We Bailed You Out and Now You Want What?!

[Bonny]

The AIG piece absolutely steams me.

I can see why the Fannie/Freddie piece is being heard. If the Gov't promised you they would only take 10% then that's what it should have done.

www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstocks/we-bailed-you-out-and-now-you-want-what/ar-BBkMp2m?ocid=AARDHP

Thoughts?

[bean29]

[Bonny]

bean29 said:

it is a case of no good deed goes unpunished.

Oh I hate that expression. It's used so often to justify being a jerk.

I think there are some fine Public Attorneys. The problem is politics. These team owners and their entourage tend to be big donors and fund raisers. Retaining outside counsel doesn't change the picture.

FWIW I do think there is SOME benefit to these deals as a catalyst to redevelop an area. But at some point these projects need to get off the government hand-out and become self-supporting. It's gotten to the point where these guys are acting like spoiled children who threaten to run away from home. The cities need to stand up to them and say what my maternal grandmother said to my mom "Let me help you pack your bags!"

[busymom]

They've earned an A+ for "balls", & an F- for ethics.

I say if it happens again (and it could), next time we just let those banks crash & burn. I'll bring the marshmallows...

[The Captain]

I can tell you it is far more complicated and intertwined than the general public will ever know.

It's easy to say just let the banks crash and burn, but it's not so simple.

Take the City of Chicago (or any of many other municipalities for example) - They issue construction bonds or get loans to fund public development projects.  When those bonds/loans are issued in a public offering they are often guaranteed by a financial institution or backed to a certain degree. 

The terms of those bonds often allow for an immediate call by the bond holders should the guarantee fail.  That would put those municipalities in the position of having to cough up cash immediately when they aren't prepared to do so.  Some would have to file bankruptcy.

I may not have all the details correct but I remember reading in the WSJ about the domino effect the catastrophic failure of some institutions would have.  The failure of one entity would shut down public transportation systems in over half a dozen cities (wish I could find the link!!!).

Personally, I have knowledge of exactly how far the Federal government overstepped their bounds/authority to the extreme negative detriment of other entities.  Before I saw it happen I would say our government would never take such action, now I have to keep my mouth shut about it and it sucks.


Couldn't find the WSJ link but this article does a decent job of summarizing the exposures:

www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/let_big_banks_fail_but_save_fi.html
 

[midjd]

It's funny that there are only 4 comments on this thread (with almost 200 views), yet the threads about welfare to individuals usually hit 3 pages by lunch. I guess demanding $23 BILLION in taxpayer funds just isn't as exciting as talking about Food Stamp Suzi purchasing filet 

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds... sounds like a decision could be coming soon.

[Deleted]

  Best to be over bashing folks that don't repay student loans.

Captain you are repeating the myth that the bank owners like to spew. Let the banks fail and we will find a way to keep public transit functioning. We would find a way to keep everything functioning.

[CarolinaKat]

Jun 8, 2015 12:46:36 GMT -5 midjd said:

It's funny that there are only 4 comments on this thread (with almost 200 views), yet the threads about welfare to individuals usually hit 3 pages by lunch. I guess demanding $23 BILLION in taxpayer funds just isn't as exciting as talking about Food Stamp Suzi purchasing filet 

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds... sounds like a decision could be coming soon.

There are usually more comments when there are excerpts from the story. It's a whole extra step to follow the link   


From the article:

In two separate cases, the government now stands accused of overstepping its authority when it took extraordinary measures to prevent a financial meltdown in the fall of 2008. The Wall Street figures who are suing say their property was seized without compensation, in violation of the Constitution. One case was brought by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the legendary former chief executive of AIG who built it into the world’s largest insurer. Filing the other case is a group of hedge funds that bought Fannie and Freddie stock for pennies per share after the companies were put in government conservatorship.

[tractor]

Jun 8, 2015 11:55:21 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I can tell you it is far more complicated and intertwined than the general public will ever know.

It's easy to say just let the banks crash and burn, but it's not so simple.

Take the City of Chicago (or any of many other municipalities for example) - They issue construction bonds or get loans to fund public development projects.  When those bonds/loans are issued in a public offering they are often guaranteed by a financial institution or backed to a certain degree. 

The terms of those bonds often allow for an immediate call by the bond holders should the guarantee fail.  That would put those municipalities in the position of having to cough up cash immediately when they aren't prepared to do so.  Some would have to file bankruptcy.

I may not have all the details correct but I remember reading in the WSJ about the domino effect the catastrophic failure of some institutions would have.  The failure of one entity would shut down public transportation systems in over half a dozen cities (wish I could find the link!!!).

Personally, I have knowledge of exactly how far the Federal government overstepped their bounds/authority to the extreme negative detriment of other entities.  Before I saw it happen I would say our government would never take such action, now I have to keep my mouth shut about it and it sucks.


Couldn't find the WSJ link but this article does a decent job of summarizing the exposures:

www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/let_big_banks_fail_but_save_fi.html
 

Worked out OK for the City of Detroit

[ArchietheDragon]

Jun 8, 2015 13:01:14 GMT -5 tractor said:

Jun 8, 2015 11:55:21 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I can tell you it is far more complicated and intertwined than the general public will ever know.

It's easy to say just let the banks crash and burn, but it's not so simple.

Take the City of Chicago (or any of many other municipalities for example) - They issue construction bonds or get loans to fund public development projects.  When those bonds/loans are issued in a public offering they are often guaranteed by a financial institution or backed to a certain degree. 

The terms of those bonds often allow for an immediate call by the bond holders should the guarantee fail.  That would put those municipalities in the position of having to cough up cash immediately when they aren't prepared to do so.  Some would have to file bankruptcy.

I may not have all the details correct but I remember reading in the WSJ about the domino effect the catastrophic failure of some institutions would have.  The failure of one entity would shut down public transportation systems in over half a dozen cities (wish I could find the link!!!).

Personally, I have knowledge of exactly how far the Federal government overstepped their bounds/authority to the extreme negative detriment of other entities.  Before I saw it happen I would say our government would never take such action, now I have to keep my mouth shut about it and it sucks.


Couldn't find the WSJ link but this article does a decent job of summarizing the exposures:

www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/let_big_banks_fail_but_save_fi.html
 

Worked out OK for the City of Detroit

ROFL!

[Bonny]

I agree that on a macro level the bail-out of the major banking system needed to be done. Our "recession" really only lasted about 5 years. The '29 depression lasted over 10 years. I think all of us are too young to remember it. I also think it would have been a lot worse since the world is so much more inter-dependent financially.

I have a real issue with the guy who drove AIG basically into bankruptcy and thinks he didn't make enough money out of it. I sincerely hope he winds up in jail for all the financial laws he broke. It's one thing to make mistakes or take a bad risk. It's another thing to think you deserve to be paid for bad behavior...especially at the taxpayers' expense.

ETA: I also hope that the government can find some former employees who will testify against this jerk, proving once again that Karma is a B*tch!

[Deleted]

Hubris appears to be the new face of greed. They cut the deal, they need to live with it.

As the financial crisis unfolded, AIG’s fundamental flaws were finally exposed. On the same week Lehman Brothers collapsed, desperate executives went to the Treasury and the Federal Reserve looking for a loan. Dozens of Fed officials were dispatched to AIG headquarters on Pine Street in lower Manhattan. Within days, they were convinced that without a substantial cash infusion, AIG would be forced to file for bankruptcy, threatening the solvency of a number of big banks in Europe and the United States.

To avoid such a meltdown, the Fed agreed under its emergency authority to act as a lender of last resort, lending AIG an initial $85 billion. The terms were to be the same as AIG’s investment bankers had offered the previous week, without success, to private lenders — a 14 percent interest rate and ownership of 80 percent of the company. With lawyers sitting in the next room ready to file a bankruptcy petition, AIG directors reluctantly agreed to the terms.

[TheHaitian]

I wish I had their balls :eek::eek::eek:

Yes you bailed me out, but you costs me billions vs the bankrupt I could have been... So pay up!

Damn!!! That is the equivalent of the old VP shooting someone in the face and that person apologizing for getting shot!

BAWLING!!!!

[The Captain]

Jun 8, 2015 13:01:14 GMT -5 tractor said:

Jun 8, 2015 11:55:21 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I can tell you it is far more complicated and intertwined than the general public will ever know.

It's easy to say just let the banks crash and burn, but it's not so simple.

Take the City of Chicago (or any of many other municipalities for example) - They issue construction bonds or get loans to fund public development projects.  When those bonds/loans are issued in a public offering they are often guaranteed by a financial institution or backed to a certain degree. 

The terms of those bonds often allow for an immediate call by the bond holders should the guarantee fail.  That would put those municipalities in the position of having to cough up cash immediately when they aren't prepared to do so.  Some would have to file bankruptcy.

I may not have all the details correct but I remember reading in the WSJ about the domino effect the catastrophic failure of some institutions would have.  The failure of one entity would shut down public transportation systems in over half a dozen cities (wish I could find the link!!!).

Personally, I have knowledge of exactly how far the Federal government overstepped their bounds/authority to the extreme negative detriment of other entities.  Before I saw it happen I would say our government would never take such action, now I have to keep my mouth shut about it and it sucks.


Couldn't find the WSJ link but this article does a decent job of summarizing the exposures:

www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/let_big_banks_fail_but_save_fi.html
 

Worked out OK for the City of Detroit

Yea, not so much so for their creditors/bond holders.  Now imagine dozens of Detroits happening at once.

Just curious, if you have a 401(k) have you looked at what the underlying investments the various funds hold?

About 15% of my portfolio is in bonds.  I just looked into the composition of those funds and was surprised to find decent percentages in non agency residential mortgage backed, asset backed, tax free muni's, and Swaps.  These are the types of investments that would have taken a hit.

A catastrophic failure would have impacted more than just the financial institutions.

Don't get me wrong, so much of what happened and built up to during that period absolutely reeks.  I'm not trying to justify any of it, but a failure of any of the "too big to fail" institutions would have set up a downward spiral that would have made the recession much worse that it alread was.

Sad thing is, I don't think the complex regulations put in place afterward really did much to alleviate the situation.

[Deleted]

would have made the recession much worse that it alread was.

How bad was the recession? I honestly felt no effect. I heard about it on the news but nothing much changed in my life. I heard about unemployment but honestly, I don't ever remember not hearing about unemployment.

[The Captain]

Jun 8, 2015 14:06:28 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

would have made the recession much worse that it alread was.

How bad was the recession? I honestly felt no effect. I heard about it on the news but nothing much changed in my life. I heard about unemployment but honestly, I don't ever remember not hearing about unemployment.

My husband lost his job, twice, during that period due to company layoffs.

My friend and her husband both lost their jobs and their home.  We knew several couples that had at least one spouse lose a job.

Unemployment in the IL was over 11% at the peak of the recession.  It was so bad nationwide the Feds extended it to 99 weeks in some areas (IL allows 26 weeks).  According to economic theory "normal" unemployment should be around 4% IIRC.

Housing prices fell from 25-30% in my area and 1 in 4 homes were in some stage of foreclosure.  Some areas have still not yet recovered to pre-recession pricing (my old area being one of them).

The mortgage insurance industry was destroyed.  The Federal Government had to place the two largest (quasi) private insurers in receivership in order to keep capital liquid in the market.
 
Interest rates plummeted, harming seniors counting on that stable income for retirement purposes. It still remains (IMHO) artificially low to this day.

Personally, my portfolio lost about 30% and took about 4 years to recover to pre-crash levels. 

DH ended up taking a total cut in pay of about 35% in order to keep a job. He (and many like him) will never be able to make up those lifetime lost wages.

DH and I lost about 80K in real money on the house we sold last year.  Not imaginary "this is what the house was worth at it's peak" money, but real this is what we paid for money. We have two different family members who are in similar situations.

Many people (myself included) did not get raises for several years as companies were struggling to survive. 

I think we have several posters on the boards even now who want to move but can't because their houses are still underwater.

[Deleted]

I think we have several posters on the boards even now who want to move but can't because their houses are still underwater.

I don't bring it up a lot here, or even think about it a lot because I have no plans to move any time soon, but the value of my house plummeted and was still nowhere close to what I paid for it the last time I looked. I was already in my house before the prices started going crazy, so it's not like I bought during the bubble and overpaid. 

[emma1420]

Jun 8, 2015 15:06:44 GMT -5 @pinkcshmere said:

I think we have several posters on the boards even now who want to move but can't because their houses are still underwater.

I don't bring it up a lot here, or even think about it a lot because I have no plans to move any time soon, but the value of my house plummeted and was still nowhere close to what I paid for it the last time I looked. I was already in my house before the prices started going crazy, so it's not like I bought during the bubble and overpaid. 

I am in the same boat.  I bought my house in 2002, and in an area of the country that never saw any sort of huge run of prices, and if I sold it today I might be able to break even, if I was lucky (and only have to pay for realtor's fee's).  i would like to move, but until the housing market recovers to a point where I can do more than break even or until I have a down payment for another house saved then I'm stuck where I am.  I have a couple other friends in similar situations. 

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2015 14:06:28 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

How bad was the recession? I honestly felt no effect. I heard about it on the news but nothing much changed in my life. I heard about unemployment but honestly, I don't ever remember not hearing about unemployment.

DH and I were relatively unscathed except for our house. He was on SS; my income from my job was stagnant but it was stable and I enjoyed the work. Our house, which we bought in 2003 for $273,000 sold (provided the buyer gets financing) for $299K last month. It's in excellent condition and we'd put in a lot of improvements even though it was not HGTV-ready. The main reason we have any equity at all was our 15-year mortgage. Our investments, OTOH, were a disaster. I saw multiples of my annual salary evaporate from the value of our accounts before they hit bottom. It was pretty bad. Fortunately the good stuff recovered and I sure can't complain about the performance the last couple of years.

What I saw on these boards, in addition to people who were genuinely underwater due to buying at the peak in a hot market, was so many people who were being worked like slaves at their jobs, getting no increases, having benefits reduced (or made much more expensive) and management's attitude was, "we'll treat you like crap because we know you have no other options". I hope those employers are losing good people right and left as jobs open up elsewhere.

[Deleted]

At the risk of seeming like a heartless witch, the situations you guys are describing are a far cry from the Armageddon some would have us believe would happen if we let the big banks fail. I'm not going to continue this line of discussion because I'm not up to it today. 

[happyhoix]

I have a real issue with the guy who drove AIG basically into bankruptcy and thinks he didn't make enough money out of it. I sincerely hope he winds up in jail for all the financial laws he broke. It's one thing to make mistakes or take a bad risk. It's another thing to think you deserve to be paid for bad behavior...especially at the taxpayers' expense.

Same kind of crap as the CEO's who run their companies into the ground and then take their golden parachute in millions of dollars while they leave the company burning behind them.

If I screwed up enough I would be fired, don't let the door hit me on the ass. But if you're high enough up the food chain, you get a sweet package that can't be eliminated no matter how badly you screw the pooch, and how many of your former co-workers get laid off.

The CEO's already get paid exponentially more than the line operators, at least they should be running the company well while the sop up all that gravy.

[Deleted]

The banks and the bailout just piss me off so much and there isnt anything I can do.  It is just a bunch of wasted energy on my part.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2015 14:06:28 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

would have made the recession much worse that it alread was.

How bad was the recession? I honestly felt no effect. I heard about it on the news but nothing much changed in my life. I heard about unemployment but honestly, I don't ever remember not hearing about unemployment.

I lost my job in  early 2008 and just got a job paying close to the same in Feb of this year.  I had several jobs in those intervening years but they were low paying jobs doing the same work.

[mroped]

When they did the bail out of this corporations they should've forced them into restructuring as in break them apart in smaller companies thA would not affect the economy at the same level in case another doozer hapens.
As is now they are still "too big to fail"
That asshat Greenberg or what's his face should be put in jail for being the cause of all other causes that lead to the recession.
These people have no shame!

As far as "underwater homes", I feel bad for those in that position because they got suckered in buying a place with an artificially inflated value. At the end of the day, the responsible ones bite the bulet and those that don't care walk away. 
Many Americans lived and still do live way above their means. Those that lost their homes due to sudden layoffs were not ready for that kind of house anyways. They streched themselves more than they could cover. 
Keeping up with the Jones's is not always ending well.

[Value Buy]

Jun 8, 2015 13:09:14 GMT -5 Bonny said:

I agree that on a macro level the bail-out of the major banking system needed to be done. Our "recession" really only lasted about 5 years. The '29 depression lasted over 10 years. I think all of us are too young to remember it. I also think it would have been a lot worse since the world is so much more inter-dependent financially.

I have a real issue with the guy who drove AIG basically into bankruptcy and thinks he didn't make enough money out of it. I sincerely hope he winds up in jail for all the financial laws he broke. It's one thing to make mistakes or take a bad risk. It's another thing to think you deserve to be paid for bad behavior...especially at the taxpayers' expense.

ETA: I also hope that the government can find some former employees who will testify against this jerk, proving once again that Karma is a B*tch!

Myself, I felt AIG received a raw deal.
The Government came in and stole the shares of the company.
Greenberg complained at the time and has been sueing since then.
Obviously he might have a case.
Fannie and Freddie, I am not quite as sure about.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2015 17:54:58 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jun 8, 2015 13:09:14 GMT -5 Bonny said:

I agree that on a macro level the bail-out of the major banking system needed to be done. Our "recession" really only lasted about 5 years. The '29 depression lasted over 10 years. I think all of us are too young to remember it. I also think it would have been a lot worse since the world is so much more inter-dependent financially.

I have a real issue with the guy who drove AIG basically into bankruptcy and thinks he didn't make enough money out of it. I sincerely hope he winds up in jail for all the financial laws he broke. It's one thing to make mistakes or take a bad risk. It's another thing to think you deserve to be paid for bad behavior...especially at the taxpayers' expense.

ETA: I also hope that the government can find some former employees who will testify against this jerk, proving once again that Karma is a B*tch!

Myself, I felt AIG received a raw deal.
The Government came in and stole the shares of the company.
Greenberg complained at the time and has been sueing since then.
Obviously he might have a case.
Fannie and Freddie, I am not quite as sure about.

No one knows when the rules are changed willy nilly to prop up whoever and whatever based on fear.  It is why a country should have some laws.  People are not capable of thinking on the fly on such a massive scale and getting things right.  We should have let the laws handle the mess.

[Bonny]

Jun 8, 2015 16:26:30 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I have a real issue with the guy who drove AIG basically into bankruptcy and thinks he didn't make enough money out of it. I sincerely hope he winds up in jail for all the financial laws he broke. It's one thing to make mistakes or take a bad risk. It's another thing to think you deserve to be paid for bad behavior...especially at the taxpayers' expense.

Same kind of crap as the CEO's who run their companies into the ground and then take their golden parachute in millions of dollars while they leave the company burning behind them.

If I screwed up enough I would be fired, don't let the door hit me on the ass. But if you're high enough up the food chain, you get a sweet package that can't be eliminated no matter how badly you screw the pooch, and how many of your former co-workers get laid off.

The CEO's already get paid exponentially more than the line operators, at least they should be running the company well while the sop up all that gravy.

Companies fail all the time. In this case these were companies that were strategic enough that they would have affected not only the US economy but a domino effect that would have affected the world wide economy. Expecting the US tax payers to bail them out AND complaining (actually suing) because they didn't make enough money out of the deal is appalling.

[Value Buy]

Jun 8, 2015 18:01:12 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Jun 8, 2015 16:26:30 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Same kind of crap as the CEO's who run their companies into the ground and then take their golden parachute in millions of dollars while they leave the company burning behind them.

If I screwed up enough I would be fired, don't let the door hit me on the ass. But if you're high enough up the food chain, you get a sweet package that can't be eliminated no matter how badly you screw the pooch, and how many of your former co-workers get laid off.

The CEO's already get paid exponentially more than the line operators, at least they should be running the company well while the sop up all that gravy.

Companies fail all the time. In this case these were companies that were strategic enough that they would have affected not only the US economy but a domino effect that would have affected the world wide economy. Expecting the US tax payers to bail them out AND complaining (actually suing) because they didn't make enough money out of the deal is appalling.

In Greenberg's case, it was taking his equity from him, not the salary or bonus.

[Bonny]

Jun 8, 2015 14:06:28 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

would have made the recession much worse that it alread was.

How bad was the recession? I honestly felt no effect. I heard about it on the news but nothing much changed in my life. I heard about unemployment but honestly, I don't ever remember not hearing about unemployment.

Seriously?

The company DH worked for laid off 100s of thousands of people and essentially pulled out of the US markets. He was only a handful of folks who were asked (and oddly enough willing) to relocate out of the country. Many of his colleagues are on their 3rd jobs; two of them, including a former boss, have been laid off again and have been unemployed for over a year. These are guys in their 50s in IT and are going to have a hard time finding another job.

[Bonny]

Jun 8, 2015 18:06:28 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jun 8, 2015 18:01:12 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Companies fail all the time. In this case these were companies that were strategic enough that they would have affected not only the US economy but a domino effect that would have affected the world wide economy. Expecting the US tax payers to bail them out AND complaining (actually suing) because they didn't make enough money out of the deal is appalling.

In Greenberg's case, it was taking his equity from him, not the salary or bonus.

What kind of equity is in a bankrupt business?