Comment Text:
Sir or Madam,
I am glad to see comments from ordinary folks appearing on your site, NPR is to be commended. In those comments I feel you will find the sentiment of most average people who are not unconcerned but more likely uninformed on a topic that is "out of the ordinary" for most of us. Transparency has been mentioned in many comments, this important aspect seems like common sense, ie if you can see it you can evaluate it and perhaps get your shorts in on AIG. Insurable intrest seems logical if you live on Main Street, it applies to us and there are casinos from Atlantic City to Macau if your intent is to gamble. Derivatives have long been misunderstood, I believe that is because they are not intended to be readable except to the few who trade them and many times they are fooled. Does a red flag not go up somewhere when a document is so complicated that an expert in that field might get the intent of the device wrong.
I hope you will ask a few questions reguarding a proposed derivative,
What is its intent, and is it clear.
Who does it protect, how , and is that protection warrented.
Is it reasonable that in the normal course of business someone buy the instrument or offer the protection.
Is there any reason to believe that the US government will have to clean up the mess if everything goes south.
I realize that you have to rely heavily on the financial industry for guidance but remember their track record, to assume they know what they are doing is a mistake.
I once served a stint (80s) in the state legislature, saw lobbist nearly every day. Many of those lobbist are still good friends, but I always tried to remember that my job was to safeguard the public intrest not to make the guy in the expencive suite happy. I hope you will do the same.
Sincerely,
Phil Foster
