Gawain 0 #1 April 14, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAezT8071YoE&refer=home QuoteGoldman Sachs Plans to Raise $5 Billion to Repay U.S. Bet they'll never take money from the Feds again. Let's hope the industry learns this lesson once and for all, and is able to act before Congress gets any more of what we in the Army call "GFI's" (Great F**king Ideas). So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #2 April 14, 2009 Quote http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAezT8071YoE&refer=home Quote Goldman Sachs Plans to Raise $5 Billion to Repay U.S. Bet they'll never take money from the Feds again. Let's hope the industry learns this lesson once and for all, and is able to act before Congress gets any more of what we in the Army call "GFI's" (Great F**king Ideas). So the taxpayer investments turned out well.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 April 14, 2009 Yes. Much like plenty of the subprime mortgages worked out well for the lenders. Investments like the government's are like AAA bonds. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #4 April 14, 2009 Quote Quote http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAezT8071YoE&refer=home Quote Goldman Sachs Plans to Raise $5 Billion to Repay U.S. Bet they'll never take money from the Feds again. Let's hope the industry learns this lesson once and for all, and is able to act before Congress gets any more of what we in the Army call "GFI's" (Great F**king Ideas). So the taxpayer investments turned out well. For the most part, Goldman did not want or need the money in the first place, it was almost forced upon em. The second that money hit their bank accounts, all they wanted to do was to give it back as fast as possible due to ludicrous and endless miles of red tape that impeded the normal business process as imposed by good ol' Obama. Can't reveal my sources on this one, but anyway, if you give a company that aint doing so bad some cash, they can probably give it back pretty darn quick... espicially if you force the money and new rules on em with the main clause being 'the torture ends when you pay us back.' The answer is 'We don't need you're f*cking money!'So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #5 April 14, 2009 >Bet they'll never take money from the Feds again. >Let's hope the industry learns this lesson once and for all . . . Agreed. The best possible outcome is that no one wants the bailout money because of the onerous restrictions attached to it - and instead figure it out themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #6 April 14, 2009 Quote For the most part, Goldman did not want or need the money in the first place, it was almost forced upon em. ' "for the most part", "almost" They call those "Weasel words". Right, and 9 is almost more than 10. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #7 April 14, 2009 >all they wanted to do was to give it back as fast as possible due to ludicrous >and endless miles of red tape that impeded the normal business process as >imposed by good ol' Obama. Excellent. That's exactly what _should_ happen. >The answer is 'We don't need you're f*cking money!' Correct. And again, that's what should happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #8 April 14, 2009 No you're totally right billv, and i agree with that. the key point though is that GS did not need the money, so they can give it back, probably could have the day they got it. The companies that need the money... not gonna work so well due to the red tape since they actually are going to use it...So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #9 April 14, 2009 >not gonna work so well due to the red tape since they actually are going to use it... And again, that's a good thing. It should be painful to use taxpayer money to bail out a company. The more painful, the better. Indeed, one of the biggest initial mistakes made was not making it painful _enough._ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #10 April 14, 2009 I disagree to a certain extent, though i think we're kinda on the same page. sure, they need to get the company to change its ways in order to use the money wisely and fix its bad habits, but without restricting its good ones or giving em negative press- that will NOT help the company heal. To me, the bad influences of the gov't always seem to outweigh the good ones on this topic. The politicians can't wait to get up on their soap boxes and chastise companies/executives to look good in front of the mass of idiot americans. Meanwhile, they're not helping the company and they're wasting our money. great example abridged, again, on the daily show where the politicians were desperately trying to hang the new CEO of AIG for the bonuses that were justified via a loophole created by a senator! So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #11 April 16, 2009 Quotehttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAezT8071YoE&refer=home QuoteGoldman Sachs Plans to Raise $5 Billion to Repay U.S. Bet they'll never take money from the Feds again. Unless, of course, it's laundered through another company. Are they going to give back the $13 billion that they got from the taxpayer via AIG? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #12 April 16, 2009 Add JPMorgan to the list that is ready to pay back the TARP funds today if they were allowed to: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssInvestmentServices/idUSN1654245120090416 So far it looks like TARP was a waste of time and money if everyone is able to pay it back except AIG...Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #13 April 16, 2009 QuoteAdd JPMorgan to the list that is ready to pay back the TARP funds today if they were allowed to: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssInvestmentServices/idUSN1654245120090416 So far it looks like TARP was a waste of time and money if everyone is able to pay it back except AIG... Surely the money's only wasted when it can't be paid back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #14 April 16, 2009 >So far it looks like TARP was a waste of time and money if everyone is able >to pay it back except AIG... ?? Are mortgages a waste of money if everyone is able to pay them back? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #15 April 16, 2009 why aren't they allowed to pay the money back? once they have the money in the bank to pay the gov back do they still have to follow the gov's rules? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #16 April 16, 2009 Quotewhy aren't they allowed to pay the money back? once they have the money in the bank to pay the gov back do they still have to follow the gov's rules? Yes. Until the government allows them to pay back the loans. Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay it back, but the bank told you that instead of accepting your payment, they wanted you to re-arrange the furniture in the living room, and re-paint the house, and get rid of that woman you're living with, and get a new dog...-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #17 April 16, 2009 The issue as I understand it is that we as tax payers are having to pay a higher interest rate on the money borrowed to create the TARP funds the the return that we will be getting by having it paid back so soon. So for the taxpayer its a losing situation that just increased the national debt by about 20 billion when we didn't need to when some of the banks could have done with out the funds. GS and JPMC feel they are solid enough to pay back the TARP funds and still continue doing business as normal, I say let them pay it back as soon as possible. Take the funds they pay back and put it right towards the debt created to generate those funds.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #18 April 16, 2009 >Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay >it back, but the bank told you that instead of accepting your payment, they >wanted you to re-arrange the furniture in the living room . . . Well, more like you want to pay off your mortgage, but the bank wants you to pay an early-payoff penalty, they don't take personal checks, and the mortgage person is only there 9-3 Monday to Wednesday. (Which is often what happens.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #19 April 16, 2009 QuoteQuotewhy aren't they allowed to pay the money back? once they have the money in the bank to pay the gov back do they still have to follow the gov's rules? Yes. Until the government allows them to pay back the loans. Imagine if you took out a mortgage on your home, and had the money to pay it back, My mortgage had an early payment penalty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 April 16, 2009 Quote My mortgage had an early payment penalty. Which is usually a bad idea to accept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 April 16, 2009 Quote So far it looks like TARP was a waste of time and money if everyone is able to pay it back except AIG... And Bank America. And Citi. Not sure about Wells. GS and JPM are the exceptions. I think they took the money just to make sure they wouldn't be pushed over the edge in the worst case scenario - esp JPM who swallowed a few of the dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #22 April 16, 2009 >Which is usually a bad idea to accept. Agreed. But if someone is 100% positive they won't pay off their mortgage early, and are also getting a better deal with the mortgage that has the penalty - it might make sense. As always, it's up to the homeowner to decide if he wants to risk that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 April 16, 2009 Quote Agreed. But if someone is 100% positive they won't pay off their mortgage early, and are also getting a better deal with the mortgage that has the penalty - it might make sense. I don't think anyone can ever be 100% sure. And right now 30 year conforming loans are at/under 5%. I suppose it depends on how bad the penalty is too. In the car financing world, the prepayment penalties are generally used to make sure the person they just screwed can't get out of their 20% interest loan. The real estate side is usually not that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #24 April 16, 2009 >I don't think anyone can ever be 100% sure. Agreed. But then again, no one can be 100% sure they can pay off their mortgage at all - yet we still issue them. It's generally a good idea to avoid mortgages with early payment penalties, but as really stupid mortgage decisions to make, getting one with such a penalty isn't one of the bigger ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #25 April 16, 2009 QuoteQuote Agreed. But if someone is 100% positive they won't pay off their mortgage early, and are also getting a better deal with the mortgage that has the penalty - it might make sense. I don't think anyone can ever be 100% sure. And right now 30 year conforming loans are at/under 5%. I suppose it depends on how bad the penalty is too. In the car financing world, the prepayment penalties are generally used to make sure the person they just screwed can't get out of their 20% interest loan. The real estate side is usually not that way. Most mortgages in th US do not have a prepayment penalty because they are backed by FNMA and FHLMC (fanny may and freddy mac). These set the rule as far as not allowing that penalty. The trade off is that, on average, your mortgage rate is 1.5 point higher. Whether or not is a good or bad deal depends on your time horizon.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
