Tag: bailout

The Overpayment Begins

Way back in the heady days of September, we criticized the original version of TARP because it seemed designed to ensure the government would overpay for toxic assets. Instead, we recommended splitting the transaction into two parts: (a) buy the assets at market (cheap) prices, and (b) explicitly recapitalize the banks. In mid-October, Treasury committed $250 billion to explicit recapitalization, but to all intents and purposes seems committed to using some of the other $450 billion to buy those same toxic assets – at what price is still unclear. (Why they would still bother doing this is also unclear, for that matter.)

Until now.

Today’s government re-re-bailout of AIG (WSJ article; Yves Smith commentary) can be hard to follow, but one provision is the creation of a new entity with $5 billion from AIG and $30 billion from the government to buy collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). The goal is to buy CDOs that AIG insured (using credit default swaps), because if those CDOs are held by an entity that is friendly to AIG, that entity will no longer demand collateral from AIG. The theory is that in the long run these CDOs will not default and that the new entity will make money on the deal.

The rub is that this entity is planning to pay 50 cents on the dollar for these CDOs. This has two problems. First, 50 cents is almost certainly more than these CDOs are worth on their own (hence the title of this post). If they were really worth 50 cents on the dollar, AIG wouldn’t be having the problems it is having posting collateral; like the original TARP plan, this is an unfounded bet that the market is mispricing these assets. Second, and more bafflingly, the CDS contract is presumably separate from the ownership of the CDO; that is, buying the CDO from the counterparty doesn’t eliminate AIG’s obligation to pay if the CDO defaults, and hence doesn’t serve its stated purpose. If, on the contrary, the CDS contract is contingent on the counterparty holding the CDO, then the CDO is worth a lot more than 50 cents to the counterparty, because it is insured for 100 cents by AIG – and we all know the government isn’t going to let AIG default on those swaps. And no sane counterparty would sell for 50 cents.

Supposedly Treasury had enough time to think about how AIG should be bailed out and this is a better bailout than the original. If it is, I must be missing something.

The Paulson Legacy

With the footsteps of a new Treasury Secretary audible around the corner, Henry Paulson’s days running the country are essentially at an end. The best he can do now is delay whatever changes the Obama administration will make.

Looking back over the last two months, Paulson’s record (and that of the rest of the Bush administration) in combating the greatest financial crisis of our lifetimes is poor, though not catastrophic. The one thing that can be said in his favor is that the financial system did not completely collapse and Ben Bernanke’s supposed warning in the dark hours of September 18 that “we may not have an economy on Monday” did not come to pass. We have said on this site that stabilizing the financial system was job one, and the patient is stable.

Continue reading “The Paulson Legacy” →

Should the Government Bail Out the Auto Industry?

Over in the real economy, perhaps the biggest story is the impending and highly likely merger of GM and Chrysler, in which GM would swap its 49% stake in GMAC, its consumer finance company, to Cerberus (which owns the other 51%), in exchange for Chrysler, which is currently owned by Cerberus. It seems that the deal may hinge on financial assistance from the government, at least according to six governors attempting to pressure the dynamic duo of Paulson and Bernanke to help out. Until Thursday, GM was seeking $10 billion from the Treasury Department’s $700 billion bailout fund – yes, the same one that has been used to recapitalize banks – but Paulson’s preference is that GM tap a $25 billion low-interest loan program set up by the Energy Department in September.

It’s easy to argue for bailing out the auto industry, with its hundreds of thousands of factory workers, as opposed to the financial sector and its Wall Street bonus babies. (It’s less easy to argue for bailing out Cerberus, which is a private equity firm.) But I want to point out one difference.

Continue reading “Should the Government Bail Out the Auto Industry?” →

Insurance Companies Line Up for Treasury Bailout

One of the big stories on Friday and Saturday was the expansion of the Treasury recapitalization program to insurance companies. The Washington Post is acting as if it’s a done deal, while the Times and the Journal said only that it was being considered.

Insurance is one of the industries I know pretty well, as my company made software exclusively for property and casualty insurers, and I must admit I didn’t expect the crisis to show up in insurance so quickly.

Continue reading “Insurance Companies Line Up for Treasury Bailout” →

Can We Afford the Bailout?

Even the most casual observer will have realized that the U.S. government is laying out a lot of money to combat the financial crisis. Which raises the obvious question: can we afford it?

The first important thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. government, unlike every other government in the world, has the ability to borrow virtually unlimited amounts of money. The U.S. dollar is still the world’s reserve currency, and Treasury bonds are still the risk-free asset of the global economy. In times of crisis, when smaller countries find it harder to raise money, the U.S. actually finds it easier, because investors are ditching whatever risky assets they are holding and buying U.S. Treasury bills and bonds instead. Currently, the U.S. is paying virtually no interest on short-term borrowing (and probably negative interest in real terms).

Continue reading “Can We Afford the Bailout?” →

The Bailout: Yes, But Will It Work?

Every week, it seems, we see a new high-water mark for government intervention in the financial sector, culminating (?) in today’s announcement that the government is buying $125 billion of preferred stock in nine banks, with another $125 billion available for others. The recapitalization, loan guarantees, and expanded deposit insurance are the most aggressive steps taken yet in the U.S. and were all on on our list of recommendations.

I think it is highly likely that today’s actions will boost confidence in the banking sector. First, the banks involved have fresh capital; second, they can raise new debt more easily thanks to the loan guarantees; and third, because the U.S. government is now a major shareholder, it is even less likely that the government will let one of them fail. I could be wrong, but I think worries about bank defaults, at least for participating banks, will start to recede.

The next question, however, is what the impact will be on lending to the real economy, and here the outlook is less certain. In a press conference today, Paulson said, “The needs of our economy require that our financial institutions not take this new capital to hoard it, but to deploy it.” However, it’s not clear that he has the tools to compel the banks to increase lending. The terms of the investment are relatively favorable to the banks – 5% dividend, no conversion to common, no voting rights (unless the dividends are not paid for several consecutive quarters). So the self-interested thing for banks to do may be to take the cash and pay down higher-yielding debt on their books. Hopefully as the financial system returns to normal banks will go back to doing what they usually do, which is lend money.

All that said, I think we’re still in better shape than two days ago.

Some people have asked me how you can tell if the bailout, or anything else the government is trying, is working, since the stock market is largely noise. I’m no expert here, so I’ll point you to a couple of other measures of the credit market that people have recommended. One is the TED spread (3-month LIBOR minus 3-month T-bills; explanation here), a measure of banks’ willingness to lend to each other as opposed to buying Treasury bills, which came down today (which is good). The blog Calculated Risk also recommends a few metrics you can look at.

Bailout Passes; Hard Work Begins

Our position has been that the Paulson Plan is imperfect but is still a valuable first step toward restoring confidence in the financial markets, and so we are glad that it passed today. One remarkable development over the last two weeks has been a shift among both economists and the public from thinking the plan was an application of massive force to thinking that the plan is a relatively small part of the long-term solution. As discussed in our most recent baseline scenario, the next steps are to work on financial sector recapitalization, housing market stabilization, and fiscal stimulus (and, of course, regulation).

At the same time, though, implementing the Paulson Plan will be a major task, and one that will require oversight both from Congress and from government-watchers. Not surprisingly, Treasury is already moving to use fund management firms as outside contractors in buying securities. There are some valid practical reasons for this, but it creates the potential for conflicts of interest that we warned about in an earlier op-ed on governance; fortunately, the final bill includes much more emphasis on transparency of contracting than did the original proposal. Pricing the assets will be perhaps the trickiest problem, whether it be through reverse auctions (which can be difficult to implement) or through direct negotiations with banks. Price will determine how many warrants the government gets in participating companies, which are another improvement in the final bill. Finally, although the plan specifies multiple forms of oversight, figuring out how to make that oversight effective in a fast-moving environment will be difficult.

So while passing Plan A was a good thing for the financial sector and for the real economy, making it work will require a good deal more effort both inside and outside the Beltway. And the sooner work starts on Plan B, the better.

The Paulson Bailout Bill and the Need for Leadership

In case it wasn’t clear from earlier posts, our position on today’s bailout bill can be summarized as follows: the bailout is neither a complete nor a perfect solution, but it is better than the original proposal of ten days ago, and it is a valuable first step toward restoring confidence in the markets. This morning when the Dow fell 200 points shortly after opening, there were news stories speculating that the markets were not happy with the bailout plan; well, we saw this afternoon what the markets really thought about the bailout.

So if the professional investors who manage most of our money wanted the bailout, what happened? The free-market libertarians were opposed to the bill on supposedly fundamental grounds, but they were not enough to vote it down. The bill failed because enough representatives did not want to go home to their reelection campaigns having voted for a widely unpopular bailout bill. And why is it unpopular? Because no one took the time to educate the public on what the crisis means, how the bailout would operate, what the potential costs of inaction would be, what is happening to the money, and so on. These are complicated issues, but in the absence of explanation the public (based on the “man on the street” interviews” I heard on the radio today) focused on a few simplistic ideas: that this is a bailout for rich Wall Street bankers; that the $700 billion (at least) is a complete loss for the taxpayer; that the current administration cannot be trusted; and so on.

Perhaps there was not time in the last ten days for this type of education. But this only points out the importance of planning ahead. By repeating that the economy was “fundamentally sound” until suddenly discovering that it wasn’t, Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke lost the opportunity to prepare the ground for major government intervention in the economy. This bill will almost certainly be renegotiated and brought to another vote. But the underlying lesson is that intervention on the scale we are talking about requires political legitimacy, and that legitimacy requires the willingness to explain to the public just what is going on and why it matters to them.

The Paulson Bailout Plan, Version 4.0

There was the initial, 3-page proposal; the 6-page version of last Sunday; the grand compromise of Thursday, which lasted only a few hours; and now, as of this morning, a tentative agreement on a proposal that should be brought to a vote tomorrow. House Speaker Pelosi’s office issued a summary entitled “Reinvest, Reimburse, Reform: Improving the Financial Rescue Legislation,” which reads more like a set of talking points than a legislative proposal. But some of the major differences from the original proposal that have been reported on include:

  1. Division of the $700 billion into effectively two tranches, with Congressional review of the second
  2. Warrants on stock in firms participating in the bailout
  3. Tax provisions intended to limit compensation for senior executives of participating firms
  4. The ability for Treasury to use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities to modify those mortgages on behalf of homeowners
  5. An unspecified commitment that, if the taxpayers lose money on the deal, the losses will be made up from the financial services industry
  6. Strengthened oversight, including an Inspector General, transparency of financial transactions, and some form of judicial review
  7. An option for Treasury to offer mortgage insurance to financial institutions

#5 and #7 seem to be the main provisions added since Thursday.

It goes without saying that it is the details that matter. At a high level, the current proposal improves over the original in two main areas: oversight (#6), which was absent in the original, and taxpayer protection (#2 and #5), which was brushed off with the optimistic assumption that the government would buy assets at their long-term fair market value (whatever that is). #3 and #7 are sideshows; #1 probably is as well, although there is a small risk that this will reinforce the sentiment that the bailout is not big and decisive enough.

But that still leaves two huge open issues. First, as Simon and I discussed in an op-ed on Wednesday, there is the issue of the price: too low and no bank will want to sell; too high and the taxpayers will not get the warrants they deserve. Second, although the proposal will exhort Treasury to modify mortgages, it’s not clear how, or whether Treasury has to do anything at all. We’ll see what the final legislation looks like, but this could be a grand gesture intended for the electorate. If so, even after the current crisis of confidence is averted, the problem of repairing the direct damage of mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures will remain.

So, our provisional grades (pending the full bill):

  • Restoring confidence in financial sector: B
  • Recapitalizing financial sector: C
  • Addressing underlying mortgage problems:D
  • Preserving value for taxpayers: too vague to tell