Rv: Re: [OPE] Trichet on risk

I’m dealing with the implications of your reply to me that gambling is the usual way of doing in market economies. Yes and not, since the missing regulations precisely tries to “assess of the quantity of risk” involved in some financial transactions, “overpricing the unit of risk” --to use the language of Trichet— in some financial sectors.   The goal of this overpriced unit of risk is to overcome the gambling conduct that we have witnessed and the consequent massive defaults.   Regards,A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Michael Williams <michael.williams.j@googlemail.com> Para: alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es; ope@lists.csuchico.edu Enviado: jueves, 13 de noviembre, 2008 21:24:05 Asunto: Re:Re: [OPE] Trichet on risk I'm not sure with what I am being charged here, because it is not clear what 'threshold' and 'bearable' mean in this context. I am certainly NOT opposed in principle to state attempts to regulate fiancial markets. michael W ----- Original message ----- Sent: 2008/11/13 20:16:59 Subject: Re:Re: [OPE] Trichet on risk Jurriaan,   Trichet is right. If we want to understand what particular thing that triggered the financial crisis off is, we have to understand which those mechanisms are, i.e. an extensive market for unreliable loans and a risk saving devises called “credit default swaps”, and the role of risk taking in market economies.   It is a little bit extravagant to speak of "units of risk" but this rationalization is logically sound.   And yes, “If banks had charged more money and bigger insurance premiums for risky loans, the crisis would have been avoided”. The crisis is a consequence of risk criteria proper of gambling brought to the official market of loans, made possible by Bush government.   Michael W. is right when he says that there is gambling in every market transaction, but he is wrong when he tacitly missed the fact that government regulation tries to establish different “risk thresholds”, and to establish the bearable threshold in the banking system.   Regards, A. Agafonow ________________________________ De:Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@tiscali.nl> Para:OPE@lists.csuchico.edu Enviado:jueves, 13 de noviembre, 2008 20:36:22 Asunto:[OPE] Trichet on risk Jean-Claude Trichet , "Macroeconomic policy is essential to stability" (FT November 12 2008): "The root cause of the crisis was a widespread undervaluation of risk. This included an underpricing of the unit of risk and an underassessment of the quantity of risk that financial operators took upon themselves."   So what is the conclusion of this? If banks had charged more money and bigger insurance premiums for risky loans, the crisis would have been avoided, because there would have been more money in the kitty? I seriously wonder what a "unit of risk" is. Is that when your wife throws a bit of crockery at you because she's angry, and you don't know if you can step out of the way? How many "risk units" would be equal to one "util"?   Jurriaan _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Nov 13 15:37:37 2008