Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
Not sounds like - it IS. But what do you expect? If you are good at asskissing and faithfully and blindly toeing the party line (the concentrated capital party line), you will get far in America, maybe even to the top.topal63 wrote:
Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
Allowing banks to profit is exactly the goal of the bailout plan. The way to improve their financial condition is to give them money. The government will definitely overpay--that's the point.m3thod wrote:
Chairman Bernanke said that the Treasury would attempt to buy these debts from banks at close to their "hold-to-maturity" value, not the market value.
In practice, it means banks who sell their debts to the Treasury would receive cash equivalent to something like twice the value in their books of these poisonous assets.
In other words banks would book a profit from selling to taxpayers!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters … banks.html
I think these fuckers should be left to rot.
Last edited by m3thod (2008-09-25 12:04:42)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7636542.stmA leading US senator says both parties in Congress have reached agreement on the outline of a $700bn (£380bn) bail-out plan to revive the finance sector.
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-09-25 12:13:00)
The treasury will most likely also get shares in the banks and insurance companies they help, that depends on the price they are to pay for the debts, either they can sell the debts later with a profit or they can sell the shares with a profit when the market bounces back ...san4 wrote:
Allowing banks to profit is exactly the goal of the bailout plan. The way to improve their financial condition is to give them money. The government will definitely overpay--that's the point.m3thod wrote:
Chairman Bernanke said that the Treasury would attempt to buy these debts from banks at close to their "hold-to-maturity" value, not the market value.
In practice, it means banks who sell their debts to the Treasury would receive cash equivalent to something like twice the value in their books of these poisonous assets.
In other words banks would book a profit from selling to taxpayers!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters … banks.html
I think these fuckers should be left to rot.
That's why the bailout is such a joke: What kinds of assets will the government buy and who will be allowed to feed at the trough? Goldman Sachs for sure, but will General Motors be allowed to participate? What about non-US banks? What about me, for christ's sake, I have some crap I can sell them.
They are simply handing out money and there is no fair way to do that.
Nice to know."It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."
Warren Buffett compares US bail-out decision to action over Pearl HarborSept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid, according to Bank of America Corp.
``Its benefits, in its current form, will be largely limited to investment banks and other banks that have aggressively written down the value of their holdings and have already recognized the attendant capital impairment,'' Jeffrey Rosenberg, Bank of America's head of credit strategy research, wrote in a report dated yesterday, without identifying particular banks.
Let see (Mr. Buffet) your guy Paulson (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) is in there pitching for $700 billion for the market and you own a stake in Goldman Sachs therefore you are for the plan. Gotcha..."The Paulson Plan is absolutely necessary to avoid going over the precipice," he said. "The market couldn't have taken another week like the one that was developing. It's the last thing that Hank Paulson wanted to do but there's no plan B."
The financial heavyweight, known as the Sage of Omaha for his shrewd investments, said he would not have bought his stake in Goldman Sachs if he was not confident the bail-out plan would work.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-09-29 21:30:11)