« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Friday Morning Market Update

Dry Tinder All Around

And the fun and games on Capitol Hill will recommence soon. We’re still sorting out what happened yesterday to throw the Paulson bailout plan into a cocked hat.

The spin in the reporting this morning is that Barack Obama hopped up to support an alternative bailout plan proposed by several Republicans. The alternative has had little in the way of review by the Treasury Department, and very little chance of passage at this point.


Republicans are certainly following the mood of the country in rejecting a plan that has been presented as committing $700 billion in taxpayer money to line the pockets of a whole class of thieves and plutocrats.

The Paulson plan, of course, borrows money from global investors by selling Treasury bonds, to buy assets at a price that is likely (perhaps very likely) to end up producing a profit, not a loss, for the taxpayers.

When this episode is all over, one of the questions we will all be asking is: Why on earth did Henry Paulson and President Bush, and everyone below them, create the perception that this bailout plan will involve a direct taxpayer expenditure of $700 billion?

The Republican counterproposal, while interesting and deserving of consideration if the situation were not so critical, amounts to a distraction at this point in time.

Why did Obama raise the point? One suspects a desire on his part not to get behind a real alternative plan, but rather to create a perception that the Republicans are intent on torpedoing the entire process. And this is indeed the way it’s playing so far this morning.

It’s a clever bit of jujitsu, if it sticks. The Democrats appear to be trying to make sure the Paulson plan is enacted, but to force Republicans to pay the political price. Which is ironic, because the Republican reaction more closely mirrors the mood of the people.

This morning, overseas stock markets are down, but not terribly so. US stocks look set to drop maybe as much as 200 points on the open, depending on reactions to the WaMu failure.

One-month dollar LIBOR has jumped to 4.4% this morning from 3.77% yesterday. That indicates that the basic interbank lending markets are largely frozen in place.

At 2AM EDT, five hours ago, the Federal Reserve announced a slight expansion of the swap lines that it arranged with several central banks in Europe last week.

And so we wait. The financial world is in wait-and-see mode, standing on the proverbial ledge, from which they can step back or leap forward. Markets can hold the current position for some period of time, possibly as much as a few days.

But traders are exhausted from the extreme tension, and that frays everyone’s nerves. And each passing day increases the likelihood of some unexpected event triggering an adverse reaction.

-Francis Cianfrocca

COMMENTS

  • bk

    The spin in the reporting this morning is that Barack Obama hopped up to support an alternative bailout plan proposed by several Republicans. The alternative has had little in the way of review by the Treasury Department, and very little chance of passage at this point.

    Perhaps you meant to say that he hopped up to question support of that plan. Or maybe I misread it or misinterpreted what you wrote.

    • blackhedd

      He hopped up to draw attention to the plan. I wasn’t in the room, and I have no clear reports from anyone who was, so I don’t know exactly how he played it.

      The point is that in so doing, Obama turned a dissent by dissatisfied Republicans into the straw that broke the camel’s back. Some leadership.

  • BrianH

    I understand the reasoning saying that certain types of assets should be valued at the price they can be sold for, but this is becoming insane. Mark to market doesn’t work in a failed market. Valuing performing assets at $.20 on the dollar makes no sense and just keeps the pressure on the market.

  • olderthangandalf

    From what I read, I thought Obama was supporting the modified version of the Paulson plan that had been negotiated, with taxpayer equity stakes if the bonds were worth less than was paid for them.

    I thought it was McCain who, near the end of the meeting, suggested that the House plan deserved a look, leading to a meltdown from those who had been negotiating based on the Paulson plan for the past week. My understanding was that McCain didn’t endorse any plan, but left the impression that he wasn’t that happy with the basic approach of the Paulson plan.

    Am I just wrong on what happened in the room? If the true facts are that it was Obama knocking the process off the rails, he has indeed done a masterful job of shifting responsibility.

    • bk

      It seems Obama wanted to try to feel out where Bush people and others stood.

      It’s interesting that this is only the second time I can think of (amnesty being the other) where Nancy whined that she needed GOP help when on everything else she’s locked them out.

      • blackhedd

        To say that markets for particular assets classes are illiquid means that people are reluctant to trade with each other in those markets. (I phrased that very carefully to avoid saying why, a question that has multiple answers.)

        So if you suspend the mark-to-market rules (FASB 157 in particular), the effect will likely to be all the more illiquidity, because weaker players will be perceived as being more risky than their (inflated) marks would suggest.

        Market perceptions of counterparty risk are what they are. You can’t change them by waving your arms in the air.

        • BlakeW

          Blackhedd,

          I understand the idea is to buy assets and hopefully sell them at a profit.

          However, this plan is guaranteed by the American taxpayer. Which means we’re on the hook if there is a massive failure.

          There is absolutely no way there will be a clean bill come out of this. Democrats are going to add everything they can to this, knowing the bill will get signed, because of the critical nature of the problem.

          I much prefer the idea proposed by Republicans, which is to eliminate Sarbanes/Oxley, eliminate cap gains, cut corporate taxes along with developing the American fossil fuel industry.

          That way, even with a crash, the mechanisms are in place to speed recovery. And, it also means the taxpayer isn’t on the hook for 700 billion.

          • blackhedd

            n/t

          • blackhedd

            Keep in mind that Congress is trying to adjourn. If you’re thinking we’ll get around to this next January, then you need a contingency plan in case the markets crash between now and then.

            And I guarantee you that the people won’t tolerate an answer like “Well, we need to carefully consider a range of options and not make a hasty decision” if their 401(k) plans lose a third of their value.

            Notice, in no part of my response did I say that the Republican alternative is a bad idea, on the merits.

          • bk

            This accounting rule seems a key player here. Did it contribute to this problem because it makes it impossible for these firms to hold these assets long term if they lose value, so that only the government can wait it out? I guess the idea is to make it clear if insolvent assets are being held, but in this case the expectation is they’ll eventually come out okay, but no one can wait long enough. Is the rule a good idea but went too far or what? Thanks for the enlightenment as always.

  • Doc_Holliday

    This plan is terribly unpopular. The Repubublicans and moderate Dems are getting crushed with opposition to it by their constituents. It is not Obama who is showing reservations to the Paulson plan, it is McCain, and House members supposedly lead by our favorite conservative, Eric Cantor.

    If the Paulson plan goes through as is, it will be passed in a partisan vote, with Paulson, Bush, Boener, and the Democrats on one side, and the majority of House Republicans, and many Senate Republicans on the other.

    This will be a WIN not a loss for Republicans because they voted with the public, and also against socialism. I know that is a strong word, but no matter what is being said now, the Democrats on Congress will use this to dictate to private companies.

    I do agree that Paulson has not explained the plan or this crisis well. This is not a bail out of Wall Street, this is a bailout of Washington! It was the federal meddling in the lending markets, and the loose money, that caused this.

    We need to get back to free market capitalism. Of course we need to look at exotic derivatives and financial reporting clarity, but we need to put much of the blame here on Congress and the Federal Branch.

  • Xanadu

    Something; but not anything, needs to be done quickly.

    Sen. Harry Reid said Sen. McCain needed to be in DC the other day and then yesterday around noon said John McCain wasn’t needed because they had a deal!

    Well as of this morning, there is no deal yet. Remember that the Dem controlled House can pass whatever they want. They haven’t passed anything because the Dems don’t want to.

    A House bill that conflicts with a Senate bill (where you may need a super majority due to Senate rules) could be worked out in conference between House and Senate conferees.

    In 2005 Sen. McCain co-sponsored S190 that would have resolved this issue and protected taxpayers and homeowners. The bill was defeated by Dems on a party line vote to protect their political contributions.

    John McCain called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing.

    Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than almost any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them.

    And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain Sen. Obama’s trust to the point that he actually put the former CEO in charge of his vice presidential search.

    John McCain is leading the charge to fix up the mess that was protected by Dems, especially Sens. Dodd, Kerry, Obama and Cong. Frank.

  • weave

    What I find interesting is that there are many that just want Congress to move forward with a full bailout quickly, but on the other hand there are those that are skeptical and want to move forward carefully and possibly incrementally. But from reading conservative and liberal blogs, I can find no real pattern of thinking lending itself to any one group.

    I even read a day or so ago Kos cheering conservative Republicans (and hating himself for it!)

    The country is coming together and putting aside party politics for this it seems. I just hope our Congress does the same thing and stop trying to leverage the crisis for their own agendas.

    The only thing that can be counted on here is that Congress approval ratings are probably going to go even lower — if that’s even possible.

  • jzlouisII

    This is a video you should see if you want to understand what caused this crisis…

    Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o

    • BlakeW

      Blackhedd,

      Thanks for taking the time to respond, it’s much appreciated.

      Just wondering, are you taking coffee intravenously these days? I can’t imagine you’ve slept much lately.

      • Siberian

        Though this is the first I’ve heard of it. The spin I’ve been hearing is that the House GOP blew up the negotiations (exploded and blew up seem to be the medias new favourite words). The other talk out of the meeting when they’re not claiming McCain was supporting the house GOP is that he just largely sat silent the whole time as the process derailed around him.

  • Harold_Vaughn

    Give Paulson some money to take the bad assets out of the market. (No man deserves a $700 Bil blank check to do with as he sees fit)

    Give middle to low income people a stimulus check.

    Give Corporate America a tax cut.

    Crisis solved, everybody wins!

    This isn’t 1929, the American public is watching very carefully what’s going on and will know exactly who screwed this up.

    • Siberian

      Well as of this morning, there is no deal yet. Remember that the Dem controlled House can pass whatever they want. They haven’t passed anything because the Dems don’t want to. (

      Nothing will pass without enough of the GOP signed on to offer the Dems “cover”.

      This legislation is too costly and too rushed for them to risk being see as solely responsible for it.

      They’ll let the economy burn before that happens.

      Sad but true.

  • txchick57

    http://us1.institutionalriskanalytics.com/pub/IRAMain.asp

  • kowalski

    If the market makes a 1,000+ swing down today, I wonder how many people in Congress will have sold after yesterday’s mini-rally and be in a good position to make a killing a week from now?

    After all, they all know what the likely effect on the market this morning would be if they didn’t reach a deal. Sell at 11,000, buy at 8,000 sounds like a great way to make millions to me if you can make it happen.

    • QueenOfCups

      How long do you think the Dems are going to sit around and argue?

      What happens when McCain finally does take it to the people and explains all the goodies the Dems have packed in?

      I can’t imagine it will take that long for their phone lines to be lit up.

  • Spartan4Life

    I see where Senator Reid is going to force a vote on another $56B stimulus package, even though they know it won’t pass and despite the clear evidence that the ill conceived one they did earlier this year barely made a ripple in the economy. He just wants to portray the evil Republicans as not caring about the “middle class”(who the hell are the middle class anymore, anyway?). More useless partisan politics.

    These guys are drunk. They are drunk with power and drunk with taxpayer’s money. They think there is an unlimited well of money that they can draw from to play their silly games. Somebody needs to stand up and say, “No More!”. Maybe McCain is that guy.

    • kowalski

      By the way, if this sounds to people’s ears like I’m accusing people in our Congress of deliberately gumming up this process in order to profit personally while the rest of the country (and the world) suffers –

      That’s because I am.

      I don’t think either party in Congress gives a damn about this country or how much the average Joe is going to suffer because of their electoneering and partisan bickering. Right now it looks to me as though both parties are participating in a common disaster, and they don’t care, because they’re in control of causing it and they’ll be in control of stopping it, which means they know exactly when to place their buy and sell orders.

  • shooflyguy68

    Let these banks fail, have the FDIC become the receiver and then have them turn around and sell the assets to financial service companies that are actually in good shape.

    That way, we risk little taxpayer money (only danger is that FDIC insurance fund runs low), companies that are well run benefit by adding to their portfolios and not reward firms that deserve to pay the price for their poor decisions.

    • Marcus_Traianus

      Here

      Quickly, the argument against FAS 157 has mostly to do with valuation under level 3, where there is no actively traded market. This is very relevant to today’s situation and frankly a point worthy of discussion; that is, there is no consistent standard or valuation method for instruments categorized under level 3. The ambiguity has profound balance sheet and liquidity implications if that class grows to be significant.

      • shooflyguy68

        …to make you and your buddies rich or to cover losses made possible by your lack or responsible oversight and your buddies’ risky business decisions, you might be tempted to do the same.

        That’s exactly what is going on here. It’s a massive CYA excercise as well as a power and wealth preservation one.

  • GordonTaylor

    Great insight and comments. I know the street wants the bailout, but personally I do not.

    It is an opportune time for one of the candidates to step forward and take leadership, and we all know who has shown that.

  • txchick57

    This is a snippet from a piece on Minyanville this a.m.

    Mr. Practical: The bailout is a form of monetization, although a small one. The Fed mechanically already expanded its balance sheet on a more permanent basis by printing currency and buying treasuries from the government a week or so ago.

    The Fed?s balance sheet has grown an alarming 35% just in the last month. This was a clue to what a massive monetization would look like.

    There was an article on Minyanville called The Pin Prick where it was discussed that our Asian lenders decided not to buy our bonds anymore.

    What if Mr. Paulson really needs his $700 billion immediately because the Chinese want a bid on all of the bonds they own?

    If there were massive pressures on our interest rates because of something like this, the Fed could monetize: print massive amounts of currency and buy up U.S. treasuries.

    This would be a hyperinflation and send all prices up massively only to eventually destroy the economy. Let us hope the government has more sense than to do this, although from what I have seen I am not hopeful that is the case.

    • kowalski

      Real leadership and shared purpose in a time of crisis requires that people who are nominally adversaries and contestants come together when the chips are down and do the right thing for the good of everyone. It’s not as though Democrats and Republicans aren’t going to suffer the longer this process is drawn out, down here on Main Street.

      Both parties in Congress are guilty of dereliction of duty at this moment, and they know it. They don’t care, because their salaries are already paid. And hey: even in a Depression, the country is going to need a Congress, so their replacements will have salaries also.

      As for the rest of us, Republican, Democrat and Independent, the longer they screw around the worse it will be for us and the better it will be for them. People in power tend to like it even more when all their constitutents are poor and weak and at their mercy.

      That’ll show us.

      • kowalski

        The American People are going to learn who their bosses really are.

        • bk

          As a follow-on question… Level 3 includes these mortgage-type securities. Without this rule, how would this have worked out?
          - Mortgages have tanked so badly this would have caused serious issues no matter what. -or-
          - Long-term these are still okay, so firms would have not worried about intermediate drops and everything would have worked out eventually. -or-
          - Perhaps it’s neither of the above or impossible to say.

  • streetwise

    Call the Democratic Congress back into session. They are supposed to RUN the damn place. Especially the House.

    If they can’t pass a deal with President Bush with their comfortable majority, throw the bums OUT!

    • weave

      Neither side should attach anything to this bill to try to sneak it through. Let it stand alone. If they want a stimulus package then it should be handled separately.

      This is infuriating.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        Under the current FAS 157 rule MBS could potentially be valued differently by various securities holders. But the overall contemporary effect is punitive; that is, they are illiquid since there is no observable market or means to show value. This forces not only a balance sheet loss, but they are not available as liquidity collateral.

        The other way to value these securities would be by purchase price or hold to maturity/par value. This provides a more stable balance sheet since securities will not fluctuate based on short term market prices. I am a bigger fan of this method, with stipulations that account for default situations, et al, since it does not penalize an owner who holds to maturity. As previously mentioned it also provides balance sheet stability and incentivizes participation in the market for that issue.

        For example, if we were to mark at par these MBS that are so called distressed issues today, it would help alleviate a great deal of current related liquidity issues. Argument against? Some say if market perception puts the traded value low or at zero, marking at par is inflationary to the balance sheet and not a true measure of company position. I would argue that is a short term perspective; evidence being there are currently many asset managers/bond specialists accumulating large amounts of MBS, betting the future market will bring them a windfall. Frankly, in my opinion they are correct and value will be closer to par than fire sale prices at which they accumulated.

  • gamecock

    ?a suspension of mark-to-market regulatory rules (assigning value to a financial instrument based on the current market price). This looks like the key to me. If banks can show the value of properties “when bought”, that would free up capital for new loans. Why would you need the huge bailout if this sloves the liquidity problem?

    a contrary view

    http://reason.com/news/show/12901