New York Fed’s Secret Choice to Pay for AIG Swaps Hits Taxpayers

[TDMVPDPOY]

Meh. I think you're making too big of a deal over the shareholders. I'd be pissed at who got the money, not at the shareholders who just managed to avoid a total loss because someone else was getting the money.

fck the shareholders, investing into shares they know what the risks involve for good yields, they already accept the risks of price flunctuations in shares, so why did they deserve a bailout???

govt shouldve just bought all their shares at whatever market value it was at the time and nationalize the banks....

[coyotes_geek]

They didn't get a bailout. The bank got the bailout, not the shareholders who owned it. Depending on the situation, that bailout to the bank may have prevented the shareholders from taking a 100% loss on their investment.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i think i found the perfect solution to the bank bailouts

fck the shareholders should accept the loss just like every other ordinary person who invest in shares in other companies that didnt get a bailout, cause they know what they are investing into and dont deserve a bailout like those who are into low risk investments...

the govt didnt get back from the banks, shouldve just allowed them to default and buy the bank or start up a new one with slate credit debt, to get their money back would either privatised the govts share holding or issue shares back to the market...

the amount of money wasted in the bailouts, the govt couldve just started up their own bank and you will see the amount of ppl switchin to the govts bank...

[Winehole23]

the amount of money wasted in the bailouts, the govt couldve just started up their own bank and you will see the amount of ppl switchin to the govts bank...

During the great depression, before deposit insurance, something like this happened in the USA. Busted banks are now reorganized by the FDIC. 420 or so banks have failed in the US since 2008.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/.../banklist.html

In contrast, in the five years prior to 2008, only 11 banks had failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...0%93present%29

[Winehole23]

hard to believe:

In August, the US Treasury Department responded to a 2013 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s communications during the 2008 bailout of American International Group (AIG) by claiming that the agency could not find any records.


The FOIA request was filed in May of 2013 and the agency notified the requester about the completion of the records search in August of 2015. The FOIA request sought records related to the 2008 AIG bailout, specifically, records of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s communications about AIG from June 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009.


The Treasury Department claimed in response to the FOIA request that they could not find any records, writing “A comprehensive search of Treasury’s official correspondence tracking system failed to locate or identify any responsive records.”

http://shadowproof.com/2015/09/02/tr...d-aig-bailout/

[Winehole23]

Fed restricts bailouts to only five or more insolvent firms at a time:

The Federal Reserve took the final step to ensure it can’t repeat the extraordinary measures taken to rescue American International Group Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos. in 2008, adopting formal restrictions on its ability to help failing financial firms.


Under the revised authority approved in a 5-0 vote Monday, the Fed would only be able to save firms in a broad-based scenario including at least five en ies at the same time. The changes are designed to reflect Congress’ intention in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act to prevent the central bank from bailing out individual companies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...style-bailouts

[Winehole23]

S&P bank ratings downgraded on the news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...nks-cut-by-s-p

[boutons_deux]

Fed restricts bailouts to only five or more insolvent firms at a time:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...style-bailouts

well, the BigFive banks take the biggest risks, will need the biggest bailouts so this is bull "limit".

btw, the Repugs want to repeal, kill Frank-Dodd/CFPB completely.

[boutons_deux]

S&P bank ratings downgraded on the news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...nks-cut-by-s-p

the banks just have to respond to S&P shakedown by paying them more to up their ratings.

[RandomGuy]

S&P bank ratings downgraded on the news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...nks-cut-by-s-p

Read that.

Good to see free market discipline being restored.

[RandomGuy]

well, the BigFive banks take the biggest risks, will need the biggest bailouts so this is bull "limit".

To some degree, yes, BUT, that still limits it somewhat and sends a fairly clear signal to the markets, even if the distinction doesn't mean as much as it might seem at first glance.

Any step towards forcing big banks to be more prudent is a good one, IMO.