GAO stays total TARP cost now down to ~$25 billion...

[statman]

The lent/gave out ~$800 billion - $600 billion to banks, from which they've received about $725 billion back (yes - you read that right. A PROFIT of $125 billion - a 20%+ return, most of it paid back within a year at a time when interest rates were in the 2.5% range), and ~$200 billion to AIG and the auto companies (which they've gotten about $50 billion back).

And they're still going to get a chunk of change from equities in banks (Citi & BoA will be windfalls of $10s of billions), and from further equity sales of the automakers.

TARP will end-up costing the US taxpayer narry a penny - even if you want to play with NPV of the bailout it will still be positive for the US Treasury.

I told you so...

(or rather, I told CB so!)

[Goatnapper'96]

The lent/gave out ~$800 billion - $600 billion to banks, from which they've received about $725 billion back (yes - you read that right. A PROFIT of $125 billion - a 20%+ return, most of it paid back within a year at a time when interest rates were in the 2.5% range), and ~$200 billion to AIG and the auto companies (which they've gotten about $50 billion back).

And they're still going to get a chunk of change from equities in banks (Citi & BoA will be windfalls of $10s of billions), and from further equity sales of the automakers.

TARP will end-up costing the US taxpayer narry a penny - even if you want to play with NPV of the bailout it will still be positive for the US Treasury.

I told you so...

(or rather, I told CB so!)

The cost to Utah will be much higher. It cost them a very senior, and capable IMO, Senator.

[Indy Coug]

There were a lot of things wrong with TARP, but it's undeniable that the government injecting capital into the system at a very critical moment was a net positive.

[Jarid in Cedar]

The cost to Utah will be much higher. It cost them a very senior, and capable IMO, Senator.

yep. The morons won again

[BlueHair]

The lent/gave out ~$800 billion - $600 billion to banks, from which they've received about $725 billion back (yes - you read that right. A PROFIT of $125 billion - a 20%+ return, most of it paid back within a year at a time when interest rates were in the 2.5% range), and ~$200 billion to AIG and the auto companies (which they've gotten about $50 billion back).

And they're still going to get a chunk of change from equities in banks (Citi & BoA will be windfalls of $10s of billions), and from further equity sales of the automakers.

TARP will end-up costing the US taxpayer narry a penny - even if you want to play with NPV of the bailout it will still be positive for the US Treasury.

I told you so...

(or rather, I told CB so!)

Was it really paid back or was it just creative accounting? Some of that "repayment" was just an increase in market value of the shares the government owns. I don't understand why the government counts that as repayment. The government should get to sell the shares at current value and realize the profits. They are basically giving the profit back to the banks.

[Indy Coug]

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=6278350

[Jacob]

There were a lot of things wrong with TARP, but it's undeniable that the government injecting capital into the system at a very critical moment was a net positive.

Undeniable? I can't imagine how that can possibly be demonstrated. There is simply no way to know what would have happened had we not injected the TARP capital.

As far as Statman's link, I was quite skeptical when he posted it. And I wonder what he thinks about this:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12...ut-recipients/

It says that less than half of the TARP disbursements have been repaid.

[Uncle Ted]

Undeniable? I can't imagine how that can possibly be demonstrated. There is simply no way to know what would have happened had we not injected the TARP capital.

As far as Statman's link, I was quite skeptical when he posted it. And I wonder what he thinks about this:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12...ut-recipients/

It says that less than half of the TARP disbursements have been repaid.

Damn republicans and their stupid TARP.

Well, at least democrats will came through with their $787B stimulus that will create "millions" of jobs and keep unemployment under 8%.

[Moliere]

Damn republicans and their stupid TARP.

Well, at least democrats will came through with their $787B stimulus that will create "millions" of jobs and keep unemployment under 8%.

The inflated unemployment numbers were not wholly the fault of the government, although they could have easily stemmed the tide of false expectations by giving clearer instructions on how to estimate how many jobs will be created by each project.

[statman]

Undeniable? I can't imagine how that can possibly be demonstrated. There is simply no way to know what would have happened had we not injected the TARP capital.

As far as Statman's link, I was quite skeptical when he posted it. And I wonder what he thinks about this:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12...ut-recipients/

It says that less than half of the TARP disbursements have been repaid.

There was a huge amount of collateral put up on many of the loans. The GAO must be counting the value of the collateral in the totals - which is a fully reasonable thing to do. Citi & BoA are both now going concerns which the governent owns huge stakes in - each worth tens of billions of dollars that's been 'unpaid.' GM & Chrysler are in the same boat - but I'm less convinced that either car maker is actually a going concern.

As to the 'undeniable' part - ask anyone involved in banking. It is undeniable. If you want to know what would have happened, we have two perfect examples - Washington Mutual and Wachovia. Both were shut down by the FDIC not because they were no longer capable of making money, but because they were incapable of meeting their required loan-loss reserves after the mortgage bubble burst and the huge MBS write-down that they had to take following the Lehman collapse.

There wasn't enough cash anywhere for our banks to meet those reserves. The options were 1) TARP, or 2) suspend banking reserve regulations, or 3) collapse world banking system and bring on a depression. And this decision had to be made within a matter of days, or 3) was the inevitable outcome.

[Jacob]

As to the 'undeniable' part - ask anyone involved in banking. It is undeniable. If you want to know what would have happened, we have two perfect examples - Washington Mutual and Wachovia. Both were shut down by the FDIC not because they were no longer capable of making money, but because they were incapable of meeting their required loan-loss reserves after the mortgage bubble burst and the huge MBS write-down that they had to take following the Lehman collapse.

There wasn't enough cash anywhere for our banks to meet those reserves. The options were 1) TARP, or 2) suspend banking reserve regulations, or 3) collapse world banking system and bring on a depression. And this decision had to be made within a matter of days, or 3) was the inevitable outcome.

I remain unconvinced that we can know that the worldwide depression was the inevitable outcome. Maybe it was a likely outcome. You can't know what would have happened absent the intervention. I think that pretending you know is evidence that you are not coming at this objectively.

[Indy Coug]

I remain unconvinced that we can know that the worldwide depression was the inevitable outcome. Maybe it was a likely outcome. You can't know what would have happened absent the intervention. I think that pretending you know is evidence that you are not coming at this objectively.

I take it that you are unfamiliar with statman's professional background?

[Moliere]

I remain unconvinced that we can know that the worldwide depression was the inevitable outcome. Maybe it was a likely outcome. You can't know what would have happened absent the intervention. I think that pretending you know is evidence that you are not coming at this objectively.

If moving from 100% to 99.9% moves you from inevitable to likely then I agree.

[Jacob]

I take it that you are unfamiliar with statman's professional background?

I am. Would that make a difference?

[Indy Coug]

I am. Would that make a difference?

Probably.