Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1675027, member: 26302&quot;]Every single one of them I have looked at sir have a legitimate purpose. The product itself is legitimate if purchased and used in a certain manner. Now, I do not think Cyprus bought these products to properly offset other risks, so the way and reason they bought them was improper, but if a firm had an existing risk they wished to mitigate, these products COULD have been a proper purchase. If used improperly of course they can be bad purchases. I base this on my educational background in Finance, specifically derivatives. </p><p><br /></p><p>Its a lot like someone buying a knife. Maybe they need to chop vegetables and cook the family meal, or maybe they are going to stab their husband. One use is a proper use, the other an improper one. Is the knife manufacturer to blame for the improper use?</p><p><br /></p><p>My view is the government were presented with these products, and they knew the risks and costs, but bought them anyway to be able to keep spending what they wanted to spend today. The regulators in that country are also at fault of course, since they didn&#039;t stop them. That is the extent of the blame to me. The government were informed consumers, I do not think they were lied to, I believe they knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and did it simply as a political expediency to &quot;keep the good times rolling&quot;. </p><p><br /></p><p>I see the same today in the US. Many CA school districts are borrowing billions to build schools, but will not pay a penny on these bonds for 30 years. By this time the costs will be 4-5 times the cost today. Who is to blame for this? I blame the school officials and regulators for doing it and allowing it to happen. I am not blaming the people buying these bonds.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in