will799

The Illicit Relationship Between Goldman Sachs and Paulson

Anyone expect anything different? Paulson was a Trojan Horse sent to us by Wall Street.

Whent the Fed was enacted in 1913 it was not a government owned corporation, but a government sponsored one, like FNM and FRE, except, unlike them, it was not publicly traded. Big eastern banks and investment houses such as the house of Morgan and (voila) the predecessor of Goldman Sachs etc bought the stock. So don't expect Bernanke to do anyting for you. If he does, he is violating his fiduciary duty to his stockholders. Does this enlighten us at all? They were just calling in their chits from each of us for 2 grand each.

And what "change" are we going to get with Obama, Biden and McCain all voting for the theft and then Messiah Obama putting the New York Fed president in as head of Treasury or the Big Fed. More like the Antichrist.

This was our golden chance for real change. All they needed to do was let the predatory financiers deleverage themselves into bankruptcy. We would get hurt some, but the wealth would shift back to the producers of goods and services. Wall Street belongs in neither class.

Snookered again, friends.

America Buys AIG

Some of the posters think this is a great day because the US government got a great deal. This is horrid political theory and horrid economics.

Naziism was a form of fascism. It came from merging government with business. When we merge business with government, is it not still fascism? (I did not say Naziism, which has added racial overtones.)

Second (and a reflection of the above). We have a AAA credit rating because it is expected that a government act in a governmental function, and that only. If the federal government becomes a giant mutual fund, will anyone give us an AAA rating? Even if we optimistically assume, as some posters do, that we got a great deal, what about our next portfolio addition? If Obama wins, do we invest in a Chicago ward heeler's liquor store? Or buy 79.9% of the Arizona Diamondbacks?

Third. This is not a bailout by the Fed and the US government. The whole derivatives trade arose because they were exempted from US government regulation. Why not let the people that paid private people to guard against other people's defaults lose, just as the bank would lose when my mom co-signed my car loan and both of us couldn't pay? They are sweeping a Frankenstein they have created under all of our doors while our back was turned. Note that there has been no hue and cry to regulate Credit Default Swaps.

Last, (and hardly least), a lot less damage could be done, and future follies insured against, by instead nationalizing the Federal Reserve. Of Course they are bailing out Wall Street. The Fed is a corporation federally chartered, but not federally owned. It is owned by the commercial and investment banks that bought its stock in 1913.. Bernanke is not as stupid as he looks. The reason he makes all those "mistakes" to bail out banks is because he, as the chairman of the bank's bank, has a fiduciary duty to act in thestockholder's best interests, not ours. The bank needs to be nationalized. It would not cost much either. See the Federal Reserve Note in your wallet? That means the Fed owes you a dollar. All we would have to do would be to make them pay the note by cancelling out all those treasuries they own. Most of the natinal debt would be liquidated. Any monies left for the bankers could be made subject to seizure to pay judgments on suits filed by us for damage to our businesses and lives by fraud. And if a conspiracy could be proven, we could seize the banks which own the Fed for their actions.

Don't be surprised if there are more bailouts. If their interests and ours diverge, when they screw us in favour of their stockholders it is their duty. So commend Bernanke for doing his duty, don't criticize him. Why would Greenspan, when we had the lowest interest rates in 40 years, tell us to go out and get an adjustable instead of a fixed rate mortgage? I suppose that was just another mistake.

Cornerstone’s Unauthorized Liquidation

I think these funds are ripoffs, but they confuse me. Looking at this thing from the manager's point of view why are they doing this? They take over, and immediately reduce their pool of managed assets. They are liquidating their own assets under management and destroying their own sale value as a management company. It seems even more destructive to the manager than the stockholders. And at stome point the fixed costs of operation will force a liquidation, and then the manager is just out of business. Does anyone see the logic here, or a sensible business plan? Maybe someone's comments will cast some light on me.

Disagreeing With Tilson on the Monoline Insurers

These stocks are partly being affected by rampant speculation and misinformation. This leads to massive market distortions and profit potential.

Last week we bought Ambac bonds due 2103 for the equivalent of about 23.5 cents on the dollar. At the same time its bonds due in 2011 and 2028 were selling in the high 900s and 800s. If the company survives, we get 24.65% a year for 95 years and more than four times our investment at maturity. All bonds are equally ranked. The $1000 face bonds are held by institutions and the ones we bought can be bought by mas and pas on the NYSE. What a difference between what the two groups think of the company. We have had about 20%+ of our money in bankrupt and distressed bonds most of the time for the last 25 years and this is the biggest discrepancy I have seen. We don't get to buy bonds at 24% of face even in bankruptcy very often, and, when we do we don't expect full recovery, but these are still AA-. Looks like a pure panic situation to us.