Comments on: Reminder: the US has yet to make a profit on its bailout investments http://www.mutantfrog.com/2009/09/22/reminder-the-us-has-yet-to-make-a-profit-on-its-bailout-investments/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=reminder-the-us-has-yet-to-make-a-profit-on-its-bailout-investments Photos, Stories and articles on East Asia Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:58:45 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Curzon http://www.mutantfrog.com/2009/09/22/reminder-the-us-has-yet-to-make-a-profit-on-its-bailout-investments/comment-page-1/#comment-417751 Curzon Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:11:31 +0000 http://www.mutantfrog.com/?p=5288#comment-417751 Spot on Adamu -- thanks. Spot on Adamu—thanks.

]]> By: Roy Berman http://www.mutantfrog.com/2009/09/22/reminder-the-us-has-yet-to-make-a-profit-on-its-bailout-investments/comment-page-1/#comment-417652 Roy Berman Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:42:11 +0000 http://www.mutantfrog.com/?p=5288#comment-417652 I think Adam's point is that even if they've made a 17% profit on the tiny fraction that has been returned so far, they are probably still going to take a severe loss on some of the majority of bailout funds that have yet to be returned. Which is pretty much what everyone expected from the beginning, but all of this crowing about early returns looks to me like a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue. I think Adam’s point is that even if they’ve made a 17% profit on the tiny fraction that has been returned so far, they are probably still going to take a severe loss on some of the majority of bailout funds that have yet to be returned. Which is pretty much what everyone expected from the beginning, but all of this crowing about early returns looks to me like a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.

]]> By: Peter http://www.mutantfrog.com/2009/09/22/reminder-the-us-has-yet-to-make-a-profit-on-its-bailout-investments/comment-page-1/#comment-417644 Peter Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:33:44 +0000 http://www.mutantfrog.com/?p=5288#comment-417644 Adamu, I fail to see where the statement of the 17% return is refuted, or where there is a survivorship bias. Even Weil's article doesn't really make it clear. If he were clear, he would have had a number to replace that 17%. The greater concern is not the return on taxpayer money, in my opinion. It is rather the ability for the FDIC to absorb further regional bank failures without compromising the standards for bank workouts that it has held thus far. The more it seems that the FDIC is running thin on funds to absorb the weekly losses, the more it seems likely that the FDIC will allow private equity firms to purchase banks, on terms favorable to the private equity companies. Adamu, I fail to see where the statement of the 17% return is refuted, or where there is a survivorship bias. Even Weil’s article doesn’t really make it clear. If he were clear, he would have had a number to replace that 17%.

The greater concern is not the return on taxpayer money, in my opinion. It is rather the ability for the FDIC to absorb further regional bank failures without compromising the standards for bank workouts that it has held thus far. The more it seems that the FDIC is running thin on funds to absorb the weekly losses, the more it seems likely that the FDIC will allow private equity firms to purchase banks, on terms favorable to the private equity companies.

]]>