No

GMAC has already received $12.5 billion and now wants another $2+ billion? fark them - if $12.5 billion wasn't enough, then they're not worth saving.

Capitalism. Please let it work.

Fark GMAC in their mother's luvdumpster!

GMAC is the real victim here. It's our fault that we aren't buying enough of their quality automobiles.

This is the part of the bailout I find hilarious.

Try missing payments on your car, your house, whatever...you're HOSED.

Now, these assholes blow through billions of dollars, go horribly into the red, get taxpayer bailouts...etc...

I say let capitalism work, let them fail. From the ashes, something better will rise.

CravenMorehead: GMAC is the real victim here. It's our fault that we aren't buying enough of their quality automobiles.

GMAC (now AllyBank) was one of the largest subprime mortgage lenders in the country. They also do credit cards. and then some auto loans.

Just like GE Capital, except GE Capital is TBTF and issued many billions of FDIC guaranteed bonds, some of which were denominated in foreign currencies like the Euro or Hong Kong Dollar

Maybe they should give those $2 Billion to GMAC's customers. GMAC gets the money, customers get to pay their bills and keep their houses/cars/insurance, status quo maintained and thousands of citizens assisted. It's not like the feds will ever see this money again anyway.

Oh, wait. The executives need their bonuses. Never mind. Carry on.

ihatedumbpeople: Try missing payments on your car, your house, whatever...you're HOSED.

Do you know how many millions have not made a mortgage payment in over 3 months? 12 months? It's no longer so rare to find a house 3 years without payment not foreclosed.

Anyone paying the mortgage in a situation of negative equity is arguably just giving their money away for nothing in return

Hiro's Protagonist: ihatedumbpeople: Try missing payments on your car, your house, whatever...you're HOSED.

Do you know how many millions have not made a mortgage payment in over 3 months? 12 months? It's no longer so rare to find a house 3 years without payment not foreclosed.

Anyone paying the mortgage in a situation of negative equity is arguably just giving their money away for nothing in return

When there are record numbers of properties going into foreclosure, it's possible...

However, in a "normal" situation/economy/etc, you'd be lucky to go 3 months.

We all have front row seats!

NYTimes (new window)

Any fresh injection of government money, or the conversion of its existing preferred shares into common stock, would give taxpayers a much larger - perhaps even a majority stake - in the company. The government's investment in GMAC would vastly surpass its nearly 34 percent stake in Citigroup, and could reignite the public debate over the Obama administration's role as a major investor in corporations.

naked capitalism (new window) The reason for more dough to GMAC is so GM and Chrysler can continue to finance auto purchases, not as a result of greater than expected losses on its existing portfolio. So this is cash for clunkers under another brand name.


Wall Street Journal (new window)

The FDIC approval came just four days before the expiration of the regulator's program that guarantees debt issued by certain banks. It ended months of tense negotiations between GMAC and regulators. Without a deal, the company would have been forced to further reduce its lending volume. New-car loans by the company tumbled 55% to $5.6 billion in the second quarter from a year earlier.

----------------

The government already has a huge stake in GMAC but will not cut their loses as it will be the end of GM.

But Obama said we would make money on this deal?

CravenMorehead: GMAC is the real victim here. It's our fault that we aren't buying enough of their quality automobiles.

GMAC =/= GMC

FarkIlk01: Any fresh injection of government money, or the conversion of its existing preferred shares into common stock, would give taxpayers a much larger - perhaps even a majority stake - in the company. The government's investment in GMAC would vastly surpass its nearly 34 percent stake in Citigroup, and could reignite the public debate over the Obama administration's role as a major investor in corporations.

if the government owns banks why did we bother with the stimulus, banks can loan at 9:1 so it would have cost us less to just give the bank 9x less money than we needed, wasn't the whole problem we were trying to fix caused by frozen credit markets? the government could have just made business loans through the commercial banks they have purchased, no?

GraysonAC: Capitalism. Please let it work.

This. When things are rolling in favor of a business, they're solidly behind capitalism and eschew government "interference." When things go against a business, suddenly they're all for government "interference."

No more taxpayer money to keep bad business afloat - we're all broke.

xanadian: Right on, subby!

/of course, you KNOW they'll still get their handout from the tax fund...

DAMN that corporate shill Bush!!

Waitwut!? More Rape Rape?

This is horrible.
It's the kind of thing the teabaggers
were protesting over. Outrageous.
So, I imagine there aren't many people
in here on the left complaining.

I mean cause teabaggers are all racists
Right? Just like every liberal is a baby
killing druggie pedophile?

Right?

dogcow69: if the government owns banks why did we bother with the stimulus, banks can loan at 9:1 so it would have cost us less to just give the bank 9x less money than we needed, wasn't the whole problem we were trying to fix caused by frozen credit markets?

Okay. For every dollar a bank has on it's balance sheets, it can loan out ONE dollar. Not 9, or 17, or any other number.

When ever you see ratio's when it comes to banks, it's capital ratio.

Lets say you start a bank. Depositors loan you 20 Million dollars in total. You have have access to 20 million in capital. At a 19:1 capital ratio, for every 19 dollars (of that 20 million you have borrowed) that you loan out to someone, you have to keep 1 dollar in cash on your books. Meaning, the most money you could loan out is 19 million dollars. This is so, one million dollars is kept as a capital reserve.

the government could have just made business loans through the commercial banks they have purchased, no

The problem is we don't own any commercial banks. This is the Obama administrations big failure and why every one and their brother is saying growth in 2010 is going to be slow, including the Obama administration.

Here is what you do when you have a systemic banking crisis. Any bank found to be insolvent (which means the real value of the loans on their books plus capital reserves is less than it's obligations..ie total deposits in bank) that is systemically important should be nationalized. Period. Our treasury secretary spend the 1990s going around SE Asia telling them to nationalize their bank banks. Japan had to do it after nearly a decade of non-existent growth. Argentina had a collapse of the middle class because they didn't deal with their banking crisis. It's what you do, it's what you always do.

An insolvent bank will say or do anything to avoid nationalization. That wipes their shareholders. An insolvent bank will also hoard cash and NOT loan it out. Money used to start businesses dries off completely, thus killing economic growth.

Because the administration is allowing the banks to earn their way out of the problem, rather than forcefully fixing them (which if they had done day one, the banking crisis would be over today), we are going to see VERY slow growth over the next couple of years. 10% unemployment is going to be the new normal. Get used to it.

spleef420: CravenMorehead: GMAC is the real victim here. It's our fault that we aren't buying enough of their quality automobiles.

GMAC =/= GMC

Try again. You'll get the right answer eventually.

/ Enjoyed Craven's troll, though.

johnbc5: And just how big where the bonuses for the executives at GMAC last year?

No idea, however GMAC is one of the 7 firms that got their executive compensation pared back.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: An insolvent bank will say or do anything to avoid nationalization. That wipes their shareholders. An insolvent bank will also hoard cash and NOT loan it out. Money used to start businesses dries off completely, thus killing economic growth.

Yup, which is why I laugh whenever anyone complains that these banks, having gotten their balance sheets not quite so bad with the capital injections, should start making loans like 2007. As things stand now... I'd fry Citi and BofA and serve them on a platter to those still walking the streets. Witness what the Brits just did with Northern Rock.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: dogcow69: if the government owns banks why did we bother with the stimulus, banks can loan at 9:1 so it would have cost us less to just give the bank 9x less money than we needed, wasn't the whole problem we were trying to fix caused by frozen credit markets?

Okay. For every dollar a bank has on it's balance sheets, it can loan out ONE dollar. Not 9, or 17, or any other number.

When ever you see ratio's when it comes to banks, it's capital ratio.

Lets say you start a bank. Depositors loan you 20 Million dollars in total. You have have access to 20 million in capital. At a 19:1 capital ratio, for every 19 dollars (of that 20 million you have borrowed) that you loan out to someone, you have to keep 1 dollar in cash on your books. Meaning, the most money you could loan out is 19 million dollars. This is so, one million dollars is kept as a capital reserve.

the government could have just made business loans through the commercial banks they have purchased, no

The problem is we don't own any commercial banks. This is the Obama administrations big failure and why every one and their brother is saying growth in 2010 is going to be slow, including the Obama administration.

Here is what you do when you have a systemic banking crisis. Any bank found to be insolvent (which means the real value of the loans on their books plus capital reserves is less than it's obligations..ie total deposits in bank) that is systemically important should be nationalized. Period. Our treasury secretary spend the 1990s going around SE Asia telling them to nationalize their bank banks. Japan had to do it after nearly a decade of non-existent growth. Argentina had a collapse of the middle class because they didn't deal with their banking crisis. It's what you do, it's what you always do.

An insolvent bank will say or do anything to avoid nationalization. That wipes their shareholders. An insolvent bank will also hoard cash and NOT loan it out. Money used to start businesses dries off completely, thus killing economic growth.

Because the administration is allowing the banks to earn their way out of the problem, rather than forcefully fixing them (which if they had done day one, the banking crisis would be over today), we are going to see VERY slow growth over the next couple of years. 10% unemployment is going to be the new normal. Get used to it.

Ah.....Obama should be subscribing to your newsletter!

Bye.

johnbc5: And just how big where the bonuses for the executives at GMAC last year?

It's not quite what you asked, but doing the math from

The company with the biggest reduction in compensation, in dollar terms, due to the pay restrictions is GMAC Inc., the auto lender, where pay for the top 25 employees in 2009 will be reduced by $413.3 million from the level in 2008. That reduction is a decrease of 85.6% from 2008 compensation for the affected executives.

(source http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?StoryId=968262f1-d9cb-4db4 - 96bf-0549175c0eea)

total compensation (salary, bonuses, perks) for the top 25 in 2008 must have been $486M.

http://edgar.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000040729&own er =exclude&count=40 has SEC filings for 'GMAC INC.'.

Clarence Potter: Witness what the Brits just did with Northern Rock.

If memory serves correct, Northern rock actually saw bank runs in the past couple years. They were so bad off, even the common man knew they were in bad shape.

Not that the US shouldn't be do that same exact thing to BoA and Citi, cause we should do that soon as possible. We are going to have to do it anyways, we might as well do it today.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: If memory serves correct, Northern rock actually saw bank runs in the past couple years. They were so bad off, even the common man knew they were in bad shape.

Yeah, they were in trouble before it was fashionable. Think late 2007.

Renowned transvestite sexologist: Not that the US shouldn't be do that same exact thing to BoA and Citi, cause we should do that soon as possible. We are going to have to do it anyways, we might as well do it today.

Yeah... however I would prefer they get the new regulation framework (whatever it may be) in place before they do this.

Banks like GE Capital, GMAC and BofA are getting money from the FED and when there customers ask for help they tell them to fark off. (I'm in the industry)

Let them go under. They serve no purpose anymore.

tnpir: GMAC has already received $12.5 billion and now wants another $2+ billion? fark them - if $12.5 billion wasn't enough, then they're not worth saving.

I've said this here before. They'll be like Amtrak until the repubs take congress and cut them off, coming back every few years asking for several billion.

opiumpoopy: spleef420: CravenMorehead: GMAC is the real victim here. It's our fault that we aren't buying enough of their quality automobiles.

GMAC =/= GMC

Try again. You'll get the right answer eventually.

/ Enjoyed Craven's troll, though.

lemme guess...Ford?

back on the short bus with you...GO!

AngryDragon: Maybe they should give those $2 Billion to GMAC's customers. GMAC gets the money, customers get to pay their bills and keep their houses/cars/insurance, status quo maintained and thousands of citizens assisted. It's not like the feds will ever see this money again anyway.

Oh, wait. The executives need their bonuses. Never mind. Carry on.

The executives Obama appointed?

That's why I think if the company that holds your debt goes out of buiness, then your debt is forgiven.

mizchief: That's why I think if the company that holds your debt goes out of buiness, then your debt is forgiven.

No, not always. In fact, most of the time, it's not the case at all. Debt is an asset to it's owner. During bankruptcy, that debt can be sold to another holding company. It's new owner can then proceed to collect it.

New slogan:

"Bad loans to buy bad cars"

Hiro's Protagonist: ihatedumbpeople: Try missing payments on your car, your house, whatever...you're HOSED.

Do you know how many millions have not made a mortgage payment in over 3 months? 12 months? It's no longer so rare to find a house 3 years without payment not foreclosed.

Anyone paying the mortgage in a situation of negative equity is arguably just giving their money away for nothing in return

That would be me. Bought my house for $115,000 at the end of 2005, top of the market values. My last tax estimate gave a value of $65,000. Actual market value, if a buyer could be found, would be more like $45,000. SO thats between $50,000 and $70,000 negative.

With that kind of drop Im wondering if its value will ever get up to original purchase price ever again.

Sultan Of Herf: Hiro's Protagonist: ihatedumbpeople: Try missing payments on your car, your house, whatever...you're HOSED.

Do you know how many millions have not made a mortgage payment in over 3 months? 12 months? It's no longer so rare to find a house 3 years without payment not foreclosed.

Anyone paying the mortgage in a situation of negative equity is arguably just giving their money away for nothing in return

That would be me. Bought my house for $115,000 at the end of 2005, top of the market values. My last tax estimate gave a value of $65,000. Actual market value, if a buyer could be found, would be more like $45,000. SO thats between $50,000 and $70,000 negative.

With that kind of drop Im wondering if its value will ever get up to original purchase price ever again.

only if you put the hubcaps back on it.

/$45,000, WTF?

Sultan Of Herf: With that kind of drop Im wondering if its value will ever get up to original purchase price ever again.

florida?

dogcow69: if the government owns banks why did we bother with the stimulus, banks can loan at 9:1 so it would have cost us less to just give the bank 9x less money than we needed, wasn't the whole problem we were trying to fix caused by frozen credit markets? the government could have just made business loans through the commercial banks they have purchased, no?

Here's a hint, that's exactly what we did. What do you think "recapitalized" means? That should give you an idea as to how deep in the shiat these banks really were.

the_geek
nope, unless you extrapolate April - August out through infinity, the banks are still in some deep shiat

Sultan Of Herf: With that kind of drop Im wondering if its value will ever get up to original purchase price ever again.

You're in Florida. Just go with the flow. Let them file foreclosure, there is a fair chance that they won't manage to file the paperwork correctly. Just hire a RE lawyer to make sure everything happens by the book. there's a decent chance you end up with the mortgage dismissed or bought by a third party that resells it you for pennies on the dollar. If the mortgage is dismissed, you'll owe the income taxes on the discharged mortgage amount. Can't got wrong with 3 years of free rent. You can save up some pretty good cash to buy or at least the 6 months of living expenses required to endure the average job loss these days. Don't worry about the bank, the Federal Reserve is probably taking the last 90% of the losses on your mortgage, so it's kind of like giving money to yourself.

Hiro's Protagonist: You're in Florida. Just go with the flow. Let them file foreclosure, there is a fair chance that they won't manage to file the paperwork correctly. Just hire a RE lawyer to make sure everything happens by the book. there's a decent chance you end up with the mortgage dismissed or bought by a third party that resells it you for pennies on the dollar. If the mortgage is dismissed, you'll owe the income taxes on the discharged mortgage amount. Can't got wrong with 3 years of free rent. You can save up some pretty good cash to buy or at least the 6 months of living expenses required to endure the average job loss these days. Don't worry about the bank, the Federal Reserve is probably taking the last 90% of the losses on your mortgage, so it's kind of like giving money to yourself.

what does "dismissed" mean exactly, if your mortgage is dismissed who owns the house?