<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PPIP: Heads or Tails?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:39:14 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: greenpower</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-161982</link>
		<dc:creator>greenpower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-161982</guid>
		<description>Nice way to explain the problems with PPIP. But your math is wrong!! When leverage is fully deployed (6:1), the value of the lottery is $87.50; not $93. You put $6.25, Geithner puts $6.25 &amp; the FDIC puts $75 (=6*($6.25+6.25)), making the value of the lottery $87.50 (=$6.25+$6.25+$75). You only have to solve one equation with one unknown.  Good ideas should not be marred by bad numbers. Numbers matter... Else you end up like Geithner...

Also you could take one more step. If you put up $25, Geithner brings another $25 &amp; the FDIC provides $300, bringing the value of the lottery to $350, when it really costs $50. Then one of your competitors does the same for a lottery that you own. In the end, your competitor &amp; you exchange lotteries &amp; $25, Geithner pays each $25 (for 50% of the profits if the $50 lottery is sold for more than , and the FDIC lends each $300 cheaply with two lotteries worth $100 in total as collateral. Great deal for the taxpayer!!! No wonder Geithner will only allow asset managers he approves in this party...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice way to explain the problems with PPIP. But your math is wrong!! When leverage is fully deployed (6:1), the value of the lottery is $87.50; not $93. You put $6.25, Geithner puts $6.25 &amp; the FDIC puts $75 (=6*($6.25+6.25)), making the value of the lottery $87.50 (=$6.25+$6.25+$75). You only have to solve one equation with one unknown.  Good ideas should not be marred by bad numbers. Numbers matter&#8230; Else you end up like Geithner&#8230;</p>
<p>Also you could take one more step. If you put up $25, Geithner brings another $25 &amp; the FDIC provides $300, bringing the value of the lottery to $350, when it really costs $50. Then one of your competitors does the same for a lottery that you own. In the end, your competitor &amp; you exchange lotteries &amp; $25, Geithner pays each $25 (for 50% of the profits if the $50 lottery is sold for more than , and the FDIC lends each $300 cheaply with two lotteries worth $100 in total as collateral. Great deal for the taxpayer!!! No wonder Geithner will only allow asset managers he approves in this party&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: johnbougearel</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-158229</link>
		<dc:creator>johnbougearel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-158229</guid>
		<description>Hmmm, 

PimRock puts in $3.57,  the taxpayer funds the US Treasury $3.57 (unauthorized by Congress) = $7.14 and the taxpayer-funded FDIC is then permitted to loan PimRock $42.84.  Hmmm, I did not know the FDIC was chartered to create credit and extend loans.  I thought they were in the insurance business, insuring deposits, not making loans, but maybe my understanding is a bit whack or a bit out of date under the new Geithner driven Obama regime. Some enlightenment from those who know whether this scheme was legal before the Geithner&#039;s scheme or not. And if not, wouldn&#039;t the US treasury need congressional approval under the badly trampled and abused US constitution?  

In any event,  PimRock&#039;s downpayment of $3.57, with the FDIC  leverage thrown in allows provides PimRock with 13:1 or 14.1 leverage. Now we all know PimRock gets special treatment from the gubmint, so I doubt the gubmint is going to require a debt-to-income ratio of 38% to determine their creditworthiness in order to service this taxpayer funded loan from the FDIC.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm, </p>
<p>PimRock puts in $3.57,  the taxpayer funds the US Treasury $3.57 (unauthorized by Congress) = $7.14 and the taxpayer-funded FDIC is then permitted to loan PimRock $42.84.  Hmmm, I did not know the FDIC was chartered to create credit and extend loans.  I thought they were in the insurance business, insuring deposits, not making loans, but maybe my understanding is a bit whack or a bit out of date under the new Geithner driven Obama regime. Some enlightenment from those who know whether this scheme was legal before the Geithner&#8217;s scheme or not. And if not, wouldn&#8217;t the US treasury need congressional approval under the badly trampled and abused US constitution?  </p>
<p>In any event,  PimRock&#8217;s downpayment of $3.57, with the FDIC  leverage thrown in allows provides PimRock with 13:1 or 14.1 leverage. Now we all know PimRock gets special treatment from the gubmint, so I doubt the gubmint is going to require a debt-to-income ratio of 38% to determine their creditworthiness in order to service this taxpayer funded loan from the FDIC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dd</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-158219</link>
		<dc:creator>dd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:11:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-158219</guid>
		<description>Mark,
Thanks, interesting.
What I was looking for was a simple explanation as to why any game with 50/50 odds,
where the win exceeds the loss by any amount, is not positive over time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,<br />
Thanks, interesting.<br />
What I was looking for was a simple explanation as to why any game with 50/50 odds,<br />
where the win exceeds the loss by any amount, is not positive over time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephan</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-158202</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:21:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-158202</guid>
		<description>You would not bid more than 87.50. You put in 6.25, Geithner joins you with 6.25 and FDIC loans you 6x12.50=75. You win 12.50 or loose 6.25. You would only bid 93 if you&#039;re a Bayesian and convinced the coin has a bias towards the private market.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You would not bid more than 87.50. You put in 6.25, Geithner joins you with 6.25 and FDIC loans you 6&#215;12.50=75. You win 12.50 or loose 6.25. You would only bid 93 if you&#8217;re a Bayesian and convinced the coin has a bias towards the private market.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rktbrkr</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-158049</link>
		<dc:creator>rktbrkr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-158049</guid>
		<description>OK, so Mongo G comes up with this razzle-dazzle scheme to grossly overpay for toxic bank assets and the private investors make big bucks on lucky tranches and leave the baddest tranches with FDIC when they walk away from their non-recourse loans.

The 4 big banks now have clean balance sheets and can resume lending their virtually free money for new loans to consumers, corporations and those sweet, sweet credit cards with 30% interest &amp; penalties.

Meanwhile the Federal government &amp; FDIC are many trillions underwater for deficits, bailouts and proud ownership of toxic assets. The only solution is hyperinflation to  render these debts to meaninglessness. The FDIC would, of course, have to thread the needle and unload these toxic assets before these million dollar homes collapse back when mortgage interest rates explode in response to hyperinflation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, so Mongo G comes up with this razzle-dazzle scheme to grossly overpay for toxic bank assets and the private investors make big bucks on lucky tranches and leave the baddest tranches with FDIC when they walk away from their non-recourse loans.</p>
<p>The 4 big banks now have clean balance sheets and can resume lending their virtually free money for new loans to consumers, corporations and those sweet, sweet credit cards with 30% interest &amp; penalties.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the Federal government &amp; FDIC are many trillions underwater for deficits, bailouts and proud ownership of toxic assets. The only solution is hyperinflation to  render these debts to meaninglessness. The FDIC would, of course, have to thread the needle and unload these toxic assets before these million dollar homes collapse back when mortgage interest rates explode in response to hyperinflation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Broken</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-158036</link>
		<dc:creator>Broken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:13:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-158036</guid>
		<description>How is PPIP any different from the government just hiring some hedge fund or private equity hotshots  to run US.HEDGE where 50% of the upside goes to the manager and 50% to the customer, with the customer providing leverage and most of the risk?

Haven&#039;t investors been doing this for years? By their own choice? Were they suckers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is PPIP any different from the government just hiring some hedge fund or private equity hotshots  to run US.HEDGE where 50% of the upside goes to the manager and 50% to the customer, with the customer providing leverage and most of the risk?</p>
<p>Haven&#8217;t investors been doing this for years? By their own choice? Were they suckers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-158025</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-158025</guid>
		<description>dd, 

see: http://quantwolf.com/doc/cointoss/cointoss.html

or

http://www.accd.edu/sac/math/faculty/gbusald/Project/student1.htm

if you have further Q&#039;s, ask the kids</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dd, </p>
<p>see: <a href="http://quantwolf.com/doc/cointoss/cointoss.html" rel="nofollow">http://quantwolf.com/doc/cointoss/cointoss.html</a></p>
<p>or</p>
<p><a href="http://www.accd.edu/sac/math/faculty/gbusald/Project/student1.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.accd.edu/sac/math/faculty/gbusald/Project/student1.htm</a></p>
<p>if you have further Q&#8217;s, ask the kids</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dd</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-158007</link>
		<dc:creator>dd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-158007</guid>
		<description>I guess I don&#039;t understand the first paragraph.
The game is a coin toss.
The odds of a head on any toss are 50/50.
Heads, I win $100.
Tails, I lose $0.
I may play as many times as I wish.
It would seem that paying any amount less than $100 as long as you were able to
sustain the inevitable string of losses would be a winning combination.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess I don&#8217;t understand the first paragraph.<br />
The game is a coin toss.<br />
The odds of a head on any toss are 50/50.<br />
Heads, I win $100.<br />
Tails, I lose $0.<br />
I may play as many times as I wish.<br />
It would seem that paying any amount less than $100 as long as you were able to<br />
sustain the inevitable string of losses would be a winning combination.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-158000</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:04:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-158000</guid>
		<description>Foghorn, 

re: Cattle, I hear you.

a friend of mine is keeping a few head for me, West of you, North of Navasota.

like these http://www.simmental.org/ + http://www.int-brangus.org/

cross-breds..

btw, are you keeping TAMU apprised of your Herd?  I&#039;m under the impression that their Registry aids in Higher auction/servicing prices..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Foghorn, </p>
<p>re: Cattle, I hear you.</p>
<p>a friend of mine is keeping a few head for me, West of you, North of Navasota.</p>
<p>like these <a href="http://www.simmental.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.simmental.org/</a> + <a href="http://www.int-brangus.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.int-brangus.org/</a></p>
<p>cross-breds..</p>
<p>btw, are you keeping TAMU apprised of your Herd?  I&#8217;m under the impression that their Registry aids in Higher auction/servicing prices..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/ppip-heads-or-tails/comment-page-1/#comment-157996</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:50:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=22802#comment-157996</guid>
		<description>&quot;Please give me 8 minutes to explain&quot;

Sorry, we in TV land only get 105 seconds per story.  Anything more and we lose track of what they were talking about.  Shrink this article down to a sound byte and maybe people will care as much as about AIG bonuses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Please give me 8 minutes to explain&#8221;</p>
<p>Sorry, we in TV land only get 105 seconds per story.  Anything more and we lose track of what they were talking about.  Shrink this article down to a sound byte and maybe people will care as much as about AIG bonuses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
