On the Twitter Machine:
felixsalmon felix salmon: Yes, Suskind really does talk about "secured creditors, such as equity holders". http://bit.ly/qoDnZe
moetkacik moe tkacik: @felixsalmon don't join this stupid mob. did you read it? Suskind's fundamentals generally a lot sounder than Geithner's http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/09/23/washingtons-long-con/
dsquareddigest Dan Davies: @moetkacik @felixsalmon yes that comment looks like mistranscription of a note referring to derivs counterparties rather than anything else
felixsalmon felix salmon: @dsquareddigest is it reasonable to say that derivatives counterparties lent money to Citi? 14 minutes ago
dsquareddigest Dan Davies: @felixsalmon in context (ie, who might be about to lose a bunch in various breakup scenarios) absolutely yes.
delong delong: @dsquareddigest @felixsalmon I don't see that at all. I think it's just a mistake
dsquareddigest Dan Davies: @delong @felixsalmon yes, but the mistake is putting "equity holders" instead of "counterparties". Then it makes sense.
felixsalmon felix salmon: @dsquareddigest it only really makes sense if you also replace "lending money to" with "doing business with".
dsquareddigest Dan Davies: @felixsalmon no, I would definitely talk that way in a meeting. Someone with a derivatives position in profit vs you is lending you money.
I agree with @dsquareddigest that it looks like a mistranscription of a note. I suspect that the note originally read "secured creditors, unlike equity holders" rather than "secured creditors, such as derives ctrpties", but until Ron Suskind releases his notes we won't really know.