Yaaaay for accounting games, right dems?

Stick all your provocative and controversial topics here. Then stick them up your ass, you fascist Nazi!
Post Reply
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Yaaaay for accounting games, right dems?

Post by annarborgator »

This should be right up your alley:
The New York Times is reporting that the administration is thinking of stretching its TARP funds further by converting its preferred shareholdings to common stock.

The change to common stock would not require the government to contribute any additional cash, but it could increase the capital of big banks by more than $100 billion.

I hope this is one of those trial balloons they float and later think better of. Most importantly, it makes no sense. That is, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with converting preferred for common, but it doesn’t create anything of value out of thin air. I wrote a long article about preferred and common stock a while back, but here are some of the highlights.

* If you don’t give a bank any more money, it doesn’t have any more money. By converting preferred into common, you haven’t changed the chances of the bank going bankrupt, because its assets haven’t changed, and its liabilities haven’t changed. If it had enough money to cover its liabilities, but it couldn’t buy back its preferred shares from Treasury, it’s not like the government would have forced it into bankruptcy anyway.
* If you accept the idea that converting preferred into common creates new capital, then you are implying that those preferred shares weren’t capital in the first place. From a capital perspective, then, the initial TARP “recapitalizations” did nothing, and nothing happens until the conversion. You can’t say that JPMorgan got $25 billion of capital last fall and it’s going to get another $25 billion now just by virtue of the conversion.
* Tangible common equity and Tier 1 capital are just two ways of measuring the health of a bank. Taking money that wasn’t TCE and calling it TCE doesn’t serve any economic purpose. There is a minor benefit to the bank because now it doesn’t have to pay dividends on the preferred. But otherwise you’ve just shuffled together the claims of the last two groups of claimants - the preferred and the common shareholders. You’ve made things look better from the perspective of the common shareholders as a group, because they no longer have preferred shareholders standing in front of them, but the total amount available to all shareholders hasn’t changed.
http://baselinescenario.com/2009/04/19/more-accounting-games/

And no, it's not a trial balloon. It's what's going to happen.

Glad to see the trickery and games of the Bush years has gone by the wayside. :s arcasm: And I swear to god, if someone responds that I have no room to say anything because of the shit W pulled, you will all want to go long AA's suicide index.
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
radbag
Posts: 15809
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:59 am

Yaaaay for accounting games, right dems?

Post by radbag »

i can't wait for slider to tell you to continue listening to rush limbaugh for "your" party is doomed.
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Yaaaay for accounting games, right dems?

Post by annarborgator »

LMMFAO as if I think the 2 party system is even relevant in consideration of the good of the republic. O0
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
UFGirlluvr
Posts: 1406
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:41 pm

Yaaaay for accounting games, right dems?

Post by UFGirlluvr »

Katie and I were just talking about how a good 3rd party candidate has no chance anymore and we thought that was pretty sad.
IHateUGAlyDawgs
Posts: 8155
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:57 pm

Yaaaay for accounting games, right dems?

Post by IHateUGAlyDawgs »

a good 3rd party candidate hasn't had a chance in a long long time. Perot was about the best one could hope for and he won only one state.
Image

Image
G8rMom7
Posts: 12095
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:02 pm

Yaaaay for accounting games, right dems?

Post by G8rMom7 »

I wonder how much better/worse Ron Paul would have done if he ran as a 3rd party candidate...his supporters are sort of 3rd party-like. I bet he would have at least come close to doing as well as Perot. I dunno, I guess.
Okay, let's try this!

Image
slideman67
Posts: 3060
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:34 pm

Yaaaay for accounting games, right dems?

Post by slideman67 »

Ron Paul actually did run for President in 1988 as the Libertarian Party candidate. I don't know how he did though, but he has already run before.
If the devil had a name, it'd be Chuck Finley.
Post Reply