Powered by TypePad

« Interesting, But | Main | Jim Lindgren Is Excellent »

September 27, 2008

Comments

JM Hanes

Sam Adams, the great rabble rouser, was not exactly unattached, living under a tarp. :-)

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Well I didn't see the WaPo article, I'm linked above to the Politico article. I quoted it at length in the other thread. Here is the link again.

PELOSI CONFISCATES AIDES' BLACKBERRIES TO PREVENT LEAKS...

Elliott

This is supposed to be an ad for Obama, I think. You???

Looks like Obama was right to warn his supporters that people would try to scare them.

glenda waggoner

niters-we shall rejoin in the morn..tally bahn..xxxx...sorry, tally-ho!

JM Hanes

Sara:

I thought that article made McCain look darn good -- and it was probably one of the most straightforward articles I've seen in Politico for quite awhile. Maybe that's because the reporters were actually reporting on events instead of just running everything under the horse race lens.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

JMH: I agree on McCain, although I thought the WaPo story of the other night told pretty close to the same story, just wasn't up-to-date with Saturday's news. I'm just happy they think they've got a deal that will fly. Committing to paper overnight usually means someone's standing at the copy machine putting packets together. :)

Sara (Pal2Pal)

K-Lo says no ACORN.

JM Hanes

This article from the Wall St. Journal states that:

A House staffer reached after the deal announcement was made confirmed that lawmakers did decide to drop the affordable housing fund proposals, which would have potentially directed billions to state and local governments to fund housing projects.
The rest of the article sounds like the reporter only talked to the Democrats though, and this bit made me positively gag:
By roughly 11:30 p.m., what Sen. Reid described as a "breakthrough" came in the form of an idea from Ms. Pelosi that was enough to advance talks."She took over at the last minute," a House staffer familiar with the talks said Sunday morning. "The last hour-and-a-half she really brought things together and made it possible to reach this point."
Does anybody really believe that Nancy Pelosi saved the day? I thought not. Especially since we're given nary a hint about what that brilliant icebreaker might have been.

Possibly even more revolting is the caption under the picture of Dodd at the end of the column which asserts that, "The negotiations have been a political comeback for Mr. Dood, who lost the presidential race and took heat for getting a deal on his own home mortgage." I'd say what he got was more pass than heat.

M. Simon

Sam Adams, the great rabble rouser, was not exactly unattached, living under a tarp. :-)

He did manage to inspire enough men to stick with the Continental Army under extremely difficult conditions to defeat the British. Those men often lived under tarps in difficult conditions. I would have been one of them.

You see it only takes the will of a few thousand to change history. With sentiment running 2:1 against, the Dems had to crack. Maybe I was the last one aboard that train. Maybe it was enough to tilt the balance. Some times the troops have to inspire the leaders.

It seems like they were bluffing after all. The Ds were unwilling to give up their comforts to uncertain events. The Dems are evil SOBs but they are cowards. They don't have the nerve for a roll of the dice. If the people do the Ds can be defeated.

Enough people showed courage to roll the Ds.

Samuel Adams - 1 August 1776

Valley Forge Winter of 1777

No battle was fought at Valley Forge. Yet, it was the turning point of the Revolutionary War. It was here that the Continental army was desperately against the ropes — bloody, beaten, battle-weary — and ready to quit. Even General Washington conceded, "If the army does not get help soon, in all likelihood it will disband."

The question must be asked, "Why didn't they disband?"

We know what happened here. Early into the six-month encampment, there was hunger, disease, and despair. Raw weather stung and numbed the soldiers. Empty stomachs were common. Cries of "beef" echoed throughout the camp. The future promised only more desperation and starvation.

Some couldn't take the cold, hunger, and uncertainty any longer. There were dozens of desertions. Disease debilitated. Death descended in droves.

If enough men are willing to do without shelter or beef you can defeat the forces of evil.

I would follow the Republicans who stood tall to the gates of hell. And that includes Johnny Mac. Thumbs up Johnny Mac.

M. Simon

From the Sam Adams link:

From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

M. Simon

We are Americans. We will never surrender. They will.

Elliott

Does anybody really believe that Nancy Pelosi saved the day?

I think we need a guess the icebreaker contest. I'll start: Let's concede something we never thought we'd get and then take full credit for putting the national interest first and breaking this impasse, even though so much more needs to be done.

Elliott

Matinal salutations to all.

Elliott

Icebreaker 2: Have you seen these poll numbers, Harry?

Bob

Some more suspense for your morning coffee:

Possible Change of Heart

"Rezko's possible change of heart—after years of steadfast refusal—has sent ripples through a tight circle of prominent defense attorneys who represent dozens of potential witnesses and targets in the wide-ranging probe.

His cooperation would give prosecutors investigating the governor and his wife access to someone they have described as an ultimate political insider at the center of a pervasive pay-to-play scheme."

bgates

The last hour-and-a-half she really brought things together
Things Nancy Pelosi Cannot Bring Together:
-Democrats and Republicans
-Her base and reality
-Her eyebrows

PeterUK

You need to start talking in terms of "THE ACORN SCANDAL"
The Democrats are Skimming the Bailout.

PeterUK

"-Her eyebrows"

Not true,she can,but it makes her toes turn up.

M. Simon

My ACORN article. It explains why the Obama team and the Clinton people do not get along:

ACORN Is Not About Nuts

M. Simon

BTW ACORN (ACON? heh) was in the FM/FM bail out bill.

Jane

Barney Franks fingerprints all over the ACORN scandal - in the Boston Globe today - but on the editorial page. LUN

Jane

That's great Simon. One thing tho - it looks like the only thing you are talking about is Michigan, and in reality you are talking about so much more.

M. Simon

Jane,

I start out with Michigan, but if you note I also cover Washington State and a few others. There are in a quoted section.

It is really not meant to be definitive but just go into the vote fraud aspects and provide hints for people who want to go deeper.

Extraneus

Wouldn't Bush go out in a blaze of glory if he stood up and started naming names now? I know I'd forgive him for a lot.

Perhaps an address to the nation a la The Godfather Part 2?

"My fellow Americans, we have determined that this wasn't just a bad accident, or some natural failure of the free enterprise system. It was a premeditated attack on our country's financial sector and economy.

Over the past few weeks, Federal grand juries have considered evidence linking the recent problems in the financial market to the activities of some prominant individuals, and have returned a number of indictments.

As I speak to you tonight, Federal agents are arresting the following individuals..."

Pagar

Obama's fingerprints are all over this crisis also:

"Obama was a key player in the lawsuit that started the government on a course of forcing lenders to give more loans to those who had poor credit. Lending companies were forced to come up with imaginative ways of fulfilling the quotas that were required. Sub-prime lending was born as a result. The mortgage crises was forecast by many who were able to look beyond the quota."

LUN

I can't get the link to go straight to the correct article, but what you're looking for
is an article that says:

""In a 1995 case known as Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, Obama and his fellow attorneys charged that Citibank was making too few loans to black applicants and won the case. As one commentator noted in May 2008, legal "successes" such as this were probably responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007 AND 2008. That is, banks were not loaning to blacks whose credit was poor. When the law forced them to lend money anyway, the inevitable collapse occurred."

In addition, the article in front of that article says Obama has been asked, by the family, not to wear the bracelet he spoke of the other night.

Jane

Simon,

My point was one of appearance. With Michigan highlighted, by the link, you are left with the impression that ACORN only works in one state. And that might cause people to stop reading. It was just an observation, no biggie.

waj

Fundamentals of cash flow. How much is the deposit for the insurance and how do we bail out treasury when they fail? So, Treasury prints more money, but the money was mortgages which were bought by foreign countries and insured by the Treasury, which now doesn't own the mortgages, but guarantees the mortgages and insures the mortgages for foreign banks, currency, since most countries who bought the mortgages are not oil or gold, but trade relying on importing those production goods and oil and gold; no one is buying anymore, with the exception of gold that is not a currency.

Treasury is currency, which is mortgages, which are foreign owned, but not reliant on imports for producing goods or exports for production of goods, like China. Oil and other production goods are artificially low because the US wants it that way with the exception of gold, which is English currency; England will not write 'loans' that are actually grants like the Chinese. Treasury has nothing to offer the globe except cash, which has no value beyond the guarantee of the US government, which is going to have to print more and 'loan' more overseas.

FDIC insurance is only 100,000 and mortgage insurance will probably be the same, unless we get into the insurance business and charge a normal rate. So, the insurance is guaranteeing a foreign bank's investment, not the home owner who will lose the house. So, the mortgages are insured and the homes sold and the foreign banks paid and the house put up for auction. We can't foreclose on the mortgage because the insurer won't allow it, so no one loses their home and the foreign banks have an insured investment they cant foreclose on and get their cash. So, the insured mortgages have to be sold by the foreign banks as as insured, but imposable to realize any value beyond the home owners payment, which they can't do and the insured mortgages has no value beyond the insurance value, which is low and not allowed to be realized by the insurer who will have to make the payments for the home owner and have the mortgage sold and traded as an insured mortgage being payed by the US government for twenty or forty years, unless they are sold by the foreign banks to another bank, avoiding the insured value payments for cash.

Mustang0302

PUK -

Not true,she can,but it makes her toes turn up.

Another: She's had so many facelifts, she has a goatee.

Cecil Turner

I thought I heard Ms Pelosi say a draft of the proposal was available online . . . but have been unable to find anything. Here's her statement summarizing principles, which are mostly unobjectionable, with the possible exception of this bit:

- Meaningful judicial review of the Treasury Secretary's actions
There's also a useful article from Reuters summarizing the actual agreement, and if this part is true, it removes my main objection:
Democrats jettisoned proposals that would have put money into a trust fund for affordable housing and would have allowed judges to alter the terms of mortgages for bankrupt borrowers, according to aides.

or

MBNA should have been bought by Citibank, but it was BOA and the revolving credit, which is no longer an issue.

They're all from Wilmington, DE like Biden. Banking rules here are different and apparently revolving credit is not a big problem like mortgages.

Sue

Cecil,

There is a draft on the FoxNews front page.

kim

Oak nuts crackling under the open tire.
=========================

BOATBUILDER

Charlie, Rick, sbw--you smart guys (I mean that sincerely) who seem to understand most of this:
The whole ACORN slush fund proposal--at least the last version of it which has apparently been dropped--seems to be premised on the assumption that the "bailout" will actually turn a profit for the govt. How likely do you think this is?
(If so, the administration--hello?--should be emphasising this). And if so the anger of those of us who fear being put on the hook for mind-boggling outflows of money will be considerably assuaged.

Rick Ballard

Sue,

That's a Pelosi press release. The House session is to start at 1PM today but I can't find the bill on Thomas.

Cecil Turner

Sue,
Not sure if I'm seeing what you're referring to. This is just Ms. Pelosi's talking points ("REINVEST, REIMBURSE, REFORM . . ."). I suspect that may be what she meant, because the GOP gents were saying they wanted to see the actual text (implying it wasn't written yet). If, as reported, Rahm Emmanuel is in charge of the drafting, they'd better scan each clause at least twice.

. . . seems to be premised on the assumption that the "bailout" will actually turn a profit for the govt.

No (gotta read the fine print). Check this explanation (and the linked Volokh post). The bottom line is that the overall bailout can lose hundreds of billions . . . and still make lots of money for the slush fund.

Pofarmer

Gmax, what happens if this is mostly contained to the top tier banks?

Gee, Pofarmer, what happens if gravity only applies about 500 foot altitude?

It does indicate what the problem here is, though. Do you know where your community and regional banks keep their money? And get commercial credit? And clear their checks? And process their Visa and MasterCard?

But here's the deal. I called and talked to one of the executive vice presidents at my bank, directly. They aren't worried about any of that. They are moving investment funds into more secure banks. They aren't worried about credit cards. Their main problem right now is what to do with all the money coming IN, not worrying about getting funds to lend. They ARE concerned about a general economic downturn related to this but they are NOT worried about credit for their customers. This is a fair size regional bank. If these banks aren't tied into the mortgage crises, they seem to be healthy, and, obviously, there are other Wall Street banks that are healthy as well. So, if my bankers not worried, and I could have talked to the President if I wanted to, but didn't, then I'm not particularly worried at this juncture.

Rick Ballard

"How likely do you think this is?"

It will depend upon the discount level paid for the assets purchased. If the assets are purchased at an average price below 60 cents on the dollar, then I'd say there is a 98-99% probability of a profit being turned. At 70 cents on the dollar the probability would drop to around 90%. If the Feds do a "buy and hold", then the probabilities are a bit higher. The duration of the hold would be about seven years.

Jim Ryan

Do we know yet that ACORN and La Raza are gone from the bill?

boris

seems to be premised on the assumption that the "bailout" will actually turn a profit ...(If so, the administration--hello?--should be emphasising this)

Couple of possibilities. A lot of people have a hard time with the concept. That means the deal can sound too good to be true and induce the reaction "What's the problem then? If the assets are worth money the market would want them so somebody's trying to BS me here."

Another factor is the dims seem to be exploiting the misunderstanding. They're saying "Yeah it's a bailout but we're going to make sure those bad CEO's get punished and poor people get the help they need".

boris

It may even be that the Repubs are exploiting the misunderstanding. Their strategery might be "Take that carp out of the bill or we will use the public's misunderstanding of the true situation to slaughter you in the next few elections".

boris

The dimorats can't really risk an actual meltdown. The big conspiracy commie takeover after the crash is not that credible. The left is now way too dependent on easy money in ways that the right is not.

The great depression was the other way around.

DebinNC

Last Thursday, didn't McCain reportedly interrupt the Senate Reps Tex-Mex "We have a deal" buffet and demanded the House Reps ideas be considered, which stopped the Dodd/Fwank/Acorn bill in its tracks? Is the latest deal markedly better because McCain intervened, or did the added time allow the Dems to make it worse? If the former, I hope the blogs, if not the MSM, make sure he's credited.

Barney Frank

They ARE concerned about a general economic downturn related to this but they are NOT worried about credit for their customers.

Pofarmer,

It might lessen your sanguininity were you to go through some archives and read extremely similar quotes from Bear Stearns, WaMu, Countrywide and Lehman brothers, not only a couple of years ago, but in some cases a few months ago.
No banker admits to anything but supreme confidence until he's standing outside on the window ledge.
Banks without confidence cease to exist exist. That is why they are sometimes called 'trusts'.

Jane

Do we know yet that ACORN and La Raza are gone from the bill?

Yes, and Fox is now referring to it as the "ACORN slush fund" involved with voter fraud for democrat candidates.

In my mind that is BIG progress.

Cecil Turner

Here's a comparison sheet showing the slush fund as "OUT" . . . though again, with Rahm Emmanuel involved in the drafting, checking the fine print thrice is warranted. (H/T Instapundit)

PeterUK

"Mighty oaks from little ACORNs grow" The Hanging Tree.

clarice

Cecil, Rahm is Clinton and the Clinton's are not overly fond of ACORN which is Obama.
I was heartened frankly to see him on the Dem team for that very reason.
(Byzantine,isn't this all?)

MayBee

Rahm is Clinton, but mostly Rahm is for Rahm. Is is one of the most underhanded guys out there, just like his brother. That family must never have discussed scruples at the dining room table.

JM Hanes

Y'all will be pleased to know that John Boehner makes it pretty clear that ACORN folks are not the good guys. I sent him an email, which may eventually get read by somebody, pointing out that ACORN is not just a group with which Obama was "once associated." I included the article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about the Obama's $800,000+ to that ACORN "affiliate" in Louisiana.

PeterUK

"That family must never have discussed scruples at the dining room table."

There are some things that can put you off your food.

sbw

Boatbuilder, I'm a neophyte, but Rick's observations have made sense from the beginning.

That makes it all the more irksome that Bush/Paulson accepted the Democrat portrayal of the package as a bailout instead of a temporary holding until the assets could be properly valued. I liked the Market-Maker label. "We will hold the assets until we can make a market for the substantially good assets involved. And we will give a haircut to the bad dudes involved."

Jim Ryan

Suggested viewing for your Obama-supporting friends:

House GOP tried to fix problem in 2004: Congressional CSPAN footage.

McCain's attempt to clean up problem years ago, and what did Obama do?

DebinNC

McCain told Steffy he'd likely vote for the bill. How many votes will that cost him? Ironically, if he hadn't interceded the bill would be so much worse and the blame for the stock market tanking tomorrow would be all on the House Republicans' refusal to accept Dodd's atrocious bill.

BOATBUILDER

Cecil--I didn't mean to exclude you as one of the smart guys.
SBW--I agree. When Rick speaks, people listen. heh.
I just think that one of the huge points that seems to be buried in all the talk of $700 Billion is that either the gov't makes a profit (which I frankly find hard to contemplate) or that the actual cost is "only" a small fraction of that number. Still a hell of a lot of money, but to avoid a market collapse most people will accept it as necessary.
And yes, I understand that the scam to fund ACORN wasn't dependent upon an overall profit.

boris

blame for the stock market tanking tomorrow would be all on the House Republicans'

In the no-deal situation blame would be the least of my worries. Dire straits has the effect of blowing away illusions and focusing the mind on nitty gritty reality. In that case the normal dimorat advantage in shaping perception is gone. The facts are that they could have done the deal with the president without forcing Republicans to betray their core principles, and they were responsible for creating the bubble, good intentions or not. In an economic crash where the left is so dependent on easy money they would be toast.

one of the huge points that seems to be buried in all the talk of $700 Billion is that either the gov't makes a profit (which I frankly find hard to contemplate)

That certainly is part of the reason sensible agreement is so difficult. To some it is an obvious situation with clear, if risky, solutions. For many it looks like something completely different. Perception is strongly linked to expectation and this case triggers such strong reactions that an achieving accurate understanding or common ground are almost impossible.

BOATBUILDER

Unfortunately, I don't think that most people realize just how close this got to a full-blown meltdown, and never will. The House Republicans deserve a lot of credit (which they won't get) for sticking to principle in the face of some astonishingly cynical brinkmanship by the Dems.
I like to think that there are enough honest Dem politicians still left--and that they caused the clowns in the "leadership" to back down. Surely they don't believe what Reid, Pelosi, Dodd and Frank are saying any more than I do.

BOATBUILDER

Oh--I also think that there's plenty of time for mischief before this is done. And when I say "honest politician" I mean it only in the most relative sense.
Yeesh--Rahm Emmanuel is one of the "honest" brokers--God help us all!

RichatUF

Pager-

Would you look at that?

Obama as a member of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland, P.C. was listed as an attorney representing Selma S Buycks-Roberson against Citigroup.

Barney Frank

Unfortunately, I don't think that most people realize just how close this got to a full-blown meltdown

The plan is necessary but it is by no means certain that it will avoid a meltdown.

The first question was; can we put together a package? Apparently we can.

The second question and rather a more important one is; will it work?
It is Sunday. Let us pray.

Gmax

"How likely do you think this is?"

What Rick said but with the understanding it depends also on what is bought. If you are buying residual pieces ( the back of a long bus ) from 2006 originations, I would not pay 50% on face. But I think you will get plenty of mezzanine pieces that have lots of cashflow and since the govt is the lowest cost borrower around they can make a spread even when no one else can a given price simply do to this. The govt is likely to get a few other advantages, such as getting the servicing of the pools done a few basis points cheaper than others can ( again due to sheer purchase power and a focus on competitive bids for the work ).

All in all with a reverse dutch auction and wide participation, they will buy cheap. The motivated will want to get in on the deal.

I calculated the other day a way that the paydown on the national debt could be $245 BILLION within a two year period and that was based on real conservative assumptions.

Cecil Turner

(Byzantine,isn't this all?)

Yeah, it is. But I think you're parsing this a bit too finely. The way I read that "slush fund" proposal, it's not limited to--or even primarily aimed at--ACORN. They just happen to be one of the prospective recipients. It's a block grant program (among other things) for low-income housing that would certainly benefit Clinton cronies and Democrats in general. Besides, Rahm Emmanuel is a snake (and I find his volunteering to oversee the speedy draft of this bill very suspect). If you think he wouldn't cheat on that particular clause, that's just good incentive to read the rest of it even more carefully.

Cecil--I didn't mean to exclude you as one of the smart guys.

No sweat. Besides, on this issue, I'm certainly not. But I'm learning to read these things with a jaundiced eye and a fine-toothed comb (they fooled me on the FM/FM bailout--shame on me--this time, not so fast . . . ).

clarice

Heck--I'd have a couple of people read the Rahm draft out loud just to get the placement of all the commas in the right place, Cecil.
It's just that unlike members of the BCB and Frank he's not particularly beholden to ACORN--I've been reading that PUMA is particularly angry about ACORN charging it playred a key role in defrauding Hill of her rightful wins in the caucus states like Texas.

clarice

Oh, even Fox has called it the ACORN slush fund--some would go to the urban league, some to La Raza but basically it does seem to have been largely for ACORN(i.e. Obama's) benefit.

DebinNC

Rahm's major contributors

Securities & Investment $600,500

clarice

**CBC**not BCB

MayBee

Remember, Rahm needs to get Democrats elected to Congress. That's his job. Surely as much as he may hate ACORN, they are good at creating Dem voters.

MayBee

..and I do mean 'creating'.

M. Simon

My point was one of appearance. With Michigan highlighted, by the link, you are left with the impression that ACORN only works in one state. And that might cause people to stop reading. It was just an observation, no biggie.

That is a good point Jane. I'll revise and extend my remarks.

M. Simon

The dimorats can't really risk an actual meltdown. The big conspiracy commie takeover after the crash is not that credible. The left is now way too dependent on easy money in ways that the right is not.

Anybody remember the "Cross of Gold Speech" by Bryan?

BOATBUILDER

The best thing about ACORN is that it's like AFLAC. People don't understand it but they never forget the name. The more people look into ACORN, the more they will understand about where Obama comes from and what the Dems are up to. When and if the deal is done, the Republicans should work ACORN into every single soundbite, regardless of context.

Charlie (Colorado)

The whole ACORN slush fund proposal--at least the last version of it which has apparently been dropped--seems to be premised on the assumption that the "bailout" will actually turn a profit for the govt.

Boatbuilder, actually I was fooled by that originally too. It's actually predicated on the notion that any single transaction that makes a profit must turn 20 percent of 65 percent of the proceeds over to the trust fund.

So let's say I finally sell 10 bonds, losing $1 million on nine of them, and sell one at a profit of $500,000 ; the net loss might be $8.5 million, but the "trust fund" would still get its percentage of the %500,000.

And yes, I think the probability is very high that the Treasury will make a profit. Among other things, the Treasury can just wait until they mature, and get a guaranteed payoff.

Charlie (Colorado)

I called and talked to one of the executive vice presidents at my bank, directly.

Pofarmer, you've got google. Compare what the EVP at your bank is saying to what Greg Mankiw, Newt, the Wall Street Journal, and on an on, are saying.

Think about which ones are making an "admission against interest".

Newt was against it, now he says he'd reluctantly vote for it, even though of course he was so much smarter about it than anyone else. Why? Because we can't afford to have a credit market meltdown.

Greg Mankiw was against it; now he says he'd reluctantly agree it's needed. Why? Because we can't afford to have a credit market meltdown.

Steve Bainbridge doesn't like it, but says, "The more I understand about the current financial situation, the more I’m persuaded that some form of government bailout of the financial sector really is necessary." Why? Because we can't afford to have a credit market meltdown.

Are you seeing a pattern?

Charlie (Colorado)

Anybody remember the "Cross of Gold Speech" by Bryan?

Dude. You're not that old.

Charlie (Colorado)

%500,000

That should read "$500,000", although I'm sure Barney would be happy to have that typo himself.

Rick Ballard

Charlie,

The very first question to Mr. Local "No Sweat Here" Banker is "How much FM Preferred did you show as an asset on Sept 1?" 'Cause the FM folk were kinda pushy about the locals having some preferred on the books before they would allow them the opportunity to sell a loan to FM.

That's why there's a provision in the current legislation allowing little banks to deduct the entire loss that they took on FM Preferred as a short term loss rather than making them stretch it over the normal long term loss period. Some of those 'safe' little guys aren't exactly safe - as we'll see when the end of quarter reports are filed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame