Despite all the cries of ferrets that have surrounded the activities of the United States in the rescue of their banks, we must recognize that it was not money to fund lost . Saving these funds would not be as simple as filling out an IRS extension . If Citigroup is exemplary.We all remember the difficulties of the Bush administration to obtain the agreement of the Republicans … 750 billion fund called TARP (Trouble Asset Relief Program). It was during the election campaign: it is at this precise moment that the hysterical reaction of John McCain contrasted with the leadership of Barack Obama. This was the turning point of the campaign.

Besides this amount was used not only to banks but to other industries, the conditions were were far from easy and, è s the beginning, the U.S. Treasury wanted to structure its operations on a model which provided that sooner or later he would be reimbursed.

Besides this amount was used not only to banks but to other industries, the conditions were were far from easy and, è s the beginning, the U.S. Treasury wanted to structure its operations on a model which provided that sooner or later he would be reimbursed.

The intervention took place in Citigroup quite dramatically at the end of 2008: in total, the Treasury has injected 45 billion dollars in a bank in which nobody believed. Vikram Pandit, a veteran of Morgan Stanley replaced Chuck Prince, a lawyer whose management of Citigroup had been disastrous.

Vikram Pandit has taken the problem head on. In spite of invective from some quarters in Washington, he enjoyed such support from the principal shareholder of the group, Prince Al Waleed of Saudi Arabia. It was established with the support of Bob Rubin, Treasury Secretary for Bill Clinton.

In several installments, the U.S. State emerged from these positions. This action, which had collapsed to $ 1 is now worth $ 5. The last tranche of warrants has been sold at four times its purchase price. In total, the operation of Citigroup has reported $ 12.3 billion in U.S. taxpayer, or a profit of 28%. This was announced by the Treasury this morning.

It is important to learn from this type of intervention.

It is perfectly legitimate for governments to intervene in such rescues, but there is one key condition: such an “investment”, he was in crisis, implies a clear vision of the “exit strategy” states . This is not to intervene without having clearly established with the institution concerned, the manner and conditions of sale of those assets that states are not intended to keep. It is not, by definition, a strategic investment or perennial. The input type must therefore take into account the need to leave.

The operating conditions must protect capital as much as possible, and provide pay and conditions that create an incentive for institutions to “get rid” of such creditor or shareholder expensive bulky. United States, three types of incentives have been used: a high interest rate, fees and capital bulky … limits on pay.

Under these conditions, moreover, banks like Deutsche Bank and Barclays Bank have just thanked their respective states for their proposal and waived taste of this “potion” not so magical as that. In doing so, they were competitive position of strength.

D è s 2010, several banks have taken steps to get rid of those cumbersome conditions: at the forefront as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which limits compensation at a competitive disadvantage.

And we do not make me instantly of “liberalism”! The hypocrisy of those who screamed and cried when responding to liberalism when it comes to coping inescapable.

Citigroup and the U.S. Treasury is to remind us that it is possible for the taxpayer to participate in the rescue of national interest without the taxpayer will lose.