Roger Ehrenberg

Robin Hood in Reverse: In Defense of the U.S. Taxpayer

Remarkl, I have no idea what you are talking about. Read my historical blog posts in order to get a longitudinal view of what I think. I support Government intervention, and everyone who reads my blog knows that. My issue is how it's done. I don't disagree in substance with much of what you say, but your language is inappropriate, your characterization of my views inaccurate, and your overall tone hostile. Not a way to achieve a higher level of understanding or discourse.

Roger

FAS 157: Blackstone and Its Banker Buddies Have It Wrong

mgv11 - quite true. there are no easy answers in accounting. the best you can do is to emphasize transparency and market-based measures, apply the rules consistently and let managers design their capital structures accordingly.

left coast rick - i wrote my post the way i did for a reason. if you didn't like it, ok. i think the fas 157 rules are pretty clear and your framing of the interpretation issue makes you sound like steve schwartzman. i don't agree.

goodbadandugly - if the income producing properties are so attractive, then fund them so you can hold them. if you can't, you are stupid and deserve to incur whatever wrath the market wishes to bring upon you.

user 219640 - all i read is how it difficult it is to specifically identify mortgages wtihin these securitized portfolios. while theoretically you may be right, the issue still remains that you should be prepared to fund the mortgages if they can't be moved. otherwise, you are subject to the short-term funding whims of the market, which are clearly pretty ugly at present. the liquidity issue is separate and apart from valuation. if you can hold something valued at zero until it becomes non-zero, then you have addressed the most pressing part of the problem.

roger