Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUST...ndChannel=10112 Discuss. What's four trillion between friends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUST...ndChannel=10112 Discuss. What's four trillion between friends? Somebody here once had a signature which read something about numbers once being referred to "astronomical" should now be referred to "economical." What other things are measured in trillions? That's what I want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUST...ndChannel=10112 Discuss. What's four trillion between friends? The government would not necessarily have to spend the full $4 trillion to buy the assets. If it follows the model used in a Federal Reserve program to support consumer and small business loans, the government could potentially put up just 10 percent of the total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 Yeah, GG, that part surely didn't seem to be bad. I just wondered whether this "bad bank" thing, for those who really understand it, seemed to be a good idea. I am not sure either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Yeah, GG, that part surely didn't seem to be bad. I just wondered whether this "bad bank" thing, for those who really understand it, seemed to be a good idea. I am not sure either way. Let's go back to the prehistoric days of this crisis. TARP was meant to take troubled assets off financial companies' balance sheets. It didn't do that, because suddenly the flavor of the day became capital infusions by the government. But they never even got close to fixing the underlying problem that the illiquid assets were still on the balance sheet and were likely to drop in value (accounting) even more. So any money infused as equity 5 months ago is now virtually wiped out. Surprise? Solve the asset problem first, then the capital will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Somebody here once had a signature which read something about numbers once being referred to "astronomical" should now be referred to "economical." What other things are measured in trillions? That's what I want to know. Well a light year is 6 trillion miles, so perhaps we need a unit of money called the light-dollar? The government is not spending 4 trillion dollars. They are spending 2/3rds of a light dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUST...ndChannel=10112 Discuss. Fugg'n headline writers looking to capture eyeballs.... "The government would not necessarily have to spend the full $4 trillion to buy the assets. If it follows the model used in a Federal Reserve program to support consumer and small business loans, the government could potentially put up just 10 percent of the total. Spending $400 billion would certainly be more palatable to Congress than $4 trillion. It may not even require that much additional funding. Economists estimate that perhaps $250 billion of what remains in the $700 billion bailout fund could be devoted to the "bad bank." That money could buy bad assets, which would then be repackaged and sold to investors to raise more money which could then by recycled to buy more assets." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Let's go back to the prehistoric days of this crisis.Surprise? Nah. After the TARP legislation passed, Hammer'n Hank realized he only had three months before the Obama transition and it was easier to write checks to buy preferred shares than create/staff a major RTC-like workout bureaucracy. He punted on the problem and wasn't honest enough with the public to say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts