Obama wins first round of Poker with U.S. banks: They're giving the $ back.

[jazzjunkysue]

10 large US banks to repay $68B in TARP funds

By DANIEL WAGNER, AP Business Writer Daniel Wagner, Ap Business Writer – 49 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Ten large U.S. banks are planning to repay the government about $68 billion in bailout money Wednesday, a pair of industry officials say.

The Treasury Department last week gave the 10 banks permission to repay the funds, which they received under the $700 billion bailout plan, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That effort to unfreeze credit markets launched as global markets seized up last October.

Wednesday is the first day the banks are eligible to repay the money.

The banks repaying TARP are some of the industry's largest, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., American Express Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tarp_repayment

In my view, this means he played their game by his rules and they folded.

He soured the deal so they decided they migh just survive without emptying the treasury, after all.

Gee. Imagine that.

They're not going to forget this, either. He plays to win, and he did.

[Eric J in MN]

1. The Obama Administration gave the banks an additional trillion...

...through no-recourse loans to hedge funds.

Lending someone $20, and then giving them $30, and then getting the $20 back, doesn't make it even.

[uponit7771]

4. Don't remember Obama's admin lending them the money, you have a link?

Thx

[Eric J in MN]

10. First Congress passed the Bank Bailout Bill for $700 billion.

Henry Paulson of the Bush Administration used authority in that bill to buy $700 billion in stocks. That money is being paid back recently.

But after Paulson gave them that $700 billion, Tim Geithner of the Obama Administration loaned 1 trillion to hedge funds to buy trash from banks. (Non-recourse loans, the money doesn't have to be paid back.)

http://247wallst.com/2009/03/23/treasurys-toxic-asset-plan-still-leaves-many-questions/

[HamdenRice]

13. Bullshit

Paulson never "gave them that $700 billion" and the Obama administration never loaned $1 trillion to hedge funds.

Geithner's proposal, a trial balloon, was never implemented, and half of the TARP 1 authorize money was never used.

[Eric J in MN]

29. The trillion is through the "Legacy Loans Program" and "•Legacy Securities Program"

...described at the FDIC website:

http://www.fdic.gov/llp/

[mkultra]

32. That program uses left over TARP at up to 100million

Seems like your article is off base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-Private_Investment_Program_for_Legacy_Assets

[mkultra]

26. I think you need to read your own article

The toxic asset buyout plan is being done with the remaining money from the original TARP. this move is expected to put banks in a better position to raise capital themselves. The buy out should improve the banks ability to raise capitial from 500billing to 1 trillion.


Its not a loan and we aren't giving them 1 trillion dollars.

[Eric J in MN]

28. This article may explain it better.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030503762.html

U.S. to Invite The Wealthy To Invest in The Bailout

By David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 6, 2009; Page A01

The government is seeking to resuscitate the nation's crippled financial system by forging an alliance with the very outfits that most benefited from the bonanza preceding the collapse of the credit markets: hedge funds and private-equity firms.

The initiative to revive the consumer lending business, outlined by officials this week, offers these wealthy investors a new chance to make sizable profits -- but, thanks to the government, without the risk of massive losses.

The idea is to entice them to put their huge cash piles to work to stimulate the financial system. They would be invited to buy up recently issued, highly rated securities. These securities finance consumer lending, such as credit cards and student and auto loans.

The program, which could involve the government lending nearly $1 trillion to these investors, exceeds the size of every other federal effort to address the crisis so far. The initiative's approach could be the model for future federal efforts to aid the credit markets, sources familiar with government planning said. Officials call this strategy a "public-private partnership," but in essence the government is offering good deals to private investors to draw them into its rescue efforts.

====================================

[mkultra]

31. sorry, that didnt make any sense to me.

It looks like private funds are being used. Do you have any info on this? frankly its the first i have heard of a trillion dollar loan.

[high density]

48. The government is providing leverage for private investors

A private investor calls up the FDIC and says they want to buy some toxic assets under the Public-Private Investment Partnership (PPIP). FDIC sets an initial price and then conducts an auction between the various private investors. The bank's book value of the assets is $100 billion, but the top bid comes in at $84 billion. At this point the FDIC puts up $72 billion towards the purchase (up to 6:1 leverage). The remaining funding is split 50% with the Treasury and the private investor. So the private investor risks $6 billion and the Treasury department risks an additional $6 billion.

This means that the bank has taken a $16 billion loss on the sale but has removed $100 billion in troubled assets from the balance sheet. The private investor has now been able to buy $84 billion in assets by putting up only $6 billion. Under the worst case, end of world scenario, the investor and the government could both lose their entire investments. If the assets earn income then it is shared between the investor and the government.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg65.htm

[high density]

38. So $1 trillion could go toward PPIP

It's an investment in the sense that we get these "toxic assets" off the books of the bank. Private equity is involved in an attempt to keep the pricing as honest as possible. These private investors share in the profits or losses with the government. The long term cost is only $1 trillion if all of these assets become 100% worthless. If that happens then that's probably the end of our country as we know it anyway.

[mkultra]

39. sorry, thats incorrect

PPIP could create up to 1 trillion in purchase power at the banks. The program uses private and public money together using the remains of the TARP program up to 100 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-Private_Investment_Program_for_Legacy_Assets


Im not sure why this concept keeps getting pushed here.

[high density]

49. $100 billion = TARP/Treasury investment. $1 trillion = FDIC funding limit

The "purchasing power" is being provided/guaranteed by the FDIC for up to $1 trillion. That is money being combined with the TARP money and private investment to get these "toxic assets" off of the banks' books. (See my post #48) We expect to earn money on the investments but that money is still going to be tied up as the underlying loans of these "toxic assets" are repaid. Like I said, it only "costs $1 trillion" if the assets go completely bad. We expect to get that investment back and then some.

[mkultra]

51. thats insurance, not funding.

Maximum risk is 1 trillion.

[high density]

53. It's funding.

It is funding in the sense that the $1 trillion from the FDIC would be used to purchase these assets from the bank. There is a transfer of cash that goes from FDIC, TARP, and private investor to the bank in exchange for the "toxic assets." At this point the FDIC takes on the bulk of the risk of these assets, but expects to get back both the $1 trillion in principle plus a fee for putting up the money.

[mkultra]

54. thats the part that just isnt true.

Money from a combination of private investors and TARP would be used to purchase the assets which would be guaranteed by the FDIC(the I stands for Insurance)

read the wiki on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-Private_Investment_Program_for_Legacy_Assets

[high density]

56. Read about the process on the Treasury website. I posted it in #48.

Here it is again: http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/tg65.htm

Scroll down to the "Sample Investment Under the Legacy Loans Program" section. It shows you the maximum "guarantees" that the FDIC will be providing using sample funding. In the example the FDIC offers a "guarantee" to finance $72; that is money flowing from the FDIC to the bank in exchange for the toxic assets! The entire idea is getting the assets off of the balance sheet of the banks while involving some private capital so that prices paid to the banks are more fair.

I'm not saying PPIP is completely a bad idea, but at the same time one can't ignore the risk and initial cost of this to the FDIC. You can call it insurance if you want, but the bottom line is that it's money going from the FDIC to the bank in exchange for the assets.

[mkultra]

58. i think your reading it wrong. A garuntee is insurance, which is the job of the FD(INSURANCE)C.

The site states:

Step 4: Of this $84 purchase price, the FDIC would provide guarantees for $72 of financing, leaving $12 of equity.
Step 5: The Treasury would then provide 50% of the equity funding required on a side-by-side basis with the investor.
In this example, Treasury would invest approximately $6, with the private investor contributing $6.


It clear says guarantees for $72 OF financing. It does not say that it guarantees TO finance. A guarantee is an insurance underwriting. It further goes on to state that the equity would come 50/50 from private and treasury. As previously shown, the treasury is only contributing up to 100million of remaining TARP funds.

Money is not "GOING" from the FDIC. It is insuring the risk on the security.

[Indydem]

59. And if the mostly worthless paper becomes totally worthless? n/t

[mkultra]

60. Its not worthless paper, they are essentially real estate.

Essentially homes that have become devalued. The FDIC's guarantee is predicated on the assets being revalued at true market values. When they say "maximum risk" they really mean maximum. If you want to demagogue about some kind of total housing failure, I would worry more about the rest of the deposits that the FDIC guarantees.

[high density]

63. No sense in being so hung up on the name of the FDIC and their traditional role.

This is simply not falling under their traditional insurance role of protecting consumer deposits from bank failure. Guarantee for financing means they pay $72 as part of the transaction on behalf of the private investor! That is where the "up to $1 trillion" number is coming from.

The FDIC will provide oversight for the formation, funding, and operation of new public-private investment funds ("PPIFs") that will purchase loans and other assets from depository institutions.

http://www.fdic.gov/llp

While the idea of having the government purchase loans and other assets from banks has been proposed before, the problem of determining a fair price for the assets has prevented the idea from moving forward. The concern has been that a price set by the government might result in overpaying for the assets.

To address this concern, the Treasury will join with private investors to purchase these assets. This combination uses the expertise of the private sector and discipline from the financial markets to determine a market-based price for loans and other assets that have been hard to value.

The vehicle for purchasing assets from a bank will be Public-Private Investment Funds (PPIFs). Private investors will bid for the opportunity to contribute up to 50 percent of the equity for the PPIF. The winning bid for this equity share will set the implied value of the equity share held by the Treasury. With proposed financing guaranteed by the FDIC, this will define the overall price offered to the selling bank.

Because the government will be in partnership with private investors, the government will share in any profits. If private parties profit from their investment, as they expect to, the Treasury will also. At the same time, the Treasury will only suffer losses if the private investors do.

Credit markets have not functioned well recently because of a lack of financing for certain assets. To address this, a PPIF will be able to issue FDIC-guaranteed debt. For providing the guarantee, the FDIC will be paid a fee, a portion of which will be allocated to the Deposit Insurance Fund. The FDIC will be protected against losses by the equity in the pool, the newly established value of the pool's assets, and the fees collected.

http://www.fdic.gov/llp/progdesc.html

"Financing guaranteed by the FDIC" means "We will put up the money to help investors purchase these assets."

"Price offered" means "FDIC, Treasury, and private investor will collectively pay this amount to the bank in exchange for toxic assets."

"Issue FDIC-guaranteed debt" means "FDIC will spend money today in the hope it gets paid that money back in the future with a fee."

Main Entry: guarantee
Function: transitive verb

2. to engage for the existence, permanence, or nature of : undertake to do or secure <guarantee the winning of three tricks>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guarantee%5B2%5D

[mkultra]

66. Im hung up on English and fact.

"Financing guaranteed by the FDIC" does NOT mean "We will put up the money to help investors purchase these assets." it means, we will insurance the financing against lose.

again, your reading comprehension is on the weak side:
The FDIC will provide oversight for the formation, funding, and operation of new public-private investment funds

means that they will provide the OVERSIGHT for the formation and the funding, not the funding itself.


The winning bid for this equity share will set the implied value of the equity share held by the Treasury. With proposed financing guaranteed by the FDIC, this will define the overall price offered to the selling bank.

In these sentences, it is the winning bid and the guarantee that will define the overall "price offered".

To address this, a PPIF will be able to issue FDIC-guaranteed debt. For providing the guarantee, the FDIC will be paid a fee, a portion of which will be allocated to the Deposit Insurance Fund.

Even here, the snippet indicates that it is the PPIF, which is 50/50 private/tarp, will issue the debt. the FDIC will be paid a fee for GUARANTEEING the debt. This is like an insurance premium.



You care loan is guaranteed by your auto insurance and your home loan is guaranteed by your home owners insurance. They only pay if the asset takes a hit.


The definition of a guarantee issued by an insurer is:
Covers losses from specific financial transactions and guarantees that investors in debt instruments, such as municipal bonds, receive timely payment of principal and interest if there is a default. Raises the credit rating of debt to which the guarantee is attached. Investment bankers who sell asset-backed securities, securities backed by loan portfolios, use this insurance to enhance marketability.

[Indydem]

2. Most of these banks were forced to take funds against their will.

They never wanted them and were all to happy to repay them. They were forced to play a game they didn't want to play, and now they get to quit and go back to their golden parachutes and cozy executive compensation.

If anything, Obama and America lost in this one.

[newinnm]

78. How did anyone lose

Taxpayers get theie money back and the private banks get to run their private business's the way they want to.

-nnnm

[uponit7771]

3. If the regulations cover the direvitave markets and loans correctly we'll have a win

...but I'm more afraid that the next fiscal conservative president will do the "free market" crap and not enforce regulations like the Bush admin did.

The reason I'm in support of breaking them up is because it'll take a while to get them back together.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Breaking them up is the only way to stop a new round of bailouts...

...in ten or twenty years.

[Lasher]

8. Exactly right.

There was some early talk about stabilizing them, then taking them apart in an orderly fashion. But from what power I've seen from the banking lobby I wonder if anything like that is going to happen.

[uponit7771]

9. If the regulations stick and get enforced we can avoid bailouts that way too but me and...

...you know that as soon as a fiscal conservative reThug gets in office they'll defund the SEC or whatever committee Obama is setting up and then we'll be right back to where we are now.

I'm paying more attention to my finances now but it'd been nice to have a more boring steadily rising stock market.

[mkultra]

40. this logic kind of ignores the real cause of the credit meltdown

Which was essentially lack of regulation coupled with bad Bush monetary policy at Fred/Fan and Bernanke's rate hikes.

[Lasher]

6. Senior executives don't like interference when they're writing their own paychecks.

$68B is a relative drop in the bucket but there will be more.

[Wapsie B]

7. I want to see AIG's money on the table.

[INdemo]

11. So why does it becaome obvious and the Treasury secretary won't admit that

yes it was a scheme and a scam by most banks to recover losses because of high risk investments.Never mind the money lost from IRA's..Will those individuals get a bailout?

[newinnm]

77. No one deserves a bailout

No banks...no insurance companies...no persons who lost money in IRA's and noone who bought more house than they could afford.

nnnm

[HamdenRice]

12. But, but, but ... I thought they GAVE AWAY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS TO BANKS no strings attached!!!

That's what I heard on DU every time I and others with experience reading preferred stock agreements said that the banks were obligated to pay back the money and had to pay dividends and had to accept pretty severe conditions.

Were those supremely confident people wrong???

[Just Visiting]

14. No, they weren't

I'll break this to you gently - once the money gets paid back the banks are under NO obligation to change their lending practices in any way shape or form. The dirty little secret that keeps everybody happy.

Now, wouldn't YOU pay it back if you got to stay on the gravy train?

Perhaps instead of reading "preferred stock arrangements" you just might want to take a look at all of the "Gang of 19" who are bitching and moaning over these stringent rules.

Oh, wait - there aren't any.

If you have the Rolodex handy you may want to update it - seems as if nobody's returning your calls. :)

I'll relay back to them what you said here, though - they'll find it amusing.

[HamdenRice]

18. Your post is dificult to decipher...

but I will note that despite paying back the money, the banks will still be subject to the most sweeping financial re-regulation of banking since the New Deal.

And more to the point, either they have to pay back the money or they don't. I was told dozens of times that the banks didn't have to pay back the money because it was given to them "with no strings attached".

Were those confident prognosticators wrong?

:rofl:

[redqueen]

24. Not sure if it means anything...

but I'm seeing far fewer of the derisively mocking "THANK GOD IT PASSED!" posts.

[Just Visiting]

34. "the banks will still be subject to the most sweeping financial re-regulation

of banking since the New Deal"

Trust me, they're petrified.

:rofl:

Again, just for you: they're paying it back because they get a get out of jail card free if they do.

And hey, I'll bet those "sweeping financial regulations" are gonna be just about as strong as health care reform. :)

P.S. Keep an eye out on credit card debt - if you thought mortgage derivatives were slimy just watch what my "buds' do with this. As it stands now there is a hole in this "sweeping financial reform" big enough to drive a tank through, and it's all by design.

Or else they wouldn't have paid the money back.

See how simple?

[mkultra]

72. Yes. Your superior communication skills

demonstrate that you are clearly a well positioned insider with your finger on the pulse. We will start looking for pieces of falling sky immediately.

[Just Visiting]

74. No you won't

Your collective heads are so far in the clouds that anything falling past will be viewed as an aberration. Or somebody else's fault.

Or the fact that it has only been <fill in number of months here> so hey, don't look at me!

Just don't forget to duck.

Oh, and reading Roubini wouldn't hurt either. Or Hedges.

Or anyone who doesn't paint this "new" political landscape in pastels.

[mkultra]

75. Thanks for the warning

Im sure when everything gets back on track, you'll find some rationale to reposition. Either that or you can just post repeatedly "I TOLD YOU SO." Somehow i don't see that happening. I'm guessing you have moved on from Krugman to Roubini? What will you do when Roubini changes his stance?

[Just Visiting]

76. Just trying to help

I was in the business for a long time.

None of the "finance boys" are complaining, are they?

Live in blissful ignorance if you wish - all I am doing is telling what I KNOW (and I'm sorry this bothers you so, but if you were privy to the info that gets back to me every now and then you'd know too).

Obama can not and will not stop the oncoming economic train wreck. The mother of all haves vs. have nots is coming - the fact that he can't even get a semblance of health care reform through should tell you who is unwilling to give up power, and believing that the Democrats are somehow the white knights in all of this is almost laughable. They want the big money too, but they have to walk a pretend line of actually pretending they give a shit about anyone save themselves.

Believe me, even though I only (at this point in my life) get second-hand info about whose palms are being greased I can assure that when I was in finance those with their hands out were both donkeys and elephants.

You may feel better about your choice of animals, but when it comes to propping the system up it doesn't matter. It really doesn't.

Remember, Obama wants to put the FED in charge of oversight. What more do you need to know??

[Romulox]

20. Loaning someone money at less than market rates = CHARITY, no matter how you slice it.

And "no strings attached" refers to the fact there were no new regulations or stipulations on corporate behavior issued alongside this largesse. But you keep on swinging at that strawman! (PS Thank GAWD it passed! :rofl: )

[HamdenRice]

62. Victory for common sense at last! You used the word, "loan"!!!

So do you finally admit the money wasn't "given" to the banking sector? That's a start! Congratulations! Welcome to the reality based community!

So your beef now is that the Treasury provided an implicit interest rate subsidy in order to prevent the complete collapse of the financial system?

Recent calculations posted on DU were that the Treasury would make around $5 billion on the spread between the low interest it was being charged on t-bills and the roughly 5% required dividend on the preferred purchased from the banks under TARP 1. Your gripe is that the profit should have been higher? That's now your entire critique?

As for conditions, could you answer this yes/no question: Have you read the terms of the TARP preferred? If yes, do you think the terms of the TARP 1 preferred constitute "stipulations on corporate behavior"?

If no, do you think you are informed enough to conclude that there were no "stipulations"?

[Romulox]

65. Any transfer of consideration at a less than reasonably equivalent value = A GRATUITY

(At least as to the portion that is less than would be required to obtain the same consideration in the open market.) The formal name for this form of partially gratuitous transfer is a "subsidy". This is a simple concept with which you continually struggle. You are obviously not a trained economist. :hi:

"Have you read the terms of the TARP preferred?"

No.

"If no, do you think you are informed enough to conclude that there were no "stipulations"?"

LOL. I think you hide behind implied qualifications when your arguments fail. If you have an argument to make, make it. I have seen no meaningful reform of the derivatives market, for example, to accompany the massive outlay of taxpayer dollars.

[HamdenRice]

67. When have I "struggled" with the idea of subsidy?

And you still haven't answered the basic question: Do you now acknowledge that the TARP 1 bailout principal was not "given" to the banks but as you put it "loaned".

I guess there's no point for me to beat your dead horse, because you actually already acknowledge it up thread. So basically during the bailout follies everything you were writing has proven to be wrong.

[Romulox]

68. Your response just upthread bristles at my otherwise uncontroversial assertion that the TARP

is not an investment vehicle, but rather an outlay at cash to private equity at terms no private lender would offer (i.e. a subsidy.)

"I guess there's no point beating your dead horse, because you actually already acknowledge it up thread."

Mischaracterization is one of the weakest forms of argument, perhaps surpassed only by self-congratulation in its lack of persuasive power. I will readily admit that I am no economist (though it is apparent that you are neither a formally trained economist.) So if you could devote 50% of the word count to a brief outline of why your argument is correct, as opposed to characterizing the argument of others', I'd greatly appreciate it!

PS: You misstated the law as to the Bankruptcy Code yesterday (it is also apparent that you are not an attorney) and implied anyone who didn't share your erroneous view wasn't familiar with the Code (I happen to be.) So your appeals to authority fail to impress. Rather than mark that fact out or crow about it, I calmly corrected your incorrect assertion (albeit in a response to another poster in the same sub-thread.)

You should try doing something like that some time. No excuses, no implied authority, no insults, and no condescension. A basic discussion of the facts and your spin on them. That's why they call it a discussion board. :hi:

[HamdenRice]

69. So basically you acknowledge the money wasn't "given" to the banks?

And actually, you misstated the way the Bankruptcy Code works. It just seemed to uninformed really to get involved with, because as you say, you're neither a lawyer nor an economist.

In liquidation (not reorganization), the holders of senior secured debt do not get the "present value" of the assets that secured the debt. They get title to assets.

[Romulox]

70. The transfer represented a government SUBSIDY at terms no private actor would offer

In that sense, the transfer was partially gratuitous, and a gratuity is, by definition, "just given".

"In liquidation (not reorganization), the holders of senior secured debt do not get the "present value" of the assets that secured the debt. They get title to assets."

I'm sorry, but you are simply mistaken. Not only as to how bankruptcy works, but as to the fundamental nature of secured debt.

11 U.S.C. § 506. Determination of secured status

How Current is This?
(a)
(1) An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest, or that is subject to setoff under section 553 of this title, is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property, or to the extent of the amount subject to setoff, as the case may be, and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest or the amount so subject to setoff is less than the amount of such allowed claim. Such value shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property, and in conjunction with any hearing on such disposition or use or on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.

(2) If the debtor is an individual in a case under chapter 7 or 13, such value with respect to personal property securing an allowed claim shall be determined based on the replacement value of such property as of the date of the filing of the petition without deduction for costs of sale or marketing. With respect to property acquired for personal, family, or household purposes, replacement value shall mean the price a retail merchant would charge for property of that kind considering the age and condition of the property at the time value is determined.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/11/usc_sec_11_00000506----000-.html

[Historic NY]

15. Just how much of the 700 billion has come back to date?

[Zynx]

37. A great deal of it is in two banks, BofA and Citi, which won't be paying it back

for a long time to come.

[kenny blankenship]

64. less than 10 %

9 pennies on the dollar, WOOHOOO! BRILLIANT!

[DrToast]

16. They're giving the money back because...

...the capital markets have recovered enough that they can raise money privately. They needed the money when they took it because it was the only source available, but they don't need it anymore because they can get it elsewhere.

[Cha]

17. That's good! Thanks for

the news, jjs!

[unblock]

19. once my brother asked for a $1,000 loan. i lent him $1,500 and he eventually repaid me $500.

years later i'm still out $1,000.

did i win?

[Romulox]

21. These are the healthy banks that were forced to take TARP funds lest they "stigmatize" the bad banks

There are still TRILLIONS disappearing down the rathole to the bad banks. :hi:

[PBS Poll-435]

22. With interest.

[depakid]

23. Since almost none of the banksters and faudsters have been prosecuted

they, like the torturers are laughing all the way to the.....

Yeah, so who's joke on here?

[Romulox]

25. Wait. Are you pretending you WEREN'T part of the "Thank GAWD it passed!" chorus?

:rofl:

[depakid]

35. I guess some must enjoy staying in year 11

and that's granting credit for getting through middle school- which may not be due.

[Romulox]

41. LOL. I'll take that as a "yes".

:hi:

[depakid]

57. Some leave middle school, some don't

Just the way it is.

[mkultra]

42. thank god WHAT passed exactly?

TARP or the Obama stimulus?

[Romulox]

43. TARP. nt

[mkultra]

45. during Bush?

well, it was a 50/50 for some folks.

[Romulox]

46. Yes, during Bush. The above poster advocated vigorously for the immediate urgency of the TARP

and argued against those who called for a more measured approach which featured robust regulation at the outset.

Now, he seems to be distancing himself from those views.

And yes, George H.W. Bush was President at the time. Why is this such a sticking point for you?

[mkultra]

50. just making sure you werent trying to pin that on Obama

Which some here try to daily. On a further note, this "unnamed poster" has also been a serious critic of Obama for his "handling" of the bank bailout recently. Seems pretty strange to me.

[Romulox]

52. Obama voted for the TARP, too.

"On a further note, this "unnamed poster" has also been a serious critic of Obama for his "handling" of the bank bailout recently. "

He's attempting a rehabilitation but skipping the mea culpa. That was my whole point.

Obama voted for the TARP, by the way. While Bush was President.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213

[mkultra]

55. sure. Im on board

I was agree with your point in majority.

I would have voted for TARP too given no other option.

[Froward69]

27. Any body watch FRONTLINE

Last night?
it was about this same topic. specifically how the Bush administration basically pushed TARP funds onto the Banks. even if they did not want them. Strong arming them to accept. (the timing was not addressed but it occurred to me it Started just as it was becoming clear Obama was going to Win the election.) Then they closed up shop and left the mess to the incoming administration.
While making sure others were in the spotlight while they slipped out of town.

:tinfoilhat:
not to be accusative but it would seem bushco created this mess just to hamstring President Obama.
FUCKERS!

[Indydem]

30. Their logic did make sense...

By forcing all banks to take them, they didn't point out the ones in trouble thus causing a run on those troubled banks. They were trying to keep the system from succumbing to panic.

Right or wrong, the logic makes sense to me.

[Celebration]

33. Yup, it made sense at the time n/t

[Froward69]

44. But really

it just put off the problems till later. instead of confronting them head on.

[Better Believe It]

36. Roubini warns against allowing repay of TARP funds, says they get 10 other gov't bailout programs

Roubini warns against allowing repay of TARP funds, says they get 10 other gov't bailout programs

Economist Nouriel Roubini says that allowing banks to repay TARP funds creates competitive disadvantages.
June 15, 2009

See the video interview at:

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2009/06/15/roubini.tarp... /

The interview is preceded by a 30 second commercial.

It sure sounds like the banks won this round without even a fight!

[jonestonesusa]

47. Does anyone know how much money has been paid out through TARP and PPIP?

I know it's more than $68 billion and they're probably on the second half of the $700 billion authorized in the original Paulson plan. But on the other hand a lot of figures get tossed around. I wonder what the remaining indebtedness is of the major banks to the feds.

[Skittles]

61. LOL

they want to give it back so they can avoid further scrutinizing and so they can hand out big bonuses at the end of the year

[Just Visiting]

71. That is one reason, as it keeps them in contention for employing

"the best and the brightest" (i.e. those individuals for whom conscience is merely a trait that fools possess.)

More importantly, though, is the fact that by "repaying" (word in quotes here because the amount they are giving back pales in comparison to the amount they made while they had it) the money they are allowed to play with derivatives until the end of time. They're still doing it now, of course (ask even the low level floor trader and he/she will admit it without a second thought) but with zero money due they'll have no constraints at all.

Face it folks - they OWN Obama. Flat out. Credit card and/or school loan derivatives are on the drawing boards now, and the word is that nobody is concerned that anyone will interfere.

You should have seen the laughter when the Fed was put in charge of guarding the henhouse.

BTW, does everyone here know the Fed CAN NOT be audited or even forced to comply with the simplest requests for how they spend their money?

"A change has come to Washington."

Not.

[Autumn]

73. When it is paid back where does the money go? n/t