4 ms·

I'm not sure that the bankruptcy laws call for the nationalization of failing banks.

• gaius 18y ago
  IANAL, but a bank being taken into administration by the central bank is what should happen, rather than a huge injection of taxpayer's money. Having said that, if the taxpayer is going to do that and isn't getting equity (and wiping out existing shareholders, they knew the risks, yadda yadda) then something has gone badly wrong. The perfect bailout (assuming one was to happen anyway) would have been to refund everyone a year's income tax. The money would have gone into the banks via people's current accounts, and the rightful owners of that money, the taxpayer, would have maintained control of what's theirs.
  • anamax 18y ago
    > IANAL, but a bank being taken into administration by the central bank is what should happen, rather than a huge injection of taxpayer's money. Why are those the only two choices? Or rather, there are other things that one might do. Always beware someone who says that the only alternative to doing things their way is some disaster.
    • gaius 18y ago
      Choice a is what normally happens when a company is insolvent, choice b is what actually did happen.
      • anamax 18y ago
        Huh? The govt doesn't "normally" take over when a company is insolvent. Even with banks, the SOP until recently was shut-down (often via sale to another bank).