Interesting Q&A over at UBS earlier this week, concerning a voluntary roll-over of Greek bonds:
Question [from an emotional anonymous]: … this business of a voluntary versus a mandatory default seems to me kind of silly. Why are the authorities even talking about a three-year voluntary extension? That’s going to be called a default event. All these financial institutions in Europe that think they’re protected from this are not going to get payouts, and they’re going to get bonds that are lower quality; that have lower rating. So I don’t understand why they’re even talking about a seven-year versus a three-year. If they were talking about a zero-year or a 10,000-year, I would understand that, that’s at least logical, but there’s really… I don’t see the difference there. I mean, I don’t think anyone sees the difference between an orderly and disorderly. The only way to have an orderly is you close markets for a week and you announce it today and it’s all done at the end of the week, but… So my second question is, why are they even talking about a three-year versus a sevenyear, and why is a three-year good? It seems to me just as problematic as a seven-year. Read more
1Bernanke weighs in on robot wars; brings Keynes for backup
2About China's capacity to absorb more capital
3Secret liquidity and Scottish independence
4Spain's awful unemployment
5Pump up, debase
Show more6S&P 2,100, by Goldman Sachs
7Everlasting credit, the long view
8Buyback to enrich
9Collateral crunch-counting gets sophisticated
10Apple Operations International, facts (?) du jour
Show fewer