> Mo wrote: > > 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.
How do you know that? You've traced Wells' derivatives exposure? You've figured out the floor for their asset values? Cause if you have you're probably the nation's most important person. You're speculating that Wells is "quite solvent" which means that you actually have no idea along with the rest of the planet. But, to be clear: "nationalized" = receivership. So, I'll stand by the top 20 going into receivershi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:291806 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
