Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › TARP now estimated to cost $356 billion
- This topic has 190 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
davelj.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 6, 2009 at 6:11 PM #377685April 6, 2009 at 6:29 PM #377069
TheBreeze
Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
April 6, 2009 at 6:29 PM #377346Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
April 6, 2009 at 6:29 PM #377523Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
April 6, 2009 at 6:29 PM #377567Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
April 6, 2009 at 6:29 PM #377689Participant[quote=davelj]
Please explain to me – and please be specific – how I would benefit from the bailouts? Seeing as I don’t have any investments in any parts of the capital structures of any bank that is receiving any government assistance (outside of generic FDIC insurance), I’m quite curious to find out. This should be a fascinating answer.
Signed,
Banker/Prick
[/quote]That may have been an inaccurate characterization on my part. Does your bank own any preferreds or other debt of the big banks?
Did you say in another thread that you were in favor of the big banks’ bondholders taking a hit? If so, you may have a reasonable plan. However, you appear to believe that the government is heading in that direction (and that the government wants to make money with TARP). I haven’t seen any evidence that would point to that.
April 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM #377074Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
April 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM #377351Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
April 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM #377528Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
April 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM #377572Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
April 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM #377694Participant[quote=flu]
Breezie. What is it that you want? Do you want a complete collapse of the U.S. economy? Do you look forward to everyone being thrown on the street, no food, no water, and everyone armed with guns, reversion back to the wild wild west in which needs/wants are satisfied the ones with the bigger guns….It’s not a question of whether or not government throwing more money is risky or not. Everything has risk. Guess what, this is the almost like General Custard’s last stand. It’s the Hail Mary, or whatever your faith calls it. Obama and this administration just traded off our future generations by how much we’re going to spend. We’re going to be spending more money on bank bailouts. You think there are better alternatives?
[/quote]Ah, the old false choice. Either we give all of our monies to the financial oligarchy or we all live in decrepit poverty the rest of our lives.
How about this choice: We throw every member of the financial oligarchy in jail, take their ill-gotten money, and distribute it to the rest of the population and use it to pay down debt. Why is that not a viable option? In your warped world-view everyhing that everyone has comes from that magnificent top 1% of wealth holders. In reality, the top 1% has stolen their money from everyone else.
April 6, 2009 at 6:36 PM #377079davelj
Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
[/quote]Yes, and if you read the footnotes, you noticed that short-term debt – the stuff that has to be rolled over in less than a year – is just $126 billion, or less than 7% of its funding base. The FHLB borrowings and repurchase agreements are backed by specific collateral as it is.
I will agree with you that the ST debt and (eventually) LT debt would be more expensive if Uncle Sam weren’t backing it. Much more expensive. But… to compare Citi’s balance sheet with Lehman or Bear’s is a stretch considering that 100% of the latter’s funding was non-deposit funding, and over 60% of it ST in nature. So, Citi’s a piece of crap. You’ll get no argument from me there. But it’s a far cry from Lehman and Bear where funding is concerned. That’s comparing apples and oranges.
April 6, 2009 at 6:36 PM #377356Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
[/quote]Yes, and if you read the footnotes, you noticed that short-term debt – the stuff that has to be rolled over in less than a year – is just $126 billion, or less than 7% of its funding base. The FHLB borrowings and repurchase agreements are backed by specific collateral as it is.
I will agree with you that the ST debt and (eventually) LT debt would be more expensive if Uncle Sam weren’t backing it. Much more expensive. But… to compare Citi’s balance sheet with Lehman or Bear’s is a stretch considering that 100% of the latter’s funding was non-deposit funding, and over 60% of it ST in nature. So, Citi’s a piece of crap. You’ll get no argument from me there. But it’s a far cry from Lehman and Bear where funding is concerned. That’s comparing apples and oranges.
April 6, 2009 at 6:36 PM #377533Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
[/quote]Yes, and if you read the footnotes, you noticed that short-term debt – the stuff that has to be rolled over in less than a year – is just $126 billion, or less than 7% of its funding base. The FHLB borrowings and repurchase agreements are backed by specific collateral as it is.
I will agree with you that the ST debt and (eventually) LT debt would be more expensive if Uncle Sam weren’t backing it. Much more expensive. But… to compare Citi’s balance sheet with Lehman or Bear’s is a stretch considering that 100% of the latter’s funding was non-deposit funding, and over 60% of it ST in nature. So, Citi’s a piece of crap. You’ll get no argument from me there. But it’s a far cry from Lehman and Bear where funding is concerned. That’s comparing apples and oranges.
April 6, 2009 at 6:36 PM #377577Participant[quote=TheBreeze]
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
[/quote]Yes, and if you read the footnotes, you noticed that short-term debt – the stuff that has to be rolled over in less than a year – is just $126 billion, or less than 7% of its funding base. The FHLB borrowings and repurchase agreements are backed by specific collateral as it is.
I will agree with you that the ST debt and (eventually) LT debt would be more expensive if Uncle Sam weren’t backing it. Much more expensive. But… to compare Citi’s balance sheet with Lehman or Bear’s is a stretch considering that 100% of the latter’s funding was non-deposit funding, and over 60% of it ST in nature. So, Citi’s a piece of crap. You’ll get no argument from me there. But it’s a far cry from Lehman and Bear where funding is concerned. That’s comparing apples and oranges.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.