there's plenty of work in bankruptcy atm and if this whole thing implodes as you guys think it may, bankruptcy lawyers will be in good employ for the next 10 years of related litigation of what debts can be waived, what is owed and what insurance will owe.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks