Jesse's Café Américain

Federal Reserve Bank
Release Date: September 26, 2008

Central banks have been employing coordinated measures designed to address the pressures in global money markets. Most recently, central banks have acted together to inject dollars into the overnight markets. Using their reciprocal currency arrangements (swap lines) with the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the Swiss National Bank today are announcing the introduction of operations to provide U.S. dollar liquidity with a one-week maturity. These operations are designed to address funding pressures over quarter end. Central banks continue to work together closely and are prepared to take further steps as needed to address the ongoing pressures in funding markets.

Federal Reserve Actions

To assist in the expansion of these operations, the Federal Open Market Committee has authorized a $10 billion increase in its temporary swap facility with the ECB and a $3 billion increase in its facility with the Swiss National Bank. These expanded facilities will now support the provision of U.S. dollar liquidity in amounts of up to $120 billion by the ECB and up to $30 billion by the Swiss National Bank.

In sum, these changes represent a $13 billion addition to the $277 billion previously authorized temporary reciprocal currency arrangements with other central banks. In addition to the swap lines with ECB and the Swiss National Bank, temporary swap lines previously have been authorized with: the Bank of Japan ($60 billion), the Bank of England ($40 billion), the Reserve Bank of Australia ($10 billion), the Bank of Canada ($10 billion), the Bank of Sweden ($10 billion), the National Bank of Denmark ($5 billion), and the Bank of Norway ($5 billion).

These arrangements have been authorized through January 30, 2009.

Something needs to be done because of the errors, deceptions, regulatory lapses, and mismanagement of the Bush and Clinton administrations which allowed the unbridled greed of Wall Street to bring the global economy to the brink of ruin.

The priority of this plan is to preserve the status quo. This will not work. This plan will fail and more money will be urged.

Building from the bottom up, protecting the savings of depositors is paramount while liquidating the prime actors in this colossal financial fraud. Balance must be returned to the economy. A simple bailout will not accomplish this.

Restoring the confidence of the public after 16 years of pathological deceit will not be easy.

The Democratic leadership has shown itself to be vacuous, unimaginative and mechanical; the Republicans are pigmen through and through.

Any approach that maintains Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as major players in the banking industry is a disgrace.

RGE Monitor
Is Purchasing $700 billion of Toxic Assets the Best Way to Recapitalize the Financial System?
No! It is Rather a Disgrace and Rip-Off Benefitting only the Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of Banks
Nouriel Roubini
September 28, 2008

Whenever there is a systemic banking crisis there is a need to recapitalize the banking/financial system to avoid an excessive and destructive credit contraction. But purchasing toxic/illiquid assets of the financial system is not the most effective and efficient way to recapitalize the banking system. Such recapitalization – via the use of public resources – can occur in a number of alternative ways: purchase of bad assets/loans; government injection of preferred shares; government injection of common shares; government purchase of subordinated debt; government issuance of government bonds to be placed on the banks’ balance sheet; government injection of cash; government credit lines extended to the banks; government assumption of government liabilities.

A recent IMF study of 42 systemic banking crises across the world provides evidence on how different crises were resolved. First of all only in 32 of the 42 cases there was government financial intervention of any sort; in 10 cases systemic banking crises were resolved without any government financial intervention. Of the 32 cases where the government recapitalized the banking system only seven included a program of purchase of bad assets/loans (like the one proposed by the US Treasury). In 25 other cases there was no government purchase of such toxic assets. In 6 cases the government purchased preferred shares; in 4 cases the government purchased common shares; in 11 cases the government purchased subordinated debt; in 12 cases the government injected cash in the banks; in 2 cases credit was extended to the banks; and in 3 cases the government assumed bank liabilities. Even in cases where bad assets were purchased – as in Chile – dividends were suspended and all profits and recoveries had to be used to repurchase the bad assets. Of course in most cases multiple forms of government recapitalization of banks were used.

But government purchase of bad assets was the exception rather than the rule. It was used only in Mexico, Japan, Bolivia, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Malaysia, and Paraguay. Even in six of these seven cases where the recapitalization of banks occurred via the government purchase of bad assets such recapitalization was a combination of purchase of bad assets together with other forms of recapitalization (such as government purchase of preferred shares or subordinated debt).

In the Scandinavian banking crises (Sweden, Norway, Finland) that are a model of how a banking crisis should be resolved there was not government purchase of bad assets; most of the recapitalization occurred through various injections of public capital in the banking system. Purchase of toxic assets instead – in most cases in which it was used – made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico).

Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification. This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit – at a huge expense for the US taxpayer - the common and preferred shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get in exchange of this massive injection of public money is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size of such warrants is totally vague and fuzzy.

So this rescue plan is a huge and massive bailout of the shareholders and the unsecured creditors of the financial firms (not just banks but also other non bank financial institutions); with $700 billion of taxpayer money the pockets of reckless bankers and investors have been made fatter under the fake argument that bailing out Wall Street was necessary to rescue Main Street from a severe recession. Instead, the restoration of the financial health of distressed financial firms could have been achieved with a cheaper and better use of public money.

Indeed, the plan also does not address the need to recapitalize those financial institutions that are badly undercapitalized: this could have been achieved by using some of the $700 billion to inject public funds in ways other and more effective than a purchase of toxic assets: via public injections of preferred shares into these firms; via required matching injections of Tier 1 capital by current shareholders to make sure that such shareholders take first tier loss in the presence of public recapitalization; via suspension of dividends payments; via a conversion of some of the unsecured debt into equity (a debt for equity swap). All these actions would have implied a much lower fiscal costs for the government as they would have forced the shareholders and creditors of the banks to contribute to the recapitalization of the banks. So less than $700 billion of public money could have been spent if the private shareholders and creditors had been forced to contribute to the recapitalization; and whatever the size of the public contribution were to be its distribution between purchases of bad assets and more efficient and fair forms of recapitalization (preferred shares, common shares, sub debt) should have been different. For example if the private sector had done its fair matching share only $350 billion of public money could have been used; and of this $350 billion half could have taken the form of purchase of bad assets and the other half should have taken the form of injection of public capital in these financial institutions. So instead of purchasing – most likely at an excessive price - $700 billion of toxic assets the government could have achieved the same result – or a better result of recapitalizing the banks – by spending only $175 billion in the direct purchase of toxic assets. And even after the government will waste $700 billion buying toxic assets many banks that have not yet provisioned for such losses/writedowns will be even more undercapitalized than before. So this plan does not even achieve the basic objective of recapitalizing undercapitalized banks.

The Treasury plan also does not explicitly include an HOLC-style program to reduce across the board the debt burden of the distressed household sector; without such a component the debt overhang of the household sector will continue to depress consumption spending and will exacerbate the current economic recession.

Thus, the Treasury plan is a disgrace: a bailout of reckless bankers, lenders and investors that provides little direct debt relief to borrowers and financially stressed households and that will come at a very high cost to the US taxpayer. And the plan does nothing to resolve the severe stress in money markets and interbank markets that are now close to a systemic meltdown. It is pathetic that Congress did not consult any of the many professional economists that have presented - many on the RGE Monitor Finance blog forum - alternative plans that were more fair and efficient and less costly ways to resolve this crisis. This is again a case of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses; a bailout and socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street. And it is a scandal that even Congressional Democrats have fallen for this Treasury scam that does little to resolve the debt burden of millions of distressed home owners.