More Details Emerge About Obama Bank Rescue Plan

February 23, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Amid rumors that the White House is considering nationalizing some banks, federal regulators today provided more details on how they plan to use taxpayer funds to shore up the financial system.

The revamped rescue package, announced earlier this month by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, will use taxpayers' money to finance buying up to $1 trillion in toxic bank assets. It will also expand a program that makes more money available for consumer loans and conduct a "stress test" of the nation's largest banks to decide how much federal aid each will need.

Regulators announced this morning that the banks can give the government common stocks rather than the preferred stocks formerly mandated. That takes some pressure off the banks by reducing dividend payments. Meanwhile, the government would have a larger stake in the banks.

They also said that the "stress tests" will begin on Wednesday, starting with the 20 or so banks that are worth more than $100 billion. Some have speculated that if the tests don't go in the banks' favor, they could be closed or nationalized.

Fears of nationalization were stoked further yesterday when the Wall Street Journal reported that the federal government is in discussions with Citigroup that could end with the government owning as much as 40 percent of Citigroup's common stock. That wouldn't cost the government more money than it already has pumped into the bank, as many of the preferred shares it already owns would be converted into common stock. But it would mean that other shareholders in the bank would find their stock diluted.

Citigroup's stock price fell below $2 last week to its lowest price in 18 years.

Today's statement sought to quell those rumors, underlining that the program brings the "strong presumption" that" banks should remain in private hands."

Even so, a spokesman for the Treasury Department told Politico that while officials "don't comment on conversations with specific banks," they are "open to considering a request" if it could promote long-term stability for the economy. 

Tags:
Obama administration,
economic stimulus

Reader Comments Read all comments (1)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Isn't that what they do in communist (aka socialist) China? The major difference is stability and ownership. In China, the CCP - Central Communist Party own the banks (as stewarts of the people no doubt). Bank profits revert to the government. In the US and free world based upon pure capitalism without social constraints, the banks are in private hands. Banks are business enterprises set up to make profit for its investors/private owners. It need not be concerned about being stewarts for the greater good of the people. The international banking cartels set the monetary exchange value, supposedly based upon various economic indexes, money supply, etc. from nations whose currencies are recognized for international trade. Their main concern is to keep the profits flowing between borders and into their institutions. The 1 trillion, now 2 trillion bank bailout has done little to loosen credit because these international banking conglomerates have been covering their own losses as their bank stocks plummet. We have no idea where American taxpayer bail out dollars end up in the mix because banks are parts of a fluid digital international banking network. No doubt, in China where over 30 crimes carry the death penalty - huge bank fraud would be one of them. In the west, banking and investment cheats get bail out money from the taxpayers. Such a deal!

Tony Lee of CA 5:58PM February 23, 2009

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

advertisement

10 Not So 'Recession-Proof' Industries

These industries long though to be safe from economic downturn have proven themselves to be anything but.

Do you think the stimulus bill contains too much pork?

View Results

advertisement