James Cullen

Does Liquidating Bad Debt Start with CIT Group?

We shouldn't judge a company's societal value by its ability to make payments to bondholders... millions of widows? Is this Seeking Alpha or Miss America?

Favoritism and poor judgment from Washington? Sounds like par for the course. Yes, it is unfair to let CIT fail after savings others. Most of us were told life is unfair in kindergarten. Every company on the brink will come up with important functions it fulfills, so where, if ever, do you draw the dividing line between companies that get saved and those that don't?

As for providing financing... there are plenty of companies that worked to achieve the noble goal of helping people afford homes that are no longer in business - we call them subprime lenders, and actually look down on them quite a bit. Again, the entire idea is to reward those who took smart risks, and not save those who were overleveraged or overplayed borrowing short. Just because we can't go back in time and undo prior bailouts doesn't mean we're obligated to save everyone.

On Jul 15 08:05 AM nyc female lawyer- bondholder wrote:

> The author of this article obviously does not own any stock or bonds
> in CIT and therfore is not well infomed.Therefore,he has not been
> folowing some of the positive moves in CIT. CIT has paid the bonholders
> a steady 7% and has provided retirement income to millions of widows.
> CIT has done an excellent job at providing financing to milions of
> small business owners.
> Also, several small business owners are depedent on their financing
> to run their daily operations as an alternative to bank loans.<br/>CIT's
> collapse would have the same negative effect that the Lehman collapse
> had in the bond and stock market.
> Also, a credit crisis with the collapse of CIT would adversely effect
> small business owners and this would be a disaster.
> To bailout Goldman, Citibank, AIG and leave CIT out would be unethical
> and show favoritism and poor judgment from Washington.