Personally, I'd argue that if what you're saying is the actual position governments take, then there should be way more scrutiny towards organizations, given that they'll come screaming for help in the form of tax cuts or stimulus if they fail (either the failing organizations directly or those affected by the failing organization).
Coperate limited liability + allowed to leverage more + your friendly competitors bail you out is a suspicious combo, even if each of those in isolation is totally fine.
> “This bailout is for the honest, hard-working hedge fund people who should be assured of making money,” said Biden today.
> “We spent trillions of taxpayer’s money to bail out giant financial institutions who finally had their irresponsible business practices come back to bite them, and it’s only fair we do the same in this latest crisis.”
> “So, it’s only fair that these hedge funds, who once again were more irresponsible with money be helped out by the taxpayer without repercussion.”
> Biden revealed that the trillion-dollar package is set to be rolled out in the coming weeks with no demands for greater regulation or change to business practices.
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/democrats-announc...
e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/business/economy/hedge-fu...
“ It remains unclear how big of a role hedge funds played in March’s meltdown — even how many and which funds were involved remains hazy. ”
Hedge funds were most certainly a part of this problem, and were bailed out.
I haven't heard of any hedge fund being given a bailout from the government directly, though.
Unfortunately things are very opaque because of the said interconnectedness this article discusses.
When somebody asks for an example of A, and you provide an example of B, they might assume you can't provide an example of A.
If you buy a car at a dealership and they take that money and donate it to ISIS, did you just support terrorism? No, the dealer did. You only bought a car.
The direct or indirectness of the money flow is unrelated to whether or not something is a bailout.
It happened, it's over. Citadel still exists as a company thanks to the AG bailout. That does not mean everything citadel ever buys is now a government bailout.
That's just silly.
> The most recent example I can think of is Melvin Capital (a few months ago). They were bailed out by Citadel.
Citadel buying a controlling interest in a fund that was historically very profitable and hit a huge a landmine, allowing them to buy at a huge discount, isn't really a "bailout" in the same way you're suggesting. Citadel didn't slide them a couple billion dollars under the table and say "don't worry about it, you get me next time".
> Citadel was bailed out by US tax payers in 2009 via AIG
This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline.
Sure, but the context is that they were doing very poorly and needed liquidity to survive. They received it. That is being bailed out, no? The entire point I’m making is that they receive incredible assistance when very poor decisions are made.
> This was, quite literally 12 years ago. These events are in no way related. Almost every bank was subsidized in 2008/2009. This isn't some unscrupulous "tax payer to hedge fund" hidden money pipeline.
Yes, that is my point exactly. Many of these banks wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the tax payer.
No, it is not. If they were given free money, or a loan with basically no interest, or some other sweetheart deal, that would be a bailout.
Someone taking advantage of your misfortunate in order to buy you at a discount as not a "bail out".
- an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse.
I personally wouldn't consider a zero-interest loan to be a bailout. If I buy a car and receive a no interest loan I wouldn't consider myself to be "bailed out", per your definition; nor would I consider receiving a dollar from a friend for a pack of gum to be a "bailout".
Wait a second. Citadel is a fund manager. AIG is an insurance company. Neither are banks.
Read up on this before making claims that are completely opposite of the facts.
Your average saver cannot just do this, being limited to 2x as per other comments.
Or, the Fed organized it.
They ended up leveraged 100 to 1 and had trillions in bonds.
All these politicians profiting off of every transaction, insidertrading, zero accountability or transparency and zero fucking term limits.
The elephant in the data center is politicians and their grift.
I never claimed you did, we're having a discussion, no? lol.