prescient11

Liquidity or Solvency? Sometimes It's Hard to Tell

This is exactly the question that needs to be asked.

AIG: The Mark-to-Lehman Market

Where are you at Felix? I suppose an intelligent response to your articles is too much. You were wrong with your exchange with Dear John Thain, and you are wrong now. The idea that this is just an efficient market is a lie perpetrated and repeated by fools.

Do not be one.

AIG: The Mark-to-Lehman Market

There is an interesting article about CDS speculators essentially engaging in aggressive naked short selling TO FORCE THE DEFAULT of companies by driving their share price to the ground. Thus, they cannot raise capital because of this ridiculous low share price and most do not want to purchase the company because the shares don't stop dropping.

Now, we can argue about the merits of whether they should have raised capital when their share price was higher, but that really puts the cart before the horse, doesn't it. In other words, I find it ridiculous that if LEH has adequate capital levels, that it should be forced to dilute shareholders at $20/share to raise ADDITIONAL capital so that the "market" will feel comfortable with its business. You do see the vicious cycle that is happening here, don't you.

Banking is about trust. Assume LEH has adequate capital at $20/share, thus no need to dilute shareholders at this price or raise additional capital. Then, "rumors" about LEH's assets and losses start to percolate on the street. Hedgies with enormous assets and the ability to leverage ridiculous pressure, drive the share price down, scaring all of the investors and LEH's customers/counterparti... that perhaps LEH isn't stable. Thus, funds are removed from LEH even though they had sufficient capital, and now LEH's share price is at such a ridiculously low level and unstable that no one wants to invest. Thus, their capital continues to bleed as a result of this, and problems occur. How about that Felix, why don't any of you uber-bears ever address that frigging point.

It's so frigging obvious it's ridiculous. Look at the action in the bonds and the CDSs, to the extent one can. After BSC no fool is going to be as transparent as buying crazy out of the money put options. But I bet the real play is in the bond and CDS market. If one restored the uptick rule and banned naked shorting out right FOR ALL COMPANIES then this would cease. Cramer is absolutely right here.

And where is the damn SEC, the damn OTS, the damn Fed, the damn Treasury, our FRIGGING OFFICIALS PAID TO STOP THIS. They fiddle while Rome burns and these companies' debts are forced upon the taxpayer. My own conspiracy theory is that they want this forced consolidation of financial companies. For what purpose, who knows. But I find the fact that nothing is done about these obvious manipulations to be absurd. Naked shorting is already illegal, why has it not been stopped?

Of course, LEH must bear a bit of the blame. In this environment, diluting shareholders at $20 is much better than a forced sale at $2, given that what happens above is obvious and will continue to happen until "the Street manipulators" are satisfied. Until then, the carnage will continue. But the wealth destruction we are witnessing, and subsequent taxpayer burdens, without any intervention by regulators, is ridiculous.

As goes the famous saying, "when they came for me, there was no one left to stand to object..." True words indeed.

Dollar in Consolidation Mode, Thanks to Home-Sales Data

Grace, do you only look at currencies?

Which Banks Will Survive?

IThinkBig, there we go, some actual discussion.

The $300B, obviously comes from the taxpayer, but it will be in the form of repackaged loans with an FHA guarantee.

Lender cuts the loan principal to 90%, issues a new FHA backed mortgage, and then can sell it in the market. Should be as liquid as a T-bill. Thus, the cash gets directly to where we desperately need it, these lenders' balance sheets. I think it will have a tremendous effect, especially with some of the biggies.

Which Banks Will Survive?

Jonathan swift, again, what a great comeback. How about writing titles like "Which Banks Will Survive?"

Can you not answer the question/point that I raised? If not, then why bother to respond. $300B is on its way. Now, do you have a point?

Which Banks Will Survive?

user 138602 and nyka,

where's the lack of analysis, damnit. sorry user if that offends you.

I made a point regarding the housing bill. Where's your counterpoint?

Thanks so much.

Which Banks Will Survive?

saltaway, respond to my point first. then we can talk.

Which Banks Will Survive?

Does this loser sit up at night thinking of what clever titles he can put out there that will grab attention? You got me, I clicked the link only to see your smug stupid face come up first thing.

Listen up skippy and listen up good, you may think you know what you're talking about, but in reality you fail to realize what's happened. Think for once damnit. Think beyond your limited capacity and the numbers you cherish. Are you stupid enough to really believe that the government is going to want to foot the bill for all the likely failures if what you profess is to take place. Of course they won't. That's why the government just injected $300B of liquidity into the banking system a la the housing bill.

Game, set and match. Go look for the sky to fall, as we're not there yet. But the smugness is really too much.