On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Gruss G wrote: > > But the point is they CAN NOT be considered individually and that's > not because they were forced to take TARP money, it's because they're > a linked part of a chain and if any link breaks they whole chain > fails. >
That's a theory, but there is no proof that is the only possible outcome of letting the losers fail.I don't care much about who individually wins or loses beyond protecting depositors and keeping companies running. If the government wants to run it as temporary nationalization rather than BK, that's fine, but the end result needs to be a private banking system that has been flushed of the ridiculous funny-money credit default swaps and are in shape to survive on their own. Removing mark to market is an accounting trick, but it also acknowledges a problem with the system. If, for instance, you plan on holding a set of assets for ten years, and you value those assets for sale only at the end of ten years, why should you be forced to mark those assets to market during a period at which you have no intention of selling them? Makes sense to me, but I'm not an accountant. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:295438 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
