# News Tracking the bailout money

1. Aug 31, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
The latest report indicates that banks and others have paid back something around 85 billion, with over 4 billion in profits for us taxpayers [one report said 6 billion in profits].

Apparently there was something around 125 billion allocated that never went out. Also, CNN is who reported paybacks at 85 billion, but I didn't see that number reported elsewhere yet.

I thought it might be interesting to track all money loaned or invested, payments made back, and profits and losses from the bailout of the banks and investment companies, AIG et al, Freddie and Fannie, and the auto companies.

2. Aug 31, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Correction. The CNN reports cites the payback at about 80 billion. Total profits are listed as ~ 6 billion for interest and dividends. The latest dept of the Treasury report was cited as the source. I didn't see it online yet.

At a 15% return annually, I'll take some more of that action.

3. Aug 31, 2009

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Are bailout investments paying off?

The strong banks are making it. But what about the weak ones?

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
4. Aug 31, 2009

### Al68

Sure we did OK in those particular cases, but we can't judge a bailout by only the loans that are timely repaid at this point. Obviously they are far from being representative of the total.

I think I'll wait and see the rest of the picture before I advocate government becoming the nation's biggest loan shark.

5. Aug 31, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Though I don't like the idea of such a bailout in theory, I was heartened by the possibility that it could turn a profit. I'm glad it has, in the funds that have returned anyway - we'll have to wait and see about the overall potential for profit.

I wouldn't assume that the remaining investments are more likely to lose money. It may actually be the other way around, as the ones who still have the money are likely some that took the biggest beating last year, providing perhaps the best possible upside when they recover.

6. Sep 2, 2009

### WhoWee

This is a good idea - just don't forget to factor in the Barney Frank re-investment of paybacks plan.

7. Sep 2, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
I'm not advocating anything, and I agree. I was just saying that for the loans repaid early, we did amazingly well.

The final tally may look quite different but we will see. So far, so good.

8. Sep 9, 2009

### Jasongreat

That is nice we made a profit, so far, but what is that 6 billion going to do now? Will they spend it, or will they put it towards the deficit? If they spend it I would argue that we are no better off than if we wouldnt of made the profit. If it doesnt come back to the taxpayer or the deficit it is not profit(its just as if the bank paid more taxes) in my book.

9. Sep 10, 2009

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
According to Slate

http://www.slate.com/id/2216602/

10. Sep 10, 2009

### Jasongreat

" For one, it keeps money on hand"
I wonder how long it is going to take until they only have a bunch of IOU's on hand? It sure didnt do much good to have social security money sitting around.

"in case the banks need another bailout"
So how long is this going to go on? Are banks ever going to have to learn how to run properly or are we going to keep proping up failing buisiness's?

Dont get me wrong it is great that atleast one government policy has'nt completely been a failure but I think it is a little early to be counting our chickens.

11. Sep 10, 2009

### WhoWee

Maybe you should be asking whether or not Barney Frank will be pushing for banks to make more risky loans anytime soon.

12. Sep 10, 2009

### Jasongreat

Do the banks have to do what barney franks says?(well they do now cause they took the money,but did they before?) I personally think that any CEO that takes buisiness advice from barney franks should be fired, anyways.

13. Sep 10, 2009

### WhoWee

Here's a fun start to reading about Barney Frank's involvement in the banking mess.
http://massnews.com/index.php?optio...e-bank-meltdown&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=27

"Whose responsibility was it to foresee any potential problems in the banking industry? Upon whose deskbarney frank does the $700 billion bucks stop? Although it is certainly much more popular to point fingers at the CEOs of these GSE who were pocketing on the upwards of$200 million in compensation , one must remember, those individuals were doing exactly as they were commissioned by Congress to do…provide as many risky, sub-prime loans as they possibly could. And they were doing it too well.

The architect of the meltdown is Massachusetts own Barney Frank, ultra liberal democrat who set the stage for the meltdown, and as the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, even had the smarts to see the ship wreck he was creating, and publically discount the possibility that the unthinkable would happen. In his speech before Congress on the proposed regulation of Fannie Mae that would limit any type of financial crisis, Barney Frank said in 2003:

I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis… I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury. … Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is that the Federal Government is obligated to bail out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. ….The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn’t bail them out. Barney Frank obviously had been told many times that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were headed towards a precipice, and the fact that they increasingly investing in risky mortgages under the guise of providing “affordable housing” was being called into question by Republicans. Frank even floated the idea that the U.S. Treasury might be called upon to bailout these giants."

14. Oct 21, 2009

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Bailout watchdog expects much to remain unrefunded!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bailout_watchdog [Broken]

Somewhere I read that the US will lose most of its investment in GM.

TARP unlikely to bring taxpayer returns

Meanwhile - a similar situation in the UK

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
15. Nov 2, 2009

### Pattonias

Using the traditional US government template, any money made from these payments will be seen as surplus and immediately be spent on crap. Our government doesn't know what to do with extra money, they only know how to spend it.

Won't it be years before we actually know whether or not this money is actually a profit or simply a made payment? You could take out a twenty year, two-hundred thousand dollar home loan and make the payments for 10 years before the loan itself ran out. I know that they are probably watched closer than that, but the payments shouldn't be the indication as to whether or not this is working.

On the other hand, I doubt taxes will be lowered if the government started making money in the business loan market.

16. Nov 2, 2009

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Creditors Back CIT’s Bankruptcy

There's many more \$billions in AIG and Chrysler than CIT.

The question is though - what would have been the alternative - simply let the entire international financial system collapse completely? That could have produced 20% or greater unemployment very quickly as markets froze.

17. Nov 2, 2009

### WhoWee

We'll soon find out how much the rules have changed - this might just serve as the new template - (hint) watch the treatment of Goldman.

18. Nov 3, 2009

### mheslep

I happened to hear Gibbs asked this question today - would the taxpayers get any GM money back? A little? Some? Most? Gibb's was utterly evasive and non-responsive.

19. Nov 3, 2009

### mheslep

Chrysler and GM though were not part of the 'financial system'. They could have, should have been let go, but were not because of the union political interests I believe. Per the link you supplied the author credits the auto companies with most of the losses. The banks will mostly pay off w/ interest, the odd CIT won't change that.

20. Dec 15, 2009

### mheslep

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a_N.wjAooK1o&pos=5" [Broken] all paying off the TARP bailout money, all at profit to the government. Looks like the only major TARP losses will be those to which TARP was never intended - GM, Chrysler.

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017