wm for pennies? did you see the liability they may incur with that transaction? they take everyone on of WM crappy loans. so somehow they get WM for pennies yet someone here says "You see the losses these banks are writing down, you can look at their balance sheets to find this worthless mortgage derivate paper all over them" so which one is it? are they getting Wm for pennies or are they getting "worthless mortgage derivate paper"? look at WFC. C needs FDIC backing to buy WB, yet WFC comes in and takes away WB from C with 0 help. that saved American taxpayers about 50 BILLION dollars. Look at it this way. if paulson pulled say 3 banks into the room last month and gave a bailout ONLY to MS, GS and C. if they did that, everyone would think these are the bad banks. By giving money to good banks who don't need the money it made everyone look stronger.
Completely disagree. The first part of the problem is that they aren't worth very much right now, and people are starting to realize this. Other posters have corrected stated that much of finance is middleman bullshit; this industry has thrived by ripping people off for decades. In almost every other industry - if your company has a bad year, you do not get a bonus (you may even get a pay cut) and you are lucky to keep your job no matter how hard you have worked. This applies to companies that ARE NOT BORROWING MONEY FROM TAXPAYERS. Even if they were not borrowing, I still don't see your point.
Great, so let them pay their own bonuses without touching my tax dollars or printing more dollars. I don't care what Jamie Diamond does then, I dont own the stock nor would I touch it. You're very gullible. JPM, along with Citi, are key member banks of the Federal reserve system. I bey you think they were fighting off this bailout furiously, lol, cause they care about the people. Risk of WM portfolio? LOL, how hard is it to understand? It YOUR and MY money that are backing that risk. No, cause it was worth barely anything. And it was not government help, but fed help. Did they ask me or you whether we were ok with more of the inflation tax just so that BSC execs could keep their multi million dollar bonuses & severance packages? How about I get some government help to take over someone sh*tty business so that I can get whatever assets are worth a dime for almost nothing? Look, if you like this bankster scam so much, go donate more of your earnings to it. Cause I would not give half a cent to this bullsh*t, yet Im being put on the hook for it, like any other taxpayer and participant of the US monetary system. P.S. I can go into detail exactly why JPM seems unaffected by this, which is far from the truth, but I think you have ways to go before you understand the monetary & banking system of this nation, as well as most of the world.
Good banks? LOL. They are all inherently bankrupt, and that is a fact anyway you splice it. What you are seeing is heavy consolidation where the big fish are eating other big fish. Does not mean any of them are healthy, but then if you looked at reality every now and then, you would know that anyway.
yes don't worry ive gotten the memo. Its all a great American conspiracy always on ET. every company lies, Evey bank is bankrupt and the united states is the the debt debting nation that will become the German republic after world war 1. by next week i'll have to fill a wheel barrel with cash, just to buy a beer. Yes i know i have heard it all. ET gets a little ridiculous. its a conspiracy after conspiracy.
You obviously do not understand fractional reserve banking. And apparently believe everything is fine & dandy in USA, cause Obama is our savior. Like I said, go donate your earnings, since you love how the banks & government are taking your money and using it for their benefit.
your an idiot. all i said was that wfc and jpm have done VERY well this year compared to everyone one else. why should there executives not get a bonus? what does that have to do with fractional reserve banking. I just must be a moron and you are just too smart for all of us. and what they HELL does this have to do about obama?
Found this on the bailout http://www.propublica.org/feature/bailout-bucks-to-banks-1028 How many of these guys were forced to take the money?? And couldn't the ones not in trouble take a little less?
The Treasury did not ask several of the nation's largest banks and investment houses whether they wanted new capital. It told them. So weak banks got money and so did strong ones. According to Reuters, "The United States will announce plans on Tuesday to inject $250 billion into its banks." Money will go in as preferred stock so common shareholders will not be diluted, unless one of the banks comes close to failure. But, JP Morgan (NYSE: JPM) is being forced to take the same $25 billion that Citigroup (NYSE: C) is. Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Morgan Stanly (NYSE: MS) will each have to take $10 billion. The plan is ill-conceived and unfair when the more healthy firms like JPM and Goldman have to take on the same debt burden as weaker competitors. Treasury might argue that it does not have time to make these distinctions, but critical measures like reserves and earnings might have been taken into account. The Treasury might also have told the CEOs of the companies that if everyone did not take capital that full confidence in the system could not be restored. Unfortunately, the action by the government shows that its work will be done with a hammer and not a scalpel. Over time, this may have very significant drawbacks. There are limited funds to be put to work. Why waste them on the healthy institutions?
Oh yes - Paulson did not want "stigma" attached to taking the money... Though the stigma was there much earlier when the Fed had to allow non-member banks to step up to the discount window. I do not see there was much stigma left to be had after that. Also, Goldman gave up being an i-bank. If it was doing well, why give up the status? With no competition in that field, they could have grabbed market share...