• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Treasury's toxic asset plan could cost $1 trillion

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
My Way News - Treasury's toxic asset plan could cost $1 trillion

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration's latest attempt to tackle the banking crisis and get loans flowing to families and businesses will create a new government entity, the Public-Private Investment Program, to help purchase as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets on banks' books.

I though TARP 1 was supposed to do this.

A trillion here, a trillion there, a half here, some there, you can't have this, you can't go there, you can't fly that jet, don't go take your business to Vegas... retard... now is the time, now is the time... yes we can, now is the time... yes we can... Hey! what do you think you're doing? Bonus? No, no, no... not in this KKK of A you don't... Hey somebody get the head of ACORN on the line and.. ugh... cut the military and it is about time our military pay for their own own private insurance... Hi Iran... wanna dance? Sorry about our last President... I love you... Ugh did we bomb Pakistan yet? WE have! OK... good... But did we tell India and Pakistan we would fix their mess... they told us to what? Go and **** off? Oh... well... take bombing Pakistan off our checklist... it's done... and about Israel... tell them to cool it... ugh right... socialized medicine... who said anything about cutting programs... I never said that during the election... not one time... let's lard this baby up good so Franklin, Adams and Washington choke... Rev. Wright said what? ...Keep up the good work... ok... tell him I'll call later...
 
Last edited:
True enough - but FINALLY a plan that is going at the CAUSE of the problem rather than the symptoms that were addressed by the Pelosi Socialist Stimulus Plan. (PSSP)
 
Treasury's toxic asset plan could cost $1 trillion

My Way News - Treasury's toxic asset plan could cost $1 trillion

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration's latest attempt to tackle the banking crisis and get loans flowing to families and businesses will create a new government entity, the Public-Private Investment Program, to help purchase as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets on banks' books.

The new effort, to be unveiled Monday, will be followed the next day with release of the administration's broad framework for overhauling the financial system to ensure that the current crisis - the worst in seven decades - is not repeated.

A key part of that regulatory framework will give the government new resolution authority to take over troubled institutions that would pose a threat to the entire financial system if they failed.




Is he kidding? How much more money are they going to throw here? We can't keep doing this, something is going to give......
 
It should be noted that as currently envisioned--and that's an important caveat--the cost should come to far less than $1 trillion. The troubled assets will not be purchased at face value. More than likely, they'll be purchased at a steep discount.
 
My Way News - Treasury's toxic asset plan could cost $1 trillion

I though TARP 1 was supposed to do this.

A trillion here, a trillion there, a half here, some there, you can't have this, you can't go there, you can't fly that jet, don't go take your business to Vegas... retard... now is the time, now is the time... yes we can, now is the time... yes we can... Hey! what do you think you're doing? Bonus? No, no, no... not in this KKK of A you don't... Hey somebody get the head of ACORN on the line and.. ugh... cut the military and it is about time our military pay for their own own private insurance... Hi Iran... wanna dance? Sorry about our last President... I love you... Ugh did we bomb Pakistan yet? WE have! OK... good... But did we tell India and Pakistan we would fix their mess... they told us to what? Go and **** off? Oh... well... take bombing Pakistan off our checklist... it's done... and about Israel... tell them to cool it... ugh right... socialized medicine... who said anything about cutting programs... I never said that during the election... not one time... let's lard this baby up good so Franklin, Adams and Washington choke... Rev. Wright said what? ...Keep up the good work... ok... tell him I'll call later...

First off it is idiotic to call any "asset" "toxic." Are they poisonous to the touch? Do they contain hazardous materials?

These are "assets" which have lost SOME of their value; but being that they are secured by mortgages and real estate, they have a lot of upside when the economy recovers.

Here is the laughable part of this joke of a Government slight of hand:

"The initiative will seek to entice private investors, including big hedge funds, to participate by offering billions of dollars in low-interest loans to finance the purchases. The government will share the risks if the assets fall further in price."

Here we go again; we are going to make low interest loans available guaranteed on the backs of the tax payers to attempt to distort the market and induce people to buy up risky mortgages.

Good lord; you can't make this level of lunacy up folks. Trillions more upon the 9.3 trillion estimated deficits for the next ten years, and we STILL have not had a debate about WHO is going to pay for all this stupidity.
 
It should be noted that as currently envisioned--and that's an important caveat--the cost should come to far less than $1 trillion. The troubled assets will not be purchased at face value. More than likely, they'll be purchased at a steep discount.

Who is going to pay the difference between the "face value" and deep discount?
 
It should be noted that as currently envisioned--and that's an important caveat--the cost should come to far less than $1 trillion. The troubled assets will not be purchased at face value. More than likely, they'll be purchased at a steep discount.

Then what is the difference between the government scooping them up and selling them on the market? Is this "steep discount" a better price than market value or something? In which case they'd still lose massive amounts of money, but just less massive amounts?
 
Who is going to pay the difference between the "face value" and deep discount?

Although banks will probably sell the troubled assets at a steep discount (probably $0.25-$0.50 per $1.00 of face value), not all of the troubled assets will prove to be non-peforming assets. If the 1989-94 housing downturn/S&L crisis provides some guidance, asset valuations will probably recover to the vicinity of $0.65 to $0.85 per $1.00 of face value.

Hence, the investors (private and public) who purchase those assets might realize gains from excess of the payment streams associated with those assets over the price at which they purchased them. In addition, as the situation becomes more clear, some investors who purchased such assets at discounts will be able to sell them to other investors at a higher price.
 
Back
Top Bottom