toxic assets

Such pools constitute much of the so-called toxic assets at the heart of the worst financial crisis in the United States since the 1930s.

The release of a long-awaited U. S. government plan to rid bank balance sheets of money-losing "toxic" assets has also been a big spur.

The plan's essence is to use government off-budget money to overpay for banks' toxic assets, perhaps by a factor of two or more.

Today, policymakers are trying to excise toxic assets from banks that are still, at least officially, private and viable.

The goal is to calm financial markets by removing the toxic assets, mostly mortgages, which lie at the heart of the crisis.

Like a bad bank, the aim is to isolate toxic assets, encourage private money to come in and discourage banks from hoarding their capital.

One of those options would create a government run 'bad bank' to purchase the toxic assets currently impeding the flow of credit.

But it would probably have been better to hive off its most toxic assets into a separate "bad bank" .

As Krugman points out in his column this plan is the third variant of an old plan to lift the value of toxic assets.

To the contrary, the recession is about to pile another huge set of non-performing loans on to the existing stacks of toxic assets.

The financial sector, meanwhile, is relatively robust, he said, with little exposure to toxic assets.

One factor that the bank believes has been overhanging investor sentiment is the continuing risk posed by toxic assets.

Toxic assets are no longer just a pile of securitised subprime US mortgages.

Uncritical acceptance of credit ratings by purchasers of these toxic assets has led to huge losses.

Tom: So illiquid mortgage papers become "toxic assets" to the bank?

But they admit that painful surgery would have been impossible had Citi's livelihood not been threatened by its losses on toxic assets.

The latest plan for migrating toxic assets off banks' balance sheets is, at bottom, vendor financing with Washington footing the bill.

Options included the Treasury buying toxic assets, or separating them off into a so-called "bad bank" .

Earlier this year a state regulator siphoned off some of Ambac's most toxic assets and put them into "rehabilitation" .

People familiar with the discussions said other factions were pressing for a "bad bank" to take on toxic assets.

Expenses and toxic assets had to be reduced and he set about the job with the zeal of a proven risk manager.

The emerging world has also increasingly been seen as less of a systemic risk as its banks are not so exposed to toxic assets.

The government announced details of its 'bad bank' program, which it set up to acquire toxic assets from Irish lenders.

A state-owned "bad bank" that takes on toxic assets in exchange for injecting equity is a frequently mentioned possibility.

The state has also nationalised two mortgage lenders and is proposing to insure banks' toxic assets against catastrophic losses.

The German cabinet endorsed a bad bank scheme to rid the country's lenders of their toxic assets.

The idea, says Mr. Obama's top economic adviser, is to use "the expertise of the market" to set the value of toxic assets.

Bush's bank of political capital was busted, and Obama wasn't about to take ownership of the toxic assets.

In October UBS spun $60 billion of toxic assets into a fund backed by the Swiss central bank.

Bankers genuinely believe that the state should carry off their toxic assets while they continue with business and bonuses as before.

Under these rules, banks can avoid having to put a market price to some of their most toxic assets.

The CEOs held tight to the toxic assets that were killing them, hoping beyond hope for a recovery in prices that never came.

It might motivate private investors to bid up the prices for toxic assets that will allow banks to survive.

Are America's banks prepared to sell their toxic assets?

In a fresh estimate of the scale of the problem, the IMF says global losses on toxic assets could total four trillion dollars.

Nor did anyone force the German Landesbanken and the Swiss universal banks to invest heavily in toxic assets.

The extra cost of relieving banks of their toxic assets could be between $500 billion and $1 trillion, going by preliminary reports.

Mr Geithner's predecessor, Hank Paulson, twice tried and failed to deal with toxic assets.

Domestically, Australia's conservative banks proved resilient in crisis, having mostly avoided subprime-related toxic assets.

She stressed the role of private financial institutions in helping price toxic assets and preventing taxpayers from paying too much.

Without excessive imbalances, the demand for products we now refer to as toxic assets would have been smaller.

It expects the number of failures to start falling next year. It helps that regional banks have cut down their most toxic assets.

But some of the most toxic assets are securities created in 2005 and 2006, which the TALF will now be able to absorb.

but I think we have got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community throughout the world. . .

It is a similar story in Taiwan, with worries over the degree of toxic assets within banks and insurance companies.

But the absence of detail about a common approach to cleansing the banks of their toxic assets is extremely disconcerting.

Under that plan the government will shoulder much of the risk of big losses on those toxic assets in return for a payment.

When Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went under, the world realized that the banks kept much of the toxic assets at home. '

That structure would help Citigroup cleanse its balance sheet of billions of dollars in potentially toxic assets, these people said.

Seoul is opening a "bad bank" for toxic assets and is guaranteeing loans to SMEs.

This leads me to believe the Fed has been busy buying up all of the toxic assets held by banks.

Private money to buy toxic assets is expected to be a small fraction of government resources made available for the purpose.

The bridge bank gets all the assets, even the so-called "toxic" assets. These are not truly toxic, simply worth less than everyone hoped.

The first game scattered toxic assets across the financial system.

Above all, Citi's collapse showed the dangers of leaving huge quantities of toxic assets to fester on banks' balance-sheets.

These bad loans, also called toxic assets, have weakened American banks and interfered with normal lending.

The plan tries to boost demand for toxic assets by offering buyers leverage of six times with government-guaranteed debt.

Citigroup's boss reportedly learned of its $43 billion of toxic assets only in September 2007 (he was told losses were unlikely).

To restore the banking system to health it must reform the nine public Landesbanken, which hold a large portion of Germany's toxic assets.

Wall Street rallied two days later when the treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, published his plan to tackle toxic assets held by banks.

By creating a market for the toxic assets, Mr Paulson hopes to halt the spiral of falling prices and bankruptcies.

In any case, experts say the problem of toxic assets must be solved before credit markets will unfreeze.

The resulting toxic assets now easily stand comparison with the worst of America's sub-prime problems.

America's banks are propped up with public capital, but their balance-sheets are clogged with toxic assets.

And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.

In April, the rule was loosened, or made more "flexible, " allowing firms to re-mark (up, of course) the value of toxic assets.

Even if the purchase of toxic assets goes ahead, might banks remain undercapitalised?

Last week Mr Geithner unveiled the latest initiative to deal with toxic assets.

Its most toxic assets have been moved into BFA, a holding company that owns 100% of Bankia, and that is in turn owned by the sevencajas.

With key categories of toxic assets still losing value, the answer is: not soon.

Its banks are unpolluted by toxic assets; hardly a ripple disturbs its vast pools of national savings.

Exposure to toxic assets has also sparked massive losses at hedge funds, forcing some to shut down for good.

They owned relatively fewer toxic assets, and were hence forced to take fewer write-downs.

The difficulty today of assigning dollar values to "toxic" assets makes Morgan's job look easy.

Geithner outlined a plan to increase consumer lending and clean up toxic assets held by banks.

Removing toxic assets would also reduce the volatility of banks' stock prices.

For one thing, there is suspicion that the amount of toxic assets is considerably greater than the rescue plan provides for.

Maybe toxic assets are good for you after all.

Or why not remove all "toxic" assets by legislative fiat and return them free and clear to their titular owners?

In Britain the state is insuring banks against losses on their toxic assets.

Therefore, such banks will only sell toxic assets at above market prices.

Meanwhile, 72% of respondents say the Treasury's plan to purchase toxic assets will help the economy.

Germany is finalising a plan to house its banks' colossal hoard of toxic assets.

But, the problem with stripping toxic assets from failing banks is their prices.

The US Treasury released its plan for purchasing $1 trillion of toxic assets from the troubled banks.

Plans to transfer the most toxic assets from the banks have fizzled in many places.

The prices for toxic assets may need to more than double for the banks to survive.

Most disappointment was directed at the sketchy plan to tackle banks' toxic assets, such as mortgage-backed securities and leveraged loans.

That is partly because Beijing decided a decade ago to set up four bad banks, or asset management companies, to manage toxic assets.

Having shunned toxic assets, its four big banks look healthy.

It helps that regional banks have cut down their most toxic assets.

America's new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive.

Now, the option to sell these so-called toxic assets is re-emerging.

These banks also need to cleanse their balance sheets of toxic assets and bad loans.

The toxic assets plan deals with less that 40 percent of the balance sheet of the banks that is in marketable securities.

Not anything on toxic assets or fiscal spending.

Banks will be encouraged to shed or write down their toxic assets.

HOST: So how do they do that? So they have to offer prices for these toxic assets you're talking about. They have to buy them all.

We now know the banks were holding many toxic assets, but the problem was diagnosed as a liquidity problem.

That's the big problem, banks can't sell toxic assets.

These are the "toxic assets" that weigh down the balance sheets of banks.

I mean, I'm no economist, but maybe you should stop calling them toxic assets.

Now they read that the government is buying "toxic assets" .

Most simply, the government could provide loans to buy the toxic assets on a recourse basis, therefore without the hidden subsidy.

It provides no-brainer incentives for private investors to buy toxic assets.

That has left investors shunning groups that hold toxic assets, such as Lehman Brothers.

There are not so many toxic assets on the banks' books in Canada.

What about the toxic assets?

America abandoned its original plan to buy toxic assets last October in favour of extra capital because the crisis demanded faster action.

That is also because, unlike many Western banks, they have few toxic assets and limited mortgage exposure.

Writedowns of toxic assets were a fraction of last year's in part because of a change in fair-value accounting rules.

Citi has already had more than $300 billion of toxic assets ringfenced and guaranteed by the government;