Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hocndoc
Here is the Republican backed Insurance Clause from the article:

"Meanwhile, House Republicans won a major victory, persuading negotiators to include a provision that would require the Treasury Department to create a federal insurance program that would guarantee banks and other firms against loss from any troubled asset, the official said."

My problem with this is that given the choice of selling non-preforming assets for cash versus spending money to insure these assets that the banks will simply choose to take the money and run. What would motivate them to subscribe to the Republican plan when they can cash out from the $700 billion piggy bank? It's not obvious to me that they would.

40 posted on 09/28/2008 4:13:34 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: InterceptPoint
My problem with this is that given the choice of selling non-preforming assets for cash versus spending money to insure these assets that the banks will simply choose to take the money and run. What would motivate them to subscribe to the Republican plan when they can cash out from the $700 billion piggy bank? It's not obvious to me that they would.

Well, theoretically, you could sell the assets to the Treasury for 25 cents on the dollar, or you could have them insured, which would effectively make them free of default risk and so they should now be priced closer to 100 cents on the dollar. The insurance might go for only a few percent, meaning you could profit big from it.

48 posted on 09/28/2008 4:56:19 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo (You can put lipstick on a donkey, but it's still just a jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson