That changes the whole picture then, doesn't it. You clearly predicted that the top 20 banks would be nationalized. I disagree - as several of the top 20 banks, notably Wells Fargo, are quite solvent, so there would be no need to nationalize them. Now you wanna quibble and only include those that you consider toxic. That's a whole new ballgame.
Frankly, I don't think any banks will be nationalized by the actual definition of the word, but you have your own definition, so who knows what will happen based on your view of the financial world. On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mo wrote: >> What you said was before the end of 2009 Obama will nationalize at >> least the top 20 banks., not just that nationalization was coming. >> > > Yeah ... I"m not sure of the number but let's be clear: > nationalization is already here. Banks have been going into > receivership in big numbers since last year. Think IndyMac > > I'm fine with saying "top 20" ... but I'm not sure of the exact number > because it depends on those balance sheets and it's hard to know who > has what. > > Anyway, "top 20" is fine, but I think it's going to be some amount of > the Top 50 - whomever has the REALLY horrific stuff. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:291799 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
