<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title></title>
		<description>Comments for 0 at http://boombustblog.com , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments</description>
		<link>http://boombustblog.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:54:17 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://boombustblog.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&amp;show=Ambac-does-it-again.html&amp;Itemid=92#comment-1073</link>
			<description>Answer: a lot higher! - Reggie Middleton</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:25:01 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ambac business model</title>
			<link>http://boombustblog.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&amp;show=Ambac-does-it-again.html&amp;Itemid=92#comment-1072</link>
			<description>On the other hand you may take another look at their business model. Equity is just a call option on assets, as stockholders are getting everything for the price of their stock. 

Their business model is called &quot;Not seeing black swan&quot;. As long as black swan does not come, stockholders are keeping their dividents. In case black swan comes, debt holders and policyholders are paying the bill.

I wonder what would be premiums under Lloyds scheme (names are collecting profits, but guaranty with their personal wealth)? - Klemen</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:06:25 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://boombustblog.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&amp;show=Ambac-does-it-again.html&amp;Itemid=92#comment-1050</link>
			<description>I think they will be forced to protect their muni risks, one way or the other. They have already failed, due to the long term nature of their risks. - Reggie Middleton</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:31:13 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://boombustblog.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&amp;show=Ambac-does-it-again.html&amp;Itemid=92#comment-1049</link>
			<description>Hey Reggie? Will the government let these guys fail? I have a feeling that they will be saved somehow. What do you think? - Mo</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:03:56 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://boombustblog.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&amp;show=Ambac-does-it-again.html&amp;Itemid=92#comment-1039</link>
			<description>Reggie, you deserve all the accolades in the world. I'd say &quot;Great call&quot; but a &quot;stock picking call&quot; has connotations of being flippant, off-the-cuff, and worthless. Cramer makes calls. So great analysis, great research, and commendations for putting your thesis out there for the world to see. Glad you could ride the monolines down from 60  and thanks for letting your readers jump on the train as well. - needles</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:54:59 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ambac Deferred tax asset</title>
			<link>http://boombustblog.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&amp;show=Ambac-does-it-again.html&amp;Itemid=92#comment-1038</link>
			<description>Reggie, spot on.  :)I looked at Ambac's balance sheet as I always look at the primary statements, not the &quot;management blurb&quot;!
They have shareholders equity of $1.3bn or over $4.5 per share yet they are carrying a $4.6bn deferred tax asset in their balance sheet. Strip this out (they need to make money to use this) and they have a hole of $3.3bn...
I 100% agree that these are &quot;unrealized losses&quot; but who, who would lend them money in this market? The only people are the people who stand the most to lose.
DO I hear the FED coming to the rescue here as well?????
hmmm
Rgds
Mark F - Mark Fitzpatrick</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:02:32 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
