Ouch.
A -64% IRR. Go team!
CNBC Breaking: CBO Estimates Losses on First $250 Billion of TARP at $64 Billion
Posted by Equity Private, Jan 16, 2009, 1:11pm
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!More Favorite Reads
Sep 15, 2009, 2:22pm
Technical Difficulties Prevented Warren Buffett From Saving Lehman Brothers
I sense some judgment from the Bloomberg reporter here re:...
More »Sep 15, 2009, 2:00pm
People! THIS TYPE OF PERFORMANCE DOES NOT MAKE PTJ WANT TO RAIN BUCKETS O' CHICKEN ON YOUR ASSES!
Tudor BVI Global: August 2009: 0.5% YTD: 12.5% ...as for...
More »
Sep 09, 2009, 11:27am
Goldman Partner's Neighbors Scandalized By Shirt Optional Parties
Goldman Sachs partner managing director Richard Kimball Jr. apparently got...
More »Sep 09, 2009, 10:15am
Job Openings At AQR! (UPDATE)
Ladies, if you've been looking to work under one of...
More »
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:13PM
Great Investment. Let's put them in charge of our retirement funds. Oh, wait a minute...
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:16PM
Theyre only losses if you SELL them...right?riiiiiight?
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:17PM
This is all semantics. We just need a good/bad TARP scheme.
Posted by PatrickBateman , Jan 16, 2009 1:17PM
Honestly, is anyone surprised by this number? I made the mistake of rolling my 401k into the Barney Frank Mgmt Fund.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:18PM
Why are weight loss ads showing up on the site now? Is advertising that bad?
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:19PM
@1
I'm in charge of my retirement funds. Where can I get $250 billion to bail it out?
The $64 billion number is high but there's no other source besides CNBC? How about doing some leg work here before spitting out whatever CNBC says? Dealbreaker?
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:19PM
Good move, @4, returns on the world's oldest profession, i.e. running a stud farm brothel from your condo, probably has both low management fees and low correlation with the market.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:22PM
EP and bess, I am a long time reader.
Today we are soft launching The Daily Bail...a bailout news, opinion & analysis site. In more detail we are a news aggregation source for all stories related in any way to the institutionally dysfunctional, painfully inept and completely counter-productive taxpayer bailout of failed people, ideas, businesses, pensions, municipalities, states and ultimately, we fear, of our federal government.
The site is not complete but is fully functional and so we have decided to soft launch now.
For those interested, click the URL next to my name or go to 'www.thedailybail.squarespace.com'
In a few days we will lose the '.squarespace' tag.
Thanks again for allowing us to post this and I hope dealbreaker readers will take the time to stop by.
dailybail
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:23PM
@5-Look in the mirror
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:24PM
I love how CNBC reports it as if that estimate meant something.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:27PM
Well...without seeing the CBO's methods it's pretty much impossible to judge their estimate. Which investments are under water? How are the preferreds being marked? What about all of the zero-cost warrants?
How much is Buffett down with is GS and GE investments? Does he still expect them to pay a positive return over his investment horizon?
In a world valuing everything based only on where it could be liquidated today, do we really want Treasury to be a day trader?
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:27PM
sounds like a leveraged hedge fund, GE, Fannie, or just about any other train wreck we know about, or will soon discover...
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:27PM
That's only a 25% loss in three months. Not bad!
Posted by Anal_yst , Jan 16, 2009 1:31PM
@11
Your voice of reason has no, I repeat NO place on CNBC! Dennis Kneale will NOT HAVE IT!!!!!
Posted by onetwo , Jan 16, 2009 1:31PM
I'm proposing a GoodFed/BadFed model.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:32PM
Just as we suspected.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:33PM
Wow! You mean we'll get something back?
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:36PM
the TARP is sucha slut - Dennis
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:36PM
the TARP is sucha slut - Dennis
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:36PM
@17 a bill
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:42PM
13:43 *US Government to seperate US Treasury
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:48PM
I absolutely guarantee you that the losses will be much, much, higher than that. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being a total loss.
Posted by Lowly Assistant , Jan 16, 2009 1:49PM
Hey, MacFly @21 - how'd you get that time stamp?
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:52PM
you mean -26% IRR...
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:53PM
Does my ass look big?
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 1:53PM
Profit or GTFO!
Posted by Equity Private , Jan 16, 2009 2:03PM
"Posted by guest, Jan 16, 2009 1:52PM
you mean -26% IRR..."
Uh... sure. Keep your day job.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:04PM
24: think about what the first "R" stands for...
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:15PM
@25 - Yes. Lay off the Lattes.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:28PM
@24... that would be true if the TARP distributed the money in January 2008. Idiot.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:30PM
@27 Good catch. You should apply to work in Treasury to help keep track of all these investment and report back to public. They'd love to have you.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:33PM
Not sure if it was included, but the $45 LARGE to Citibank is not looking especially safe right now.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:34PM
@27 zomg EP = Barney Frank!
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:35PM
64/250=25%
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:38PM
@24: go back to Motley Fool, OK?
Posted by Equity Private , Jan 16, 2009 2:41PM
"Posted by guest, Jan 16, 2009 2:35PM
64/250=25%"
Outstanding, Red Team, outstanding! Get you a case of beer for that one.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:43PM
Is that marked-to-market?
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:47PM
What's IRR?
/Seriously. Stupid lawyer, here.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 2:51PM
that's a -25% growth rate which is a -25% irr as you are using 64/250 not 64/100. not sure where you got the 100 from.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 3:12PM
Good grief. IRR as in internal RATE of return. As in, if the TARP continued to lose money at this RATE, after one year it would lose a ton more money (like, perhaps, 64% of the total) or as in, at this RATE by the end of the day there will be 100 more posts making fun of idiots for not understanding IRR but 5 times as many posts saying "nuh-uh, it's 25%!"
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 3:19PM
@40, I think @38 was trying to be ironic.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 3:22PM
No gripe with 38 pretending to have never heard of wikipedia, just the "corrections" @ 24, 34, and 39...
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 3:23PM
@39 - The notes were issued at 100 par value, so that's how you get 64/100 = -64% IRR.
They covered this in training.
-hoser
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 3:24PM
I've got no problem w/ 38 pretending never to have heard of wikpiedia. The tirade was directed at the "corrections" @ 24, 34 and 39...
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 3:28PM
if the period was a year it would be 25.6%: that is the rate that makes the NPV 0 for a 64 loss on 250. as we don't know the exact time period we can't compute irr. ep was making a joke so to sit here and analyze it is pedantic and a waste of time.
Posted by onetwo , Jan 16, 2009 3:29PM
@ 24, 34, and 39 were on BofA's merril takeover team.
Posted by Equity Private , Jan 16, 2009 3:36PM
People... people...
$250 billion of TARP was authorized on 10/3/2008. On 1/16/2009 the balance was $186 billion if you believe the CBO.
This is an unrealized absolute return of -25.60%.
Calculating the unrealized IRR is more complex and is left as an exercise for the student. (Hint: XIRR in excel works nicely since you have the dates).
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 3:41PM
point being -64% is not the irr. funny how few people understand irr, which is why it is rarely used.
Posted by Equity Private , Jan 16, 2009 3:44PM
"point being -64% is not the irr. funny how few people understand irr, which is why it is rarely used."
It's around -64.2264%. Sheesh. You people are just a lost cause today. Say ten Hail Sharpe's.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 4:27PM
@48 and the rest of the Freepers: hint: if you are posting from a double-wide, or your mom's basement, then step away from the keyboard, slowly.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 4:53PM
I'd be interested to know how you arrived at that number. Given these http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=197 figures I don't see how or why you would use IRR.
Posted by onetwo , Jan 16, 2009 5:11PM
@51 - because she's from private equity!
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 5:41PM
initial outlay would be -250 with 186 as the income stream. IRR(A1:A2)=26%. suck it.
Posted by Equity Private , Jan 16, 2009 5:53PM
"initial outlay would be -250 with 186 as the income stream. IRR(A1:A2)=26%. suck it."
Try XIRR. Return when you've corrected your work.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 6:20PM
true. yours is more correct, but as i didn't know the dates mine would be correct given the data i had. you would actually need to know what period cbo is using to arrive at a definitive answer.
i'll be happy to discuss this with you at public later tonight.
Posted by Equity Private , Jan 16, 2009 6:23PM
"Posted by guest, Jan 16, 2009 6:20PM
true. yours is more correct, but as i didn't know the dates mine would be correct given the data i had. you would actually need to know what period cbo is using to arrive at a definitive answer.
i'll be happy to discuss this with you at public later tonight."
Oh, I think you've said about all I need to make an assessment, thanks.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 6:29PM
shame. i'm much less e.e. cummings-like in person.
in a green tie and blue suit. from 9 on if you're feeling adventurous.
Posted by Equity Private , Jan 16, 2009 6:30PM
"Posted by guest, Jan 16, 2009 6:29PM
shame. i'm much less e.e. cummings-like in person.
in a green tie and blue suit. from 9 on if you're feeling adventurous."
Pass.
Posted by guest , Jan 16, 2009 11:53PM
TARP is a TPILF