Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by paulddraper 3201 days ago
If it was such a fantastic deal, why wasn't someone else willing to step in and take it?
3 comments

I did, and my portfolio is super happy about it. I cheerfully 'bailed out' Ford too.
No, you bought after the crash. The relevant question is would you have sold an insurance policy before the crisis and been able to stay solvent through it.
I'm not saying that I bought before the crash, neither did the government. I literally did exactly what the government did; bought shares of banks and automotive companies after the crash, at severely reduced prices, and held for a substantial gain.

The government absolutely did not sell an insurance policy before the crash. Even if you're arguing that there was a guarantee that the banks would be bailed out, which argument has merit, the banks didn't pay for that guarantee.

We did it for different reasons (I won't pretend I was either magnanimous or delusional enough to think my investment by itself would buoy the stock price enough to keep the companies alive) but the actual actions are the same.

Edit: technically both the government and I bought during the crash rather than after; my ROI wishes I'd been better at calling the bottom, but that's life.

Buying stock was only a small part of what the government did for the finance industry. Guaranteeing money market funds, opening up the discount window, bailing out AIG and paying off counterparties at 100%, sinking $100B+ into Fannie and Freddie, etc.

The government had essentially given the finance industry an insurance policy before the crash that paid off during the crash. And you are right, they didn't have to pay for it in money, perhaps its possible to argue that they paid for it in regulation. If the firms had had to buy such a policy on the open market what would the price have been?

because at the time very few people had the guts to?
(1) I don't think it actually turned out great.

(2) Even if it had, "it worked out" isn't a good justification for gambling with taxpayer money.

What result would have met your test for worked out? Gambling with taxpayers money is a pretty good description of the job of government (will this transportation system get used (consider Detroit's highway system)? Are we encouraging business the right way? Will this law reduce crime?)
Uncertainity about the usage of a hypothetical transportation system is qualitatively different than investing money to a company that has been mis-managed so badly it's going bankrupt.
re: (1), so you think it didn't turn out a hell of a lot better than most imagined?