[Scoundreller]

I get that. When people say “they lost their house”, they still know where it is, it’s just not theirs anymore.

When your bank is forcibly taken over by the government and the assets forcibly sold to someone else with nothing going to the owners of the bank, most would say the bank was shutdown.

In 2008, since TARP recipients didn’t wipe out their shareholders and sell shares to new owners (perhaps .gov), I would say they had plenty of time left before needing a bailout.

The gov should have created an express bankruptcy protection process instead of bailing out shareholders and boards that took too much risk.

[btilly]

The problem wasn't that the banks were unsound. Most of them were sound. But each bank didn't know which others were solvent, and that fact was about to shut down the ATM and credit card systems.

Once the government stepped in, everyone was sure that normal operations were safe, and chaos was averted.

In fact, as https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/tarp-was-not-a-bailou... points out, the government actually made a $30 billion profit on TARP in the end. (It can be debated how much of that profit was a result of other Treasury actions, like quantitative easing.)

[Scoundreller]

A $15b return on $400b invested in 2008/2009 over ?5? years is a terrible return. And it conveniently ignores management costs.

That was "close down your hedge fund(s) and change your name" embarrassing level of return.

Your link's source for its $30.7b profit figure is unsupported by its linked treasury.gov press release