-
Website
http://venturebeat.com/ -
Original page
http://venturebeat.com/2008/10/14/lets-face-it-were-socialists-bank-bailouts-to-proceed/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
ed hardy
515 comments · 1 points
-
Eric Eldon
349 comments · 13 points
-
edsion007
54 comments · 4 points
-
Haggie
94 comments · 4 points
-
MG Siegler
1126 comments · 30 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Does Avatar represent the future of movies? Maybe not
3 hours ago · 3 comments
-
Twitter is profitable, says BusinessWeek
6 hours ago · 3 comments
-
The year it exploded: 10 hottest Chinese social games of 2009
6 hours ago · 2 comments
-
Ford to add in-car Wi-Fi option that lets user choose the carrier
3 hours ago · 1 comment
-
Youku.com, Chinese video website, raises $40M
17 hours ago · 3 comments
-
Does Avatar represent the future of movies? Maybe not
The govt with Freddie and Fannie has always implied a guarantee of underlying debt security with full faith of the US Govt. This was designed to ensure affordable loans by reducing risks inherent in issuance of loans. The GI Bill actually lead to the economic growth after WWII across nation by providing education and cheap home ownership. Nothing like having good citizens that own land to become even better constituents under the debt load and private property ownership.
The main difference generally between Republican and Socialist Democrats, Republicans believe business owners contribute more to the economic development of the nation than others' contribute. Republicans want less government involved in their pursuit of capital and profits: regulations and taxes. Republicans want all the benefits and want to share less of the burden due to their contribution under a free and level playing field.
But during times of crisis the government plays an important role for society in providing a stable system and investment for growth. The government is need in times of war and peace. And now, more than ever, the government is needed in times of financial crisis.
I don't think you would find a Republican refusing any assistance form the government that would ensure their family lively hood and retirement (401k). Capitalism can be too tough for the staunch Republicans values and fee market unbearable to stomach as capital disappears from their coffers.
I'm assuming the rationale is that if it's the most obvious sweetest sweetest deal for the banks, the bank stocks will go rocket. Paulson bulletproofed 'em (we'll see in the long run). Right now, it looks like they got something more like debt (at 5%, behind current bondholders)-- no restrictions, no equity dilution, no dividend suspension, no change in management, no board seat, and a perfect credit score for the institution going forward. I'd say that's something for bankers to smile about.
The 15% warrants are a way the papers can report that the government gets "upside", when relatively speaking, it's marginal.
Compare to Warren Buffet's 10% preferred and 100% warrants, lockdown on executive share sales until they buy him out and of course, no 'full faith and credit' guarantee of all new debt going forward. But if the govt were too onerous, the good banks would complain and then it might cost paulson just as much to bail out the bad ones.
The idea that this was "forced" on banks for the good of the country is 95% theater.
Michael Kassing
MarkTend.com (thinking about changing our name to MarkTend Bank and seeking a bailout)
http://www.entertonement.com/collections/4696/H...
www.tiffanyjewelleryonsale.co.uk