The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Financial Crisis Page 12 of 13

WTF!? Stress Tests Prove that Banks Fine, Just Need More Bailouts

You can’t make up stupidity like this.  The Onion must be in despair, because there’s no way to satirize something so mind-numbingly moronic.  In reference to the “stress tests” of the banks:

What they are discovering may come as a relief to both the financial industry and the public: the banking industry, broadly speaking, seems to be in better shape than many people think, officials involved in the examinations say.

That is the good news. The bad news is that many of the largest American lenders, despite all those bailouts, probably need to be bailed out again, either by private investors or, more likely, the federal government. After receiving many millions, and in some cases, many billions of taxpayer dollars, banks still need more capital, these officials say.

So, to summarize. The banks are fine, but they still need to be bailed out?  IE., they’re effectively bankrupt, but it’s not as bad as we think?

Did I wander into the twilight zone?  Just how stupid do they think we are?

(Answer: it doesn’t matter, because they’ll give the banks as much money as they feel like, whether we like it or not, because that’s job 1 for the Obama administration—to bail out the masters of the universe at taxpayer expense).

In the immortal words of George H. Bush “Who cares what you think?”  Who cares what any of us think?

IMF Now Estimates Losses To Grow To 4 Trillion

The odd thing about this is that 4 trillion is the number I’ve been hearing as the banks own estimate of their losses for a few months now, I even mentioned it back in February.

If the banks think their losses are 4 trillion, that means the total losses are higher, and the worldwide losses are much, much higher.

Numbers are still being lowballed.  Now that doesn’t mean that 4 trillion will necessarily have to be spent by the federal government, the move to mark-for-market accounting, which allows banks to keep assets on their books until marutity at calculated prices, for example, will reduce how much money the government has to spend to keep banks from actually going under.  The Geithner plan, if it works, is likewise intended to inflate asset prices through the miracle of leverage, and that will reduce perceived losses.  If lucky, it might even reduce eventual nominal losses, by holding the assets to maturity and praying really hard that they don’t default, and that by maturity the market and economy are a lot stronger.

Still, all in all, my guess is that the IMF is still underestimating the issue.  In fact, it’s not even clear if there’s enough free money in the world to absorb all the real losses, but I suppose if everyone keeps printing enough money, we can get there.

Calculated Risk via Atrios

Elizabeth Warren: Finally someone with a clue how to handle the financial crisis

Warren’s the chief watchdog for the 700 billion TARP fund.  Unfortunately, she has no real power, but it’s still nice to see a government official say not just some of the right things, but almost all of the right things.  Talk of how the US is following Japan’s path is finally everywhere (myself and a few others have been talking about it for years, and started really beating the drums last year).  Here’s Elizabeth:

Warren, a Harvard law professor and chair of the congressional oversight committee monitoring the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp), is also set to call for shareholders in those institutions to be “wiped out”. “It is crucial for these things to happen,” she said. “Japan tried to avoid them and just offered subsidy with little or no consequences for management or equity investors, and this is why Japan suffered a lost decade.”…

… Warren also believes there are “dangers inherent” in the approach taken by treasury secretary Tim Geithner, who she says has offered “open-ended subsidies” to some of the world’s biggest financial institutions without adequately weighing potential pitfalls. “We want to ensure that the treasury gives the public an alternative approach,” she said, adding that she was worried that banks would not recover while they were being fed subsidies. “When are they going to say, enough?” she said.

She also calls for the resignation of the CEOs of the worst firms.

One thing I’m tired of hearing though is the phrase “lost decade”.  Japan didn’t just lose a decade, it has never really recovered.  The good times have never come back.

I also think that bondholders need to take a haircut as well, not just shareholders, though they may not need to be wiped out in all cases.  However, if the value of a company if it was liquidated is less than zero, then yes, non-secured bondholders (those whose bonds aren’t attached to specific assets with value) should be wiped out.

I’m Sure There’s a Difference Between the Bush/Paulson, Obama/Geithner Approaches to Bailouts

I’m just not sure what:

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.

At this point in time, there seems to be no significant functional difference between Paulson/Bush and Geithner/Obama.  Both intended to give a ton of money to financial firms, either directly or by buying up crap at prices higher than justified.  Both opposed any meaningful restrictions on how they spent the money or who they gave it to.

Actually, I take it back, one difference is that when Paulson wanted 700 billion, he went to Congress.  When Geithner made up his plan he just had the FDIC and the FED pony up most of the money, because he knew Congress wouldn’t give him the money.

Some wonder if this is legal:

Although some experts are questioning the legality of this strategy, the officials said it gives them latitude to determine whether firms should be subject to the congressional restrictions, which would require recipients to turn over ownership stakes to the government, as well as curb executive pay.

Me, I don’t know if it’s legal.  What I do know is that they plan on giving money away in a manner which clearly intends to end-run Congress’s clearly legislated mandate for how it be given away.  What I know is that they are bypassing Congress when they can, because they know that the elected body which is the only one supposed to be able to pass spending bills wouldn’t give them all the money they want to spend and won’t let them spend what money it does give as freely as they want to.

Of course, that money will still have to be paid back by taxpayers, even if Congress never approved the spending.

But back to the TARP restrictions:

Congress drafted the restrictions amid its highly contentious consideration of the $700 billion rescue legislation last fall. At the time, lawmakers were aiming to reform the lavish pay practices on Wall Street. Congress also wanted the government to gain the right to buy stock in companies so that taxpayers would benefit if the firms recovered.

The requirements were honored in an initial program injecting public money directly into banks. That effort was developed by the Bush administration and continued by Obama’s team. The initiative is on track to account for the bulk of the money spent from the rescue package. All the major banks already submit to executive-compensation provisions and have surrendered ownership stakes as part of this program.

Yet as the Treasury has readied other programs, it has increasingly turned to creating the special entities. Legal experts said the Treasury’s plan to bypass the restrictions may be unlawful.

The problem is that while Geithner’s plan takes money from the FDIC and the Fed, it still uses some TARP money as seed money, and that money carries the restrictions.

I thought it wasn’t the executive’s job to decide that Congress is wrong and then deliberately end-run it.  I thought we had an election to stop this sort of thing.

This is one of the things we spent the last 8 years blasting Bush for doing. But in this particular case, the new administration is being less compliant with Congress’s will than the Bush administration was!

Less!

I don’t know whether to spit or cry.  I’ve always had my doubts about Obama, but in my worst dreams I didn’t think he’d try and end run Congress even more blatantly than Bush, in order to give even more money away to the richest Americans with even fewer restrictions and less protection from the taxpayer in terms of ownership stakes.

It’s going to be a long 4 years.

Did AIG Never Intend to Pay Off Most Collateralized Debt Swaps?

There’s an interesting article going around which notes the widespread use of side-letters in the insurance industry. Side letters were used to say “even though you’ve said that you’ll take on X amount of risk on this insurance policy, we won’t hold you to that.”  The letters were generally buried off to one side, only to come to light if things did go wrong.  Insurance companies did this because if they bought say 1 million of reinsurance for $100,000, they freed up $900,000 of regulatory capital which they could continue to use for further insuring or lending and so on.

Think of this as essentially the same as fractional lending.  Insurers have to have enough assets on book to cover their liabilities—policies they may have to pay off on.  If somene else is going to pay off on that risk because you bought reinsurance from them, you don’t need that capital.  So buying reinsurance frees up capital.  As for the seller of reinsurance, they get money in exchange for no risk, if there’s a side letter.  Win, win.

The article goes on to suggest that many Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) AIG sold may have had similiar side letters, which since AIG was never seized, may have been destroyed.  I don’t know if such side letters existed, but my take is that neither side, in many cases, expected to every have to collect on CDSs, or pay on them.

But when everything went to hell, they certainly tried to.  The key fishy problem with AIG wasn’t the bonuses, it was that counterparties were getting paid 100% of the value of CDSs with government money, something they had no right to expect from what amounts to a bankrupt company.  In such a case, either as AIG or the counterparty, why would you bring up the side letters, if they exist?  The counterparties are getting money and AIG is paying out with money that isn’t theirs anyway.

As for the government, the reason all that money was given to AIG was specifically so they could pay off counterparties—it was a way of getting money to various damaged financial firms, including overseas ones, who needed the money, without it being obvious that the government was giving that money away, especially to foreign firms, which would have caused a firestorm

So, I don’t know if these side letters existed, and it’s worth finding out because if they did, that makes all the transactions fraudulent and we can insist on all the money back and prosecute.  But the bottom line is that the government, AIG and the counterparties all wanted the money to be paid out, whether there was a legal obligation or not.  So don’t expect anyone to look too hard, unless Congress really gets the bit between its teeth.

The Market is Not The Economy

Image by Admit One

Image by Admit One

Repeat after me: “The market is not the economy.  The market is not the economy.”

Of course the market is doing well.  Geithner, Bair and Bernanke promised to put around $2-$3 trillion more into the market in various forms.  Everyone now knows that the Obama administration will do whatever it takes to turn the market and financial sector around— even if that means trillions of dollars of risk for taxpayers.

Rule of Investing: when the government puts its full muscle behind something, be sure to ride it, and don’t get in the way.

What you want to watch now are:

  • Currency Rates
    Does the dollar go up or down?  The government printing and borrowing tons of money may not look so good to foreign debtors.  Or they may decide it’s the only game in town.
  • The Treasury Market
    Same thing.  Are private investors and foreign governments willing to buy?  Or will the Fed have to buy more treasuries?
  • Oil prices
    All of this money is going to show up somewhere, and a lot of people are (literally) betting on it showing up in energy prices.

What’s probably going to happen is a technical recovery that shakes apart based on unacceptable inflation before the recovery has reached a lot of people at the middle and bottom of the economy.  Unless  Geithner’s plan fails in absolute rather than relative terms, in which case there isn’t enough lube in the universe to make what will occur even tolerable, let alone pleasant.

In the meantime, remember that the market isn’t the economy, and unless you’re connected to the financial sector, odds are you aren’t going to see much of all this money.  The banks are being bailed out, not you.

The Geithner Plan’s Unpleasant Consequences

Asian fan

Image by rom

The Geithner Plan, combined with the other steps taken by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, make fairly clear the Obama administration’s plan.  The sardonic summary would be “to continue the work of Hank Paulson”, but the more serious one would be, “we’re going to throw money at this problem untill it goes away.”  The end result will be riptide inflation, and an economy that suffers from the Japanese sickness where the good times just never, ever, seem to return.

It is unclear how much money has been spent, guaranteed and loaned at this point.  Given that back in February the number was $9.7 trillion, and that trillions have been committed since then, I think it’s safe to say that we’re over $12 trillion.  This is a lot of money.  The entire US GDP for 2008 was about $14 1/2 trillion.

The Fed has even decided to buy treasuries, which is the absolute definition of “printing money” since it amounts to one part of the government funding the other part of the government.

All of this money is going to land somewhere.  What we are going to see is another bout of riptide inflation, where some parts of the economy (such as wages and housing prices) are in deflation, while other parts are inflating.  My guess where the money is going to land?  Oil prices again.  It’s already begun.  Put all that money into the hands of speculators and they have to park it somewhere.

Likewise when America buys its own treasuries, that means that the treasury bubble is going to start deflating.  Private investors aren’t going to want to invest in a Ponzi scheme which is coming to an end.  The US dollar has also very likely peaked, and we’re going to see it deflate over the next year.

All of this was avoidable.  What should have been done was to take steps to deal with oil inflation: such as  a 55 mph speed limit, 3 day weekends at major corporations, and so on.  Such steps should have been instigated the second Obama took office, or put into the bailout bill or the stimulus bill.

The result instead is riptide inflation/deflation combined with a falling dollar and more difficulty financing this expansion in any way that isn’t nakedly printing money.

Then we come to the Geithner plan, which amounts to the federal government subsidizing hedge funds to buy toxic securities at overvalued prices using mostly money from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC in order to make sure they don’t have to ask Congress for money, since they know Congress would never give them another trillion and a half or so.

At the end of the day, the FDIC and Fed are backed by the US government, so any losses will have to be made up for by the American taxpayer.  (In the old days, this was known as “taxation without representation”.)

There will most likely be losses, because a good chunk of the loans to hedge funds are non-recourse, meaning that if the value of the security goes down, it’s Uncle Sam who’s  on the hook for most of the loss, not the hedge fund.  Likewise the funds will be heavily leveraged, allowing them to pay higher prices than otherwise. Add to that the continuing collapse of  housing prices and the economy, and you have a situation where the target is moving.  As the economy gets worse, more and more people default on their mortgages, leading to a decrease in housing prices and thus the prices of securities built on top of housing.

Which leads us to the stimulus bill.  The Stimulus bill is not large enough or constructed well enough.  So even if it works in a technical sense (gets GDP growth above zero) it’s probably not going to really turn the economy around in the ways that matter: recovering jobs and increasing wages.   Without these two things increasing, and without a clear direction for the economy other than hedge funds receiving massively leveraged loans to play paper games—which worked so well before the crisis, you just know we should try it again—housing will keep decreasing, demand will not recover properly since consumers won’t have money to spend, and the assets underlying the financial crisis will continue to decline in value.

Because the  government has loaned money to buy up the assets, and guaranteed much of the remainder of it, the government will be on the hook for the losses. (And by “the government,” I mean “your tax dollars.”)

What happened in Japan after their bubble is instructive.  Instead of taking the toxic waste off their banks hands, or forcing write downs, they allowed zombie loans and zombie banks to sit around doing not much of anything.  They also tried large Keynesian stimulus, but every time it looked like it might be working, they backed off.  The end result was, and is, 20 years where the Japanese economy never really got good again.  Short periods of modest growth were followed by recessions, over and over again.

Defenders of the Geithner Plan would say that we’ve learned from Japan’s mistakes.  What we’re doing is taking the loans off the banks’ books, so we don’t have zombie banks.  This misses the point, even assuming the government does eventually manage to move all the bad debts from the banks and into taxpayer hands, which is questionable since the losses are a moving and increasing target.

Why?—Because in macroeconomic terms it really doesn’t matter who has the debt, it doesn’t matter who is impaired.  If the government has all the debt and winds up crippled, and government spending and loans wind up crippled, the effect is virtually the same as having crippled banks hanging around.  The debt still has to be paid off.

The key difference here is between “paid off” and “wiped out”.  “Paid off” means the full value gets paid back (minus whatever inflation the US has, which may be a lot). ” Wiped out”, on the other hand, is what would occur if private banks, firms and investors were forced to take their own losses.  In that case, when the full value of the investor or firm was gone, any remaining value would simply disappear.  If a bank goes bankrupt owing $200 billion, and the bankruptcy windups leave only $100 billion of proceeds, then the remaining $100 billion goes away.  Yes, that $100 billion may wipe out some other people, but it’s done. It’s over with.  It’s finished.  You can’t get blood out of a stone, and when a firm or person is wiped out, they’re wiped out.

Instead the decision has been made, in effect, to pay back the full amount of the losses—and not to force those who made the bad bets to pay them back, but to put as much as possible of the losses onto the government and make taxpayers pay them back.

Since we’re talking about trillions of dollars of losses, in a declining economy, that means impairment of both government and private spending for years to come.

The end effect will likely be little different than what happened in Japan, with the exceptions that the US may see significant inflation, and that as net importer rather than a net exporter, the US probably can’t keep this up for 20 years.  Which means that at some point in the future it will either have to default on the debts, inflate them away or have a financial collapse.

None of this is necessary, and there are still ways thing could be done better.  The administration is set to announce their regulatory reforms next week.  If those reforms are thorough and complete, ending the existence of “too big to fail firms”, sharply increasing tax progressivity and putting firm limits on leverage, then perhaps the pain to come will be worth it, if only because steps will have been taken to make sure it doesn’t happen again.  But if real regulatory reforms aren’t put in place soon, the future will be bleak indeed.

Market Rallies On News of Trillion Dollar Giveaway

Image by TW Collins

Image by TW Collins

Is anyone really surprised the DOW is up almost 500 points, after Geithner promised to give private investors almost $1 trillion to gamble with?

The details of the giveaway are fascinating.  I sure wish that I could get financing like this to play the market:

Under one part of the plan focused on bad loans, the Treasury will provide up to 80 percent of initial capital alongside investment by private funds. The FDIC would then offer debt financing for up to six times the pooled amount.

Now, unless I’m messing up my math, that’s 24/1 leverage.  If older details hold, and the 80% is a non-recourse loan, meaning that it’s secured only by the value of securities bought, then it’s even sweeter.

PIMCO has announced it’s interested in participating, which means that the plan has succeeded in one sense—it has the buy-in of some very smart money.  That doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily good for taxpayers, or that it will be good in the long term for the economy, necessarily, but at least it isn’t being laughed out of Dodge.  On the other hand, would you refuse 24/1 to one financing?  Or even matching funds, as contained in part two of the plan?

I sure wouldn’t.  And PIMCO have been scavengers before.  They bet heavily in Fannie and Freddie bonds after it was clear Fannie and Freddie were insolvent, which was a bet that the government wouldn’t shear bondholders when it bailed out Freddie and Fannie.  Smart bet, but not a good return for taxpayers, who would have been better served by letting Freddie and Fannie’s debtholders lose money.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that my original call was the right one: that the various bailouts would lead to Japanification.  For 20 years now, since its own bubble burst, Japan has had an economy which slips in and out of recessions like clockwork and which never ever really got good again.  In Japan’s case, the lousy economy was in large part because they left a lot of debt debt on the books of private corporations.  In America’s case, the debt may be transfered to taxpayers, but the end result is likely to be the same, only compounded by attempts to create secondary bubbles so that the toxic waste regains enough value to claim a win.

Given that Geithner’s trillion dollar giveaway has been greated ecstatically by the financial sector, I expect we’ll see more money used in this fashion.  This plan appears to be good for about $2 trillion of lousy debt ($1 trillion from the matching 1/1 program, $1 trillion from the high leveraged portion).  Total current toxic waste on the banks books is probably about $4 trillion, which will still have to be dealt with.

That money will have to be paid off, eventually.  Doing so will cost the US  and the world a great deal of future growth, and individuals a great deal of future income and employment.  As things stand right now, I don’t think employment levels as measured by employment/population ratios will recover in the forseeable future—post recession “full” employment will just be lower than pre-recession “full” employment.  There are still some ways this could be made to work for everyone, and I’ll discuss those at a later date.

Page 12 of 13

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén