The new bailout for banks ...

So ... let me get this straight ...

We package these toxic assets ... and put them up for bid ... in an auction where the bidders only have to put up 15% of their winning bid? And the government will match the private money of the bidders dollar for dollar, up to 15%? And the government will loan up to 85% of the purchase price — the winning bid — in a non-recourse loan? (Isn't that one that doesn't have to be paid back?) And this is supposed to provide a market to properly value these assets? Are you kidding me?

A nonrecourse debt or non-recourse debt or nonrecourse loan is a secured loan (debt) that is secured by a pledge of collateral, typically real property, but for which the borrower is not personally liable. If the borrower defaults, the lender/issuer can seize the collateral, but the lender's recovery is limited to the collateral. If the property is insufficient to cover the outstanding loan balance (for example, if real estate prices have dropped), the lender is simply paid out the difference. Thus, non-recourse debt is typically limited to 80% or 90% loan-to-value ratios, so that the property itself provides "overcollateralization" of the loan. The purpose of non-recourse debt is to require lenders to underwrite their loans on a sustainable and prudent basis since the lender is in the first-loss position with these loans, not the borrower.

wikipedia.com

B-b-bu-but the government is simply going to underwrite whatever the winning bid/purchase price is. How is that sustainable or prudent?

In this auction the only thing determining the bid will be what 15% dollar amount are the banks willing to lose to gain the 85% remainder? Gee, I wonder.

See, the banks are going to get paid off at 100% of the purchase price. Now, if a bank loaned the 15% for the private equity in this deal to some type of limited liability company that used the toxic asset to balance whatever liability it carries on their books ... then if the LLC goes belly up when the toxic asset defaults ... well, all the bank would lose is its 15% ... and if Bank A loans the 15% to X LLC that purchases the toxic assets from Bank B, and Bank B loans the 15% to Y LLC that purchases the toxic assets from Bank A ... so it all looks impartial ...

Are you kidding me?

And Geithner or Bernake or Summers are going to coordinate this for the banks?

Are you kidding me?!

Oh ... and check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#29875591