Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The, not so bad bank?

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

  • The, not so bad bank?

    By Neil Irwin and David Cho
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Sunday, February 8, 2009; 1:35 PM

    The nation's top economic policymakers were putting the finishing touches this weekend on a financial rescue plan that will deploy hundreds of billions of dollars to spur the flow of credit to consumers and businesses.
    The Obama administration aims to ease the financial crisis through a series of steps -- including a program to insure banks against extreme losses on mortgages, a new round of investments in banks, help for homeowners at risk of foreclosure, and the broadening of a Federal Reserve program to directly prop up lending.
    The plan amounts to an overhaul of the financial rescue undertaken by the Bush administration. It was scheduled to be announced Monday, but the administration delayed the unveiling until Tuesday so it could maintain focus on getting the stimulus package approved by Congress, Treasury Department spokesman Isaac Baker said.
    The plan reflects Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner's philosophy of how governments should respond to financial crises. He favors aggressive use of all available tools, both to deal directly with the massive losses in the financial sector and to bolster confidence in the future. Too little government response during a severe crisis poses a greater risk than too much response, he said at his confirmation hearing.

    "There's a sense that there have been too many false starts and changes of direction," said Martin Neil Baily, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton administration. "We need a bold and sweeping comprehensive framework that will get us through this, keeping in mind it won't turn the recession around immediately."
    This weekend, Treasury officials huddled in conference rooms, working through details, as did their counterparts at the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and at other financial regulators, all of whom are likely to play a role in the rescue. Many of the details of what Geithner will announce remained in flux, although the broad outlines were becoming clear.
    Some of the policies he plans to announce are continuations of ideas developed under former Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson, though with new twists.
    For example, there are likely to be new government investments in banks. But so far, the investments have come in the form of "perpetual preferred" stock, and the government has extracted no real control over how banks run themselves or what they do with the money.
    The new approach is likely to make the investments convertible into common stock after some fixed period of time, perhaps seven years. If the banks are unable to raise private capital in that span, the government would receive more explicit control.
    Moreover, banks receiving investments will have to report to the government and to the public, and the government is likely to insist that the new capital be used to expand lending. "Public assistance is a privilege, not a right," Geithner Saturday told House Democrats at a closed-door meeting in Williamsburg, Va., according to Democratic sources.
    Geithner and his team have been trying to find a way to resuscitate the original idea of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which Congress passed Oct. 3. Paulson pitched the plan to Congress as a program tobuy troubled assets off of banks' books, then changed direction and invested the money in the banks instead.

    One major reason Paulson changed direction was that he concluded that asset purchases would have too many technical complications to enact quickly. Geithner and his team have grappled with the same challenges. They appear to be settling on an approach that amounts to financial triage, meant to give investors confidence that banks will not encounter vast new losses so that they are willing to invest private money.
    One major problem facing banks is that the true value of the assets they hold on their books could vary widely depending on how bad the economy gets. That uncertainty makes banks unwilling to lend, increasing the chances that the economy will get significantly worse and that the losses will be massive.
    Geithner and his colleagues are hoping to break that cycle by protecting banks against the kinds of losses that would occur if the economy goes into a tailspin.
    For assets that banks intend to hold until maturity, the government would offer, in essence, an insurance policy against severe future losses. This approach, called an asset wrap, has been used already for Citigroup and Bank of America. It has the advantage of stabilizing the institutions that receive the guarantees, but does not do much to restart markets for mortgage and other troubled securities.
    The government could also create a program to buy up other toxic assets that banks hold in their trading portfolios. Outside analysts call this strategy the creation of a "bad bank," though the Obama administration resists that terminology. This approach appears to have lost momentum in recent days because of its cost and complexity.
    The Federal Reserve and Treasury will likely announce an expansion of a program that is being created to try to jump-start lending outside the banking system. In November, the agencies launched a program, called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, that will devote $200 billion for credit card, auto, student and small business loans. Its launch is expected in the coming weeks.
    The Fed and Treasury are likely to enlarge that program and expand it tosupport lending for commercial real estate and residential mortgage loans.
    Tomorrow, Geithner could also announce a plan to inject government money into companies known as monoline insurers. These play a vital role in enabling states and municipalities to borrow money. Mortgage-related losses by the insurers has made it harder for states to issue the municipal bonds that would help them ride out the recession without aggressive budget cuts.
    Geithner is likely to roll out a plan, worth $50 billion to $100 billion, to encourage the modification of mortgages for homeowners who are otherwise at risk of being foreclosed upon. It could be based loosely on a strategy for foreclosure relief engineered by FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair when the FDIC took control of the failed bank IndyMac last year. Extensive details of how the plan will work may not be complete by tomorrow's speech, however.
    "Institutions that get assistance will have to participate in loan modifications and meet other standards that we set," Geithner told the House Democrats yesterday, the sources said.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

    Buying only assets the bank would hold to maturity?
    Sounds like it would be less risky to the tax payer.

    More direct government lending?
    It seems to have worked for commercial paper.

    Encourage modifications of mortgages?
    A cram-down or debt forgiveness.

    Given the circumstances we're in, this could be a lot worse, and it might even help the band play another tune or two before the titanic sinks.

  • #2
    Re: The, not so bad bank?

    Toast,

    The most recent talk about 'private money' is most likely a smokescreen.

    As can be seen in the proposed pension fund bill example - I'd bet money that any 'private money' that comes in is going to be a 'heads private money wins, tails taxpayer loses' situation via some type of either explicit or implicit government guarantee.

    And would that encompass any of the other items you list? not necessarily.

    Again, a removal of the 'bad assets' from the banks doesn't mean the go go years are coming back. It just means the banksters got all their money back.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The, not so bad bank?

      Originally posted by we_are_toast View Post
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

      Buying only assets the bank would hold to maturity?
      Sounds like it would be less risky to the tax payer.

      More direct government lending?
      It seems to have worked for commercial paper.

      Encourage modifications of mortgages?
      A cram-down or debt forgiveness.

      Given the circumstances we're in, this could be a lot worse, and it might even help the band play another tune or two before the titanic sinks.

      That reminds me of something:

      "The State incurs those well-known debts for politics, wars, and other higher causes and "progress", thus mortgaging future production with the claim that it was in part providing for it. The assumption is that the future will honor this relationship in perpetuity. The State has learned from the merchants and industrialists how to exploit credit; it defies the nation ever to let it go into bankruptcy.
      Alongside all swindlers the State now stands there as swindler-in-chief."


      (Jacob Burckhardt, Judgments on History and Historians - records collected by Emil Dürr from Burckhardt’s lecture notes for history courses at the University of Basel from 1865 to 1885.)
      , or maybe it reminds me of this:

      http://www.treas.gov/initiatives/ees...p_12312008.pdf

      Comment

      Working...
      X