Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Fundamental Question, What Happens If There Is No Bailout !
Old 09-22-2008, 09:13 PM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,535
Fundamental Question, What Happens If There Is No Bailout !

I have read until I'm blue in the face upsides and downsides to the bail out issue that Congress and the Fed are trying to hammer out. One simple question, what happens if there is no agreement ? Anybody have any ideas ?
Why not let the market work ?
__________________

__________________
frayne is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-23-2008, 09:01 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 19th Hole
Posts: 2,535
Bump, guess no one wants to speculate.
__________________

__________________
frayne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 09:09 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,543
no one knows

best guess is the value of the bonds fall and a lot of banks will fail either because they can't raise new capital or they can't pay the interest on their debt. the credit crunch will also spread to the economy as companies will have a lot of problems issuing short term paper. most companies issue short term debt to finance operations and if they can't issue debt than they risk running out of cash. this will mean a lot of layoffs next year.

since we have the FDIC it will cost a lot more money to make a new RTC to handle all the bank failures. government is going to take all the bad loans onto it's books one way or another

expect the SP500 to hit 500 - 800 before it bottoms
__________________
al_bundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 09:14 AM   #4
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 717
That's the beauty of this bailout - no one knows. If you're against it and block it, and the economy fails, you won't get re-elected. If you're for it, and the economy fails, well you did your best. It's a rigged game.
__________________
riskadverse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 09:26 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,543
there are also some similarities between today and the 1830's. back then the states borrowed a lot of money from The English Empire and other European countries to finance a lot of big projects like The Eerie Canal. After the central bank's charter ran out and wasn't renewed there was a depression and the states defaulted on the debt for a few decades. Foreign investors stayed out of the US for decades.

If foreign investors get burned than they may dump dollar assets and stop investing here for decades. the dollar will run the risk of losing it's status as a reserve currency. interest rates will skyrocket even for the best credit quality customers. expect a few decades of 15% mortgage rates and deflation, which is a lot worse than inflation
__________________
al_bundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 09:29 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post
no one knows

best guess is the value of the bonds fall and a lot of banks will fail either because they can't raise new capital or they can't pay the interest on their debt. the credit crunch will also spread to the economy as companies will have a lot of problems issuing short term paper. most companies issue short term debt to finance operations and if they can't issue debt than they risk running out of cash. this will mean a lot of layoffs next year.

since we have the FDIC it will cost a lot more money to make a new RTC to handle all the bank failures. government is going to take all the bad loans onto it's books one way or another

expect the SP500 to hit 500 - 800 before it bottoms
LOL
__________________
utrecht is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:11 AM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
lazygood4nothinbum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,895
this is like paying to walk out of a restaurant without checking your bill first. if this was caused by bad mortgages, why can't the government just identify those houses and buy back their debt? what's all this other stuff being added? gratuity? is democracy being held hostage by capitalism?
__________________
"off with their heads"~~dr. joseph-ignace guillotin

"life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages."~~mark twain - letter to edward kimmitt 1901
lazygood4nothinbum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:19 AM   #8
Full time employment: Posting here.
cantlogin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pocono Mtns.
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by utrecht View Post
LOL

What's so funny?
__________________
cantlogin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:26 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,052
This is what happens when the government gets involved with Wall St. While this is a very unusual and necessary involvement by Government to save the banks, you can now see how many different hands are trying to get their own personal causes added into the legislation and is a great example of why you shouldn't want the Congress and President to be from the same party.
I know my answer is a bit off topic, but I'm foreseeing the future and it ain't pretty.

So, to answer your question, odds are, by the time the bill gets passed, they will have screwed it up to the point that you may not recognize it, and it probably will have to be redone in the near future. JMO.
__________________
Art G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:31 AM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art G View Post
This is what happens when the government gets involved with Wall St. While this is a very unusual and necessary involvement by Government to save the banks, you can now see how many different hands are trying to get their own personal causes added into the legislation and is a great example of why you shouldn't want the Congress and President to be from the same party.
I know my answer is a bit off topic, but I'm foreseeing the future and it ain't pretty.

So, to answer your question, odds are, by the time the bill gets passed, they will have screwed it up to the point that you may not recognize it, and it probably will have to be redone in the near future. JMO.
I gotta agree. The "Bill" that Bush gets to look over will be watered down, have loads of earmarks, probably contain some sneaky taxes,etc. I haven't seen a clean bill out of Congress in forever........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:33 AM   #11
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by utrecht View Post
LOL
Yeah, what's so funny? He's actually saying something similar to what this guy has said all along:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/ma...ssimist-t.html

And there is growing acceptance of the "paradox of deleveraging."

Bundy is on to something.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:36 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post
there are also some similarities between today and the 1830's. back then the states borrowed a lot of money from The English Empire and other European countries to finance a lot of big projects like The Eerie Canal. After the central bank's charter ran out and wasn't renewed there was a depression and the states defaulted on the debt for a few decades. Foreign investors stayed out of the US for decades.

If foreign investors get burned than they may dump dollar assets and stop investing here for decades. the dollar will run the risk of losing it's status as a reserve currency. interest rates will skyrocket even for the best credit quality customers. expect a few decades of 15% mortgage rates and deflation, which is a lot worse than inflation

Paulson won't screw the foreign investors, he knows which side his bread is buttered on. I think the foreign investors in AIG screamed bloody murder, and it had an effect.........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:36 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
I gotta agree. The "Bill" that Bush gets to look over will be watered down, have loads of earmarks, probably contain some sneaky taxes,etc. I haven't seen a clean bill out of Congress in forever........

Quit agreeing with me or we're gonna get accused of trying to sell annuities!
__________________
Art G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:56 AM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Yeah, what's so funny? He's actually saying something similar to what this guy has said all along:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/ma...ssimist-t.html

And there is growing acceptance of the "paradox of deleveraging."

Bundy is on to something.
i've been reading his stuff for years, nothing really to invest on but nice for background info

one interesting thing is that over the weekend i ran some stock screens. just in case last week was the end of the bear market i wanted to catch the new leaders of the next bull. A lot of the stocks that came up are Chineese companies.
__________________
al_bundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 10:56 AM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
I think this is a good question. I haven't seen a convincing argument that tells me we need the bailout.

If some regulated banks fail, the gov't will take them over. The taxpayers could end up with the bad assets of those banks. But why do the same thing for everybody else?

I'll give one example of the types of questions that I've got: We had one money market fund "break the buck" last week. That was viewed as a catastrophe in the making. I don't see why. If I want an insured "money market" rate, I can get it at my local bank. If I'm investing in a MM mutual fund, I get a better rate but I take the chance that I could lose principal. Why should the gov't try to protect me from the results of my own choices? Some people say the gov't needs to intervene to keep people from taking money out of MM mutual funds. If they do that, firms won't be able to sell short term paper, and they won't be able to fund their operations. But investors have to go somewhere with the money they take out of the MM mutual funds. If they deposit it in banks, then banks have more money to lend. If they put it in the stock market, firms can get money by selling stock. If they buy gov't bonds, the people who sold them the gov't bonds have money that could go into banks or the market. Where's the catastrophe?

I can see that these re-adjustments can lead to a recession, but not to "complete meltdown of the economic system". I'd rather live with a recession that squeezes some of the silliness out of our system, then try to prop up the silliness indefinitely.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 11:00 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,543
MM's breaking the buck is scary because that's where everyone keeps cash in between investments. i sold my and my wife's retirement accounts back in June. 2 weeks ago i was down 1.57% for the year. After Lehman it was 1.63%.

now think of all the non-retirement accounts that have money in MM's because they are sitting out this market or whatever and instead of preserving capital you suddenly lose .5% in a week. or 3% in a week in an investment that is supposed to be safe.

it's a loss of confidence and very bad. this is why there was a mad rush into 3 month t-bills for a few days. no one cares what's in an MM, they don't want to lose money. and no one is going to put it in a bank since they are carrying a lot of bad loans, many are on the verge of failing and the FDIC limit is $100,000

the meltdown comes as debt is downgraded along with banks. they have to raise capital to meet reserve requirements or they will just fail if people pull money out in bank runs.
__________________
al_bundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 11:06 AM   #17
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 831
It's possible that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley declare bankruptcy (despite their new status as bank holding companies). This is where things were heading last week before Treasury Secretary Paulson and the rest of the Goldman Sachs golden boys panicked and intervened in the market (in order to save their own pensions and portfolios?) What happens after that? The profitable pieces of these banks get sold off, the trash is dumped in the dumpster where it belongs, and life moves on. Optimistically, perhaps we start focusing on the serious systemic economic problems we face, rather than pretending they don't exist by drowning them in a sea of new deficit spending.

Off topic: It's interesting to speculate whether Lehman Brothers would ever have been allowed to fail if Paulson and his brat pack were LB alumni instead of Goldman Sachs alumni. I guess we'll never know.
__________________
socca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 11:23 AM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,052
Goldman Sachs isn't going anywhere. The move they made was about getting in on federal subsidizing and covering themselves from being left out when everyone else gets a free pass.
I'm wondering though, who are companies going to go to, to get finance deals done? Who's gonna be the new IPO leader? One of the big perks to being a Goldman client is access to all the IPO's you can muster, now what?
__________________
Art G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 11:32 AM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by socca View Post
It's possible that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley declare bankruptcy (despite their new status as bank holding companies). This is where things were heading last week before Treasury Secretary Paulson and the rest of the Goldman Sachs golden boys panicked and intervened in the market (in order to save their own pensions and portfolios?) What happens after that? The profitable pieces of these banks get sold off, the trash is dumped in the dumpster where it belongs, and life moves on. Optimistically, perhaps we start focusing on the serious systemic economic problems we face, rather than pretending they don't exist by drowning them in a sea of new deficit spending.

Off topic: It's interesting to speculate whether Lehman Brothers would ever have been allowed to fail if Paulson and his brat pack were LB alumni instead of Goldman Sachs alumni. I guess we'll never know.
this is the part where you get a recession or depression. after lehman and AIG fail the question is who is next? no one cares and everything is sold off which leads to a wave of ratings downgrades. this of course leads to a credit crunch where very few short term paper is issued. maybe too late this year, but next year a lot of companies will have to issue paper to prepare for the holiday season to buy inventory. if they can't buy product that is a lot of layoffs.

once this happens it's a lot more than a trillion $$$ to support the FDIC and all the social spending that will have to be done
__________________
al_bundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2008, 11:47 AM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post
MM's breaking the buck is scary because that's where everyone keeps cash in between investments. . .
now think of all the non-retirement accounts that have money in MM's because they are sitting out this market or whatever and instead of preserving capital you suddenly lose .5% in a week. or 3% in a week in an investment that is supposed to be safe.

it's a loss of confidence and very bad.
But you were well aware that the MM fund wasn't absolutely safe, right? Not as safe as an FDIC insured CD, right? Shouldn't we give credit to people for being this smart (or let them get bruised a little so that next time they, and others, are?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post
. . . and no one is going to put it in a bank since they are carrying a lot of bad loans, many are on the verge of failing and the FDIC limit is $100,000
$100,000 per registration type at each bank. There are a lot of banks out there, and it is simple to get this protection. People who want it should do it, and the government shouldn't be subsidizing those who want to take more risk (in a MM brokerage account). Government subsidy of risk is precisely what got us into this bad situation.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AIG Bailout? Purron FIRE and Money 75 09-22-2008 10:53 AM
Weighting game: New 'lazy' portfolio using 'fundamental' ETFs sparks furor chinaco FIRE and Money 15 05-05-2007 06:12 PM
Fundamental Indexing debate in JOI ats5g FIRE and Money 0 03-15-2007 02:34 PM
fundamental premise windsurf FIRE and Money 46 03-03-2007 07:43 AM
Fundamental Indexing donheff FIRE and Money 1 09-29-2006 08:38 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:50 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.