BoA to get additional TARP money....

Status
Not open for further replies.

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
C'mon "Free-marketers"....

Please explain how this is even close to being a part of a free market system when the largest bank in the country makes a purchase and then looks to the taxpayers to offset the losses associated with it.

And the bankers wonder how the prevalent mindset of screw the banks and walk away from your mortgage and cut your losses became part of the American lexicon?

Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. bank by assets, may get more aid from the U.S. government to help absorb losses tied to this month?s purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co., three people familiar with the matter said.

Bank of America told regulators in December the takeover might be abandoned because of Merrill?s worse-than-expected results, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks are private. The U.S. insisted the transaction go forward because the deal?s collapse would have created new turmoil in the financial system, they said.

The talks may add to speculation that Bank of America overreached by rescuing two money-losing companies in six months, including New York-based Merrill Lynch and Calabasas, California- based Countrywide Financial Corp. The combined company already received $25 billion from the U.S. The new aid package is designed to ensure the Merrill Lynch deal gets done, not to save Bank of America from collapse, one person said.

Bank of America on Sept. 15 agreed to buy Merrill Lynch, the world?s largest securities firm, after a weekend of negotiations. The $19.4 billion transaction came as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. sank into bankruptcy, crippled by the frozen credit markets.

Discussions about U.S. aid started in mid-December and the bank completed the purchase Jan. 1 based on assurances of U.S. help, according to the people. Details are likely to be released when the bank reports results on Jan. 20, the people said.

The Treasury may decide to absorb some losses on Merrill?s assets and cap the bank?s liability, with terms still being discussed, the people said.

Scott Silvestri, a spokesman for Bank of America, and Brookly McLaughlin, a Treasury spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Countrywide Purchase

The Merrill purchase followed Bank of America?s July acquisition of Countrywide, the largest U.S. home lender. That transaction also appears to be causing losses at Bank of America because of the declining value of U.S. home prices, said Gary Townsend, president of Hill-Townsend Capital LLC in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

?Bank of America has all kinds of problems with its acquisitions,? Townsend said. ?The problem with Bank of America is that they?ve been so acquisitive, they find themselves with very little in tangible equity.?

U.S. Representative Mel Watt, a Democrat from Charlotte who is on the House Financial Services Committee, said he didn?t know of any pending government support for Bank of America from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

?I was under the impression that the Treasury was out of the first part of the TARP money and there wasn?t any more to give out,? Watt said in a telephone interview. ?They aren?t being very transparent in who they are giving money to.?

While departing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has allocated all the first half of the financial-rescue fund, at least $57 billion has still to be disbursed, leaving the department some room for emergency rescues. President George W. Bush notified Congress Jan. 12 of the intent to use the next $350 billion of the TARP money, triggering a 15-day period in which lawmakers can object.
 

heymrdj

Diamond Member
May 28, 2007
3,999
63
91
Awww i thought we were talking about BoA the band.

Guess this is interesting too :).
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
Just to chime in on bank bailouts and their FRAUD,
is a little trick banks are pulling with homes they repo-ed.
Say the house original loan was for 80 thou, remaining loan balance on the repo
was 20 thou. House book value is now 110 thou.
The bank will repo the home, and book their loss at 110 thou, not 20 thou, not even 80 thou. WHY??? So when they get the bailout $$$ they make it look like they have a 110
loss and not the realistic loss of 20 thou.
So they get handed 110 thou bailout from the gov (your money).
And don?t forget that original 60 thou they already collected.
Banks... Dont you just love them? The last thing we need is to feel sorry for them.



 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: sportage
Just to chime in on bank bailouts and their FRAUD,
is a little trick banks are pulling with homes they repo-ed.
Say the house original loan was for 80 thou, remaining loan balance on the repo
was 20 thou. House book value is now 110 thou.
The bank will repo the home, and book their loss at 110 thou, not 20 thou, not even 80 thou. WHY??? So when they get the bailout $$$ they make it look like they have a 110
loss and not the realistic loss of 20 thou.
So they get handed 110 thou bailout from the gov (your money).
And don?t forget that original 60 thou they already collected.
Banks... Dont you just love them? The last thing we need is to feel sorry for them.

Where is your proof for this practice?

Almost all mortgages aren't owned by the banks. So your theory fails there first.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: sportage
Just to chime in on bank bailouts and their FRAUD,
is a little trick banks are pulling with homes they repo-ed.
Say the house original loan was for 80 thou, remaining loan balance on the repo
was 20 thou. House book value is now 110 thou.
The bank will repo the home, and book their loss at 110 thou, not 20 thou, not even 80 thou. WHY??? So when they get the bailout $$$ they make it look like they have a 110
loss and not the realistic loss of 20 thou.
So they get handed 110 thou bailout from the gov (your money).
And don?t forget that original 60 thou they already collected.
Banks... Dont you just love them? The last thing we need is to feel sorry for them.

Not even close.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
um, BAC took one for the team. I'm sure the Fed forced them to buy an overpriced MER.

At $50bn in this market? No, I don't think MER was forced in to anything - Lynch got a sweetheart deal for Merrill shareholders.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Why are you blaming the free market? Since the government is doing the giving, it is distinctly not a free market deal. The free market would let the banks collapse.

Now you are starting to see why some of us are against government involvement. Government fucks everything up.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
um, BAC took one for the team. I'm sure the Fed forced them to buy an overpriced MER.

At $50bn in this market? No, I don't think MER was forced in to anything - Lynch got a sweetheart deal for Merrill shareholders.

MER probably would've gone BK also had BAC not bailed them out. I'm pretty sure the feds pressured BAC and MER to do a deal. That was when LEH just went bankrupt and AIG needed to be bailed out.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
um, BAC took one for the team. I'm sure the Fed forced them to buy an overpriced MER.

At $50bn in this market? No, I don't think MER was forced in to anything - Lynch got a sweetheart deal for Merrill shareholders.

MER probably would've gone BK also had BAC not bailed them out. I'm pretty sure the feds pressured BAC and MER to do a deal. That was when LEH just went bankrupt and AIG needed to be bailed out.

MER wasn't close when the deal happened, and the stock price wasn't nearly as low as we're seeing now for banks. I just think Thain was smart enough to realize that MER could have no future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.