T1B

But the other 94% seem to be OK.

But somehow - and the math really escapes me on this - 6% of people who shouldn't have been able to buy houses (and this isn't 6% of the total population) have managed through the greed and outright dishonesty of the investment banks managed to trash the global economy.

Un fucking real.

The problem it seems wasn't the loans themselves, but that the investment banks that packaged and re-sold them also offered credit default swaps. What's a credit default swap? You or I would call it insurance, but the investment banks couldn't call it insurance or it would have fallen under federal regulation. Federal regulation says insurance companies must have assets to back all policies written. But by calling it a credit default swap, the investment banks didn't have the funds and consequently went tits up. This casued massive calling in of short term loans and a complete freeze of the global credit markets.

Yesterday Iceland went Bankrupt.

Just fucking Wow.

When they make the next chapter in the Forrest Gump saga, I'm sure he'll have bought palace in Alabama or a 12 month ARM.

So not really sure why Obama is part of this discussion since the "oversite" of not regulating credit default swaps occurred during the Bush regime, but if all you want to do is make slappy comments - have at it.

mvscal wrote:Why don't you check back in once you figure out which branch of government has the responsibility for regulating or failing to regulate credit default swaps, you ignorant dipshit.

Does it really matter which branch?
The House and Senate were republican controlled thru 2004 I believe - like that really matters now.

What is happening right now is more about leadership - there's no confidence in anything.
The Lunatic fringe ('sup Jerkovic and LTS) is running wild and sanity seems in short supply.

Like most things, I'm sure the Government - whoever wins in November will over compensate and in turn over regulate and strangle whatever possibility exists for recovery in the foreseeable future,

KC Scott wrote:Does it really matter which branch?
The House and Senate were republican controlled thru 2004 I believe - like that really matters now.

The House was GOP controlled through 2006. The Senate was also GOP controlled through 2006 and is now only nominally Democratic since in order to get anything of any substance done you have to have 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and the Dems have 51. Or should I say they have 51 votes on the days Joe Lieberman is feeling up to it.

BTW, mv still doesn't understand the difference between a veto override and a cloture vote, so feel free to expect the usual tired shit spewing from his keyboard.

Lets see, who controlled the house and senate for the majority of the last thirty years?

Oh thats right, dummycraps. Who started the sub prime debacle? Oh, dummycraps.

Who blocked efforts to overhaul Fannie mac and freddie mae? Oh gee, dummycraps.


GFYSWAWM

I hope the lot of you swim in their shit. :twisted:






/

Jerkovich wrote:Lets see, who controlled the house and senate for the majority of the last thirty years

Oh, so now we're going back 30 years? Nice arbitrary number you just pulled out of your ass.

How about this. You go fuck yourself with a rusty screwdriver and leave the political talk to those with IQs that are above room temperature.

BSmack wrote:

Jerkovich wrote:Lets see, who controlled the house and senate for the majority of the last thirty years

Oh, so now we're going back 30 years? Nice arbitrary number you just pulled out of your ass.

How about this. You go fuck yourself with a rusty screwdriver and leave the political talk to those with IQs that are above room temperature.

Thank you for your input, drooling moron. Is the truth too hard to face that the folks you been pole smoking for so many years have finally penetrated the American dime hole right to the throat.

Perhaps your education in recent American history is deficient.

mvscal wrote:
The CDS market took off in 1996 making this yet another bag of flaming, Clinton Era dogshit left on Chimpy's doorstep.

Clinton was responsible for CDS?

and here all along I thought it was JP Morgan Co. that first came up with the idea...go figure-and just to clarify, I think it was in 97 when they first took hold

just out of curiosity, who was in control of Congress back in the mid 90's-you know the branch that's supposed to be regulating credit default swaps?

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
The CDS market took off in 1996 making this yet another bag of flaming, Clinton Era dogshit left on Chimpy's doorstep.

Clinton was responsible for CDS?

You bet. If it happens on your watch, it's your fault or haven't you been paying any attention for the last eight years?

Clinton? You bet, that asshole cut his teeth in crooked land deals.

KC Scott wrote:But the other 94% seem to be OK.

Not so much.

mvscal wrote:

You bet. If it happens on your watch, it's your fault

while earlier in the thread

mvscal wrote:which branch of government has the responsibility for regulating or failing to regulate credit default swaps

given that a Republican congress was in control at the time that CDS's came into existence, coupled with the fact that you yourself indicated that the congress is responsible for oversight of the CDS, then I think it's pretty evident who was ultimately responsible...

it was Jimmy Carter's fault

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:

You bet. If it happens on your watch, it's your fault

while earlier in the thread

mvscal wrote:which branch of government has the responsibility for regulating or failing to regulate credit default swaps

given that a Republican congress was in control at the time that CDS's came into existence, coupled with the fact that you yourself indicated that the congress is responsible for oversight of the CDS, then I think it's pretty evident who was ultimately responsible...

it was Jimmy Carter's fault

This is illustrated in the following tree diagram where at each payment date either the contract has a default event, in which case it ends with a payment of N(1 − R) shown in red, where R is the recovery rate, or it survives without a default being triggered, in which case a premium payment of Nc / 4 is made, shown in blue. At either side of the diagram are the cashflows up to that point in time with premium payments in blue and default payments in red. If the contract is terminated the square is shown with solid shading.



The probability of surviving over the interval ti − 1 to ti without a default payment is pi and the probability of a default being triggered is 1 − pi. The calculation of present value, given discount factors of δ1 to δ4 is then
Description Premium Payment PV Default Payment PV Probability
Default at time t1 0\, N(1-R) \delta_1\, 1-p_1\,
Default at time t2 -\frac{Nc}{4} \delta_1 N(1-R) \delta_2\, p_1(1-p_2)\,
Default at time t3 -\frac{Nc}{4}(\delta_1 + \delta_2) N(1-R) \delta_3\, p_1 p_2 (1-p_3)\,
Default at time t4 -\frac{Nc}{4}(\delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_3) N(1-R) \delta_4\, p_1 p_2 p_3 (1-p_4)\,
No defaults -\frac{Nc}{4} ( \delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_3 + \delta_4 ) 0\, p_1 \times p_2 \times p_3 \times p_4

To get the total present value of the credit default swap we multiply the probability of each outcome by its present value to give
PV\, =\, (1 - p_1) N(1-R) \delta_1\,
+ p_1 ( 1 - p_2 ) [ N(1-R) \delta_2 - \frac{Nc}{4} \delta_1 ]
+p_1 p_2 ( 1 - p_3 ) [ N(1-R) \delta_3 - \frac{Nc}{4} (\delta_1 + \delta_2) ]
+p_1 p_2 p_3 (1 - p_4) [ N(1-R) \delta_4 - \frac{Nc}{4} (\delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_3) ]
-p_1 p_2 p_3 p_4 ( \delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_3 + \delta_4 ) \frac{Nc}{4}



Hedging

Credit default swaps can be used to manage credit risk without necessitating the sale of the underlying cash bond. Owners of a corporate bond can protect themselves from default risk by purchasing a credit default swap on that reference entity.

For example, a pension fund owns $10 million worth of a five-year bond issued by Risky Corporation. In order to manage the risk of losing money if Risky Corporation defaults on its debt, the pension fund buys a CDS from Derivative Bank in a notional amount of $10 million that trades at 200 basis points. In return for this credit protection, the pension fund pays 2% of 10 million ($200,000) in quarterly installments of $50,000 to Derivative Bank. If Risky Corporation does not default on its bond payments, the pension fund makes quarterly payments to Derivative Bank for 5 years and receives its $10 million loan back after 5 years from the Risky Corporation. Though the protection payments reduce investment returns for the pension fund, its risk of loss due to Risky Corporation defaulting on the bond is eliminated. (However, the fund still faces counterparty risk if Derivative Bank becomes insolvent and cannot honor the CDS contract). If Risky Corporation defaults on its debt 3 years into the CDS contract, the pension fund would stop paying the quarterly premium, and Derivative Bank would ensure that the pension fund is refunded for its loss of $10 million (either by taking physical delivery of the defaulted bond for $10 million or by cash settling the difference between par and recovery value of the bond). Another scenario would be if Risky Corporation's credit profile improved dramatically or it is acquired by a stronger company after 3 years, the pension fund could effectively cancel or reduce its original CDS position by selling the remaining two years of credit protection in the market.


BLA BLA BLA BLA


vote for Nogga, he'll 'plain it to you.

6% of people who shouldn't have been able to buy houses (and this isn't 6% of the total population) have managed through the greed and outright dishonesty of the investment banks managed to trash the global economy.

If it weren't for Donald Trump, I would be in that 6%.

Jerkovich wrote:

Which bracket is Gonzaga in?


tia

mvscal wrote:
So you can read.

so if the President has no control over it

you yourself pointed out that the President

can't regulate something unless (he) receives the necessary statutory authority from the Legislative branch.

I'm trying to figure out-exactly how was Clinton responsible?

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
So you can read.

so if the President has no control over it

you yourself pointed out that the President

can't regulate something unless (he) receives the necessary statutory authority from the Legislative branch.

I'm trying to figure out-exactly how was Clinton responsible?

If its a Democratic president with a Republican congress, it's the president's fault. If its a Republican president with a Democratic congress, it's the congress' fault.

Sincerely,

mvspincal

Goober McTuber wrote:
If its a Democratic president with a Republican congress, it's the president's fault. If its a Republican president with a Democratic congress, it's the congress' fault.

Sincerely,

mvspincal

Corrollary #1 to the above mvscal theorem of spreading the blame, anything that went wrong during Bush's first 7.75 years is Clinton's fault. Anything that goes wrong during the next three months is Obama's fault, assuming that Obama gets elected. If Obama doesn't get elected it's Clinton's fault.

Corrollary #2: Assuming Obama gets elected, anything that subsequently goes wrong is his fault. Any success can be directly attributed to Republican policies of the Bush Administration. If McCain somehow gets elected, anything that goes wrong is still Clinton's fault. Any success is due to McCain's selection of Palin as VP.

WRONGARINO

mvscal is saying if we're going to blame the President for something - more or less out his control - happening on his watch. Clinton would bear the burden of blame for CDS.

The full quote.

"You bet. If it happens on your watch, it's your fault or haven't you been paying any attention for the last eight years?"

This meltdown is not entirely a Democrat thing, nor is it entirely a Republican thing. Bottom line. In hindsight they both fucked up. I am not going to buy into the politicization of this issue. As we move forward and the "bailout" fails ... it too will be a bipartisan fuck-up.

Tom In VA wrote:WRONGARINO

Up your nose with a rubber hose.

Sin,

poptart wrote:

Jerkovich wrote:

Which bracket is Gonzaga in?


tia

nice to see p4 tank in the first round per usualm. and ofcourse nc4 gets out of the meatgrinder east, prolly because they just masturbated for 3 games.

America still has the blinders on, I see.

Republicans fault?

Dems fault?

Funny stuff...

The blame for all of this lies squarely on the shoulders of the idiots pulling the levers in the voting booth.

Check out MSN.COM

I couldn't copy the graphical background, but..

Note the adverisement below all of this panic talk and stock mark index reports...


Money
Amid panic, US stocks make wild swings
1 in 6 owe more than home is worth
Which big banks are solid now?
How to rescue your retirement plans
Can GM and Ford survive this crisis?

This table charts the key U.S. financial indices by their last reported value and change since the most recent trading day opened.
Index Last Change
Dow 8,190.42 -388.77 (-4.53%)
NASDAQ 1,581.32 -63.80 (-3.88%)
S&P 864.86 -45.06 (-4.95%)

Offer: Homeowners, Fed cuts rate again. $300,000 for $1,727/mo Fixed. NO SSN REQUIRED;
************************************************************************************************************************************************

Holy B. Jesus, somebody needs to be SHOT!!

Shut up, Jack.

Blame the fag in the middle......

Yesterday Iceland went Bankrupt.

Great news for English Porn, btw. The Dottirs won't be looking for bank teller jobs, they'll be waving their business ends at the cameras.

BSmack wrote:

Jerkovich wrote:Lets see, who controlled the house and senate for the majority of the last thirty years

Oh, so now we're going back 30 years? Nice arbitrary number you just pulled out of your ass..

We could go back 75 years if you like.

smackaholic wrote:

poptart wrote:

Jerkovich wrote:

Which bracket is Gonzaga in?


tia

nice to see p4 tank in the first round per usualm. and ofcourse nc4 gets out of the meatgrinder east, prolly because they just masturbated for 3 games.

Makes sense. P4 has Kansas colors. That's an old bracket though from when RW was coach.

Cuda wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Jerkovich wrote:Lets see, who controlled the house and senate for the majority of the last thirty years

Oh, so now we're going back 30 years? Nice arbitrary number you just pulled out of your ass..

We could go back 75 years if you like.

Too bad most historical indicators have not worked in the current market where there is massive leverage and securities (credit default swaps) which no one knows how to value based on collateral which may or may not be largely underwater. Keep in mind AIG (the King of financial products) just asked for and received another $40 Billion from the government. Remember two weeks ago when AIG asked for $40 Billion but took $ 80 Billion (for a current total of $120 Billion) and stated that they had a liquidity problem, not a solvency problem?

Spin it how you like, but Dow 6,000 here we come.






m2 is the truth

mvscal wrote: Why yes, it does. The "Bush Regime" can't regulate something unless it receives the necessary statutory authority from the Legislative branch.

Bush needs statutory authority? Dude (and I use the term loosly) your pile of BS gets deeper everyday.

The CDS market took off in 1996 making this yet another bag of flaming, Clinton Era dogshit left on Chimpy's doorstep.

Bush needs the statutory authority to operate and everything is Clinton's fault. Do you EVER pull your head out of your ass long enough to gain ANY actual knowledge about anything?

mvscal wrote:Moronic dolt who knows nothing about government and can't recognize sarcasm says what?

So it wasn't Clinton's fault. Gotcha.

Get back to me when you stop talking in circles you stupid, yellow-bellied, racist fuckstain.

mvscal wrote:Moronic dolt who knows nothing about government and can't recognize sarcasm says what?

Oh this is rich. YOU'RE going to the sarcasm card?

mvscal wrote:It was a direct, definitive statement with no ambiguity whatsoever.

Carry on, you handwringing, dick sucking pussy.

"What is is?" is a direct, definitive statement with no ambiguity whatsoever to that douchebag (sorry, Douchebag.)

Enjoy wasting your time with him, though.

mvscal wrote:It was a direct, definitive statement with no ambiguity whatsoever.

You mean the part that wasn't sarcasm? That was the part that was direct with no ambiguity? And the part that was sarcasm? Was that direct and definitive sarcasm?

Carry on you stupid racist piece of shit.