Bailout Alternatives and Critiques

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program

profette_IHB

New member
There are many well-reasoned <a href="http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm">critiques</a> on the bailout. This would be a good thread for discussing the thoughtful objections that have been raised. Also, an article in the <em>NY Times</em>, points out some interesting alternatives, such as the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?em">approach Sweden took in a similar situation</a>.



"Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.



That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well..."



<span style="color: green;">What do you think IHB'ers?</span> <span style="color: green;">Personally, I feel like this </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBZDwf9dok&feature=related">guy.</a>
 
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



Yeah, Yeah, You Go Girl!!!! Speak the Truth loud and clear so EVERYONE IN IRVINE CAN HEAR!!! that is what Panda is talkin about!
 
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



Graph, I love this video. Where did you find it? PANDA is in the HOUSE!!! Yeah, Yeah... From my Black and White Home Boys from Santa Ana.... Word to your Mother!



Panda Rapping: "My Name is Big Fat Panda and I got the rhymes, I have no idea why we are bailing out these guys???"
 
I love this little analysis:

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122230704116773989.html">The Paulson Plan Will Make Money For Taxpayers </a>



That article is the biggest, self-serving lie I have read in quite a while. It really took balls for the Wall Street Journal to print it.



"In 1992, hedge-fund manager George Soros made $1 billion betting against the British pound. In 2007, John Paulson's Credit Opportunities fund correctly bet against subprime mortgages, clearing $15 billion for the year and $3.7 billion for him. Warren Buffett is now hoping to make big money on Goldman Sachs.

[Chad Crowe] Chad Crowe



But these are small-time deals. My analysis suggests that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (a former investment banker, no less, not a trader) may pull off the mother of all trades, which could net a trillion dollars and maybe as much as $2.2 trillion -- yes, with a "t" -- for the United States Treasury.



Here's what's happened so far. New technology like electronic trading meant that Wall Street's bread-and-butter business of investment banking and trading stocks stopped making much money years ago. So investment banks took their enormous capital and at first packaged yield-enhanced, subprime mortgage loans into complex derivatives such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Eventually and stupidly, these institutions owned them for themselves -- lots of them, often at 30-to-1 leverage. The financial products were made "safe" by insurance products known as credit default swaps, a credit derivative from companies such as AIG. When housing turned down, the mortgages and derivatives were worth a lot less and no one would lend Wall Street money anymore.



Then the piling on started. Hedge funds could short financial stocks and then bid down the prices of CDOs stuck on Wall Street's balance sheets. This was pretty easy to do in an illiquid market. Because of the Federal Accounting Standards Board's mark-to-market 157 rule, Wall Street had to write off the lower value of these securities and raise more capital, diluting shareholders. So the stock prices would drop, which is what the shorts wanted in the first place. It was all legit.



There is a saying on Wall Street that goes, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." Long Term Capital Management learned this lesson 10 years ago when it got its portfolio picked off by Wall Street as its short-term financing dried up. I had thought the opposite -- hedge funds picking off Wall Street -- would happen today. But in a weird twist, it's the government that is set up to win the prize.



Here's how: As short-term financing dried up, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's deteriorating financials threatened to trigger some $1.4 trillion in credit default swap payments that no one, including giant insurer AIG, had the capital to make good on. So Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. This removed any short-term financing hassle. He also put up $85 billion in loan guarantees to AIG in exchange for 80% of the company.



Taxpayers will get their money back on AIG. My models suggest that Fannie and Freddie, on the other hand, are a gold mine. For $2 billion in cash up front and some $200 billion in loan guarantees so far, the U.S. government now controls $5.4 trillion in mortgages and mortgage guarantees.



Fannie and Freddie each own around $800 million in mortgage loans, some of them already at discounted values. They also guarantee the credit-worthiness of another $2.2 trillion and $1.6 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. Held to maturity, they may be worth a lot more than Mr. Paulson paid for them. They're called distressed securities for a reason.



Now Mr. Paulson is pitching Congress for $700 billion or more to buy distressed loans and CDOs from the rest of Wall Street, injecting needed cash onto balance sheets so that normal loans for economic activity can be restored. The trick is what price he will pay. Better mortgages and CDOs are selling for 70 cents on the dollar. But many are seriously distressed (15-25 cents on the dollar) because they are the last to be paid in foreclosures. These are what Wall Street wants to unload the quickest.



Firms will haggle, but eventually cave -- they need the cash. I am figuring Mr. Paulson could wind up buying more than $2 trillion in notional value loans and home equity and CDOs for his $700 billion.



So the U.S. will be stuck with a portfolio in the trillions of dollars in bad loans and last-to-be-paid derivatives. Where is the trade in that?



Well, unlike Mr. Buffett or any hedge fund, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve get to cheat. It's not without risk, but the Feds, with lots of levers, can and will pump capital into the U.S. economy to get it moving again. Future heads of Treasury and the Federal Reserve will be growth advocates -- in effect, "talking their book." While normally this creates a threat of inflation and a run on the dollar, and we may see dollar exchange rates turn south near term, don't expect it to last.



First, with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley now operating as low-leverage bank holding companies, a dollar injected into the economy will most likely turn into $10 in capital (instead of $30 when they were investment banks). This is a huge change. Plus, a stronger U.S. economy, with its financial players having clean balance sheets, will become a safe haven for capital.



Europe is threatened by an angry Russian bear. The Far East, especially China, has its own post-Olympic banking house of cards of non-performing loans to deal with. Interest rates will tick up as the economy expands -- a plus for the dollar. Finally, a stronger economy driven by industry instead of financials means more jobs, less foreclosures and higher held-to-maturity payouts on this Fed loan portfolio.



You can slice the numbers a lot of different ways. My calculations, which assume 50% impairment on subprime loans, suggest it is possible, all in, for this portfolio to generate between $1 trillion and $2.2 trillion -- the greatest trade ever. Every hedge-fund manager will be jealous. Mr. Buffett is buying a small piece of the trade via his Goldman Sachs investment.



Over 10 years this could change the budget scenario in D.C., which can also strengthen the dollar. The next president gets a heck of a windfall. In the spirit of Secretary of State William Seward's purchase of Alaska for $7 million in 1867, this week may be remembered as Paulson's Folly."
 
Bailout alternative - The banks can go to the Fed discount window or any of the term auction facilities, put down collateral and get liquidity.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1222425912]Bailout alternative - The banks can go to the Fed discount window or any of the term auction facilities, put down collateral and get liquidity.</blockquote>


We must be missing something here because I have also wondered why they didn't just do this. The FED can place any value they want on the collateral they accept at the discount window. If they want to overvalue and overpay, they could easily do it there. Are there regulations on what the FED can accept as collateral? Wouldn't it have been easier to hide the bailout and bypass the political firestorm by changing some esoteric requirement concerning FED collateral acceptance? Plus, the FED can always print money to cover its bad debts. Why not give the FED all the banks toxic waste?



These ideas must have been discussed. Perhaps there were fears that putting the junk directly on the FEDs balance sheet would shake international confidence in the solvency of the FED and of our currency. Of course, we have that problem anyway so...
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1222461933][quote author="awgee" date=1222425912]Bailout alternative - The banks can go to the Fed discount window or any of the term auction facilities, put down collateral and get liquidity.</blockquote>


We must be missing something here because I have also wondered why they didn't just do this. The FED can place any value they want on the collateral they accept at the discount window. If they want to overvalue and overpay, they could easily do it there. Are there regulations on what the FED can accept as collateral? Wouldn't it have been easier to hide the bailout and bypass the political firestorm by changing some esoteric requirement concerning FED collateral acceptance? Plus, the FED can always print money to cover its bad debts. Why not give the FED all the banks toxic waste?



These ideas must have been discussed. Perhaps there were fears that putting the junk directly on the FEDs balance sheet would shake international confidence in the solvency of the FED and of our currency. Of course, we have that problem anyway so...</blockquote>


I love when people think for themselves rather than regurgitate what they hear on CNBC or at their office.



Yes, the Fed can place any value they want on the collateral.



The only regulations on the collateral the Fed accepts are those the Fed places on itself. The Federal Reserve is accountable to no one.



Yes, it would be easier to hide the bailout and the Fed has been doing this. The Fed put out more a $1 trillion last week. And the Fed can print all the currency it wants. The Fed has been taking all the toxic waste the banks are willing to give it.



And there lies the rub. The banks have to be willing to give up the coallteral to the banks. But, it is just collateral, and they have to buy it back in the future. And it is close to worthless. The banks do not want their worthless collateral back. The banks want their buddy Paulson to buy it from them for $trillions, and then they want to buy it back for pennies. Yeah, I know it is hard to believe and seems outrageous, but ...



And yes, all that waste on the Fed's balance sheet will decrease confidence in the USD. And the Fed does want the waste on it's balance sheet. The Fed is a private bank owned by private bankers. In order for it to continue to rape the American citizen, the Fed has to appear solvent and steady. It is all about confidence. It is a con game.
 
The following is why I love America:




/




The phone-in is working. Congress is spooked. We are swamping them with emails and faxes. Bush gave that speech because he is spooked.



Congressional aids have told me they have never seen so many call in.



Check out the New York Times article Lawmakers' Constituents Make Their Bailout Views Loud and Clear.



Americans' anger is in full bloom, jumping off the screen in capital letters and exclamation points, in the e-mail in-boxes of elected representatives in the nation's capital.



Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, has received nearly 17,000 e-mail messages, nearly all opposed to the bailout, her office said. More than 2,000 constituents called Ms. Boxer's California office on Tuesday alone; just 40 favored the bailout. Her Washington office received 918 calls. Just one supported the rescue plan.



Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said he had been getting 2,000 e-mail messages and telephone calls a day, roughly 95 percent opposed. When Senator Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent who votes with Democrats, posted a petition on his Web site asking Mr. Paulson to require that taxpayers receive an equity stake in the bailed-out companies, more than 20,000 people signed.



"We certainly have never brought in 20,000 names in a day and a half," Mr. Sanders said, sounding astonished. "For us, that's off the wall."



It is much the same on the Republican side. Aides to Senator Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican who has called the bailout plan "un-American," said the senator had received more constituent reaction to the bailout plan than to any issue since the immigration debate.



Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois, said he had not seen such an outpouring since President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999.
 
Here's a summary of what we're looking at so far.



<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/26/business/26assess-graf01.jpg" alt="" />
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1222463071][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1222461933][quote author="awgee" date=1222425912]Bailout alternative - The banks can go to the Fed discount window or any of the term auction facilities, put down collateral and get liquidity.</blockquote>


We must be missing something here because I have also wondered why they didn't just do this. The FED can place any value they want on the collateral they accept at the discount window. If they want to overvalue and overpay, they could easily do it there. Are there regulations on what the FED can accept as collateral? Wouldn't it have been easier to hide the bailout and bypass the political firestorm by changing some esoteric requirement concerning FED collateral acceptance? Plus, the FED can always print money to cover its bad debts. Why not give the FED all the banks toxic waste?



These ideas must have been discussed. Perhaps there were fears that putting the junk directly on the FEDs balance sheet would shake international confidence in the solvency of the FED and of our currency. Of course, we have that problem anyway so...</blockquote>


I love when people think for themselves rather than regurgitate what they hear on CNBC or at their office.



Yes, the Fed can place any value they want on the collateral.



The only regulations on the collateral the Fed accepts are those the Fed places on itself. The Federal Reserve is accountable to no one.



Yes, it would be easier to hide the bailout and the Fed has been doing this. The Fed put out more a $1 trillion last week. And the Fed can print all the currency it wants. The Fed has been taking all the toxic waste the banks are willing to give it.



And there lies the rub. The banks have to be willing to give up the coallteral to the banks. But, it is just collateral, and they have to buy it back in the future. And it is close to worthless. The banks do not want their worthless collateral back. The banks want their buddy Paulson to buy it from them for $trillions, and then they want to buy it back for pennies. Yeah, I know it is hard to believe and seems outrageous, but ...



And yes, all that waste on the Fed's balance sheet will decrease confidence in the USD. And the Fed does want the waste on it's balance sheet. The Fed is a private bank owned by private bankers. In order for it to continue to rape the American citizen, the Fed has to appear solvent and steady. It is all about confidence. It is a con game.</blockquote>


Why don't the banks just act like homeowners who walk away and default on their loans to the FED and let them accept the worthless collateral as repayment?
 
I heard someone on TV yesterday say that the Republicans wouldn't go along with the plan last night because they want a reduction in the capital gains tax. Isn't the capital gains tax only 15%?
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1222467985]Why don't the banks just act like homeowners who walk away and default on their loans to the FED and let them accept the worthless collateral as repayment?</blockquote>
Because they would shooting themselves in the head. If any one bank walked away from that debt, no other bank would risk lending to them, effectively freezing them out of any facilities they need to tap for overnight lending. While the LIBOR is high, loans are still being made as needed. I can't imagine any depository institution is carrying enough cash to settle all accounts on their own every night.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1222461933][quote author="awgee" date=1222425912]Bailout alternative - The banks can go to the Fed discount window or any of the term auction facilities, put down collateral and get liquidity.</blockquote>


We must be missing something here because I have also wondered why they didn't just do this. The FED can place any value they want on the collateral they accept at the discount window. If they want to overvalue and overpay, they could easily do it there. Are there regulations on what the FED can accept as collateral? Wouldn't it have been easier to hide the bailout and bypass the political firestorm by changing some esoteric requirement concerning FED collateral acceptance? Plus, the FED can always print money to cover its bad debts. Why not give the FED all the banks toxic waste?



These ideas must have been discussed. Perhaps there were fears that putting the junk directly on the FEDs balance sheet would shake international confidence in the solvency of the FED and of our currency. Of course, we have that problem anyway so...</blockquote>


The Fed's balance sheet isn't big enough to accommodate the proposed $700 billion purchase. Also, I believe that the bailout would be considered an off-balance sheet move and wouldn't appear in the current fiscal year deficit.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1222480219][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1222467985]Why don't the banks just act like homeowners who walk away and default on their loans to the FED and let them accept the worthless collateral as repayment?</blockquote>
Because they would shooting themselves in the head. If any one bank walked away from that debt, no other bank would risk lending to them, effectively freezing them out of any facilities they need to tap for overnight lending. While the LIBOR is high, loans are still being made as needed. I can't imagine any depository institution is carrying enough cash to settle all accounts on their own every night.</blockquote>


There is one big difference with the FED: they can print money to make up for the loss. Other banks cannot do that.
 
Sure, IR, but we aren't talking about the Fed. You asked "why don't the banks just default on their loans" and the answer is that they would be cut off from all non-depository funds. Banks have to settle their accounts overnight, and this frequently means they borrow from other banks to cover the shortfall between payments made to other banks (transfers, paid checks, etc.) and receipt of funds that they are collecting. Defaulting on a Fed loan would cut them off from those lending facilities and force them to close if they didn't have the cash to settle the outbound payment.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1222487795]Sure, IR, but we aren't talking about the Fed. You asked "why don't the banks just default on their loans" and the answer is that they would be cut off from all non-depository funds. Banks have to settle their accounts overnight, and this frequently means they borrow from other banks to cover the shortfall between payments made to other banks (transfers, paid checks, etc.) and receipt of funds that they are collecting. Defaulting on a Fed loan would cut them off from those lending facilities and force them to close if they didn't have the cash to settle the outbound payment.</blockquote>


Ordinarily that would be true, but if the FED wanted to solve the problem of trash securities, they could take them at face value and print money to make up the losses. Of course, certain member banks would benefit more than others, and I could see some banks crying foul, but we will have that circumstance in any form of bailout.



The FED makes up its own rules. They could make up this rule and nobody could or would stop them.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1222467985][quote author="awgee" date=1222463071][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1222461933][quote author="awgee" date=1222425912]Bailout alternative - The banks can go to the Fed discount window or any of the term auction facilities, put down collateral and get liquidity.</blockquote>


We must be missing something here because I have also wondered why they didn't just do this. The FED can place any value they want on the collateral they accept at the discount window. If they want to overvalue and overpay, they could easily do it there. Are there regulations on what the FED can accept as collateral? Wouldn't it have been easier to hide the bailout and bypass the political firestorm by changing some esoteric requirement concerning FED collateral acceptance? Plus, the FED can always print money to cover its bad debts. Why not give the FED all the banks toxic waste?



These ideas must have been discussed. Perhaps there were fears that putting the junk directly on the FEDs balance sheet would shake international confidence in the solvency of the FED and of our currency. Of course, we have that problem anyway so...</blockquote>


I love when people think for themselves rather than regurgitate what they hear on CNBC or at their office.



Yes, the Fed can place any value they want on the collateral.



The only regulations on the collateral the Fed accepts are those the Fed places on itself. The Federal Reserve is accountable to no one.



Yes, it would be easier to hide the bailout and the Fed has been doing this. The Fed put out more a $1 trillion last week. And the Fed can print all the currency it wants. The Fed has been taking all the toxic waste the banks are willing to give it.



And there lies the rub. The banks have to be willing to give up the coallteral to the banks. But, it is just collateral, and they have to buy it back in the future. And it is close to worthless. The banks do not want their worthless collateral back. The banks want their buddy Paulson to buy it from them for $trillions, and then they want to buy it back for pennies. Yeah, I know it is hard to believe and seems outrageous, but ...



And yes, all that waste on the Fed's balance sheet will decrease confidence in the USD. And the Fed does want the waste on it's balance sheet. The Fed is a private bank owned by private bankers. In order for it to continue to rape the American citizen, the Fed has to appear solvent and steady. It is all about confidence. It is a con game.</blockquote>


Why don't the banks just act like homeowners who walk away and default on their loans to the FED and let them accept the worthless collateral as repayment?</blockquote>


Oops. I mispoke here and had to edit.
 
the problem with that WSJ article is it forgets that bernanke said the treasury will need to buy these securities at hold-to-maturity prices. to buy the junk at 15-25 cents on the dollar doesn't change anything because it'll trigger another wave of writedowns. the issue for the banks is they're holding a ton of crap. taking some of it off their hands at crappy prices only confirms that the stuff is crap. so the only solution is to either take ALL of it off their hands (which is going to be far more than the $700B lie they're pitching) or to pretend the crap don't stink and pay prices no one obviously wants to pay.



and at the end of the day it doesn't solve the root of the problem at the homeowner level which is causing all those securities to be worthless.



it reminds me of when i was a kid my mom found out i ripped off a younger cousin on some awesome baseball card trades. i convinced him cecil espy was a superstar. my mom found out and as a punishment forced me to take back my cards. i didn't have the guts to tell my cousin how i duped him earlier so i attempted to trade back for the cards... except now my cousin was convinced cecil espy, future hall of famer, was even more valuable since that i was trying to get them back. he asked for the moon and i either had to knowingly take it up the u-know on the trade-backs or face the wrath of my mom. :( either way i was screwed.
 
Back
Top