Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

    Just saw him discuss this on CNBC as an alternative to the Paulsen Plan. Much more palatable sounding to me. Thoughts?

    While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the underlying solutions to solve the economic crises we face, the No BAILOUTS Act - a regulatory based proposal - has the potential for significant bipartisan support.


    The Paulson Premise Flawed
    Simon Johnson, a former chief economist as the International Monetary Fund, stated today in the New York Times of Paulson’s plan, “It’s our view that this package, in a fundamental sense, will not solve the problem.” Other economic analysts noted yesterday that the credit markets around the world were almost entirely dysfunctional even when political leaders and investors assumed that Congress had reached a deal and would easily approve the bailout. There is no reason to believe Paulson’s plan will work.


    Alternatives
    We have credible alternatives to the Paulson/Bush $700 billion gamble. William Isaac, the chairman of the FDIC during the previous worst financial crisis in the United States during the 1980s, believes Congress can address the current crisis with simple changes to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules. Mr. Isaac points out that while we face serious financial challenges today, many banks are still in good shape. This allows Congress to take swift, uncomplicated steps to ensure the financial markets return to working order. After that, we can work to resolve the housing crisis and pass effective job stimulus.

    Today I am offering an alternative to the Wall Street bailout that will correct the capital shortfalls experienced by many financial institutions and help protect the integrity and quality of the securities market. My plan could be implemented promptly meeting the demands of the Bush Administration to act immediately without putting the American taxpayer on the hook for billions of dollars.

    No BAILOUTS Act
    Bringing Accounting, Increased Liquidity, Oversight and Upholding Taxpayer Security
    1)Require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require an economic value standard to measure the capital of financial institutions.

    This bill will require SEC to implement a rule to suspend the application of fair value accounting standards to financial institutions, which marks assets to the market value, no matter the conditions of the market. When no meaningful market exists, as is the current market for mortgage backed securities, this standard requires institutions to value assets at fire-sale prices. This creates a capital shortfall on paper. Using the economic value standard as bank examines have traditionally done will immediately correct the capital shortfalls experienced by many institutions.

    2)Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restricting naked short sells permanently

    This bill will require SEC to implement a rule that blocks naked selling, selling a stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring the shares can be borrowed. Such practices many times harm the companies represented in the sales and hurt their efforts to raise capital. There is no economic value produced by naked short sales, but significant negative effects.

    3)Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restore the up-tick rule permanently.

    This bill will require SEC to implement a rule that blocks short sales without an up-tick in the market. On September 19, 2008, the SEC approved a temporary pause of short selling in financial companies “to protect the integrity and quality of the securities market and strengthen investor confidence.” This rule prevents market crashes brought on by irrational short term market behavior.

    4)“Net Worth Certificate Program”

    This bill will require FDIC to implement a net worth certificate program. The FDIC would determine banks with short-term capital needs and the ability to financially recover in the foreseeable future. For those entities that qualify, the FDIC should purchase net worth certificates in these institutions. In exchange, these institutions issue promissory notes to repay the FDIC, counting the amount “borrowed” as capital on their balance sheets. This exchange provides short term capital, with not cash outlay. Interest rates on the certificates and the FDIC notes should be identical so no subsidy is necessary.

    Participating banks must be subject to strict oversight by the FDIC including oversight of top executive compensation and if necessary the removal of poor management. Financial records and business plans should be subject to scrutiny while participating in the program.

    In 1982, Congress approved a program, known as the Net Worth Certificate Program, that allowed banks and thrifts to apply for immediate capital assistance. From 1982 to 1993, banks with total assets of $40 billion participated in the program. The majority of these banks, 75%, required no further assistance beyond the certificate program.

    5)Increase the FDIC Insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000.

    The bill will require the FDIC raise its limit to provide depositors confidence that their money is safe and help eliminate runs on banks which are destabilizing to the industry.

    http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.p...sk=view&id=441
    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho

  • #2
    Re: The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

    Originally posted by Master Shake View Post
    2)Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restricting naked short sells permanently
    :confused:

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

      Horrible plan, IMO.

      1. Just an accounting trick. Lets pretend banks have capital. This assumes that the housing prices and the economic problems we are experiencing are due to simple accounting problems, which I do not believe is true.
      2. I dont think that this has a huge effect one way or the other. Is this rule going to replace the no-short list? At least get rid of that, there should be no protected class of stocks.
      3. I dont see this as having much effect one way or the other either.
      4. I see this as a band aid on a cancer, but much more palatable than a $700billion dollar bandaid.
      5. I dont like this at all. It doesnt seem like bank runs were really causing a huge problem, and many people were moving their money that was covered under the FDIC insurance just because they saw their bank failing and they didnt want to end up waiting in line for days like the people at Indymac. Also, I have a fundamental problem with the government insuring businesses.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

        This act is idiotic and the people promoting it are indicative of the poor judgement of their constituents.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

          More pandering crap disguised as obeying the will of the people.

          Sir Warren is correct that the actual values of the MBS' are probably not quite as low as they are being treated, but the problem is that he assumes there will be a fair and equitable valuation placed by the government.

          This is not something I have any faith whatsoever in given the gladhanding shenanigans already seen. For one thing, I very much doubt that even selling $500M of troubled assets to determine market value will necessarily yield good data; the amount of money under threat is such that I'd be astonished if the holders of bad debts didn't do their damnedest to inflate the prices.

          What I'd support is this:

          1) Clearly state the types and classes of assets to be 'bailed out': i.e. 'AAA' MBS, securitized credit card debt, whatever.

          2) For each type and class of asset, publish the names and compositions of each and every single security being offered to the 'bailout'

          3) From this list of public MBS or whatever crap, randomly choose a dozen. Evaluate the likely value of said securities under full public scrutiny and full public feedback.

          4) Use said data to set prices, ideally discounted 10% or so, for the government to 'bail' into.

          5) Remove all commission, trading cost, and whatever other fees associated with the transaction. Costs for this whole process to be borne by the participating institutions.

          6) For each new security being offered to the 'bailout', either a completely new evaluation, or a cutoff date chosen to be 'in' or 'out' of the bailout, or a random re-evaluation in public of said security. With significantly different results yielding a reiteration of the whole asset/class category valuation.

          7) At the same time, create a commission to investigate how to return the financial sector back under regulation. Again, full public access and feedback.

          This would give those who are interested the ability to express their opinions and pit their expertise against each other in full public view.

          No more mystery back room crap.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

            Originally posted by c1ue View Post
            More pandering crap disguised as obeying the will of the people.

            Sir Warren is correct that the actual values of the MBS' are probably not quite as low as they are being treated, but the problem is that he assumes there will be a fair and equitable valuation placed by the government.

            This is not something I have any faith whatsoever in given the gladhanding shenanigans already seen. For one thing, I very much doubt that even selling $500M of troubled assets to determine market value will necessarily yield good data; the amount of money under threat is such that I'd be astonished if the holders of bad debts didn't do their damnedest to inflate the prices.

            What I'd support is this:

            1) Clearly state the types and classes of assets to be 'bailed out': i.e. 'AAA' MBS, securitized credit card debt, whatever.

            2) For each type and class of asset, publish the names and compositions of each and every single security being offered to the 'bailout'

            3) From this list of public MBS or whatever crap, randomly choose a dozen. Evaluate the likely value of said securities under full public scrutiny and full public feedback.

            4) Use said data to set prices, ideally discounted 10% or so, for the government to 'bail' into.

            5) Remove all commission, trading cost, and whatever other fees associated with the transaction. Costs for this whole process to be borne by the participating institutions.

            6) For each new security being offered to the 'bailout', either a completely new evaluation, or a cutoff date chosen to be 'in' or 'out' of the bailout, or a random re-evaluation in public of said security. With significantly different results yielding a reiteration of the whole asset/class category valuation.

            7) At the same time, create a commission to investigate how to return the financial sector back under regulation. Again, full public access and feedback.

            This would give those who are interested the ability to express their opinions and pit their expertise against each other in full public view.

            No more mystery back room crap.
            Why punish the banks? You'll just have to bail them out even more?!

            The real problem with the bill is that there isn't an equity stake, but frankly, i've stopped giving a shit and just want it done. Congress can't let this bill go through again without another 500 pages of crap.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

              Phirang,

              Who said anything about punishing the banks?

              The issue is how much the securities to be 'bailed out' are really worth.

              Having a full public evaluation to determine value is the best way to simultaneously establish a fair value for these securities as well as allow the 'bailout' to proceed.

              All the others plans just throw money at the problem - either via equity stakes, no questions asked trade-ins, or insuring the value of the securities.

              It is this unplanned, unsupervised, and unregulated shoveling of taxpayer dollars which I believe is the sticking point.

              Having a 'Congressional review board' is equally unsatisfactory; first of all Congress is one of the implicit institutions which helped build this problem to begin with. Secondly Congress-critters are notoriously malleable when greased with money. Thirdly Congress-critters have not shown any reasonable possibility of being able to understand said incoming junk, much less make informed decisions on it.

              Why not kill several birds with one stone? The average guy won't know squat about these securities either, but there are plenty of others who do and who will contribute their expertise and experience.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The DeFazio No Bailouts Act

                Waiting for the next bubble to burst
                by Steve Duin, The Oregonian
                Thursday October 02, 2008, 9:37 AM

                When the $700 billion bailout eventually passes, and the friends of Henry Paulson break out the champagne, we ought to thank Oregon Democrats Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer for doing their best to minimize the damage.

                ....

                Yet the rubber stamps were out. While William Isaac, the former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chair who helped resolve the savings and loan crisis, proposed salvage operations that required no subsidies, DeFazio said, "Congressional leadership was mesmerized (by Paulson). They call him 'Hank,' and Hank is a master of the universe."


                ...

                "It was said in our caucus that this may not have been that big a crisis, but since the secretary of the Treasury went out and said this is the end of the world, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy and we have to act," DeFazio said. "The guy created the weapons of economic mass destruction as head of Goldman Sachs.

                "Now he's lit the fuse as secretary of the Treasury."


                http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in...bubble_to.html

                Master of the Universe

                Comment

                Working...
                X