alt.politics.usa.republican

Davinchi wrote:



>In agreement I would say that such a product simply isn't
>necessary.
"Necessary"? Probably not. Neither are mutual funds, options, or
futures. On the other hand, these instruments serve the needs of three
constituencies:
1) investors who want low-risk debt
2) investors who are willing to take high risks for very attractive
returns
3) usenet posters who like to have something to complain about

>In the most general sense, there is a market whose products
>are "goods", and there is a market whose products are
>"bads", so it isn't really necessary to have a market whose
>products are "goods and bads"
I'm not following that. These structured debt offerings provide
investment options that do not exist with just the underlying debt.

> where the consumer can't determine which is which.
Except that these aren't sold to consumers. If the buyers can't make
that determination, or are negligent in doing so, shame on them. And
if Bear Stearns committed fraud to keep the buyers from a proper
determination, the courts seem to be a good remedy.

>Not elegant, but the same idea as above.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.