What's new

So Much for Making Money on the Bailout

Freedom4all

Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
767
Reaction score
0
Well, it’s only money. And with the taxpayers facing more than $100 trillion worth of unfunded liabilities, what’s a few more wasted dollars?!

Reports the Washington Post:
The federal government is unlikely to recoup all of the billions of dollars that it has invested in General Motors and Chrysler, according to a new congressional oversight report assessing the automakers’ rescue.

The report said that a $5.4 billion portion of the $10.5 billion owed by Chrysler is “highly unlikelyâ€￾ to be repaid, while full recovery of the $50 billion sunk into GM would require the company’s stock to reach unprecedented heights.

“Although taxpayers may recover some portion of their investment in Chrysler and GM, it is unlikely they will recover the entire amount,â€￾ according to the report, which is scheduled to be released Wednesday.

:down:
 
Chrysler and GM can give everyone a free car , to make up the difference, even those who don't pay taxes.....................Nobama would love that !
 
Not all the bailout "investments" are a bust:

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.
 
your first point is the most accurate freedom4all


Really , what does it matter anymore , we can't pay what we owe , so if we can sucker the rest of the world into giving us stuff , we might as well suck up as much as we can before going bust ... :up:
 
Not all the bailout "investments" are a bust:

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.

Nope, the assumption is false.

Bailout profit not adding up

To start, it's pointless to assess the damage to U.S. taxpayers on the basis of eight of the healthiest banks to receive government aid. America's two most troubled major banks, Citigroup and Bank of America, have yet to repay their bailout funds, and further losses in their portfolios of dubious assets might easily wipe out the ballyhooed $4 billion profit. And there are another 633 U.S. banks that owe the federal government a collective $134.2 billion, with no sense of how much of that will be repaid, either.

What we do know, from a June estimate by Ethisphere, a think-tank that monitors the controversial $700 billion federal Troubled Asset Relief Program launched last October, is that TARP remains $148 billion in the hole.

And TARP is only part of the myriad ways that Washington rushed to the banks' rescue.

There are the trillions of dollars' worth of suspect mortgage-backed securities, many of them notorious "subprime" loans to uncredit-worthy borrowers, that the Fed has bought and taken off the books of otherwise doomed lenders. The U.S. Treasury Department has set aside another $30 billion to induce private-equity firms to buy so-called "toxic assets" from troubled banks.

American taxpayers likely won't ever see again any of the tens of billions of dollars Washington had to spend to effectively nationalize American International Group Inc. (AIG), once the world's largest insurer, which guaranteed subprimes held by scores of global banks. Had the undercapitalized AIG bought the farm, its collapse would have triggered the failure of lenders from San Francisco to Frankfurt to Tokyo.

Uncle Sam further staved off a meltdown of the global financial system with its $95.6 billion nationalization of the cravenly mismanaged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the hybrid private-public firms that are the ultimate buyers of half of all U.S. residential mortgages.

So why was the Fed so eager to feed this trifling good news about the eight recovered banks to the media?

Because the bank bailout was sold to a hostile Congress last year by then-treasury secretary Henry Paulson as an investment in rescuing the financial system, with the emergency funds eventually to be recouped.

If profit was taken then when will i be receiving my check?
 
Nope, the assumption is false.



If profit was taken then when will i be receiving my check?


Hmm... so are you trying to say that Goldman Sachs did not pay the money back plus dividends? It wasn't an assumption as you claim... it is a FACT that Goldmans Sachs paid back the money plus dividends.
 
Hmm... so are you trying to say that Goldman Sachs did not pay the money back plus dividends? It wasn't an assumption as you claim... it is a FACT that Goldmans Sachs paid back the money plus dividends.

Do not bother.

Let me summarize the situation:

  1. Facts do not get in the way in this person's postings.
  2. ...When you are proven wrong on one point/topic, start another.
  3. ...That is why we have four new threads started just today by the plagiarizer in chief.
  4. ...It is the only recourse when you have lost an argument.
  5. ...Of course having no credibility does not further your cause (see point 2 and 3)
 
Do not bother.

Let me summarize the situation:

  1. Facts do not get in the way in this person's postings.
  2. ...When you are proven wrong on one point/topic, start another.
  3. ...That is why we have four new threads started just today by the plagiarizer in chief.
  4. ...It is the only recourse when you have lost an argument.
  5. ...Of course having no credibility does not further your cause (see point 2 and 3)

You mean like when I proved you wrong with the facts here?
 
Not all the bailout "investments" are a bust:

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.

Isn't Goldman Sachs the firm that provids all sorts of talent to the Fed and Treasury?

Didn't the Fed and Treasury let Lehman Bros fail, Bear Stearns to go belly up and left AIG in the hanging? Didn't AIG owe Goldie some 13 billion?

Tough times for making profits in these markets.
 
Isn't Goldman Sachs the firm that provids all sorts of talent to the Fed and Treasury?

Didn't the Fed and Treasury let Lehman Bros fail, Bear Stearns to go belly up and left AIG in the hanging? Didn't AIG owe Goldie some 13 billion?

Tough times for making profits in these markets.


Yep. Same Goldman Sachs. Coincidence? Not likely. The Prince of Omaha knew that betting on Goldman Sachs was a good bet... and it wasn't because he thought it had good balance sheets.

In regard to Bear Stearns... I believe a smart move was made. While the markets reacted badly, it wasn't quite the financial doom/havoc that many predicted. I think much of it had to do with timing and market expectations (as I had previously mentioned in numerous threads).

In regard to Lehman Brothers... it was a planned failure (albeit hastily planned). The only way Barclays would purchase the assets were if they could get them free and clear. There is only one good way to do that: Bankruptcy.

As for the auto bailouts. I think we all knew that it was a bad "investment." I was for alternative means of handling that situation, as were many of you. And I still wish they would have gave those alternative means the ole college try.
 
your first point is the most accurate freedom4all


Really , what does it matter anymore , we can't pay what we owe , so if we can sucker the rest of the world into giving us stuff , we might as well suck up as much as we can before going bust ... :up:

Freedom, again... your financial predictions are bust. One year ago, I told you that someone would buy into certain companies in the financial industry just as Wilbur Ross came to the rescue of the steel industry years earlier. Then, I explained to you that Warren Buffet had become that person, and that I, like Buffet, would take a page from history and invest in the face of yours and others' fears. He ended up shoring up Goldman Sachs. You naively replied:

"i read the article by buffet ... and while he's a smart man , he's going to be one of the very few running into the burning building ....

no lilly , too much has already occured for this to be anything close to historical as warren likes to link to ...
"

Au contraire: Buffet has thus far reaped a $3 billion paper profit in as little as a year. Your fear is others' profits.
 
Government Watchdog: 'Extremely Unlikely' Taxpayers Will Recoup TARP Money
Gee like we didnt know that when they did it. :down: :blink:
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Information
The federal banking and thrift regulatory agencies encourage all eligible institutions to use the Treasury Department's Capital Purchase Program and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. On October 14, 2008, the U.S. government announced a series of initiatives to strengthen market stability, improve the strength of financial institutions, and enhance market liquidity. Treasury announced a voluntary Capital Purchase Program to encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support the U.S. economy. Under the program, Treasury will purchase up to $250 billion of senior preferred shares on standardized terms.

Where was the outrage then?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top