News Focus
News Focus
icon url

The Man With No Name

09/18/23 12:38 PM

#768421 RE: LuLeVan #768419

Exactly right. We have a foreigner who knows more about this issue than locals....making some of you look quite pathetic.
icon url

Donotunderstand

09/18/23 12:53 PM

#768426 RE: LuLeVan #768419

not insured
there was no insurance contract

I think - but can not remember - the term was synthetic CDOs

As I understood it - any "player big enough" could BET on a bond being paid or going bust

The big player did not have to own the bonds to bet !!!!!

The underlying value of the CDOs or ? that were bet on reached 80B (or maybe the amount - tips - insured hit 80B)

What I remember is AIG bet long all the time - when everyone else hedged to near zero exposure (the writers the REAL BIG BOYS)
icon url

DaJester

09/18/23 12:58 PM

#768431 RE: LuLeVan #768419

What were the initial terms for AIG? The 79.9% government equity in exchange for what? What was the interest rate on the loan? How did that compare to the interest rate on the Citi bailout? Why was it different for different companies? How long before AIG was able to pay back the loan? How much excess/interest money did Treasury rake in compared to the $182B used to bail AIG out? How does that compare to Citi? How does that compare to what the GSEs have paid to Treasury?

How does any of this compare to the GSEs - who can't even pay anything back yet?? The structure of the bailout and subsequent agreements are completely different.