Kuma

Agreed. I recently watched the film 'The Grapes of Wrath', early on in the film Henry Fonda's character meets up with his mother. He'd just been released from prison after confinement for a number of years; Ma ... Did they hurt you, son? Did they hurt you an' make you mean-mad? TOM (puzzled) Mad, Ma? MA Sometimes they do. TOM (gently) No, Ma I was at first--but not no more. MA (not yet quite convinced) Sometimes they do somethin' to you, Tommy. They hurt you--and you get mad--and then you get mean--and they hurt you again--and you get meaner, and meaner--till you ain't no boy or no man any more, but just a walkin' chunk a mean-mad. Did they hurt you like that, Tommy? Was an epiphany moment for me as I've a horrible feeling these last few years have made me mean

I'm off to holiday in Japan at the end of the month, timed that well...

Who's going to buy their treasury debt at a time like this?

Thanks again for replying. I must say clocked the difference beteen Covered bonds and securities when I was mulling over the B&B collapse, it was a hypothesis until you confirmed it though. Do you know if the CP market is regulated in any fashion as it just occured to me that you could presumably raise all your funding via this market? Again this appears to be another wholesale market from which banks raise funding. I mention this as when things started to go to the wall in early 2007 a list of banks most at risk was fairly easy to draw up, members of the list appeared to have two defining properties; exposure to the mortgage market, or high loan to deposits ratios. In your view, after this crisis abates, would it make sense to put a regulatory limit on future 'loans to deposits' ratios for all banks? Finally do you know how this facility will be funded, will it be via money raised by the treasury selling T bills? Sorry for all the questions! EDIT: spelling

thanks for the reply By covered bonds I meant a bond with a claim on an underlying asset owned by the issuing company, should the bond be defaulted on. I was aware covered bonds existed but had no idea what the claim was usually attached to, I chucked it in as it seemed analagous to what I thought asset backed comercial paper would be. Don't bonds have to be recorded on the balance sheet, but CP doesn't? (I'm seriously struggling to remember some long distant article I've read) If that's true then do they avoid having to put CP on the balance sheet due to the short lifetime of the obligation? EDIT: I've just read the second paragraph above and not sure if it makes sense! I would assume that all transactions would have to show up on the balance sheet, regardless of duration? The only advantage I can see with this form of short term funding is that it would allow funding to breach certain regulated thresholds in the short time and to resolve a position before quarterly filling with the FSA...(drifting off into speculation)

So what's the difference between CP and taking a short term bond or covered bond in the same company?

well spotted yet again the BBC go down in my estimation...

Actually talking of GMAC-RFC http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/cgi-bin/...h=401&f=402 Derbyshire was also a purchaser of their 'prime' loans, they are being taken over by Nationwide. Edit: GMAC B&B deal from before B&B's nationalisation - http://www.citywire.co.uk/professional/-/n....aspx?ID=315213 Edit2: the article above states that B&B were committed to buying £500 + £225 Million in mortgages over two quaters, that's approximatly £125 million a month.

GMAC EDIT: actually GMAC-RFC

I'm speculating but perhaps it's a wholly owned subsidiary? I recall that companies that are either very large and/or operate in many different comercial fields are often structured such that there is a parent company with the components set up as separate companies that are wholly owned by the parent. Again I'm speculating but I believe this structure gives them (parent and subsidiaries) all protection such that if a subsidiary gets into trouble it can be placed into admistration or declared insolvent so that it's losses and liabilities are ring fenced. As the parent company owns the shares of the subsidiaries I would guess profits are taken into the parent via dividends? It would also make sense that if the holding company goes under then subsiduries can continue to operate as normal and can be sold off to pay off the parent company creditors. I've only skim read the quote below but it would seem that AIG have been allowed to reach into the subsidiary and grab some of it's assets to use as collatoral? That would seem to make a mockery of the reasons for making it a subsiduary in the first place, I'm still thinking it through though.

hehe, that's only because us southerners can't understand a bl**dy word you're saying

What did it taste like?

Just got back from a quick shop down Moorgate, the gap store is running an advertising campaign called 'Gap to Basics'. Guess you're not the only one who's seeing the parallels with disintegratation of the Tory Party.

Anglia Poly's finest making a fool of herself I see. She started well but then fell apart. Avoiding the question is par for the course, or at least when it gets repeated after you've already answered it once. However what she did then was get flustered, waffle incoherently in patches and then drone on about the irrelevant. Poor interview technique married with an average mind.

The evening the stamp duty rumour hit the headlines it was mentioned on here by someone that this would likely cause people to wait and see. Like you I was unconvinced this would have too much of an effect. However traveling on the train that evening the women opposite answered a call and I almost fell off my seat when she announced to the person on the phone that she had spoken to the 'someone' (think she said EA) and had put the house purchase on pause because of the stamp duty. good work Capt. Darling...