• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Here4Good

Beach Fanatic
Jul 10, 2006
1,264
529
Point Washington
I suppose you think it is possible that all the problems occured from 2007-2008 to get big banks like BoA in enough trouble that we had to spend billions to keep them in business?
Scott: cost us millions?
Sink: cost us billions?

Is there a third door?

The issues with B of A don't fall into the category (to me) of problems that occurred because they were cooking the books. They had problems in marketing and underwriting and followed the herd like good banking sheep.

If she had been CEO, I'd give it some thought.
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
Just for the record, I don't think BofA was ever in any danger of going under. Far from it. Any money sent their way was designed to spur lending and stimulate the economy. They had just gotten through buying Merrill Lynch and Countrywide.
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
I guess that is why they needed 45 billion in taxpayer money from TARP.


Did you not read my explanation at all? They were in absolutely no danger of bankruptcy. they did not in any way shape or form need that money for survival. Please show me something stating otherwise if you're so sure.
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
Apparently at the time there was at least some question about their viability:

The Bonddad Blog: Former IMF Economist Sees Big Bank Going Under


It looks a bit tinfoil hat-like. The money that BAC took made them more secure in their purchase of Merrill Lynch and gave them more lending power. The latter was supposed to help stimulate the economy. I can't say whether it was successful or not. In any event, they were in no danger of going under. Worst case they could have backed out of the Merril Lynch deal.
 

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,845
3,471
59
Right here!
Did you not read my explanation at all? They were in absolutely no danger of bankruptcy. they did not in any way shape or form need that money for survival. Please show me something stating otherwise if you're so sure.

They had failed. We bailed them out. They were one of the few big banks that needed the TARP funds to keep their capital ratios above water. Also, FYI, we haven't seen the last of BofA's financial woes.
 

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,845
3,471
59
Right here!
What about Citigroup and Wells fargo?

I'd consider Citi a failed bank as well. I don't remember Wells taking any money, or if they did, maybe they took it as smoke screen coverage for the others.

Anyway doesn't make any difference. I'm not going to falt Sink for Ken Lewis and I'm not going to fault Scott for whoever ripped the government off.

I'm more interested in budgetary plans, line item vetos, education reform, citizens, and all this bloody money we're borrowing from the feds to make our mandatory medicaid payments.
 

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal
I'd consider Citi a failed bank as well. I don't remember Wells taking any money, or if they did, maybe they took it as smoke screen coverage for the others.

Anyway doesn't make any difference. I'm not going to falt Sink for Ken Lewis and I'm not going to fault Scott for whoever ripped the government off.

I'm more interested in budgetary plans, line item vetos, education reform, citizens, and all this bloody money we're borrowing from the feds to make our mandatory medicaid payments.

Ok so by your definition a failed enterprise is any entity that accepts money from the government.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter