they cant find the mortgages to back the loan packages, say 5, 1 million dollar mortgages were sold as a 5 million dollar credit swap,without the paper to prove or legitimize the 5 million dollar note,what's to stop them from selling the same $5 note 5 times for $25.i dont have the article but they said something like 10 times the outstanding mortgage debt was sold,do you have to wait to see it,to believe it,..they are not going to show it to anyone, thats why wall street is not in jail,s they gave us bernie madoff,last time is was martha stewart,2000 years ago, they cried "free barabus"
they cant find the mortgages to back the loan packages, say 5, 1 million dollar mortgages were sold as a 5 million dollar credit swap,without the paper to prove or legitimize the 5 million dollar note,what's to stop them from selling the same $5 note 5 times for $25.i dont have the article but they said something like 10 times the outstanding mortgage debt was sold,do you have to wait to see it,to believe it,..they are not going to show it to anyone, thats why wall street is not in jail, they gave us bernie madoff,last time it was martha stewart,2000 years ago, they cried "free barabus"
At the same time you could get cds protection for a penny on the dollar. It was a good idea to have it even if you didnt think defaults would increase. You could get a billion dollars insurance policy for 10 million dollars a year that's a very low risk bet. The whole creation of cdos and cds was to allow people to bet on mortgages without having to waste time on actually making a mortgage
This has been hashed over many times. There is nothing inherently wrong with securitizing mortgages. It makes them more attractive to investors and thus increases the amount of mortgage money available for lending. However there is something wrong with liar loans. Also, it is probably a very bad idea to permit someone to take out an insurance policy on an asset they don't own, and an even worse idea to issue thousands of insurance policies on the same asset, that again, the purchasers of the policies do not own. We called these policies credit default swaps, because had we called them insurance policies they would have been regulated as such. If a hundred of you guys all take out fire insurance policies on my home, I want to know. I also want to know if those policies are being traded like hot potatoes at appreciated prices. I might, in that case, want to have a firetruck at the ready in my driveway.
Ya mean like writing a naked option? Yes. Bad idea. EDIT: I meant selling the policy is comparable to selling an option. But you knew that.
For one, a real journalist does not use strong language just to use strong language. He or she lets the content of their argument speak for itself. Sure it probably makes for entertaining reading but it makes him appear to be biased and not worth taking seriously. For example, Also, a real journalist does not simply throw out assertions without any facts to back those statements up. For example, These are just examples of statements that he makes that if you read carefully show that he is clearly biased and is not reporting objectively. He is trying to plant ideas in your mind without actually coming out and saying them directly. I'm sure there is some truth in his articles, but I can't take him seriously with all the grandstanding he does plus the implied assertions he continually makes with no factual evidence. But if that's your cup of tea, then go for it.
The criticism lobbed at Taibbi, IMHO, is what is called "picayune". Also, I'd argue against this notion that his vitriol and venom is solely targeted at bankers. Instead, he does a convincing job of targeting bankers, politicians, the court system, etc, etc...Many conservatives take issue with him because he makes alot of left wing talking points, but that is also a problem with our current times. The two parties are so polarized on critical issues, that anything that does not fall concisely into the ideology of the separate parties becomes a hot button issue. I believe many of his criticisms are far more libertarian in nature than anything else. I've read every article he's written and that's my take on the matter.
Show me these REAL journalists. It's laughable that you've lobbied these critiques based on the style of his prose, as opposed to the content. He, along with many other upstart "journalists" are de-facto bloggers who make it to print as well. They are a different generation, with different attitudes and opinions. By and large, these supposed journalists are lackey's who have been captured by the special interests that run the ship at the larger publications. It's a big reason why the blogosphere has captured such a large audience. Nobody needs to worry if they are pissing on the shoes of their advertisers.
I've critiqued his content as well. You should reread my selections more slowly. Any "journalist" that continually uses swear words and blows things out of proportion in a large percentage of their sentences is someone that is not credible.