Victor's Data Pool

作者: HYL (@Seattle) 看板: Gossiping
標題: Re: [新聞] 退出聯邦？ 德州州長被痛批
時間: Sat Apr 18 18:00:19 2009


: → nucleous:舉債又不是問題,怎麼用才是問題,不舉債問題是能解決      04/18 17:24

  哈哈哈  想聽 Obama的白痴內閣有多白痴，例子多的是。

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-citigroup-incompetence-squanders.html

  Obama為了不讓銀行倒閉，且要讓銀行美化帳本，所以對銀行說，你
  們手上的資產，我幫你做九成的擔保，防止你們破產，若是你們拿去
  賣，賣不到九成，差額算我的。

  聽起來很好吧，結果就發生了底下的事情

  銀行因為怎麼亂賣都有政府做補助，所以那麼認真賣幹麻，所以就把
  原標價 100的，用 33 塊賣調，然後轉手跟政府拿 57 塊；買到的人
  轉手把 33 塊的東西用 62 塊賣掉，現賺 29 塊。

  這麼一來，銀行的帳面資產價值提高，房仲業者撿便宜來賣，大賺特
  賺，賠得只有納稅人。


  當然故事若只有到這理結束，那麼還 Obama還不算太白癡..

  能跟政府要錢的只有銀行，所以上述的機制只能玩一輪，可是銀行很
  多阿..... 所以就發生了銀行間可以洗資產的空間。

  A 銀行把資產報 100賣 50 給 B銀行，轉手跟美國政府要 40塊
  B 銀行把資產報 100賣 50 給 A銀行，轉手跟美國政府要 40塊

  兩家銀行資產交換一次，就可以跟政府各要到 40%的錢，帳面上現金
  增加、資產減少、資產報表變好看，也難怪進日銀行股大漲。

  若是再多洗一兩次... 科科科  Obama跟銀行間看來賺很大

附錄資料

How Citigroup Incompetence Squanders Taxpayer Money

Inquiring minds are reading Banks Selling Properties in Bulk for Cheap.

Mar. 19--Lenders have become so overwhelmed by the foreclosure crisis that they are starting to unload properties in bulk to investor groups at steep discounts. Investors then flip the properties for a profit without necessarily improving the home.

For example, a unit of Citigroup, the troubled financial giant, sold a foreclosure in Temecula to an Arizona investment firm for $139,000 when comparable homes in the area were selling for $240,000 to $260,000.

The firm listed the home for $249,000, received multiple offers and the property has entered escrow, said Amber Schlieder, the real estate agent who handled the listing.

The Temecula foreclosure was first listed for sale by Citigroup in May 2007 for $420,000, according to Multi-Regional Multiple Listing Service, a real estate posting site used by real estate agents.

The property was listed on the site for 19 months before selling to the investors in a bulk sale in December 2008. The lowest price it was listed for was $314,000.

"It should have been listed for less," said Craig Finlayson, a real estate agent in the area who listed the property for Citigroup. "But it would have sold for more than 139 (thousand); 139 was a giveaway price."

CR Capital was the firm that flipped the Temecula foreclosure property, an investment group based in Tucson, Ariz. Calls to CR Capital were not immediately returned.

Incompetence In Pricing

The house never sold because Citigroup had it priced way above market. That is incompetence, lack of concern, an overworked unit or a combination of the above. I vote for the latter.

In Banks Leaving Money on the Table "All Day Long" Calculated Risk said "Citi just left $100,000 on the table. I hear stories like this all the time."

Debt Guarantees

Debt guarantees are another piece of the puzzle. Flashback February 4, 2009 Triage For Troubled Assets.

In November, the government agreed to limit Citigroup's losses on a portfolio of $301 billion of troubled assets. Last month, the government issued a similar guarantee to Bank of America covering $118 billion in troubled assets. In both cases, the companies agreed to absorb an initial increment of losses -- about $30 billion for Citigroup and $10 billion for Bank of America -- with the government absorbing 90 percent of any subsequent losses.

When taxpayers are guaranteeing 90% of the losses above $30 billion, a figure that was no doubt reached months ago, there is only a 10% incentive to do a job well.

Clearly this opens the door for allegations of graft, corruption, kickbacks, and sweetheart deals. Did any of that take place with this firesale of assets? Who knows?

What we do know is that Geithner worked out a sweetheart deal with the banks, and that deal gives the banks every incentive to get this stuff behind them, regardless of cost to taxpayers.

Pandit's Compensation

Think Progress is asking Did Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit lie to Congress about his compensation?

As ThinkProgress noted, in February, bailed-out Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit told a House committee that he received only $1 million in salary and “no bonus” in 2008:

"PANDIT: My compensation was for the year 2008 was my salary, which was a million dollars. I received no bonus. And as I stated earlier, I plan to take a dollar per year salary and no bonus until we return to profitability."

Pandit Receives $10.8 Million

The Huffington Post is reporting Pandit Told Congress Compensation Was $1 Million, But Bank Filing Shows $10.8 Million.

Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit received nearly $11 million of compensation in 2008.

A month earlier, he testified to Congress that his compensation for 2008 was just $1 million. "My compensation for the year 2008 was my salary, which was $1 million," he told the House Committee on Financial Services on February 11, failing to mention his sign-on and retention awards, as well as stock and option awards.

At the same hearing, Pandit pledged to accept a salary of just $1 a year and no bonus until Citibank once again posted a profit.

The $10.82 million in total compensation for 2008 consisted of $7.73 million in sign-on and retention awards, a $958,333 salary, $9.84 million of stock and option awards and $16,193 of other compensation.

Citigroup Reports Profit

Flashback Tuesday, March 10, 2009: Another Bear Market Rally or Something More?

In a letter sent to employees Monday, Citi Chief Executive Vikram Pandit said the first-quarter performance so far has been the bank's best since the third quarter of 2007 -- the last time it recorded net income for a full period. Based on historical revenue and expense rates, Citi's projected earnings before taxes and one-time charges would be about $8.3 billion for the full quarter.

Pandit declined to say how large credit losses and other one-time items have been that would at least partially offset profit.

What Really Happened?

Citigroup reported a profit. Hallejuah! Pandit can start receiving a salary and bonus. Of course Pandit is playing with semantics. An "operating profit" is not the same as a profit.

This is what I said at the time:

So Citigroup has a profit, excluding what?

Who knows? Pandit did not say.

In other news, I am announcing I have $10 billion in my bank account except for the portion of the $10 billion I do not have.

Is dumping assets at fire sale prices at enormous taxpayer expense helping Pandit get his bonus restored? Is there any integrity at a high level anywhere? If there is, how could we possibly know or believe it?

What We Know

Pandit was not truthful to Congress.
Geithner is the architect of this madness.
Obama supports Geithner.
Taxpayers are getting screwed.
Greed at the top is still insatiable.
Geithner is incompetent.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com