That is why the focus of the lawsuits needs to be on the fraud & conspiracy committed against taxpayers/shareholders.
"Some lawmakers have said taxpayers are entitled to generous returns because the government agreed to accept nearly unlimited losses during the crisis, nursing the companies back to health. “I was a venture capitalist for a lot longer than I’ve been a politician. If I had put $180 billion into Fannie and Freddie back in 2009, I’d expect more than a 1 to 1 return on that,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) at a conference last fall. “So once I got a 30-to-1 return…talk to me about Fannie and Freddie making money.”"
This is why the argument faces a somewhat uphill battle. People with this mentality are the ones who will fight this tooth and nail before just "giving it back" to the shareholders.
That was an idiotic statement made by Warner, IMO. Venture capitalists often invest in start-ups or under capitalized companies with the potential for growth. They do not invest in multi-billion dollar enterprises that prop up ~20% of the nation's economy. Different investment mechanisms should expect differing levels of return. Did Warner really expect a 6 trillion dollar return on the initial 200B (debatable value) investment?
Haha.. is it the case with all the companies which have taken the help with TARP funding during the same time of 2008 & 2009. Why they haven't taken at least 1 to 1 profit with AIG, GM, Citi Bank and others . Why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are differently treated. Govt got about $22 billion profit ?? on funding of $180 billion ?? help to AIG. How much profit it got incase of $33 billion ?? of GM help ??