rros

Held hostage is an appropriate word. Imagine the regulator first order of business being hand-cuffing the conservator telling him not to correct the capital situation. But then, having had the capital from the activation of DTAs would have forced the then conservator (DeMarco) to suspend the suspension :)

Thanks.

To the lawyers in the forum, please. Could judges -after briefs- reach the conclusion that a discretionary action by the regulator (supervisory discretionary action, as per J. Ginsburg) worked against applicable laws (conservatorship)? Then, judicial review is granted and possible enjoining of Lockhardt's action. If enjoined, sound and solvent becomes prevalent and enforceable opening the door to determining the conservatorship did not conserve and that the companies ended up critically undercapitalized. Remember, Watt's argument has always been "sound and solvent" does not matter because capital is not being assessed. Therefore, the bizarre logic that "life support" is equal to a successful conservatorship. We know 4623 allows for suspending a metric (discretionary action, unless arbitrary or contrary to applicable laws). But we also know it doesn't say -neither equates to- capital depletion being irrelevant. It is Lockhardt's action that made it possible for Treasury to steal capital from the companies. This is like the original sin.

RE: FCF the liquidation of the fund has nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie. This is/was a high-yield bond fund. Their collapse is probably related to the energy market bust and only related to debt instruments that now nobody wants. If it spreads and intensifies this will be bad for the market. A credit market hit can, in turn, hit equity markets. Traders are betting against funds invested in junk debt as third ave. so this can spread.

The importance of this is what plaintiff's counsel states: some, even many claims of privilege are probably unwarranted. It does not mean that highly sensitive documents ended up in the hands of plaintiff or that GS had ulterior purposes. GS could have been fired because of this. Or may have felt he and his team incompetence was there for all to see. Nobody knows. In the end, what matters is that Judge Sweeney listens to plaintiff's counsel and grants last motion to uncover docs.

Hi all. First post... and thank you for letting me participate of this fascinating forum. Interesting things being said about this country. Here is a small contribution for a better decision making process... In the last year or two deep changes have been taking place. Government has been using maoist techniques to brainwash elementary students into their thinking, crystallized into "La Campora", a sub-branch of the peronist party. La Campora resembles in many ways the action of the original nazzi SS from the pre-war Germany. It is very difficult to define whether the government -or La Campora- has a left orientation as there are elements of the right and of extreme nationalism. This salad bowl of ideas looks more like 'state capitalism' where the government takes all profit. Expropiation is simply a tool within a larger interventionist policy. An example of how it works: in the past, the government expropiated ANSES funds (pensions) to later realize that ANSES invested its large float with argentine public companies. Then, the government realized that through these investments they could appoint board members into public companies and set policy. Government board members have a clear leftish ideology with complete disregard of free markets. In order to avoid mistakes of the past ripping apart capitalism itself they have learned to use the mechanisms that govern capitalism to gain control, specially of the profits. Congress recently passed a law by which the government could intervene any argentine company that trades in local bursars. But since they are smarter than their predecessors they are not calling the appointed agents "interventors" but "vehedores" which has a slightly less aggressive tone to it while still being able to achieve the same goals, as vehedores have more power than anyone sitting at the board. Not so long ago there was also a bill circulating in Congress by which 10% of profits should go to workers and labor (still making the rounds) and another law was passed in December by which public companies are not allowed to issue shareholders rights plan (for protection) if that could mean affecting minority shareholders. As you may know, such plans try to prevent outsiders from taking over by issuing dilutive shares. The government said the idea behind this law was to protect those with minority stakes. But the protection is for "them" for their participation in public companies via the ANSES. Just this past week there were rumors about a plan by the executive to issue federal credit cards to be used in supermarkets targeting the purchases of any of 400 different items. The use of this federal credit card, issued by the national bank (Banco Nacion) would entail cancelling any other credit card at supermarkets (Visa, mastercard, etc.). This project, they say, could help reign control in prices and tame inflation. You are all smart enough to see that such an advancement has a much darker side. There is literally not one industry they have not tried to control or get their hands unto. The difference with Chavez/Venezuela is that Mr. Chavez found it easy to control the pipes where oil circulates. The infrastructure, so to speak. Not so easy to control the essential resource in Argentina: farmland. Imagine trying to control a highly atomized universe of farmers around the country. Not that they don't want to. It is just a lot more difficult than the venezuelan experiment. Even when confiscating land they woud find it remarkably difficult to control the "chacareros". So, invest... but always remember this government said "vamos por todo", we go after everyone and everything. That may mean one day... your money!