UBS did not 'lose' 19 billion. They simply wrote down the value of mortgage assets to virtually zero. The fact that they still own the assets means that it may be worth something in the future surely above zero. Of course UBS only has over 2 trillion in global assets under management.
I didn't agree with it, but I understood and could respect the Goldwater/Reagan conservative Republican worldview. It must be really depressing for you and others with similar positions that your political worldview is being represented by the Bush administration. Having to stoop to such obfuscation and bottom of the barrel digging to try to spin success out of this travesty of an administration must be very humbling and humiliating. I respect your cojones for continuing to try to put on the best face. Kudos.
talk about spin, how does a write down flow through an income statement. yeah, if you want to argue that he is using the wrong term, fine, but a write off is a loss.
Dear lord. What a twisted mess of nonesense. Even if anyone could follow that....for it to have any relevance, he'd have to do a similar calculation for another period so its comparable. There's lots to bash GWB about....and I think the economy has been propped up by unsupportable policy (and that it's coming to roost now)....but based on the most objective criteria....it's not been as dire as we've been led to believe.
I largely agree with Basso. Since I am a GOP. But the president really doesn't have much of an effect on the economy. How the economy goes is really just luck as much as anything. The Fed has a lot more power in this regard and we basically had the same guy there for both Clinton and Bush (and Bush!). I think the perception though is that the economy is worse now. Attention grabbers like gas prices really affect the public's perception - even if actual inflation numbers are steady. And what would Clinton have done? Enact strict price controls? Hardly. Tax gas even more? That would just raise prices more. (Heck a lot of Dems in Cali want to do just that).
But its a product of mark-to-market accounting. Valuing something that no one is buying and selling is very hard and forcing companies to basically just say it has no value - hence write-off. The reality is that many assets are producing income so they have value. In the end, you will see either gains at the banks that are able to hold on to these assets or gains by the people that did buy them for the ones that were on fire sale.
i understand his point, that its not a total loss, its still held on as an asset, its a write down instead of selling it off. and it can bring some value back in the future. but the write downs still caused a large enough run on their liquidity that they had to be bailed out and that's the bottom line.
Gents, I applaud your efforts, but attempting to explain mark-to-market accounting to pgabs would be the equivalent of trying to explain quantum physics to a carnival barker.
what's funny is that you think because you understand a term like mark to market you think you have some superior economic knowledge. whatever floats your boat dude
Plus the write downs reflect a real loss in value. Possibly not to zero....but certainly a significant amount. TJ -- you buying these instruments at face? Maybe we should let the folks at Bear Sterns know everythings OK as long as they keep the paper. Silliness abounds.
