Estimated TARP losses reduced to $50-66b; could break even

Letting it all hang loose would have cost $0.4/$ for the creditors of AIG and much smaller bonuses for the surviving investment banks. Or at least that is the estimate I see most often.

I could live with that easy, even ten fold. How many Americans lost their jobs, lost their homes, became homeless or even DIED because of this credit crisis/recession?

However the foreclosure crisis going on now will give a real world test in as much as the state and federal courts could care less about Bernancke's mandate when he starts screwing with American real estate law.

WE will see. The real shit hasn't hit the fan yet. This may yet be just a fart.
Definitely possible. If Bernancke ignores subpoenas by state courts this could get real interesting fast.
 
too big to jail.

In fact everybody who is too big is gonna skate on this, unless they feature some foreign nationality.

The Wall Street villians outperformed my expectations. I thought they would pump all of their toxic garbage into unsophisticated hedge funds, municipal funds and US pension funds. But they pumped a whole lot of it offshore to the EU and Asia.

Give them a few points for patriotism, or CYA.
 
too big to jail.

In fact everybody who is too big is gonna skate on this, unless they feature some foreign nationality.

The Wall Street villians outperformed my expectations. I thought they would pump all of their toxic garbage into unsophisticated hedge funds, municipal funds and US pension funds. But they pumped a whole lot of it offshore to the EU and Asia.

Give them a few points for patriotism, or CYA.
Pissing off two continents worth of nuclear armed and unforgiving people strikes me as unwise.
 
they should know better than to trust our "innovative" financial products. Who is kidding whom? Did anybody think that derivatives were legit business deals suitable for the unsavvy?

Was there anybody who didn't realize that the game was beggar thy neighbor?

I don't justify the game, I think it is criminal, but I didn't buy CDOs bundled by Fannie and Freddie either. And I didn't insure them. Same for mortgages bundled by GS, MS, LB etc.

Anybody with half a clue knew that.....this was more like a game of hot potato than "money for nothing".

Fools rush in.
 
typical....just more of the same.

Boy do we need to change the oil in this congress, and not just dems either.

Tired jackasses like Frank really need to go, Dood has already decided to retire , (but to late imho ) he's been outted for doing the slimey crap hes probably been getting away with for y7ears. .



Essential' Bailouts
Oct. 4th 2010
Under Dodd-Frank, some creditors are more equal than others.

'There will be no more tax-funded bailouts—period," said President Obama on July 21, the day he signed the Dodd-Frank financial reform into law. This week, the board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will use the new powers it received under Dodd-Frank to decide which bank creditors will receive . . . tax-funded bailouts.

On July 21, Mr. Obama said that "there will be new rules to make clear that no firm is somehow protected because it is 'too big to fail,' so we don't have another AIG." But under the new law, firms deemed too big to fail by the new Financial Stability Oversight Council can be protected from bankruptcy, if regulators so desire, and instead put into an alternative process managed by the FDIC. The idea is to provide the firm with taxpayer cash that would not be available in a bankruptcy, and then try to recover the taxpayer's money over time from sales of the company's assets.

If the taxpayers don't come out whole, Plan B is to seek money from the firm's other creditors after the crisis has passed. Failing that, the government will assess fees across the financial industry, including firms that had nothing to do with the failure. Regulators and the bill's authors have unanimously agreed not to call this a bailout program.

he issue for the FDIC board this week is the pecking order for creditors of companies undergoing FDIC resolution. During the Congressional debate on Dodd-Frank, we warned about the discretion afforded the FDIC to discriminate among such creditors, offering bailouts to some while punishing others.

Last week, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair confirmed that the problem exists, though she still won't use the word "bailout." Ms. Bair said, "The authority to differentiate among creditors will be used rarely and only where such additional payments are 'essential to the implementation of the receivership or any bridge financial company.'"

She was quoting the Dodd-Frank law, and the question is which creditors to a failing firm will be considered "essential" and therefore eligible for a bailout. Backers of the FDIC process have promoted the idea that taxpayer money flowing into the failed business will be used to pay the electric company to keep the lights on or vendors of basic office supplies. But who else will enjoy the coveted "essential" status? The opportunities for political favoritism are enormous.

Ms. Bair promised last week that "long-term bondholders, subordinated debt holders, and shareholders of a financial company" will never be considered "essential." That's nice, and from her we even believe it. But why not simply say that "all financial counterparties" will never be considered essential? Is the FDIC Chairman saying that short-term bondholders, however defined, may get a rescue?

We eagerly await the public release of information from the FDIC. But leaving the door open for a rescue of, for example, lenders due to be repaid within six months or a year would only encourage the short-term funding model that helped destroy Bear Stearns and so many other firms in 2008. Rather than eliminating moral hazard, it will simply concentrate it in a particular category of financial instruments.

We don't mean to pick on Ms. Bair, who deserves credit for at least trying to rule out certain bailouts. We suspect she is facing the usual pressure from the Treasury Department to keep all options open when it comes to rescuing unwise lenders from the consequences of their decisions.

Whether Washington calls firms "essential," or "systemic," or "nationally recognized" as in the case of credit-ratings agencies, the government always goes wrong when it anoints particular firms for special favors they can't secure in the market or before a judge. Repealing ObamaCare has captured the public imagination for obvious reasons, but the next Congress should also repeal the new system of bailouts enabled by Dodd-Frank.

Review & Outlook: 'Essential' Bailouts - WSJ.com
 

Forum List

Back
Top