The day the secondary markets died, truly a scary day.

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="awgee" date=1221958983]

Get stock ownership? Dream on. You can read the text of the bill here:

<a href="http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/">wealth transfer bill</a></blockquote>


I saw that earlier. A $700,000,000,000 blank check...



Hopefully, Paulson continues the AIG line of $85 billion here, but with the ownership string. If not, they just rolled over and gave away a Trillion dollars or future taxes.
 
NSR, Paulsen is authorized to buy mortgage-related assets. The bill is incredibly vague and may not *prevent* him from doing AIG-style bailout, but it absolutely does not make him. The clear implication is that he will buy MBS at above-market rates and the sellers will reap 100% of the resulting gain. The Feds will get no equity stakes whatsover. Their only chance to even break even is if housing prices go up. Gotta love *that* incentive!
 
Eva, the discussion you cite is directed at the AIG and Fannie/Freddie bailouts. It doesn't cover Paulsen's proposal to give him a 700 billion blank check with no limits and no oversight until the election is over, he has spent all he wishes, and he is days from leaving office.
 
[quote author="FairEconomist" date=1221962744]NSR, Paulsen is authorized to buy mortgage-related assets. The bill is incredibly vague and may not *prevent* him from doing AIG-style bailout, but it absolutely does not make him. The clear implication is that he will buy MBS at above-market rates and the sellers will reap 100% of the resulting gain. The Feds will get no equity stakes whatsover. Their only chance to even break even is if housing prices go up. Gotta love *that* incentive!</blockquote>


"Mortgage related assets" as specified in this bill would not appear to be limited to MBS. In my mind, as small as that may be, mortgage related assets would include any CDO or CDO squared with MBS as it's base, including BBB tranches, and A tranches, and AAA tranches which are in reality equity tranches. It would also include credit default swaps related to MBS, CDOs, etc. with mortgages as their basis.






/




I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)




/




<a href="http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij2.html">The Federal Reserve Bank</a>
 
Here is a bit more of the "fix" by Paulsen and Bernanke:



<em>Sec. 8. Review.



Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.</em>
 
Interesting stuff:



(I will note that Andrew Jackson had reduced federal debt to historically low levels in 1835. Had nothing to do with the panic, but it's an interesting juxtaposition:)





Andrew Jackson was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson (whose objection was to the first bank of the united states, which failed). Then:



The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a twenty year period during James Madison's tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to rescind the bank's federal charter. In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because:



* It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.

* It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.

* It served mainly to make the rich richer.

* It exercised too much control over members of Congress.

* It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.



Following Jefferson, Jackson supported an "agricultural republic" and felt the Bank improved the fortunes of an "elite circle" of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.



The bank's money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This fed an expansion of credit and speculation. At first, as Jackson withdrew money from the Bank to invest it in other banks, land sales, canal construction, cotton production, and manufacturing boomed.[24] However, due to the practice of banks issuing paper banknotes that were not backed by gold or silver reserves, there was soon rapid inflation and mounting state debts.[25] Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in "specie" (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed.[24] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.



The U.S. Senate censured Jackson on March 28, 1834, for his action in removing U.S. funds from the Bank of the United States. When the Jacksonians had a majority in the Senate, the censure was expunged.



Other views (click link for another view on what happened in the panic of 1837):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837



The banking panic of 1837 was followed by exceedingly disturbed economic conditions and a long contraction to 1843 that was interrupted only by a brief recovery from 1838 to 1839. This Great Depression is particularly interesting for our purposes. It is the only depression on record comparable in severity and scope to the Great Depression of the 1930s, and its monetary concomitants largely duplicate those of its later mate. In both, a substantial fraction of the banks in the United States went out of existence through suspension or merger --around one quarter in the earlier and over one-third in the later contraction--and the stock of money fell by about one-third. There is no other contraction that even closely approaches this dismal record. In both cases, erratic or unwise governmental policy with respect to money played an important part.



[edit]



Not to say the destruction of the Central Bank wouldn't have worked (with another plan in place), or that banks like the Fed don't represent a real threat to our liberty (as Jefferson said). They do represent a threat to our liberty. When things die down we need to remove all the powers we just gave to the Fed to get us through this crisis and start talking about real reform. The problem is what Andrew Jackson did. You can really screw things up with the wrong reforms.
 
frozen credit markets, busted commercial-paper markets, attacks on investment banks and huge redemptions, all of that on this past Wednesday:



From Today's WSJ:



<blockquote>

Bracing for Redemptions

Fed staff discovered that one reason the federal-funds rate was behaving so abnormally was because money-market funds were building up cash in preparation for redemptions, leaving hoards of cash at their banks that the banks wouldn't invest.



U.S. depositary institutions on average held excess reserves of $90 billion each day this week, estimates Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP. This is cash the banks hold on the sidelines that does not earn any interest. That compares with an average of $2 billion, he says, noting he estimates banks held $190 billion in excess cash on Thursday, as they feared they'd have to meet many obligations at the same time.



Through Wednesday, money-market fund investors -- including institutional investors such as corporate treasurers, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds -- pulled out a record $144.5 billion, according to AMG Data Services. The industry had $7.1 billion in redemptions the week before.



Without these funds' participation, the $1.7 trillion commercial-paper market, which finances automakers' lending arms or banks credit-card units, faced higher costs. The commercial-paper market shrank by $52.1 billion in the week ended Wednesday, according to data from the Federal Reserve, the largest weekly decline since December.



Without commercial paper, "factories would have to shut down, people would lose their jobs and there would be an effect on the real economy," says Paul Schott Stevens, president of the Investment Company Institute mutual-fund trade group.



Officials also watched as the market for mortgage-backed securities disappeared. The government's seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they had hoped, would reinstill confidence in this market. But yields on mortgage-backed bonds were rising as trading evaporated, nearing levels reached before the government's takeover, which would likely translate into higher mortgage rates for consumers. Borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgages, meanwhile, were in trouble: The cost of many such loans is based on Libor, or the London interbank offered rate, which had soared as banks stopped lending to one another.



On Wednesday in Mr. Paulson's office, with its photographs of birds and other wildlife taken during family trips, top advisers stayed close at hand. Watching market quotes, they participated in an ongoing conference call via speakerphone with the Federal Reserve and New York Fed.



Root of the Problem

Mr. Paulson wanted Congress to bless a plan that would allow Treasury to create a new facility to hold auctions and buy up distressed assets from financial institutions headquartered in the U.S. Without Congressional approval, Treasury could expand programs to buy mortgage-backed securities through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but that wouldn't be enough to address the broadening problems.



The Fed, meanwhile, was supposed to be a lender of last resort to banks. It wasn't built to fix all these problems, and the snowballing crisis worried Fed officials.



"This financial episode is one where a huge part of the problem is outside of the banking system," said Frederic Mishkin, a Columbia University professor who recently left the Federal Reserve as a governor. "We're in a whole new ball game."



On Thursday, Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke decided to ask Congress for authority to buy up hundreds of billions of dollars of assets. In the afternoon, Mr. Paulson, Mr. Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox briefed President Bush for 45 minutes.



Mr. Paulson told Mr. Bush that markets were frozen and many different types of assets had become illiquid, or untradeable. Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke told the president that the situation was "extraordinarily serious," according to a senior administration official.



"We need to do what it takes to solve this problem," Mr. Bush replied.



That evening, during the meeting with Congressional leaders, Mr. Bernanke gave a "chilling" description of current conditions, according to one person present. He described the frozen credit markets, busted commercial-paper markets and attacks on investment banks. The financial condition of some major institutions was "uncertain," he said.



'Uncertain Fate'

"If we don't do this, we risk an uncertain fate," Mr. Bernanke added. He said that if the problem wasn't corrected, the U.S. economy could enter a deep, multi-year recession akin to Japan's lost decade of the 1990s, or what Sweden endured in the early 1990s when a surge in bad loans plagued the economy and sent unemployment to 12%.



One lawmaker asked whether the solution will prevent bank failures. Mr. Paulson said it will stabilize markets. "But we'll still see banks fail in the normal course," he said.



On Friday, Mr. Paulson announced plans for a sweeping program to take over troubled mortgage assets. "The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy," he said at a press conference. He said he would work with Congress over the weekend to get legislation in place next week.



During a round of briefings on Friday, Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson chilled lawmakers with their dire warnings about the cost of inaction. They had already taken additional steps, including new measures to unfreeze money-market mutual funds and an SEC plan to temporarily ban short-selling.



Speaking that afternoon, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, tagged the rescue of AIG as the tipping point. "It didn't have the broader calming effect," Rep. Frank said. "They tried it the free-market way, they tried it the big intervention way -- and the result was on Wednesday, the world was falling in on everybody's ears."

</blockquote>
 
[quote author="FairEconomist" date=1221962744]NSR, Paulsen is authorized to buy mortgage-related assets. The bill is incredibly vague and may not *prevent* him from doing AIG-style bailout, but it absolutely does not make him. The clear implication is that he will buy MBS at above-market rates and the sellers will reap 100% of the resulting gain. The Feds will get no equity stakes whatsover. Their only chance to even break even is if housing prices go up. Gotta love *that* incentive!</blockquote>


He didn't need to take 80% of AIG for the loan either.



Devil is in the detail. I already screamed at my congress people to get equity for the debt and demand equity for the debt from Paulson and Bernake. We'll know when they strike the first deal.
 
Volcker and Lawrence Summers take (April 11):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/business/11norris.html

<blockquote>

To be sure, we had a system that worked for generations, based on commercial banks constrained by regulation. But that system is not coming back, as Mr. Volcker noted in his extraordinary speech to the Economic Club of New York this week.



?Any return to heavily regulated, bank-dominated, nationally insulated markets is pure nostalgia, not possible in this world of sophisticated financial techniques made possible by the wonders of electronic technology,? he said.</blockquote>


The internet was the death blow? Hmm. (Blame Al Gore! He created the internet! ;) )



NSR et al, s

On a serious note. What kind of equity do you think they should get for the debt? Shares in any institution that gets absolved of debt? Some other plan? What would you personally like to see demanded?
 
It is more important to save the Republic than save the

banking system. Anybody who put in that non-review section

should not be in power in our country. Many died for our country.

we should be willing to be poor(er) for our country.



Call your congresspersons. I doubt it will do any good, but this

is the least anyone can do. Do it now. The fix may be in by Monday.
 
This bailout is better than the alternative?



From Naked Capitalism:



<a href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/why-you-should-hate-treasury-bailout.html">Why you should hate the Treasury bailout</a>






/




For as long as I have been posting on this blog, I have been saying this is not a sub-prime problem, not a mortgage or a housing problem. This is a debt problem which was inevitable and is the result of the manner in which money is created in this and other countries. There is a popular misconception propagated by the MSM and being repeated now constantly on blogs that a "floor in the housing market" will solve this problem. It won't.



Just as you can not cure heroin addiction by giving heroin to an addict when he is having withdrawals, you can not cure a debt based money problem by increasing the debt or the money supply. Adding debt will temporarily relieve the symptoms, but it will only make the addiction worse and the eventual outcome worse and unless stopped, it will lead to death of the social fabric of this nation.



Paulsen, or whomever is the Secretary of the Treasury, will not stop at $700,000,000 anymore than a heroin addict will stop at one more fix. Nor will he buy mortgage related assets only. Read the text of the bill. He will be accountable to no one, exactly like the Federal Reserve.
 
[quote author="jefa" date=1221994224]Volcker and Lawrence Summers take (April 11):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/business/11norris.html

<blockquote>

To be sure, we had a system that worked for generations, based on commercial banks constrained by regulation. But that system is not coming back, as Mr. Volcker noted in his extraordinary speech to the Economic Club of New York this week.



?Any return to heavily regulated, bank-dominated, nationally insulated markets is pure nostalgia, not possible in this world of sophisticated financial techniques made possible by the wonders of electronic technology,? he said.</blockquote>


The internet was the death blow? Hmm. (Blame Al Gore! He created the internet! ;) )



NSR et al, s

On a serious note. What kind of equity do you think they should get for the debt? Shares in any institution that gets absolved of debt? Some other plan? What would you personally like to see demanded?</blockquote>


I'm a simpleton. Dollar or dollar preferred stock for whatever we buy. We buy $5 billion of debt paper, we get $5 billion of perferred stock. And yes, that'll wipe shareholders out probably turning major institutions into penny stocks. Much like a BK, without the messy court. I don't think the paper is worth a penny when it all rolls down. The MBS may be worth 50 cents on the dollar, probably less after the expenses of foreclosure, and what will be a brutal write-down after sitting empty for months or years. The CDSes, they're 100% vapor. They were sold to cover things that should have had a 0.01% payout and instead have a 10-20-50% default and payout rate.



If the company needs the bailout, the CEO and team screwed up. They should be fired. The bailout needs to make the shareholder angry enough to can them.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1221971602]He didn't need to take 80% of AIG for the loan either.



Devil is in the detail. I already screamed at my congress people to get equity for the debt and demand equity for the debt from Paulson and Bernake. We'll know when they strike the first deal.</blockquote>


With AIG, the Federal Reserve had to supply the money. The Reserve is not able to do a giveaway on that scale, and there's no way Paulson could have gotten them to. The Reserve didn't want to bail out AIG initially and they had to be given something big for it.



With a $700,000,000,000 blank check and immunity from criminal prosecution Paulsen will not have to get compensation for the taxpayer and I don't expect him to.



Equity compensation for the taxpayer and oversight with legal powers are two things ALL of us, regardless of political inclinations or opinions on bailouts, would want to see on a bill like this. The fact that Paulsen asked to be free of either says a lot about Paulsen and his fitness to lead *any* bailout.
 
[quote author="FairEconomist" date=1222037786][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1221971602]He didn't need to take 80% of AIG for the loan either.



Devil is in the detail. I already screamed at my congress people to get equity for the debt and demand equity for the debt from Paulson and Bernake. We'll know when they strike the first deal.</blockquote>


With AIG, the Federal Reserve had to supply the money. The Reserve is not able to do a giveaway on that scale, and there's no way Paulson could have gotten them to. The Reserve didn't want to bail out AIG initially and they had to be given something big for it.



With a $700,000,000,000 blank check and immunity from criminal prosecution Paulsen will not have to get compensation for the taxpayer and I don't expect him to.



Equity compensation for the taxpayer and oversight with legal powers are two things ALL of us, regardless of political inclinations or opinions on bailouts, would want to see on a bill like this. The fact that Paulsen asked to be free of either says a lot about Paulsen and his fitness to lead *any* bailout.</blockquote>
My prediction is that his old firm of Goldman will be the "advisor" for the gov't and PIMCO will be the asset manager for that garbage.
 
[quote author="usctrojanman29" date=1222039358][quote author="FairEconomist" date=1222037786][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1221971602]He didn't need to take 80% of AIG for the loan either.



Devil is in the detail. I already screamed at my congress people to get equity for the debt and demand equity for the debt from Paulson and Bernake. We'll know when they strike the first deal.</blockquote>


With AIG, the Federal Reserve had to supply the money. The Reserve is not able to do a giveaway on that scale, and there's no way Paulson could have gotten them to. The Reserve didn't want to bail out AIG initially and they had to be given something big for it.



With a $700,000,000,000 blank check and immunity from criminal prosecution Paulsen will not have to get compensation for the taxpayer and I don't expect him to.



Equity compensation for the taxpayer and oversight with legal powers are two things ALL of us, regardless of political inclinations or opinions on bailouts, would want to see on a bill like this. The fact that Paulsen asked to be free of either says a lot about Paulsen and his fitness to lead *any* bailout.</blockquote>
My prediction is that his old firm of Goldman will be the "advisor" for the gov't and PIMCO will be the asset manager for that garbage.</blockquote>


I hope not!
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1222042424]All I can say is write, call, email. Do it again and again and demand that they have equity and oversight and no blank check.</blockquote>


I hear ya. I am emailing John Campbell after logoff. Do my part, voice my opinion, blow off my steam. >:(
 
I personally would call and say "Remember you are at a historic cross roads. What you chose today will likely be recorded in the history books. If you don't know the ramifications of what you are doing, call and talk to people you really trust who are knowledgeable on the issue. Remember to factor their own self-interest in when you listen to their advice. And make as an informed decision as you possibly can. Paulson and Bernanke are very wise people, but they're also operating on little sleep and short time. It's up to you to do your own homework."



Just wrote to my congressman and said that exact thing.
 
[quote author="Allison C." date=1222042993][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1222042424]All I can say is write, call, email. Do it again and again and demand that they have equity and oversight and no blank check.</blockquote>


I hear ya. I am emailing John Campbell after logoff. Do my part, voice my opinion, blow off my steam. >:(</blockquote>


Thanks for doing this Allison. I also emailed Campbell about NO bailout for Fannie & Freddie. Hopefully our contacts will help!
 
Aww-w-w, who cares what the Chinese think anyways? They don't have the cajones to sell that trillion of US treasuries, now do they?





<a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/china-blames-wall-street-meltdown-on-fed-overissuance-of-currency.html">China's opinion</a>
 
Back
Top