The figures don’t include the money spent on the Freddie and Fannie bailout.

That was a 100% loss, and continues.

re: #1 Buck

That was before TARP. I agree with the Bush administration’s decision to bail them out, but feel free to bitch about it all you like.

Nonetheless, TARP seems to have worked out decently well, and a lot better than many predicted.

re: #2 MinisterO

That was before TARP. I agree with the Bush administration’s decision to bail them out, but feel free to bitch about it all you like.

Nonetheless, TARP seems to have worked out decently well, and a lot better than many predicted.

Facts! Damn them!

OK, If only you didn’t taunt me.

Is TARP really after the Fannie and Freddie bailouts (that continue to this day)?

You miss the point. There is NO good reason to take Fannie and Freddie off the books.

Except of course if you are hiding something. You can be blind to it if you want.

re: #4 Buck

Some people made a lot of noise about how TARP was a bad investment. I understand that they need TARP to fail. TARP bad, mkay?

The article notes that TARP actually did work. That’s a painful fact for some.

TARP, the program floated by the Bush Administration and established in October 2008 to keep the credit markets afloat, appears to have worked. However, the TARP funds have been appropriated for other efforts - like bailing out GM and Chrysler - money losing propositions, and bailing out flailing homeowners under HAMP. Those two programs, which came after TARP was initially proposed, will not break even. In fact, they’re likely to cost tens of billions of dollars and negate the profits on the banking side.

Moreover, it ignores that some of the banks involved in TARP wanted no part of TARP in the first place. They were rolled in to the program because the government wanted to eliminate the stigma of TARP funds.

The GOP has run against it as a sign of government run amok, and Democrats can’t figure out how to show that this policy worked.

Then there’s the part of the article that shows that a series of government policies - fiscal and monetary - contributed to banks being in a better position.

The Treasury said in an Oct. 5 report that it expects to lose about $17 billion on the separate $80 billion TARP payout to Detroit automakers General Motors Co. and Chrysler LLC. The bank and insurance portion of the bailout, which includes $47.5 billion to New York-based American International Group Inc., will probably earn $11 billion in the end, taking expected losses into account, according to Treasury estimates.

One of the biggest investments produced one of the best returns. While New York-based Citigroup Inc. still hasn’t paid back $12 billion of the $45 billion it received, Treasury has already made $8.2 billion, or an 18 percent return, mostly as a result of selling its stake in the lender at a higher price, according to data analyzed by Bloomberg.

After collecting repayments, dividends and proceeds from warrant sales, the government earned a 14 percent return on the $10 billion it gave Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and a 13 percent return on the $10 billion that went to Morgan Stanley. Both firms are based in New York.

The feds played the stock market, and won on Citi by creating conditions favorable to the company - picking a winner in effect.

re: #6 lawhawk

Despite the obvious spin I rather agree with everything you’ve said. It was a gamble. All in TARP is looking to cost taxpayers $20B, plus or minus $10B. That is far less than the numbers that have been thrown around by the pundits and politicians with axes to grind.

A reasonable analysis of TARP would compare this outcome with the outcome of doing nothing. That’s hard to do, but just allowing GM to go bankrupt would have easily cost taxpayers $20B for unfunded government-insured pensions.