Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(About C - I think the shorts arent quite done with it, lol.)
You're missing the big picture. Pimco is fronting Citi and BofA the money to buy toxic assets so they can resell them at a higher price through Geithner's plan. That way Citi and BofA make a profit and Pimco's investment pays off - all thanks to the taxpayer-funded non-recourse loans Geithner promised everyone. There's very little downside to Pimco, Citi, or BofA. The taxpayers eat the loss when the Alt-A's and ARM's default, not Pimco or the banks.
An additional bonus to the banks - the higher prices paid for the toxic assets through Geithner's plan allows banks to adjust their mark-to-market price on their retained risky assets upward, even though they'll still be of questionable worth.
You're missing the big picture. Pimco is fronting Citi and BofA the money to buy toxic assets so they can resell them at a higher price through Geithner's plan. That way Citi and BofA make a profit and Pimco's investment pays off - all thanks to the taxpayer-funded non-recourse loans Geithner promised everyone. There's very little downside to Pimco, Citi, or BofA. The taxpayers eat the loss when the Alt-A's and ARM's default, not Pimco or the banks.
An additional bonus to the banks - the higher prices paid for the toxic assets through Geithner's plan allows banks to adjust their mark-to-market price on their retained risky assets upward, even though they'll still be of questionable worth.
The general public is too dumb to understand and Wall Street is just happen to get bailed out of their mistakes. It is a win all around with the exception of the taxpayer. This is just setting us up again for a fall. When will people wake up?
The general public is too dumb to understand and Wall Street is just happen to get bailed out of their mistakes. It is a win all around with the exception of the taxpayer. This is just setting us up again for a fall. When will people wake up?
THe taxpayer stands to make a profit on this plan...
And this mess is all Dubya's fault - so why not mention him as the main source of your ire???
THe taxpayer stands to make a profit on this plan...
And this mess is all Dubya's fault - so why not mention him as the main source of your ire???
Oooh brother.
The government would also make a profit by buying up McDonalds franchises, I guess you'd think thats a good idea too..
Would this be the same profit that the government paid $18 a share for Citibank stocks currently selling for $2.71? Questionable accounting = profits now? , your making a fool out of yourself with your ignorance..
The government would also make a profit by buying up McDonalds franchises, I guess you'd think thats a good idea too..
Would this be the same profit that the government paid $18 a share for Citibank stocks currently selling for $2.71? Questionable accounting = profits now? , your making a fool out of yourself with your ignorance..
I totally disagree with you...
Maybe you should read the details of the plan before you make assumptions about it.
And YES - if the value of the toxic loans go up - the taxpayers WILL share in the profit - along with the investors that buy up the toxic loans.
And if you want to blame someone for this mess - I suggest you go to Crawford Tx and talk to Dubya...
Is the administration still calling them "toxic assets" because I figured by now they would have been renamed to something like "sweet deals" similar to the renaming of "spending" to "investing" and "global war on terror" to "overseas contingency operation" and changing the name "brigade combat teams" (in Iraq) to "advisory and assistance brigades." They also changed "enemy combatants" to "those regular folks there in Guantanamo who haven't gotten their virgins yet." Well okay, maybe they just canceled the term "enemy combatants" without coming up with a replacement term because the Obama Czar of Phraseology hasn't gotten to it yet being he's more busy than Geithner.
Oh wait!!! I just checked. They HAVE renamed toxic assets! They are now called "legacy loans" and "legacy securities." You can't make this stuff up.
The real reason is Obama knows this is no time to even think about going to congress for more money and having it fail. So he has to turn to wall street and the investors and that means a sweet deal for them. The AIG and failure of the bailouts to move things changed everythig;partly do to the maddening crowds . In the end wall street will reap those benefits for little risk while the tax payers get a equal share for a huge risk ;if it works. Some partnership but you do what you have to do in the new reality after the last months of anti bailout politics.Besides IMO the governamtn was doomed to failure in dealig with those so called toxic assets o its own;they are clueless and don't have the people that even understand them.
Maybe you should read the details of the plan before you make assumptions about it.
And YES - if the value of the toxic loans go up - the taxpayers WILL share in the profit - along with the investors that buy up the toxic loans.
And if you want to blame someone for this mess - I suggest you go to Crawford Tx and talk to Dubya...
Do you even hold a mortgage? Do you know how they work? Does the balance due go up or down monthly when you make your mortgage payment? (hint, they go down unless you signed a reverse mortgage which has nothing to do with the conversation)
The value of the underlying assets may go up, but they are being sold, do you understand the difference between the taxpayers holding property which may appreciate, and holding the loan after selling the property which always depreciate?
Didnt you just criticize Bush for guaranteeing loans on the taxpayers dime and now you have the nerve to come here and proclaim that its now good?
The taxpayers are not becoming investors in the assets, they are liable for the debts, learn the difference before you continue to make a fool of yourself by criticizing Bush and crediting Obama for doing the exact same thing..
So, when we all profit - as you say we will - then will Bush get the credit?
Why would Bush get credit for a plan that he had nothing to do with???
Under Bush - the $350 Billion TARP payments went to inject capital directly into major banks.
They did NOTHING to auction off toxic loans...
No - he had nothing to do with this plan, he gets absolutely no credit...
This is a trick question - right???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, your making a fool out of yourself with your ignorance..
