Keith Labrecque

Hmm, the formatting seems goofed up in my post. Sorry for the duplicate post, but I pasted the above in form Notepad, and it looks crazy. (I'll try again differently - now it looks better to me!) Lou, Thanks for the Plain talk, calling it like it is - don't stop! Right now we as a nation NEED BLUNT TALK. That said, this whole thing is probably a lot more complicated than we would like to admit (or may ever understand), but I like the part of the bottom line as you put it: "No matter how able the Obamanauts, we're not going to get anywhere until these imperial CEOs, their co-conspirators, and especially their boards of directors face public disgrace. There will be no end to decadence until there is a personal price for undermining our society for the sake of ego, transcending mere greed. Remove these people, and forbid them ever again to lead or sit on the board of a public institution." We have to recognize that banks of any stripe won't lend right now unless they have HIGH confidence in the borrowers not defaulting - and for the bloodied big guys, it IS truly a matter of life and death (wether this should be publicly admitted or not just yet, I am not sure - see below). What this signals to me (correct me if I am wrong) is that there is SO MUCH MORE toxic stuff in their portfolios (on or off the balance sheets, at mark-to-market or even at a (somehow magically determined) true value, that they MUST hold the infused TARP money to remain solvent (or as close to solvent as they can manage) until the toxics are completely out of the system. That probably means "another trillion, maybe two." Perhaps this "another trillion, maybe two" could be better spent? I recently heard a proposal; I wonder how sound it is. It is to, instead of burning all the rescue money on failed-but-too-big-to-fail institutions, to use the "another trillion, maybe two" to REPLACE the failed old ones with brand new companies with clean balance sheets, unafraid to lend normally and more to the point, with others unafraid to lend to them. Once such new big banks are up and running, let the old ones die without so much as another dime infused. That way, our markets will not collapse because the new banks will fill the void created. No sense throwing good money after bad, is there? And the excesses of the old ways will be punished, as will the shareholders, bondholders, and others who fell for the "new genius moneymaking securitized timebombs". Or as Warren Buffet called them, "Weapons of Financial Mass Destruction". Prescient, or what?! One thing I would want to consider is whether to contain the bloodletting mostly to within our borders, or try to make other countries (those on whom we depend to buy Treasuries, for example) somewhat whole so they might deign to do future business with us. I read recently in the Economist about how financial devices (money included) have evolved over the ages in a kind of Darwinian manner. This is not merely a metaphor, it is reality. To make room for the new (hopefully better) devices, systems and institutions, the old ones must die and perhaps go extinct. It is all part of the renewal process. Dinosaur banks and systems MUST be allowed to die. It is NOT AN OPTION or we will be stuck in stagnation for generations. As for the disgraced former financial geniuses, DO ban them from the new banks and any part of the new financial system, at least the CEOs, CFOs, and boards. Furthermore, make them disgorge their ill-gotten gains, as well. Maybe their is no particular criminal charges that will stick (after all, stupidity is not a crime), but civil lawsuits based on misrepresentation or somesuch (by harmed governments, companies and individuals) are certainly an option - can you imagine being the target of a class-action lawsuit like that?. Not me! I heard Alan Greenspan recently utter the most stupifying thing, "I have made a mistake.... I thought house prices could (or did he say would?) never go down." What a JOKE! Who and what is he covering up for, by being the fall guy? Greenspan is a genius, and he of ALL people should know better. So what is up with that? I used to think higly of Greenspan. Now that I learn that it was in large part his doing that the money supply was so artifically loose that low interest rates created a housing all-but-bubble, I no longer do. That is so pro-inflationary that he has clearly NOT met his assigned responsibilities to our nation. He needs to be among those prosecuted and sued. I have one more rant. It seems to be an open secret that our supposed government financial statistics (CPI, inflation, GDP, etc.) are so politicized as to be meaningless. If they were merely fudged, that is one thing. They are now fantasy. How can we manage a country, an economy or our own affairs based on faulty information like that??? I hope the Obamanauts take notice and straighten that situation out. Respectfully, Keith Labrecque Labrecque & Associates We Buy Houses...FAST! 502-426-0014 keithl999-inman03@yahoo.com

Lou, Thanks for the Plain talk, calling it like it is - don't stop! Right now we as a nation NEED BLUNT TALK. That said, this whole thing is probably a lot more complicated than we would like to admit (or may ever understand), but I like the part of the bottom line as you put it: "No matter how able the Obamanauts, we're not going to get anywhere until these imperial CEOs, their co-conspirators, and especially their boards of directors face public disgrace. There will be no end to decadence until there is a personal price for undermining our society for the sake of ego, transcending mere greed. Remove these people, and forbid them ever again to lead or sit on the board of a public institution." We have to recognize that banks of any stripe won't lend right now unless they have HIGH confidence in the borrowers not defaulting - and for the bloodied big guys, it IS truly a matter of life and death (wether this should be publicly admitted or not just yet, I am not sure - see below). What this signals to me (correct me if I am wrong) is that there is SO MUCH MORE toxic stuff in their portfolios (on or off the balance sheets, at mark-to-market or even at a (somehow magically determined) true value, that they MUST hold the infused TARP money to remain solvent (or as close to solvent as they can manage) until the toxics are completely out of the system. That probably means "another trillion, maybe two." Perhaps this "another trillion, maybe two" could be better spent? I recently heard a proposal; I wonder how sound it is. It is to, instead of burning all the rescue money on failed-but-too-big-to-fail institutions, to use the "another trillion, maybe two" to REPLACE the failed old ones with brand new companies with clean balance sheets, unafraid to lend normally and more to the point, with others unafraid to lend to them. Once such new big banks are up and running, let the old ones die without so much as another dime infused. That way, our markets will not collapse because the new banks will fill the void created. No sense throwing good money after bad, is there? And the excesses of the old ways will be punished, as will the shareholders, bondholders, and others who fell for the "new genius moneymaking securitized timebombs". Or as Warren Buffet called them, "Weapons of Financial Mass Destruction". Prescient, or what?! One thing I would want to consider is whether to contain the bloodletting mostly to within our borders, or try to make other countries (those on whom we depend to buy Treasuries, for example) somewhat whole so they might deign to do future business with us. I read recently in the Economist about how financial devices (money included) have evolved over the ages in a kind of Darwinian manner. This is not merely a metaphor, it is reality. To make room for the new (hopefully better) devices, systems and institutions, the old ones must die and perhaps go extinct. It is all part of the renewal process. Dinosaur banks and systems MUST be allowed to die. It is NOT AN OPTION or we will be stuck in stagnation for generations. As for the disgraced former financial geniuses, DO ban them from the new banks and any part of the new financial system, at least the CEOs, CFOs, and boards. Furthermore, make them disgorge their ill-gotten gains, as well. Maybe their is no particular criminal charges that will stick (after all, stupidity is not a crime), but civil lawsuits based on misrepresentation or somesuch (by harmed governments, companies and individuals) are certainly an option - can you imagine being the target of a class-action lawsuit like that?. Not me! I heard Alan Greenspan recently utter the most stupifying thing, "I have made a mistake.... I thought house prices could (or did he say would?) never go down." What a JOKE! Who and what is he covering up for, by being the fall guy? Greenspan is a genius, and he of ALL people should know better. So what is up with that? I used to think higly of Greenspan. Now that I learn that it was in large part his doing that the money supply was so artifically loose that low interest rates created a housing all-but-bubble, I no longer do. That is so pro-inflationary that he has clearly NOT met his assigned responsibilities to our nation. He needs to be among those prosecuted and sued. I have one more rant. It seems to be an open secret that our supposed government financial statistics (CPI, inflation, GDP, etc.) are so politicized as to be meaningless. If they were merely fudged, that is one thing. They are now fantasy. How can we manage a country, an economy or our own affairs based on faulty information like that??? I hope the Obamanauts take notice and straighten that situation out. Respectfully, Keith Labrecque Labrecque & Associates We Buy Houses...FAST! 502-426-0014

OK, that was a nice insight that "lead quality is different (lower) on the web". Now it would be good to know how to effectively address that difference. Any suggestions for resources on this? Keith Labrecque Labrecque & Associates We Buy Houses...FAST ! ! !