(no title)
sirsar | 6 years ago
I suspect the answer is something having to do with the overlap between the politically powerful and those with a great exposure to those risks and rewards.
sirsar | 6 years ago
I suspect the answer is something having to do with the overlap between the politically powerful and those with a great exposure to those risks and rewards.
TheSpiceIsLife|6 years ago
It did happen in the UK. Banks that took bailouts traded shares for cash with the Treasury (this is a layman's understanding at least). RBS notably became 84% publicly owned.
The real scandal is the government selling back the shares for less than they paid for them (when RBS was on the brink of collapse).
hedora|6 years ago
viksit|6 years ago
malandrew|6 years ago
Taxpayers then win on the upside when things recover.
jaggederest|6 years ago
I definitely agree with the idea, but it's effectively the same as taking them private with government money and re-IPOing them later.
colechristensen|6 years ago
colechristensen|6 years ago
The treasury put 50 billion into the bankrupt company, shareholders wiped out, and eventually sold the stake in the new company for a moderate loss. It's up to the reader to determine how the net effects outside the investment/sale were profitable over all or not.