its not that simple. another bank just wont come along. Citi is a global company with trillions on its balance sheet. and for the record, BRK is not immune to this mess.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is expected to report a decline in quarterly operating earnings for the third quarter, its fifth consecutive year-over-year quarterly drop.
Despite citibank's poor financial standing, it still possesses a great deal of reliable assets such as dependable debt receivables.
There are plenty of financial institutions out there who would jump at the opportunity to buy interest-earning debts at fire sale prices. After all someone has to collect those debts, and whoever it is will be earning a lot of money.
Of course, don't take it from me. Here is in the words of Senior Harvard Economcis lecturer Jeffrey Miron:
As for Berkshire, declining profits over the last several years can be expected of an institution that did not gamble on risky assets. And with the economy in the shape it is now, proft declines aren't exactly a measure of a firm's potential. The point is that they are nowhere near collapsing, and that's a lot more than citibank can say.
There goes our precious tax dollars being put to good use.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Despite citibank's poor financial standing, it still possesses a great deal of reliable assets such as dependable debt receivables.
There are plenty of financial institutions out there who would jump at the opportunity to buy interest-earning debts at fire sale prices. After all someone has to collect those debts, and whoever it is will be earning a lot of money.
Of course, don't take it from me. Here is in the words of Senior Harvard Economcis lecturer Jeffrey Miron:
As for Berkshire, declining profits over the last several years can be expected of an institution that did not gamble on risky assets. And with the economy in the shape it is now, proft declines aren't exactly a measure of a firm's potential. The point is that they are nowhere near collapsing, and that's a lot more than citibank can say.
berkshire is not a bank or financial institution. they should have no reason to be near collapse. they have been, however, struggling lately meaning they are not immune to the economics troubles...which was my point.
Yes I prefer that millions of Americans go broke, loose their homes and starve. What a fucking stupid question.
sounded like a rhetorical question. meaning if C wasn't bailed out, you would see people go broke, loose their homes, and starve. I'll assume that comment is because you do not support the bailout of C.
this is where I struggle with the issue. I dont want to see a bailout either but I also dont want what could be possible if it wasnt.
sounded like a rhetorical question. meaning if C wasn't bailed out, you would see people go broke, loose their homes, and starve. I'll assume that comment is because you do not support the bailout of C.
this is where I struggle with the issue. I dont want to see a bailout either but I also dont want what could be possible if it wasnt.
The question may have been a rhetorical one but it was stupid none the less. Obviously no one wants to see their fellow man suffer. It would extremely depressing to see families loose everything begging for money just to put food on the table. At the same time I don't agree with the bailouts. In my opinion there where other ways that the situation could have been handled without the government throwing trillions of dollars at corporations.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The question may have been a rhetorical one but it was stupid none the less. Obviously no one wants to see their fellow man suffer. It would extremely depressing to see families loose everything begging for money just to put food on the table. At the same time I don't agree with the bailouts. In my opinion there where other ways that the situation could have been handled without the government throwing trillions of dollars at corporations.
I agree the question was rude, but what other ways would u suggest?
I agree the question was rude, but what other ways would u suggest?
Well instead of just handing over $700 Billion, no strings attached, to the financial market I would have taken a large portion of that money and made it available to the Small Business Administration to provide loans to small - medium sized businesses so the credit freeze would affect their ability to operate. Second I would have but a freeze of foreclosures for a duration and allowed those home owners to rework their mortgages through a government loan. The sole reason we where sold on this bail out was because it was supposed to take the toxic loans off of the banks hands to free them up to start lending again. Well that's not what's happening.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Well instead of just handing over $700 Billion, no strings attached, to the financial market I would have taken a large portion of that money and made it available to the Small Business Administration to provide loans to small - medium sized businesses so the credit freeze would affect their ability to operate. Second I would have but a freeze of foreclosures for a duration and allowed those home owners to rework their mortgages through a government loan. The sole reason we where sold on this bail out was because it was supposed to take the toxic loans off of the banks hands to free them up to start lending again. Well that's not what's happening.
true. I was very dissapointed to find out the plan changed after it was passed in congress. quite lame.
Citibank,
like JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America,
will NEVER be allowed to fail.
Why?
BECAUSE THESE BANKS LITERALLY OWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
It is naked self interest, and not just in a "conspiratorial" sense.
Think about it.
If the Federal Reserve is the cocaine manufacturer (makes dollars),
the banks are both the smugglers and the street dealers.
They take the product and distribute it.
Without the banks, the dollars don't circulate,
no loans = no bankable assets.
No bankable assets = NO COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN.
IF THE BANKS FAIL, THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS NO COLLATERAL WHICH TO OPERATE OFF OF.
This is the real reason banks like Citi, JP Morgan, and BoA do NOT and NEVER WILL fail.
The faith and credit of the United States itself, DEPENDS upon the operating income of the banks which back it.
Therefore, the Fed must protect its private owners at ALL costs,
because without them, IT has no credit to negotiate with.
That is the shell game we are witnessing.
A "public" institution bailing out private banks with "public" money that is backed by private wealth.
its really really perverse, but its true.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
yea, but I do not think there is a bank who can afford to buy it. but everything has a price I suppose.
Assets and market share don't just disappear when even the largest of corporations go out of business.
berkshire is not a bank or financial institution. they should have no reason to be near collapse. they have been, however, struggling lately meaning they are not immune to the economics troubles...which was my point.
For the most part, they're an insurance services firm, not unlike AIG, which collapsed. Not to mention, it holds controlling interest in savings and loan and bond insurance entities.
yeah, lets save a broken system. lets' give citigroup another $200 billion. fuck it, while we're at it we might as well sign our paychecks over to JP Morgan so they can lend it back to us, charging us interest and forcing us to work to pay off the debt. And if we can't afford the debt maybe they can pawn it off on some other larger bank, so the debt isn't lost in the restructuring. Might as well sign a contract saying, "yes, I am your slave."
For the most part, they're an insurance services firm, not unlike AIG, which collapsed. Not to mention, it holds controlling interest in savings and loan and bond insurance entities.
true but insurance services to completely different sectors. AIG insured extremely risky investments. they were on the Titantic selling life insurance. both were bound to go down. Birkshare definitely has done a better job of weathering this storm, but they are not immune, which was the only point I was making.
assets lose value and market share absolutely disappears. Citi is too big and too risky for any bank to buy right now, IMO
It doesn't have to be a single bank who buys it. The deal could involve several banks. And I've already explained why "too big and risky" doesn't really apply to their situation.
true but insurance services to completely different sectors. AIG insured extremely risky investments. they were on the Titantic selling life insurance. both were bound to go down. Birkshare definitely has done a better job of weathering this storm, but they are not immune, which was the only point I was making.
The point that you were making was that they shouldn't be compared to any of the institutions that failed. Of course, that point was amiss.
Comments
Despite citibank's poor financial standing, it still possesses a great deal of reliable assets such as dependable debt receivables.
There are plenty of financial institutions out there who would jump at the opportunity to buy interest-earning debts at fire sale prices. After all someone has to collect those debts, and whoever it is will be earning a lot of money.
Of course, don't take it from me. Here is in the words of Senior Harvard Economcis lecturer Jeffrey Miron:
If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
As for Berkshire, declining profits over the last several years can be expected of an institution that did not gamble on risky assets. And with the economy in the shape it is now, proft declines aren't exactly a measure of a firm's potential. The point is that they are nowhere near collapsing, and that's a lot more than citibank can say.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Citigroup Sheds Workers, Keeps Mets Deal
There goes our precious tax dollars being put to good use.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
yea, but I do not think there is a bank who can afford to buy it. but everything has a price I suppose.
berkshire is not a bank or financial institution. they should have no reason to be near collapse. they have been, however, struggling lately meaning they are not immune to the economics troubles...which was my point.
Yes I prefer that millions of Americans go broke, loose their homes and starve. What a fucking stupid question.
sounded like a rhetorical question. meaning if C wasn't bailed out, you would see people go broke, loose their homes, and starve. I'll assume that comment is because you do not support the bailout of C.
this is where I struggle with the issue. I dont want to see a bailout either but I also dont want what could be possible if it wasnt.
The question may have been a rhetorical one but it was stupid none the less. Obviously no one wants to see their fellow man suffer. It would extremely depressing to see families loose everything begging for money just to put food on the table. At the same time I don't agree with the bailouts. In my opinion there where other ways that the situation could have been handled without the government throwing trillions of dollars at corporations.
I agree the question was rude, but what other ways would u suggest?
Well instead of just handing over $700 Billion, no strings attached, to the financial market I would have taken a large portion of that money and made it available to the Small Business Administration to provide loans to small - medium sized businesses so the credit freeze would affect their ability to operate. Second I would have but a freeze of foreclosures for a duration and allowed those home owners to rework their mortgages through a government loan. The sole reason we where sold on this bail out was because it was supposed to take the toxic loans off of the banks hands to free them up to start lending again. Well that's not what's happening.
true. I was very dissapointed to find out the plan changed after it was passed in congress. quite lame.
great ideas, I like it.
like JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America,
will NEVER be allowed to fail.
Why?
BECAUSE THESE BANKS LITERALLY OWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
It is naked self interest, and not just in a "conspiratorial" sense.
Think about it.
If the Federal Reserve is the cocaine manufacturer (makes dollars),
the banks are both the smugglers and the street dealers.
They take the product and distribute it.
Without the banks, the dollars don't circulate,
no loans = no bankable assets.
No bankable assets = NO COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN.
IF THE BANKS FAIL, THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS NO COLLATERAL WHICH TO OPERATE OFF OF.
This is the real reason banks like Citi, JP Morgan, and BoA do NOT and NEVER WILL fail.
The faith and credit of the United States itself, DEPENDS upon the operating income of the banks which back it.
Therefore, the Fed must protect its private owners at ALL costs,
because without them, IT has no credit to negotiate with.
That is the shell game we are witnessing.
A "public" institution bailing out private banks with "public" money that is backed by private wealth.
its really really perverse, but its true.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Assets and market share don't just disappear when even the largest of corporations go out of business.
For the most part, they're an insurance services firm, not unlike AIG, which collapsed. Not to mention, it holds controlling interest in savings and loan and bond insurance entities.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
assets lose value and market share absolutely disappears. Citi is too big and too risky for any bank to buy right now, IMO
true but insurance services to completely different sectors. AIG insured extremely risky investments. they were on the Titantic selling life insurance. both were bound to go down. Birkshare definitely has done a better job of weathering this storm, but they are not immune, which was the only point I was making.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It doesn't have to be a single bank who buys it. The deal could involve several banks. And I've already explained why "too big and risky" doesn't really apply to their situation.
The point that you were making was that they shouldn't be compared to any of the institutions that failed. Of course, that point was amiss.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825