This is the beginning of what Ben Bernanke has been so patient about: "UBS Bets on Toxic Debt Demand After Fed’s Sale – Businessweek"

The ultimate question concerns how difficult and even whether they can disentangle bad parts of the bundles from the good. What with the dead title chains for so much property, that may prove nearly impossible. Nearly everyone would have to be very cooperative, and many people who made a killing being dishonest will want to maintain broken audit trails.

UBS AG (UBSN), which had more than $57 billion of losses and writedowns after the U.S. real-estate crash, is betting there’s enough demand for toxic commercial property assets to sell debt created at the height of the boom.

The bank is seeking buyers this week for collateralized debt obligations assembled in 2007 with a face value of $1.5 billion that contain securities tied to skyscrapers, malls and hotel loans. UBS is trying to follow the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s record $7.5 billion sale of similar bonds last month acquired in the 2008 rescue of American International Group Inc. (AIG)

via UBS Bets on Toxic Debt Demand After Fed’s Sale – Businessweek.

They've been trying to build up a little head of steam — to get on a roll. Ben Bernanke has been waiting and waiting, holding and carefully releasing the Fed's holdings, hoping that the bottom will come back up so that what's been being held will have much of, if not all of, its "value" back. That's why the sorting aspect mentioned above is the ultimate bottleneck. Exactly how much Ben Bernanke will be willing to write off remains to be seen.


If you are an investor in 1-4 unit properties in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, or Washington, please do the financially responsible thing and make sure you have proper Landlord Insurance with PropertyPak™. We love focusing on real estate and the economy in general, but we are also here to serve your insurance needs.

Hill & Usher (PropertyPak™ is a division) has many insurance offerings. See our menu above for more info and links.

Did this post help you? Let us know by leaving your comment below.

Note: This blog does not provide legal, financial, or accounting advice. Seek professional counsel.

Furthermore, we, as insurance producers, are prohibited by law from disparaging the insurance industry, carriers, other producers, etc. With that in mind, we provide links without staking out positions that violate the law. We provide them solely from a public-policy standpoint wherein we encourage our industry to be sure our profits, etc., are fair and balanced.

We do not necessarily fact checked the contents of every linked article or page, etc.

If we were to conclude any part or parts of our industry are in violation of fundamental fairness and the legal standards of a state or states, we'd address the issue through proper, legal channels. We trust you understand.

The laws that tie our tongues, so to speak, are designed to keep the public from losing confidence in the industry and the regulatory system overseeing it. Insurance commissioners around the country work very hard to analyze rates and to not allow the industry to be damaged by bad rate-settings and changes in coverages. The proper way for people in the industry to deal with such matters is by adhering to the laws, rules, and regulations of the applicable states and within industry associations where such matters may be discussed in private without giving the industry unnecessary black eyes. Ethics is very high on the list in the insurance industry, and we don't want to lose the people's trust. That said, the industry is not perfect; but what industry is?

For our part, we believe in strong regulations and strong regulators.

We welcome your comments and ask you to keep in mind that we cannot and will not reply in any way or ways where any insurance commissioner could rightly say we've violated the law of the given state.

We are allowed to share rating-bureau data/reports and industry-consultant opinions but make clear here that those opinions are theirs and do not necessarily reflect our position.

Subscribe