On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Gruss wrote: > > > RoMunn wrote: > > I don't know that I would say we need more regulation, but we definitely > > need different regulation. Your example of AIG selling, in effect, > insurance > > disguised as credit default swaps is a perfect example. > > Geeky point, but credit default swaps ARE insurance, just unregulated > insurance which is why they're called "swaps" and not "insurance". If > AIG (or anyone else) called swaps "insurance", that would've triggered > the regulation. > > And, of course, since it's not "insurance" you don't need a capital > reserve and, etc, etc, that goes with "insurance" > > Point is, AIG wasn't using a "trick" to get around anything. >
If they called swaps insurance it would have triggered regulation- that's all I need to know. It was just a big game of semantics. If we did away with the semantic game and just called swaps insurance, that would be a big change for the better. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:295636 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
