Geithner’s Public Private Partnership Puts Public Most at Risk

Tim Geithner’s at it again, doing somersaults, with hundreds of billions of federal money flying out of his pockets in the process, all to distract us from the more sensible course of action, which is to nationalize the insolvent banks.
Instead, he wants to scrub their assets clean by having the government and some private speculators buy up their bad bets.
Geithner calls it the Public Private Partnership Investment Program, and if he were playing scrabble, he’d be all out of Ps.
But don’t be confused. The public is taking the biggest risk, whereas the private speculators, for a tiny investment, can gain quite a lot.
Here’s the deal. Say a bank has a bad mortgage loan that it is holding for $100,000.
The government will set up an auction to determine what the mortgage really is worth.
Say the highest private bid for the mortgage is $84,000.
The government will provide $72,000 in a loan guarantee, and then the private investor would put up only $6,000, which the government would match with its own $6,000 stake.
So the government, you and I, are on the hook for $78,000 whereas the private investor has only $6,000 of skin in the game.
But get this: The private speculator gets to control the management of the asset, and not the government, even though we’re on the hook for about 93% of the risk.
“The Treasury intends to provide 50 percent of the equity capital,” Geithner’s fact sheet says, “but private managers will retain control of asset management subject to rigorous oversight from the FDIC.”
Geithner infamously said, just a few days after he became Treasury Secretary, that “we have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we’d like to do our best to preserve that system.”
And he is doing his best at that, which is all the worse for us.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead
|
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
Arun Gupta and Michelle Fawcett | We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
Breanna Lembitz | I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
Ed Rampell | The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
Stephanie Fairyington | March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Ruth Conniff at the People's Legislature in Madison
Standing for Justice at the Capitol. Matthew Rothschild.
Come to Progressive Talks and Events
Feb. 18, 5:30 p.m.
Ruth Conniff, Progressive Principles Conference at Yale University 11-1
Read more >>
Thursday February 16 at 7:30 p.m.
VandeBurg Room, Pyle Center. Madison, WI
Not Just Gandhi: The Tradition of Nonviolence Among Muslims in South Asia
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>
Friday February 17 at 7:30 p.m. Kate Clinton at the Barrymore with Michael Feldman in Madison.
Thursday February 23 at 3:30 p.m.
Garden Key Room, Student Union, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
Islam Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>








Comments
Bingo! The taxpayer will bear all but a minor amount of the losses and the "administrator" will charge huge "fees" and will share the profits.
This is a "Self Insurance Plan" with the taxpayer being the "insured". Years ago, now mostly discredited, many finance companies contracted with an "Insurance Company" to manage their credit life insurance programs. The Insurance Company collected the premiums (statistically about double the real insurance rates); deducted the losses and 15% of the premiums for administration. End result: the insured (in this case the taxpayer) paid double premiums, the insurance company did well for a little bookkeeping and a guaranteed profit and the finance company profited by the excess premium which was refunded to them.
End result, the taxpayer (insured) gets screwed handsomely.