$5 billion return from program that funded Solyndra

Speaking of thinking, why is it a good idea for government to force taxpayers to provide venture capital for private enterprise?

Are private venture capitalists against making money?

Is the government somehow...better at it than they are?

 

Unless they made these loans a 20% interest ...............these numbers are not attainable..........

 

No you can't-- at least if you are being truthful. Bush admin backed away from the approval of Solyndra on a financial basis, OWEblamer approved it on ideological basis. It's all OWEblamer.

 

They've been doing that ever since the State of New York undwrote the construction of the Erie Canal.

 

So they haven't actually earned back anything, they just "expect" to...

Get back to us when you have something noteworthy.

 

Mostly, no. But when it comes to projects that are too big and initially unprofitable, yes. Like railroads and interstates and canals and the space program and renewable energy, etc.

Mixed economies are objectively superior.

 

Let the Feds fund them if it's such a great investment. The government shouldn't be picking and choosing the winners in the market place. How about the smaller companies that are fighting to prove themselves against these larger companies. Did they not get Obama money because they didn't donate to a $15,000.00 Obama campaign lunch? I would be pissed if one of my competitors received Obama money because of their political leaning. This isn't the job of government to choose life's winners.

 

If you like your Solyndra, you can keep your Solyndra...

 

Unless they go bankrupt.............

Then, if they liked your tax dollars , they can keep your tax dollars

 

"We learn by doing, by taking risks, by failing, and, only then, by succeeding. We grow from our mistakes and from our failures.
If we cannot see that failure is the essential other half of success, then we try to avoid the failure and, in so doing,
we avoid success." ~ '2150 AD' by Thea Alexander

fact is, investing in the future will not be 100%, had we given up going to the moon after the first failure we never would of got there

the smartest people are the ones that have learned the most from the mistakes they have made

 

Hey - nuttin' at all wrong wid bein' a skeptic. Except, in this case, the overall record is looking pretty good right now since it is in the black.

 

Get back to us when you learn to read a bit more attentively:

Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.

 

Railways and canals were funded privately quite successfully. In most cases, much more profitably, and economically.

Interstates were funded publicly for the purpose of national defense. (The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956)

Ironically now that railways and canals have outlived their usefulness, they are propped up with government funding.

But back to thinking. Are you really saying that government funding is required at times when smart investors are too intelligent to throw their money at ideas that are not profitable?

- - - Updated - - -

That doesn't answer my question.

 

Smart investors want investments in businesses that they believe can make money in a reasonable period of time. New technologies, especially when additional research must be done, probably aren't viewed as likely investment avenues. But they may be necessary, which is when governments may want to step in. I realize that $34 billion is a very large chunk of change for any individual, but for the biggest economy in the world, it's not even a rounding error, so if spreading that seed money around helps us achieve an economic advantage as a country, then it's money well spent, even if every one of those goes bust (we've learned from our failures).

 

No, the problem here is risk.

You want the taxpayer to assume risk that private investors don't want to assume. This doesn't make for a better economy, all it does is shift risk.

Want to know why the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer?

It's policies like this...

 

This quote is not in your OP...........try a little intellectual honesty here

This is from another non sourced article.

If it was the case, why would your article leave it out?

 

We should have wAited for some private investors to go to the moon? Maybe convince them it's filled with oil?

 

Well, you made the false claim that railroads and canals were funded by private equity.

While many, if not most were on paper, many eastern railroads were publically financed initially.,

The vast majority of canals were privately held but publically financed.

National defence was the excuse, not the reason for financing the interstate highway system. It was set up by a Congress that wanted long distance travel to be available to everyone when they needed it. Every Senator and Representative knew what it was like to be a hostage to a railroad timetable, and didn't want the highway system to devolved into a disjointed network of toll roads controlled by monopolies, which is what would have happened.

Public financing is for the investments that private capital can't or won't make.

The computer industry had government and a handful of giant corporations as its only customers for nearly 30 years.

Commercial passenger air travel was only possible initially because of huge subsidies from air mail contracts.

Radio grew because the governement created a patent pool, from which would come talking pictures, the condenser microphone, and television.

The product you are reading this on, and the network it is carried over, are the result of long term govenment investment in technology.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...-an-economic-profit-on-the-greentech-program/

“This “study” is a classic case of assuming your conclusion. The reason the risky parts of the portfolio would lose money is if they don’t pay off over the next 20 years or so they have to run. But all the study says is “The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.” In other words, if the loans turn out not to be risky, they won’t be risky."

 

Disgustingly fraudulent propaganda.

Since the projections are $5 billion over 20-25 years on the whole program, does that include only the 16.8 already invested or the whole 38 billion? Plainly in govspeak it includes the whole 38 billion since their absurd estimate (if your private company put out a story like this, projecting that far into an uncertain future? the whole of the management and board would go straight to jail) says "the program." So let's look at the actual numbers, 5 billion divided by 22.5 years is $222 million in annual interest on a 38 billion investment? LOUSY. Can't get much worse, far under the inflation rate. Well below 1% interest. That's far lower than the current 2.8% rate on 20 year treasuries, the least risky investment. If any private sector fund brought these kinds of lousy returns in, all associated would be fired. And betcha they assumed a 0 default rate which would be an illegal assumption to make in the private sector given the track record so far. Any competent private sector fund could bring in 20x this return or more. Why don't they use private sector VC expertise. DO I HAVE TO CONNECT THE DOTS? This isn't about green energy at all, but green money in brown bags. A sophomore finance major could see it.

So here's what's going on folks, plain old crony capitalism. Government is favoring its TRUE constituency with sweetheart loans under the window dressing "green energy." Well who could possibly be opposed to green energy? Only thing is, when you dig into these companies, you find lots of solyndraesque stuff going on, little real technological expertise and IP, lots of financiers and lobbyists in the mix as opposed to innovators, untested managerial teams and wackadoo projections. Folks, this is plain graft. You can put as much "green energy" lipstick on the graft pig as you like, but it still oinks.

The broader question is who is better situated to green up our energy over time? The established industry players who ARE making solar cheaper every year, who ARE making batteries do things we never thought possible, who DO own all the legitimate IP, who DO have the established, skilled management teams in place, who DO have a 100+ year track record of innovation

OR

Pie in the sky political patronage like these totally untested, unprofitable, statist friendly, management poor, IP poor, lobbyist rich cronies with...NO MEANINGFUL TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS WHATSOEVER?

I know whom I believe will continue to innovate, and it isn't corporate welfare beneficiaries like this. GIVE THE MONEY to the big players who own the IP, have the expertise, have the proven track records of innovation... or pour it down a graft sewer. If you are going to do corporate welfare like this, at least have a chance of something good coming from it.

This is NOT a partisan thing. Every administration from both sides does sh-t like this. It's not Obama's fault or Bush's fault or whomever partisan scapegoat. It's OUR fault for allowing our government of all political stripes to grow so large that it conducts what is a gigantic pure graft operation right in our faces with our money. "Oh it'll make 5 billion!" BULL... SH-T. If you believe that, NEVER EVER invest in the stock market. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing the left rails about constantly, yet when an in your face example like this emerges, as long as it's from their side, it's defend defend defend.

Exposes the left for the govt-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM shills they are, not any principled people seeking just or rational government, just a bigger trough for themselves. "Well if the govt can do this in front of everyone's face, maybe I can get my grant extended, maybe they will renew our contract, maybe we can get the concessions for our municipal union, maybe I'll get a pay bump, maybe I can get retarded nephew a job in my dept... so let's go out and start hollering about income inequality, racism, sexism, starving children, Ferguson and any other kind of window dressing over what is ACTUALLY THE CASE, our own personal desire to steal more and more from the taxpayers."

 

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas.

 

Your suspicions are correct. The list is inaccurate. In addition to the 12 bankrupt companies on the list, three more companies listed on the table as "distressed or failing" have filed bankruptcy. Good catch there Grizz.

 

I like how you try to pretend what has NOT HAPPENED has already happened. Wonder why you and yours just got thrown out on your asses?

 

Do that in the private sector and go straight to jail. Be the lawyer doing the diligence and get sued and disbarred, maybe jail too. Be the accountant and get decertified... and jail. So in a world where we have competent private sector professionals under rigorous competition, scrutiny and regulations, why do the US taxpayers allow the government, the Keystone Kops Three Stooges Marx Bros government, the necessary evil government under no regulation and little scrutiny, to play quid pro quo with our tax dollars?

I want to make a prediction. Just as Clinton left office millions in debt and is a decamillionaire today due to "speaking fees," the same thing will happen with Obama. Ten years after Obama has left the oval office, when we see reports of his $20-50 million net worth, I want you lefties to remember this thread, and remember what exactly you all are cheering for. You may not pay much in taxes, but does that mean you condone government stealing from the public?

 

Well, I am interested, but since the DOE isn't releasing the details of the loans, it might be a little tuff to site specifics, don't you think?
Now, as far as credibility.....if you are so delusional you think the federal dept who's been handed 32+ billion to invest issuing a report without the details is credible, fine...but I'm not. The federal government isn't on my list of creditable sources, especially where money is involved. And considering they are claiming #s that far exceed what private investors see, I'd say they are lying...yes....I said lying....because they have a track record od doing just that.
But hey....believe what you want to....but be careful with your head in sand... don't inhale.