This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the ((portal|Companies)) template Tag company talk pages with the ((WikiProject Companies)) project banner Answer requests for comments Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]