More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[Toddsterpatriot]

ROFL... yeah then TARP 2 came down the pipe.

There was only the one bank TARP.

Of course the mortgage modification part was a waste.
And the automaker portion was a give away to the UAW.
But the bank portion stopped the panic and made money for the Treasury.

Cool site:
Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

Yes.

 

[Andylusion]

The point I was making is that without taxpayer funds a great many banks that invested in people who invested in failed real-estate holdings. The threat was a run on the banks was about to ensue as the chain of loans unraveled. I like to call these big banks with access to the Federal funds the banking cartel. I'm not alone in calling them that.

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

With regard to the fortune 500 I was alluding to the QE money that has been used to bail out wallstreet by shoring up stock prices via zero rate of return money offered to preferred borrowers who are allowed the essentially free money via fed QE asset purchase program.

The part you seem to not understand is that if taxpayer funds were not used to save certain corporations, those saved corporations would have gone through forclosure. This is a matter of fact, not up for debate. Instead of going under many executives were invited to stay on and reap the whirlwind of being save by the tax payers. This in the form of massive bonuses and stock awards.

No, I completely disagree with that entirely. Banks were FORCED into taking TARP money. What's really odd, this is well known. In fact, the Fed was open about this at the start.

Remember IndyMac, and the lines of people around the block, trying to get their money? The reason that happened, was that the Fed announced they were going to give TARP money to IndyMac. This alerted everyone that IndyMac was going to fail. As a result, people lined up around the block, to withdraw their money.

In order to avoid that, the Federal reserve intentionally forced hundreds on hundreds of banks, to take TARP money, so that no one would know which banks were about to fail.

Documents: Paulson forced 9 banks to take TARP | HartfordBusiness.com


This is a well known, well documented, established fact.

JP Morgan Chase, was never at any point 'about to fail', or even close. They got bailout money because the Fed demanded they take it, so the market wouldn't know which banks would fail.

This is the primary reason the original TARP had no restrictions. If the money had Restrictions, then none of these perfectly fine banks would have taken the money. As proof of that, the moment that the Democrats added restrictions to the money, the banks paid back the TARP bill as early as possible.

Treasury Lets 10 Banks Repay $68 Billion in Bailout Cash - WSJ

At one point, the Fed was considering, not letting the banks pay back the loans. Because again, that would point out which banks were in trouble, because they would be the only banks to not pay back.

That article was from June. TARP had only been created in October. So in less than 8 months, banks that were so bad off, that they needed a bailout, not only were perfectly fine, but had the money to pay back the loans? No, they were never in trouble in the first place. The Fed pressured them to take the money. That's why it say "the Fed decided to ALLOW the banks to pay back the loans". Keep in mind, banks were failing all throughout 2009.

As for QE and stock options... I don't think so.

I'm sure QE has some effect, but ultimately the company has to perform in order for the stock to have value. Lowering interest rates, and all the QE in the world, can't make GMs stock worth something. And it didn't, because GM was bankrupt.

At some point, a company has to be profitable, in order for people to buy the stock, regardless of how cheap it is to borrow.

If those CEOs are not able to guide their company through an economic down turn, no amount of QE is going to save their stock options.

For example look at GM. Instead of the share holders getting their fair share of GM in bancruptcy, Obama bailed them out with tax dollars, while screwing over the stock and bond holders. The stock and bond holders assets where handed over to the UAW by our POTUS.

IOW this government is picking and choosing winners and loosers. The only consistent looser is the American taxpayer.

Agreed.

Let's see.. so to prove me wrong in my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back, my point that many banks were gonna fail,.... you point out that not all banks were gonna fail. ROFL dude if you want to say I'm wrong, if you want to disagree with me stop providing my evidence for me. I said a great many, I did not say all banks. You come back with many were not gonna fail and were forced to hide the great many that I was talking about!!!

When a whole bunch of corporations start going bankrupt it does tend to chain to unexpected places. I'm a proponent of letting the cards fall as they may and letting people learn their lesson.

As per the effect of QE you need to understand that the price of stocks is set by the active buyers and sellers not the people sitting on the sidelines. The large active buyers have lines of credit. Lines of credit that are at a much lower rate due to QE. Additionally, you'll note I did not say this stock or that stock I said the stock market. IOW I was talking about the whole damn thing not one particular stock. Thus my issue with the 1% benefiting from free taxpayer backed loans, was with the people who DID BENEFIT. FYI stock options is only one means for people to get bonuses they also come in the form of cash, and sometimes stock awards, not options.

But I am glad we agreed the cronyism exhibited by this administration in this recession was a poor example of how to lead a nation. Not to give any credit to Bush and his administration, cause frankly none is deserved there either.

The banks that were going to fail... failed. TARP did not stop, or prevent them from failing. Countrywide was going to fail. It failed. TARP didn't save Countrywide. It no longer exists as a company.

The companies that were not going to fail, are the ones that got TARP. Bank of America, was never in danger of failing. They got TARP. BOA got TARP, to buy Countrywide. TARP did not save Country wide, and BOA did not need saving. BOA got TARP, because if they did not get TARP, they would not have bought Countrywide.

The CEO of BOA did not really benefit from TARP, because he was never in danger to begin with. If anything, the CEO of BOA was harmed by TARP, because he was conned into buying Countrywide, which was a bad buy.

Now what would have happened without TARP, and if Countrywide was not purchased, and had gone into bankruptcy?

In a typical corporate bankruptcy, one of two things happens. A: the company is salvageable, and unprofitable departments are sold off, the profitable ones are kept, and the company is restructured.

B: the company is not salvageable, and all assets (business holdings and so on), are all sold off to the highest bidder.

If the company is sold off, then whatever the assets sell for, is used to pay back the creditors. Lehman Brothers, Barclays bought most of it, Nomura Holdings bought most of the rest, and $20 billion in assets were sold off by Lehman Brothers at the end. From the bankruptcy, the creditors (bond holders) were paid back 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar. Everyone else got nothing.

So who are the bond holders? Union Pensions, foreign investors, mutual funds (401K, 403B, IRAs), and so on.

What TARP did, was prevent Unions, foreign investors, mutual funds and such, from losing money. TARP effectively bribed other banks, to buy out the failing banks, before they failed, so that the bond holders were paid back in full, instead of 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar like Lehman Brothers bond holders.

The CEO of Countrywide, and the CEO of Lehman Bothers, had the same fate. They both lost their jobs, lost their stock values, lost everything. (everything that they could lose. Obviously the millions they earned up to that point is not lost, and couldn't be lost).

Now you want to make the case that lowering interest rates was a benefit to CEOs, that's somewhat true.

But this idea that TARP was this huge rich person bailout... just not true. More myth than reality.

 

[Sallow]

No, I completely disagree with that entirely. Banks were FORCED into taking TARP money. What's really odd, this is well known. In fact, the Fed was open about this at the start.

Remember IndyMac, and the lines of people around the block, trying to get their money? The reason that happened, was that the Fed announced they were going to give TARP money to IndyMac. This alerted everyone that IndyMac was going to fail. As a result, people lined up around the block, to withdraw their money.

In order to avoid that, the Federal reserve intentionally forced hundreds on hundreds of banks, to take TARP money, so that no one would know which banks were about to fail.

Documents: Paulson forced 9 banks to take TARP | HartfordBusiness.com


This is a well known, well documented, established fact.

JP Morgan Chase, was never at any point 'about to fail', or even close. They got bailout money because the Fed demanded they take it, so the market wouldn't know which banks would fail.

This is the primary reason the original TARP had no restrictions. If the money had Restrictions, then none of these perfectly fine banks would have taken the money. As proof of that, the moment that the Democrats added restrictions to the money, the banks paid back the TARP bill as early as possible.

Treasury Lets 10 Banks Repay $68 Billion in Bailout Cash - WSJ

At one point, the Fed was considering, not letting the banks pay back the loans. Because again, that would point out which banks were in trouble, because they would be the only banks to not pay back.

That article was from June. TARP had only been created in October. So in less than 8 months, banks that were so bad off, that they needed a bailout, not only were perfectly fine, but had the money to pay back the loans? No, they were never in trouble in the first place. The Fed pressured them to take the money. That's why it say "the Fed decided to ALLOW the banks to pay back the loans". Keep in mind, banks were failing all throughout 2009.

As for QE and stock options... I don't think so.

I'm sure QE has some effect, but ultimately the company has to perform in order for the stock to have value. Lowering interest rates, and all the QE in the world, can't make GMs stock worth something. And it didn't, because GM was bankrupt.

At some point, a company has to be profitable, in order for people to buy the stock, regardless of how cheap it is to borrow.

If those CEOs are not able to guide their company through an economic down turn, no amount of QE is going to save their stock options.



Agreed.

Let's see.. so to prove me wrong in my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back, my point that many banks were gonna fail,.... you point out that not all banks were gonna fail. ROFL dude if you want to say I'm wrong, if you want to disagree with me stop providing my evidence for me. I said a great many, I did not say all banks. You come back with many were not gonna fail and were forced to hide the great many that I was talking about!!!

When a whole bunch of corporations start going bankrupt it does tend to chain to unexpected places. I'm a proponent of letting the cards fall as they may and letting people learn their lesson.

As per the effect of QE you need to understand that the price of stocks is set by the active buyers and sellers not the people sitting on the sidelines. The large active buyers have lines of credit. Lines of credit that are at a much lower rate due to QE. Additionally, you'll note I did not say this stock or that stock I said the stock market. IOW I was talking about the whole damn thing not one particular stock. Thus my issue with the 1% benefiting from free taxpayer backed loans, was with the people who DID BENEFIT. FYI stock options is only one means for people to get bonuses they also come in the form of cash, and sometimes stock awards, not options.

But I am glad we agreed the cronyism exhibited by this administration in this recession was a poor example of how to lead a nation. Not to give any credit to Bush and his administration, cause frankly none is deserved there either.

The banks that were going to fail... failed. TARP did not stop, or prevent them from failing. Countrywide was going to fail. It failed. TARP didn't save Countrywide. It no longer exists as a company.

The companies that were not going to fail, are the ones that got TARP. Bank of America, was never in danger of failing. They got TARP. BOA got TARP, to buy Countrywide. TARP did not save Country wide, and BOA did not need saving. BOA got TARP, because if they did not get TARP, they would not have bought Countrywide.

The CEO of BOA did not really benefit from TARP, because he was never in danger to begin with. If anything, the CEO of BOA was harmed by TARP, because he was conned into buying Countrywide, which was a bad buy.

Now what would have happened without TARP, and if Countrywide was not purchased, and had gone into bankruptcy?

In a typical corporate bankruptcy, one of two things happens. A: the company is salvageable, and unprofitable departments are sold off, the profitable ones are kept, and the company is restructured.

B: the company is not salvageable, and all assets (business holdings and so on), are all sold off to the highest bidder.

If the company is sold off, then whatever the assets sell for, is used to pay back the creditors. Lehman Brothers, Barclays bought most of it, Nomura Holdings bought most of the rest, and $20 billion in assets were sold off by Lehman Brothers at the end. From the bankruptcy, the creditors (bond holders) were paid back 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar. Everyone else got nothing.

So who are the bond holders? Union Pensions, foreign investors, mutual funds (401K, 403B, IRAs), and so on.

What TARP did, was prevent Unions, foreign investors, mutual funds and such, from losing money. TARP effectively bribed other banks, to buy out the failing banks, before they failed, so that the bond holders were paid back in full, instead of 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar like Lehman Brothers bond holders.

The CEO of Countrywide, and the CEO of Lehman Bothers, had the same fate. They both lost their jobs, lost their stock values, lost everything. (everything that they could lose. Obviously the millions they earned up to that point is not lost, and couldn't be lost).

Now you want to make the case that lowering interest rates was a benefit to CEOs, that's somewhat true.

But this idea that TARP was this huge rich person bailout... just not true. More myth than reality.

What a load of hooey.

And if Lehman were the model you were looking for?

We would been in deep shit.

Every financial institution was going to go under. Each and every one of them.

There were too many interdependencies. Lehman was actually a unique case, because it went under first. Had their been others that collapsed? There would be no one "salvaging" them, because quite simply there aren't that many Barclays and Nomuras around. And even with the "Salvaging"? Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Had the government NOT stepped in? This collapse would have made the depression look like a cakewalk. Even with MASSIVE government intervention, it took a good deal of time to right things again.

How do we know this? You folks remind us daily.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And if we're lucky it'll hit 17k again n everything.

 

[Sallow]

Market is going wild now on good news! Oh man.

The free money train might be coming to an end..all our systems are peggin! They are selling like crazy.

Sheesh!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Economists raised their forecasts for U.S. economic growth in the third quarter but trimmed their estimates for the balance of 2014, though the outlook for both job growth and lower unemployment was strengthened.
Related Stories

Fed survey: 25 pct of households 'just getting by' Associated Press
U.S. Fed seen moving slowly after first rate hike in second quarter 2015: Reuters poll Reuters
As US economy accelerates, Fed remains cautious Associated Press
Bank of England focuses on weak wages, rate rise lower on agenda Reuters
GDP SURGES 4% IN Q2 Business Insider

Analysts see the economy growing at an annual rate of 3.0 percent in the current quarter, up from a previous estimate of 2.9 percent, according to the Philadelphia Federal Reserve's quarterly survey of 43 forecasters, released on Friday.

Fourth-quarter growth was forecast at 3.1 percent, down from a previous estimate of 3.2 percent, and first-quarter 2015 growth was estimated at 3.1 percent, unchanged from an earlier estimate of 3.1 percent.

They are burning up our CPUs and MEM!

Damn!


S&P 500

1,948.93
-6.25 (0.32%)

Chart for ^GSPC
Dow

16,639.28
-74.30 (0.44%)

Chart for ^DJI
Nasdaq

4,447.62
-5.38 (0.12%)

Chart for ^IXIC
Gold 1,299.60 -1.22% Crude Oil 96.12 +0.56% EUR/USD 1.3397 +0.25% VIX 12.40 -0.16%

 

[Andylusion]

Let's see.. so to prove me wrong in my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back, my point that many banks were gonna fail,.... you point out that not all banks were gonna fail. ROFL dude if you want to say I'm wrong, if you want to disagree with me stop providing my evidence for me. I said a great many, I did not say all banks. You come back with many were not gonna fail and were forced to hide the great many that I was talking about!!!

When a whole bunch of corporations start going bankrupt it does tend to chain to unexpected places. I'm a proponent of letting the cards fall as they may and letting people learn their lesson.

As per the effect of QE you need to understand that the price of stocks is set by the active buyers and sellers not the people sitting on the sidelines. The large active buyers have lines of credit. Lines of credit that are at a much lower rate due to QE. Additionally, you'll note I did not say this stock or that stock I said the stock market. IOW I was talking about the whole damn thing not one particular stock. Thus my issue with the 1% benefiting from free taxpayer backed loans, was with the people who DID BENEFIT. FYI stock options is only one means for people to get bonuses they also come in the form of cash, and sometimes stock awards, not options.

But I am glad we agreed the cronyism exhibited by this administration in this recession was a poor example of how to lead a nation. Not to give any credit to Bush and his administration, cause frankly none is deserved there either.

The banks that were going to fail... failed. TARP did not stop, or prevent them from failing. Countrywide was going to fail. It failed. TARP didn't save Countrywide. It no longer exists as a company.

The companies that were not going to fail, are the ones that got TARP. Bank of America, was never in danger of failing. They got TARP. BOA got TARP, to buy Countrywide. TARP did not save Country wide, and BOA did not need saving. BOA got TARP, because if they did not get TARP, they would not have bought Countrywide.

The CEO of BOA did not really benefit from TARP, because he was never in danger to begin with. If anything, the CEO of BOA was harmed by TARP, because he was conned into buying Countrywide, which was a bad buy.

Now what would have happened without TARP, and if Countrywide was not purchased, and had gone into bankruptcy?

In a typical corporate bankruptcy, one of two things happens. A: the company is salvageable, and unprofitable departments are sold off, the profitable ones are kept, and the company is restructured.

B: the company is not salvageable, and all assets (business holdings and so on), are all sold off to the highest bidder.

If the company is sold off, then whatever the assets sell for, is used to pay back the creditors. Lehman Brothers, Barclays bought most of it, Nomura Holdings bought most of the rest, and $20 billion in assets were sold off by Lehman Brothers at the end. From the bankruptcy, the creditors (bond holders) were paid back 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar. Everyone else got nothing.

So who are the bond holders? Union Pensions, foreign investors, mutual funds (401K, 403B, IRAs), and so on.

What TARP did, was prevent Unions, foreign investors, mutual funds and such, from losing money. TARP effectively bribed other banks, to buy out the failing banks, before they failed, so that the bond holders were paid back in full, instead of 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar like Lehman Brothers bond holders.

The CEO of Countrywide, and the CEO of Lehman Bothers, had the same fate. They both lost their jobs, lost their stock values, lost everything. (everything that they could lose. Obviously the millions they earned up to that point is not lost, and couldn't be lost).

Now you want to make the case that lowering interest rates was a benefit to CEOs, that's somewhat true.

But this idea that TARP was this huge rich person bailout... just not true. More myth than reality.

What a load of hooey.

And if Lehman were the model you were looking for?

We would been in deep shit.

Every financial institution was going to go under. Each and every one of them.

There were too many interdependencies. Lehman was actually a unique case, because it went under first. Had their been others that collapsed? There would be no one "salvaging" them, because quite simply there aren't that many Barclays and Nomuras around. And even with the "Salvaging"? Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Had the government NOT stepped in? This collapse would have made the depression look like a cakewalk. Even with MASSIVE government intervention, it took a good deal of time to right things again.

How do we know this? You folks remind us daily.

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The banks that were going to fail... failed. TARP did not stop, or prevent them from failing. Countrywide was going to fail. It failed. TARP didn't save Countrywide. It no longer exists as a company.

The companies that were not going to fail, are the ones that got TARP. Bank of America, was never in danger of failing. They got TARP. BOA got TARP, to buy Countrywide. TARP did not save Country wide, and BOA did not need saving. BOA got TARP, because if they did not get TARP, they would not have bought Countrywide.

The CEO of BOA did not really benefit from TARP, because he was never in danger to begin with. If anything, the CEO of BOA was harmed by TARP, because he was conned into buying Countrywide, which was a bad buy.

Now what would have happened without TARP, and if Countrywide was not purchased, and had gone into bankruptcy?

In a typical corporate bankruptcy, one of two things happens. A: the company is salvageable, and unprofitable departments are sold off, the profitable ones are kept, and the company is restructured.

B: the company is not salvageable, and all assets (business holdings and so on), are all sold off to the highest bidder.

If the company is sold off, then whatever the assets sell for, is used to pay back the creditors. Lehman Brothers, Barclays bought most of it, Nomura Holdings bought most of the rest, and $20 billion in assets were sold off by Lehman Brothers at the end. From the bankruptcy, the creditors (bond holders) were paid back 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar. Everyone else got nothing.

So who are the bond holders? Union Pensions, foreign investors, mutual funds (401K, 403B, IRAs), and so on.

What TARP did, was prevent Unions, foreign investors, mutual funds and such, from losing money. TARP effectively bribed other banks, to buy out the failing banks, before they failed, so that the bond holders were paid back in full, instead of 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar like Lehman Brothers bond holders.

The CEO of Countrywide, and the CEO of Lehman Bothers, had the same fate. They both lost their jobs, lost their stock values, lost everything. (everything that they could lose. Obviously the millions they earned up to that point is not lost, and couldn't be lost).

Now you want to make the case that lowering interest rates was a benefit to CEOs, that's somewhat true.

But this idea that TARP was this huge rich person bailout... just not true. More myth than reality.

What a load of hooey.

And if Lehman were the model you were looking for?

We would been in deep shit.

Every financial institution was going to go under. Each and every one of them.

There were too many interdependencies. Lehman was actually a unique case, because it went under first. Had their been others that collapsed? There would be no one "salvaging" them, because quite simply there aren't that many Barclays and Nomuras around. And even with the "Salvaging"? Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Had the government NOT stepped in? This collapse would have made the depression look like a cakewalk. Even with MASSIVE government intervention, it took a good deal of time to right things again.

How do we know this? You folks remind us daily.

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US.

When most of your depositors are foreigners, it is easier to screw them, they don't vote.

 

[RKMBrown]

What a load of hooey.

And if Lehman were the model you were looking for?

We would been in deep shit.

Every financial institution was going to go under. Each and every one of them.

There were too many interdependencies. Lehman was actually a unique case, because it went under first. Had their been others that collapsed? There would be no one "salvaging" them, because quite simply there aren't that many Barclays and Nomuras around. And even with the "Salvaging"? Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Had the government NOT stepped in? This collapse would have made the depression look like a cakewalk. Even with MASSIVE government intervention, it took a good deal of time to right things again.

How do we know this? You folks remind us daily.

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US.

When most of your depositors are foreigners, it is easier to screw them, they don't vote.

When most of your voters don't pay federal income taxes it is easier to screw the ones who do.

 

[Andylusion]

What a load of hooey.

And if Lehman were the model you were looking for?

We would been in deep shit.

Every financial institution was going to go under. Each and every one of them.

There were too many interdependencies. Lehman was actually a unique case, because it went under first. Had their been others that collapsed? There would be no one "salvaging" them, because quite simply there aren't that many Barclays and Nomuras around. And even with the "Salvaging"? Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Had the government NOT stepped in? This collapse would have made the depression look like a cakewalk. Even with MASSIVE government intervention, it took a good deal of time to right things again.

How do we know this? You folks remind us daily.

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US.

When most of your depositors are foreigners, it is easier to screw them, they don't vote.

These were the major banks of Iceland. The deposits were domestic, not foreign... at least from what I've read. Do you have another source?

 

[Toro]

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US.

When most of your depositors are foreigners, it is easier to screw them, they don't vote.

These were the major banks of Iceland. The deposits were domestic, not foreign... at least from what I've read. Do you have another source?

Much of the deposits were foreign.

 

[Andylusion]

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US.

When most of your depositors are foreigners, it is easier to screw them, they don't vote.

These were the major banks of Iceland. The deposits were domestic, not foreign... at least from what I've read. Do you have another source?

Much of the deposits were foreign.

Really? So what banks were people depositing their money? Because these were the major banks in Iceland. If you walk down the street, you saw their major banks.

I suppose given these were international banks, which did have branches outside Iceland, then perhaps the majority of deposit could be foreign... but these were the primary banks of Iceland.

Glitnir, Kaupthing and Landsbanki.

Glitnir in Iceland.

Kaupthing bank in Iceland. (the atm machine outside the bank building).

Landsbanki, bank in Iceland.

These are not pictures of their head quarters. These are domestic, retail, banks. The dominate retail banks in Iceland as far as I know.

I just now, happen to stumble on something that said 46% of all the Big Three bank deposits were Domestic. Which suggests your claims are right... but that is still tons and tons of domestic deposits.... No?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US.

When most of your depositors are foreigners, it is easier to screw them, they don't vote.

These were the major banks of Iceland. The deposits were domestic, not foreign... at least from what I've read. Do you have another source?

Iceland Wins Case on 2008 Refusal to Cover Foreign Deposits - Bloomberg

Iceland in 2008 declined to cover $5.4 billion in guarantees to 350,000 U.K. and Dutch citizens who had opened Icesave accounts at Landsbanki Islands hf, one of three major banks to fail during the island’s financial meltdown. The British and Dutch governments covered the guarantees and Iceland was then taken to court by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

The $85 billion default of Kaupthing Bank hf, Glitnir Bank hf and Landsbanki in 2008 plunged the $13 billion economy into its worst recession in six decades. Iceland escaped sovereign default by refusing to back the banks.

Pretty cool. Screw foreign depositors out of a bit over 40% of your GDP.
Not sure what the foreign losses were in the other banks.
40% of GDP would be us defaulting on $7 trillion in foreign held bonds.
I'm guessing our economy might do well after that. LOL!

 

[RKMBrown]

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US.

When most of your depositors are foreigners, it is easier to screw them, they don't vote.

These were the major banks of Iceland. The deposits were domestic, not foreign... at least from what I've read. Do you have another source?

Iceland Wins Case on 2008 Refusal to Cover Foreign Deposits - Bloomberg

Iceland in 2008 declined to cover $5.4 billion in guarantees to 350,000 U.K. and Dutch citizens who had opened Icesave accounts at Landsbanki Islands hf, one of three major banks to fail during the island’s financial meltdown. The British and Dutch governments covered the guarantees and Iceland was then taken to court by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

The $85 billion default of Kaupthing Bank hf, Glitnir Bank hf and Landsbanki in 2008 plunged the $13 billion economy into its worst recession in six decades. Iceland escaped sovereign default by refusing to back the banks.

Pretty cool. Screw foreign depositors out of a bit over 40% of your GDP.
Not sure what the foreign losses were in the other banks.
40% of GDP would be us defaulting on $7 trillion in foreign held bonds.
I'm guessing our economy might do well after that. LOL!

That's the way bankruptcies work. Be careful where you invest.

 

[kaz]

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US.

When most of your depositors are foreigners, it is easier to screw them, they don't vote.

When most of your voters don't pay federal income taxes it is easier to screw the ones who do.

That does seem to be the trend...

 

[Sallow]

The banks that were going to fail... failed. TARP did not stop, or prevent them from failing. Countrywide was going to fail. It failed. TARP didn't save Countrywide. It no longer exists as a company.

The companies that were not going to fail, are the ones that got TARP. Bank of America, was never in danger of failing. They got TARP. BOA got TARP, to buy Countrywide. TARP did not save Country wide, and BOA did not need saving. BOA got TARP, because if they did not get TARP, they would not have bought Countrywide.

The CEO of BOA did not really benefit from TARP, because he was never in danger to begin with. If anything, the CEO of BOA was harmed by TARP, because he was conned into buying Countrywide, which was a bad buy.

Now what would have happened without TARP, and if Countrywide was not purchased, and had gone into bankruptcy?

In a typical corporate bankruptcy, one of two things happens. A: the company is salvageable, and unprofitable departments are sold off, the profitable ones are kept, and the company is restructured.

B: the company is not salvageable, and all assets (business holdings and so on), are all sold off to the highest bidder.

If the company is sold off, then whatever the assets sell for, is used to pay back the creditors. Lehman Brothers, Barclays bought most of it, Nomura Holdings bought most of the rest, and $20 billion in assets were sold off by Lehman Brothers at the end. From the bankruptcy, the creditors (bond holders) were paid back 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar. Everyone else got nothing.

So who are the bond holders? Union Pensions, foreign investors, mutual funds (401K, 403B, IRAs), and so on.

What TARP did, was prevent Unions, foreign investors, mutual funds and such, from losing money. TARP effectively bribed other banks, to buy out the failing banks, before they failed, so that the bond holders were paid back in full, instead of 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar like Lehman Brothers bond holders.

The CEO of Countrywide, and the CEO of Lehman Bothers, had the same fate. They both lost their jobs, lost their stock values, lost everything. (everything that they could lose. Obviously the millions they earned up to that point is not lost, and couldn't be lost).

Now you want to make the case that lowering interest rates was a benefit to CEOs, that's somewhat true.

But this idea that TARP was this huge rich person bailout... just not true. More myth than reality.

What a load of hooey.

And if Lehman were the model you were looking for?

We would been in deep shit.

Every financial institution was going to go under. Each and every one of them.

There were too many interdependencies. Lehman was actually a unique case, because it went under first. Had their been others that collapsed? There would be no one "salvaging" them, because quite simply there aren't that many Barclays and Nomuras around. And even with the "Salvaging"? Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Had the government NOT stepped in? This collapse would have made the depression look like a cakewalk. Even with MASSIVE government intervention, it took a good deal of time to right things again.

How do we know this? You folks remind us daily.

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

Goldman, AIG, Citi, Morgan Stanley..you name it.

They were all going to go.

TARP didn't have the "same" effect.

It kept a major cataclysm from happening.

Even Milton Friedman advocated against letting those sorts of failures go on without intervention.

 

[JimH52]

It's the Economy, Stupid!

The poor GOP.......

 

[Charles_Main]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!

Dow Average and S&P 500 Hit New Highs
Stocks Notch Records as Beaten-Down Shares Mount a Rally

nvestors snapped up shares of companies large and small, driving major indexes to records and reviving beaten-down technology stocks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 112.13 points, or 0.7%, to 16695.47, notching its second record finish in as many sessions and its third new high of 2014. The Dow notched 52 records in 2013.

The S&P 500 added 18.17 points, or 1%, to 1896.65, squeezing out its ninth record close of the year.

That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

Only a complete and total dumb **** thinks the DOW at record Numbers based largely on Artificial Measures by the Fed is a great Economic sign. Why is it you lefties always tell us the Stock market does not mean shit when a Republican is in office and it goes up? In fact you say shit like "it's just the rich getting richer" and "Mainsteet is what matters not wallstreet" lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The banks that were going to fail... failed. TARP did not stop, or prevent them from failing. Countrywide was going to fail. It failed. TARP didn't save Countrywide. It no longer exists as a company.

The companies that were not going to fail, are the ones that got TARP. Bank of America, was never in danger of failing. They got TARP. BOA got TARP, to buy Countrywide. TARP did not save Country wide, and BOA did not need saving. BOA got TARP, because if they did not get TARP, they would not have bought Countrywide.

The CEO of BOA did not really benefit from TARP, because he was never in danger to begin with. If anything, the CEO of BOA was harmed by TARP, because he was conned into buying Countrywide, which was a bad buy.

Now what would have happened without TARP, and if Countrywide was not purchased, and had gone into bankruptcy?

In a typical corporate bankruptcy, one of two things happens. A: the company is salvageable, and unprofitable departments are sold off, the profitable ones are kept, and the company is restructured.

B: the company is not salvageable, and all assets (business holdings and so on), are all sold off to the highest bidder.

If the company is sold off, then whatever the assets sell for, is used to pay back the creditors. Lehman Brothers, Barclays bought most of it, Nomura Holdings bought most of the rest, and $20 billion in assets were sold off by Lehman Brothers at the end. From the bankruptcy, the creditors (bond holders) were paid back 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar. Everyone else got nothing.

So who are the bond holders? Union Pensions, foreign investors, mutual funds (401K, 403B, IRAs), and so on.

What TARP did, was prevent Unions, foreign investors, mutual funds and such, from losing money. TARP effectively bribed other banks, to buy out the failing banks, before they failed, so that the bond holders were paid back in full, instead of 22¢ to 28¢ on the dollar like Lehman Brothers bond holders.

The CEO of Countrywide, and the CEO of Lehman Bothers, had the same fate. They both lost their jobs, lost their stock values, lost everything. (everything that they could lose. Obviously the millions they earned up to that point is not lost, and couldn't be lost).

Now you want to make the case that lowering interest rates was a benefit to CEOs, that's somewhat true.

But this idea that TARP was this huge rich person bailout... just not true. More myth than reality.

What a load of hooey.

And if Lehman were the model you were looking for?

We would been in deep shit.

Every financial institution was going to go under. Each and every one of them.

There were too many interdependencies. Lehman was actually a unique case, because it went under first. Had their been others that collapsed? There would be no one "salvaging" them, because quite simply there aren't that many Barclays and Nomuras around. And even with the "Salvaging"? Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Had the government NOT stepped in? This collapse would have made the depression look like a cakewalk. Even with MASSIVE government intervention, it took a good deal of time to right things again.

How do we know this? You folks remind us daily.

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks

Ummmm.....they didn't bail out any banks in the 1930s. Made the Depression MUCH worse.
Believe it or not, as poorly as they run the FDIC, it's still a good thing.

 

[kaz]

It's the Economy, Stupid!

The poor GOP.......

LOL, when you look at this fat pig of an economy, you really see a hot chick through your Obama glasses, don't you?

You may be able to get the media to parrot that delusion, but people are nervous and that is what they vote on. Sorry there buddy.

 

[Andylusion]

What a load of hooey.

And if Lehman were the model you were looking for?

We would been in deep shit.

Every financial institution was going to go under. Each and every one of them.

There were too many interdependencies. Lehman was actually a unique case, because it went under first. Had their been others that collapsed? There would be no one "salvaging" them, because quite simply there aren't that many Barclays and Nomuras around. And even with the "Salvaging"? Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Had the government NOT stepped in? This collapse would have made the depression look like a cakewalk. Even with MASSIVE government intervention, it took a good deal of time to right things again.

How do we know this? You folks remind us daily.

Is that provable fact, or just your opinion?

Because Lehman Brothers, was actually the largest bank failure, and had the largest dependence of any of the banks. Lehman had $660 Billion in securities and assets, not including property.

Bear Stearns, had $400 Billion in assets
Washington Mutual, had $330 Billion.
Countrywide, had $40 Billion in assets. (information sketchy)

If bankruptcy was going to cause an economic melt down, the Lehman Brothers should have done it.

Further, there are numerous examples where banks were allowed to fail, and nothing happened, or better still, economic growth happened much faster than in other countries.

Iceland for example, let *ALL* of their major banks fail, and they recovered far faster, and far better, than the US. Estonia allowed their banks to fail back in the 90s, and they became part of the Baltic Tiger economies.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks, and it dragged the recession out into a depression. TARP had basically the same effect today, with one of the slowest, most anemic recoveries in US history. Comparable only to the Depression.

And it's ironic that you referred to the Great Depression, because they did exactly the same thing back in the 1930s, with bailing out banks

Ummmm.....they didn't bail out any banks in the 1930s. Made the Depression MUCH worse.
Believe it or not, as poorly as they run the FDIC, it's still a good thing.

The Reconstruction Finance Corp, purchased stakes in over 6,800 banks, for $2 Billion dollars. ($50 Billion in today's money).

It was a bank bailout, like any other. Ironically, they followed the same pattern too. It didn't help at all, and soon the RFC was investing in farms, and companies, and by the time it was shut down, in 1957, they had spent over $50 Billion in tax payer money, which is a ton in those dollars.

FDIC is terrible. You should read the book The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure, by John Allison. In there he describes how the FDIC encourages banks to engage in risky behavior.

Think about it.... if you have two FDIC insured banks, to the public the risk looks equally zero. Both banks are insured by the Federal government. Thus the only difference is how much they pay the public in interest. So of course, the bank who engages in the most risky, high-interest behavior, gets more business.

The FDIC inherently creates an incentive for banks to make risky bets, because there is zero benefit to being safe and prudent. Allison admits openly that his bank, BB&T, had no choice but to also lower their risk standard, and engage in more risky investments, in order to stop losing customers to banks that were doing the same.

Now of course, when those competitors failed, costing tax payers, through the FDIC, millions on million in tax money, then BB&T raised their risk standards back up.

But the FDIC is absolutely terrible. Just terrible. I have never once, read anything by anyone, who described exactly how the FDIC works, and what incentives it creates, say it was a net positive. Even FDR was against the FDIC for this very reason. It benefits the banks, by allowing them to be as risky as they want, without any fear of customers pulling out, and it screws over the tax payers, not the bankers, when they fail.

Horrible awful, terrible program.