[NovemberWhiskey]

I suppose it depends on exactly which program you're looking at, but since you mention Wall Street banks, I assume you're talking about the Capital Purchase Program.

I don't think it's reasonable to say that this was given away "for free". If it was "free" then there wouldn't have been any over-recovery at all, would there?

In the CPP, the government bought preferred stock in a number of banks (mostly not Wall Street ones, but whatever). That stock could've been worthless if the banks failed, but otherwise the banks were required to pay an annual dividend of 5% through 2013 and 9% thereafter; plus there was a whole host of supervision of their activities, including limitations on their ability to pay ordinary dividends.

[panarky]

The government paid far more for the preferred stock than the fair market value. 100% of the difference between the fair market value and the actual price paid was a gift to Wall Street banks that was never paid back.

[NovemberWhiskey]

Nonsense. Most investments carry an element of risk. The Capital Purchase Program may have looked like a bad investment (negative NPV) at the time, but the record makes it clear it actually paid off.

It makes no sense to say "in 2008, the government expected to lose money on the CPP so that's what happened; gift to the banks that was never paid back" and then drop the mic while ignoring what actually happened.

For example: TARP's Congressional Oversight Panel estimated that the $25bn capital infusion into Wells Fargo represented a subsidy (difference between fair market value of the preferred stock and the amount paid) of about $1.75bn.

However, in 2009, Wells Fargo bought back the investment after having paid $1.44bn in dividends. Then, in 2010, the Treasury also sold $840mm in Wells Fargo warrants that were part of the CPP deal.

What we thought would happen: lose $1.75bn. What actually happened: made $2.28bn. If that isn't "paying back" from your perspective, could you please suggest what would be?