At 08:38 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote: >--- In ><mailto:AhliKeuangan-Indonesia%40yahoogroups.com>AhliKeuangan-Indonesia@yahoogroups.com, > >Poltak Hotradero ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Mas Bayu, > > > > Yes. I think US Government should not bail out those who made > > reckless speculations by facilitating housing loans without > > sufficient credit profile. They should bear the cost from what they > > have done (some of them has gone bankrupt, anyway). > >A view that did not even materialized here, 200 millions people (60% of them >are below poverty line) are bailing out Bankers, Conglomerates, Investors, >in the sums of over 600 trillions Rupiahs of BLBI and Recap Bonds. Of which >most of them are either being theft, taken abroad and laundered, or swapped >with over-valued assets, or even non-existent assets.
========= That's why Indonesia should develop a more balanced capital market - which not only relies on bank loans, but also equity and bond market as well. If you care to see Indonesian capital structure before 1997 - you'll see that most of capital raised came from bank loans, which most of them are short term. Relying on bank loan to finance a long-term project is resemble to buying a house using credit card. Either you're a fool or the bank is stupid (or corrupt) or both of you had no choice. In an episode of monetary shock, bank loan has the largest risk - because of its natural leverage and its knit close to the whole monetary system. Equity and bond market has a less degree of systemic risk, and most of them can be managed by the central bank quite easily compared to bank loans. ========= >And this bail-out are still continued, in annual interest of over 60 >trillions on the Recap Bonds. On expense of educational funds, oil >"subsidy", social welfare, etc. ========= I know you're working in a bank Bernie, so please help yourself by checking how much recap bond still outstanding now, how much has been bought back, and what's the function of government bond in stimulating economy. Have yourself updated before fussing around with some misunderstandings. And as always - only if you really care. ========= > > Yes, there are some people which unfortunately will lose their houses > > - BUT they are also the very same people who can't afford to have it > > in the first hand (remember the definition of sub-prime). If you > > can't even pay the interest - then technically you can't afford to > > have a home. If you can't afford it then it's natural for you to lose it. > >Darwinian view on universe, survival of the fittest :P Which is actually >acceptable, in ANIMAL WORLD (but try to talk that to PETA though :P). Yet, >we are human, and in HUMAN WORLD we are not supposed to feel content when >our neighbours EXTINCT. ========= Let see. If you given an opportunity to borrow money for buying a car which you REALLY REALLY KNOW that you CAN NOT afford (for example your earning power can only afford you a motorcycle but you buy a Rolls Royce or Ferarri instead) - wouldn't be you pose a risk to yourself of one day will be dispossesed of your beloved Rolls Royce????? Think again!
