MBIA vs NYT
MBIA is blogging! Or something very similar, in any event. The company has put up a 2,000-word response to this morning's NYT article - the one which I was so skeptical about earlier. It's entitled "New York Times Story Is Inaccurate and Misleading," which pretty much sets the tone.
According to MBIA, and frankly I trust them more than I trust the NYT on this,
- There was no "promise to shore up a crucial unit with $900 million in capital," as the NYT asserts.
- The assertion that CDS holders can accelerate their obligations if MBIA is taken over by the regulator is also false: MBIA would need to go bankrupt or insolvent before that even became a possibility.
- The assertion that NY insurance regulator Eric Dinallo is worried about "this threat" is also false: Dinallo has stated repeatedly that he is not worried about MBIA's solvency.
- Josh Rosner is full of crap. Oh, sorry, that's my wording. MBIA is more polite: "Everything Mr. Brown has said publicly runs contrary to Rosner's conjecture," is how they put it.
- MBIA does not insure $230 billion in MBS, it insures just $69 billion. And the losses on those MBS contracts aren't "rising"; to the contrary, "the Company does not anticipate material additional impairment for these exposures in the foreseeable future".
Good on MBIA for going public with all this, and not being scared to attack the journalists directly:
All these facts stated above have been a part of the public record through various and widely noticed letters and statements from the company. We also provided lengthy background to the reporters on the story in recent days. We believe that ignoring key facts - in favor of speculation and error - is simply irresponsible and we would suggest that readers regard this story as incomplete and unreliable.
The irony, of course, is that even if a highly-regulated financial institution like MBIA is OK with public debate, the NYT itself is not.
There's precisely zero chance that the NYT will respond in public to this letter; instead it will keep its article up, uncorrected, and preserve as much as it can its aura of infallibility. The paper is happy to throw the first punch, but then it stops. So although the last word will go to MBIA, most readers of the Times will never know that.
Loading...
Thank you for registering as a Portfolio.com Insider. Your comment has been added.
Create Your Public Profile- The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
- Apr 27 2009 9:26AM EDT
- Sinking Animal Spirits
- Apr 27 2009 8:45AM EDT
- Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
- Apr 26 2009 10:00AM EDT
- Be Your Own Counterfeiter
- Apr 26 2009 9:36AM EDT
- Being Tim Geithner
- Apr 25 2009 12:37PM EDT
- Notes From a Press Conference Naif
- Apr 25 2009 9:41AM EDT
- What Good is the News?
- Apr 25 2009 8:32AM EDT
- Stressful Enough
- Apr 24 2009 2:29PM EDT
- Not Regretting the Pound
- Apr 24 2009 1:09PM EDT
- Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
- Apr 24 2009 9:47AM EDT
- Non-Economic Questions of the Day
- Apr 24 2009 9:12AM EDT
- The Stress Test Blind Alley
- Apr 24 2009 8:36AM EDT
- Happy Hour
- Apr 23 2009 9:40PM EDT
- Recovery Without Rebalancing
- Apr 23 2009 6:13PM EDT
- The Shape of Your Recession
- Apr 23 2009 5:11PM EDT
Categories
Links
- Email Ryan Avent
- Econospeak

- Financial Crookery

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- Ultimi Barbarorum







