Many people believe “banks” have gotten “bailed out” by the US government and therefore “owe” the American tax-payer. Mange tror at "banker" fått "bailed ut" av den amerikanske regjeringen og derfor "skylder" den amerikanske tax-payer.
Recently folks were outraged that interest rates on their credit cards were raised by the same banks that “received bail-out money.” They raised such a fuss that President Obama met with the leaders of major credit card companies today to address the issue. Nylig folk var rasende at rentene på kredittkort ble reist av de samme bankene som "fikk bail-out penger." De hevet slik stas at president Obama møtte lederne i større kredittkortselskaper i dag til å løse problemet. [1] [1]
In fact, the word “bail out” is almost always used by just about everybody (government, the media, Wall Street, Main Street) to describe the US Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Faktisk er ordet "bail out" er nesten alltid brukt av nesten alle (myndigheter, media, Wall Street, Main Street) for å beskrive US Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). [2] [2]
But exactly how many banks have “received bail-out money?” Men nøyaktig hvor mange banker har "fått bail-out penger?"
Presuming that being “bailed-out” means a private corporation gets tax-payer money they won't be able to pay back (ie tax-payers take a hit) a number of companies have indeed received bail-out money. Forutsatt at det å være "bailed-out" betyr et privat selskap får skatte-betaler pengene de vil ikke kunne betale tilbake (dvs. tax-payers ta en hit) en rekke selskaper har virkelig fått bail-out penger.
Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were bailed out. Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae og Freddie Mac ble bailed ut. [3] [3]
AIG got bailed out. AIG fikk bailed ut. [4] [4]
Citigroup and Bank of America have certain portions of their loan portfolios guaranteed by the US government (see note 2). Citigroup og Bank of America har visse deler av sine utlånsporteføljer garantert av den amerikanske regjeringen (se note 2).
That's a bail out. Det er en kausjon ut. Public outrage over credit card interest rate hikes by these 2 banks is justifiable. Offentlig raseri over kredittkortet renteøkninger av disse 2 banker er forsvarlig.
But the similarities stop there: Uncle Sam is charging all banks (including Citi & Bank of America) that participated in TARP (ie “received bail-out money”). Men likhetene stopper der: Uncle Sam lades alle banker (herunder Citi og Bank of America) som deltok i TARP (dvs. "fikk bail-out money").
The banks aren't getting something for nothing. Bankene er ikke å få noe for ingenting.
Any bank that received government money had to, in exchange, issue preferred shares that pay the government a minimum 5% dividend and grant equity warrants that allow the government to buy common shares of the company in the future. Enhver bank som mottok statlig penger måtte, i bytte, problemet foretrukne aksjer som betaler staten minimum 5% utbytte og gi egenkapital garanterer som tillater regjeringen å kjøpe aksjer i selskapet i fremtiden. [5] [5]
As such, every single bank that has allegedly “received bailout money” has given up a piece of their company to get the money. Som sådan, hver eneste banken som har angivelig "mottatt bailout money" har gitt opp et stykke av sin bedrift for å få penger. They are paying a fee for using tax-payer money and as long as they pay it back the tax-payer will come out ahead. De betaler et gebyr for å bruke skatte-betaler penger og så lenge de betaler det tilbake skattefrie betaleren kommer ut på plussiden. Some want to pay it back right now but the government won't take it. Noen ønsker å betale den tilbake akkurat nå, men regjeringen vil ikke ta det. [6] [6]
Translation: most banks haven't “received bail out money” at all. Oversettelse: de fleste banker ikke har "fått kausjon ut penger i det hele tatt. Everyone just keeps calling it that. Alle holder akkurat kalle det det.
[1] [1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_credit_cards http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_credit_cards
[2] [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Assets_Relief_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Assets_Relief_Program
[3] [3] http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/9/9/year-of-the-bailout.html http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/9/9/year-of-the-bailout.html
[4] [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/16rescue.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/16rescue.html ; ;
[5] [5] http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1207.htm http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1207.htm
[6] [6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5192039/US-Treasury-Secretary-Tim-Geithner-dampens-TARP-repayment-hopes.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5192039/US-Treasury-Secretary-Tim-Geithner-dampens-TARP-repayment-hopes.html
(Disclaimer: the author of this post owns positions in various securities discussed above). (Merk: forfatteren av dette innlegget eier posisjoner i ulike verdipapirer diskutert ovenfor).
{ 2 comments… read them below or (2 kommentarer ... les dem nedenfor eller add one legge til ett } )
The reason it is a bailout, is that the government stepped in and made loans to banks that are insolvent. Grunnen til det er en bailout, er at regjeringen gikk inn og gjorde lån til banker som er insolvent. All of the other market participants looked at the current economic situation, the balance sheet of these banks, and each one decided that it would be stupid, stupid, stupid to loan money to an insolvent bank. Alle de andre aktørene så på den aktuelle økonomiske situasjonen, bestemte balansen av disse bankene, og hver at det ville være dum, dum, dum å låne penger til en insolvent bank.
Fortunately, (for the bankers), the Federal Reserve and the Treasury department are imagining that there _must_ be a pony somewhere under that pile of “stuff.” Heldigvis (for bankfolk), er Federal Reserve og finansdepartementet å forestille seg at det _must_ være en ponni eller annet sted under den haug av "ting".
That depends on your definition of insolvency which apparently is quite different for banks than for other corporations. Det avhenger av din definisjon av insolvens som tilsynelatende er ganske forskjellig for banker enn for andre selskaper. There are many major corporations out there with negative tangible common equity ratio's (Proctor & Gamble, AT&T, Boeing, Kraft, HP & more) and no one considers them insolvent as long as they have funds or can obtain funds to keep operating. Det er mange store selskapene der ute med negative materielle Felles egenkapitalandel's (Proctor & Gamble, AT & T, Boeing, Kraft, HP og flere), og ingen ser dem insolvent så lenge de har midler eller kan få midler til å holde i drift. As long as banks can do the same I see no issue. Så lenge bankene kan gjøre det samme jeg ser ikke noe problem. Except that in the world of fractional reserve banking even apparent issues can cause great harm (for example, National City or Wachovia). Bortsett fra at i verden av delvis reserve bank selv tilsynelatende problemer kan forårsake stor skade (for eksempel National City eller Wachovia). Anyway, some are ready to pay the money back. Allikevel, noen er klar til å betale pengene tilbake. Obviously they aren't insolvent! Selvfølgelig er de ikke insolvent!