http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604938.html?hpid=topnews This deals a huge blow to the Republicans who're running on the anti-bailout platform. The Government has profited quite handsomely proving that it was a sound policy decision when it was made. This should deflate the buoyancy of the tea-bagger movement since they can no longer claim the bailouts were fiscally irresponsible.
Since none of the tea bagger movement's claims are in any way grounded in reality, this will change nothing. Evidence against the conspiracy is only proof of how powerful the conspiracy is.
I would agree that there is evidence the bailouts slowed the number of banks that folded and it is nice to see our government be on the right side of a deal once in a while. I just hope that it was more than just a temporary band-aid/bump and the bottom is behind us. I guess it sounds like you wish there were more corporations in need of a bailout? As if its an oppurtunity for the government to jump in and save the day. That is ofcourse, if I was to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your not just playing political neener neener. The stimulus that was suppose to keep us under 8% unemployment(they said it would reach 10% without the stimulus, its now 12%+ here in Florida with the stimulus) IMO is a much better target for this type of scrutiny.
"In addition to an investment of $20 billion in Citigroup, the government plan also guarantees up to $306 billion in risky loans. This is on top of the $25 billion the government has already pumped into Citigroup. The money will come in exchange for shares that will pay eight percent back to the taxpayer; Citigroup also agrees to place limits on executive pay and help homeowners facing foreclosure, reports CBS News correspondent Kelly Wallace. But some analysts say the bailout doesn't go far enough - and that the company will need much more from Uncle Sam. "The $20 billion is about 10 percent of what Citicorp needs to get back to financial health," said Sean Egan of Egan-Jones Ratings Company. "They need about 200 billion, they got 20."" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/business/main4629267.shtml So in the worst economy in a long time the US government is going to make a profit off of a bank that was on the ropes a year and a half ago? Obama should resign as President and become chairman of the Fed, or maybe something weird is going on.
I am not sure what you are trying to say desi other than you HATE President Obama. But your information is a little dated. The US government no longer holds Citi preferred shares. Those shares were converted to common shares and the US government is now selling those shares on the open market. American banks today are in much better shape than they were a year ago as they have been recapitalized. What does that mean? It means they have gone into the equity markets and issued more equity (stocks). So their balance sheets are now much healthier. Issuing more equity was not possible before President Obama took office in no small part because the previous administration (george II and his Republicans) failed to enforce existing securities law....minor details Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They got massive tax dollars while continuing the same business model with the same executives. The only reason their stock is worth more than a penny per share is because investors know the big banks still standing can not fail.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=avNZ0y6RZ4rE When you say "the same executives" what do you mean exactly?
Wrong again desi, they do not have the same executives. Executive leadership has been replaced at Citigroup. Prince the CEO responsible for the mayhem at Citi was replaced with Vikram Pandit in 2007 to fix the mess. Citigroup was actually ahead of the curve in trying to fix the financial disaster. And they have been, like Bank of America, on the leading edge of change in the financial industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Pandit Two they have changed and are changing their business model. Most notably they have split into, seperated the bad businesses from the good businesses. And they are selling off the selected portions of the business. So you are wrong again desi. As to your final point, that the only reason the banks shares are worth more than a penny a share, you are wrong again. There is a lot of value wrapped up in Citibank. I suggest you look up the book value of Citigroup (value of company if it were liquidated) . It is serveral orders of magnitude greater than a penney a share. And the stock is selling for something like $4.36 per share -up about a dollar a share in recent weeks. It is selling below book value - which is $5.35 per share. http://www.dailyfinance.com/financials/citigroup-incorporated/c/nys/key-ratios So sorry desi, you are wrong again on all accounts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5MdFdAe_JY So......I wonder if Desi will be acknowledging, at any point during this thread, that the bailout was not just some free ride for the corporations.
