PDA

View Full Version : Economics Taxpayers begin to see profits from the bank bailouts


BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 08:53 AM
NYT: U.S. sees profits from bank bailout
Early returns of 15 percent annually for TARP received as welcome surprise
By Zachery Kouwe
The New York Times
updated 3:55 a.m. CT, Mon., Aug 31, 2009

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633873057260570000');</SCRIPT>
Nearly a year after the federal rescue of the nation’s biggest banks, taxpayers have begun seeing profits from the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid that many critics thought might never be seen again.
The profits, collected from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, come to about $4 billion, or the equivalent of about 15 percent annually, according to calculations compiled for The New York Times.

These early returns are by no means a full accounting of the huge financial rescue undertaken by the federal government last year to stabilize teetering banks and other companies.

The government still faces potentially huge long-term losses from its bailouts of the insurance giant American International Group, the mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the automakers General Motors and Chrysler. The Treasury Department could also take a hit from its guarantees on billions of dollars of toxic mortgages.

Welcome surprise
But the mere hint of bailout profits for the nearly year-old Troubled Asset Relief Program has been received as a welcome surprise. It has also spurred hopes that the government could soon get out of the banking business.

“The taxpayers want their money back and they want the government out of our banking system,” Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican and a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel examining the relief program, said in an interview.

Profits were hardly high on the list of government priorities last October, when a financial panic was in full swing and the Treasury Department started spending roughly $240 billion to buy preferred shares from hundreds of banks that were facing huge potential losses from troubled mortgages. Bank stocks began teetering after Lehman Brothers collapsed and the government rescued A.I.G., and fear gripped the financial industry around the world.

American taxpayers were told they would eventually make a modest return from these investments, including a 5 percent quarterly dividend on the banks’ preferred shares and warrants to buy stock in the banks at a set price over 10 years.

But critics at the time warned that taxpayers might not see any profits, and that it could take years for the banks to repay the loans.
As Congress debated the bailout bill last September that would authorize the Treasury Department to spend up to $700 billion to stem the financial crisis, Representative Mac Thornberry, Republican of Texas, said: “Seven hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money should not be used as a hopeful experiment.”


So far, that experiment is more than paying off. The government has taken profits of about $1.4 billion on its investment in Goldman Sachs, $1.3 billion on Morgan Stanley and $414 million on American Express. The five other banks that repaid the government — Northern Trust, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, U.S. Bancorp and BB&T — each brought in $100 million to $334 million in profit.

The figure does not include the roughly $35 million the government has earned from 14 smaller banks that have paid back their loans. The government bought shares in these and many other financial companies last fall, when sinking confidence among investors pushed down many bank stocks to just a few dollars a share. As the banks strengthened and became profitable, the government authorized them to pay back the preferred stock, which had been paying quarterly dividends since October.
But the real profit came as banks were permitted to buy back the so-called warrants, whose low fixed price provided a windfall for the government as the shares of the companies soared.

Despite the early proceeds from the bailout program, a debate remains over whether the government could have done even better with its bank investments.


If private investors had taken a stake in the banks last October on par with the government’s, they would have had profits three times as large — about $12 billion, or 44 percent if tallied on an annual basis, according to Linus Wilson, a finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, who analyzed the data for The Times.

Why the discrepancy? Finance experts say the government overpaid for the bank assets it bought, because its chief priority was to stabilize the teetering financial system, not to maximize profit.

“Had these banks tried to raise money any other way, they probably would have had to pay quite a bit more than the government received,” said Espen Robak, head of Pluris Valuation Advisors, which analyzes the value of large financial institutions.

A Congressional oversight panel concluded in February that the Treasury paid an average of 34 percent more than the estimated fair value of the assets it received.

Of course, many finance experts suggest that the comparison is academic at best, because there is no way to know what might have become of the banks or the financial system as a whole had the government not acted.
“Taxpayers should heave a sigh of relief that the investment in the banks protected them from even more catastrophic losses from more bank failures,” said Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University.

A more direct comparison of profits can be made with the investment performance of other governments that poured money into ailing banks last fall.

The Swiss government, for example, said last week that it had pulled in a handsome profit for taxpayers on a $5.6 billion bailout it gave to UBS, the troubled Swiss bank, at the height of the financial crisis in October. The government netted $1 billion on its investment, a gain equal to a 32 percent annual return.

“They are substantially in the money,” Guy de Blonay, a fund manager at Henderson New Star in London, said after the announcement.


More profits?
American taxpayers could still collect additional profits on their investments in two other big banks that have repaid their preferred stock but not their warrants: JPMorgan Chase and Capital One. They are expected to yield over $3.1 billion in gains for the Treasury in the next month or so, although the full tally will depend on how much they will pay to buy back their warrants.

And the government is owed about $6.2 billion in interest payments from banks that have not yet repaid their federal money.

But all the profits taxpayers have won could still be wiped out by two deeply troubled institutions. Both Citigroup and Bank of America are still holding mortgages and other loans that were once worth billions of dollars but whose revised values are uncertain. If they prove “toxic” because they cannot attract buyers, they could leave large holes in the banks’ balance sheets.

Neither bank is ready to repay its bailout money anytime soon, even though the banks’ stock prices have surged in the last month, leaving the government sitting on paper profits of about $18 billion between them.
Eric Dash contributed reporting.

This article, "As Big Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html)," first appeared in The New York Times.

More on: Troubled Asset Relief Program (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11881780/?q=Troubled%20Asset%20Relief%20Program&p=1&st=1&sm=user)

Copyright © 2009 The New York Times
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32623489/ns/business-the_new_york_times/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32623489/ns/business-the_new_york_times/)

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:55 AM
The US...all of us. I think not. I think certain folks are seeing profits.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 08:55 AM
The US...all of us. I think not. I think certain folks are seeing profits.

Can we all be Goldman Sachs employees?

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 09:05 AM
More elitism being touted.

petegz28
08-31-2009, 09:25 AM
this is a joke, right?

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 09:38 AM
At 6:05

"Bernanke is like a ship captain. He has warning signs. He sails the ship. There's a storm is coming. He disregards any warnings signals. He ignores the signals. He sinks the ship. A thousand passengers drowned. He saves the crew in his control tower; five officers and himself in a life boat, and gets a medal for bravery for saving 5 people, that's Wall Street, the 5 people...the rest of the country is basically bankrupt!"

Volcker would have been a better choice but he was contained and used only as an advisor. His ideas were better than Bernanke's at least.

What a joke!Rewarding bad behavior. The BIG banks were saved and the rest have gone bust. Mercantilism and/or Crony Capitalism at its finest moment and Big Red celebrates the highway robbery of the US taxpayers while he celebrates the profits of the BIG bailed out banks.

At 7:32 "The worse the economic conditions is the more the stock market can go up due to the bigger bubble"....[ created by the money printing to fix the correction which is another tax increase on all but hidden. ] Then when it busts again, much worse than before, expect a war.


<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FFhWIUTF1IM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FFhWIUTF1IM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Simplex3
08-31-2009, 10:00 AM
The article I read on it said the Federal Reserve is seeing profits from the loans. The Federal Reserve is NOT the taxpayer.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 10:05 AM
What Would a Federal Reserve Audit Show?

By Sudeep Reddy
August 31, 2009, 9:45 AM ET

Rep. Ron Paul’s proposal to fully audit the Federal Reserve system by the end of 2010 appears likely to find its way into legislation in some form. Mr. Paul and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank plan to meet with other lawmakers in the coming weeks to determine how the Government Accountability Office would conduct the audit and what information would be released.
Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) may get his wish to audit the Fed. (Getty Images)

What does the GAO audit now?
The GAO’s oversight of the Fed system is limited to areas outside of monetary policy. That includes everything from bank supervision to consumer issues to payment systems. The Fed’s annual report covering the calendar year 2008 listed seven completed GAO reports and eight projects underway. Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn testified this summer that the GAO, as of June 29, had 19 projects underway involving the Fed, including 14 launched at the request of Congress.

What is excluded from GAO oversight?
The GAO can’t review most of the Fed’s monetary policy actions or decisions, including discount window lending (direct loans to financial institutions), open-market operations and any other transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee. It also can’t look into the Fed’s transactions with foreign governments, foreign central banks and other international financing organizations. (The GAO in 1993 produced this report on its limitations. The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act of 1978 put other parts of the central bank’s operations under GAO purview, as they had been for a decade until 1933.)

Who else audits the Fed?
The Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General retains an outside auditor — a private accounting firm — to review the Board’s financial statements and compliance with laws affecting those statements. Deloitte & Touche LLP served as the outside auditor of the Fed Board in 2007 and 2008. The Board selects outside auditors to audit the 12 regional reserve banks.

What would Ron Paul’s bill do?
H.R.1207, called the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, simply directs the Comptroller General (who heads the GAO) to complete an audit of the Federal Reserve system — the Board and reserve banks — before the end of 2010 and report his findings to Congress.

Mr. Paul, in an interview, said he expects the audit to detail who the Fed lends to, how much it lends and what agreements it has made with foreign central banks and financing organizations. While the bill only seeks a one-time audit, he said he wants the Fed to be audited at least annually with the report — and details of its transactions — disclosed publicly.

Where does the bill stand?
The bill has attracted 282 House lawmakers as co-sponsors, or almost two-thirds of the chamber. It’s expected to receive a vote in some form by October. Mr. Paul said in the interview that Mr. Frank, the Financial Services Committee chairman, is leaning toward incorporating the provision into broader legislation overhauling financial regulation. But, Mr. Paul added, “when you have that many cosponsors, there might be an opportunity to actually bring it straight to the floor.”

A companion measure in the Senate, S.604, is called the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009 and includes language nearly identical to the House version. The bill, written by Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, has 23 co-sponsors.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/08/31/what-would-a-federal-reserve-audit-show/

HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 10:18 AM
I guess the recent rash of bank failures will be overlooked at this point so as to not spoil a good spin.

Garcia Bronco
08-31-2009, 10:37 AM
"The five other banks that repaid the government — Northern Trust, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, U.S. Bancorp and BB&T — each brought in $100 million to $334 million in profit. "

Never needed the TARP money to begin with, but was forced to by the Feds.

wild1
08-31-2009, 10:39 AM
They can play the shell game in the Fed and show whatever they want.

So, how about that $10 trillion deficit?

The Mad Crapper
04-22-2010, 12:05 PM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Hopey Change™

petegz28
04-22-2010, 12:08 PM
The Fed is holding a bunch of paper that was deemed worthless or "toxic" on a company's balance sheet, thus the need for TARP, and are now claiming they are worth something. It's magical!!!

The Mad Crapper
04-22-2010, 12:13 PM
The Fed is holding a bunch of paper that was deemed worthless or "toxic" on a company's balance sheet, thus the need for TARP, and are now claiming they are worth something. It's magical!!!

This is part of BRC's pattern of deception in spewing propaganda for Dear Leader:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6644578&postcount=62

Amnorix
04-22-2010, 12:31 PM
The article I read on it said the Federal Reserve is seeing profits from the loans. The Federal Reserve is NOT the taxpayer.

the Fed remits profits above a certain (fairly low) point back to the US Treasury.

The Mad Crapper
04-22-2010, 12:37 PM
The Fed is holding a bunch of paper that was deemed worthless or "toxic" on a company's balance sheet, thus the need for TARP, and are now claiming they are worth something. It's magical!!!

Exactly, the stated purpose of TARP was to buy up all the toxic assets---

well it's been what two years now and that shit is still on the banks balance sheets.

petegz28
04-22-2010, 12:49 PM
the Fed remits profits above a certain (fairly low) point back to the US Treasury.

I think it's neato how a piece of paper was deemed "toxic" and otherwise worthless on the balance sheet of a bank yet once transferred to the Fed it is valuable. I am in awe.

vailpass
04-22-2010, 01:07 PM
BRC pushing the kool-aid.
America not so fast to drink it these days.

Brock
04-22-2010, 01:13 PM
What a fucking joke. The "taxpayers" aren't seeing a goddamn thing from this.

KC native
04-22-2010, 03:35 PM
The Fed is holding a bunch of paper that was deemed worthless or "toxic" on a company's balance sheet, thus the need for TARP, and are now claiming they are worth something. It's magical!!!

goddamn you must be one miserable son of a bitch. You know that it's not worthless. That stuff has a market price but the banks didn't want to sell at that price because it would trigger more write downs which would have shown they were insolvent.

KC native
04-22-2010, 03:36 PM
That being said, until ALL the money from all the financial bailouts is paid back then no one can say we're seeing a profit on the bailouts.

Amnorix
04-22-2010, 03:40 PM
I think it's neato how a piece of paper was deemed "toxic" and otherwise worthless on the balance sheet of a bank yet once transferred to the Fed it is valuable. I am in awe.

You don't seem to understand very well what makes something toxic, and whether the toxic asset had any value to begin with, or has any value now.

BigRedChief
04-26-2010, 10:21 AM
Associated Press
- April 26, 2010
Treasury Announces Plan for First Sales of Citigroup Stock


The Treasury Department said Monday that its first sales of Citigroup stock will cover up to 1.5 billion shares.


<IFRAME id=ifr-frame1-300x250_336x280 border=0 frameBorder=0 width=1 scrolling=no height=1></IFRAME>

WASHINGTON -- The Treasury Department said Monday that its first sales of Citigroup stock will cover up to 1.5 billion shares.

That would amount to about 20 percent of the 7.7 billion shares of Citigroup common stock that the government owns.

It received the shares as compensation for the massive support it extended to the bank during the height of the financial crisis.

In a statement Monday, Treasury said Monday that it planned to proceed with the sales of the Citigroup common stock "in an orderly fashion under a pre-arranged trading plan with Morgan Stanley, Treasury's sales agent."
Treasury did not disclose in its brief announcement exactly when the initial stock sales would begin or how long the sales would last.

Treasury said Morgan Stanley had the authority to make the initial sales "under certain parameters" and that Treasury expected to give the company the authority to sell additional shares after the initial 1.5 billion shares had been sold.

The sales should earn a tidy profit for the government which purchased the common stock in the summer of 2009 at a share price of $3.25 a share. Citigroup closed Friday at $4.86 a share but was changing hands in pre-opening trading on Monday at $4.82 per share.

At the moment, the Treasury owns 27 percent of the company in return for an investment of $25 billion.

Treasury had announced last month that it would soon begin sales of its Citigroup stock and planned to sell the shares over the course of this year.

Citi, one of the hardest-hit banks during the financial crisis and Great Recession, received a total of $45 billion in bailout money. That was one of the largest rescues under the goverment's $700 billion bailout fund, known as the Troubles Assets Relief Program.

Of the $45 billion, $25 billion was converted to a government ownership stake in Citi last summer and the bank repaid the other $20 billion in December.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/26/treasury-announces-plan-sales-citigroup-stock/#/politics/ci.Treasury+Announces+Plan+for+First+Sales+of+Citigroup+Stock.opinionPrint

petegz28
04-26-2010, 10:23 AM
You don't seem to understand very well what makes something toxic, and whether the toxic asset had any value to begin with, or has any value now.

I understand perfectly.

Amnorix
04-26-2010, 10:34 AM
I understand perfectly.

Good, so you agree they aren't worthless (or less than worthless). Glad to hear it.

petegz28
04-26-2010, 10:37 AM
Good, so you agree they aren't worthless (or less than worthless). Glad to hear it.

No, they aren't worthless. But they were worthless on a bank's balance sheet because of MTM, correct?

KC native
04-26-2010, 11:06 AM
No, they aren't worthless. But they were worthless on a bank's balance sheet because of MTM, correct?

No. The banks didn't want to mark them to market because if they would have taken the writedowns on those positions then they would have been deemed insolvent.

FASB collapsed on this issue and removed mark to market and other issues with bringing things on balance sheet. IMO, the SEC should sue FASB as well because FASB has been complicit in the accounting shenanigans that have happened during this crisis.

ClevelandBronco
04-26-2010, 11:11 AM
The check I'm getting as my share of the profits as a taxpayer must still be in the mail.

What are you going to do with the cash, BRC?

donkhater
04-26-2010, 11:19 AM
The check I'm getting as my share of the profits as a taxpayer must still be in the mail.

What are you going to do with the cash, BRC?

This is like getting a bonus from work then, instead of paying down your $50,000 student loan, going to Disneyland first class.

Anyone who thinks this is helping the taxpayer is delusional, i.e. a liberal.

Rain Man
04-26-2010, 11:23 AM
Looks like my share of the profits is about $26 if you count me and my wife together. Or it's $52 if the money only goes to the 50 percent of households who pay taxes, and I'm sure they'll do it that way since we were the ones who paid in the first place.

With my $52, I think I'm going to take the wife out to about 80% of a nice sushi dinner. Thanks, Obama!

BigRedChief
04-26-2010, 11:23 AM
This is like getting a bonus from work then, instead of paying down your $50,000 student loan, going to Disneyland first class.

Anyone who thinks this is helping the taxpayer is delusional, i.e. a liberal.So getting back some of the money we paid out is bad and anyone who thinks that getting back money from a loan is good, is delusional. LMAO

The Mad Crapper
04-26-2010, 11:24 AM
So getting back some of the money we paid out is bad and anyone who thinks that getting back money from a loan is good, is delusional. LMAO

AAAAAAAAAGH! You're stupidity knows no end---

What money? What money are you talking about? I'm gonna get a check? You? What money, idiot?

BigRedChief
04-26-2010, 11:24 AM
Looks like my share of the profits is about $26 if you count me and my wife together. Or it's $52 if the money only goes to the 50 percent of households who pay taxes, and I'm sure they'll do it that way since we were the ones who paid in the first place.

With my $52, I think I'm going to take the wife out to about 80% of a nice sushi dinner. Thanks, Obama!I think you should put that money towards expenses of attending the Planet bash.

Rain Man
04-26-2010, 11:27 AM
I think you should put that money towards expenses of attending the Planet bash.

After seeing the faces and names thread, I'm kind of scared to go.

mlyonsd
04-26-2010, 11:29 AM
I think you should put that money towards expenses of attending the Planet bash.

His mind comes up with such weird chit I don't think he's real. I'm betting on a Hal2000 or something like that.

BigRedChief
04-26-2010, 11:30 AM
His mind comes up with such weird chit I don't think he's real. I'm betting on a Hal2000 or something like that.Invest in tech instead of partying and jaggerbombs. A lesson for us all :)

The Mad Crapper
04-26-2010, 11:57 AM
Taxpayers can't even finance existing federal obligations, it's an annual net loss. Do you even know what the term profit means?

Stupid moonbat.

donkhater
04-26-2010, 03:45 PM
So getting back some of the money we paid out is bad and anyone who thinks that getting back money from a loan is good, is delusional. LMAO

Do you even know how the bailout was financed? You seem to think it came directly from the current taxpayers' pockets.

It did not. It came from future taxpayers. Did the amount they got back go to paying down the deficit? No? Shocker!!! Where the hell did it go then? Clue: to other programs.

And the wheel goes 'round and 'round.

Taco John
04-26-2010, 03:54 PM
LOL! Taxpayers are seeing profits! Woo hoo! Where's my check!

Something tells me that it's not the taxpayers who are going to see profits here. What a BS headline.

petegz28
04-26-2010, 04:42 PM
No. The banks didn't want to mark them to market because if they would have taken the writedowns on those positions then they would have been deemed insolvent.

FASB collapsed on this issue and removed mark to market and other issues with bringing things on balance sheet. IMO, the SEC should sue FASB as well because FASB has been complicit in the accounting shenanigans that have happened during this crisis.

I know they didn't want to MTM. Thus my stating MTM is what made them worthless on a bank's balance sheet and forcing the write downs.

KC native
04-26-2010, 10:37 PM
I know they didn't want to MTM. Thus my stating MTM is what made them worthless on a bank's balance sheet and forcing the write downs.

They wouldn't have been marked to zero. Generally these securities were being held at $.90 on the $1. The markdowns were going to be somewhere down to around $.45 on the $1. Due to the leverage they were employing this would have wiped their shareholders' equity.

The Mad Crapper
05-17-2010, 07:56 PM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Hopey Change™

Treasury takes $1.6 billion loss on Chrysler loan
Treasury takes $1.6 billion loss; Chrysler pays portion of $4 billion loan received in 2009


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Treasury-takes-16-billion-apf-581812658.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Saul Good
05-17-2010, 09:01 PM
Step 1: Bail out the banks that created their own demise
Step 2: Raise taxes
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit

petegz28
05-17-2010, 09:50 PM
Step 1: Bail out the banks that created their own demise
Step 2: Raise taxes
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit

Step 5: Ignore the fact Fannie and Freddie are costing us anything we are making from the others.

The Mad Crapper
05-17-2010, 09:54 PM
Saul, Pete, did you get your "profits" check yet? I check my mail every day, maybe the kids next door took it?

Comrade Crapski
03-13-2013, 07:34 PM
Anybody get a check yet?

Amnorix
03-14-2013, 09:06 AM
Anybody get a check yet?


No, but I didn't write one either.

Comrade Crapski
03-14-2013, 09:15 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/mexico/family/citibankaffair.html

It's a good thing the American taxpayer bailed Citibank out. They didn't have to use their Cartel cash.

BigRedChief
03-15-2013, 06:23 PM
WTF is this about? Where is this profit being made?

Feds gives $77 Billion in profits to the US treasury in Jan, 2010, $78 billion in 2011?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/fed-turns-record-profits_n_806848.html

Feds gives $77 Billion in profits to the US treasury in Jan, 2012?
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/10/news/economy/federal_reserve_pays_treasury/index.htm

Feds gives $88 Billion in profits to the US treasury in Jan, 2013?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/usa-fed-financials-idUSL1N0C74LI20130315