No Risk Insurance at F.D.I.C.

[katty]

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/business/07sorkin.html?_r=1&ref=business

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Published: April 6, 2009
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was set up 76 years ago with the important but simple job of insuring bank deposits.

Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationNow, because of what could politely be called mission creep, it’s elbowing its way into the middle of the financial mess as an enabler of enormous leverage.

In the fine print of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner’s plan to lend as much as $1 trillion to private investors to help them buy toxic assets from our nation’s banks, you’ll find some details of how the F.D.I.C is trying to stabilize the system by adding more risk, not less, to the system.

It’s going to be insuring 85 percent of the debt, provided by the Treasury, that private investors will use to subsidize their acquisitions of toxic assets. The program, extraordinary in its size and scope, is the equivalent of TARP 2.0. Only this time, Congress didn’t get a chance to vote.

These loans, while controversial, were given a warm welcome by the market when they were first announced. And why not? The terms are hard to beat. They are, for example, “nonrecourse,” which means that if an investor loses money, he owes taxpayers nothing. It’s the closest thing to risk-free investing — with leverage! — around.

[bertman]

1. Wow. I can hardly wait for my company to get our no-risk loan. We were big Obama

supporters so I'm sure our name is on the list--somewhere.

This is unadulterated bullshit. Giving money to the thieves who put us in this godawful position in the first place.

:mad:

[Skittles]

2. it's a fucking scam

[DemReadingDU]

3. I think we taxpayers are going to get scrwed. n/t

[katty]

6. how the rich get richer-sucking every penny out of the tax slaves

one way or another.

[bertman]

4. kicking this one. It deserves more exposure.

[TacticalPeek]

5. K&R

:kick: