The takeover of NS could have been more costly in absolute terms, but that's not the point. Take a given bank. You can either take over the bank, assuming the risk of its assets, or you can pay a private bank to buy the crappy bank from its shareholders. The Fed "paid" JPM to assume the risk and pay off shareholders. Simple arithemetic would seem to imply that the latter is more costly, no?
--- Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Jon Baranov wrote: > > > Is the US bailout more inspiring? > > No it's hardly inspiring, but what would you have > done? > > > In the case of B.S., > > the shareholders of a bankrupt bank got paid > > Initially $2, now it's looking like $10, when the > stock was $60 just > a few weeks ago. That's admittedly greater than $0, > but the > shareholders are still taking a big hit. > > > and JPM > > got its fair share out of the deal. The B of E > simply > > took over Northern Rock, assuming the risk of its > > assets, right? I don't see how the British > takeover is > > more costly. > > The gov has guaranteed something like GBP110b in > NR's assets - and > apparently some of the bank's best assets were > sheltered in some > offshore vehicle, leaving the government with the > crap. That's a lot > bigger than what the Fed is guaranteeing JPM over > BS. > > Doug > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
