Tue, Mar 3, 2015, 10:13 AM EST - U.S. Markets close in 5 hrs 47 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • dbergh1 dbergh1 Oct 15, 2008 10:44 PM Flag

    Vote on the problems. not people

    Democratic OR Republican
    That is just a smoke screen so you don't know WHO is the one to vote out.

    Point (who) did that/ He did - He who

    WE need NAMES of the people them self's


    The first time I heard that we can not leave our debt to is grand children

    I was a grand child. 35 years ago

    Nothing Ever gets done

    We need to get real WE have REAL PROBLEMS

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Debergh1 - I would say you're correct. Vote on the SOLUTIONS offered by the politician and then HOLD them ACCOUNTABLE for their promises.

      • 1 Reply to orkslayer0
      • READ THIS
        Tell me this just dose not just PISS YOU OFF



        It does to Sweden. The country was so far in the hole in 1992 — after years of imprudent regulation, short-sighted economic policy and the end of its property boom — that its banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent.

        But Sweden took a different course than the one now being proposed by the United States Treasury. And Swedish officials say there are lessons from their own nightmare that Washington may be missing.

        Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.

        That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.

        “If I go into a bank,” said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden’s minister for fiscal and financial affairs at the time, “I’d rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer.”

        Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today’s dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States.
        But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.

        The tumultuous events of the last few weeks have produced a lot of tight-lipped nods in Stockholm. Mr. Lundgren even made the rounds in New York in early September, explaining what the country did in the early 1990s.

        A few American commentators have proposed that the United States government extract equity from banks as a price for their rescue. But it does not seem to be under serious consideration yet in the Bush administration or Congress.

        The reason is not quite clear. The government has already swapped its sovereign guarantee for equity in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance institutions, and the American International Group, the global insurance giant.

        Putting taxpayers on the hook without anything in return could be a mistake, said Urban Backstrom, a senior Swedish finance ministry official at the time. “The public will not support a plan if you leave the former shareholders with anything,” he said.

        The Swedish crisis had strikingly similar origins to the American one, and its neighbors, Norway and Finland, were hobbled to the point of needing a government bailout to escape the morass as well.

        Financial deregulation in the 1980s fed a frenzy of real estate lending by Sweden’s banks, which did not worry enough about whether the value of their collateral might evaporate in tougher times

        Property prices imploded. The bubble deflated fast in 1991 and 1992. A vain effort to defend Sweden’s currency, the krona, caused overnight interest rates to spike at one point to 500 percent. The Swedish economy contracted for two consecutive years after a long expansion, and unemployment, at 3 percent in 1990, quadrupled in three years.

        After a series of bank failures and ad hoc solutions, the moment of truth arrived in September 1992, when the government of Prime Minister Carl Bildt decided it was time to clear the decks.





        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?_r=1&em=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1224130723-7//aLvgfs7uL6l4/8nPeYQ&oref=slogin

 
FMCC
2.85+0.06(+2.15%)9:57 AMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.