- Joined
- 22 July 2006
- Posts
- 852
- Reactions
- 1
Cramer makes it sound simple and effective however I think it raises a number of issues. Firstly I think it's comparing apples to oranges by comparing the S&L /RTC bailout to today's mess. RTC was a depositors bailout but that's probably not the most important point.
It raises this whole idea of moral hazard, that these institutions are too big to fail. I find it amusing that these so-called free market capitalists want government intervention at the drop of a hat every-time something goes wrong.
But I have to confess my opinion is largely influenced by what I want to see happen. I actually want them to fail, and I want to see reverberations throughout the economy as a result. I want to see widespread panic and plunging stockmarkets. I also want to see institutions that employed floored business models punished for their greed and incompetence.
Dhukka
Agree with all your points, especially the concept that the big financial institutions are too big to go down. It doesn't seem fair that the consumer should pay for the greed of a few, the problem is that the alternative seems to have much more dire consequences and therefore on a cost/benefit analysis it would appear to be the way to go. I think the very notion of Citigroup going bankrupt would send the most incredible tremor across the world economy, it's almost impossible to have a concept of the far reaching ramifications!
What I do think is a crime however is how all of the bond insurers managed to lodge financial statements for the quarter on a going concern basis when they took an EPS loss for the quarter that in certain instances exceeded their current value per share....... I wouldn't want to be signing that audit report.....
Cheers