I admit to not being a Wall Street guy, but I have always had a pretty good understanding of economics and a practical sense for business.
I understand that there is an incredible snowball effect resulting from the fact that there is currently no demand in the market for mortgage-based securities. None. Who wants to buy this stuff today? Only people anticipating a government bailout or those looking to take advantage of truly distressed sellers and distressed prices.
I am open to being convinced that the proposed $700B bailout is necessary. However, until alternative approaches are addressed, I am affirmatively against a last minute government authorization for tremendous power and a $700B spending authorization based on an implicit calculus that we either acquiesce or the economy goes into the toilet.
Before we all just jump on board with a plan that had it been proposed by a Clinton Admnistration would have no chance of having broad conservative support, I would suggest taking a loot at the following articles:
http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2008/9/22/heresaplantoavoidanew_rtc
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122178603685354943-lMyQjAxMDI4MjIxMjcyODI2Wj.html
The current crisis is based on the convergence of two primary factors:
(1) There is little demand for mortgage based securities in the current time, resulting in bonds currently “worth” 70-80% less (see Merrill Lynch) of their par value even though only 9% of mortgages are in default and home values are only down 20-30% (i.e. mortgage-based securities are temporarily undervalued and if an individual had any in their portfolio, they would rationally ride out the storm to avoid selling in hyper-distressed conditions).
(2) The ability of financial institutions to issue debt is limited by balance sheet considerations, which means that Merrill Lynch and other financial institutions cannot do what your or I would do, which is simply ride out the storm. They can’t issue new debt without first clearing off their balance sheets. Thus, the bad paper is a hot potato they need to get off their balance sheet if the economy is to avoid a liquidity crisis.
Bottom Line: Financial institutions need to get the distressed bonds out of their debt/equity ratios in order to make loans.
There are at least a couple of alternative ways to approach this problem:
(1) Have government buy the distressed paper at a valuation above the distressed price but below the true price so that tax payers get some profit in the end
(2) Temporarily relax the mark-to-market rules so that instead of centralizing the distressed paper into a centralized Bad Bank of the US, the paper can be held in a decentralized manner by their current owners.
(3) Temporarily raise the permitted debt/equity ratio so that distressed debt paper doesn’t preclude new activities
Until someone can tell me why (2) and/or (3) are deficient, I am firmly against (1).
I vote for Plan B. Until proponents of Plan A actually address other proposed solutions, I am not going to jump on the $700B bailout package that will involve more than $1T in spending before the democrats get through with it.
Jeff Emanuel
Neil Stevens
Caleb Howe
I agree
johnCV (Diary) Tuesday, September 23rd at 11:10AM EDT (link)As soon as someone says “but it’s the only way…”, I immediately start looking for thier angle.
I suggest that the greatest beneficiaries of these lousy debt instruments should be the first to be forced to purchase them with their own personal money (bonus have been paid). They should be held personally liable.
I believe in Capitalism – if you take a risk, you should be rewarded to whatever extent your abilities and skills allow (no caps from congress). But in return, if you loose, you loose to the fullest extent of the deal (no bailouts). Goldman and Merrill are now Banks?! Infuriating – they crap thier own beds and run to mommy paulson to protect them.
Why can’t we crack open these bundled debt instruments and pick out the ‘good’ debt and identify the bad debt? Surely it’s known as these people send checks soemwhere. It would take some time but at the current 3% default rate (even assuming it rises to 8%), it’s still better than the current value.
If the taxpayers (50% of whom actually pay taxes) pony up the Trillions needed to start to clean this mess up (added to the fanny/freddie, money market, budget deficit, looming SS/Medicare, etc.), the US Dollar is toast. I doubt the Chinese will want any more of our rapidly devaluing paper.
And then what – how do we bail out of that one?
the purpose of the bailout is not to save
JSobieski (Diary) Tuesday, September 23rd at 11:23AM EDT (link)the risk takers, it is to preserve the economy.
If nothing is done, credit will dry up, and credit is the liveblood of capitalism.
If businesses can’t borrow money, the entire economy will go into the tank.
So the question is, what is the best way to preserve liquidity and avoid a credit crunch?
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
agreed and recommended - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Wednesday, September 24th at 11:02PM EDT (link)5
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Agreed...
OccamsRazor (Diary) Wednesday, September 24th at 11:09PM EDT (link)[I'm also a financial moron]…
Where’s the Hoover Dam?!
Nor should this become a tool of populist revenge.
stang (Diary) Thursday, September 25th at 12:02AM EDT (link)I’m hearing calls from a lot of quarters for scalps. As you pointed out, this is about saving the economy, not settling some political or economic score. Putting that kind of money in any politician’s hands will inevitably lead to picking winners and losers on the basis of political affiliation. That’s what got us to this point in the first place. I fail to see how more of the same will either fix the current problem or prevent more of the same in the future. Frankly, this is way too important to leave in the hands of politicians.
I think Forbes’ solution and some of the other’s of a similar mind have correctly identified government meddling with market mechanisms to achieve (so-called) desirable political/social outcomes as the reason for the problems we are facing. Their suggested remedies address this; get rid of the government implemented distortions and remove the impedmiments to the market working this out on its’ own.
Of course, that would require a major political miracle, ie politicians admitting their own culpability in this mess. The fact that most of the proponents of the $700B government adminstered plan either hold their jobs as a result of being elected or being appointed by elected office holders, or stand to benefit by the actions of elected or appointed officials, is prima facie evidence of collusion and corruption on a gargantuan scale.
Giving $700B to the same people that screwed this pooch in the first place reminds me of P.J. O’Rourke’s admonition in re politicians:
Highly recommended!
“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”
John Locke