Report: U.S. Is Considering Large Stake in Citigroup
By Susie Madrak Monday Feb 23, 2009 5:15pmWhy more of this creeping incrementalism? If the banks are in such bad shape that they need U.S. ownership to stay afloat, isn't that pretty much the time to stop the charade? When even Alan Greenspan is saying to nationalize the banks, isn't it time to actually, you know, do it?
Citigroup Inc. is in talks with federal officials that could result in the U.S. government substantially expanding its ownership of the struggling bank, according to people familiar with the situation.
While the discussions could fall apart, the government could wind up holding as much as 40% of Citigroup's common stock. Bank executives hope the stake will be closer to 25%, these people said.
Any such move would give federal officials far greater influence over one of the world's largest financial institutions. Citigroup has proposed the plan to its regulators. The Obama administration hasn't indicated if it supports the plan, according to people with knowledge of the talks.
When federal officials began pumping capital into U.S. banks last October, few experts would have predicted that the government would soon be wrestling with the possibility of taking voting control of large financial institutions. The potential move at Citigroup would give the government its biggest ownership of a financial-services company since the September bailout of insurer American International Group Inc., which left taxpayers with an 80% stake.
The talks reflect a growing fear that Citigroup and other big U.S. banks could be overwhelmed by losses amid the recession and housing crisis. Last week, Citigroup's share price fell below $2 to an 18-year low. Bank executives increasingly believe that the government needs to take a larger ownership stake in the institution to stop the slide.
Under the scenario being considered, a substantial chunk of the $45 billion in preferred shares held by the government would convert into common stock, people familiar with the matter said. The government obtained those shares, equivalent to a 7.8% stake, in return for pumping capital into Citigroup.
The move wouldn't cost taxpayers additional money, but other Citigroup shareholders would see their stock diluted. A larger ownership stake by the government could fuel speculation that other troubled banks will line up for similar agreements.
Login or Register to post comments.
should become either socialized or federalized.
Let those who are creative stick to where creativity does well, not with the country's money.
of this back. It is felony theft on an unprecedented scale, pure and simple.
I still like Dennis Kucinich's approach better...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r_-QRKyu6g
Thanks for the link! I definitely support getting the Federal Reserve under government control.
...the Federal Reserve is an international group of banks who would just laugh and giggle at any attempt by the pitiful American congress to control them...
maybe...just maybe we could fire them. just get our own new money printing presses...?
Ironically - the Treasury prints our currency FOR the Federal Reserve. As a thank-you, the Fed charges us.
Right back at'cha Fed - YOU'RE FIRED.
That and instead of nationalizing the banks, let's follow the advice of Simon Johnson:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/pr...
Being "too big to fail" is the best argument for letting them do so.
you've been working as hard as anybody out here.
i swear, when the dust settles, i'm gonna print all us poor bastards up some shirts that read:
I HELPED TOPPLE A NEW WORLD ORDER, AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY SHIRT.
.
September bailout of insurer American International Group Inc., which left taxpayers with an 80% stake.
80% stake in what? AIG is already broke again and won't be able to operate past next Monday without another cash infusion.
What kind of stake-investment is that?
A big hole (in the water) you throw money into.
Pork stake.
...is about to buy a bunch of crap...for trillions of dollars...
and Banks will get trillions of dollars for selling a bunch of crap.
...and we are going to have to fork over alot of taxes (trillions) to pay for that huge pile of crap.
Lets just declare bankruptcy instead.
The taxpayers buying these companies is a bad deal.
The idea that the taxpayers would buy these companies and then turn them back over to the private sector; well if that happens it is time for a revolution.
but, these two guys sum (no pun intended) up our current situation perfectly:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article2...
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090216_...
Simply stated, what is needed here is a "CORRECTION" not more CORRUPTION.
Those damn commie pinko taxpayer-sucking socialist shithead corporations and their comrades - the republican party and blue dog democrats. Bunch of freakin' welfare queens. Free market baby, freeee market, all the way!
And either nationalize, or forget about it and let them tank.
All this half-assed crap is getting on my nerves.
the Vietnamese stategy. Obama is really messing up badly here, as he is with his defense of Bush policies in general. These banks need to be in receivership and he'd better stop thinking he's doing anyone a favor by covering for King George. It's getting real sad, real fast.
I think Citigroup owns my mortgage.
...a measurement...of death?
Think of how many people die without ever seeing their mortgage paid off.
rigor mortgage
Witty. Very witty.
I pay my taxes... Does that mean I'll own a 300 millionth of 40% of your house?
:-P Sorry, I'm sick and the math is eluding me...
Citigroup owns my mortgage as well. I feel anxious each time I read about them in the news...
may have snipped it up for further sale to and endless chain of buyers.
It's too big. Nationalize them all and rightsize! them.
I posted on another thread regarding the nationalization issue and I'll drop here again. But seriously folks, call it whatever you want. Our government has already committed our future taxes to bailing out the banks, the auto industry and the insurance industry and now AIG is ready to declare bankruptcy this coming Monday if they don't receive another 60 billion on top of the already 130 billion we as the tax payer have already provided. The system is broken and whether we call it nationalization or federalization, they broke it and now we own it. From last evening......
If we were in the position the bankers and politicians were in for the last decade, would any of us be willing to give the that power up? Human nature. We fear what we don't understand and change in mega doses coming to us in rapid fire is anathema to our senses.
Roubini and a few others saw the freight train coming but D.C. and Wall Street looked the other way until the inevitable was upon us. Dr. Nancy Kubler-Ross wrote the book " On Death And Dying", and outlined the stages we as humans face when confronted with our own end. We are now leaving the depression stage and acceptance is upon us.
Roubini saw what we couldn't imagine, what we didn't want to admit. That being that the banks that make up the composition of the private banks that make up the Federal Reserve were bloated, over extended and headed for insolvency. What is a sovereign government to do? That is where we are at this moment in time and the die has been cast.
Personally I don't fear nationalization whether temporary or permanent and hopefully the latter because this was the gift that the founders gave us. A money system that was controlled by we the people not a run for profit system that could easily be lead astray by those who would take advantage all in the name of profit for the few at the top.
Those complaining the loudest like the talking heads on CNBC fear for their friends in the hallowed canyons of Wall Street. No more golden parachutes, private jets, spa junkets or hundreds of millions in bonuses paid for a job well done. Now they will have to answer to a higher authority. We the American people.
second that.
Shall we call for a vote?!
Anybody here know Roberts' Rules?
Don't tell his wife Roberta?
don't blow smoke up his @$$, unless it's the only way to save the gerbil..?
too f'ing funny.
Thanks for a great laugh tonight.
I needed it.
In the meantime, shall we call this to a freakin' vote??
Ha!!!!
... with transparency and oversight -but we have to clean up the government across the board -and that won't happen until the proper folks are tossed in paddy wagons.
there are a handful of baddies who have to be made an example of.
... we gave private bankers their chance, for nearly 100 years. the gig is up.
I do but I am rusty.
Do we have a quorum.
Someone request a quorum call.
Would have to tell us when we had a quorum, me thinks.
Maybe John should call all this to a vote and set a date for it, say this time tomorrow night?
Are you there John? Site monitors?
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 18:29 — Alice X - Choms...
I do but I am rusty.
Do we have a quorum.
Someone request a quorum call.
___________________________________________________________
Is that like one of those 1-900 Sex Chat lines?
Professor ysbaddaden
is that you?
I like playing doctorate.
But now it's time to pass out.
Over served are you?
Time to nationalize. Fire every bank employee who doesn't stand at a window and greet the public and get us back on our feet.
Not because we're socialists. Because we're capitalists. And capitalists need reliable financial institutions.
Reliable. Not innovative. Reliable.
Nationalize because we ARE socialists!
That would mean we PROTECT the taxpayers. That is what socialism is about.
The Nationalization you are going to get from this crowd will be a Corporatist Nationalization.
That will mean National in name only.
See my link below, here.
*** That would mean we PROTECT the taxpayers. That is what socialism is about.***
No argument, but we already have that kind of socialism for banking (FDIC.)
This isn't about protecting taxpayers. This is about keeping the financial markets operating.
You mean just screw the taxpayer and keep shoveling the money down the Fat Cats money pit.
In other words.
That is precisely what the Fat Cats have in mind. They love you!
But no so much for them to give the money back.
why should we not own what we pay for.
Report: U.S. Is Considering Large Stake in Citigroup
_______________________________________________________
Through the heart, or through the groin?
Here on September 16, '08 from the Wall Street Journal is the initial story which read 'U.S. to Take Over AIG in $85 Billion Bailout; Central Banks Inject Cash as Credit Dries Up'.
That was reported to equal an 80% and thereby controlling stake.
The article gives a graphic of the second quarter 2008 compared with the second quarter 2007. The Financial Services section was the big loser at -$5.91 billion.
The Financial Services section sold Credit Default Swaps. They lost $6 billion in one quarter. The Swaps kept coming and the entire company was dragged down. So are we told.
Even the $85 billion was not enough. Despite the 80% stake and having dismissed the previous officers the government negotiated with AIG as if they were an ongoing private concern.
Here from November 10, '08 is the Reuters report that the Government was increasing the amount to $150 billion. Additional loses due to more Credit Default Swaps in the third quarter.
Here from today is a report that AIG has lost another $60 billion. The Credit Default Swaps keep coming.
Here is Bloomberg in an analysis and discussion with NY Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo who is charged with the oversight of AIG.
He categorically states that AIGs losses are from Credit Default Swaps.
The scandal here is two fold. Eighty five billion dollars got the taxpayers an 80% stake, it seems according to the most recent article that the agreement limits the taxpayer to 80% in spite of the fact that the money has been nearly doubled.
In order to cover the latest $60 billion the money could be tripled. According to this scheme no matter how much you pour in you will only have 80% and that does not mean control, or safeguards.
The second scandalous issue is that fact that these Credit Default Swaps are being paid at face value.
Other than the original investors on a security, these are speculators, some or maybe many of whom had inside information on the ratings agencies rating fraud. Here and here is Bloomberg on the ratings agencies.
Why would an otherwise disinterested party, a speculator, buy a a billion dollar CDS that might cost $20 million a year, or $40 million.
There is fraud afoot and the government is completing the scam.
All the major banks dealt in Credit Default Swaps, Citi was big on them.
This is an illustration of how this government is going to pour money into a black hole without any safeguards for the taxpayers.
Or without prosecuting any of the crooks behind this vast swindle and boondoggle.
Buyer beware.
I say let the Govnmt take them over. Entirely. As well as BofA and any other major financial institution which is basically bankrupt.
Replace the entire top management, without any parachutes, without honoring any sweet deals for them. Just let them go, have them apply for the same unemployment benefits anyone else would.
Have honest, knowlegdable people take the reigns - people recommended by, say Soros or Buffet. Reasonable, realistic people. Then set a goal and give a sizeable bonus if set goal will be reached.
Sheesj - how hard is this to figure out???!!!
Our (lesbian) mortgage is with Citi. Mind you, the sq. footage of our entire HOUSE is only slightly more than the sq. footage of the Oval Office in and by itself. Think about that.
We bought a cheap house, fixed it up. We are up-to-date on our mortgage payments.
I lost my job early July last year. Our income has changed, yet our mortgage payment hasn't. Yet the company that holds our mortgage, the company we write our checks to each month, yes, THEY HAVE GOTTEN BILLIONS MORE OF OUR MONEY. So I pay them the mortgage AND I pay them thru my taxes.
Oh oops, I'm unemployed, and I haven't paid my taxed on those benefits yet. I can't wait to find out how much they'll turn out to be.
I paid for my unemployment benefits. I got absolutely NOTHING for free!!
"I paid for my unemployment benefits. I got absolutely NOTHING for free!!"
you woulda done better if you had started your own account at Wachovia with the money, and earned a little 1% interest on it huh?
How do you get a lesbian mortage?
..we're so-called 'Tenants-in-Common'.
I just wanted to get the point across that we're a lesbian couple. Period. Know though, that we have a mortgage known as 'Tenants-in-common'. Basically my Partner is 'renting' from me (which she is not - we are both 50/50) According to law though....ugh.
When you look at this list of failed banks keep in mind it is only February.
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/ba...
20% of the banks that have failed in 2009, are from my 'hood.
=\
With Downey Savings on the list, am I now off the hook for an alleged returned check from about five years ago?? Still stuck in ChexSystems, preventing me from opening a savings account anywhere.
why not simply pay off the mortgages? I mean, neutralize the toxic debt. Can't be any worse than what they are doing now. The people buying the house were OK'd for the loan...they didn't do anything wrong. Give the money to the home owner so they can own the home.
So how do I get someone to pay off my mortage? I mean the only mistake I've ever made was working hard, managing my money, and keeping up with my payments.
your first mistake was working for your money instead of having your money work for you.
j/k
I wish people would realize that government is not about a business contract but a social contract. What a subversive I am!
sounds like "gay agenda."
Here is a comment that will illustrate what the social contract is.
that is not a contract, anymore than gay people share an agenda. Could there be
a betteran honest term to apply?The term social contract goes back to Socrates, Epicurus and Rousseau.
Especially the latter.
It is in common usage but not with anyone who believed any of Ronald Reagan's theory of society.
Or Ayn Rand.
You conflate it with something else, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the origin?
Yes, it's old. That still doesn't make it an honest use of language. It seems mushy to me, when in context to our government of laws, we rely on contracts to establish facts and context.
So why coin the mushy term, when language is so rich, and these philosophers so wise?
I am not coining anything, it has been in common usage since antiquity.
Ronald Reagan used the term 'entitlement' to describe social programs. This was meant to alienate the citizenry from them. The ultimate goal was to privatize the programs, and thus to destroy them.
Even to privatize the government and destroy it. Bush did a bang up job in this regard.
What do you propose.
that these contracts be written down and signed, so that contracts they may be.
They are written down. It is the Social Security Act as amended. And the Medicare Act as amended.
Education is a varied situation.
The philosophy and understanding of what and why they exist falls in the realm civics.
We concur with the laws because of the social contract. The government governs with the consent of the governed.
I think you are missing something here regarding the basis of our society.
The basis of society is the social group. The basis of the social group is individuals. The basis of the individual is to exist and work for their own purposes, which points to building values with others who are similarly oriented.
The idea of being born automatically owing others is much like original sin, a concept useful for foisting unearned guilt on innocents to trick them into serving, instead, the purposes of others.
I do not accept that as the basis of society, but of criminality.
In other words: unbridled self interest.
That sounds like a response from Ayn Rand to me.
I will quote FDR: 'we have long known that unbridled self interest is bad morality, now we know that is bad economics.'
If I suggest that children or old people should not starve, you apparently say that is criminality.
My initial sense was to suggest that go live with your like minded Neanderthals and count me out of your society.
However your viewpoint would be very useful at the other end of the spectrum of the human condition.
Today we are funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to replace the vast amounts lost by the Fat Cat Bankers in foolish and likely in some instances criminal behavior.
Misrepresented loans, fraudulently rated securities and fraudulently stated balance sheets would qualify in the realm of criminality, to my way of thinking.
Criminal to utilize the word in a legitimate sense.
To me, to suggest for even an instant, that someone, like myself for instance, who had nothing to do with their folly should be called upon through my tax dollars to bail them out, that is criminal.
So we may have a point of agreement but I won't count on it.
I say let them lose everything. Until and unless they were to be starving, at which point I would by my view of the social contract, say that we don't let people starve.
That would apply even to cavemen.
I think the dynamic for the application of social contract theory is initiative force, coercion and fraud.
The Neanderthals were depicted as hunched, because reconstructions were from individuals suffering spinal deformities, proving these now dead people cared for their injured and old.
We now can say they had art and tool-making skills. I can't know if their societies had criminal-minded, aspiring philosopher-kings who relied on slick words and thugs to carry out their value-extraction orders for "the greater good." I doubt they could support that, not having agriculture. I see no reason to place the people of this caring race of humans at the dishonest and ugly-minded end of the spectrum.
I knew about the Neanderthal man who was, as I recall it reported was considered to have been about 45 when he perished. That was a very advanced age and he was infirm, indicating that he had been cared for in his declining years.
Neanderthals were a separate species, or subspecies depending on the scientist you quote, most certainly not a race, since that term is scientifically obsolete for even our contemporary species alone.
Fascinating to consider the possibility that the superior species may have been the one that went extinct, given the vast barbarism that we have demonstrated under the guise of civilization.
Then again, Neanderthal were hunter gatherers and as such would have kept to very small groups. Who is to say, given the chance they might have rivaled us in barbarism.
I will have more to say.
[Hi, Alice X. I'd answer this in the normal fashion, using my own name, but, on what is essentially an ancient thread, that would be a dead giveaway to my real identity. I have two things to say: first, there's a very good article pertaining to neanderthals in the Oct. 2008 issue of National Geographic. Second, who's to say that neanderthal man, had the species survived, wouldn't have fallen into the same societal pitfalls that seem to have swallowed homo sapiens sapiens? Our species weren't born sedentary agriculturalists, and we still see the remnants of our past as hunter gatherers on the fringes (New Guinea, Amazonia and Andaman Islands) who have survived outside of what we think of as civilization. I'm inclined to believe that neanderthal man died out because the species couldn't, for whatever reason, evolve to keep up with the changing circumstances around them. Shorter form: natural selection. Site Monitor]
[BTW, I belive Brad is full of it. Homo sapiens sapiens survived for millions of years precisely because they banded together to hunt, gather and defend themselves from predatory carnivores long before the discovery of methods of tool-making that allowed the individual to protect itself from those predators. The concept of individual liberty is a construct of civilization (based on revolutionary agicultural methods) itself. Again, I provide as examples the tribes in New Guinea, Amazonia and the Andaman Islands who remain uncorrupted by our civilization, or, at least, their cousins who have only recently been swallowed up by our civilization. Site Monitor]
The point isn't the matter of one or another group of people's presumed, or demonstrated, capacity for opting into criminal-minded behavior.
The point is about guilty individuals who have opted into criminal-minded behavior, justifying force-backed usurpations and evoking fake guilt in the vulnerable by using the noble-sounding concept of the social contract as an easy value-extraction tool.
We are at a remarkable stage in history, a cross roads in our personal, self-guided evolution, where we can spot and reject initiatory force, coercion and fraud, and take steps to make it unpopular and illegal.
Or continue to glorify it.
I use a reference to a social contract in the loosest informal sense.
Leave it aside.
Talk about specifics, will you please.
We are transferring trillions to the Fat Cats for their reckless financial folly which is the topic of the thread.
I don't glorify that, I condemn it.
We have transfered hundreds of billions, trillions to war profiteers, it is ongoing, I don't glorify that, I condemn it.
We have war criminals in our midst. I don't glorify that, I condemn and call for their prosecution.
We give Corporations unending largesse, Corporate Welfare.
We have a Corporate crime wave.
I don't applaud that, I condemn it.
But when we educate our children, I applaud it. Even though I have no children.
Did you receive a public education? Who payed for it.
I applaud the Social Security program.
Did or do your parents receive Social Security. Who is paying for it?
I have paid into social security for 40 years, it is not my private account. What I receive, if anything, will depend upon the people at that time. Maybe they will be all unemployed and we will have no country.
I applaud the Medicare program except for the recent ill advised changes.
Same thing.
I would applaud a single payer health care system.
We waste over 30% for paper pushers and their profiteering.
A society that attaches the profit motive to the health care of its citizens is a land of barbarians, real ones.
Indeed we are at a critical point in our history.
We have been fleeced by the greedy profiteers and we are in decline.
Really, prey tell, I have cited what I admire and what I abhor.
Tell me specifically what you support and what you don't.
She slays vampires, yet retains her humanity.
To stick to, and not meander from my "Mr Pointy" point, the heart of which is:
We can all work to identify in ourselves, first, then in others, criminal-minded tendencies to rationalize initiative force, coercion and fraud, and mercilessly expose these tendencies to cleansing sunshine.
We can all learn "bang, stick, poof."
We can best protect and grow the human values we most certainly share, if we can stick to this principle, and not get trapped in unholy, value-destroying alliances.
I do not watch television so I do not have Hollywood fictional characters as role models for my humanity.
End of story.
"Pray tell."
Buh-bye!
I mean - I'm just sayin', you know -
as long as we're at it.
Looting?
Isn't this the financial institution which has ties to Carlyle Group (which includes Bush Sr. , Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries)..
I believe it is time to just create jobs for our citizens and if the government wishes to own something , then buy GM or some business which will give Americans jobs for their money...
This BS of given more money to financial institution , instead of bringing then to court and charging them with the crimes they have committed , is beyond belief...
All crimes are not crimes to be prosecuted.. If you are large enough and have enough elected officials on your payroll then you are not prosecuted...
Looks as if Obama's "Change Is A Coming" really meant a change in the leader , but with the same old policies...
Another thing ,, just how much of our tax money is going to foreign countries to support the branches there... The financial institutions are certainly not doing a d... thing for the home buyer or citizens in U.S.A..
Why is Bush and his gang getting off the hook with no investigation with prosecutions... This includes Pelosi , Feinstein and other elected officials when their name comes up with these crimes..
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article2...
Enron. major provider, and trader, of consumer energy. the power company of Texas and elsewhere. too big to fail.
they failed, on December 2, 2001. diiiiiddd.... light switches, suddenly fail to work throughout southern and western America, on December 3? any major traffic jams in Houston because - SUDDENLY - all the street lights just *poof!* and shut off??
****
World Com. major provider, and trader, of consumer data and internet. "teh internats" of southeast America. too big to fail.
they failed, on July 19, 2002. again.... did, like - the entire internet fail all over hurricane alley? did the finance industry fail in Atlanta and Miami because online banking billpay fail to pay off everybody's car and credit card bills?
****
come on. give it a rest. its a tired, played out, and fairly debunked meme.
I say? let em fail. make a run on the bank, pull your money out, prosecute them to the fullest extent to get the rest of your money... then pour your money into little mom & pop credit unions.
its the silliest threat ever. these organizations aren't "too big to fail." they're just really, really big. thats all. commerce will still commence, and the earth will keep turning.
Looks like the same old crap to me , sorry to say . Putting the share holders , Wall Street and those oh so fragile Republicans before the American people and tax payer . Like Krugman wrote , these are nothing but Zombie Banks right now , time to cut the crap . And how about arresting Rove and Miers ! WTH ? They are still thumbing their noses at Congress and the worst part of it is Obama and the new and " improved " White House seem to be backing Rove and Miers and the Bush policies ! This is absolute bull shit Barack ! What a let down !
but its only been a month.
plus? its a helluva lot better than if McCain had won and had a heart attack by now and we're stuck with Palin.
Citigroup chief executive Vikram Pandit should be sent packin…
I thought the Prezs administration said he wanted to quash rumors that troubled US banks will be nationalized????
It would be the US government's third bid to help Citigroup in several months if it takes place….where is the 9 trillion dollars the banks have ……where is it???
Inquiring minds wanna know............
The citizens of this country have already bought these banks. Give em another penny and we fire the executives and take over the funds. Period.
I don't see a whole lot of difference between nationalization and a FDIC takeover. I think there's a chance City is already insolvent now, which is why I'm surprised FDIC isn't at the banks' door, assessing the assets to see if the bank is carrying the required reserves.
Specifically, I wonder if the derivatives, something maybe worth 10¢ on the dollar, are being carried at full book value, the value when the mortgage backed securities were being graded "AAA". I think that these derivatives constitute a bottomless pit, and I can't see throwing money at it. If we're going to wind up taking over that bank now, or 6 months from now, I think it would be better now. Otherwise, we pour money in, and they write down the derivatives. They still wind up with insufficient reserves to start lending.
Market cap is about $11.5B.
What "Nationalize the Banks" and the "Free Market" Really Mean in Today's Looking-Glass World.
How is it that Alan Greenspan, free-market lobbyist for Wall Street, recently announced that he favored nationalization of America’s banks – and indeed, mainly the biggest and most powerful? Has the old disciple of Ayn Rand gone Red in the night? Surely not.
The answer is that the rhetoric of “free markets,” “nationalization” and even “socialism” (as in “socializing the losses”) has been turned into the language of deception to help the financial sector mobilize government power to support its own special privileges. Having undermined the economy at large, Wall Street’s public relations think tanks are now dismantling the language itself.
http://www.counterpunch.com/
This quote has me confused (that is not difficult as you know):
Citigroup Inc. has a market cap of around $12.25 billion (that is how much the stock is worth on the stock exchange). the government has put in $45 billion (more?). and they are saying that it is equivalent to a 7.8% stake? Is this the math that got Citigroup Inc. into the trouble it is in right now?
When the topic turns to GM or Chrysler, the republicans are quick to say that they should be allowed to die and go bankrupt. Damn be the sorry tears for millions of Americans without jobs.
But when the topic turns to Citibank or BofA going belly-up, they just want the government to give them "...whatever it takes.."
Can't remove management, that's socialism. Just drain the US Treasury and staple the costs to the foreheads of the the taxpayer.
NOTE: Back in October, I told my 401K manager to sell everything and go cash until further notice. He did. He fought with me and said that everything would be fine and I need to be invested for the long-term. (typical baloney from wall street brokers). I told him the stock market (then about 11,000) was going to tank and drop to 7500. (I was very correct on this one). He disagreed with my assessment, but cashed out. Two months later, he calls back and says I should invest in Citibank. I said why? He said he had inside knowledge and things were going to rebound very quickly. I suggested GM instead (at about $3), but he insisted that Citibank would be a better investment. I relented and let him invest half of my remaining funds. I bought Citi at $9, it's now below $2.
Lesson learned: Never, never, never listen to a stock broker.
Oh, and the truth is, there are trillions of dollars waiting to flood into the market, but waiting for turnaround. "Buy into Fear, Sell into Greed"
If Greenspan is advocating it, based on his prior stewardship, that tells me absolutely DO NOT DO IT. Let them fall.
Login or Register to post comments.