Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
ParticipantEmigrantDirect and San Diego County Credit Union. I’m kind of surprised SDCCU is still around as I figured them for making all kinds of bad loans during the bubble.
ParticipantEmigrantDirect and San Diego County Credit Union. I’m kind of surprised SDCCU is still around as I figured them for making all kinds of bad loans during the bubble.
ParticipantEmigrantDirect and San Diego County Credit Union. I’m kind of surprised SDCCU is still around as I figured them for making all kinds of bad loans during the bubble.
ParticipantEmigrantDirect and San Diego County Credit Union. I’m kind of surprised SDCCU is still around as I figured them for making all kinds of bad loans during the bubble.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Breezhnev: Boy, that moniker I hung on you is becoming more and more apropos by the day. So, using your suggestion above, we become fascists and seize all the holdings and assets of the banks and distribute them to the people (via the State with a big “S”, of course). Do I have that right? Statist authoritarianism, huh? And you’re calling me a socialist?
[/quote]
Uhhh, no. I just recommend that the government follow the rule of law. When a bank becomes insolvent, it should be liquidated (per the rule of law) and not illegally propped up. It’s actually a very capitalist notion.
But yeah, boy howdy was that ever an appropriate moniker. YEEHAWWWW! GIT’ ER DUN!
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Breezhnev: Boy, that moniker I hung on you is becoming more and more apropos by the day. So, using your suggestion above, we become fascists and seize all the holdings and assets of the banks and distribute them to the people (via the State with a big “S”, of course). Do I have that right? Statist authoritarianism, huh? And you’re calling me a socialist?
[/quote]
Uhhh, no. I just recommend that the government follow the rule of law. When a bank becomes insolvent, it should be liquidated (per the rule of law) and not illegally propped up. It’s actually a very capitalist notion.
But yeah, boy howdy was that ever an appropriate moniker. YEEHAWWWW! GIT’ ER DUN!
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Breezhnev: Boy, that moniker I hung on you is becoming more and more apropos by the day. So, using your suggestion above, we become fascists and seize all the holdings and assets of the banks and distribute them to the people (via the State with a big “S”, of course). Do I have that right? Statist authoritarianism, huh? And you’re calling me a socialist?
[/quote]
Uhhh, no. I just recommend that the government follow the rule of law. When a bank becomes insolvent, it should be liquidated (per the rule of law) and not illegally propped up. It’s actually a very capitalist notion.
But yeah, boy howdy was that ever an appropriate moniker. YEEHAWWWW! GIT’ ER DUN!
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Breezhnev: Boy, that moniker I hung on you is becoming more and more apropos by the day. So, using your suggestion above, we become fascists and seize all the holdings and assets of the banks and distribute them to the people (via the State with a big “S”, of course). Do I have that right? Statist authoritarianism, huh? And you’re calling me a socialist?
[/quote]
Uhhh, no. I just recommend that the government follow the rule of law. When a bank becomes insolvent, it should be liquidated (per the rule of law) and not illegally propped up. It’s actually a very capitalist notion.
But yeah, boy howdy was that ever an appropriate moniker. YEEHAWWWW! GIT’ ER DUN!
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Breezhnev: Boy, that moniker I hung on you is becoming more and more apropos by the day. So, using your suggestion above, we become fascists and seize all the holdings and assets of the banks and distribute them to the people (via the State with a big “S”, of course). Do I have that right? Statist authoritarianism, huh? And you’re calling me a socialist?
[/quote]
Uhhh, no. I just recommend that the government follow the rule of law. When a bank becomes insolvent, it should be liquidated (per the rule of law) and not illegally propped up. It’s actually a very capitalist notion.
But yeah, boy howdy was that ever an appropriate moniker. YEEHAWWWW! GIT’ ER DUN!
Participant[quote=davelj][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.
[/quote]About that collateral. How far off do you think the marks are? Here’s a chart that shows Citi’s marks (estimated):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FM71j6-VkNE/Scka7JcKKeI/AAAAAAAABkA/pS34gaIK1jY/s1600-h/toxic+assets.jpg
They are carrying their commercial mortgages at 100% while FDIC has been selling commercial loans at around 50%:
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/search?q=beal
So Citi has likely received $205 billion on collateral of only $100 billion or so (assuming the rest of their assets are similarly mismarked).
If all of Citi’s assets are mismarked by 50%, that’s just about enough to pay off the depositors. Wouldn’t it be cheaper for the government to shoot Citi now, pay off the depositors, and be done with them as opposed to guaranteeing their $1.8 trillion in liabilities?
I don’t get why you say that liquidating these big banks now would be more expensive for taxpayers than zombifying them. The up-front cost may be more but I think the long-term cost would be less.
Participant[quote=davelj][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.
[/quote]About that collateral. How far off do you think the marks are? Here’s a chart that shows Citi’s marks (estimated):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FM71j6-VkNE/Scka7JcKKeI/AAAAAAAABkA/pS34gaIK1jY/s1600-h/toxic+assets.jpg
They are carrying their commercial mortgages at 100% while FDIC has been selling commercial loans at around 50%:
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/search?q=beal
So Citi has likely received $205 billion on collateral of only $100 billion or so (assuming the rest of their assets are similarly mismarked).
If all of Citi’s assets are mismarked by 50%, that’s just about enough to pay off the depositors. Wouldn’t it be cheaper for the government to shoot Citi now, pay off the depositors, and be done with them as opposed to guaranteeing their $1.8 trillion in liabilities?
I don’t get why you say that liquidating these big banks now would be more expensive for taxpayers than zombifying them. The up-front cost may be more but I think the long-term cost would be less.
Participant[quote=davelj][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.
[/quote]About that collateral. How far off do you think the marks are? Here’s a chart that shows Citi’s marks (estimated):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FM71j6-VkNE/Scka7JcKKeI/AAAAAAAABkA/pS34gaIK1jY/s1600-h/toxic+assets.jpg
They are carrying their commercial mortgages at 100% while FDIC has been selling commercial loans at around 50%:
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/search?q=beal
So Citi has likely received $205 billion on collateral of only $100 billion or so (assuming the rest of their assets are similarly mismarked).
If all of Citi’s assets are mismarked by 50%, that’s just about enough to pay off the depositors. Wouldn’t it be cheaper for the government to shoot Citi now, pay off the depositors, and be done with them as opposed to guaranteeing their $1.8 trillion in liabilities?
I don’t get why you say that liquidating these big banks now would be more expensive for taxpayers than zombifying them. The up-front cost may be more but I think the long-term cost would be less.
Participant[quote=davelj][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.
[/quote]About that collateral. How far off do you think the marks are? Here’s a chart that shows Citi’s marks (estimated):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FM71j6-VkNE/Scka7JcKKeI/AAAAAAAABkA/pS34gaIK1jY/s1600-h/toxic+assets.jpg
They are carrying their commercial mortgages at 100% while FDIC has been selling commercial loans at around 50%:
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/search?q=beal
So Citi has likely received $205 billion on collateral of only $100 billion or so (assuming the rest of their assets are similarly mismarked).
If all of Citi’s assets are mismarked by 50%, that’s just about enough to pay off the depositors. Wouldn’t it be cheaper for the government to shoot Citi now, pay off the depositors, and be done with them as opposed to guaranteeing their $1.8 trillion in liabilities?
I don’t get why you say that liquidating these big banks now would be more expensive for taxpayers than zombifying them. The up-front cost may be more but I think the long-term cost would be less.
Participant[quote=davelj][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.
[/quote]About that collateral. How far off do you think the marks are? Here’s a chart that shows Citi’s marks (estimated):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FM71j6-VkNE/Scka7JcKKeI/AAAAAAAABkA/pS34gaIK1jY/s1600-h/toxic+assets.jpg
They are carrying their commercial mortgages at 100% while FDIC has been selling commercial loans at around 50%:
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/search?q=beal
So Citi has likely received $205 billion on collateral of only $100 billion or so (assuming the rest of their assets are similarly mismarked).
If all of Citi’s assets are mismarked by 50%, that’s just about enough to pay off the depositors. Wouldn’t it be cheaper for the government to shoot Citi now, pay off the depositors, and be done with them as opposed to guaranteeing their $1.8 trillion in liabilities?
I don’t get why you say that liquidating these big banks now would be more expensive for taxpayers than zombifying them. The up-front cost may be more but I think the long-term cost would be less.
-
AuthorPosts
