TARP Repayments

[bubba99]

The banks are still writing off bad loans where they must. GAAP has abandoned reason by abandoning mark to market accting, but the banks must still take principal losses on disposed of (reposessed) assets. Check current write offs and reserves for future write offs and you can see where the “profitbility” is going. Without the cheap money, the banks would still be insolvent.

If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership

[Arraya]

TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky said total taxpayer exposure is close to 24 trillion. Kind of dwarfs that 700 billion, doesn’t it.

Then we have the secret 2 trillion in loans from the Fed to undisclosed locations. See bloomberg court case for details. It’s taxpayer money.

Taxpayer losses are a pea in a huge banker shell game. They just lifted the Tarp shell and said “see, not under here”. Now you are supposed to feel better.

[Arraya]

TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky said total taxpayer exposure is close to 24 trillion. Kind of dwarfs that 700 billion, doesn’t it.

Then we have the secret 2 trillion in loans from the Fed to undisclosed locations. See bloomberg court case for details. It’s taxpayer money.

Taxpayer losses are a pea in a huge banker shell game. They just lifted the Tarp shell and said “see, not under here”. Now you are supposed to feel better.

[Arraya]

TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky said total taxpayer exposure is close to 24 trillion. Kind of dwarfs that 700 billion, doesn’t it.

Then we have the secret 2 trillion in loans from the Fed to undisclosed locations. See bloomberg court case for details. It’s taxpayer money.

Taxpayer losses are a pea in a huge banker shell game. They just lifted the Tarp shell and said “see, not under here”. Now you are supposed to feel better.

[Arraya]

TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky said total taxpayer exposure is close to 24 trillion. Kind of dwarfs that 700 billion, doesn’t it.

Then we have the secret 2 trillion in loans from the Fed to undisclosed locations. See bloomberg court case for details. It’s taxpayer money.

Taxpayer losses are a pea in a huge banker shell game. They just lifted the Tarp shell and said “see, not under here”. Now you are supposed to feel better.

[Arraya]

TARP Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky said total taxpayer exposure is close to 24 trillion. Kind of dwarfs that 700 billion, doesn’t it.

Then we have the secret 2 trillion in loans from the Fed to undisclosed locations. See bloomberg court case for details. It’s taxpayer money.

Taxpayer losses are a pea in a huge banker shell game. They just lifted the Tarp shell and said “see, not under here”. Now you are supposed to feel better.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership[/quote]

If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan.

Fortunately, we don’t apply mark-to-market accounting to these folks because most people (although clearly not all) are able to earn their way out of “insolvency” over time (with “cash flow”)… just as we are allowing the Big Banks to do, rightly or wrongly.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership[/quote]

If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan.

Fortunately, we don’t apply mark-to-market accounting to these folks because most people (although clearly not all) are able to earn their way out of “insolvency” over time (with “cash flow”)… just as we are allowing the Big Banks to do, rightly or wrongly.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership[/quote]

If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan.

Fortunately, we don’t apply mark-to-market accounting to these folks because most people (although clearly not all) are able to earn their way out of “insolvency” over time (with “cash flow”)… just as we are allowing the Big Banks to do, rightly or wrongly.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership[/quote]

If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan.

Fortunately, we don’t apply mark-to-market accounting to these folks because most people (although clearly not all) are able to earn their way out of “insolvency” over time (with “cash flow”)… just as we are allowing the Big Banks to do, rightly or wrongly.

[davelj]

[quote=bubba99]
If Mark to market accting was still required (or the off balance sheet vehicles) were required to be included, most banks would be in receivership[/quote]

If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan.

Fortunately, we don’t apply mark-to-market accounting to these folks because most people (although clearly not all) are able to earn their way out of “insolvency” over time (with “cash flow”)… just as we are allowing the Big Banks to do, rightly or wrongly.

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj]….
If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan…[/quote]

For the recent graduates with a student loan, their major asset is their future earnings. Hopefully, even a conservative estimate of those earnings far exceeds their debt. If not, then there is a bad debt issue.

For the banks, aren’t some of the future earnings capitalized, at least on a conservative basis? If not, it seems reasonable to do that. Why? To separate those that should be shut down from those that should be allowed to live, and in a transparent way that can be subjected to questioning. (It doesn’t have to be radical, just add and publish the calcs to the normal reports that don’t capitalize any future earnings.)

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj]….
If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan…[/quote]

For the recent graduates with a student loan, their major asset is their future earnings. Hopefully, even a conservative estimate of those earnings far exceeds their debt. If not, then there is a bad debt issue.

For the banks, aren’t some of the future earnings capitalized, at least on a conservative basis? If not, it seems reasonable to do that. Why? To separate those that should be shut down from those that should be allowed to live, and in a transparent way that can be subjected to questioning. (It doesn’t have to be radical, just add and publish the calcs to the normal reports that don’t capitalize any future earnings.)

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj]….
If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan…[/quote]

For the recent graduates with a student loan, their major asset is their future earnings. Hopefully, even a conservative estimate of those earnings far exceeds their debt. If not, then there is a bad debt issue.

For the banks, aren’t some of the future earnings capitalized, at least on a conservative basis? If not, it seems reasonable to do that. Why? To separate those that should be shut down from those that should be allowed to live, and in a transparent way that can be subjected to questioning. (It doesn’t have to be radical, just add and publish the calcs to the normal reports that don’t capitalize any future earnings.)

[patientrenter]

[quote=davelj]….
If mark-to-market accounting were required of most US citizens, a large percentage of them would be in “receivership” (re: bankrupt) as well. (That is, their liabilities are greater than their assets on a liquidation basis.)

To use an obvious example, consider just about every college student that graduates with a student loan…[/quote]

For the recent graduates with a student loan, their major asset is their future earnings. Hopefully, even a conservative estimate of those earnings far exceeds their debt. If not, then there is a bad debt issue.

For the banks, aren’t some of the future earnings capitalized, at least on a conservative basis? If not, it seems reasonable to do that. Why? To separate those that should be shut down from those that should be allowed to live, and in a transparent way that can be subjected to questioning. (It doesn’t have to be radical, just add and publish the calcs to the normal reports that don’t capitalize any future earnings.)

[Author]

Posts