> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Kevin B. O'Brien
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 5:16 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Do low-probability catastrophic risks justify the bailout?
> 
> Dan M wrote:
> > For example, do you really think the odds of GE defaulting on 1 day
> paper is
> > significantly higher than it was 2 weeks ago?
> >
> You persist in thinking that this one factor should determine the price
> of money in the market. 

No, I persist it being obtuse. :-)  That's not my point at all.

>But in all markets the price is determined by the balance of supply and
>demand. 

Yes, I definitely agree.



>If the credit-worthiness of G.E. remained exactly the same, but 
>market conditions changed, the price that G.E. gets charged will change as
>well. 

Absolutely.  My point is that the change in the price GE gets charged is an
indication/measure of this change in market conditions.


<snip example of agreed upon point>
> 
> Now, that presumes some degree of competitiveness in this market.

I'll agree that exists; in fact my analysis presupposes it...so I'm snipping
the rest of your point here...because I consider it preaching to the choir.
:-)

Now, what's important to me is the question of what else is changing.  I can
understand, with big financial firms going down, the price of financial
notes going up....there is a real uncertainty in the exposure of different
financial institutions to the toxic sub-prime mess....even if they appear to
be removed by several degrees of separation from the mess.  But, if
non-financial companies that are not tied to the mess find their cost of
borrowing rise significantly, then I think this is a measure of something
other than the risk inherent in sub-prime mortgages.  

I've read a fair amount and talked with folks who have some
connection/expertise.  The consensus view is the jumping of the firewall
from financial paper to non-financial paper is a critical measure that
indicates a real possibility of very bad things happening soon.

So, we can argue over that analysis; I realize that it's not the only one
out there.  But, IMHO, this is tied to some of the risks Gautam and I have
been chatting about for the last four years.  That's my point, as well as a
guess of the type of thing it is.

Dan M. 

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to