<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Flaherty&#039;s Flyswatter: Government ABCP Facility Only C$3.5 Billion?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://housingdoom.com/2008/12/23/flahertys-flyswatter-government-abcp-facility-only-c35-billion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://housingdoom.com/2008/12/23/flahertys-flyswatter-government-abcp-facility-only-c35-billion/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 01:57:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John M.</title>
		<link>http://housingdoom.com/2008/12/23/flahertys-flyswatter-government-abcp-facility-only-c35-billion/#comment-15213</link>
		<dc:creator>John M.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://housingdoom.com/?p=1916#comment-15213</guid>
		<description>twist -

I keep trying to wake up bits of the public so that at least &lt;em&gt;there can be&lt;/em&gt; a public opinion on these bailouts.

Meanwhile, the present story seems to be getting even murkier, were that possible.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.financialpost.com/news/story.html?id=1109339&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Deja vu in asset-backed commercial paper saga&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, by Jim Middlemiss, &lt;em&gt;National Post&lt;/em&gt;, December 23, 2008.&lt;blockquote&gt;One year ago to the day that the Pan-Canadian Investors Committee first claimed victory by announcing a &quot;tentative&quot; deal to restructure the frozen $32-billion market, the committee has confirmed it has a new &quot;tentative&quot; agreement that would lead to some investors being paid in full and others left holding long-term notes that will pay back their capital in eight years or so.&lt;br /&gt;
...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deal is expected to include a 14-month moratorium on collateral calls on loans related to the notes, a widening of the spread-loss triggers, which will reduce the likelihood of margin calls on the leveraged loans that the paper depends on, and an additional $3.5-billion in funding to backstop the notes from the government. That&#039;s in addition to the $39-billion of collateral and margin facility already in place to backstop the notes. &lt;strong&gt;[huh? where did &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; come from?]&lt;/strong&gt; Originally, the committee was seeking $9.5-billion, but it&#039;s not clear whether or how much the parties involved in the market are being called upon to ante up more cash to backstop the notes.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>twist -</p>
<p>I keep trying to wake up bits of the public so that at least <em>there can be</em> a public opinion on these bailouts.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the present story seems to be getting even murkier, were that possible.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.financialpost.com/news/story.html?id=1109339" rel="nofollow">&#8220;Deja vu in asset-backed commercial paper saga&#8221;</a>, by Jim Middlemiss, <em>National Post</em>, December 23, 2008.<br />
<blockquote>One year ago to the day that the Pan-Canadian Investors Committee first claimed victory by announcing a &#8220;tentative&#8221; deal to restructure the frozen $32-billion market, the committee has confirmed it has a new &#8220;tentative&#8221; agreement that would lead to some investors being paid in full and others left holding long-term notes that will pay back their capital in eight years or so.<br />
&#8230;</p>
<p>The deal is expected to include a 14-month moratorium on collateral calls on loans related to the notes, a widening of the spread-loss triggers, which will reduce the likelihood of margin calls on the leveraged loans that the paper depends on, and an additional $3.5-billion in funding to backstop the notes from the government. That&#8217;s in addition to the $39-billion of collateral and margin facility already in place to backstop the notes. <strong>[huh? where did <em>that</em> come from?]</strong> Originally, the committee was seeking $9.5-billion, but it&#8217;s not clear whether or how much the parties involved in the market are being called upon to ante up more cash to backstop the notes.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: twist</title>
		<link>http://housingdoom.com/2008/12/23/flahertys-flyswatter-government-abcp-facility-only-c35-billion/#comment-15212</link>
		<dc:creator>twist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 00:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://housingdoom.com/?p=1916#comment-15212</guid>
		<description>John-

It seems like governments the world over are in the position where they don&#039;t want to tell their constituents, &quot;We&#039;re sorry, we can&#039;t fix this.&quot;  But there are problems that historians may someday call the &quot;bailout dilemma&quot;.

Governments can only afford tiny bailouts.  These are too insignificant to do any good, and lead to more expectations of more bailouts.  On the other hand, big bailouts can&#039;t work.  It&#039;s like saying, &quot;Gee, I&#039;m out of a job and need income.  I know, I&#039;ll pay me and solve the problem.&quot;  It would need to come from outside the system to do any good, there&#039;s no one on the outside to bail us out.

I wish the &quot;mechanics&quot; would quit trying to get everyone to throw more money at a terminal car.  Isn&#039;t it time we find a new, better way to get around?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John-</p>
<p>It seems like governments the world over are in the position where they don&#8217;t want to tell their constituents, &#8220;We&#8217;re sorry, we can&#8217;t fix this.&#8221;  But there are problems that historians may someday call the &#8220;bailout dilemma&#8221;.</p>
<p>Governments can only afford tiny bailouts.  These are too insignificant to do any good, and lead to more expectations of more bailouts.  On the other hand, big bailouts can&#8217;t work.  It&#8217;s like saying, &#8220;Gee, I&#8217;m out of a job and need income.  I know, I&#8217;ll pay me and solve the problem.&#8221;  It would need to come from outside the system to do any good, there&#8217;s no one on the outside to bail us out.</p>
<p>I wish the &#8220;mechanics&#8221; would quit trying to get everyone to throw more money at a terminal car.  Isn&#8217;t it time we find a new, better way to get around?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

