Author Topic: Obama to nationalize banks  (Read 1015 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline briann

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 8038
  • Mmmm HMMMMM
Obama to nationalize banks
« on: April 20, 2009, 04:02:15 PM »
This was obviously the plan from the start.   To convert the Government's debt to equity (stocks) giving the government voting rights and near-total control of the banks that they 'bailed' out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30300700/


U.S. to convert banks’ bailouts to equity share
White House: Approach will prevent need to seek more cash from Congress
   
Video
  Bank customers next in line for aid?
April 19: As President Obama acknowledges that billions more may be needed to bail out struggling banks, he’s eager to be seen helping consumers as well. NBC’s John Yang reports.

Nightly News
   
Bank Tracker
Image: Bank teller helping customer
   
Data file
Check financial reports for each of 8,000 banks in the U.S. in the Bank Tracker, from msnbc.com and American University's Investigative Reporting Workshop.
   
In Shift, Obama Doesn’t Plan to Reopen Nafta Talks
U.S. May Convert Banks’ Bailouts to Equity Share
Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects
Obama’s Revenue Plans Hit Resistance in Congress
Hemisphere’s Leaders Signal Fresh Start With U.S.
By Edmund L. Andrews
updated 11:17 p.m. PT, Sun., April 19, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s top economic advisers have determined that they can shore up the nation’s banking system without having to ask Congress for more money any time soon, according to administration officials.

In a significant shift, White House and Treasury Department officials now say they can stretch what is left of the $700 billion financial bailout fund further than they had expected a few months ago, simply by converting the government’s existing loans to the nation’s 19 biggest banks into common stock.

Converting those loans to common shares would turn the federal aid into available capital for a bank — and give the government a large ownership stake in return.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

While the option appears to be a quick and easy way to avoid a confrontation with Congressional leaders wary of putting more money into the banks, some critics would consider it a back door to nationalization, since the government could become the largest shareholder in several banks.

The Treasury has already negotiated this kind of conversion with Citigroup and has said it would consider doing the same with other banks, as needed. But now the administration seems convinced that this maneuver can be used to make up for any shortfall in capital that the big banks confront in the near term.

More risk to taxpayers
Each conversion of this type would force the administration to decide how to handle its considerable voting rights on a bank’s board.

Taxpayers would also be taking on more risk, because there is no way to know what the common shares might be worth when it comes time for the government to sell them.

Treasury officials estimate that they will have about $135 billion left after they follow through on all the loans that have already been announced. But the nation’s banks are believed to need far more than that to maintain enough capital to absorb all their losses from soured mortgages and other loan defaults.

In his budget proposal for next year, Mr. Obama included $250 billion in additional spending to prop up the financial system. Because of the way the government accounts for such spending, the budget actually indicated that Mr. Obama might ask Congress for as much as $750 billion.


Online Zelhar

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10688
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2009, 04:07:37 PM »
Can they force this conversion on the banks ?

Offline briann

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 8038
  • Mmmm HMMMMM
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2009, 04:19:55 PM »
Can they force this conversion on the banks ?

This is all unprecedented.... and the administration is sorta making the rules as they go along.  Remember what they did with Wagner? (GM CEO) and GM's board?

The big question is.. who can stop them?  When a company (Or even a state) accepts a bailout money... its not for free.   They have accepted a deal with the devil.... and (sometimes unwillingly) given over the reins to the government.

The stockholders have no say.... their stocks value is near worthless... and they shouldn't own stocks with any value at all... since the banks shoulda gone through some sort of bankruptcy preceding anyway... and redistributed new stocks.

The other lenders have little say... they just don't want to lose any of their holdings... and are very much willing to go along with this.... assuming the government continues to guarantee everything.

To put it simply... The government has the bank painted in a corner.  Checkmate.

Online cjd

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 8996
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2009, 07:14:35 PM »
Can they force this conversion on the banks ?

This is all unprecedented.... and the administration is sorta making the rules as they go along.  Remember what they did with Wagner? (GM CEO) and GM's board?

The big question is.. who can stop them?  When a company (Or even a state) accepts a bailout money... its not for free.   They have accepted a deal with the devil.... and (sometimes unwillingly) given over the reins to the government.

The stockholders have no say.... their stocks value is near worthless... and they shouldn't own stocks with any value at all... since the banks shoulda gone through some sort of bankruptcy preceding anyway... and redistributed new stocks.

The other lenders have little say... they just don't want to lose any of their holdings... and are very much willing to go along with this.... assuming the government continues to guarantee everything.

To put it simply... The government has the bank painted in a corner.  Checkmate.
I saw on tonight's news where Chrysler Financing wants to return the tarp funds they borrowed because they want to avoid the outside interference that comes along with the money. Many other banks are lining up to do the same. Back in the last recession the government used something called the Resolution Trust to fold what was left of an insolvent banks assets into banks that were in better shape. I did not like the fix at the time since the taxpayer had to foot some of the bill but it seems like it was a better way to go then whats developing now.
He who overlooks one crime invites the commission of another.        Syrus.

A light on to the nations for 60 years


Offline briann

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 8038
  • Mmmm HMMMMM
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2009, 07:29:02 PM »
Can they force this conversion on the banks ?

This is all unprecedented.... and the administration is sorta making the rules as they go along.  Remember what they did with Wagner? (GM CEO) and GM's board?

The big question is.. who can stop them?  When a company (Or even a state) accepts a bailout money... its not for free.   They have accepted a deal with the devil.... and (sometimes unwillingly) given over the reins to the government.

The stockholders have no say.... their stocks value is near worthless... and they shouldn't own stocks with any value at all... since the banks shoulda gone through some sort of bankruptcy preceding anyway... and redistributed new stocks.

The other lenders have little say... they just don't want to lose any of their holdings... and are very much willing to go along with this.... assuming the government continues to guarantee everything.

To put it simply... The government has the bank painted in a corner.  Checkmate.
I saw on tonight's news where Chrysler Financing wants to return the tarp funds they borrowed because they want to avoid the outside interference that comes along with the money. Many other banks are lining up to do the same. Back in the last recession the government used something called the Resolution Trust to fold what was left of an insolvent banks assets into banks that were in better shape. I did not like the fix at the time since the taxpayer had to foot some of the bill but it seems like it was a better way to go then whats developing now.

Yes... This is a very good point.   The companies have figured out Obama's plan (Its pretty obvious now) and the officers dont want to be the next 'Wagner'.... nor do the majority of the management want to see a private company become a entity of the government.

The Resolution Trust was not this last recession... it was for the S&L disaster.   Its main job WASNT to to bail out and nationalize... NOT AT ALL.. it was just a vehicle to help sell off the assets of insolvent institutions.  The taxpayers lost most of their money through the replacing of the lost deposits (Through FDIC)....  That was quite a bit.... I think 200 Billion... but that is still pennies compared to whats going on now.

Offline drlmg

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2009, 07:43:37 PM »
The Nobama adm. is refusing to take the money back.

Online cjd

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 8996
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2009, 07:47:25 PM »
Can they force this conversion on the banks ?

This is all unprecedented.... and the administration is sorta making the rules as they go along.  Remember what they did with Wagner? (GM CEO) and GM's board?

The big question is.. who can stop them?  When a company (Or even a state) accepts a bailout money... its not for free.   They have accepted a deal with the devil.... and (sometimes unwillingly) given over the reins to the government.

The stockholders have no say.... their stocks value is near worthless... and they shouldn't own stocks with any value at all... since the banks shoulda gone through some sort of bankruptcy preceding anyway... and redistributed new stocks.

The other lenders have little say... they just don't want to lose any of their holdings... and are very much willing to go along with this.... assuming the government continues to guarantee everything.

To put it simply... The government has the bank painted in a corner.  Checkmate.
I saw on tonight's news where Chrysler Financing wants to return the tarp funds they borrowed because they want to avoid the outside interference that comes along with the money. Many other banks are lining up to do the same. Back in the last recession the government used something called the Resolution Trust to fold what was left of an insolvent banks assets into banks that were in better shape. I did not like the fix at the time since the taxpayer had to foot some of the bill but it seems like it was a better way to go then whats developing now.

Yes... This is a very good point.   The companies have figured out Obama's plan (Its pretty obvious now) and the officers dont want to be the next 'Wagner'.... nor do the majority of the management want to see a private company become a entity of the government.

The Resolution Trust was not this last recession... it was for the S&L disaster.   Its main job WASNT to to bail out and nationalize... NOT AT ALL.. it was just a vehicle to help sell off the assets of insolvent institutions.  The taxpayers lost most of their money through the replacing of the lost deposits (Through FDIC)....  That was quite a bit.... I think 200 Billion... but that is still pennies compared to whats going on now.

Yes it was for the S&L disaster which was a few down turns ago.  I completely forgot about the dot com recession. Here in New York we lost quite a few of the smaller banks. Its funny 200 Billion sounded like a great deal of money back then but it sounds like petty cash today.
He who overlooks one crime invites the commission of another.        Syrus.

A light on to the nations for 60 years


Offline briann

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 8038
  • Mmmm HMMMMM
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2009, 08:41:35 PM »
Can they force this conversion on the banks ?

This is all unprecedented.... and the administration is sorta making the rules as they go along.  Remember what they did with Wagner? (GM CEO) and GM's board?

The big question is.. who can stop them?  When a company (Or even a state) accepts a bailout money... its not for free.   They have accepted a deal with the devil.... and (sometimes unwillingly) given over the reins to the government.

The stockholders have no say.... their stocks value is near worthless... and they shouldn't own stocks with any value at all... since the banks shoulda gone through some sort of bankruptcy preceding anyway... and redistributed new stocks.

The other lenders have little say... they just don't want to lose any of their holdings... and are very much willing to go along with this.... assuming the government continues to guarantee everything.

To put it simply... The government has the bank painted in a corner.  Checkmate.
I saw on tonight's news where Chrysler Financing wants to return the tarp funds they borrowed because they want to avoid the outside interference that comes along with the money. Many other banks are lining up to do the same. Back in the last recession the government used something called the Resolution Trust to fold what was left of an insolvent banks assets into banks that were in better shape. I did not like the fix at the time since the taxpayer had to foot some of the bill but it seems like it was a better way to go then whats developing now.

Yes... This is a very good point.   The companies have figured out Obama's plan (Its pretty obvious now) and the officers dont want to be the next 'Wagner'.... nor do the majority of the management want to see a private company become a entity of the government.

The Resolution Trust was not this last recession... it was for the S&L disaster.   Its main job WASNT to to bail out and nationalize... NOT AT ALL.. it was just a vehicle to help sell off the assets of insolvent institutions.  The taxpayers lost most of their money through the replacing of the lost deposits (Through FDIC)....  That was quite a bit.... I think 200 Billion... but that is still pennies compared to whats going on now.

Yes it was for the S&L disaster which was a few down turns ago.  I completely forgot about the dot com recession. Here in New York we lost quite a few of the smaller banks. Its funny 200 Billion sounded like a great deal of money back then but it sounds like petty cash today.

Well, I remember how angry we were when Clinton proposed a $35 billion dollar stimulus plan at the end of that recession.  Adjusted for inflation... it would be about 50 billion dollars. (Which was actually primarily used for infrastructure)

OK... 50 billion... compared to 800 billion (not including all the other garbage.. omnibus. etc etc... which has been estimated to be OVER 3 trillion)... and of which almost NONE goes to infrastructure.

And whats worse... doing it in the MIDDLE of a recession.

Lets also compare that to the New Deal.. ($5 billion in 1934 was the largest year) adjusted for inflation was.... 79  billion.  (thats less than half of JUST the AIG bailout.

Now its more accurate to compare it to GDP... that would have been 5/650 billion OR less than 1 percent.

Compare that to OBAMA!!!  His stimulus is expected to be 3.27 trillion. and will peak at about 600 billion in 2010.  600 billion compared with the total GDP.  600 billion/13 billion (projected GDP for 2010).   Thats 4.6%.  Thats nearly 5 TIMES larger than at the height of the great depression... after GDP had already collapsed.

More significantly... the deficit will increase $2.5 trillion increase in the national debt for FY 2009, more than twice the record $1 trillion increase in 2008..

Offline SavetheWest

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1940
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2009, 01:57:09 AM »
I read from a Wall Street Journal article that the government is making it hard for the banking institutions to pay the money back.  They don't want to be paid back because that decreases the importance of government. 

Also, as the first baby boomers start to take their first social security checks, the country will be in $20 trillion in debt in 10 years. 

Online cjd

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 8996
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2009, 04:09:14 PM »
Briann, Proceding as this administration is the numbers stacking up leave me thinking that that the possibility for real recovery is almost an impossibility. In fact it seems like we are being put into a nose dive on purpose.  This administration seems bent on some sort of crazy power grab that will leave people who are the back bone of America broke and disarmed. The thing I can't figure out is why is a downtrodden society better then one that is productive and prosperous.
He who overlooks one crime invites the commission of another.        Syrus.

A light on to the nations for 60 years


Offline briann

  • Silver Star JTF Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 8038
  • Mmmm HMMMMM
Re: Obama to nationalize banks
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2009, 05:20:07 PM »
Briann, Proceding as this administration is the numbers stacking up leave me thinking that that the possibility for real recovery is almost an impossibility. In fact it seems like we are being put into a nose dive on purpose.  This administration seems bent on some sort of crazy power grab that will leave people who are the back bone of America broke and disarmed. The thing I can't figure out is why is a downtrodden society better then one that is productive and prosperous.

Yeah... its a possibility that we could follow the path of Argentina...   If things continue at this rate.

Its just so unprecedented.... so its really tough to gauge things.  Lets all just keep an eye on unemployment... because that is the BEST indicator of a complete economic collapse.  Well.. that and the banks. (Which may have a catastrophic collapse at the end of this year)