Are you sure on that Maureen? I seem to recall it was originally listed as "mortgage-related securities" and was deliberately kept vague in Paulson's proposal so that the Secretary would have broad authority to purchase where he deemed it would do the most good (or just wanted to I suppose). Perhaps that language changed in the bill brought before the House?
The size of the bailout package wouldn't make any sense if it was just mortgages. From the statistics I read, mortgages in the US are currently valued at around 11 trillion. Over 1% are in default with a forecast that by year end, it might be up to 2%. Depending on how the economy goes, there is a forecast that it could be up to 3% at the end of next year. But even at 3%, that is only 330 billion, not 700 billion. And that would be a complete buyout of every defaulted mortgage at current market value. So obviously Paulson has something else in mind besides just the mortgages. Judah On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is that the proposed rescue bill would only cover mortgages, > not derivatives, so bantying about the 50 trillion dollar number as a > potential liability for US taxpayer is a scare tactic. > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What caused the $1 trillion credit derivatives default? > > Bad mortgages. > > So what was your point? > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Credit derivatives are in the 50 Trillion range, not bad mortgages. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:271779 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
