Stop The Bailouts!

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Given the current economic circumstances, we really have no choice but to shore these companies up. Most people have no idea what would happen if foreign investors loose confidence in our markets but if they do, it could trigger a worldwide economic collapse. I thought Bush's speech last night was the best he has given to date and while that is not saying a lot, it really was very good.

As he said, action has to be taken immediately and we can shake out the blame later on.

Didn't hear speech but agree 110% on rest Gregg--
I can not comprehend how these politicians and GOP egually if not more in this case can't see every day it looks likes its done deal--market is up--everyday they back out--markets tanks--and figure out which is correct decision--and when will we reach pointof no return. Its a game of bluffing with huge consequences.

World thinks it a done deal yesterday and all headlines _world markets surge

Find out its not and head lines reverse--
They have no choice in the end--why the delay:shrug:

Futures plunge on bailout impasse, bank collapse (Reuters) - 1 hour ago
Reuters - Stock index futures fell on Friday after congressional talks on a $700 billion financial sector bailout stalled and authorities seized the largest U.S. thrift, heightening worries about the ...

Stocks point lower on bailout clash, WaMu failure (AP) - 2 hours ago
Global stocks fall on uncertainty over US bailout (AFP) - 2 hours ago
US-USREPORT Summary (Reuters) - 2 hours ago
Labor unions protest in New York against bailout (Reuters) - 4 hours ago
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
I concur with the hold out Republicans in Congress who are against the bailout. Let the financial institutions fail. Institute strict regulatory financial rules for future institutions requireing strict compliance for good companies and lets go through our recession and clean house.

Too much crap on Wall Street and K Street buying politicians. Don't squander this first step in giving this country a long needed and yes, albeit painful bath. Get rid of the crap the controls wall street, then get rid of the crap that controls K street.

Guess what, we will have a country of the people, for the people and by the people. When George Bush, his treasury secretary and fed chair tell you to do something right away, you better think about it. Tell me one time he has benefited anyone, anyone other than his corporate friends.

George W. Bush in 7 years = 500 trillion in Iraq and 700 trillion buying bad paper. 1200 trillion dollars, let me say that again, 1200 trillion dollars this guy has spent on an invasion, killing 4500 Americans and buying bad mortgages to bail out his banker friends.

I really want to thank all my Madjack briends who voted for this guy in 2000 and 2004. At least I can tell my grandkids as we are sitting around the cave waiting for my grandson to bring home some fresh caught squirrel for dinner that I was alive during the term of the worst president in the history of the United States.

Eddie

Haskel
Have you missed all the other threads on what caused this--starting with repeal of checks to keep it from occurring in 1995- YBBB(your boy billy bob)

--you miss GW & Snows warnings
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=338240

Since you got same answer to every question as Obwana--(It's Gw)--we'll let you critique 3 points below--

Which will it be --
no answer or change topic to GW:shrug:

--and on a side note how many of those receiving contributions have law degrees ;)


Point 1
While you get nothing but rhetoric from O/Dems I did forsee this coming and co-sponserded a bill that would have provented it in 2006--

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/reco...Elementm0m0m0m

"Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation

Point 2

This legislation was blocked by the Dems before it could come to vote--and since O has record of voting with party 99.9% of time we can guess what his stance would have been.

Point 3
why did they vote against it?
Take a guess--top 4 recipents of Fannie Mae contributions--

Top 4 Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name Office Party/State Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
 
Last edited:

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
I think if everyone understood what the "bail out" is- I doubt there would be as much anxiety--


Heard same stuff when I was at chrysler and we were bailed out---what did it cost the gov/taxpayor in the end--nothing they made 300,000,000 profit.

The most unbelievable thing on this -- is how so many or of the opinion that this is throwing money away and it will all be lost--maybe because thats how the media portrays it.

While I am not near as optomistic as this fellow from Wall Street Journal the article does go a long way in explaining what bail out consist of.

I think there is opportunity to make some money--with the downside a minimal loss--

Now consider the rislk of modest loss at worse with possible gain in the end--to collapse of banking/mortgage sector if nothing is done.


The Paulson Plan
Will Make Money
For Taxpayers
By ANDY KESSLERArticle

In 1992, hedge-fund manager George Soros made $1 billion betting against the British pound. In 2007, John Paulson's Credit Opportunities fund correctly bet against subprime mortgages, clearing $15 billion for the year and $3.7 billion for him. Warren Buffett is now hoping to make big money on Goldman Sachs.


Chad CroweBut these are small-time deals. My analysis suggests that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (a former investment banker, no less, not a trader) may pull off the mother of all trades, which could net a trillion dollars and maybe as much as $2.2 trillion -- yes, with a "t" -- for the United States Treasury.

Here's what's happened so far. New technology like electronic trading meant that Wall Street's bread-and-butter business of investment banking and trading stocks stopped making much money years ago. So investment banks took their enormous capital and at first packaged yield-enhanced, subprime mortgage loans into complex derivatives such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Eventually and stupidly, these institutions owned them for themselves -- lots of them, often at 30-to-1 leverage. The financial products were made "safe" by insurance products known as credit default swaps, a credit derivative from companies such as AIG. When housing turned down, the mortgages and derivatives were worth a lot less and no one would lend Wall Street money anymore.

Then the piling on started. Hedge funds could short financial stocks and then bid down the prices of CDOs stuck on Wall Street's balance sheets. This was pretty easy to do in an illiquid market. Because of the Federal Accounting Standards Board's mark-to-market 157 rule, Wall Street had to write off the lower value of these securities and raise more capital, diluting shareholders. So the stock prices would drop, which is what the shorts wanted in the first place. It was all legit.

There is a saying on Wall Street that goes, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." Long Term Capital Management learned this lesson 10 years ago when it got its portfolio picked off by Wall Street as its short-term financing dried up. I had thought the opposite -- hedge funds picking off Wall Street -- would happen today. But in a weird twist, it's the government that is set up to win the prize.

Here's how: As short-term financing dried up, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's deteriorating financials threatened to trigger some $1.4 trillion in credit default swap payments that no one, including giant insurer AIG, had the capital to make good on. So Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. This removed any short-term financing hassle. He also put up $85 billion in loan guarantees to AIG in exchange for 80% of the company.

Taxpayers will get their money back on AIG. My models suggest that Fannie and Freddie, on the other hand, are a gold mine. For $2 billion in cash up front and some $200 billion in loan guarantees so far, the U.S. government now controls $5.4 trillion in mortgages and mortgage guarantees.

Fannie and Freddie each own around $800 million in mortgage loans, some of them already at discounted values. They also guarantee the credit-worthiness of another $2.2 trillion and $1.6 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. Held to maturity, they may be worth a lot more than Mr. Paulson paid for them. They're called distressed securities for a reason.

Now Mr. Paulson is pitching Congress for $700 billion or more to buy distressed loans and CDOs from the rest of Wall Street, injecting needed cash onto balance sheets so that normal loans for economic activity can be restored. The trick is what price he will pay. Better mortgages and CDOs are selling for 70 cents on the dollar. But many are seriously distressed (15-25 cents on the dollar) because they are the last to be paid in foreclosures. These are what Wall Street wants to unload the quickest.

Firms will haggle, but eventually cave -- they need the cash. I am figuring Mr. Paulson could wind up buying more than $2 trillion in notional value loans and home equity and CDOs for his $700 billion.

So the U.S. will be stuck with a portfolio in the trillions of dollars in bad loans and last-to-be-paid derivatives. Where is the trade in that?

Well, unlike Mr. Buffett or any hedge fund, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve get to cheat. It's not without risk, but the Feds, with lots of levers, can and will pump capital into the U.S. economy to get it moving again. Future heads of Treasury and the Federal Reserve will be growth advocates -- in effect, "talking their book." While normally this creates a threat of inflation and a run on the dollar, and we may see dollar exchange rates turn south near term, don't expect it to last.

First, with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley now operating as low-leverage bank holding companies, a dollar injected into the economy will most likely turn into $10 in capital (instead of $30 when they were investment banks). This is a huge change. Plus, a stronger U.S. economy, with its financial players having clean balance sheets, will become a safe haven for capital.

Europe is threatened by an angry Russian bear. The Far East, especially China, has its own post-Olympic banking house of cards of non-performing loans to deal with. Interest rates will tick up as the economy expands -- a plus for the dollar. Finally, a stronger economy driven by industry instead of financials means more jobs, less foreclosures and higher held-to-maturity payouts on this Fed loan portfolio.

You can slice the numbers a lot of different ways. My calculations, which assume 50% impairment on subprime loans, suggest it is possible, all in, for this portfolio to generate between $1 trillion and $2.2 trillion -- the greatest trade ever. Every hedge-fund manager will be jealous. Mr. Buffett is buying a small piece of the trade via his Goldman Sachs investment.

Over 10 years this could change the budget scenario in D.C., which can also strengthen the dollar. The next president gets a heck of a windfall. In the spirit of Secretary of State William Seward's purchase of Alaska for $7 million in 1867, this week may be remembered as Paulson's Folly.

Mr. Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager, is the author of "How We Got Here" (Collins, 2005).
http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-aftermaths ........http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303252_pf.html
 

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
Wayne:

I have a small trial this morning in municipal court but I thought I'd take the time to reply to your post. I admit I do not read your cut and paste posts that you copy from the Washington Times, Bill Krystols Journal and other right wing blogs.

I also do not read similar posts from the other side of the spectrum. Both are too long, I do not have the time, I already know the arguments from unbiased sources and make my own decisions. What I write at this forum is the distilation (?) of the opinions I read from the unbiased sources. I am kind to my readers as I don't want to bore them with others views etc.

I am not surprised in the least that you have found a way, utilizing, albeit, twisted, contorted, convoluted, and otherwised mangled logic, to blame the failure of the financial institutions on your favorite whipping boy and other democratic minions. No matter.

However, no matter, the vote, who on the left may have profited, who may have even ran those (at one time) organizations, you cannot escape the inevitable facts that will lay this entire financial crisis exactly where it belongs. At the doorstep of the republican party, that is Reagan, Bush and Bush.

Why?

Who is the party of deregulation?
Who is the free market party?
Which is the party of less taxes?
Who is the party of business?
Who took credit for the housing boom?
Who wants to spend some of his "political capital"?
Who said the fundamentals of the economy are sound?
Who wants to spend 1200 trillion dollars in 7 years?
Who wants to bail out business that are collapsing instead of letting the market take its course?
Who said "government is the problem?
Who did nothing for 8 years while banks gave 150k to homeowners with no job, no documents, whose house was worth 100k.
Who put the homeowner in such a situation where he needed to refinance in order to get money out of his house to feed his family.

Before you start your relining crap, no one forced a bank to make a loan. This was a huge profit center for them on the repackage and resale to the investment back, where they could color up the security and made it look a lot safer to the investor than it was. Remember it was the banks who hired the appraisers who had real loosey goosey rules when they wrote these funky appraisels.

And now you want me to bail out the criminals who made all the money because they can't sell the worthless securities any more. Sorry, lets flush these republican assholes down the toilet and start over again.

Eddie
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
I See Edward--quotes on Bush were wrong--Mac never co-sponsered bill--and Fannie contibutions are wrong--chief benficaries were not members of the bar--because why again.
-- because it is your opinion--right.
--only in your world does rhetoric trump facts--and appears election will hinge on same.

and the key to who in your questions that got us in this mess is--

Who are the ones that took away decades of checks and balances to keep this from occuring-for sole purpose of making housing available to those who couldn't financially qualify ie- your base!
 
Last edited:

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
checks and balances?????

Wayne, ask your vice-president about checks and balances. As far as he is concerned, he (part legislative-part executive) is the only branch of government. This administration has ignored the Constitution and done whatever (legal or illegal) they have wanted to do since January, 2001.

Remember, Bush and republicans had the majority from 1-01 to 1-07, baby. Remember, no veto's. Never had too. Anything he wanted he got. Checks and balances???? Who the fhuck are you kidding???

Eddie
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
I think the rule should be:

If a company is "too big to fail" ...

it should be too big to exist.


seriously, if a company becomes so important to the economy, that we have to pay if it goes bankrupt... then we shouldn't have let it exist in the first place.

you can't have it both ways. :sadwave:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
I think the rule should be:

If a company is "too big to fail" ...

it should be too big to exist.


seriously, if a company becomes so important to the economy, that we have to pay if it goes bankrupt... then we shouldn't have let it exist in the first place.

you can't have it both ways. :sadwave:

Oops sorry Fek --commented on wrong thread.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
checks and balances?????

Wayne, ask your vice-president about checks and balances. As far as he is concerned, he (part legislative-part executive) is the only branch of government. This administration has ignored the Constitution and done whatever (legal or illegal) they have wanted to do since January, 2001.

Remember, Bush and republicans had the majority from 1-01 to 1-07, baby. Remember, no veto's. Never had too. Anything he wanted he got. Checks and balances???? Who the fhuck are you kidding???

Eddie

Hmm You've managed to avoid question again--with more rhetorc--

Let give you vaild a counter with Facts--When Clinton did his thing 95 he signed but the bill was sponsered by Graham a republican.
Now you've learned 4 facts you didn't know from this thread--and what have given-except reinforcement why you couldn't pick your ass with both hands :)
 

BobbyBlueChip

Trustee
Forum Member
Dec 27, 2000
20,742
305
83
53
Belly of the Beast
I think if everyone understood what the "bail out" is- I doubt there would be as much anxiety--


Heard same stuff when I was at chrysler and we were bailed out---what did it cost the gov/taxpayor in the end--nothing they made 300,000,000 profit.

The most unbelievable thing on this -- is how so many or of the opinion that this is throwing money away and it will all be lost--maybe because thats how the media portrays it.

While I am not near as optomistic as this fellow from Wall Street Journal the article does go a long way in explaining what bail out consist of.

I think there is opportunity to make some money--with the downside a minimal loss--

Now consider the rislk of modest loss at worse with possible gain in the end--to collapse of banking/mortgage sector if nothing is done.


The Paulson Plan
Will Make Money
For Taxpayers
By ANDY KESSLERArticle

In 1992, hedge-fund manager George Soros made $1 billion betting against the British pound. In 2007, John Paulson's Credit Opportunities fund correctly bet against subprime mortgages, clearing $15 billion for the year and $3.7 billion for him. Warren Buffett is now hoping to make big money on Goldman Sachs.


Chad CroweBut these are small-time deals. My analysis suggests that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (a former investment banker, no less, not a trader) may pull off the mother of all trades, which could net a trillion dollars and maybe as much as $2.2 trillion -- yes, with a "t" -- for the United States Treasury.

Here's what's happened so far. New technology like electronic trading meant that Wall Street's bread-and-butter business of investment banking and trading stocks stopped making much money years ago. So investment banks took their enormous capital and at first packaged yield-enhanced, subprime mortgage loans into complex derivatives such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Eventually and stupidly, these institutions owned them for themselves -- lots of them, often at 30-to-1 leverage. The financial products were made "safe" by insurance products known as credit default swaps, a credit derivative from companies such as AIG. When housing turned down, the mortgages and derivatives were worth a lot less and no one would lend Wall Street money anymore.

Then the piling on started. Hedge funds could short financial stocks and then bid down the prices of CDOs stuck on Wall Street's balance sheets. This was pretty easy to do in an illiquid market. Because of the Federal Accounting Standards Board's mark-to-market 157 rule, Wall Street had to write off the lower value of these securities and raise more capital, diluting shareholders. So the stock prices would drop, which is what the shorts wanted in the first place. It was all legit.

There is a saying on Wall Street that goes, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." Long Term Capital Management learned this lesson 10 years ago when it got its portfolio picked off by Wall Street as its short-term financing dried up. I had thought the opposite -- hedge funds picking off Wall Street -- would happen today. But in a weird twist, it's the government that is set up to win the prize.

Here's how: As short-term financing dried up, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's deteriorating financials threatened to trigger some $1.4 trillion in credit default swap payments that no one, including giant insurer AIG, had the capital to make good on. So Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. This removed any short-term financing hassle. He also put up $85 billion in loan guarantees to AIG in exchange for 80% of the company.

Taxpayers will get their money back on AIG. My models suggest that Fannie and Freddie, on the other hand, are a gold mine. For $2 billion in cash up front and some $200 billion in loan guarantees so far, the U.S. government now controls $5.4 trillion in mortgages and mortgage guarantees.

Fannie and Freddie each own around $800 million in mortgage loans, some of them already at discounted values. They also guarantee the credit-worthiness of another $2.2 trillion and $1.6 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. Held to maturity, they may be worth a lot more than Mr. Paulson paid for them. They're called distressed securities for a reason.

Now Mr. Paulson is pitching Congress for $700 billion or more to buy distressed loans and CDOs from the rest of Wall Street, injecting needed cash onto balance sheets so that normal loans for economic activity can be restored. The trick is what price he will pay. Better mortgages and CDOs are selling for 70 cents on the dollar. But many are seriously distressed (15-25 cents on the dollar) because they are the last to be paid in foreclosures. These are what Wall Street wants to unload the quickest.

Firms will haggle, but eventually cave -- they need the cash. I am figuring Mr. Paulson could wind up buying more than $2 trillion in notional value loans and home equity and CDOs for his $700 billion.

So the U.S. will be stuck with a portfolio in the trillions of dollars in bad loans and last-to-be-paid derivatives. Where is the trade in that?

Well, unlike Mr. Buffett or any hedge fund, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve get to cheat. It's not without risk, but the Feds, with lots of levers, can and will pump capital into the U.S. economy to get it moving again. Future heads of Treasury and the Federal Reserve will be growth advocates -- in effect, "talking their book." While normally this creates a threat of inflation and a run on the dollar, and we may see dollar exchange rates turn south near term, don't expect it to last.

First, with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley now operating as low-leverage bank holding companies, a dollar injected into the economy will most likely turn into $10 in capital (instead of $30 when they were investment banks). This is a huge change. Plus, a stronger U.S. economy, with its financial players having clean balance sheets, will become a safe haven for capital.

Europe is threatened by an angry Russian bear. The Far East, especially China, has its own post-Olympic banking house of cards of non-performing loans to deal with. Interest rates will tick up as the economy expands -- a plus for the dollar. Finally, a stronger economy driven by industry instead of financials means more jobs, less foreclosures and higher held-to-maturity payouts on this Fed loan portfolio.

You can slice the numbers a lot of different ways. My calculations, which assume 50% impairment on subprime loans, suggest it is possible, all in, for this portfolio to generate between $1 trillion and $2.2 trillion -- the greatest trade ever. Every hedge-fund manager will be jealous. Mr. Buffett is buying a small piece of the trade via his Goldman Sachs investment.

Over 10 years this could change the budget scenario in D.C., which can also strengthen the dollar. The next president gets a heck of a windfall. In the spirit of Secretary of State William Seward's purchase of Alaska for $7 million in 1867, this week may be remembered as Paulson's Folly.

Mr. Kessler, a former hedge-fund manager, is the author of "How We Got Here" (Collins, 2005).

Wayne,

Wager on what the final windfall will be? It may take 15 years to find out, though.

Sounds like he's blaming the shorts who appear to have been right and doesn't really have a complete understanding of the mark-to-market accounting rules. We're buying securities well in excess of their fair value and hoping that the efficient marketplace which we've always thought would work everything out is wrong.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top