 |
Issue Is Payback, Not Bailout -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/24leonhardt.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
อันนี้น่าอ่านครับอาจจะทำให้ความเข้าใจที่ไม่ครบถ้วนเรื่อง Bailout ปรับให้ตรงกันได้ ผมยกข้อความที่ผมเห็นว่าเป็นใจความสำคัญมาลงก็แล้วกันครับ ส่วนที่เหลือตามไปอ่านที่ต้นฉบับได้เลย
The first thing to understand is that a bailout plan doesn't have to cost anywhere close to $700 billion, so long as it's designed well. The $700 billion number that you see everywhere is an estimate of how much the government would spend to buy deteriorating assets now held by banks. Eventually, the government will turn around and sell these assets, for a price almost certain to be greater than zero. So this $700 billion is very different from $700 billion spent on a war or on Medicare.
"Much of the discussion of the cost of the bailouts is getting it wrong," David Colander, an economist at Middlebury College, says. "What matters is what price they buy the assets for and the price they sell them for. That's where the real action is."
Figuring out how much to pay for the assets is the first problem. The drop in house prices and rise in foreclosures have made it clear that these securities are worth considerably less than banks expected. But there is enormous uncertainty about how much less.
Based on the underlying fundamentals (like the current foreclosure rate and the one forecast for the future), many of the securities appear to be worth something on the order of 75 percent of their original value. But thanks to the fear now gripping the market — not necessarily an irrational fear, given that most forecasts have proven far too sunny over the last year — very, very few of those securities are trading hands. Among those that have, the sales price has been roughly 25 percent of the value.
Which price is the government going to pay? As Mr. Colander puts it, that's where the action is.
จากคุณ :
Nexus  
- [
29 ก.ย. 51 12:56:59
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [
29 ก.ย. 51 21:51:42
]
