I am sorry, Tim, but some things are just facts. Citibank was the worst bank in terms of its financial condition {that did not go under.]
There where many smaller banks, some in worse situations. Your changing your claim, adding "that did not go under", makes it a totally different statement, still a rather questionable one that you don't provide any support for, but even if we assumed it was true it would not be relevant to my disputing your original point.
It was profit for one year. There will be more profits going forward.
When you print money or borrow it almost for free, and lend it out at some interest rate, its easy, but not very meaningful to show a profit. It would be a narrow profit for the Fed, but not helpful for the country. But even that narrow profit is very questionable since the bad loans aren't being written down. Since the Fed can have a zero or near zero cost of money, anyone paying interest means it "make a profit", but when you put that much money at risk getting back $54bil isn't very meaningful, even before considering the losses that haven't been accounted for. |
