ThinkFast: March 23, 2009
ThinkFast: March 23, 2009
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will unveil a three-pronged program today for fixing the financial crisis, which “envisions the creation of a series of public-private investments to soak up $500 billion, and maybe as much as $1 trillion, in troubled loans and securities at the heart of the financial crisis.” In a WSJ op-ed, Geithner writes that he is confident that “these policies will work.”
Paul Krugman writes today that, if reports leaked about Geithner’s bank rescue plan are correct, then he “has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy — specifically, the ‘cash for trash’ plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.” “This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair,” he said.
Foreign firms and governments are increasing their lobbying efforts in Washington and state capitals, hoping to sell “their expertise in clean energy, high-speed transit and other technologies that under gird key aspects of President Obama’s stimulus efforts.” These firms, however, are “proceeding cautiously for fear of stoking nationalistic objections from U.S. lawmakers and their constituents.”
Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean has been named a regular CNBC commentator. He co-hosted CNBC’s “Sqawk Box” this morning.
In an interview with 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft, President Obama said, “There’s got to be an exit strategy” out of Afghanistan. Saying what was needed “is a comprehensive strategy,” Obama said, “There’s go to be a sense that this is not perpetual drift.”
Also in the interview, Obama “expressed doubt about the constitutionality of a House bill that would impose heavy new taxes on certain Wall Street bonuses, clouding the measure’s future.” “[Y]ou don’t want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals,” Obama said. “I think you certainly don’t want to use the tax code to punish people.”
On Friday, “[t]wo dozen black lawmakers angrily stalked out of the Georgia House…amid assertions that a decision by white Republican leaders to delay passage of a resolution honoring President Obama had racist overtones.” Republican lawmakers objected to the resolution’s wording which said Obama has an “unimpeachable reputation for integrity, vision and passion for public service.”
President Obama will speak about the energy portion of his budget at the White House today, highlighting research and development in clean energy. Aides to Obama say that while the administration will work with Congress on the budget, “energy independence is not subject to wheeling and dealing.”
The AP writes that under Hillary Clinton, the State Department is “embracing new media.” In less than three months, “Clinton’s Web efforts already have outpaced those of her predecessors,” including a revamped website and blog, an “ask the Secretary” column, Twitter feed, and YouTube channel.
And finally: For the record, Michelle Obama is not pregnant. Lately, there have been rumors swirling on the Internet that there may soon be another Obama running around the White House. But in a new interview for O Magazine, Oprah says to the First Lady, “Well, you look better than ever – despite the rumors that you’ve got a baby bump.” Laughing, Obama replies, “I know — I was like, ‘Baby bump? As hard as I work on my abs?!‘” She adds that she’s not pregnant and “not planning on it.”
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
FIRST!!!
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 am(im never at work this early. sorry wont happen again. lol)
wut? why? huh?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 amI am beginning to think that Krugman is just a gadfly filled with sour grapes because no one asked him to join this Administration.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:07 amPaul Krugman writes today that, if reports leaked about Geithner’s bank rescue plan are correct, then he “has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy…
You know, I used to be a fan of Paul Krugman, but his childish vendetta against President Obama is getting really tiresome. I’m thinking that he got his feelings hurt that Obama didn’t come to him for financial advice. The thing that really frosts me about his incessant carping on our President is that he never presents an alternative. If he’s so smart, then why hasn’t he come up with a plan of his own.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 amtom, I agree. This is what Paulson should have done with the tarp money right away. We have wasted time and money by waiting this long to attack the toxic assets that has been holding back banks and the market.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 amThese firms, however, are “proceeding cautiously for fear of stoking nationalistic objections from U.S. lawmakers and their constituents.”
As well they should. I doubt that President Obama is going to look outside the US for clean energy alternatives. That is probably going to be one of the areas of job growth that will save this country’s economic system in the long run. If Obama started right off sending it off-shore, he would not survive as President.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 am“[Y]ou don’t want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals,” Obama said. “I think you certainly don’t want to use the tax code to punish people.”
I’m surprised he didn’t mention it’s constitutionality. Passing retroactive laws is not constitutional.
People have said that “ex post facto” only applies to criminal matters, but I have also read that is not true. That last part of the definition of “ex post facto” would apply to legal contract (”facts and relationships that existed”).
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
——————————————————————————–
The unhinged Right, egged on by hate bloggers and AM talkers, let their true feelings out at an anti-Obama rally in Orlando:
“Obama Bin Lyin’: IMPEACH NOW”
This is insane! What has Obama done in two months in office to warrant impeachment and eight years of criminal enterprise under Bush didn’t? My god there is some ignorant fear mongers in our country.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 amangels81 Says:
“… This is what Paulson should have done with the tarp money right away. ”
Paulson was not installed as Treasury Secretary to solve any problems. He was installed to give away bailouts as quickly as possible before Bush went out the door.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 am“My god there is some ignorant fear mongers in our country.”
Especially in Orlando.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 amPresident Obama said, “There’s got to be an exit strategy” out of Afghanistan.
Exit Strategy… first time in a loooonnnnggggg time we’ve heard a President say that and mean it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:24 am@5 Im still a fan of PK. Hopefully our President takes the time to consider the criticism and makes his policies stronger. (Its nice actually having a ‘reader’ in office)
Krugman’s always been a dismal prophet because our economy has been a joke for all of my adult life.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 amI hope you are right raynman, but until I see a exit strategy I’ll be worried. Talk is cheap.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 amcaption…
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am“Why are they looking at me like that?”
Dr. Krugman is right about Sec. Geithner’s plan. Dr. Dean Baker recommends always following the money to see the beneficiaries of any plan. According to Geithner’s plan, the Treasury money, our money, flows to the wealthy. If troubled asset prices rise, the rich speculators win and if they fall the rich speculators win and the taxpayers pay the difference and lose.
Take on the merits of the plan rather than accusing Dr. Krugman of an Obama vendetta. President Obama is being poorly advised on this program. He is smart enough to know better. Unlike the last president, he doesn’t have to always do what those who supposedly know more tell him.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 amI’m also a fan of Krugman when it comes to telling us what is wrong with wall street and our economy. He’s not very good when it comes to what we should do to fix it.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 amcomprehensive strategy out of Afghanistan
What?! You mean “you’re either with us or against us” and “shock and awe” aren’t comprehensive? You mean we should add tactics like **shudder** diplomacy and **gasp** cooperation with other countries and **horror of all horrors**
a law enforcement component? What shall we become?
/snark off
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 amCalder v. Somedude clearly states that “ex post facto” isn’t applicable in civil cases.
Im not sure the 90% tax rate on these bonuses is a good idea, but if Rangel did his job, its probably constitutionally airtight.
Scalia and Thomas are the only complete outright HACKS on the court right now.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 amIn Geithner,s plan there is risk involved for the rich who buy into this plan to buy up these toxic assets. There also is a chance they will make a lot of money, which is the draw for them to buy into the plan. Like it or not we have an economy that depends on these money people to help bail us out of the mess they helped make by their greed. I think we have two choices in this matter. Either we the tax payers right off the bad assets or we come up with a plan that gets wall street to buy into the risk with the tax payers. Its a bad deal either way, but Geithner is trying to find the least pain for the tax payer.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 amZOMG WHERE’S HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!?!?
IMPEACHZORZ!!!1!!one!!1!
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 amWell put. Geitner has a rough situation to deal with. Personally I wouldn’t trade places with him for all the AIG bonus money.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 amThe Obama administration= Bush Lite…
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 am#22. What risk is there for rich people buying “toxic assets?” If prices rise they win. If prices fall, the taxpayer bails them out.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 amYou should watch the Glenn Beck 9/12 (The day after 9/11/
, get it?) Project. Its up on the Youtubes. Hands down the most unintentionally hilarious bit of right wing crying ive ever seen.
He cries throughout the entire program like a little girl with a skinned knee.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 amU.S. President Barack Obama has held talks with Mikhail Gorbachev, a spokesman for the former Soviet leader said on Monday, in the latest sign of Washington’s efforts to “press the reset button” on ties with Russia.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 amI knew i shouldn’t have freehanded them tags. =D
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 amdeebaser Says:
FIRST!!!
And you feel just in asserting that someone else is behaving like a little girl?
Get over yourself very often, I see not…
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 amstewartjt: You need to read the plan. The money tax payers will be laying out are in the forms of loans. If these toxic assets end up being worthless the fat cat stands to lose money. He also still will have to pay back the money the tax payers lend them for the buying up of these assets. This is the worry that Obama and Geithner have, because of the risk they fear that wall street won’t buy in and that leaves it all on the tax payers.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 amIgnoramuses in Orlando who cry for impeachment are unbelievably stupid sheep, led by rightwing media hatemongers.
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 amAfter two months, what would be the reason for impeachment?
I think we are in for 4 years or 8 years of the same kind of witch hunt that hounded Bill Clinton.
Its officially known to all now. The banksters and multinational corporations run this country, not the people.The U.S. Is a aristocracy posing as a democracy.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 amMarie, all these wingnuts believe Obama is not a natural born citizen. Don’t forget Obama was born on Krypton.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am# 31, He also still will have to pay back the money the tax payers lend them for the buying up of these assets.
Why would anyone buy them if, as is certain, their prices will fall? Dr. Krugman says these speculators can just walk away if prices fall. Do you think he doesn’t understand the plan?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 amATHEIST Says: So, whats new?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 amThe trolls are all over the blogs today declaring President Obama’s president “failed” or “dead”. Unfortunately for them, the public doesn’t agree.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/is-aig-bonus-blowout-hurting-obama.html
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 amstewarjt, yes I don’t think he doesn’t understand the plan. If we do nothing then the tax payer will end up eating these assets anyway. The idea is to get wall street to partner up with tax payers and take part of the risk. I haven’t seen Krugman come up with a better idea.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 amstewarjt Says:
Dr. Krugman is right about Sec. Geithner’s plan.
So, if Krugman is right, why is it that he can’t come up with a better plan? As long as Krugman continues to carp on Obama with no alternative solutions, I will continue to view him as someone who is deeply hurt and is on a vendetta (kind of like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum).
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 amShould have read do, not don’t. Sorry.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 amOne prong of Tim Geithner’s plan could have 97% public money for 3% private. 85% of the total are taxpayer sponsored low interest nonrecourse loans. If the assets turn to junk they simply hand them back to Uncle Sam. America’s shadow banking system wins again!
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 am#39, Dr. Krugman has a better plan. It is here. President Obama is being poorly advised on this.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 amATHEIST Says:
The Obama administration= Bush Lite…
And your proof is? I think we have another “hit and run” troll. What happened, did Becky get kicked out?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:10 am#38. You offer a false dilemma. The options aren’t Sec. Geithner’s plan or nothing. Dr. Krugman offered his solution with no taxpayer bailout money here.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 amThere is no good solution to this mess. If the assets turn to junk the tax payer will eat it all anyway. I’m not sure were you got your numbers concerning the loans, but by trying to get the greedy bastards that got us into this mess to pickup some of the risk, seems to be a good idea.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 amstewarjt Says:
#39, Dr. Krugman has a better plan. It is here. President Obama is being poorly advised on this.
If there is a plan in that editorial it’s lost to me. Perhaps you can tell us what plan Paul Krugman has that is better than the one that Geithner came up with.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 amAs far as I can tell Krugman’s only plan is to nationalize everything. In that case we will own all the toxic assets. How is that a better plan?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 amIt is hard to believe that a Nobel Laureate in economics, a Ph.D. from MIT and a tenured professor at Princeton does not understand Sec. Geithner’s plan. As far as I know, Sec. Geithner doesn’t have a doctorate in economics.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 amGeithner’s plan has loans and equity in the public-private partnership. Loans are nonrecourse. The government could supply as much as 80% of the equity, with private investors supplying 20%.
We’re back to priming the greed and leverage pump. Taxpayers are clearly at risk. I’d like to know the formula for sharing profits, should/when they occur.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 amstewarjt, I read Krugmans no tax payer bailout plan and he is living in a world that we don’t live in. His plan has as much chance in this country as we do of firing everybody on wall street and starting over.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 amThe difference is that with nationalization the stockholder and the wealthy executives who drove the banks into the ground are wiped out and fired respectively. The assets are sold and depositors are guaranteed their money. Dr. Krugman points out this is exactly the plan followed after the S&L disaster of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.
The point is with nationalization the already wealthy and powerful are not bailed out AGAIN by the taxpayer.
Geithner’s plan is helping the already wealthy in order to help the economy rather than just aiding those who need help directly. It is akin to feeding a horse enough oats so that some pass through to the sparrows in the road.
The working people are the sparrows in the road.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 amOne supporter of Geithners plan is Warren Buffet. I would say he has a pretty good idea about how this economy works, just as much or more then Krugman.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 amWall Street imploded due to greed and leverage. Geithner’s plan is hair of the dog medicine. More shadow banking system greed and government supplied leverage.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 am#50, So your response is the way you read the plan is not consistent with what you perceive to be reality? Exactly why can’t Dr. Krugman’s plan work?
Are you saying that if the wealthy, powerful and already well connected don’t benefit as with Sec. Geithner’s plan, then no plan is possible?
This says way more about for whom the political and economic systems work and in whose interests Sec. Geithner is acting than is does about Dr. Krugman. You appear to be indicting the capitalist system and corresponding public sector apparatus. Please direct your anger there and work to get Dr. Krugman’s plan enacted rather than blame the messenger and supporting Sec. Geithner regardless.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 amWhy do I keep hearing people say that Krugman doesn’t have a plan when he continuously advocates temporarily taking over the bad banks?
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 amIf 97% taxpayer money didn’t entice the private equity boys, what else did they want? NYT reported:
1. Non or limited disclosure
2. No compensation limits or special tax increases
3. Clear, unchanging governance rules
NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/economy/23toxic.html?_r=2&hp
Ny commentary:
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/03/peu-boys-hold-out-for-primo-terms.html
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 amYou play with the hand you are dealt. Nationalization is not going to happen in this country on the scale Krugaman is talking about and that’s a fact. Its easy for someone who sits in the halls of Harvard or Princeton and muses about the economy.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 am#56. I take your last post as agreeing the only way to have a bank plan is by helping the wealthy first. There really is nothing more to say. We should all just lay down and let Sec. Geithner’s plan benefiting the already wealthy and powerful pass without opposition.
I expect more from people here at TP.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 amNationalization is not going to happen in this country on the scale Krugaman is talking about and that’s a fact.
In a country ruled by corporations. They’re ready for another round of corporafornication. Geithner’s plan is a sweet deal for the PEU boys (private equity underwriters).
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 am[michele obama] adds that she’s not pregnant and “not planning on it.”
darn…
wouldn’t a little obama baby boy be just the perfect cap to it all!
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 amATHEIST Says: You say Krugamn thinks that we take over the bad banks and put them into the hands of Geithner and the fed, but on the other hand Krugman has no trust in Geithner or the fed???
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 amFor the NYT story citing government investment (loans & equity) could provide 97% of the capital for public-private partnerships, go to:
NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/business/21bank.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
My commentary:
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/03/ppp-ft-pppft.html
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 amProof, yet again, that we now live in Bizarro World…if sane, we’d have Howard Dean on the coveted 10 PM slot on MSNBC, and Krugman co-hosting “Squawk Box”. (For which he would quickly suggest a non-infantile rename.)
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 amJust look at the stock market going up this morning and tell me why the fat cats are lapping up the Geithner plan. Could it be because it benefits them at our expense? We get the risk and they get the reward once again. Are private citizens allowed to bid for these toxic asets? No, it isn’t open to you and me.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 amWhat’s good for Wall Street isn’t good for Main Street. Not anymore.
The Carlyle Group stands to make big money again. Their target is 30% annual returns. Think that requires greed and leverage?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJxUUBXOD7s8&refer=home
Carlyle Group LP, the world’s second- largest buyout firm, has lined up about $1 billion to invest in banks as the Obama administration seeks to attract private capital to troubled financial institutions, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Carlyle, based in Washington, plans to raise as much as $3 billion for the new fund this year after initially gathering $600 million in October, said the people, who asked not to be named because the fund is private.
Follow the money…
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:59 amProfits are to be split 50/50 when the government is providing most of the capital (up to 97%).
Simply amazing how sweet this deal is for the big money boys.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 amMatt Taibbi writes on the financial shenanigans in the RollingStone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 amBullshit state. Where do you get that the government will be providing 97% of the investment funds?
From your times link:
You’re an alarmist disiminator or misinformation.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 amYou’re an alarmist disiminator of misinformation.
Should have read OF
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 amI post links, Fred calls names. I posted the NYT article that states that percentage. Can’t you read? Since you won’t here’s the math.
CNBC just said the leverage is 6:1 on debt and 20:1 on equity.
Debt leverage 6 to 1 = (100/7*6 = 85.7%
That means taxpayers provide up to 85% of the capital for the PPP via loans
100-85 = 15% equity
The Geitner plan allows for the government to supply $20 in equity for every $1 in private funding. Once again, the term is up to, it can be less.
15/21 = .714
15-.714 = 14.286% Taxpayers could provide 14.3% of the equity, with the private sector ponying up less than 1%.
So the number could be 99.3% of taxpayer provided capital in Geithern public-private partnerships. It could also be less.
Recall the profits are split 50/50. That’s a firm number.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 amdeebaser Says:
Calder v. Somedude clearly states that “ex post facto” isn’t applicable in civil cases
There are many legal scholars who disagree with this. But, you are entitled to your opinion.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 amstewarjt Says:
The difference is that with nationalization the stockholder and the wealthy executives who drove the banks into the ground are wiped out and fired respectively. The assets are sold and depositors are guaranteed their money. Dr. Krugman points out this is exactly the plan followed after the S&L disaster of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.
And you think that today’s financial environment is exactly the same as it was back when the S & L disaster happened? I.DON’T.THINK.SO. Today’s financial world is light years away from what it was in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
So, if we nationalize all our financial institutions and dump all the “toxic assets”, what happens to all the people on main street whose retirement income is tied up in those toxic assets?
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:55 amstateofthedivision Says: yadda yadda yadda…
So, since you think you are so brilliant, as is Dr. Krugman, please tell us what Geithner/Obama should do as an alternative to this plan. And keep in mind that the financial world of today is light years away from where we were back when the S&L disaster happened. Also keep in mind that a lot of main street’s retirement money is tied up in these “toxic assets”.
So, either put up or shut up.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 amIn an interview with 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft, President Obama said, “There’s got to be an exit strategy” out of Afghanistan.
Jus’ get on a ship, Chip.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pmFlag down a lorry, Maurie.
Catch the first plane, Jane.
Hop in a taxi, Maxie.
Get on a truck, Chuck.
Follow that tank, Hank.
In this case, Chinese condoms.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pmThat’s the dilemma for the folks at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has distributed an estimated 10 billion U.S.-made AIDS-preventing condoms in poor countries around the world.
But not anymore.
What kind of moron would use a chinese condom? It’d be filled with melamine, which is great for dinnerware, but contraception? Ahdunthinso…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bailout.html
Obama is right about this:
The people at AIG don’t deserve the bonus money. We should find a way to get it back.
The problem is that you don’t want to set a precedent that the government can use tax policy to single out individuals. Government should not be given that power.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pmBilbo,
If Bush proposed this plan, TP and its enforcers would be all over it.
I wouldn’t restart greed and leverage. I wouldn’t put poisoned Tylenol back on the shelf. I wouldn’t restart securitization. America needs to return to producing sound, quality financial products.
We have $13 trillion in interventions and banks still aren’t loaning? President Obama just said those words on my television.
The endless corporate giveaways are disturbing. This is the latest round.
If you discount Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, I’m sure you’ll discount this response. Yada, yada, yada.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pmHere’s the other way of looking at it:
Private investment firms must put up at least 5% of the equity.
85% debt
15% equity
Taxpayers 95% of equity. This equals 15 * .95 = 14.25%
Private investment firms 5% of equity or 15 * .05 = 0.75%
Profits split 50/50, not based on equity contributions. What a great deal for private investment firms. PIMCO’s Bill Gross expects returns in the teens, 13% or greater, from the PPP’s.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 pmIt does seem to stink more the more we hear about it. My biggest misgiving about Obama’s being elected (and I was and still am a strong supporter) was that he would not repudiate the neoliberal corporate-friendly policies that have been in place for decades now, regardless of who’s in the White House.
I still hope to be wrong on this point.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pmhttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pmThanks for that article link. Enlightening and terrifying all at once.
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 pmObama,like Bush is no friend of humanity. He’s the new face of the New World Order.
March 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm“This ambitious program is structured in a way to attract private capital and help banks sell distressed or toxic assets,” said David Marchick, head of government and regulatory affairs at Washington-based Carlyle Group, a closely held private-equity firm.
Lawrence Summers, the White House National Economic Council Director, said in a Bloomberg Television interview today that investors in the new debt plan wouldn’t be subject to compensation restrictions applied to banks rescued by the government.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRcyfBHs2JZ0&refer=home
Marchick is an ex-Clinton White House staffer. He works at Carlyle alongside fellow Clinton employees, Mack McLarty (senior adviser), Chris Ullman, William Kennard, and Charles Rossotti.
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:23 pmReuters reported on the problem of second mortgages in redoing mortgage loans:
Bank of America held $148 billion in second liens at the end of last year, while JPMorgan Chase held $131.4 billion and Wells Fargo & Co. held $129.9 billion, according to Inside Mortgage Finance.
Treasury officials promised that they will present a payment schedule to buy out second liens but they have not yet released details.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52M66120090323?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:58 pmCarlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein told Robert Wenzel that Carlyle needs a 20% rate of return to participate in Geithner’s public-private partnership plan.
March 24th, 2009 at 9:43 am