Is the American Dream Dead?

[volinbham]

Exactly what I was looking at. As I said, some sweet accounting sleight of hand, :hi: and:



Nowhere close to paying it back with interest

All-in-all, though I haven't followed it closely it looks as though this has been another Capitalism Savior. As much maligned as it has been, it has propped up the system from the edge of Socialism once again.

It's obviously a big victory for Obama, and history will absolve him (yeah, that was a Castro reference).

Look who has paid it back and who hasn't. Here's a hint: GM/Chrysler, Fannie/Freddie, AIG haven't paid it back. Which of those is one of those evil banks? Only one is related that I can see (AIG). For the most part, the banks have paid it back. The biggest net suckers are quasi-governmental agencies - hooray for government!

 

[droski]

You realize TARP was a small part of the full bailout?

Again, give me numbers. When you did, it was sleight-of-hand accounting / NOT paid back at all yet.

Start with the easy ones: Citibank and Wells Fargo.

And give Obama some props while you are at it. By your own reckoning this has been WILDLY successful.

christ. the fed MADE MONEY on citibank and wells fargo. tens of billions.

tarp was under the bush administration.

 

[droski]

Look who has paid it back and who hasn't. Here's a hint: GM/Chrysler, Fannie/Freddie, AIG haven't paid it back. Which of those is one of those evil banks? Only one is related that I can see (AIG). For the most part, the banks have paid it back. The biggest net suckers are quasi-governmental agencies - hooray for government!

AIG has paid back 80% and is likely to pay it all back within the next 6 months.

 

[utgibbs]

Look who has paid it back and who hasn't. Here's a hint: GM/Chrysler, Fannie/Freddie, AIG haven't paid it back. Which of those is one of those evil banks? Only one is related that I can see (AIG). For the most part, the banks have paid it back. The biggest net suckers are quasi-governmental agencies - hooray for government!

Article listed 60 banks which haven't paid back TARP with interest. There were plenty of advantageous mechanisms in place as well for those that have.

This is also a red herring in a way. TARP was by far the smallest of the bailout packages.

However, and I did not watch the money closely, if you have to judge TARP and its effectiveness, it basically saved Capitalism (again).

 

[utgibbs]

christ. the fed MADE MONEY on citibank and wells fargo. tens of billions.

tarp was under the bush administration.

Show me.

 

[utvolpj]

However, and I did not watch the money closely, if you have to judge TARP and its effectiveness, it basically saved Capitalism (again).

so give thanks to GWB

 

[droski]

the banks that haven't paid it back are by and large the smaller ones. in a net dollar amount the banks made the treasury money.

 

[droski]

Show me.

TARP Profit on Citigroup: $12.3 Billion: TARP Profit on Citigroup: $12.3 Billion - WSJ.com

Wells Fargo and Citigroup Repay $45 Billion in TARP Funds

To fulfill its repayment obligation, Wells Fargo sold 489.9 million shares of common stock at $25.00 per share for a total of $12.25 billion. Net proceeds of this common stock offering, along with excess cash the company had on hand, were used to repay the $25 billion TARP investment.

Wells Fargo also paid accrued dividends of $131.9 million, bringing the total dividends paid by the bank to $1.441 billion since the preferred stock was issued in October 2008. Wells Fargo says its early repayment will eliminate $1.25 billion in future annual preferred stock dividends.
As part of the bailout arrangement, the Treasury continues to hold warrants to purchase approximately 110 million shares of Wells Fargo common stock at an exercise price of $34.01 per share.

But when all is said and done, the Treasury says TARP programs aimed at stabilizing the banking system will actually turn a profit, thanks to dividends, interest, early repayments, and the sale of warrants

 

[utgibbs]

TARP Profit on Citigroup: $12.3 Billion: TARP Profit on Citigroup: $12.3 Billion - WSJ.com

Wells Fargo and Citigroup Repay $45 Billion in TARP Funds

To fulfill its repayment obligation, Wells Fargo sold 489.9 million shares of common stock at $25.00 per share for a total of $12.25 billion. Net proceeds of this common stock offering, along with excess cash the company had on hand, were used to repay the $25 billion TARP investment.

Wells Fargo also paid accrued dividends of $131.9 million, bringing the total dividends paid by the bank to $1.441 billion since the preferred stock was issued in October 2008. Wells Fargo says its early repayment will eliminate $1.25 billion in future annual preferred stock dividends.
As part of the bailout arrangement, the Treasury continues to hold warrants to purchase approximately 110 million shares of Wells Fargo common stock at an exercise price of $34.01 per share.

But when all is said and done, the Treasury says TARP programs aimed at stabilizing the banking system will actually turn a profit, thanks to dividends, interest, early repayments, and the sale of warrants

So, they have paid back 1.4 billion extra, not 10s of billions, and most of that value is still locked in the shares.....

And, this was a SMALL proportion of what they actually got from the FED and FDIC.

 

[droski]

So, they have paid back 1.4 billion extra, not 10s of billions, and most of that value is still locked in the shares.....

And, this was a SMALL proportion of what they actually got from the FED and FDIC.

that's just wells. the profit on citi was $12 bil. check the article. and i assure you a hundred million warrents at teh current price is worth a lot of money.

more phantom money huh? where pray tell did this larger portion go?

 

[utgibbs]

that's just wells. the profit on citi was $12 bil. check the article. and i assure you a hundred million warrents at teh current price is worth a lot of money.

more phantom money huh? where pray tell did this larger portion go?

Yes, that's the two banks I said would be easiest. Unfortunately, we are still a few $100 billion in the red with TARP, with over 60 banks still in the red. Far different from previous claims and taken strictly from your own articles.

I thought the price of the warrants was at $34 and change?

Wells opened at $33.62.

Phantom money indeed!

Are you really saying the FED and the FDIC didn't pony up a WHOLE lot more than TARP with A LOT LESS accountability. Please tell me you are suggesting that.

 

[droski]

Yes, that's the two banks I said would be easiest. Unfortunately, we are still a few $100 billion in the red with TARP, with over 60 banks still in the red. Far different from previous claims and taken strictly from your own articles.

I thought the price of the warrants was at $34 and change?

Wells opened at $33.62.

Phantom money indeed!

Are you really saying the FED and the FDIC didn't pony up a WHOLE lot more than TARP with A LOT LESS accountability. Please tell me you are suggesting that.

the bank portion is profitable as i proved.

you don't think there is a value to being able to buy wells fargo at the current price forever?

not to citibank and wells fargo. i'd love for some evidence of that.

 

[utgibbs]

the bank portion is profitable as i proved.

you don't think there is a value to being able to buy wells fargo at the current price forever?

not to citibank and wells fargo. i'd love for some evidence of that.

Wachovia, for one:

The amount of lost tax revenue would depend on the future profitability of Wells Fargo and the losses on Wachovia's loans, but based on Wells Fargo's financial disclosures, it could shelter $74 billion in profits from taxation.

So much for your "profits."

Everybody from Main Street to Wall Street knows these have been sweet deals for the survivors and bloody awful for the taxpayer. Your own article dismissed your (or volinbham's) point about TARP being in the black by billions and billions - including the banks.

To hand waive on the toxic assets the FED and FDIC bought / propped up with liquidity is basically so intellectually dishonest as to be unworthy of comment.

But, please, go prosetylize on how good the taxpayer got it in these deals. Spread the word and see if you get a majority (much less a supermajority) of support.

 

[droski]

what business isn't allowed a tax loss carry forward? talk about intellectually dishonest.

the banks have made a profit. it's the garbage YOU FAVOR (fannie, freddie, gm) that has lost money.

jesus another fantom money huh? please show me a single article showing they lost money on anything bought from the banks.

 

[gsvol]

 

[utgibbs]

what business isn't allowed a tax loss carry forward? talk about intellectually dishonest.

the banks have made a profit. it's the garbage YOU FAVOR (fannie, freddie, gm) that has lost money.

jesus another fantom money huh? please show me a single article showing they lost money on anything bought from the banks.

On new rules written for the deal, droski. And your own link shows over 60 banks in TARP which are still deep in the red. :facepalm:

Your intellectual dishonesty is transparent, as any attempt to promote your "the banks made the taxpayer profit!" anti-Paul Revere would be laughed at from Main Street to Wall Street by anyone and everyone. We spent, by some estimates 13 trillion, with guarantees and absorption of the "toxic assets". We pumped a minimum of 2 trillion in liquidity into the system (and yet, many STILL failed) with QE1 and QE2. It was the future taxpayers converting these "toxic assets" into assets that kept the system afloat. TARP, as I said, was THE LEAST of the package that bailed out the system. I have been facetious (if y'all didn't notice) in my praise. And, predictably, y'all started the "Hail Bush!" chants.

Freddie and Fannie were simply tools of the banks. They were ordered to mortgage more (to address a capital accumulation crisis). When have I become a GM fan?

Oh, and just as an aside: pure Keynesian. Real world outside the back door.

 

[LaughingSamsDice]

So what would Ron Paul say here?

 

[utgibbs]

So what would Ron Paul say here?

I'm fairly certain he went apeshizz.

 

[droski]

On new rules written for the deal, droski. And your own link shows over 60 banks in TARP which are still deep in the red. :facepalm:

Your intellectual dishonesty is transparent, as any attempt to promote your "the banks made the taxpayer profit!" anti-Paul Revere would be laughed at from Main Street to Wall Street by anyone and everyone. We spent, by some estimates 13 trillion, with guarantees and absorption of the "toxic assets". We pumped a minimum of 2 trillion in liquidity into the system (and yet, many STILL failed) with QE1 and QE2. It was the future taxpayers converting these "toxic assets" into assets that kept the system afloat. TARP, as I said, was THE LEAST of the package that bailed out the system. I have been facetious (if y'all didn't notice) in my praise. And, predictably, y'all started the "Hail Bush!" chants.

Freddie and Fannie were simply tools of the banks. They were ordered to mortgage more (to address a capital accumulation crisis). When have I become a GM fan?

Oh, and just as an aside: pure Keynesian. Real world outside the back door.

jesus you are dumb. let me do some math for you. if 5 people pay you $1mil and 60 people owe you $50,000 you have a net profit. this is what happened to the tarp.

guarantees aren't spending money retard. not unless the banks fail, which they haven't. your posts are the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

not sure how you are equating quantitative easing with tarp. not related.

fannie and freddie were ordered to do more mortgages BY THE BANKS?????? You can't be serious. It was by congress. Fannie and freddie are the very definition of govt failing in the private sector.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Wachovia, for one:



So much for your "profits."

Everybody from Main Street to Wall Street knows these have been sweet deals for the survivors and bloody awful for the taxpayer. Your own article dismissed your (or volinbham's) point about TARP being in the black by billions and billions - including the banks.

To hand waive on the toxic assets the FED and FDIC bought / propped up with liquidity is basically so intellectually dishonest as to be unworthy of comment.

But, please, go prosetylize on how good the taxpayer got it in these deals. Spread the word and see if you get a majority (much less a supermajority) of support.

you clearly have no remote idea what the piece you quoted means, but who'da thunk it.

 

[BigPapaVol]

On new rules written for the deal, droski. And your own link shows over 60 banks in TARP which are still deep in the red. :facepalm:

Your intellectual dishonesty is transparent, as any attempt to promote your "the banks made the taxpayer profit!" anti-Paul Revere would be laughed at from Main Street to Wall Street by anyone and everyone. We spent, by some estimates 13 trillion, with guarantees and absorption of the "toxic assets". We pumped a minimum of 2 trillion in liquidity into the system (and yet, many STILL failed) with QE1 and QE2. It was the future taxpayers converting these "toxic assets" into assets that kept the system afloat. TARP, as I said, was THE LEAST of the package that bailed out the system. I have been facetious (if y'all didn't notice) in my praise. And, predictably, y'all started the "Hail Bush!" chants.

Freddie and Fannie were simply tools of the banks. They were ordered to mortgage more (to address a capital accumulation crisis). When have I become a GM fan?

Oh, and just as an aside: pure Keynesian. Real world outside the back door.

upset that I missed this little piece of economic brilliance. Stick to misusing info from Nobel laureates, as it's clear you wouldn't know a Laffer curve from a comedy club.

 

[utgibbs]

upset that I missed this little piece of economic brilliance. Stick to misusing info from Nobel laureates, as it's clear you wouldn't know a Laffer curve from a comedy club.

Although it's been evident for awhile I know this a lot better than you, I'm willing to entertain your claim.

Explain it.

I have a feeling like every other challenge, you will take another mulligan.

Fact is, most of the banks have not paid back TARP. TARP is not in the black. And TARP was a tiny, tiny part of the liquidity pumped into the system to keep it afloat.

Now, explain how any of that is not true. Please.

And when you can't, I'll be here to let it be known.

@droski - some creative accounting and rule changes to help concentrate assets at the big banks does not gloss over the fact that most banks have not been able to return the money (despite creative accounting).

 

[droski]

what creative accounting? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. and for the 50th time isn't the total dollar amount more important?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Although it's been evident for awhile I know this a lot better than you, I'm willing to entertain your claim.

Explain it.

I have a feeling like every other challenge, you will take another mulligan.

Fact is, most of the banks have not paid back TARP. TARP is not in the black. And TARP was a tiny, tiny part of the liquidity pumped into the system to keep it afloat.

Now, explain how any of that is not true. Please.

And when you can't, I'll be here to let it be known.

@droski - some creative accounting and rule changes to help concentrate assets at the big banks does not gloss over the fact that most banks have not been able to return the money (despite creative accounting).

The "supermajority" of banks have paid back TARP because the program was littered with horrendous terms for most borrowing entities. If you want to look at some of the idiotic moves made in the TARP program, that's a different animal, because the program has been massively bastardized since inception, but don't pretend that TARP propped up the banking system and is out there buoying our financial system today.

The liquidity pumped into the system is an entirely different animal and has nothing at all to do with our banking system, save the means of pumping. If you know jack about things like M1, M2 or M3, you'll stop with this sort of stupidity.

There is nothing for you to let be known. You are an ecomomic idiot, and that's the absolute reality here.

 

[utgibbs]

There is nothing for you to let be known. You are an ecomomic idiot, and that's the absolute reality here.

As I said, you'll take the mulligan.

Since when has the US published the M3 report btw? What have they needed to hide over the last decade or so?

The FED lost its appeal not to reveal where the money went:

The Primary Dealer Credit Facility, the largest program by transaction volume, made an aggregate $9 trillion in overnight loans to the largest investment banks. The program, which started in early March 2008, made 1,381 transactions, averaging $6.5 billion.

Every major investment bank, including those that claimed to be healthy, used the facility. Goldman Sachs borrowed money from the facility 84 times between March 18, 2008 and November 26, 2008, with the largest transaction, amounting to $18 billion, taking place on October 15, 2008. Its loans under the program totaled $600 billion.

Merrill Lynch used the facility 226 times. Its largest overnight transaction, carried out September 26, 2008, was $35 billion.

Citing the repeated recourse of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to the Fed’s low-cost overnight loan facility, the Wall Street Journal editorialized Thursday: “This news makes it impossible to argue that either bank would have survived the storm without the Fed’s cash.”

FT.com / Companies / Banks - Fed reveals global extent of its backing

The greatest cumulative user of the PDCF was Merrill Lynch, through its New York and London operations, followed by Citigroup and Morgan Stanley. Merrill, now part of Bank of America, became a heavy user of the facility in late September, borrowing $33.2bn on September 26 alone. Its daily demand would not drop below $10bn until Christmas eve.

GAME, SET, AND MATCH. :dance2:

I would LOVE to see you and droski take your act on a Main Street Road Show. Why don't you march on Washington with your schtick? Maybe you can find the M3 reports the gov't hasn't written in a decade....

It needs to be said again: GAME, SET, and MATCH