Posted on 11/23/2008 7:45:17 AM PST by engrpat
All US Financials Will be Nationalized in a Year:
Manager FINANCIALS, CITIGROUP, NATIONALIZE, GOVERNMENT, BAILOUT CNBC.com
It's not preferable, but all major U.S. financial companies will eventually be under government control because the alternative is so much worse, Hugh Hendry, chief investment officer at hedge fund Eclectica Asset Management, said Friday.
"All financials will be owned by the U.S. government in a year," Hendry said. "I bet you."
Nationalizations take dramatic losses from the private sector and places them on the larger balance sheet of the public sector, he said.
"It's not good," but society is vulnerable and society is going to have to intervene, Hendry said.
Shareholders Should Get Nothing
Because the taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for bailout out the banks, shareholders shouldn't be compensated, Hendry added.
(Watch the accompanying video for Hendry's full comments...)
"Actually the shareholders of Citigroup have looked the other way for more than a decade" while management took excessive risk, he said.
Shareholders should take nothing away if it is nationalized, because the taxpayer will be "paying this for a long, long time," he added.
© 2008 CNBC.com
He and his cohorts are bound and determined to institute a marxist style command economy on all of us.
Society does intervene by pulling investments, you dolt.
Letting the government take over “to protect us from ourselves” destroys the risk-taking and the high profits that often come from those risks. This kills capital venture, which kills investment, which kills investigation and risk taking, which kills breakthroughs.
A bunch of socialists stumping a plan, as part of a socialist plan to destroy capitalism. And only from a bunch of failed socialists in Europe....
The Nationalizations started under a Republican President.
Amazing.
What does this idiot think the majority of the shareholders are? They ARE the taxpayers.
The Nationalizations started under a Republican President.
::::::::::
Yes, they started really under a LIBERAL President....(putting it in the proper perspective)
More likely they will be “helped” in such a way that the government takeover is masked so as not to shock an unsuspecting mind-numbed public.
"Actually the shareholders of Citigroup have looked the other way for more than a decade" while management took excessive risk, he said.
Shareholders should take nothing away if it is nationalized, because the taxpayer will be "paying this for a long, long time," he added.
WTH? Share holders pay taxes too! Punish the share holders who are still holding on to Citi because they have faith the company won't go belly up? Punish the Share holder for staying the course?
If the Share Holders are told their stock is worthless, then I PRAY Citi tanks big time after the gov't bails them out. Amen.
WE NEED TO BAN ALL SHORT SELLING OF STOCK!!!
He wants to leave long investors with losses, the taxpayer with the future costs and the short sellers with tax free profit through THEFT!
Exactly, and they are going to keep saying this to get us all in the boat.
The USA is sinking into the socialist mire.
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
Time to start looking for other places to live? I hate to think of it, but it’s a possibility.
Whichever country you went to would have a governmental system that is merely a shadow the greatness of that which our Founding Fathers established for us and for which our ancestors fought and died to preserve.
Don't EVER think of leaving America.
Take America BACK to what our Founding Fathers established and what the Civil War completed.
We nedd to do our lifting and standing right here, as our forefathers have done before us.
Right before the major tumble the first time, and then shortly after Obama was elected on a day when the market had a substantial rebound. I had it right both times. Of course the stock market turning is all “Bush's fault,” according to the media and Obama (Who will sit there quietly saying nothing while the markets get squeamish and are full of anxiety over what his positions are). Politically that too is a good maneuver on his behalf.
His silence (reference what his policy) is part of the problem, and in fact when he was running for office, he and his party were all but doom and gloom prophets, since of course that was politically advantageous after Iraq was pulled out from under them and the economy seemed to have some hiccups. Like Iraq when that too seemed to be a good political crowbar to leverage against the incumbent administration and the opposition candidate associated with the incumbent, Obama beat relentlessly on the economy, instilling fear and preaching apocalyptic cataclysm unless he get elected to save us all. Ironically this was the self proclaimed candidate of “hope.” Like Iraq where we weren't failing, in the end it's perceptions that largely matter.
In a market/economy psychology plays a huge factor. McCain had it right, and in reality even today we're fine structurally seen. There are some small issues, but in the grand scheme, there really isn't that big of a problem. But consumer confidence is low, there is fear among investors, there is fear among businesses. I have never seen such an abysmal and depressed outlook, and when looked at closely not seeing any real reason for it, other than the negativism that is self perpetuating the issue.
It will be interesting to see how our savior, the candidate and party of “hope,” now tries to shift gears to build confidence. Obama has a golden opportunity. In business as in politics, it is common practice to come in and bad mouth the predecessor, show all the faults, make his era look bad and downplay all the stats, but then after making some small changes inflate ones own results. For example, you show up as a new platoon leader and on your first PT test you ensure the grading is very stringent and that every push up, sit-up is exact. Then say six months later when doing a PT test again, you grade applying a slightly less strict standard, and surprisingly, because of your superb leadership and vision, the platoon collectively scores better on the PT test. Obama isn't really inheriting an economy that's that bad off, and if he simply says the right things he can have some huge gains with little to no effort. He's inheriting an economy that's in a physiological depression, but hardly even meets the definition of recession.
That's the way it has been throughout history. Cycles of varying duration occur in which nations rise and fall and it is invariably the case that the rot begins from within.
Osama bin Laden said he wanted to financially ruin America. He can't of course, but we can and indeed have. We've done the job ourselves.
I’m sure this will be Obama’s fault.
Was it a liberal congress also? Was it an executive order?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.