Word: toxicants
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...from its sheer enormity, this heap of cash is also intriguing because of the “public-private investment fund” included in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s recent proposal. The potentially $1 trillion vehicle would aim to combine public and private capital to buy toxic assets from banks. Though widely criticized in its eight days of life, the fund may succeed in attracting private investors—but only if Geithner offers more specifics to incentivize private financing and subdue historic antagonism between private and public sectors, which is traditionally worse in times of crisis...
...trillion.” Second, the plan proclaims that “private sector buyers [can] determine the price for current troubled and previously illiquid assets.” Why should private investment funds supply this capital? And why would private firms be any better at pricing these toxic securities, when the Fed has had no clear success in that endeavor over the past months...
...before most economists. His forecasts for the next year or so seem reasonable and are widely viewed as a good road map for what is likely to be ahead for GDP and employment. However, he may not be right with his estimate that total banks write-offs due to toxic financial instruments sold by U.S. will be about $3.3 trillion worldwide. That is well above projections by most economists and the IMF. Nationalization of U.S. banks would cause hundreds of billions of dollars of losses to the common and preferred stockholders in the firms. This, in turn, could cause...
...Nationalization would obviously make taxpayers responsible for the losses these banks may experience in the future. But, the taxpayer is already likely to face that fate. The federal government is in the process of guaranteeing bad paper at the banks and may end up buying many of these toxic assets to keep losses at the firms at a level where they do not have to raise even more capital...
...national bank is almost certain to follow practices which are unsound, which would not make it terribly different from the large firms that helped get the economy into trouble. Bank managements bought toxic assets two or three years ago. A government-controlled bank might offer mortgages at extremely low rates, rates so low that they clearly do not take into account the level of home loan defaults. From a policy standpoint, it may make "sense" to do that to help buttress the housing market. But, to some extent that moves the government's control of the credit system from nationalizing...