Talk:Resolution Trust Corporation

Untitled

This article is in no way complete or even neutral. The assertion from a specific page of Stieglitz' book that the RTC was formed in order to let banks keep the public in the shadows is unsupported and, frankly, ridiculous. 65.189.155.92 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)BC3

I want to know if establishing the RTC turned out to be a good deal or a bad deal for the American public. Is the book by Stieglitz a good source for further information? If not, what would others recommend? --The0ther (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the intro looks like spam, even if it may not be (I don't know enough to say). Imagine Reason (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In the EQUITY PARTNERSHIP section, second paragraph, first sentence: what does jargon 'upside' mean in this context? 83.70.64.204 (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks

"Upside" in this context means participating in profits. This is a very timely and important article given the economic backdrop and proposal for a similar structure. It should be made a priority to improve the page--I don't know how, but anyone who does should make sure it conforms to Wikipedia's best standards! --167.230.38.115 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is written in what I'll refer to as "bank speak" and is therefore not accessible or helpful for the layperson. My two cents. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.241.54 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of good information about the RTC here. They invented subprime->AAA. 2008 Financial Crisis Cause Goldminersilverbuyer (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What is resolution?

In "... the Resolution Trust Corporation closed or otherwise resolved 747 thrifts...", resolved should link to the answer. But resolve and resolution don't seem to have anything about liquidating or otherwise winding down a corporation. I may find something by googling, but for now I don't know enough to fix this. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• What was resolved was the ownership of real property. Insolvent banks and trusts ended up holding onto real estate that could not be sold. The organizations were dissolved and the real property auctioned back to the public. This is highly relevant because the housing bubble, at least in the US, could require a repeat of this process using a similar entity. --M0llusk (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• • I have been asked to expand on this. I will try to do so, but I think there is a misunderstanding of the language involved which might be left as an exercise for readers. In this situation properties were purchased with loans from savings and loan institutions. These loans failed, causing properties to be returned to the savings and loans. The failure of many such loans caused the savings and loans in turn to also fail. The resulted in ownership of properties involved becoming ambiguous. The ambiguity of property ownership was resolved by having the government take ownership of properties from defunct savings and loan banks and auction them off. The problem that needed to be resolved was ownership of the properties involved. The method for solving this problem was auctions through the RTC. The actions of the RTC resolved the problem of properties with ambiguous ownership. Resolution and resolve are general terms which can be used for any kind of problem. It sounds like the desire for a "fix" is caused by a lack of understanding of the situation or the words or both. If "liquidation" is to be considered a special and magic word, then the context can be understood as resolving the problem of properties requiring liquidation. Properties without owners are considered problematic because people want to buy and make use of properties and governments want to tax them, but without ownership none of these things are possible. It is also worth mentioning that the words involved were chosen by politicians to be used in a political context for political purposes, so awkwardness in word choice is not necessarily a matter of ambiguity, but potentially also evidence of attempted manipulation through framing. That is, the word "resolution" at this time made for better politics than the word "liquidation" because resolution is considered positive while liquidation is considered scary and harsh and negative. The words that were used are a critical aspect of the history of these events for which there can be no "fix". -- M0llusk (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)