As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: financial-industry

Taxpayers Earned $25 Billion on Treasury’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Bail-Out

This article was written by in Economy. 5 comments.


At the height of the recession, President George W. Bush and the congress authorized a bail-out of banks and investment companies headed for failure.

In a similar plan to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government authorized the Treasury moved forward with the plan to stabilize the financial industry, and to an extent the economy. The Treasury purchased $225 billion in mortgage-backed securities insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These securities were considered toxic because investors believed that the underlying mortgages were risky, and the price on the open market did not reflect that risk. When investment banks couldn’t get rid of these bad products on the open market, the Treasury stepped in and paid a discount to acquire the assets. This helped the investment banks pad their balance sheet with more cash, improving their financial conditions, avoiding bankruptcy or failure, alleviating to some degree panic in the market that could have led to a more damaging recession or economic depression.

One year ago, the Treasury began selling these mortgage-backed securities, and as of today, the government no longer has any of the assets purchased under this bailout plan. Not only that, but the Treasury earned $25 billion on its $225 billion investment. That works out to a total return of about 11 percent over about three and a half years (the purchases began in October 2008), though that doesn’t take into account the timing of the buying and selling transactions. The good news is that the Treasury did not lose money on toxic assets, a legitimate concern at the time.

The concern is not over, however. The quality of the underlying mortgages is still in question. The investments could still fail.

… [I]f the mortgages behind those securities fail, taxpayers will still be on the hook, since federal housing giants guarantee the loans and taxpayers have been propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The $25 billion earned through the bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will go to paying down government debt.

Photo: cliff1066
CNN

{ 5 comments }

Breaking an Art Sale Record With $104.3 Million for Running Man I

This article was written by in Investing. 8 comments.

This past weekend, a sculpture by Alberto Giacometti broke the previous record for most expensive piece of art sold at auction. An anonymous bidder purchased “L’Homme Qui Marche I” for $104.3 million, up to five times more than the expected price. This may be a good sign for the art world in need of a recovery from a bubble and crash. Only a few months ago, Lehman Brothers was selling off art within the company’s possession at any price possible in order to pay back their creditors.

The winner of the auction is remaining anonymous, and that’s probably a good idea. Many owners of high-priced art are investment banks. Consumers are still angry about taxpayer money used for bailouts and executive bonuses, so from a public relations perspective, no one would want to be seen spending this much money on one piece of art. In addition, storage, security, and insurance for this valuable sculpture is sure to be a significant expense, as well.

However, well-chosen art could provide to be an excellent investment. There are drawbacks. With the expenses mentioned, art as an investment is cash flow negative. Unless you are able to lend the works to a gallery, they will not produce income for the owner. The only chance to come out ahead is to sell the art for a higher price than the purchase price, and this is a very risky proposition. Art prices fluctuate and tastes change.

While small-time investors may be used to transaction fees no larger than $10 a trade, the art market isn’t as modest. Not only does the selling price need to be higher, but exorbitant transaction fees must be factored in. Even if you sell a work of art for 20% more than you paid for it, everyone involved in the sale, from the auction house to the banks that facilitate the purchase will find a way to eat into your profit margin.

From one perspective, $104.3 million seems to be a large amount to spend on a work of art when people are suffering throughout the world. The money could save lives. But art is an essential component of culture, and if this purchase broadens awareness and appreciation, the world may be better off.

Do you feel a work of art is a good choice for spending $104.3 million right now?

{ 8 comments }