|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
The Federal Reserve did buy up large chunks of mortgage debt, but not at fair
market prices. If they had, the financial institutions mark to market problems
would have been fully exposed. Since market confidence was held of more esteem
than market fundamentals, who pressed for accountability?
What interests me is some in 2003 were pointing out the dangerous confluence of
mortgages and derivatives, enabled by Greenspan's deregulation and driving
interest rates to 40 year artificial lows, and pointed out how a 1/2% interest
rate increase blew up a much smaller MBS market in 1994. Then in 2004, we
removed restrictions on subprimes and asset holdings nearly doubled in three
years, and most of the growth was even more toxic than what had been decried in
2003. A large $ stood on a hill just beyond the horizon, and the disaster
myopics charged off a cliff.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 07:25 PM EDT |
I think the UK Government should have let the banks fail, liquidated their
assets and put the depositors at the head of the queue, before even the
liquidators. Especially as the liquidators would likely be the same accountancy
firms that signed off the Accounts in the previous years Audit.
If liquidating the bank failed to cover the depositors funds then the Government
should cover the deficit.
Any funds left after paying the depositors can be distributed as follows.
Basic wages.
Liquidators fees if liquidator did not sign off on any of the previous 5 years
accounts.
Creditors.
The first 10% of all bonuses
Liquidators fees if the liquidator did sign off on any of the previous 5 years
accounts.
The rest of the bonus pot.
Share holders.
---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|