3 ms·

The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel. Citadel was bailed out by US tax payers in 2009 vi

The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel. Citadel was bailed out by US tax payers in 2009 via AIG. Unfortunately things are very opaque because of the said interconnectedness this article discusses.

valuearb 6y ago
So you can’t?
- endisneigh 6y ago
  Can't what?
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Presumably, can't provide an example. You provided an example, so you can't.
    - endisneigh 6y ago
      I honestly don’t follow.
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        Oh, they were criticising your example! Okay, that makes more sense. When somebody asks for an example of A, and you provide an example of B, they might assume you can't provide an example of A.
eloff 6y ago
That logic has a few holes in it. Being bailed out by an entity that was bailed out by the government does not make you bailed out by the government.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  Why not? Are they not bailed out indirectly?
  - eloff 6y ago
    No. That's not taxpayer money anymore. If you buy a car at a dealership and they take that money and donate it to ISIS, did you just support terrorism? No, the dealer did. You only bought a car.
    - endisneigh 6y ago
      We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally, if I give you a dollar and you give that dollar to someone else, I'd say that I had indirectly given the final person a dollar.
      - eloff 6y ago
        It's indirect. So that doesn't make it a bailout anymore.
        endisneigh 6y ago
        That's not what bailout means... The direct or indirectness of the money flow is unrelated to whether or not something is a bailout.
        eloff 6y ago
        A bailout is a discrete event. It happened, it's over. Citadel still exists as a company thanks to the AG bailout. That does not mean everything citadel ever buys is now a government bailout. That's just silly.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
nrmitchi 6y ago
Seriously? > The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel. Citadel buying a controlling interest in a fund that was historically very profitable and hit a huge a landmine, allowing them to buy at a huge discount, isn't really a "bailout" in the same way you're suggesting. Citadel didn't slide them a couple billion dollars under the table and say "don't worry about it, you get me next time". > Citadel was bailed out by US tax payers in 2009 via AIG This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  > Citadel buying a controlling interest in a fund that was historically very profitable and hit a huge a landmine, allowing them to buy at a huge discount, isn't really a "bailout" in the same way you're suggesting. Citadel didn't slide them a couple billion dollars under the table and say "don't worry about it, you get me next time". Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? The entire point I’m making is that they receive incredible assistance when very poor decisions are made. > This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline. Yes, that is my point exactly. Many of these banks wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the tax payer.
  - nrmitchi 6y ago
    > Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? No, it is not. If they were given free money, or a loan with basically no interest, or some other sweetheart deal, that would be a bailout. Someone taking advantage of your misfortunate in order to buy you at a discount as not a "bail out".
    - endisneigh 6y ago
goatinaboat 6y ago
The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel. Citadel was bailed out by US tax payers in 2009 via AIG. Wait a second. Citadel is a fund manager. AIG is an insurance company. Neither are banks.
xkjkls 6y ago
When does "one institution investing in another become a bail out"? Also, why are "bail outs" bad at all?
- nytgop77 6y ago
  bail outs are undermining the "invisible hand" . Bad decisions dont get penalized, so actors start evaluating decisions diferently.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    The other institutions buying the stricken institution at a large discount is the invisible hand, exactly. That discount is a huge penalty.
  - xkjkls 6y ago
    The bail outs being described are the invisible hand though. Government actions aren't being described, private companies engaging in private investments are. "Bail out" seems to be a catch all term for "struggling company I dislike received financing".
ChrisLomont 6y ago
Taxpayers didn't pay for any of the 2009 bailouts, which were actually loans, the repayment of which actually benefitted taxpayers. The bailouts, if paid by taxpayers, would have required paying about triple taxes that year, which didn't happen. The Fed, not taxpayers, made loans. By law, the profits the Fed made on those loans, went to Treasury, which actually does cover taxpayer expenses. Read up on this before making claims that are completely opposite of the facts.

valuearb 6y ago

So you can’t?

endisneigh 6y ago
Can't what?
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Presumably, can't provide an example. You provided an example, so you can't.
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    I honestly don’t follow.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Oh, they were criticising your example! Okay, that makes more sense. When somebody asks for an example of A, and you provide an example of B, they might assume you can't provide an example of A.

eloff 6y ago

That logic has a few holes in it. Being bailed out by an entity that was bailed out by the government does not make you bailed out by the government.

endisneigh 6y ago
Why not? Are they not bailed out indirectly?
- eloff 6y ago
  No. That's not taxpayer money anymore. If you buy a car at a dealership and they take that money and donate it to ISIS, did you just support terrorism? No, the dealer did. You only bought a car.
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally, if I give you a dollar and you give that dollar to someone else, I'd say that I had indirectly given the final person a dollar.
    - eloff 6y ago
      It's indirect. So that doesn't make it a bailout anymore.
      - endisneigh 6y ago
        That's not what bailout means... The direct or indirectness of the money flow is unrelated to whether or not something is a bailout.
        eloff 6y ago
        A bailout is a discrete event. It happened, it's over. Citadel still exists as a company thanks to the AG bailout. That does not mean everything citadel ever buys is now a government bailout. That's just silly.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

nrmitchi 6y ago

Seriously? > The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel. Citadel buying a controlling interest in a fund that was historically very profitable and hit a huge a landmine, allowing them to buy at a huge discount, isn't really a "bailout" in the same way you're suggesting. Citadel didn't slide them a couple billion dollars under the table and say "don't worry about it, you get me next time". > Citadel was bailed out by US tax payers in 2009 via AIG This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline.

endisneigh 6y ago
> Citadel buying a controlling interest in a fund that was historically very profitable and hit a huge a landmine, allowing them to buy at a huge discount, isn't really a "bailout" in the same way you're suggesting. Citadel didn't slide them a couple billion dollars under the table and say "don't worry about it, you get me next time". Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? The entire point I’m making is that they receive incredible assistance when very poor decisions are made. > This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline. Yes, that is my point exactly. Many of these banks wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the tax payer.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  > Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? No, it is not. If they were given free money, or a loan with basically no interest, or some other sweetheart deal, that would be a bailout. Someone taking advantage of your misfortunate in order to buy you at a discount as not a "bail out".
  - endisneigh 6y ago

goatinaboat 6y ago

The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel. Citadel was bailed out by US tax payers in 2009 via AIG. Wait a second. Citadel is a fund manager. AIG is an insurance company. Neither are banks.

xkjkls 6y ago

When does "one institution investing in another become a bail out"? Also, why are "bail outs" bad at all?

nytgop77 6y ago
bail outs are undermining the "invisible hand" . Bad decisions dont get penalized, so actors start evaluating decisions diferently.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The other institutions buying the stricken institution at a large discount is the invisible hand, exactly. That discount is a huge penalty.
- xkjkls 6y ago
  The bail outs being described are the invisible hand though. Government actions aren't being described, private companies engaging in private investments are. "Bail out" seems to be a catch all term for "struggling company I dislike received financing".

ChrisLomont 6y ago

Taxpayers didn't pay for any of the 2009 bailouts, which were actually loans, the repayment of which actually benefitted taxpayers. The bailouts, if paid by taxpayers, would have required paying about triple taxes that year, which didn't happen. The Fed, not taxpayers, made loans. By law, the profits the Fed made on those loans, went to Treasury, which actually does cover taxpayer expenses. Read up on this before making claims that are completely opposite of the facts.