If the government goes to 40% ownership of banks through common shares

[RB TexLa]

Would the executive branch vote the shares or would congress have a say?

[Oregone]

1. Good question.

Up here (BC), they have appointed Ministers of the Crown that control the shares. No idea how the US is setup to handle this.

[On the Road]

2. The Original TARP Funds

were mostly in the form of preferred stock, which normally carries voting rights. However, the government said it would refrain from exercising those rights.

[RB TexLa]

8. But now they are considering transferring to common stock of 40%

If the government didn't vote their shares other shareholders would receive unwarranted over representation of their shares in votes.

[On the Road]

9. That is Good to Know

I am not at all against the government having voting rights.

Don't know if I would want the banks directly run by the government for any period of time, but it makes it easier to address issues like executive pay.

[Spouting Horn]

3. If Gov't will own

%40 of shares, you'd better sell your shares before that transaction takes place, because you're going to be wiped out if you don't

I doubt any business that the Gov't has taken an ownership stake in will ever recover.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_should_the_government

[soothsayer]

4. i don't think that's true. govt sometimes makes a profit on these things

[Xenotime]

5. Better them than corrupt CEOs

[Spouting Horn]

6. It will be neither in this case.

Who is going to bank on purpose at Citibank now?

The only way Citi can become profitable now is for the Gov't (IE, Taxpayer) to overpay for their toxic assets.

I want to know what Robert Rubin did at Citi to deserve $115 million in bonuses???

[Political Heretic]

7. Did you seriously just link to the onion?

I can't watch this at work.... but I hope you realize that's a joke site.