Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, January 05, 2010

The banks that received the biggest taxpayer bailouts are seeking to reap trading profits from securities rescued by the government. The U.S. program designed to purge "toxic assets" -- debts of no immediate discernable value -- from the balance sheets of troubled banks has helped transform the frozen debt into a money-maker as the bonds have rallied.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

iraqibukkake

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

All these banks were given a ton of cash to float their bottom line until their toxic assets bounced back...which was essentially a sham because these toxic assets bounced back as a result of being backed up by more government money.

If all these banks were allowed to fail, these toxic assets would already be split up and sold to solvent banks at legitimate prices. Instead, we subsidize negligence and criminal bankers make a killing off the backs of the American taxpayer.

You don't know what you are talking about. Not all the toxic assets are MBS made of of tranches of mortgages. Then again you are just repeating what you heard of some liberal blog and he probably was clueless too. Just because positions owned by banks are unwound does not mean other banks would be willing to buy them.

Not all the toxic assets are MBS made of of tranches of mortgages. Then again you are just repeating what you heard of some liberal blog and he probably was clueless too.

Try reading the article and get back to me. You thought I was talking about TARP. Nevermind comprehension, you need to just read. Let's hear it from those clueless liberals at Bloomberg:

"The Public-Private Investment Program was introduced in March by Geithner as a means of helping struggling banks by reviving the market for unpackaged loans and mortgage securities that aren't backed by government-supported institutions, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Under the program, asset managers were supposed to raise money from investors and, with additional capital and loans from taxpayers, buy as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets from U.S. banks, freeing up money for lending. "

Just because positions owned by banks are unwound does not mean other banks would be willing to buy them.

Bullshit...these toxic assets have value. They didn't have the value that the banks selling them would like them to have. Would they buy them at 40 cents on the dollar? No. Would they buy them at 5-10 cents on the dollar? Certainly. That's the beauty of fucking up...you don't get to decide how much your fuck up will cost you...unless you're a banker, then we'll do everything we can (rape the taxpayer) to make sure that you are made whole.

I wouldn't call Bloomberg a liberal blog. He does know what he's talking about. We were warned that this would happen. Taxpayers have basically paid gamblers to get out of their debt and start making risky bets again. This time they get to place their bets for pennies on the dollar!

I wouldn't call Bloomberg a liberal blog. He does know what he's talking about. We were warned that this would happen. Taxpayers have basically paid gamblers to get out of their debt and start making risky bets again. This time they get to place their bets for pennies on the dollar!

Why do you say that?
Bloomberg owned a financial data company that was initially funded by Merrill Lynch.

He is not a hedge fund manager or debt strategist

Bullshit...these toxic assets have value. They didn't have the value that the banks selling them would like them to have. Would they buy them at 40 cents on the dollar? No. Would they buy them at 5-10 cents on the dollar? Certainly. That's the beauty of fucking up...you don't get to decide how much your fuck up will cost you...unless you're a banker, then we'll do everything we can (rape the taxpayer) to make sure that you are made whole.

Banks that were not major players in Bank Debt got caught with their pants down when they started buying term loans and bridges that were deeply discounted when the Bank loan market fell apart in 2007. They mostly stayed away from Revolvers.Many hedge funds were unwinding their positions because they were too highly leveraged.Furthermore, they weren't buying par loans at 5-19 cents on the dollar. They were buying them in the 70's. We are talking par not distressed debt although many of these par loans eventually became nonperforming.

"The Public-Private Investment Program was introduced in March by Geithner as a means of helping struggling banks by reviving the market for unpackaged loans and mortgage securities that aren't backed by government-supported institutions, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Under the program, asset managers were supposed to raise money from investors and, with additional capital and loans from taxpayers, buy as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets from U.S. banks, freeing up money for lending. "

This is not what you said. The stated toxic assets. Toxic assets includes much more that Mortg backed securities and unpackaged loans

Try reading the article and get back to me. You thought I was talking about TARP. Nevermind comprehension, you need to just read. Let's hear it from those clueless liberals at Bloomberg:

Just for the record a lot of articles on Bloomberg are clueless even laughable. It depends who is writing it

This is not what you said. The stated toxic assets. Toxic assets includes much more that Mortg backed securities and unpackaged loans

I referenced PPIP in the title. I said these toxic assets. That's about as specific as you can get...it's pretty clear what I am talking about.

Many hedge funds were unwinding their positions because they were too highly leveraged.Furthermore, they weren't buying par loans at 5-19 cents on the dollar. They were buying them in the 70's. We are talking par not distressed debt although many of these par loans eventually became nonperforming.
#6 | Posted by timbci at 2010-01-04 01:54 PM

"The Public-Private Investment Program was introduced in March by Geithner as a means of helping struggling banks by reviving the market for unpackaged loans and mortgage securities that aren't backed by government-supported institutions, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Under the program, asset managers were supposed to raise money from investors and, with additional capital and loans from taxpayers, buy as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets from U.S. banks, freeing up money for lending. "

This is not what you said. The stated toxic assets. Toxic assets includes much more that Mortg backed securities and unpackaged loans
#7 | Posted by timbci at 2010-01-04 01:56 PM

Do you mean the rate of monetary devaluation has itself a value? Unbelievable!

This various toxic stuff is waaay over my head, but it seems rather like an extraordinarily crooked system whereby housing is transitioned to a new "ownership" class (PPIP investors, hedge-fund rollups) which are subsidized, tax-friendly and flush with ludicrous bailout monies and that extra-precious lender "co-operation" that homeowners never get. Wealth re-distribution warfare. I know that sounds incredibly naive, but why decimate the working poor?

Instead of PPIP why wasn't bailout set aside and lent to Geitner's "manager", reinvesting our own dividends, etc? It sounds like PPIP was intended to accelerate transitioning "wealth" out from the existing monetary standard and into everything toxic.

sop.

banks get bailed out by the very people losing their homes to this land grab scam.

the fact that the populace isn't calling for heads to roll is a national embarrassment.

Shawn, the proper way to describe the populace these days is "Peasants".

The issue is corporate personhood. A couple bankers can bet billions. If they win, they get a ton of money. If they lose it, the company dies and they leave with their contracted for bonus. They suffer nothing. Then they go get a job someplace else while the former bank melts down. We need to stop treating the banks as people and starting going after the few individuals gaming the system. But I'm sure the NOPers will whine when we step in and try to regulate contracts and hiring processes. That's "socialist."

Sychophant,

It is. However getting rid of corporate personhood and not throwing government money at failing banks is not socialisim and would solve the problem very nicely.

Aaaah, the big banks, privatizing their profits and socializing their losses---is this country great or what.

The issue is corporate personhood. A couple bankers can bet billions. If they win, they get a ton of money. If they lose it, the company dies and they leave with their contracted for bonus. They suffer nothing. Then they go get a job someplace else while the former bank melts down. We need to stop treating the banks as people and starting going after the few individuals gaming the system. But I'm sure the NOPers will whine when we step in and try to regulate contracts and hiring processes. That's "socialist."

#13 | Posted by Sycophant

A new system has to be instituted to really protect the small shareholder---the power rests in the SEC but you'll never see compensation of bank execs or any other execs of public companies brought under the control of the shareholder.

the sec is nothing more than a private contractor whos function is to keep the powerful in power.

Shawn, the proper way to describe the populace these days is "Peasants".

-----------

I was thinking idiotically deluded piss-ants...

"Shawn, the proper way to describe the populace these days is "Peasants"."
-----------
I was thinking idiotically deluded piss-ants...
#18 | Posted by Shawn at 2010-01-05 09:20 PM

I get it, jeese. We're too stupid to understand our own monetary system, let alone multiple staged asset re-valuation, failouts, bubble economics and whatever the fuck it's called today. I'm just a stupid working poor, minus the work.

I get it, jeese. We're too stupid to understand our own monetary system, let alone multiple staged asset re-valuation, failouts, bubble economics and whatever the fuck it's called today. I'm just a stupid working poor, minus the work.

------------

I'll translate the jargon for you:

1. The owners get what they want.
2. FUCK YOU!!!

Fucking corporate greedfuck pigs!!!!

Power to the people!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pigs on the Weber!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're stupid greedfuck-drunk sheep until we understand that all power must devolve downward, goddamn it!!!!!!

They're skull-fucking you for profits and exploitation!!!!!!!!

I read it Mother Jones, you fucking whore!!!!

Wake the fuck up!!!!!

FUCK I'm angry!!!

And I'm not sure why...

But FUCK IT!!!

They're skull-fucking you for profits and exploitation!!!!!!!!

What about the sheer pleasure of it?

The greedfuck war-profiteers and their kulak enablers know no other pleasure other than stealing from the proletariat.

That's the only "pleasure" involved.

Your question makes no sense in the context of the Class Struggle your corporate masters ensure we're mired in.

Check that.

Your question only makes sense in the context of the Class Struggle your corporate masters ensure we're mired in.

The hour's late, Komrade..

Pigs at the trough.

The greedfuck war-profiteers and their kulak enablers know no other pleasure other than stealing from the proletariat.

Holy shit Mao, you're on a roll.

The hour's late, Komrade..

I believe the word you're looking for is "tovarisch". But indeed, the hour is late. Let us drink vodka and bitch about the bourgeoise pigs.

oh good grief. I have an disingenuous pretentious inbred shitstain of a fan now.

I have an disingenuous pretentious inbred shitstain of a fan now.

It's not surprising you couldn't get one with more class and a family tree that branched.

By bailing out toxic assets which are largelt held by hedge funds you are indirectly bailing out billions invested by pension funds. CALPERS is the single largest investor in hedge funds in America. As a matter of fact it is so large that CALPERs last year requested that hedge funds cease co-mingling their investments with other hedge fund investors.

More privatised profits and publically backed losses.

Heads they win.
Tails you lose.

Again.

This will just keep on happening until DC reforms itself by weaning itself offa legal bribes from corporate special interest groups.

Doesn't matter who's in charge to a certain extent as long as the agenda in DC is set by global corporate interests rather than the real, pressing long term needs and interests of the country and it's citizens.

Helluva way to run a railroad.

Be Well.

It's not surprising you couldn't get one with more class and a family tree that branched.

----------

have some grass goatbrain.

have some grass goatbrain.

Can't. Piss tests

wish i was a banker

The system works! Hooray!

Sychophant,

It is. However getting rid of corporate personhood and not throwing government money at failing banks is not socialisim and would solve the problem very nicely.

#14 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2010-01-05 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Eliminating corporate personhood certainly isn't socialism, but I wonder whether that's the appropriate solution. The corporate person was, in part, invented to make it easier to sue large partnerships. Prior to 1844 (I may be off on the date, but it's close), a partnership could only be sued in the names of ALL its partners. Imagine trying to find even 50 partners to personally serve them with a complaint. It's not going to happen. Some English partnerships purposely took on a partner who lived abroad to avoid being sued.

The real problem is the extent to which limited liability protects shareholders and corporate managers. I don't think LL should be completely rolled back, but do believe it should be easier to pierce the veil when criminals hide behind corporate personhood to protect themselves from liability for taking extreme risks.

Anyone who claims to believe in small government but who supports limited liability is inconsistent at best. Limited liability exists solely at the mercy of government.

Banks profit at tax payer expense. Please use the vasoline next time.

"But I'm sure the NOPers will whine when we step in and try to regulate contracts and hiring processes. That's "socialist."

#13 | Posted by Sycophant"

Who has the majority in the House, the Senate, and holds the White House.

If Nationalized Healthcare was possible without the GOP vote, why is this issue any different.

Keynesian policies do work. Countries, like Australia, that implemented large, well-designed stimulus programs early emerged from the crisis faster. Other countries succumbed to the old orthodoxy pushed by the financial wizards who got us into this mess in the first place.

Whenever an economy goes into recession, deficits appear, as tax revenues fall faster than expenditures. The old orthodoxy held that one had to cut the deficit - raise taxes or cut expenditures - to restore confidence.' But those policies almost always reduced aggregate demand, pushed the economy into a deeper slump, and further undermined confidence.

But, the administration's agenda is entirely different than Congress's. The White House economics team is trying to garner support for policies that will strap the faltering economy into a fiscal straightjacket and pound the green shoots into mush. All the railing against deficits is just empty blather backed by junk economics.

Rubin admits that the recession "would ordinarily be met with expansionary policy", but suggests that he has a better remedy than stimulus. Does that make sense? It was Keynesian counter-cyclical public spending (stimulus) that just produced positive GDP for the first time in 4 quarters, whereas, it was Rubin's deregulation of the financial system that pushed the global economy to the brink of disaster. There's no question of whose theory is more credible or likely to work. Even so, it's worth considering what Rubin has to say, because it clarifies the views of Obama's chief economic advisors Geithner and Summers. After all, the trio is joined at the hip.

The real goal is to slash spending to impose onerous austerity measures that will lay the groundwork for dismantling critical social programs, like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. That's why Rubin is working hand-in-hand with his allies in and out of the White House. It has nothing to do with what's best for the country. It's another looting operation spearheaded by the same band of Wall Street pirates who just blew up the financial system.

It's all right out of the neoliberal playbook, corporate America's sacred text.

Excerpted from Mike Whitney @ Counterpunch

"Banks Make Killing on Toxic Assets"
no shit!

They're skull-fucking you for profits and exploitation!!!!!!!!

#23 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

Don't look now but the power behind the shaft you just got was your government. The banks don't have the power to reach into your wallet and take what the want.

Don't look now but the the government is the greedfucker corporate hack.

Sure its a government of the "people", by the "people" and for the "people"---- the people with the power and the money.

And we treat corporations the same as people in case you've looked up from American Idol long enough to notice...

Pigs at the trough...

What's left unsaid, was that MANY here wanted to 'Nationalize' all the tarp banks...and declare them insolvent. That would have cost trillions of dollars, as the gov dumped assets at fire sale prices. I feel that was a stupid short sighted mentality. I am on record here supporting saving the banks.

Like when the fdic/fslic made all institutions sell their 'junk loans' by a certain date. Their prices plummeted and many sold for 20 cents on the dollar. The investors who purchased them made a killing.

Want proof? Look at the Lehman bros bankruptcy sale!!! barclays made billions as the bankruptcy judge sold them assets at fire sale prices. Now the judge wants that money back! Too bad he panicked and sold to a non US bank!

www.telegraph.co.uk

Think about it. would you rather they all went down, and financial havoc was ripped through the US. I WOULD NOT. Now the question is, what should be done with those sub prime assets? Well the messiah wants to bail those mortgage holders out. Pushing the whole sector into liquidation would have been one hell of a mistake, IMO.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable