Re: [Pen-l] Query:Bond holders and failed banks and funds

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure, but I think what happens when a bank is nationalized or
put into receivership (or whatever the euphemism is -- how about "put
in the penalty box"?) it's the stockholders that lose. Those who hold
the banks' bonds would be at the front of the line to be compensated,
since it's a contractual obligation to pay them. However, they may
make less than they had planned on, taking a haircut.[*]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> An acquaintance claimed that if there had been a temporary
> nationalization or formal receivership of the failed banks, most of
> the unpayable debt could have been wiped out by wiping out the
> bondholders. (This would be complicated by the necessity of not wiping
> out major institutions holding those bonds, but you could have at
> least negotiated  a reduction in that debt to less than 100% on the
> dollar.) So one of the big objections to the way the bailout is being
> done is not making the bondholders take any share in the losses.
>
> Is the premise correct? Is debt to bondholders anywhere close to the
> total excess of debt over assets in failed institutions? What about
> the the conclusions drawn from this.
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>



-- 
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.

[*] by mistake, I initially typed "haricut," as in hari Krishna.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l