Pelosi calls for panel to probe Wall Street

[Caliga]

That's what witchhunting is all about.

BURN BARNEY FRANK AT THE STAKE. 

[KRonn]

Also, I do agree that this would turn into a massive witch hunt, making the AIG hunt look rather tame. So even though I figure that some businesses need to be investigated for their practices, I'd have to change my view and be against it or neutral about, given the wacky attitudes going on lately. I'd go along with it if Congress could mitigate the witch hunt fervor, but I fear the witch hunts somewhat suit Congress as it deflects or masks attention from their bungling and complicity in things.

[derspiess]

That's what witchhunting is all about.

BURN BARNEY FRANK AT THE STAKE. 

He's not flaming enough for you? 

[Neil]

Also, I do agree that this would turn into a massive witch hunt, making the AIG hunt look rather tame. So even though I figure that some businesses need to be investigated for their practices, I'd have to change my view and be against it or neutral about, given the wacky attitudes going on lately. I'd go along with it if Congress could mitigate the witch hunt fervor, but I fear the witch hunts somewhat suit Congress as it deflects or masks attention from their bungling and complicity in things.

Wouldn't investigating potential violations fall to Justice or Commerce?  Surely they would be better at it than a body of people too incompetant to avoid being elected to Congress?

[Sheilbh]

They issued too many subprime mortgages and sold too many credit default swaps. 

I think that's too simplistic.  The arguments I've read that make most sense to me are to do with monetary policy (John Taylor) and the change from net borrowers to net creditors that happened with emerging countries after the '97 Asian crash (Martin Wolf).  It was that shift that enabled American, British, Spanish, Irish and Icelandic banks (and others) to be so easy with the credit.  To use a phrase I read today in relation to Taylor's argument the worst subprimes did was to amplify the effects.

[Sheilbh]

And I think this idea's ridiculous.  Stabilise the banking system, develop some new regulation, see if you need more stimulus and then, if everything else has gone perfectly well, then start investigating Wall Street.  Do it when the crisis has passed and the facts are in and there's the possibility that you'll generate some light as well as heat.

[Martinus]

The question is, who will be tea-bagging Nancy Pelosi while she probes Wall Street?

I bet Ed Anger would pay to watch it, btw.

[Razgovory]

Witchhunting = Government looking to closely at stuff I don't want them to.

[Admiral Yi]

They issued too many subprime mortgages and sold too many credit default swaps. 

I think that's too simplistic.  The arguments I've read that make most sense to me are to do with monetary policy (John Taylor) and the change from net borrowers to net creditors that happened with emerging countries after the '97 Asian crash (Martin Wolf).  It was that shift that enabled American, British, Spanish, Irish and Icelandic banks (and others) to be so easy with the credit.  To use a phrase I read today in relation to Taylor's argument the worst subprimes did was to amplify the effects.

Monetary policy can maybe explain the housing bubble, but it doesn't explain the insane pricing on the subprime related assets.

[Sheilbh]

Monetary policy can maybe explain the housing bubble, but it doesn't explain the insane pricing on the subprime related assets.

What do you mean by assets?  The ones the banks were trading?

[Admiral Yi]

What do you mean by assets?  The ones the banks were trading?

CDSs, CDOs, FYIs, PDQs, all that stuff.

[Sheilbh]

CDSs, CDOs, FYIs, PDQs, all that stuff.

Weren't they generally bundled together?  From my understanding sub-prime assets trading was only about 25% and of that 25% most were mixed in with prime assets to make it a more attractive and valuable proposition.

[Ed Anger]

The question is, who will be tea-bagging Nancy Pelosi while she probes Wall Street?

I bet Ed Anger would pay to watch it, btw.

No.

I like 'em around 19, not 190.

[DontSayBanana]

Weren't they generally bundled together?  From my understanding sub-prime assets trading was only about 25% and of that 25% most were mixed in with prime assets to make it a more attractive and valuable proposition.

If you're talking about AIG specifically, yes. That's why AIG's financial products division was coming under such heavy fire; it was their idea to sell packages that included CDS assets; it seemed like a win-win, because it let them lower their burden while lowering the price for the sale, but they forgot to account for the fact that a lot of purchasers were insuring with AIG, so they ultimately ended up with the responsibility when subprime mortgage assets tanked, as well as a bulk of former purchasers who wanted to offload their burdens because there's still a fuckton of unvalued assets out there that could go toxic at any moment.