Fiserv
Thoughts & Comments
Insurance Regulator to Monoline Bears: Put A Sock In It
Eric Dinallo understands the shorts aren't doing policyholders or taxpayers any favors

Thomas Brown  ( about me )
Posted 08/01/2008
bankstocks.com
tbrown@bankstocks.com

It sounds like Eric Dinallo, the head New York State Insurance regulator, has pretty much had it with Bill Ackman and his pals:

Rumours that can destroy the stock price of banks and investment banks have been the focus of the media and have now attracted the attention of regulators. But what about rumours that cast doubt on the solvency of insurance companies that are equally important to the New York economy and global capital markets? All financial services companies – banks, investment banks and insurance companies – rely on market confidence. . . .

This is why New York State enacted a law in the 1930’s providing for civil and criminal sanctions for spreading false rumours or making statements “untrue in fact” about an insurance company’s solvency. . . .

Recently, some individuals have asserted that some of the bond insurers are insolvent – a far more serious, far reaching and risky allegation than claims that the insurer’s holding company stock is overvalued. Publicly questioning the solvency of these companies is of a completely different order. . . . [Emph. added]

You don’t need to spend much time on The Googles to confirm that insolvency is precisely what Ackman has been predicting for the guarantors, most recently on June 18. I won’t rehash the whole guarantor debate here, but will only note that neither the rating agencies nor Dinallo dispute the fact that most companies have ample claims-paying ability under even a very severe mortgage-loss scenario. The main reason that so many people seem to believe the industry is insolvent is that Bill Ackman and his ilk have been beating the drum on the issue for so long. Good for Dinallo for bringing the hammer down on them.

What do you think? Let me know!


  Add your comment

 

 

JimmyJohnson Posted On 8/1/2008 10:05:00 AM

Bravo! Love the site!

Dave Born Posted On 8/1/2008 11:39:13 AM

Its been my opinion for a while that Bill Ackman will be prosecuted a la Jim Cramer for his publicity stunts. Unfortunately for Bill, his glistening layer of slime will not be as well accepted by the 'home gamers' as Jim's working class origins...

Thud_McGuffin Posted On 8/1/2008 9:25:06 PM

Didn't Ackman blow up and get investigated? Also I understand he was short MBIA from long before the current subprime stuff was even invented. Maybe that was him washed up on the Long Island shore today, having reverted to his natural body form.

Thud_McGuffin Posted On 8/1/2008 9:25:48 PM

Didn't Ackman blow up and get investigated? Also I understand he was short MBIA from long before the current subprime stuff was even invented. Maybe that was him washed up on the Long Island shore today, having reverted to his natural body form.

sunraj Posted On 8/8/2008 1:43:56 AM

In what sense is it 'good' for the State of New York to have a blatantly unconstitutional law on its books? "Free speech . . . but only if it doesn't hurt our buddies' stock holdings." If Dinallo thinks this law can stand he should file charges. Or is he just holding out the threat of endless legal fees to get people to quiet down? If the 'monolines' (aka structured finance insurers as Ackman accurately pointed out) are indeed solvent they should be able to prove it in the court of public opinion. Or do they need stormtroopers to bang down the door of anyone who dares to say otherwise? This is a disgraceful post. I doubt you would be cheering if government officials were making threats against people pumping up bank stocks.

dvivolo Posted On 8/8/2008 8:51:10 AM

What basis are you using to call this law unconstitutional. In New York state insurance companies are very regulated and the insurance regulators have very far reaching authority. I think a law that was inacted in the 1930's and stood the test of time should say enough. In fact we should bring back the other depression era laws like Glass-Stegall, which Citigroup and Robert Rubin helped repeal to their own benefit.

dvivolo Posted On 8/8/2008 9:53:17 AM

What basis are you using to call this law unconstitutional. In New York state insurance companies are very regulated and the insurance regulators have very far reaching authority. I think a law that was inacted in the 1930's and stood the test of time should say enough. In fact we should bring back the other depression era laws like Glass-Stegall, which Citigroup and Robert Rubin helped repeal to their own benefit.

vtuteja Posted On 8/9/2008 9:49:30 AM

ALL speech is not constitutional. No one and nothing says that it's ok to yell fire in a crowded theater - unless it is true.
Fiserv
Ad for Bankstocks
 

     Bankstocks.com is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on Bankstocks.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on Bankstocks.com and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any Bankstocks.com team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor Bankstocks.com has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.