4 ms·

> it is worth to point out that the US government at large has made profit on the bailouts. Has it though? While it's true that proceeds under TARP exceeded sp

> it is worth to point out that the US government at large has made profit on the bailouts. Has it though? While it's true that proceeds under TARP exceeded spendings, the government has had to hold those assets for years, and had to pay interest on its borrowings during that time. Those interest payments might well have exceeded the profits of the asset sales.

H8crilA 4y ago
Conveniently the short rate, the Fed funds rate was 0.00% - 0.25% until 2016, so I would say yes :) Also, even if it had to pay a little bit when adjusted for the cost of borrowing it's still a massive win. After all the government is nominally not a for-profit institution but rather an entity that helps their citizens (or at least tries to). But in this case it definitely turned out a lot better than one might have predicted at the time the program was launched.
- thomquaid 4y ago
  Youre not accounting for inflation. The value of a dollar today is much more than the value of a dollar years later. Especially when inflation is 6%. The bailed out banks received $426B year 2008 dollars and the TARP dollars recovered are $442B 2014 dollars. In real terms, the Treasury should have recovered $467B 2014 dollars for its investment to have a 0% real rate of return. In fact, $25B real 2008 dollars were given to banks and never recovered.
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    That does not matter because the Treasury funded it with their t-bonds and t-bills, not with CPI (with a small exception for the TIPS notes). The US government is running with a constant debt unlike say Saudi Arabia which has a massive fund. Though they also have bonds. Let me illustrate this with an example: 1. I borrow $1M at 5% p.a., for a year 2. I lend out this $1M to someone else at 7% p.a., for a year 3. A year passes 4. My debtor has not defaulted! Great, I collect my $1.07M 5. I pay back $1.05M 6. I am $20k ahead Nowhere in the above logic we need to know what happened to the CPI or any other inflation measure.
- Denvercoder9 4y ago
  > Conveniently the short rate, the Fed funds rate was 0.00% - 0.25% until 2016, so I would say yes :) TARP was a Treasury program, so wouldn't it have been financed by Treasury notes, which averaged about 2% during that period?

H8crilA 4y ago

Conveniently the short rate, the Fed funds rate was 0.00% - 0.25% until 2016, so I would say yes :) Also, even if it had to pay a little bit when adjusted for the cost of borrowing it's still a massive win. After all the government is nominally not a for-profit institution but rather an entity that helps their citizens (or at least tries to). But in this case it definitely turned out a lot better than one might have predicted at the time the program was launched.

thomquaid 4y ago
Youre not accounting for inflation. The value of a dollar today is much more than the value of a dollar years later. Especially when inflation is 6%. The bailed out banks received $426B year 2008 dollars and the TARP dollars recovered are $442B 2014 dollars. In real terms, the Treasury should have recovered $467B 2014 dollars for its investment to have a 0% real rate of return. In fact, $25B real 2008 dollars were given to banks and never recovered.
- H8crilA 4y ago
  That does not matter because the Treasury funded it with their t-bonds and t-bills, not with CPI (with a small exception for the TIPS notes). The US government is running with a constant debt unlike say Saudi Arabia which has a massive fund. Though they also have bonds. Let me illustrate this with an example: 1. I borrow $1M at 5% p.a., for a year 2. I lend out this $1M to someone else at 7% p.a., for a year 3. A year passes 4. My debtor has not defaulted! Great, I collect my $1.07M 5. I pay back $1.05M 6. I am $20k ahead Nowhere in the above logic we need to know what happened to the CPI or any other inflation measure.
Denvercoder9 4y ago
> Conveniently the short rate, the Fed funds rate was 0.00% - 0.25% until 2016, so I would say yes :) TARP was a Treasury program, so wouldn't it have been financed by Treasury notes, which averaged about 2% during that period?