TARP has lost 40% since inception

[Coronita]

Meanwhile: Obama’s CIO’s criminal past (in addition to the recent bribery scandal)

Add petty theft to his resume dating back to 1997
Maybe that why this administration hired him. This administration needs to build expertise in this area! Lol.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/5171500/barack-obamas-cio-a-confessed-thief

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]using your supersharp balance-sheet reading skills, where will the U.S. end up vis-a-vis the TARP? Up 10%? Down 35%? Will taxpayers lose it all? Will the government come up with some other feces-filled plan to bail out the TARP so that it looks like the TARP actually makes money in the end?
[/quote]

Allan can answer this himself, but I’ll give you my own stab, just as an update.

Let’s assume that 30% of the Big Bank TARP preferred ultimately gets converted to common and ultimately loses half of its value (and pays no 5% dividend). Further let’s assume that 5% of the community-bank TARP preferred goes to zero. (I’ve seen some bad TARP grants in this group – likely to go to zero – but it’s a small percentage of the total.) So, that’s a 20% permanent loss of principal, with just 65% of the TARP preferred still paying the 5% dividend. Add that up over 5 years and the Treasury ends up getting back 83% of its capital. And that’s a pretty dire scenario – that probably corresponds with a 15% peak-to-trough decline in GDP. Possible but not probable.

The Treasury obviously thinks it’s going to get back 125% of the capital (that is, everyone pays their 5% dividend and pays back the principal in 5 years). I think that’s too optimistic. Possible but not probable.

I think we probably end up with somewhere between 90% and 100%, with a handful of shnafus being offset by the vast majority making their dividend payments and returning the principal. I’d say the 90% confidence band is between 80% and 110% (the percentage of capital returned to the Treasury).

And if I’m wrong, we can come back here and you can mock me and I’ll say, “Yep, I was wrong. Moving on.” But let’s give it time to play out. I know Americans are an impatient lot, but…

Now, I can’t speak for the AIG funds. There’s gotta be a big loss in that sucker. But I don’t know how big (does anyone?). My guess is that the longer the govt. has to work out AIG and sell off the businesses, the lower the ultimate loss will be. In the meantime, however, anyone at AIG who won’t work without a bonus should attempt to find other employment. I’m reminded of a quote from some general (can’t remember the name): “The graveyards are filled with ‘indispensible’ men.”

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]using your supersharp balance-sheet reading skills, where will the U.S. end up vis-a-vis the TARP? Up 10%? Down 35%? Will taxpayers lose it all? Will the government come up with some other feces-filled plan to bail out the TARP so that it looks like the TARP actually makes money in the end?
[/quote]

Allan can answer this himself, but I’ll give you my own stab, just as an update.

Let’s assume that 30% of the Big Bank TARP preferred ultimately gets converted to common and ultimately loses half of its value (and pays no 5% dividend). Further let’s assume that 5% of the community-bank TARP preferred goes to zero. (I’ve seen some bad TARP grants in this group – likely to go to zero – but it’s a small percentage of the total.) So, that’s a 20% permanent loss of principal, with just 65% of the TARP preferred still paying the 5% dividend. Add that up over 5 years and the Treasury ends up getting back 83% of its capital. And that’s a pretty dire scenario – that probably corresponds with a 15% peak-to-trough decline in GDP. Possible but not probable.

The Treasury obviously thinks it’s going to get back 125% of the capital (that is, everyone pays their 5% dividend and pays back the principal in 5 years). I think that’s too optimistic. Possible but not probable.

I think we probably end up with somewhere between 90% and 100%, with a handful of shnafus being offset by the vast majority making their dividend payments and returning the principal. I’d say the 90% confidence band is between 80% and 110% (the percentage of capital returned to the Treasury).

And if I’m wrong, we can come back here and you can mock me and I’ll say, “Yep, I was wrong. Moving on.” But let’s give it time to play out. I know Americans are an impatient lot, but…

Now, I can’t speak for the AIG funds. There’s gotta be a big loss in that sucker. But I don’t know how big (does anyone?). My guess is that the longer the govt. has to work out AIG and sell off the businesses, the lower the ultimate loss will be. In the meantime, however, anyone at AIG who won’t work without a bonus should attempt to find other employment. I’m reminded of a quote from some general (can’t remember the name): “The graveyards are filled with ‘indispensible’ men.”

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]using your supersharp balance-sheet reading skills, where will the U.S. end up vis-a-vis the TARP? Up 10%? Down 35%? Will taxpayers lose it all? Will the government come up with some other feces-filled plan to bail out the TARP so that it looks like the TARP actually makes money in the end?
[/quote]

Allan can answer this himself, but I’ll give you my own stab, just as an update.

Let’s assume that 30% of the Big Bank TARP preferred ultimately gets converted to common and ultimately loses half of its value (and pays no 5% dividend). Further let’s assume that 5% of the community-bank TARP preferred goes to zero. (I’ve seen some bad TARP grants in this group – likely to go to zero – but it’s a small percentage of the total.) So, that’s a 20% permanent loss of principal, with just 65% of the TARP preferred still paying the 5% dividend. Add that up over 5 years and the Treasury ends up getting back 83% of its capital. And that’s a pretty dire scenario – that probably corresponds with a 15% peak-to-trough decline in GDP. Possible but not probable.

The Treasury obviously thinks it’s going to get back 125% of the capital (that is, everyone pays their 5% dividend and pays back the principal in 5 years). I think that’s too optimistic. Possible but not probable.

I think we probably end up with somewhere between 90% and 100%, with a handful of shnafus being offset by the vast majority making their dividend payments and returning the principal. I’d say the 90% confidence band is between 80% and 110% (the percentage of capital returned to the Treasury).

And if I’m wrong, we can come back here and you can mock me and I’ll say, “Yep, I was wrong. Moving on.” But let’s give it time to play out. I know Americans are an impatient lot, but…

Now, I can’t speak for the AIG funds. There’s gotta be a big loss in that sucker. But I don’t know how big (does anyone?). My guess is that the longer the govt. has to work out AIG and sell off the businesses, the lower the ultimate loss will be. In the meantime, however, anyone at AIG who won’t work without a bonus should attempt to find other employment. I’m reminded of a quote from some general (can’t remember the name): “The graveyards are filled with ‘indispensible’ men.”

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]using your supersharp balance-sheet reading skills, where will the U.S. end up vis-a-vis the TARP? Up 10%? Down 35%? Will taxpayers lose it all? Will the government come up with some other feces-filled plan to bail out the TARP so that it looks like the TARP actually makes money in the end?
[/quote]

Allan can answer this himself, but I’ll give you my own stab, just as an update.

Let’s assume that 30% of the Big Bank TARP preferred ultimately gets converted to common and ultimately loses half of its value (and pays no 5% dividend). Further let’s assume that 5% of the community-bank TARP preferred goes to zero. (I’ve seen some bad TARP grants in this group – likely to go to zero – but it’s a small percentage of the total.) So, that’s a 20% permanent loss of principal, with just 65% of the TARP preferred still paying the 5% dividend. Add that up over 5 years and the Treasury ends up getting back 83% of its capital. And that’s a pretty dire scenario – that probably corresponds with a 15% peak-to-trough decline in GDP. Possible but not probable.

The Treasury obviously thinks it’s going to get back 125% of the capital (that is, everyone pays their 5% dividend and pays back the principal in 5 years). I think that’s too optimistic. Possible but not probable.

I think we probably end up with somewhere between 90% and 100%, with a handful of shnafus being offset by the vast majority making their dividend payments and returning the principal. I’d say the 90% confidence band is between 80% and 110% (the percentage of capital returned to the Treasury).

And if I’m wrong, we can come back here and you can mock me and I’ll say, “Yep, I was wrong. Moving on.” But let’s give it time to play out. I know Americans are an impatient lot, but…

Now, I can’t speak for the AIG funds. There’s gotta be a big loss in that sucker. But I don’t know how big (does anyone?). My guess is that the longer the govt. has to work out AIG and sell off the businesses, the lower the ultimate loss will be. In the meantime, however, anyone at AIG who won’t work without a bonus should attempt to find other employment. I’m reminded of a quote from some general (can’t remember the name): “The graveyards are filled with ‘indispensible’ men.”

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]using your supersharp balance-sheet reading skills, where will the U.S. end up vis-a-vis the TARP? Up 10%? Down 35%? Will taxpayers lose it all? Will the government come up with some other feces-filled plan to bail out the TARP so that it looks like the TARP actually makes money in the end?
[/quote]

Allan can answer this himself, but I’ll give you my own stab, just as an update.

Let’s assume that 30% of the Big Bank TARP preferred ultimately gets converted to common and ultimately loses half of its value (and pays no 5% dividend). Further let’s assume that 5% of the community-bank TARP preferred goes to zero. (I’ve seen some bad TARP grants in this group – likely to go to zero – but it’s a small percentage of the total.) So, that’s a 20% permanent loss of principal, with just 65% of the TARP preferred still paying the 5% dividend. Add that up over 5 years and the Treasury ends up getting back 83% of its capital. And that’s a pretty dire scenario – that probably corresponds with a 15% peak-to-trough decline in GDP. Possible but not probable.

The Treasury obviously thinks it’s going to get back 125% of the capital (that is, everyone pays their 5% dividend and pays back the principal in 5 years). I think that’s too optimistic. Possible but not probable.

I think we probably end up with somewhere between 90% and 100%, with a handful of shnafus being offset by the vast majority making their dividend payments and returning the principal. I’d say the 90% confidence band is between 80% and 110% (the percentage of capital returned to the Treasury).

And if I’m wrong, we can come back here and you can mock me and I’ll say, “Yep, I was wrong. Moving on.” But let’s give it time to play out. I know Americans are an impatient lot, but…

Now, I can’t speak for the AIG funds. There’s gotta be a big loss in that sucker. But I don’t know how big (does anyone?). My guess is that the longer the govt. has to work out AIG and sell off the businesses, the lower the ultimate loss will be. In the meantime, however, anyone at AIG who won’t work without a bonus should attempt to find other employment. I’m reminded of a quote from some general (can’t remember the name): “The graveyards are filled with ‘indispensible’ men.”

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Just so you know, I’ve always considered you something of a GLF (God Like Figure). I don’t know if that qualifies you in Breezie’s eyes (after all, he will undoubtedly compare you to his personal savior, Obama), but it might come close.
[/quote]

I thought GLF was “Good For a Laugh.” I know it’s tongue-in-cheek but you’re going to jinx me, Allan. Please hurl some vindictive expletives in my direction when time permits. It’ll save you time later. Trust me.

Regarding Breeze, all of us are upset at a lot of the crap that’s being pulled these days (reminder: I don’t work for or with Citigroup, Bank of America, or any bank that has received TARP funds), but it’s clear to me that Breeze is consumed with a bitterness that transcends this crisis. And nothing – including economic recovery and repayment of TARP funds, should they occur – can remedy that. If you’ve convinced yourself that you’re a victim and a tool of The Man, then you’re a victim and a tool of The Man. Plain and simple.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Just so you know, I’ve always considered you something of a GLF (God Like Figure). I don’t know if that qualifies you in Breezie’s eyes (after all, he will undoubtedly compare you to his personal savior, Obama), but it might come close.
[/quote]

I thought GLF was “Good For a Laugh.” I know it’s tongue-in-cheek but you’re going to jinx me, Allan. Please hurl some vindictive expletives in my direction when time permits. It’ll save you time later. Trust me.

Regarding Breeze, all of us are upset at a lot of the crap that’s being pulled these days (reminder: I don’t work for or with Citigroup, Bank of America, or any bank that has received TARP funds), but it’s clear to me that Breeze is consumed with a bitterness that transcends this crisis. And nothing – including economic recovery and repayment of TARP funds, should they occur – can remedy that. If you’ve convinced yourself that you’re a victim and a tool of The Man, then you’re a victim and a tool of The Man. Plain and simple.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Just so you know, I’ve always considered you something of a GLF (God Like Figure). I don’t know if that qualifies you in Breezie’s eyes (after all, he will undoubtedly compare you to his personal savior, Obama), but it might come close.
[/quote]

I thought GLF was “Good For a Laugh.” I know it’s tongue-in-cheek but you’re going to jinx me, Allan. Please hurl some vindictive expletives in my direction when time permits. It’ll save you time later. Trust me.

Regarding Breeze, all of us are upset at a lot of the crap that’s being pulled these days (reminder: I don’t work for or with Citigroup, Bank of America, or any bank that has received TARP funds), but it’s clear to me that Breeze is consumed with a bitterness that transcends this crisis. And nothing – including economic recovery and repayment of TARP funds, should they occur – can remedy that. If you’ve convinced yourself that you’re a victim and a tool of The Man, then you’re a victim and a tool of The Man. Plain and simple.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Just so you know, I’ve always considered you something of a GLF (God Like Figure). I don’t know if that qualifies you in Breezie’s eyes (after all, he will undoubtedly compare you to his personal savior, Obama), but it might come close.
[/quote]

I thought GLF was “Good For a Laugh.” I know it’s tongue-in-cheek but you’re going to jinx me, Allan. Please hurl some vindictive expletives in my direction when time permits. It’ll save you time later. Trust me.

Regarding Breeze, all of us are upset at a lot of the crap that’s being pulled these days (reminder: I don’t work for or with Citigroup, Bank of America, or any bank that has received TARP funds), but it’s clear to me that Breeze is consumed with a bitterness that transcends this crisis. And nothing – including economic recovery and repayment of TARP funds, should they occur – can remedy that. If you’ve convinced yourself that you’re a victim and a tool of The Man, then you’re a victim and a tool of The Man. Plain and simple.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: Just so you know, I’ve always considered you something of a GLF (God Like Figure). I don’t know if that qualifies you in Breezie’s eyes (after all, he will undoubtedly compare you to his personal savior, Obama), but it might come close.
[/quote]

I thought GLF was “Good For a Laugh.” I know it’s tongue-in-cheek but you’re going to jinx me, Allan. Please hurl some vindictive expletives in my direction when time permits. It’ll save you time later. Trust me.

Regarding Breeze, all of us are upset at a lot of the crap that’s being pulled these days (reminder: I don’t work for or with Citigroup, Bank of America, or any bank that has received TARP funds), but it’s clear to me that Breeze is consumed with a bitterness that transcends this crisis. And nothing – including economic recovery and repayment of TARP funds, should they occur – can remedy that. If you’ve convinced yourself that you’re a victim and a tool of The Man, then you’re a victim and a tool of The Man. Plain and simple.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: Well, according to Breezie’s edict, I’m apparently not allowed to hurl any invective your way, given that you and I are essentially in lockstep.

On a serious note, you’re pointing out Breeze’s bitterness was exactly the same point I made about him and his ilk.

Any attempts to use logic or reason are shouted down or made fun of (note his continued diatribe against my “balance sheet” reading) and this is a typical leftist tactic favored by “know nothing” polemicists. As much as Breeze would demonize someone like Sarah Palin for her attitudes against education and knowledge (and rightfully so), he does exactly the same thing when education and knowledge run contrary to what he believes or wants.

He’s a well propagandized victim and tool of The Man, alright. Exactly what Lenin referred to when discussing the “useful idiots” that communism would need if it were to prevail. Nobody blinder than one that will not see.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: Well, according to Breezie’s edict, I’m apparently not allowed to hurl any invective your way, given that you and I are essentially in lockstep.

On a serious note, you’re pointing out Breeze’s bitterness was exactly the same point I made about him and his ilk.

Any attempts to use logic or reason are shouted down or made fun of (note his continued diatribe against my “balance sheet” reading) and this is a typical leftist tactic favored by “know nothing” polemicists. As much as Breeze would demonize someone like Sarah Palin for her attitudes against education and knowledge (and rightfully so), he does exactly the same thing when education and knowledge run contrary to what he believes or wants.

He’s a well propagandized victim and tool of The Man, alright. Exactly what Lenin referred to when discussing the “useful idiots” that communism would need if it were to prevail. Nobody blinder than one that will not see.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: Well, according to Breezie’s edict, I’m apparently not allowed to hurl any invective your way, given that you and I are essentially in lockstep.

On a serious note, you’re pointing out Breeze’s bitterness was exactly the same point I made about him and his ilk.

Any attempts to use logic or reason are shouted down or made fun of (note his continued diatribe against my “balance sheet” reading) and this is a typical leftist tactic favored by “know nothing” polemicists. As much as Breeze would demonize someone like Sarah Palin for her attitudes against education and knowledge (and rightfully so), he does exactly the same thing when education and knowledge run contrary to what he believes or wants.

He’s a well propagandized victim and tool of The Man, alright. Exactly what Lenin referred to when discussing the “useful idiots” that communism would need if it were to prevail. Nobody blinder than one that will not see.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: Well, according to Breezie’s edict, I’m apparently not allowed to hurl any invective your way, given that you and I are essentially in lockstep.

On a serious note, you’re pointing out Breeze’s bitterness was exactly the same point I made about him and his ilk.

Any attempts to use logic or reason are shouted down or made fun of (note his continued diatribe against my “balance sheet” reading) and this is a typical leftist tactic favored by “know nothing” polemicists. As much as Breeze would demonize someone like Sarah Palin for her attitudes against education and knowledge (and rightfully so), he does exactly the same thing when education and knowledge run contrary to what he believes or wants.

He’s a well propagandized victim and tool of The Man, alright. Exactly what Lenin referred to when discussing the “useful idiots” that communism would need if it were to prevail. Nobody blinder than one that will not see.

[Author]

Posts