Ouch.
A -64% IRR. Go team!
Comments (59)
Leave a comment
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
email: tips@dealbreaker.com
text: (646) 820-4847
call: (212) 334-1871
all tips are anonymous
Ouch.
A -64% IRR. Go team!
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
Great Investment. Let’s put them in charge of our retirement funds. Oh, wait a minute…
Theyre only losses if you SELL them…right?riiiiiight?
This is all semantics. We just need a good/bad TARP scheme.
Honestly, is anyone surprised by this number? I made the mistake of rolling my 401k into the Barney Frank Mgmt Fund.
Why are weight loss ads showing up on the site now? Is advertising that bad?
@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?
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.
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
@5-Look in the mirror
I love how CNBC reports it as if that estimate meant something.
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?
sounds like a leveraged hedge fund, GE, Fannie, or just about any other train wreck we know about, or will soon discover…
That’s only a 25% loss in three months. Not bad!
@11
Your voice of reason has no, I repeat NO place on CNBC! Dennis Kneale will NOT HAVE IT!!!!!
I’m proposing a GoodFed/BadFed model.
Just as we suspected.
Wow! You mean we’ll get something back?
the TARP is sucha slut – Dennis
the TARP is sucha slut – Dennis
@17 a bill
13:43 *US Government to seperate US Treasury
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.
Hey, MacFly @21 – how’d you get that time stamp?
you mean -26% IRR…
Does my ass look big?
Profit or GTFO!
“Posted by guest, Jan 16, 2009 1:52PM
you mean -26% IRR…”
Uh… sure. Keep your day job.
24: think about what the first “R” stands for…
@25 – Yes. Lay off the Lattes.
@24… that would be true if the TARP distributed the money in January 2008. Idiot.
@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.
Not sure if it was included, but the $45 LARGE to Citibank is not looking especially safe right now.
@27 zomg EP = Barney Frank!
64/250=25%
@24: go back to Motley Fool, OK?
“Posted by guest, Jan 16, 2009 2:35PM
64/250=25%”
Outstanding, Red Team, outstanding! Get you a case of beer for that one.
Is that marked-to-market?
What’s IRR?
/Seriously. Stupid lawyer, here.
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.
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%!”
@40, I think @38 was trying to be ironic.
No gripe with 38 pretending to have never heard of wikipedia, just the “corrections” @ 24, 34, and 39…
@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
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…
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.
@ 24, 34, and 39 were on BofA’s merril takeover team.
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).
point being -64% is not the irr. funny how few people understand irr, which is why it is rarely used.
“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.
@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.
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.
@51 – because she’s from private equity!
initial outlay would be -250 with 186 as the income stream. IRR(A1:A2)=26%. suck it.
“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.
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 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.
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 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.
TARP is a TPILF