PDA

View Full Version : Economics U.S. to sell entire stake in Citi at hefty $7 billion profit


BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 10:03 AM
U.S. to sell entire stake in Citi at hefty profit
Treasury may net more than $7 billion in profit after bailing out bank
The Associated Press

updated 10:27 a.m. CT, Mon., March. 29, 2010
<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('634054732410030000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - The Treasury Department said Monday it will begin selling the stake it owns in Citigroup Inc., which could result in a profit to the government of about $7.5 billion.

The government received 7.7 billion shares of Citigroup in exchange for $25 billion it gave the bank during the 2008 credit crisis. It said it will sell the shares over the course of this year, depending on market conditions.
Like any investor, the government will likely hold on to its shares if prices fall steeply. However, Citi shares have steadily been rising with the broader market in recent months, which means the Treasury Department stands to pocket a hefty profit.

The government has been trying to unravel the investments in made in banks under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that came in at the height of the financial crisis. Citi, one of the hardest hit banks during the credit crisis and recession, received a total of $45 billion in bailout money, one of the largest rescues in the program. Of the $45 billion, $25 billion was converted to the government's ownership stake in the bank.

The Treasury paid $3.25 a share for its stake.

New York-based Citi repaid the other $20 billion it owed the government in December.


The Treasury had been planing to sell 20 percent of its stock at the time when Citi was selling new shares late last year. At a price of $3.15 a share, the government would have lost $158.7 million on the sale, so it opted not to participate in the deal at that time but to unload all of its 7.7 billion shares over the course of this year.
Citi shares fell 8 cents to $4.23 in morning trading Monday. The government would make about $7.5 billion in profit on its stake in Citigroup if it sells the stock for that price.

When Citigroup agreed to repay the $20 billion in loans it still owed the Treasury Department, the pair also agreed the Treasury would sell the common stock it owned in the New York bank throughout 2010.
The Treasury owns about 27 percent of Citigroup's outstanding stock, based on the number of shares that were outstanding on Jan. 31.
Even after it sells its stake in Citigroup, the Treasury Department will still hold warrants to purchase future shares in the bank.
The Treasury said Monday that Morgan Stanley will handle the sale of the shares.


2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<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 (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else 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/36081439/ns/business-us_business/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36081439/ns/business-us_business/)

BucEyedPea
03-29-2010, 10:16 AM
Greedy govt.

fan4ever
03-29-2010, 10:20 AM
Great; with the government making that kind of dough our taxes will be going down? Woohoo!

banyon
03-29-2010, 10:21 AM
No capital gains tax either, sweet.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 10:26 AM
Good. The faster they get out of corporate ownership, the better. To do it at a profit would be very nice, but they will find it tough not to depress the market selling that many shares, even if they space it out of the balance of the year.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 10:30 AM
The otherwise ever-present "blame Bush" is notably missing from the OP. What's up?

petegz28
03-29-2010, 10:35 AM
No capital gains tax either, sweet.

Shouldn't the Fed Gov pay a capital gains tax in the form of a rebate check to the people that financed this whole deal???

petegz28
03-29-2010, 10:36 AM
The otherwise ever-present "blame Bush" is notably missing from the OP. What's up?

Spot on! Wasn't it Bush who bailed out the banks??? I could swear the Lefties on here have reminded us of that repeatedly.

orange
03-29-2010, 10:47 AM
I could swear the Lefties on here have reminded us of that repeatedly.

All here who FAVORED the bailouts raise your hands. Righties included.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 10:50 AM
All here who FAVORED the bailouts raise your hands. Righties included.

Ah, so you are saying you now supported Bush?

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 10:50 AM
All here who FAVORED the bailouts raise your hands. Righties included.

Not me. Is credit due, though?

banyon
03-29-2010, 10:52 AM
All here who FAVORED the bailouts raise your hands. Righties included.

The only person I remember favoring these bailouts was "eazyb51" (sp?). But he doesn't seem to come around these parts any longer.

orange
03-29-2010, 10:54 AM
Ah, so you are saying you now supported Bush?
Not me. Is credit due, though?

I didn't get wrapped up in that debate much. I just didn't know enough details. But I do recall that both Presidential candidates endorsed the bailouts and I agreed that something desperately needed to be done, so why not this.

I also recall there was a hell of a lot of frothing here from both sides.

BigChiefFan
03-29-2010, 10:57 AM
I'd like MY REBATE NOW.


Funny how it's our tax money when we bail out those pricks, but it's the government's money, when there's anything to recoup. Scam central.

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 11:01 AM
I didn't get wrapped up in that debate much. I just didn't know enough details. But I do recall that both Presidential candidates endorsed the bailouts and I agreed that something desperately needed to be done, so why not this.

I also recall there was a hell of a lot of frothing here from both sides.

You don't get wrapped up in analyzing whether or not a policy was successful or not? I guess that explains a lot?

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 11:03 AM
This is good news all around. The government doesn't need to be in the banking business.

I have to admit I thought we'd never see a dime of that bank bailout money come back to the the government. Very glad to see we are going to get back almost all that $800 billion and GTFO out of the banking industry.

As far as credit/blame goes.......It's on both sides of the aisle. the current(at the time) and future presidents both supported it. The losing presidential candidate supported the bailout.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 11:06 AM
I'd like MY REBATE NOW.


Funny how it's our tax money when we bail out those pricks, but it's the government's money, when there's anything to recoup. Scam central.

This. Someone needs to pay real close attention to where this cash goes.

BigChiefFan
03-29-2010, 11:06 AM
This is good news all around. The government doesn't need to be in the banking business.

I have to admit I thought we'd never see a dime of that bank bailout money come back to the the government. Very glad to see we are going to get back almost all that $800 billion.

As far as credit/blame goes.......It's on both sides of the aisle. the current(at the time) and future presidents both supported it. The losing presidenial candidate supported the bailout.1913...the government's been in the banking business for some time. What I'd like to get through to you, is, in that time, they have had FULL-CONTROL and still brought upon several recessions and depressions. The system is based on DEBT and not wealth accumulation.

donkhater
03-29-2010, 11:08 AM
So what? They'll just go spend it on something else. You think the taxpayers will see this money back? You are f***ing moronic if you do. Those congressmen and women heard this and the first thought in their little conniving little heads are,"What program can I create now that we some extra money."

Much ado about nothing.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 11:10 AM
This. Someone needs to pay real close attention to where this cash goes.

It's going to go into reducing the deficit... not the current deficit though.

It's going to reduce the deficit caused by future spending. In other words, it's going to be spent.

orange
03-29-2010, 11:12 AM
You don't get wrapped up in analyzing whether or not a policy was successful or not? I guess that explains a lot?

You got it wrong, as always. Unlike you, for example, I don't post crap that I know nothing about. And I never pretended to know about the whole mortgages/derivatives fiasco.

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 11:17 AM
You got it wrong, as always. Unlike you, for example, I don't post crap that I know nothing about. And I never pretended to know about the whole mortgages/derivatives fiasco.

You don't have to know the specifics on the fiasco in order to analyze whether or not the bailouts were successful any more than you have to know how to change a serpentine belt in order to analyze whether or not cash for clunkers was worth the money.

BigChiefFan
03-29-2010, 11:17 AM
You got it wrong, as always. Unlike you, for example, I don't post crap that I know nothing about. And I never pretended to know about the whole mortgages/derivatives fiasco.It's pretty simple...the banks LOANED money to those, that they KNEW had poor credit. They gave away high-risk mortgages, all in the name of more money, but guess what? They ran ZERO RISK, because they were BAILED-OUT, by the tax payer. You're money is contributing to help finance bankers now that made assinine decisions, by design. Don't worry, the treasury is now showing a profit off your money.

orange
03-29-2010, 11:28 AM
You don't have to know the specifics on the fiasco in order to analyze whether or not the bailouts were successful any more than you have to know how to change a serpentine belt in order to analyze whether or not cash for clunkers was worth the money.

Well, the bailouts WERE successful, weren't they? That is what this article is all about, isn't it?

When I asked who favored the bailouts, I think it was pretty clear I meant AT THE TIME THEY WERE PASSED. As I said above, I accepted that something had to be done and this was the something that was on the table.

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 11:29 AM
It's pretty simple...the banks LOANED money to those, that they KNEW had poor credit. They gave away high-risk mortgages, all in the name of more money, but guess what? They ran ZERO RISK, because they were BAILED-OUT, by the tax payer. You're money is contributing to help finance bankers now that made assinine decisions, by design. Don't worry, the treasury is now showing a profit off your money.

At least the banks learned that actions have consequences. In this case, the consequences where that they maid fortunes when it worked and got bailed out when it didn't. That's good to know.

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 11:32 AM
Well, the bailouts WERE successful, weren't they? That is what this article is all about, isn't it?

When I asked who favored the bailouts, I think it was pretty clear I meant AT THE TIME THEY WERE PASSED.

Change your tune much? I asked if credit was due, and you said that you didn't know. I acknowledged that I was not for them at the time and then wanted to know if you thought that they were successful. Your reading comprehension problems are your own.

When I asked if credit is due, I think it was pretty clear I meant NOW THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE $7 PROFIT.

orange
03-29-2010, 11:44 AM
When I asked if credit is due, I think it was pretty clear I meant NOW THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE $7 PROFIT.

What obviously isn't clear is CREDIT DUE TO WHO?


All here who FAVORED the bailouts raise your hands. Righties included.

Not me. Is credit due, though?

I didn't get wrapped up in that debate much. I just didn't know enough details. But I do recall that both Presidential candidates endorsed the bailouts and I agreed that something desperately needed to be done, so why not this.

I assumed you were talking about ME since you quoted ME and didn't specify anyone else. "Credit due to ME" for backing the bailouts? What else could you possible be asking? I'm not a mind reader.

petegz28
03-29-2010, 11:46 AM
Change your tune much? I asked if credit was due, and you said that you didn't know. I acknowledged that I was not for them at the time and then wanted to know if you thought that they were successful. Your reading comprehension problems are your own.

When I asked if credit is due, I think it was pretty clear I meant NOW THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE $7 PROFIT.

Can't...

give....

Bush....

credit....



must....

be....

strong....




FTR, I was opposed to the bailouts.

BigChiefFan
03-29-2010, 12:19 PM
Can't...

give....

Bush....

credit....



must....

be....

strong....




FTR, I was opposed to the bailouts.Bush gave bail-outs, as well.

Amnorix
03-29-2010, 12:24 PM
All here who FAVORED the bailouts raise your hands. Righties included.

I did. Reluctantly and unhappily, but it was preferred to a complete financial meltdown which seemed to be the alternative.

The problem, of course, was and is the moral hazard.

BigChiefFan
03-29-2010, 12:27 PM
I did. Reluctantly and unhappily, but it was preferred to a complete financial meltdown which seemed to be the alternative.

The problem, of course, was and is the moral hazard. They print the money. They take back the homes if the loans are defaulted on. I'm not buying the financial meltdown story as plausible.

alpha_omega
03-29-2010, 12:35 PM
I'll be looking for my dividend check in the mail.

fan4ever
03-29-2010, 12:41 PM
I did. Reluctantly and unhappily, but it was preferred to a complete financial meltdown which seemed to be the alternative.

The problem, of course, was and is the moral hazard.

That's how I remember it; doing nothing was considered "economic suicide". They didn't provide much as far as an alternative.

BigChiefFan
03-29-2010, 12:47 PM
That's how I remember it; doing nothing was considered "economic suicide". They didn't provide much as far as an alternative.Yeah, because the banks are a huge part of the economy for the government. They were referring to the government's economic collapse. Under the bail-outs, the banks received all the money from the original high-risk mortgages, the defaulted property(so they can sell it AGAIN), and bail-out money to cover any loss that they may have had. It's a scam.

patteeu
03-29-2010, 01:33 PM
What obviously isn't clear is CREDIT DUE TO WHO?








I assumed you were talking about ME since you quoted ME and didn't specify anyone else. "Credit due to ME" for backing the bailouts? What else could you possible be asking? I'm not a mind reader.

I'm not a mind reader either, but I'm pretty sure he's referring to Bush since I had just mentioned him and petegz28, to whom you were responding, was referring to my post.

Here's the flow:

The otherwise ever-present "blame Bush" is notably missing from the OP. What's up?

Spot on! Wasn't it Bush who bailed out the banks??? I could swear the Lefties on here have reminded us of that repeatedly.

All here who FAVORED the bailouts raise your hands. Righties included.

Not me. Is credit due, though?

patteeu
03-29-2010, 01:35 PM
Bush gave bail-outs, as well.

Duh. See my last post.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 01:39 PM
At the time it wasn't clear to me whether the financial organizations should have gotten a bail out so I don't remember lobbying one way or the other. I do remember it being passed in a bipartisan vote, which made me think maybe there was something to it.

As opposed to the stimulus bill. I knew we'd never see all of that money again.

BigChiefFan
03-29-2010, 01:40 PM
Duh. See my last post.Not every post revolves around you, but thanks for acknowledging that the Republicans are abusing power, as well.

HonestChieffan
03-29-2010, 01:48 PM
Until they sell some, they aint made squat.

Radar Chief
03-29-2010, 01:48 PM
I'll be looking for my dividend check in the mail.

Sure, we can put that check into a money market mutual fund then well reinvest the earnings in foreign currency accounts with compounding interest, and its gone.

banyon
03-29-2010, 02:18 PM
Sure, we can put that check into a money market mutual fund then well reinvest the earnings in foreign currency accounts with compounding interest, and its gone.

LOL is that the South Park line?

irishjayhawk
03-29-2010, 02:38 PM
LOL is that the South Park line?

Yes.

Radar Chief
03-29-2010, 02:46 PM
LOL is that the South Park line?

;)

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RAKsMnAM8vk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RAKsMnAM8vk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 06:32 PM
If the administration and feds are so sure our economy is going to turn around they're stupid for dumping the stock. Another brilliant move.

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 06:36 PM
I'm not a mind reader either, but I'm pretty sure he's referring to Bush since I had just mentioned him and petegz28, to whom you were responding, was referring to my post.

Here's the flow:

Now that wasn't so hard.

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 06:42 PM
If the administration and feds are so sure our economy is going to turn around they're stupid for dumping the stock. Another brilliant move.The next 7 years are really going to be long years for you.

orange
03-29-2010, 06:46 PM
Now that wasn't so hard.

I didn't get wrapped up in that debate much. I just didn't know enough details. But I do recall that both Presidential candidates endorsed the bailouts and I agreed that something desperately needed to be done, so why not this.

I also recall there was a hell of a lot of frothing here from both sides.

Apparently it was too hard for YOU to figure out that I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT TODAY - despite the SIX past tenses and two "RECALLS."

You don't get wrapped up in analyzing whether or not a policy was successful or not?

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 06:47 PM
The next 7 years are really going to be long years for you.

And I'm guessing within the next 2-3 years you'll go jAZ on us.

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 06:53 PM
And I'm guessing within the next 2-3 years you'll go jAZ on us.Whats that mean? What did JAZ do?

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 06:58 PM
Apparently it was too hard for YOU to figure out that I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT TODAY - despite the SIX past tenses and two "RECALLS."

Again, your failure to follow linear thought is your issue, not mine. It was pretty clear that the question was whether anyone deserves credit for the bailout. I didn't support, but I'm willing to admit that it worked out well financially. I asked if credit was due and you answered with a non sequitur.

I'm still not convinced that it wasn't penny wise and pound foolish. The kid stopped throwing a tantrum in the checkout line because you finally bought him a candy bar, but you've probably set yourself up for a lifetime of tantrums.

mlyonsd
03-29-2010, 07:00 PM
Whats that mean? What did JAZ do?

Disappeared.

Unless of course you continue to take stands like you did on health care where you were against it before you were for it. :p

In that case you figure out a way to keep your dignity....in your mind. ;)

BigRedChief
03-29-2010, 07:06 PM
Unless of course you continue to take stands like you did on health care where you were against it before you were for it. :pI'm a complicated guy.:) How many people have voted for Ronald Reagan and Obama?

orange
03-29-2010, 07:10 PM
Again, your failure to follow linear thought is your issue, not mine.



All here who ...

you now ...

Not me...

I didn't ...

It seems to follow perfectly to me.

Chief Faithful
03-29-2010, 07:19 PM
How long before we hear Obama make a speech on how he wants to invest the money?

Saul Good
03-29-2010, 07:39 PM
It seems to follow perfectly to me.

I know that "Is credit due?" is just an enigma wrapped in a riddle. Pat managed to crack the code, though. Don't feel bad.

alnorth
03-30-2010, 07:16 AM
I believe the bailouts were necessary even though we were probably going to lose money on the deal, but at least there's one payment to a failing company that actually worked.

With the AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac debacle this will probably end in a net loss. We may yet still get our money back from AIG (no profit), but the other two are a black hole.

|Zach|
03-30-2010, 07:25 AM
Good news.

Inspector
03-30-2010, 01:54 PM
This is great news for that poor young lady I saw on TV the other day who said she was waiting for her Obamabucks to pay her house payment. I bet she is jumping for joy!

ChiefaRoo
03-30-2010, 02:42 PM
$7Billion? Shit, Obama's funneling more money than that to his crooked buddies and their fake "help the poor" organizations.

ROYC75
03-30-2010, 02:48 PM
I'd like MY REBATE NOW.


Funny how it's our tax money when we bail out those pricks, but it's the government's money, when there's anything to recoup. Scam central.

Just the way the mafia worked too .

petegz28
03-30-2010, 03:03 PM
Just the way the mafia worked too .

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ILsze6UwF3o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ILsze6UwF3o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

The Mad Crapper
03-31-2010, 08:09 AM
U.S. to sell entire stake in Citi at hefty profit
Treasury may net more than $7 billion in profit after bailing out bank
The Associated Press

updated 10:27 a.m. CT, Mon., March. 29, 2010
<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('634054732410030000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - The Treasury Department said Monday it will begin selling the stake it owns in Citigroup Inc., which could result in a profit to the government of about $7.5 billion.

The government received 7.7 billion shares of Citigroup in exchange for $25 billion it gave the bank during the 2008 credit crisis. It said it will sell the shares over the course of this year, depending on market conditions.
Like any investor, the government will likely hold on to its shares if prices fall steeply. However, Citi shares have steadily been rising with the broader market in recent months, which means the Treasury Department stands to pocket a hefty profit.

The government has been trying to unravel the investments in made in banks under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that came in at the height of the financial crisis. Citi, one of the hardest hit banks during the credit crisis and recession, received a total of $45 billion in bailout money, one of the largest rescues in the program. Of the $45 billion, $25 billion was converted to the government's ownership stake in the bank.

The Treasury paid $3.25 a share for its stake.

New York-based Citi repaid the other $20 billion it owed the government in December.


The Treasury had been planing to sell 20 percent of its stock at the time when Citi was selling new shares late last year. At a price of $3.15 a share, the government would have lost $158.7 million on the sale, so it opted not to participate in the deal at that time but to unload all of its 7.7 billion shares over the course of this year.
Citi shares fell 8 cents to $4.23 in morning trading Monday. The government would make about $7.5 billion in profit on its stake in Citigroup if it sells the stock for that price.

When Citigroup agreed to repay the $20 billion in loans it still owed the Treasury Department, the pair also agreed the Treasury would sell the common stock it owned in the New York bank throughout 2010.
The Treasury owns about 27 percent of Citigroup's outstanding stock, based on the number of shares that were outstanding on Jan. 31.
Even after it sells its stake in Citigroup, the Treasury Department will still hold warrants to purchase future shares in the bank.
The Treasury said Monday that Morgan Stanley will handle the sale of the shares.


2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<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 (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else 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/36081439/ns/business-us_business/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36081439/ns/business-us_business/)

The CBO projects total losses on TARP to cost taxpayers $109 billion. So even if we deduct $7 billion (assuming the CBO hasn't already) that is still a net loss to the taxpayer of $102 billion.

YOU MORON.

go bowe
03-31-2010, 01:05 PM
does anyone know who the mad crapper used to be?

orange
03-31-2010, 01:26 PM
does anyone know who the mad crapper used to be?

shtsprayer

DaneMcCloud
03-31-2010, 02:06 PM
I'm a complicated guy.:) How many people have voted for Ronald Reagan and Obama?

I did

:D

DaneMcCloud
03-31-2010, 02:08 PM
The bailout was necessary. There wasn't anyone involved at the time, including Obama and McCain, that didn't feel it was necessary. The Bush Administration was really left with no choice.

The ironic part of all of this is that all the doomsayers around here stated that the Federal Government would never give up ownership of the banks.

LMAO

FTR, I was and am still against the government bailout of GM. They should have been left to die due to their terrible, uncompetitive products over the past 30 years.

Iowanian
03-31-2010, 02:13 PM
This is good news all around. The government doesn't need to be in the banking business..

Interesting take...I guess you're against the govt taking over student loans.



I was never for the bailouts and while I guess it's better to come out ahead in this deal, we're all still way behind.

BigRedChief
03-31-2010, 05:48 PM
Interesting take...I guess you're against the govt taking over student loans.I'm against corporate welfare of any kind. 0% risk and keep 100% of the profits minus the costs of filing paperwork? Seems like its the taxpayer getting screwed.

Nightfyre
03-31-2010, 05:53 PM
Pretty poor risk-weighted return. JMO.

HonestChieffan
03-31-2010, 05:54 PM
I'm against corporate welfare of any kind. 0% risk and keep 100% of the profits minus the costs of filing paperwork? Seems like its the taxpayer getting screwed.

In your next life avoid banking as a career. You wont do well.

petegz28
03-31-2010, 10:49 PM
Let's not bullshit around. The AIG bailout was nothing more than a facade to make sure the golden child Goldman Sachs got all their ****ing money. We let Leahman fail and it hurt but we recovered. Personally the bank bailouts in the way they were handled were underhanded and probably prolonged the pain. Would it have been painful if we let the banks fail? Yes. Would we have recovered quicker and been done with it? Yes. We chose to peel off the band-aind instead of ripping it off and getting it over with.

Then suddenly GM somehow became a "bank" and received TARP funds. Meanwhile Fannie Mae is still in the tank and Obama is going after every bank but them. Latest is Boxer wants to impose a 50% tax on the bonuses of the top 13 banks that took TARP funds. The only logical and moral thing for the Fed Gov to have done was provide a path for the banks to fail efficiently but still fail.

Bloomberg recently won a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve to force them to disclose who the TARP $'s went too. Something the Paulson Trio did not want to disclose. They just wanted the money and told the people not to worry about where it was going.

We may have mde $7 bil but that isn't the point. The point is the Fed Gov does not exist to make a profit like that. It starts us down the slippery slope. The best thing to do which they won't is re-enact Glass-Stegall.