>So that goes to show the amount of money needed. If they spent so much money and only got a few % of each bank, how much more money would be needed to purchase

>So that goes to show the amount of money needed. If they spent so much money and only got a few % of each bank, how much more money would be needed to purchase the entire banks altogether. The banks were propped up by TARP and so their market value remained high. Without it they were probably all insolvent and so the cost of owning them would be basically zero. Otherwise the market would have been able to finance the banks. TARP was designed to feed money into banks in a very cheap way, the size of the wealth transfer from the taxpayer to Wall Street is staggering. Buffet himself got much better conditions than the Federal Government. >The notion that the banks are still technically insolvent - says who? I think the markets are the best indicator as to the health of the banks. As far as I can see, their bond spreads over Treasuries have fallen significantly in the last few months and their stocks have been rallying. There is now a quite explicit assumption that the federal government won't let the banks fail. With that and the Fed helping there's plenty of reason to think banks will continue to make money. That doesn't mean the crap on (and off) their balance sheets has stopped being crap. >So are you telling me that the markets (who are extremely sophisticated and thoroughly understand the banking industry) are being fooled by these banks? I'm saying the markets are now useless to value the banks because the value being judged includes the federal government as a crutch. There is no market pricing for the value of the banks on their own.