The Road to Nationalization?
| Sun Mar. 22, 2009 9:09 PM PDT
I've already made my semi-defense of Tim Geithner's toxic waste buyup plan, and I won't repeat myself here. But there is one point that I think deserves a post of its own.
It's this: Do supporters of bank nationalization really think it's either legally or politically feasible at this point in time? I'm skeptical on both counts. Legally, I'm not sure Obama has the statutory authority to take over a big bank. He may well need congressional authorization of some kind first. And even if he doesn't, does anyone really think it would be wise to go down this road without broad congressional support anyway? I don't.
Like it or not, there's only one way to get this support: show that (a) one or more of the big banks really is insolvent and (b) every other option for rescuing them has been exhausted. Geithner's plan does both. If it works — well and good. But if it fails — if nobody is willing to participate, or if the auction demonstrates that the market price for toxic assets really is accurate — then banks will be forced to mark their assets to those prices. Plug in those marks to Geithner's stress tests and it's likely to prove to everyone's satisfaction that some of our big banks really are insolvent. At that point, even skeptics will be forced to accept nationalization as the only remaining alternative.
Politically, I don't see any other way forward. Bank nationalization will be complex, costly, and contentious. To work, it will almost certainly have to include a broad guarantee of all bank system obligations, something the public won't be happy about. Congressional support won't be easy to come by. Geithner's plan will either work or else it will pave the road for that support. It might not be pretty, but that makes it a plan worth trying.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
seriously
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Mar. 22, 2009 11:20 PM PDT.
I have been wondering -- do the nationalization advocates want nationalization because they really think it will work better, or as a matter of principle? Even with Krugman I wonder about this. It's a sincere question -- I don't get why there are people so fiercely pro-nationalization when that is a really difficult and uncertain route (not that any other route isn't). It just seems...vengeful rather than pragmatic. But perhaps I am missing something crucial. And perhaps that something is a coherent selling of the administration's plans by the administration itself?
Re: seriously
Submitted by Ugly Moe (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 5:51 AM PDT.
I believe that what Paul Krugman advocates has worked in Sweden, and he has mentioned that what treasury advocates replicates the conditions of the S&L crisis.
Here is a recent article of Krugman's:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rs...
But it is very important to
Submitted by reader (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 6:03 AM PDT.
But it is very important to point out the Sweden and America aren't the same. I'm not even talking about the size of the banks (which is the administration's politically convenient argument against the Swedish model). I'm talking about the political culture. In America, our political culture is too broken to handle nationalizing large banks. That's something that people like Paul Krugman either don't understand or don't think about. People like Krugman imagine that the president is some kind of king that can just bend Congress to his will at the snap of his finger - it's an extremely naive view of government and basically makes me discount all of his views on politics (especially in light of his long-standing personal hatred for Barack Obama). The administration, on the other hand, obviously understands the risks of political interference in a nationalization scheme - they don't want to cede veto authority to Mitch McConnell (which any sane observer should be able to sympathize with).
What nationalization gives
Submitted by jimBOB on Sun Mar. 22, 2009 11:41 PM PDT.
What nationalization gives you that Geithner's plans don't is the replacement of the management team and the definitive wiping out of shareholders. With Geithner, the same people who led the banks to the current catastrophe get to keep their jobs (and massive paychecks/bonuses) and don't pay a personal price for messing up on a titanic scale. Not only do we keep the same bad judgment in place running the banks, but we also establish the precedent that nearly destroying the world finance system, and costing U.S. taxpayers more money than God has is something for which you will not be punished.
For shareholders, we prevent any of them from benefiting from taxpayer largesse by seeing their nearly-worthless shares eventually come back to having some value. The principal here is that if nearly all the money is coming from taxpayers, then taxpayers should own the entire upside if there is one. Also, as with management, we avoid moral hazard by establishing the healthy precedent that investing in failed companies gets you a total loss, not a gift from the general public.
How much is vengeance worth?
Submitted by reader (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 6:10 AM PDT.
I think this is the only rock-solid argument for nationalization. And I'm definitely sympathetic to the cause of wreaking vengeance on the failures. That said is it really worth that satisfaction if it means allowing Mitch McConnell any say in how the banks should be run? Is that a risk we're willing to take?
Not me. We have to remember that the government is not just Barack Obama. It includes Congress and if anyone here thinks that Congress won't want a piece of the action then I've got a bridge to nowhere you should take a look at. I don't want Congressional Republicans within a 100 miles of making decisions about how to run a bank. I'm far more comfortable with the current crew in the banks (many of whom came in after the "wizards" who ruined the system have left).
So nationalization
Submitted by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 6:17 AM PDT.
rests on a moral argument, not a practical one.
I wonder what the moral argument is in favor of wiping out the mom and pop small shareholders along with the dastardly "big boys."
I Largely Agree
Submitted by J. Michael Neal on Sun Mar. 22, 2009 11:48 PM PDT.
However, I'm definitely more pessimistic in one regard. My guess is that, even if this plan fails, you won't get anything constructive through Congress. Evan Bayh is busy forming his Obstruction Caucus. You could probably gather up 35 Republicans to filibuster apple pie if Obama proposed it. Now, for some very understandable, if not entirely laudable, reasons, you have a whole wing of the Democratic Party that is mad as hell, and not going to appropriate another cent if it can be called a bailout. I think the chances of a good nationalization bill passing, under any foreseeable circumstances, is close to zero.
So, the administration gets to go to war with the regulatory powers it has, not the regulatory powers it wishes it had.
thank you
Submitted by afu (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 12:20 AM PDT.
I certainly agree with your line of thinking.
In an ideal world, I think that nationalization is probably the best option we have. However, we don't live in that ideal world. Nationalization proponents regualarly underplay the cost and the political difficulties their plans would entail.
One thing we learned during the campaign is that Obama doesn't do news cycles, but instead has long term plans which he slowly unfolds to the public. For now I think we should give him the benifit of the doubt that he is going to do the right thing. He has much more information about the extant of the crises than just about any person on the planet for one thing.
However If in a year this plan still looks like a massive give away to financial companies, I'll be calling for Obama's head like everybody else.
The main advantage of
Submitted by Gary Sugar (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 2:58 AM PDT.
The main advantage of Geithner's plan is that it's politically feasible. It's politically feasible because it's the only plan that is acceptable to the corrupt bankers who have been bribing our corrupt politicians. The main disadvantage of the plan is that after the corrupt bankers find still more ways to pocket the bailout money with no accounting of where it went, the government will then have to spend the entire amount yet again on another plan.
I think that political consensus might not be so far away as you suggest. When GOPers tell us that they think some banks should be let to fail, they are using code for nationalization. There just needs to be a way to let everyone who has come out against "nationalization" to save face.
The big banks are already nationalized
Submitted by g. powell on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 4:20 AM PDT.
The banking system in the U.S. is already nationalized. The Fed has taken on a huge number of transactions that used to be conducted by the private sector and the U.S. either has large equity stakes or potential stakes in the big players. The govt just refuses to exert it's authority, thereby allowing management to run amok accountable to no one while their institutions do nothing but suck up capital and destroy it.
All the U.S. has to do right now is pull the trigger on wiping out the remaining shareholders and recapitalize. You decapitalize and recapitalize. That's the final step that we're not taking. I don't think it requires any great new legal framework.
Of course, Kevin and the administration prefer to muddle along with an insufficient stimulus and an insufficient financial recovery plan while the economy continues to spiral down. I have no idea why.
I'm just glad that Bernanke is going full throttle on monetary policy.
Legal authority
Submitted by enplaned (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 4:42 AM PDT.
The FDIC already took over WaMu (and immediately turned it over to JP Morgan Chase), which was a d*mn large bank -- why wouldn't it have the legal authority to take over Citigroup? I'm unaware of anything in the law that makes something the size of WaMu legal for the FDIC to take over and something the size of Citigroup illegal to take over.
Type of Bank
Submitted by J. Michael Neal on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 11:48 AM PDT.
WaMu was a depository bank. That's what the FDIC has regulatory powers over. AIG is an insurance company, which is regulated by the states. Citi, BoA, and others are holding companies that own a depository bank, but also a lot of other things over which the FDIC doesn't have regulatory authority. There isn't any agency of the federal government that has the power to seize an investment bank, or a hedge fund, or an insurance company. Then there are the questions of international reach.
Nationalization may yet happen
Submitted by bleh (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 5:27 AM PDT.
i think g. powell is on the right track; we're already several steps along the legal road to nationalization, and Geithner's "stress tests" will take us another few. And as to political, all Obama has to do is say "bonuses," and nationalization will be done by acclaim.
That said, it's the nuclear weapon, so it's best used as a threat. I trust that Geithner et al. are busily pointing out the prospect of nationalization to various parties to gain their cooperation.
I also think nationalization would end up costing us more money. If we nationalize, then we settle the derivatives problem by writing them down, which "cleans up the books," but also wipes out more significant players than just the banks, and we end up carrying the full load for the banks AND doing what has to be done to recapitalize the rest of the system. And that ain't no small potatoes; remember that the "shadow banking" system is every bit as big, and polluted, as the regulated banking system.
So Geithner is playing Chicken with the money boyz -- eat some shit now, along with some Treasury sweetener, and we won't push the big red button -- and the money boyz are holding out for as much sweet stuff as they can get.
Of course, as they fiddle, Rome burns, but it's pretty obvious they don't give a damn for anyone except themselves. It's the magic of the marketplace.
It's called bankruptcy, Kevin
Submitted by Dennis Doubleday (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 5:47 AM PDT.
"He may well need congressional authorization of some kind first."
Authority to do what? Nationalization is not some magic new thing. These corporations are bankrupt except that we are propping them up. FDIC "nationalizes" banks every week these days.
You gotta be kidding. If you
Submitted by Anon24 (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 6:07 AM PDT.
You gotta be kidding. If you do not know that nationalization of banks happens all the time, then why in the hell are you even writing about this subject? Your posts on this issue have been incredibly bad. Write about something else.
Your semi defense of the
Submitted by Robert Waldmann (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 6:23 AM PDT.
Your semi defense of the Geithner plan has nothing to do with the aspect of the plan which has been criticized by e.g. Krugman -- the no recourse loan.
In fact, you are just arguing that the Obama administration should try some public-private investment partnerships scheme. That does not require giving the private partners incentives to pay more for assets than they think they are worth if held to maturity with cash flows discounted at the risk free rate.
Your defense does not even address the objections to the plan or the proposal to do something that sounds similar to the non-expert but doesn't involve the expected transfer of huge amounts of public money to the banks (which is the point of the plan not a bug).
After reading the official Treasury summary of the plan, I had only one remaining question -- "are they stupid or lying ?" I don't see how there can be any conceivable political benefit from making everyone who has any understanding of economics ask that question.
I mean they explicitly declare war on the theory of supply and demand (competition among *buyers* will prevent the Treasury from *over* paying. If you want to convince people that you have honestly tried everything, it is best not to claim in the most explicit terms possible that you think the law of supply and demand says higher demand causes a lower price.
OK I was wrong. My question is "Lying or stupidly lying because they should know they won't convince anyone ?" and I'm pretty damn sure the answer is "stupidly lying."
Oh and thanks again for
Submitted by Robert Waldmann (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 6:25 AM PDT.
Oh and thanks again for yesterday's link. I was honored and thrilled.
Ignoramuses
Submitted by Matt (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 6:46 AM PDT.
Several of you, with rather too much confidence, have written to the effect: "Nationalization of banks happens all the time." Yes. But nationalization of bank holding companies does not. There is no existing legal authority for the latter. Citigroup is three times as large as Citbank. Winding up a large, internationally active bank holding company would be a nightmare, though it might end up being necessary (once new legislation is in place). Take it from Sheila Bair: "Many of the standard ways for dealing with failed banks – such as our bridge bank – will probably not work across borders. Simply put: other countries have no duty to recognize a bridge bank or its actions under U.S. law. Cross-country differences in close-out netting, the unwinding of financial transactions, and the enforceability of secured parties' rights to collateral may add to increased uncertainty. In this environment, ring-fencing – also known as every man for himself – may simply be the only rational response." Nationalization--if we get there--will be expensive and politically contentious, and carries some risk of a broader financial collapse. There are good reasons why people in authority are opting to exhaust other alternatives.
is a major bank insolvent?
Submitted by Carl Nyberg (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 7:03 AM PDT.
What's your definition of insolvent?
It seems like if a bank requires infusions of money from the government it's functionally insolvent.
There may be a theoretical claim that under a different set of circumstances the bank would be solvent. But the claim is somewhat analogous to me saying in an alternate universe I'm as powerful as Dr. Manhattan.
But I don't see any reason to accept the theoretical claim of solvency when the banks refuse to allow the "toxic assets" to be audited. I suspect that an audit will show two things. 1. The banks are insolvent; 2. The problem was not entirely a collapsing market; fraud contributed greatly to the problem.
Class Warfare
Submitted by Detroit Dan (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 7:20 AM PDT.
The Obama administration needs to get out in front of the populist revulsion with Wall Street and related scoundrels. The current political tactics are not working.
I personally would be impressed by much more discussion of why the previous system broke, and how the Obama Administration is leading us in a new direction. Talk of getting the banks to lend again, raising home prices, boosting consumption, etc. is all misguided. Galbraith, Galbraith, Galbraith. We need to improve the economic situation of U.S. households. This should be the goal of Obama Administration policy. It is politically appealing, much more so than the current message of returning to normal by bailing out the banks and related entitities.
In a sense, nationalization is just the absence of bailouts, and thus is not really all that controversial. Let them complete their failure, THEN take action. They will be in a much stronger political position once the choice is being between letting the economy continue to collapse and providing the massive government stimulus that is aimed directly at creating jobs and doing good things (such as stimulate clean energy)...
Ignoramusly yours
Submitted by g. powell on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 7:33 AM PDT.
Bernanake brought up this point about how to deal with the failure of the financial holding companies, saying we need to set up some sort of super-FDIC to deal with them.
We should of gotten to work on that project a year ago, why not now?
In addition, the financial supermarket model -- where one holding co. oversees banking, insurance, and securities -- has been a failure. And cross border ops need to be re-examined. The London market was way too unregulated -- that's why the infamous AIG unit was based there -- and shares a lot of the blame for this crisis.
So the super-FIDC should be a temporary entity. It's purpose should be to unwind these institutions. They should never arise again.
Is It Legal? The Answer is "Yes"!
Submitted by Matthew G. Saroff (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 7:39 AM PDT.
If the bank is insolvent REGARDLESS OF SIZE, the government can take it over under existing laws.
Furthermore, receivership of those big banks that are insolvent (Citi certainly, and probably some others) allows for penalties, which prevents the moral hazard of the bailout.
I would argue that in addition to wiping out shareholders, firing upper management, and clawing back bonuses, there should also be an aggressive "zero tolerance" investigation of ALL of Wall Street.
Otherwise, people will be paying themselves bonuses from an expected future bailout again....and again....and again....and again....and again....and again....and again....and again....and again....and again.
Please Read
Submitted by J. Michael Neal on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 11:53 AM PDT.
The problem with authority to nationalize isn't the size of the companies in question. It's the fact that they aren't, or are a lot more than, depository banks. The FDIC does not have the power to regulate most of the companies involved.
buy Citi at market
Submitted by Nat on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 7:42 AM PDT.
Right now Citi's market cap is south of 20 billion with the Geithner put figured in. Without that it might be a billion. IIR, the Swedes bought their banks off the market. We could own the big banks outright via stock purchase for a lot less money than what remains in the TARP and we could replace their management. They would make the loans necessary to grease the wheels of commerce and the toxic crap could be unwound in whatever duration was necessary. The banks would be backed by the full faith and credit of the US taxpayer.
We should finish the job with Fannie, Freddie, and AIG. And yes, a more than a few people should go to jail.
And Robert Waldman got it correct in his last sentence.
Only problem, Nat, is that
Submitted by g. powell on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 7:54 AM PDT.
Only problem, Nat, is that the share price of Citi would skyrocket as soon as the govt said it was the buyer.
Citi shareholders deserve to be completely wiped out. Shareholders in general need to a better job in making sure companies are better run. Let this be a lesson to them.
Nationalization
Submitted by TheWesson on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 8:41 AM PDT.
Nationalization would have two goals:
1) Not 'vengeance' but 'prevention of moral hazard.'
2) Transfer of ownership opens and clears up the books and wipes out some debt holders and guarantees others.
I don't quite get in detail what happens when a bank "goes zombie" - absorbing capital and not making loans for a long time - but nationalization would prevent that. I guess the idea is that a fundamentally insolvent bank has few productive interactions with the rest of the system (borrowers, lenders) and a generally unproductive habit of absorbing taxpayer money.
[Another note: These banks make some money and might end up solvent if left alone for 5-10 years. Should we leave them be in a zombie state? The problem here is that the management of a basically insolvent bank may have incentives to loot it (looting government money) in various ways.* The market also doesn't like the uncertain state of the largest players. Correspondingly, the government could turn a profit if it cleans up the bank and sells it in 5-10 years.]
[* http://baselinescenario.com/2009/03/05/confusion-tunneling-and-looting/ ]
Geithner Put
Submitted by Nat on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 2:30 PM PDT.
As I understand it, pretty much any price above zero for Citi is premised on Geithner's and the Treasury's involvement in a bail out. I find it offensive that we will pay vastly more than Citi's market cap for Citi's garbage. If Geithner's ploy is to use this mechanism to smoke out the true value of the garbage and therebye verify the insolvency of these institutions, then fine. Perhaps that is a realistic approach to what is perceived as the political issues of receivership. If it is a short term huge wet kiss to Citi's stock and bond holders (and Wall St. in general) in exchange for an expected long term loss for the American tax payer, then his head should be on a pike. If he is rolling the dice on a long term break even for the tax payer in exchange for the wet kiss, well, a second Obama administration might be the price paid for that bet.
And what is the mechanism for getting the beneficiaries of this largess to behave in a manner that benefits the economy as a whole? What will prevent them from sitting out the recession if the financial calculus deems it prudent?
It's official. You are
Submitted by tiffany jewelry (not verified) on Sat Aug. 15, 2009 12:30 AM PDT.
It's official. You are ITworld's newest member. Now share a tip, submit a link, build some buzz on a topic you're passionate about and that you feel is important to the IT community.
replicajewelry
Submitted by replicajewelry (not verified) on Wed Sep. 16, 2009 12:16 AM PDT.
Gucci replica necklace ,
Symbolizing permanent love or commitment, our replica Gucci pendants will always be your best choice. Here we have provided you replica
jewelry Gucci pendants & sets of various designs and cheap prices, while all are with best quality and trustful guarantee. Browse replica Gucci Pendants and
Gucci jewelry replica here; get the one in your heart.
As an article of replica jewellery which is worn around the wrist, replica bracelets can be manufactured from leather, cloth, hemp, plastic or metal, and sometimes contain rocks, wood, and/or shells. However, the Bvlgari bracelets made of 100% silver are really something, which will lift up your moods and enhance your charm. Herewith we have offered the best quality replica Bvlgari Bracelets for your appreciations, check www.Jewelry8.net. The place for world’s most attractive
Replica Bvlgari Earrings , where you are available to find the wonderful replica jewelry Bvlgari Earrings that belong to you or her. Choose Replica Bvlgari Earrings from www.Jewelry8.net, and you will find it a favorable chance that should never let go.
When a party, a diner, a wedding, an anniversary, or even a date comes, what are you supposed to do? Have you prepared your fine jewelry necklace well? Come to us for designer replica Bvlgari Necklaces , and then make your behaviors and appearance to fill with confidence. Wish you enjoy our replica Bvlgari necklaces here. '
Online Shopping for
replica bvlgari pendant
that are with Heart, Diamond Accented, Solitaire, Cross, Slide, animal, star, moon, Three-Stone, etc. in shape here, where all replica jewelries Bvlgari Pendants are created and shared looks based on all your favorite styles. Doubtlessly you will find here is the destination for replica Pendants hunters.
Take replica bvlgari rings for couples, for lovers, for relatives, or even friends from here,a worldwide leading company in the field of designer replica jewelries rings . We strike to enable the purchasing procedure easy and simple, we endeavor to offer you the best quality rings of terrific designs and in sterling silver available at acceptable price range, and we do what we can to be always at your service for any information or detail concerning our replica Bvlgari rings .
We offer an enviable collection of charms and the like links bracelets replica for you to choose from, at home or go out, for yourself or for the perfect gift replica jewelry , all are as you wish. All are with the best quality, all are of reasonable prices, and all are followed by favorable services. Check shimmering, elegant, stunning, classic or musical bracelets here and get your favorite replica links bracelet home.
Searching for links charms replica jewelries ? If so, come here. Replica links charm are also called amulets, touch pieces or painted pebbles, which has aroused an increasing number of people’s attention. Herewith, no ignorance should be thrown at them. Click links charm replica, replica links charms and replica links charm here and enjoy.
Here we are offering you
-
designer links earrings replica
like hoop earring, stiletto earring, stud earring, etc. - All replica links earrings are in 100% silver, distinctive in design and delicate in furnish, which will bring your dreams of wearing
perfect jewelries replica
Come to us
into reality.
replica handbag
Submitted by replica handbag (not verified) on Wed Sep. 16, 2009 12:17 AM PDT.
Replica Jimmy choo bags
Replica Loewe bags
Replica Louis Vuitton bags
Replica Marc Jacobs bags
Replica Miumiu bags
Replica Prada bags
Replica Valentino bags
Replica Versace bags
Replica Balenciaga bag
Replica Bottega Veneta bag
Replica Burberry bag
Replica Chanel bag
Replica Coach bag
Replica Dior bag
Replica Fendi bag
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
