Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Myyco.com Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
bailout
    #8959029 -

Auto-Summary
The legislative proposal grants the Secretary of the Treasury authority to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets from U.S. financial institutions. The Secretary can take necessary actions to carry out this authority, including appointing employees, entering contracts, designating financial agents, establishing vehicles for asset purchases, and issuing regulations. The Secretary must consider providing market stability and protecting taxpayers. Reports on the use of these authorities must be submitted to relevant congressional committees semiannually. The Secretary can manage and sell these assets at determined terms and prices. The authorities, except for certain specified sections, will terminate two years after enactment. The public debt limit will be increased to $11.315 trillion, and costs for these purchases will be determined under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

from:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-proposal.html
Quote:
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY
TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS


Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.



As I understand it, the proposal is to give Sec. Paulson  $700,000,000,000 to buy mortgages and related securities, including CRE, no limits, restrictions, or guidance from Congress needed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: phi1618]
    #8959126 -

Several commentators have noticed that this addresses liquidity in the mortgage market, but not recapitalization of failed institutions. I'd rather see the treasury allow the market to work its magic until somebody big gets in trouble, then bail them out.

Look at it this way: either the gov't buys toxic products at a fair price and the banks go under and we have a depression, or they pay too much and lose a bunch of taxpayer money while simultaneously sending the message to future managers that it's ok to steal money as long as you steal a lot. Neither one is what we really want.

What we need to do is allow failed institutions to get in trouble, and then bail them out while removing management and wiping out stockholders - derivative counterparties and senior debt holders could rest easy and systemic stability would be assured, but the bad get punished and the cost is minimized.

Just giving Paulson a blank check is a bad idea, IMO.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: phi1618]
    #8961341 -

i think we need to have the depression.. the financial industry must be held to account on the one hand.. while the public must be made aware of the consequences of tolerating their behaviour on the other...and neither can be accomplished any other way...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: phi1618]
    #8961508 -

Quote:
What we need to do is allow failed institutions to get in trouble, and then bail them out while removing management and wiping out stockholders - derivative counterparties and senior debt holders could rest easy and systemic stability would be assured, but the bad get punished and the cost is minimized.



Do you have a background in economics? You certainly seem to be the most knowledgeable here.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
. [Re: zouden]
    #8961553 -

.


--------------------
.

Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:13 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8961932 -

yup - that's the fucked up part, no doubt.

zouden - I'm not an expert, I just play one on the internet. That said, there are plenty of experts expressing their more credible opinions on line:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/why-you-should-hate-treasury-bailout.html
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-thoughts-on-bailout.html
http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253653/we_need_a_new_holc_-_more_than_a_new_rtc_or_rfc-_to_provide_massive_debt_relief_to_the_household_sector_we_need_to_create_the_home_home_owners_mortgage_enterprise
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/no-deal.html


Anyway, my first thoughts are above, my second is that it's totally irresponsible to give the executive branch unlimited authority to spend $700 billion without judicial review - this isn't a dictatorship. (I agree with supernovasky)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: phi1618]
    #8961950 -

Yep, it seems pretty ridiculous. Though, not surprising :sad:


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: zouden]
    #8962058 -


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: Luddite]
    #8962755 -

I thought that the current bailouts were already showing plenty of signs of healing the market.  Maybe the experts are afraid that the market will collapse again when SEC shorting restrictions are raised, as I suspected?  The least the bill could do is enumerate what companies will receive this "bailout," so I could make an informed opinion on whether it is necessary.  Hopefully, this doesn't end up being a bunch of congressman trying to find ways of giving money straight to their campaign donors, or something to that effect.


--------------------

Discuss Politics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: Ferris]
    #8964021 -

I was watching a video tape of CNBC today (Sunday 21, 2008) that I recorded Friday and found one part where Jack Bogle and Ken Heebner were discussing the stock market and economy.  They seemed optimistic.  I looked on the internet to see if I could find a transcript and found the video of this talk here:

Bogle and Heebner Talk US Business
http://toddsullivan.duedee.com/2008/9/18/Bogle-and-Heebner-Talk-US-Business/39817/


On the same website theres a video about the 1929 stock market crash.  While watching it I thought of some similarities with 1929 and the stock market today.  Even though you can't technically be on margin more than 50% now,  somehow a lot of investment banks and hedge funds were leveraged as much as 30 to 1 during the recent credit crisis from what I've heard on CNBC.  A lot of it was derivatives.
1929..........On Film...More on "Golconda"
http://tinyurl.com/3oq52l



Edited by Luddite (09/21/08 05:07 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: phi1618]
    #8965066 -

phi1618 said:
What we need to do is allow failed institutions to get in trouble, and then bail them out while removing management and wiping out stockholders - derivative counterparties and senior debt holders could rest easy and systemic stability would be assured, but the bad get punished and the cost is minimized.

Just giving Paulson a blank check is a bad idea, IMO.



What about the responsibility of the debt holders? Or even those who took out mortgages?  Its not just the company managers and shareholders who hold all the blame.  Although, shareholders can't cry when their shares are worthless, they let management get away doing a shitty job.  Though, I don't think they're any more "bad" than the person who wanted to borrow more than they earn. Or the people who bought mortgage backed securities.

It took all the various players to make this mess, and they all should shoulder the consequences without the taxpayers bailing them out.  No one was forced to do anything they did not voluntarily choose, whether they were aware of the consequences or not.

Is bigger govt. truly the answer?  Is this what citizens really want?  Is this the kind of country you want for your children?  I don't have children or plan to but I would want my fellow citizens to be the best darn capitalist that they can be, and I want the lowest tax rates possible.

Should we believe  that we need govt. for education, to protect us?  IMHO when govt. gets involved, the money is spent inefficiently and it only breeds corruption.  It would be better off left in the hands of the taxpayer.  Even if the taxpayer chooses to piss it away, its still better than govt. doing it for you.

If I have to pay taxes, I want them in the hands of the best decision makers, like Buffett or Munger.  If we allow all parties to face their full responsibility, we move a step closer in that direction.  People learn faster when you let them get burned.  Plus it was their own doing. 

As for the innocent, I think they get burned more with the bailouts then with none and that's what makes it wrong.  How would a systemic collapse hurt them more?

But I do believe that even with all this shit.  Buffett believes there's no country better for majority of its citizens than the good ole USA. And, I think so too.  The founding fathers created a system, where a lot of people have to participate in fucking it up.  It probably won't get there, but never say never.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: GnosticWarrior]
    #8965093 -

> What about the responsibility of the debt holders?

Would it not be the fault of those that approved the loans?  It is easy to sit back and say, "Well, you should have known better, stupid!"  Unfortunately, many of the loans in question were designed to prey upon the stupid (I county myself to be among this group, in the sense that I am not economically savvy).  I find it difficult to fault people that didn't know any better and innocently thought the system was trying to help them rather than trying to burn them.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: Seuss]
    #8965174 -

I wouldn't blame the people who approve the loans. Upper management is who set the criteria for loan approval. An when loan officers skirt the edge of this criteria and start having a lot of loans go bad they get fired, or that's how it works in the car business anyway. The loan officers I worked with had to keep up pretty much a certain percentage ration of good loans. If it dropped they would be fired. I would say it would mainly be on the shoulders of management, for setting their stipulations too low or not keeping on top of their loan officers for properly checking and sticking too the pre-set stipulations.


--------------------
Muppet Said:

so yeah:
- 'sex' five times
- once with a man
- once with a cadaver
- and thrice with actual women(all of which were prostitutes)
Best story ever!

www.panicstream.com :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: Seuss]
    #8965178 -

Seuss, I'm not trying to blame or find fault.  I know that when it comes to commissions or fees, salespeople can be very predatory. 

However, how is these bailouts truly helping these financially ignorant people? Or making their lives any better than if left alone?  There's no free lunch and the financial consequences like inflation might still end up hurting more than helping.  Plus my point is; is it fair to the innocent?  Why sign a document if you're not going to live up to it?  Is this what's best for the USA as a whole?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: pinkfloydms]
    #8965187 -

> I wouldn't blame the people who approve the loans. Upper management is who set the criteria for loan approval.

That is more or less what I meant.  Not the actual person that said yeah or nay, but the people that set the criteria needed for approval.  (However, if the actual person that said yeah or nay fudged the numbers to get their commission...)  Apologies for being sloppy with my wording.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: Seuss]
    #8965201 -

I'm with ya.


--------------------
Muppet Said:

so yeah:
- 'sex' five times
- once with a man
- once with a cadaver
- and thrice with actual women(all of which were prostitutes)
Best story ever!

www.panicstream.com :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: GnosticWarrior]
    #8967070 -

Systemic collapse won't help anyone.
No bank could liquidate today in the black; they rely on the movement of capital for their very existence. If capital stops moving, most of it will disappear.
Companies that depend on credit for daily operations will go out of business. Consumers won't be able to get auto loans, credit cards, or mortgages. Even individuals and companies with currently strong balance sheets will face difficulty as most of their customers disappear.

The proposed bailout is BAD for two reasons:
1) The managers and owners of the companies that caused the problem aren't punished.
2) The government is assured of losing money - if things turn out not-that-bad, the banks retain all the upside, and taxpayers get none.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: phi1618]
    #8967114 -

Quote:
The proposed bailout is BAD for two reasons:
1) The managers and owners of the companies that caused the problem aren't punished.
2) The government is assured of losing money - if things turn out not-that-bad, the banks retain all the upside, and taxpayers get none.



I am with you on #1.  However, regarding #2, I could argue that if things turn out not-that-bad, the taxpayers get the upside of being able to get auto loans, credit cards, and mortgages, etc.  Regardless, I still find the proposed bailout a bit annoying.  Those that abused the system and caused the problems should pay before the taxpayer.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: phi1618]
    #8967738 -

phi1618 said:
Systemic collapse won't help anyone.
No bank could liquidate today in the black; they rely on the movement of capital for their very existence. If capital stops moving, most of it will disappear.
Companies that depend on credit for daily operations will go out of business. Consumers won't be able to get auto loans, credit cards, or mortgages. Even individuals and companies with currently strong balance sheets will face difficulty as most of their customers disappear.

The proposed bailout is BAD for two reasons:
1) The managers and owners of the companies that caused the problem aren't punished.
2) The government is assured of losing money - if things turn out not-that-bad, the banks retain all the upside, and taxpayers get none.



I guess I don't view those consequences as severe.  Capital won't disappear, it would shrink as it should.  Cash always plays and those who became dependent on credit would get hurt.  To me that is the root of the problem.  We need to punish those who used excess credit, not bail them out. 

I know not everyone is Buffett but, I think Berkshire Hathaway would do just fine even if the credit markets dry up.  Adjustments would need to be made but things would be okay.  I also believe there are a decent amount of companies managed by conservative types who would survive and actually thrive after the credit shrinks.

Consumers could rent instead of taking a mortgage, they could find a more affordable vehicle or transportation option than buying a car they can't afford.

The bailout sucks bcs #1 it really doesn't correct the problems that caused it.  #2 Not rich guys but simple guys like Icelander are being forced to help pay the bill they did not create.  This is not what America should be about.  But it seems too many people are okay with it.

Honestly, I don't think there's anything avg. people can do to stop this.  But we can be united in our opinions that this sucks and at what point or form will we choose to fight back.  Will we hold politicians accountable, change the way we live, start a revolution?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: bailout [Re: GnosticWarrior]
    #8968043 -

There's a good chance that BRK would be nearly destroyed in a financial collapse.
Wells Fargo would fall for certain.
Gen RE would be hurting.
The consumer brands (Coke) would survive even a depression, but wouldn't exactly be raking it in.

I agree that excessive use of credit is a problem, and the total level of debt should fall.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Myyco.com Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Not another Wall Street bailout thread. jazzillion 380 2 09/25/08 08:05 PM
by jazzillion
* Mortgage Crisis was Caused by Liberal Policies
( 1 2 3 all )
Conservationist 3,476 40 09/29/08 09:06 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* U.S. to probe alleged mortgage discrimination SeussA 1,187 3 12/09/10 10:51 AM
by lonestar2004
* Superb analysis of the financial "bailout"
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Phred 5,582 105 09/29/08 02:29 PM
by johnm214
* Congress, already Passed a $300 BILLION Homeowner Bailout package lonestar2004 332 0 09/23/08 04:57 PM
by lonestar2004
* I will never buy from the big 3 again if they get bailouts!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Azen 5,577 120 12/31/08 12:03 PM
by zappaisgod
* Another Bailout pinkfloydms 923 12 11/24/08 09:57 AM
by Prisoner#1
* . AnonymousRabbit 588 2 09/08/08 09:00 PM
by d33p

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,528 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.