Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[xoxoxoBruce]

From Forbes magazine;

Dodd proposed his own counter-proposal to Paulson's plan earlier this week. Among other things, it calls for limits on executive compensation at troubled firms and for the Treasury to take a contingent equity stake in those firms. On Tuesday, Paulson rebuffed both ideas, as it might discourage firms from participating in the bailout program.

Wait a minute... companies would refuse the bail-out because of limited executive compensation? They would let their companies go belly up, so they could walk away with bulging pockets? This tells me, if a firm dies, the executives should too... shoot every last one of them.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

if a firm dies, the executives should too... shoot every last one of them.

That's the whole point of my thread.

I DO have a Guillotine idea and, yes, I DID steal it from the Frech.

[Griff]

Stealing good ideas is how progress works.

[Trilby]

Stealing and cribbing, stealing and cribbing. It's how I get thru my classes.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.

Numbers from Frannie and Freddie demonstrate the problem. Whereas most mortgages qualified for the traditional agreements, in the past seven years, even these applicants were rechanneled for ARMs. Whereas sub-prime loans were issued to a single digit percent of applicants, suddenly these mortgages were being pushed to so many who did not need them. Something like 21% of those who qualified for traditional mortgages were instead only offered sub-prime mortgages. Why? From the highest levels, the economy *must* be fixed by pushing more mortgages; sell more homes; stimulate the economy.

Stimulating the economy rather than addressing its problems was promoted by the George Jr administration. Create a robust economy by throwing money at it. Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Fannie and Freddie were only doing what their 'bosses' wanted. As a result, home priced were inflated by 20% to 40%.

Need to promote sub-prime loans was so encouraged that NINJA became a new and acceptable standard. Nobody cared whether the applicant qualified. From the highest levels of government, we wanted more people buying homes.

Yes, each sub-prime homeowner who could not afford his mortgage only has himself to blame. That does not, for one minute, exonerate anyone else of guilt. Irrelevant how dumb the mortgage applicants were. Those who were promoting mortgages to people who could not qualify are now seeking to blame anyone else. Those who pushed mortgages without first qualifying those applicants are also just as guilty of creating this national problem.

Again, sub-prime mortgages were encouraged at the highest levels of the Federal government mostly in the past seven years. Sub-prime was even pushed on people who qualified for traditional mortgages. That is where this problem originated.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They would let their companies go belly up, so they could walk away with bulging pockets? This tells me, if a firm dies, the executives should too... shoot every last one of them.

At my previous employer who went spectacularly bankrupt (this was over four years ago, and the bankruptcy case is still going through the court system) there were a half-dozen banks willing to give the company plenty of financing, with the only condition being that the CEO step down from the board. He refused, and chose to take the whole company down instead.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

... there were a half-dozen banks willing to give the company plenty of financing, with the only condition being that the CEO step down from the board. He refused, and chose to take the whole company down instead.

The reason for problems is not accidental. Lessons were learned long ago. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

Where were the Board of Directors or stockholders? Or was this a private company where the CEO would rather lose everything rather than be fired?

[Clodfobble]

The stockholders were among the many people who sued. That's one of the reasons the bankruptcy case is still ongoing. Maybe in another four years I'll get the paychecks they owe me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The stockholders were among the many people who sued. That's one of the reasons the bankruptcy case is still ongoing.

And the Board of Directors? Their job is to avert such problems - to represent the stockholder's interests. Where were the BoDs - or are they also properly being sued?

[Clodfobble]

I think the board was technically only 3 or 4 people, and at least one of them was an immediate family member of the CEO. It was a public company, but he was the company's founder and had maintained pretty significant control over the years.

[classicman]

Got this from a friend this am.

What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

It gets rather interesting at the 4:40 mark. Just some food for thought.

[tw]

I am looking at the losses only for today. A snapshot of what happens when a wacko administration fixes an economy by through money at the rich.
Agilent Technology - down 5%
Apple - down 18%
Arch Coal - down 21%
Adobe - down 8%
AIG - down 13%
Applied Materials - down 6%

Most of these have no operations in the financial industry. But again, Deja vue. When the income of the richest was increasing massively AND the average man's income dropped (ie 2% under George Jr), then four years after a stock market meltdown, massive numbers of jobs are lost.

Remember when one was warning of the dangers in what is now called "Mission Accomplished". How many years later did the warning come true? At least four. When another was warning about the massive housing crisis, how many years later did the warning come true? Three years. When the stock market crashed in 1929, how many years later were jobs lost? Four years.

What other warnings were pooh-poohed four years ago by wacko extremist propaganda. This is what happens when a political agenda replaces 'working for America'. The spread sheets are again reporting what actually existed four and more years ago.

Who will prosper? Who do you think will step in to provide an "economy saving" capital? Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, etc. Even if the government bails out Wall Street, well, where does government get that cash? Saudis, Israelis, Russians, French, etc.
The party is over. And what was George Jr back in college? The social chairman - a party planner.

Today, Wachovia, that was once considered a savior of Morgan Stanley, no longer exists. A stock that was selling for $15 a share last week dropped massively every days; is now worth only dimes. In one day, Wachovia Bank dropped 80%. How many others have been lying on their spread sheets? Enron was the warning about how our finance people. Did your stock broker warn you last year? Why not? Those warning to prepare were posted in The Cellar.

Is your broker still saying to hang in there? Was he saying what goes down will rise back up? Is he worried about losing you as a customer - or representing your interests?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

I am looking at the losses only for today. A snapshot of what happens when a wacko administration fixes an economy by through money at the rich.

Wacko administration????

This is a problem of Congress. If all the demoncrats voted yes it would have passed. Bush already said he would sing it. There is enough of this shit sandwhich that everyone gets a bite, righty tighty and lefty loosey.

[Bullitt]

Professor of mine today mentioned today that we should watch to see what the hedge funds do tomorrow as a serious indicator of further trouble.

[Undertoad]

Liberals want to pay my mortgage!!!