[Sloper]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9973c5b0-8a6d-11dd-a76a-0000779fd18c.html

If you're at all interested it's worth a read. 

Basically unless you've another interpretation the article suggests that "they're f--cked, you're fu--ed, we all f--king f-c-ed".

[andy popp]

I think there are many other possible interpretations and yours is not the most obvious - even if you would like it to be. Also, your title implies that Soros is acting as he did during Black Wednesday, there is no suggestion of this.

[slackline]

Who the fuck is Hank Paulson?

[Graeme78]

I think he is the US secretary to the treasury or something. Not sure if that's like alistair darling or the governor of the bank of england though

[andy popp]

He's Treasury Secretary - equivalent of the Chancellor. Chairman of the Federal Reserve is equivalent to the Governor of the Bank of England

[fatkid2000]

You can see why it might fail, its apparently going to cost each American household around $2000, so I'd be pretty pissed off paying to bail out some greedy American Bankers - and thats the source of this whole problem - greed.

I've just come back from Italy and was unforunate enough to stay in a hotel, where there were some Wall Street bankers were staying. Due to their slightly loud annoying voices its possible to listen to entire conversations they are having. All they are concerned about is making as much money as possible and screwing everybody else - I admit that UK bankers are probably in this game as much the US ones, but to me the ones I meet demonstrated exactly why they have screwed up the world wide economy. No doubt these people have deposited millions into their own bank accounts - so the downturn will not make a jot of difference to them , while normal people will foot the bill for banking greed.

[Jaspersharpe]

Not read the article as not got time but I've read plenty about this and to me the scary/interesting things are that.

1: $700Bn sounds a lot but what they're trying to push through could ultimately cost way, way more.

2: Are they seriously considering allowing the taxpayer to "buy" just the worthless crap that the banks have amassed (and got themselves in trouble with) and then just let them carry on as normal?! Surely the better plan would be to systematically nationalise the failing banks, taking their "good" assets too? Of course this would not benefit those at the top, Paulson's mates.

3: As fatkid says. Do these cunts (govt/bankers/theyreallthefuckingsameteam) really give a fuck about the collapse of the World economy? They're sorted anyway.

4: If this goes through (in it's original incarnation) then the elected government are technically ceding power to Paulson and his banking mates. Now I know they've been running the show for years anyway but that basically means the end of any kind of pretence of democracy in the USA.

5: The latest I've heard is that they are struggling to agree on the plan. A senior Democrat on R4 yestersday am was adamant that the legislation would not go through until certain conditions were met. I can only guess at these and hope that they are the necessary ones but I'm not optimistic!

Personally I've wondered for years about how the World economy can continue to work when it's based on a load of greedy cunts gambling - and more and more based on gambling on "financial instruments" etc (non-existant vehicles for gambling made up by the gambling cunts). It seems the answer was "not for long" but it's not nice to be proved right.
 

[andy popp]

Apparently Paulson was literally down on his knees BEGGING Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Demoncrats in the House, for her support for the plan. That I would like to have seen.

[n_man]

Jasper I would love to see your top 5 or 10 'cunts' list. So far I have bankers and McDonalds. Surely there must be more than this given the deep and considered feelings in your posts.

[Jaspersharpe]

Mate top 5 or 10 would never cover it. The list is always in a constant state of flux anyway.

Apparently Paulson was literally down on his knees BEGGING Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Demoncrats in the House, for her support for the plan. That I would like to have seen.

He doesn't strike me as someone who would beg for the interests of the American people............. 

[fatkid2000]

I read an article on derivative dealing which is basically selling & buying debts of unknown value - now I may have mis-understood the article as I'm not the brightest but this seems fucking stupid to me. Along with giving mortgages to people who had no hope of re-paying them, so the banks could re-possess the property and then sell it on & hence make a pofit - or is that immoral - mind you I doubt banks have heard or ethics.

[Jaspersharpe]

Yeah I don't pretend to understand economics but what's becoming clear is that neither do some of the people who directly control the economic climate. As for morals, some executives of the "failed" banks in the US have pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses based on profits that never materialised. That isn't just immoral, it's blatant fraud. The FBI are investigating but I doubt they are exactly shitting themselves.

[fatkid2000]

My Grand-father used to say about the US economy - the more you bull-shit the more you make & that seems to be true for some of these investment bankers who seem to live in another economic domain to most of us. Mind you he also said if Wall Street sneezes the UK gets the flu, so fuck knows how the UK economy is going to dragged down into this mess.

I remember my Maths teaching at school telling us that the big money banks deliberately took on failed Maths University graduates as they didn't understand the risks they were taking. I thought he was taking the piss - but he obviously wasn't!!

[lagerstarfish]

I remember my Maths teaching at school telling us that the big money banks deliberately took on failed Maths University graduates as they didn't understand the risks they were taking. I thought he was taking the piss - but he obviously wasn't!!

I failed to complete my maths degree and have a rather warped attitude to risk, but have never been offered a job at a bank. I feel like I have missed out.

[Jaspersharpe]

 

I'm trying to imagine you on the trading floor, or living it up with the "work hard play hard" champagne and coke lifestyle wankers.

Neither image is working.

[lagerstarfish]

The fact that I have a masters for research into legal ethics probably means that I never will be recruited into the world of banking gambling.

I was just remembering a jurisprudence tutorial session that I was running where some undergrad law student was expressing his reluctance to engage in the subject due to the fact that he couldn't see what ethics had to do with his career as a solicitor - he was serious (probably loaded now)

[Sloper]

I never knew you were a jurist, american or scandinavian legal realism sir?

[lagerstarfish]

I never knew you were a jurist, american or scandinavian legal realism sir?

Fuck that analytical shit. Natural Law is where its at as far as I'm concerned. If I have to take an analytic approach, then the positivists have it (ie its not a moral issue - all money and power), but I am otherwise stuck in a coherentist frame of epistemology and all that follows from that. Natural Law or nothing really.

Obviously I earn very little, but am able to rest easy in the knowledge that I am right.


Also, it is 14 years since I did any academic work. Making a difference is where its at.

[n_man]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080927/tuk-brown-backs-bush-over-rescue-plan-6323e80.html

Good to know that since the change of Prime Minister we are no longer Americas poodle. Ahem. 

[Bonjoy]

What the fuck happens now the bail out is scuppered!? Where does this slow motion car crash stop?

[Jaspersharpe]

They'll have a different version of it worked out in the next few days I'd wager. Might be a good thing (in the long run) as the original version would probably have ended up bankrupting the US government. The question you have to ask is how could it possibly be a good plan to spend "taxpayers money" (actually borrowed money) on bad debts, (which are by definition worthless)?! There must be a better way and it surely has to involve more security for the huge expenditure/exposure planned.

[Bonjoy]

I'm not sure that intuitive reasoning works for these sort of economics.
I read and try to grasp what understanding I can. To me it seems likely that the build-up of expectation, then the subsequent damage to confidence caused by the failure is causing massive damage to an already fragile situation and could end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run than stumping up the $700bn (is that UK or USA billion BTW?).
It seems the price of not rescuing the fat cats is that everyone gets shafted. In which case I'd say the bail-out was the lesser of two evils.

[Bonjoy]

I'm sure a reworded version will get passed eventually, but in the meantime a lot of damage will have happened.

[Stu Littlefair]

Word to Bonjoy -

The recovery plan raised hopes on Wall St, and now the plan seems to be scuppered there's a consequent lack of confidence in all institutions and the markets are dropping like stones. I just hope they sort it out before the blow from the 'failure' of the recovery plan causes more damage than if the plan was never suggested.

To all those who see the plan as grossly unfair on taxpayers, consider this. The problem at the moment seems to be caused because no-one actually knows what those 'bad' debts are worth. There's a fairly considered opinion that fear is driving the market to under-value mortgage debts. If the storm can be weathered, or defaults are lower than people fear, the US taxpayer could make an absolute mint out of this situation. Worth bearing in mind, also in regard to Northern Rock and B&B.

[Jaspersharpe]

Yes I agree that the bail out has to happen in some form, and quickly.

The problem with the original plan though was that it would have ceded far too much power to Paulson (and the bankers themselves) and also that it may NOT have cost $700bn it could have cost far more. It was like giving Paulson a $700bn credit card to go round purchasing shit debts and then selling them on (presumably at a massive loss to the taxpayer). He could have done this as many times as he liked (or until the USA's AAA credit rating was downgraded).

I had hoped that the provisions agreed over the weekend would have tempered these excesses somewhat and that therefore the legislation would be passed in a more sane form. Unfortunately it looks as if some Congressmen are voting against for the wrong reasons........

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/09/those-whom-the-gods-would-destroy-they-first-make-mad/#more-312

....God Bless America.

Stu - Spot on. Our Government has done just the right thing with regard to Northern Rock and B&B in my opinion. They had to do it but it's the right way and although a risk, one that had to be taken.

[Bonjoy]

I agree the original plan was not a great deal for the taxpayer, but the negotiated version sounded much improved. I dare say a lot of those who voted against it hoped that it would go ahead but without their vote so that they could claim moral victory for not supporting it.

[Jaspersharpe]

By the sound of things that's right. It's not exactly the time for political posturing but they just can't help themselves.

[Sloper]

The plan was fataly flawed in political terms as the US election cycle would have made in impossible for people to support a plan that would not bail out their consituents but rather the amorphous institutions while at the same time allowing the small fry to go to the wall.

Most US mortgages are 'non recourse' loans and as such theloses in value of the asset security cannot be reduced by claims against the debtor, there are plenty of defaulters who remain in well paid employment and have simply handed back the keys to their property and shifted to rented accommodation.  Property prices in the US have fallen around 45% in some areas and are predicted with oversupply to fall some 60+% in many areas.  This doesn't even begin to factor in the NINJA mortgages and massive amounts of fraud.

I'm actually sceptical as to whether the bail out is necessary and whether a Fed backed buy back scheme, where the asset is of value and the debtor has means, re-structures the loan to a realistic size and the remainder is marked off by the creditor with a partial contra by the FED in exchange for equity int he business might be the way forward.

This would provide meaningful support to mainstreet and the big hit would be felt by the investors but over a more sustained period.

What must not happen is for the governments to keep trying to inflate a leaking balloon that is sure to go pop in the short to medium term.

The market is working effectively and needs conservative management (note that''s a small C, I'm not trying to make any political points) rather than the approach of us all holding hands and leaping off the cliff together.

[richdraws]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4484039n

[marty]

www.ft.com

As Wall Street and Washington come to terms with the torpedoed Tarp and the great Joe Six-Pack backlash gathers pace, it might be worth a reminder as to why sub-prime lending became so popular in the first place.

To the annals of the New York Times, to this day in nineteen ninety-nine:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders…"

Earlier that summer, in July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 per cent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers - up from 44 per cent at the time. The department was also investigating allegations of racism in the underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine applicants’ credit-worthiness.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

But even back then there was an understanding in some quarters that this politically-inspired plan could well end in disaster. The NYT quoted one Peter Wallison, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who last year also became an adviser to the SEC.

‘From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us… If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.’

[andy popp]

The market is working effectively

WTF, which market is that then? Efficient market achieve equilibrium through matching supply and demand. They do this through the price mechanism - i.e. markets are very good at pricing. Credit and many other financial markets are now utterly frozen - not my definition of working effectively - precisely because they are utterly unable to price these 'products' (e.g. sub-prime mortgages) due largely to information asymmetries and bounded rationality (perfect information is another supposed property of 'the market'). There is no significant problem in terms of demand or even of supply in the financial system currently - its matching that's proving hard.
 
Marty, the plan maybe politically motivated but so is the judgement on it that you quote. The American Enterprise Institute is ultra neo-liberal. That guy wants it to fail just as did many republicans who view it as little more than socialism

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

Something my bro sent me this week which made me smile...

(possibly NSFW hence the non-embed)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/2921748420_85709973b3_o.jpg

Another website that seems to be getting a lot of hits currently...

http://www.sadtrombone.com/

[Jaspersharpe]

2: Are they seriously considering allowing the taxpayer to "buy" just the worthless crap that the banks have amassed (and got themselves in trouble with) and then just let them carry on as normal?! Surely the better plan would be to systematically nationalise the failing banks, taking their "good" assets too?

Well, well, well.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3187946/Financial-crisis-Banks-nationalised-by-Government.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3184842/Bank-nationalisation-How-a-bail-out-became-a-buy-out.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/14/ftse-market-turmoil

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a8217a90-9980-11dd-9d48-000077b07658.html

I hope all of this works. I certainly have more confidence in this plan than any other previously proposed (and I like the idea of government finally taking a bit of power back from the banks). We'll see.