Lifestyle > Train of Thought

USA government to control banks? Can you say totalitarianism?

(1/4) > >>

Teddy Roosevelt:
In Latest Plan for Banks, U.S. Could Demand Voting Stake

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: February 23, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration put the nation's biggest banks on notice Monday that the government could become their biggest shareholder if regulators decide they are not strong enough to weather a deeper-than-expected downturn in the economy.

In an unexpectedly assertive joint statement, the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve and federal bank regulatory agencies announced that the government might end up demanding a direct ownership stake in major banks after they undergo a tough evaluation of their strength, which is to begin shortly.

"The capital needs of major U.S. banking institutions will be evaluated under a more challenging economic environment," the administration said. "Should that assessment indicate that an additional capital buffer is warranted," it continued, the banks could be required to give the government a right to acquire common shares, with voting rights.

The statement came as federal regulators confirmed that they were in discussions with Citigroup over precisely that kind of swap. Citigroup, which has received $45 billion in direct assistance and given the Treasury nonvoting preferred shares that pay a guaranteed dividend — is negotiating to swap the preferred shares for common shares that would give the government a stake as high as 40 percent.

Administration officials said Citigroup had initiated the talks with federal regulators, and the new statement stopped well short of declaring that regulators were ready to partly or wholly "nationalize" any major banks.

On Wall Street, most major bank shares were higher in noon trading, while the overall market was down more than 1.5 percent.

The administration said its "strong presumption" was that "banks should remain in private hands."

But the statement also officially amounted to a road map under which the federal government could, if it wanted to, demand a major and possibly a controlling stake in systemically important banks like Citigroup and Bank of America.

The 20 biggest banks will be required to undergo a new "stress test," starting Wednesday, which is intended to determine whether each bank has enough capital to survive if the economy spirals down even more than most forecasters already expect.

Treasury officials plan to introduce details of the stress test on Wednesday, and it is expected to take several weeks to complete.

If a bank comes up short, Treasury officials said on Monday, the government will require it to raise more capital. If the bank cannot get that money from private sources, the government will demand that the bank swap out the government's existing, nonvoting preferred shares — issued during the first phase of the Treasury's $700 billion financial bailout program last September — and replace them with new preferred shares that are convertible to common stock with voting rights.

The requirements will apply both to banks that receive additional money in the months ahead and to banks that have already received money.

In the case of Citigroup, the negotiations do not involve any additional infusions of taxpayer money. Rather, the negotiations are aimed at strengthening Citigroup's capital position by replacing preferred shares, which resemble debt more than equity, with common shares.

Acquiring common stock would give the government more control, but expose it to more risk. Armed with voting shares, government officials would have more power to oust existing management and change the company's strategy. But the Treasury would also lose its claim to dividend payments, which in Citigroup's case amount to more than $2.25 billion a year.

Louise Story and Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York.

Primo:
If banks are nationizd the shareholders are fucked

virtuoso:

Not directing this to you, but when people said this in the past, that america would be brought down, that it's middle class would be attacked with the intention of being destroyed, they were labeled as delusional conspiracy theorists. It didn't seem to matter that what they said was referenced to what was happening in the real world people still dismissed it and so to a great extent peoples ignorance and naivety has been the engine room which has fired so many of us in that direction. It's coming, the middle classes will be rioting within the next 12 months, not just in america but throughout the western nations. We don't owe these banks thousands of trillions, in any other creating paper out of nowhere would be called fraud and those responsible would be jailed. The only answer to this dire situation is simple we do not owe the derivatives to the banks, it was all meaningless numbers on a screen. I agree this is a potentially exciting time but it's also perilous, if that course of action is not taken, that's it, the banks with the complicit actions of the governments will bankrupt all major nations and take total control. This isn't national socialism as I am sure people on here understand by now, it's private giant banks who control things using government as their conduit.

Rugged Monk:

--- Quote from: virtuoso on February 24, 2009, 02:30:24 PM ---We don't owe these banks thousands of trillions, in any other creating paper out of nowhere would be called fraud and those responsible would be jailed. The only answer to this dire situation is simple we do not owe the derivatives to the banks, it was all meaningless numbers on a screen.

--- End quote ---


Thats what our system is. They are not meaningless numbers on a screen because they have meaning to people. If you saw $100 lying on the street would you pick it up? Or leave it be and pay it no heed because it has no meaning to you? People owe money to banks because they borrowed. Simple.





I got no problem with the Federal Reserve system or the magical creation of money. If we were tied down to gold then we would be very limited in how we effect the world.

virtuoso:

That's complete crap, the government does not represent me, 99.9% of people didn't even know what derivatives were. It is how they are controlling the world, it is how they have condemned africa and south america, it is how they are going to fuck up the west to. Your analogy is bullshit, it was numbers on a screen, they didn't own it, but it ensures they keep taking and taking, this isn't about anything other than total control. You are glad to live under that system are you? you tell that to the people in south america and africa

It's impossible to repay the debt because the debt accelerates at a much faster rate than the entire gdp of the entire world, it's a fixed system in which the average person will never benefit. You are of the delusional bullshit mindset that world government is good, despite the fact that the pioneers of the world wars are the same people behind all of the big moves in the world.

Nothing more to say on that

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page