<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bailout Rate of Return: -1,096%</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:29:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blackhalo</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142622</link>
		<dc:creator>Blackhalo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:26:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142622</guid>
		<description>&quot;I agree you can’t have greater losses than -100%. At -1,096% somebody missed math 101.&quot;

If they could do math, they would not be a reporter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I agree you can’t have greater losses than -100%. At -1,096% somebody missed math 101.&#8221;</p>
<p>If they could do math, they would not be a reporter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Curmudgeon</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142550</link>
		<dc:creator>The Curmudgeon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142550</guid>
		<description>Wouldn&#039;t we have done better if we&#039;d piled a stack of dollars many billions high and just incinerated them? At least it could have staved off some global warming.

But really, isn&#039;t a -1,000% or so return something like what we&#039;ve gotten out of our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?

At least there, we transformed the dollar bills to bunker buster bombs and then incinerated them.  We bombed Afghanistan to the stone ages with those suckers.  Of course, it was a fairly short trip.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t we have done better if we&#8217;d piled a stack of dollars many billions high and just incinerated them? At least it could have staved off some global warming.</p>
<p>But really, isn&#8217;t a -1,000% or so return something like what we&#8217;ve gotten out of our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan?</p>
<p>At least there, we transformed the dollar bills to bunker buster bombs and then incinerated them.  We bombed Afghanistan to the stone ages with those suckers.  Of course, it was a fairly short trip.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stuart</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142544</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142544</guid>
		<description>Good luck now getting any.   Most places are out in small amounts, retail level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good luck now getting any.   Most places are out in small amounts, retail level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thisson</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142514</link>
		<dc:creator>Thisson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142514</guid>
		<description>We already have an international currency.  It&#039;s called Gold.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We already have an international currency.  It&#8217;s called Gold.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: going broke</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142493</link>
		<dc:creator>going broke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:57:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142493</guid>
		<description>Bailouts! Bailouts! Bailouts! 

My Stimulus Bill...
Send $1,000,000 to every frik&#039;n person in the US that files taxes for 2008. Let the Banks, Mortgage Companies, Auto Companies, etc... fend for themselves. Total cost... maybe $130 trillion.

Meanwhile, I&#039;ll stick my $1M in the bank, go buy a distressed property and maybe a new Chevy. I know this has many flaws but couldn&#039;t be as bad as the compounding mess that&#039;s happening now. I&#039;m going fishing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bailouts! Bailouts! Bailouts! </p>
<p>My Stimulus Bill&#8230;<br />
Send $1,000,000 to every frik&#8217;n person in the US that files taxes for 2008. Let the Banks, Mortgage Companies, Auto Companies, etc&#8230; fend for themselves. Total cost&#8230; maybe $130 trillion.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I&#8217;ll stick my $1M in the bank, go buy a distressed property and maybe a new Chevy. I know this has many flaws but couldn&#8217;t be as bad as the compounding mess that&#8217;s happening now. I&#8217;m going fishing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vaughn</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142486</link>
		<dc:creator>vaughn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142486</guid>
		<description>&quot;The government’s annualized rate of return on its investment in the nation’s largest banks is -1,096%.&quot;

Well, see now, that&#039;s just because they didn&#039;t go BIG enough!  (but they will)

love,
Captain Upside</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The government’s annualized rate of return on its investment in the nation’s largest banks is -1,096%.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, see now, that&#8217;s just because they didn&#8217;t go BIG enough!  (but they will)</p>
<p>love,<br />
Captain Upside</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: km4</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142485</link>
		<dc:creator>km4</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142485</guid>
		<description>Hey Bruce N Tennessee 

Not condoning Putin or his policies but he has some good points.

“Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy&quot;
“The time for enlightenment has come,” he went on. “We must calmly, and without gloating, assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.”

This article was written 2.5 yrs  ago and since then we have seen all the financial malfeasance from Wall St, The Fed, The Treasury and the Bush admin.

The case for a global currency
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/03/opinion/edwade.php
FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 2006

There is a rising tide of opposition around the world to America&#039;s unilateral assertion of its national interests. But few realize that for the United States to become a more responsible country, the world economy needs to move from the current U.S. dollar standard to a global currency.

U.S. dominance rests not only on military superiority and on the size and productivity of its economy, but also on the fact that most international transactions are denominated in U.S. dollars and more than 60 percent of world foreign exchange reserves are held in U.S.-denominated assets, like U.S. Treasury bills.

The problem for the rest of the world is that the U.S. dollar standard encourages the United States to be careless in its monetary and fiscal policies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Bruce N Tennessee </p>
<p>Not condoning Putin or his policies but he has some good points.</p>
<p>“Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy&#8221;<br />
“The time for enlightenment has come,” he went on. “We must calmly, and without gloating, assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.”</p>
<p>This article was written 2.5 yrs  ago and since then we have seen all the financial malfeasance from Wall St, The Fed, The Treasury and the Bush admin.</p>
<p>The case for a global currency<br />
<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/03/opinion/edwade.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/03/opinion/edwade.php</a><br />
FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 2006</p>
<p>There is a rising tide of opposition around the world to America&#8217;s unilateral assertion of its national interests. But few realize that for the United States to become a more responsible country, the world economy needs to move from the current U.S. dollar standard to a global currency.</p>
<p>U.S. dominance rests not only on military superiority and on the size and productivity of its economy, but also on the fact that most international transactions are denominated in U.S. dollars and more than 60 percent of world foreign exchange reserves are held in U.S.-denominated assets, like U.S. Treasury bills.</p>
<p>The problem for the rest of the world is that the U.S. dollar standard encourages the United States to be careless in its monetary and fiscal policies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DL</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142481</link>
		<dc:creator>DL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142481</guid>
		<description>The preferred shares are worth less than when Paulsen purchased them.     As bad as that is, it is probably far better than the alternative, which would have been to overpay for the toxic assets, and then sit on them for 10 years (or more).  

And that’s probably where Obama’s going to go.      The government will play all kinds of games with “mark to model” accounting in order to hide the true size of the deficit (and national debt).      

If the government is going to play games with “mark to model”, we might as well let the banks do it (it’s cheaper that way).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The preferred shares are worth less than when Paulsen purchased them.     As bad as that is, it is probably far better than the alternative, which would have been to overpay for the toxic assets, and then sit on them for 10 years (or more).  </p>
<p>And that’s probably where Obama’s going to go.      The government will play all kinds of games with “mark to model” accounting in order to hide the true size of the deficit (and national debt).      </p>
<p>If the government is going to play games with “mark to model”, we might as well let the banks do it (it’s cheaper that way).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Merkel</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142479</link>
		<dc:creator>David Merkel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142479</guid>
		<description>Annualized rates of return cannot be less than -100%.  Go ahead, try using the XIRR or IRR functions on Excel, and run the calculation.

Also, comparing the government&#039;s preferred stake to the loss of the market capitalization is not a sound was to run a total return calculation.

Finally, Madoff didn&#039;t lose 100%.  He took money in and paid people out, minus whatever was raked off.  If we run an IRR calculation on it(should we ever get good figures), he may have had a negative single digit IRR, but that will still be fatal in the long run as returns are over-reported and withdrawals come in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Annualized rates of return cannot be less than -100%.  Go ahead, try using the XIRR or IRR functions on Excel, and run the calculation.</p>
<p>Also, comparing the government&#8217;s preferred stake to the loss of the market capitalization is not a sound was to run a total return calculation.</p>
<p>Finally, Madoff didn&#8217;t lose 100%.  He took money in and paid people out, minus whatever was raked off.  If we run an IRR calculation on it(should we ever get good figures), he may have had a negative single digit IRR, but that will still be fatal in the long run as returns are over-reported and withdrawals come in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: super_trooper</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/bailout-rate-of-return-1096/comment-page-1/#comment-142476</link>
		<dc:creator>super_trooper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:40:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=17509#comment-142476</guid>
		<description>I agree you can&#039;t have greater losses than -100%. At  -1,096% somebody missed math 101.
As for Madoff, I normally oppose death penalty, but in this case he would serve as an example to the financial sector that you don&#039;t f%^k with other people&#039;s money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree you can&#8217;t have greater losses than -100%. At  -1,096% somebody missed math 101.<br />
As for Madoff, I normally oppose death penalty, but in this case he would serve as an example to the financial sector that you don&#8217;t f%^k with other people&#8217;s money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

