Quote:U.S. wading deeper into banking industry
White House plan to create ‘bad bank’ would increase federal influence

By John W. Schoen
Senior producer
msnbc.com
updated 1 hour, 10 minutes ago


John W. Schoen
Senior producer
• Profile
• E-mail
The Federal Reserve has cut rates to zero and flooded the financial system with money. Congress has spent $350 billion — and committed another $350 billion — to shore up the battered banking industry. Banks have already booked roughly half a trillion in losses, and analysts say they could be looking at a half a trillion more.

Now the Obama administration is going back to the drawing board to craft a new plan to save the banking system, get credit flowing again and try to pull the economy out of a deepening recession. The new plan could be announced as early as next week.

In his confirmation hearing last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said the White House is working on a new bank rescue plan. He was short on details, but the massive scope of the problem has prompted talk that the administration may be planning to "nationalize" a large portion of the banking industry.

In its most extreme form, nationalization would mean that the government buys (or takes) all the shares of stock and takes over operations of the company, keeping the profits. Such state ownership is typically a form of socialism; major oil producing countries, for example, have set up state-owned companies to produce and sell oil, using the proceeds to pay for government services.

Nationalization is not unheard of in the United States. When railroads stopped providing intercity passenger service in the late 1960s, the government set up Amtrak to take over those routes. Some countries have state-owned airlines to provide service not available from for-profit carriers.

But that type of broad action is unlikely, analysts say. In fact, the government already has partially nationalized dozens of banks across the country by investing billions of dollars in return for preferred shares, giving the taxpayers a tiny ownership stake in each institution.

The new plan is likely to take the government deeper into the industry's affairs.

Why is the government so involved?

At the heart of the problem is trillions of dollars worth of “toxic assets” owned by big banks that continue to lose value as the recession deepens. As the value of these assets has plummeted, banks have had to cover the losses with capital they might otherwise be lending to business and consumers. That pullback in lending is one of the major causes of the current recession. Until banks can clean up their books and get back on a solid financial footing, it will be hard to get credit flowing again.

What are these "toxic assets"?

In the past, most bank assets were typically direct loans to businesses or consumers. Though those loans defaulted more frequently when times got tough, bankers set aside reserves and wrote off the loans that went bad.

The wave of lending during the past decade was backed by a surge in "securitized" loans that were bundled together, placed into a trust account and then sold off. The buyers were supposed to get paid back — with interest — as the underlying loans were paid off. The bankers who created these trusts believed they had dramatically reduced the risk of default, so banks carried far less in reserve to back up these investments. In some cases, the trusts weren’t even carried on the bank's books.

So why are they now “toxic”?

It turned out the bankers were wrong: The assets backed by loans like mortgages turned out to be much riskier than everyone thought. Some of those mortgages went to borrowers who couldn’t afford them. The computer models used to assess the risk of defaults didn’t include a recession as deep as the one we’re in. And investments backed by a mix of loans turned out to be so complicated that the bond rating agencies that originally blessed them as safe no longer vouch for them. So no one wants to buy them.

If no one wants them, then they’re worthless, right?

Not necessarily — and that question is at the center of the problem. Since they’re not being bought or sold, there’s no market price for them. But many of these investments are backed by loans that are still paying interest and principal to investors. Though mortgage defaults and foreclosures are up sharply, roughly 90 percent of people with mortgages are paying on time.

These mortgage-backed assets come with complex rules about which investors get paid first and which get hit with losses. Because you can’t know how many more mortgages will default, and some mortgages last for 30 years or more, it is extremely hard to predict what many of these assets will be worth in the future.

Wasn’t the Troubled Asset Relief Program supposed to buy up these toxic assets to get them off the banks hands?

That’s what members of Congress thought when they approved the $700 billion package nearly four months ago. The problem came when the Treasury tried to figure out how much to pay for those assets. Since these assets aren’t being traded any more, there’s no market to set a fair price.

Instead, the Treasury gave most of the first $350 billion directly to banks in exchange for stock that pays a fixed dividend. The hope was that taxpayers eventually would get the money back and banks would start lending again. But lending has actually fallen — in part because banks are using the money to offset more losses and in part because the recession has hurt demand for loans.

If the government has swapped cash for stock, doesn’t that mean they’ve already nationalized those banks?

So far the government has been mostly a passive investor, although it certainly can exert influence.

Typically, the government only steps in and takes complete control when a bank is insolvent — meaning its losses have wiped out all of its capital (or may do so soon.) The goal of the current effort is to help banks raise more capital, not take control of them.

Why not just have the government keep buying more stock?

One reason is that it chases away private investors, which is where everyone would prefer banks to raise fresh cash. But if banks have to issue new shares in exchange for government funding, that makes the old shares worth less. That’s one reason bank stocks are trading at such low levels: Investors are worried that if the government buys up too much new stock, their current shares will be worth less.

What else can the government do?

On idea that seems to be gaining ground is a so-called “good bank, bad bank” scenario that would involve creating a government-run “bad bank” to take over toxic assets until the market for these investments improves, which could take years.

Under that plan, the government would take over the worst banks, strip out the bad assets and then sell the remaining “good” bank back to investors, putting it back on a sound financial footing. The major drawback is that existing bank shareholders would get wiped out.

Or the "bad bank" could simply take over the bad assets in exchange for "good" assets like Treasury securities that banks could apply to their capital base. The Federal Reserve has had some success using this model to revive the market for company-issued debt called commercial paper.

The "bad bank" plan has something of a precedent: In the late 1980s, when the savings and loan industry collapsed, the government set up the Resolution Trust Corp. which took over failed S&Ls and sold off their assets. The process cost about $150 billion in today’s dollars, which seems like a bargain solution compared to the current mess.

How much would that cost this time around?

It depends on how you choose to define “troubled assets,” but the $700 billion TARP program would represent only a down payment. A recent report from Goldman Sachs estimates that including assets backed by mortgages, credit card debt, car loans and commercial real estate, the total could run to $5 trillion.

No one in Congress is talking about spending that much money, but the plan could include government guarantees for investors who eventually buy up those assets.

After the very limited success of the TARP plan, the White House seems to be convinced that half measures aren’t good enough. Geithner underscored that point in his testimony last week.

"If our policy response is tentative and incrementalist," he said, "if we do not demonstrate by our actions a clear and consistent commitment to do what is necessary to solve the problem, then we risk greater damage to living standards, to the economy's productive potential and to the fabric of our financial system.”

The harder question may be figuring out which banks to “clean up” and which banks won’t make it no matter what the government does. That uncertainty has also beaten down bank stocks and forced banks to conserve their cash.

Until the full scope of the plan is worked out — and bankers convinced the government is serious about following through with it — that uncertainty will hang over the banking industry and the credit markets, delaying the prospects for an economic recovery.

Quote:You mean more than they already have?

. . .

So, how do you want to define socialist?

Quote:socialism Definition

so·cial·ism (sō′s̸həl iz′əm)

noun

1. any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products
2.
1. a political movement for establishing such a system
2. the doctrines, methods, etc. of the Socialist parties
3. the stage of society, in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated

Quote:I don't know anymore kandrathe, you tell me what type of country we're living in, because its sure looking less and less like a Democracy to me.

Quote: I don't know anymore kandrathe, you tell me what type of country we're living in, because its sure looking less and less like a Democracy to me.

Quote:You're wondering if your country is turning socialist, and you're asking Kandrathe to tell you? How surprising is that answer likely to be?

Quote:Now you have me scratching my head...

You do know that democracy and socialism can actually go together? Democracy is a system of decision making and socialism is a system of distribution of the goods and services.

I am extremely curious now as to just what the journey was that seems to make most Americans think that capitalism and democracy must go hand in hand.

Quote: A government whom I heard wants to reenact the Fairness Doctrine to censor our media, what we see hear and read.

Quote:Bike trails are needless spending?

What next? Fruit fly research?

Quote:Now you have me scratching my head...

You do know that democracy and socialism can actually go together? Democracy is a system of decision making and socialism is a system of distribution of the goods and services.

I am extremely curious now as to just what the journey was that seems to make most Americans think that capitalism and democracy must go hand in hand.

Oh, and if you really only wanted to consult kandrathe, there is always that handy little private message function here. ;)

Quote:Hey Jester, how good a President do you think Obama will be?

Quote:I'm not trying to sound like an alarmist (Jester), just speaking my mind over the scenario my wife and I mentioned to one another months ago, one that I see slowly entering the realm of plausibility when before it was just, "hummm."

Quote:Haven't we had this discussion before??

I keep looking at the year on the date stamps, and, yes, 2009.

I seem to recall the example of bike trails as an example of beneficial govt spending that k doesn't like. Too lazy to find it, tho.

Quote:Check out the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act.

Quote:Hoo boy. If even Forbes magazine is opposing government regulation, look out! Engels is lurking just around the next corner!

Quote:This is what is wrong with the US government. Because of a few incidents with products manufactured in China, US manufacturers (and even little old grandma's making macramé scarves) become saddled with a very stringent product testing regime or face jail time. The products, and their manufacturers that inspired the legislation are not even subject to the law. Because of the open ended language, anyone who makes or sells things (including me) that might be used by children will need to go through stringent 3rd party product testing (ala Underwriters Laboratories). This will destroy many cottage industries in the US, and will result in many 2nd hand stores dumping all their children's goods into landfills. It seems that Congress can't trust people's common sense, or the tort system anymore. They must impose felony convictions, lengthy jail time and a $100K fine on anyone who ignores the CPSIA. What's that smell? It's certainly not the sweet smell of freedom.

Quote:Give me a ring when the jackboots show up on your doorstep for your arts and crafts. I think this guy is hypothesizing pretty big for something that's going to end up being pretty small.

-Jester

Quote:To the Avid Reader:
Due to the new law, all children's books will be pulled from library and school shelves, as there is no exemption for them. That’s okay though, there's always television. Our children don’t need to learn the love of reading after all.
Article from the American Library Association http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/?p=1322

To the Lover of All Things Handmade:
"Due to the new law, you will now be given a cotton ball and an instruction manual so you can make it yourself since that blanket you originally had your eye on for $50 will now cost you around $1,000 after it's passed testing. It won't even be the one-of-a-kind blanket you were hoping for. Items are destroyed in the testing process making one-of-a-kind items virtually impossible. So that gorgeous hand-knit hat you bought your child this past winter won’t be available next winter.

To the Environmentalist:
Due to the new law, all items in non-compliance will now be dumped into our already overflowing landfills. Imagine not just products from the small business owners, but the Big Box Stores as well. You can't sell it so you must toss it. Or be potentially sued for selling it. You can't even give them away. If you are caught, it is still a violation.

To the Second-Hand Shopper:
Due to the new law, you will now need to spend $20 for that brand new pair of jeans for your 2-year old, rather than shop at the Goodwill for second hand. Many resale shops are eliminating children's items all together to avoid future lawsuits.

To the Entrepreneur:
Due to this new law, you will be forced to adhere to strict testing of your unique products or discontinue to make and/or sell them. Small businesses will be likely to be unable to afford the cost of testing and be forced to close up shop. Due to the current economic state, you'll have to hope for the best when it comes to finding a new job in Corporate America.

To the Antique Toy Collector:
Due to the new law, you'd better start buying now because it's all going to private collection and will no longer be available to purchase. “Because the new rules apply retroactively, toys and clothes already on the shelf will have to be thrown out if they aren't certified as safe.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123189645948879745.html

To the American Economy:
Already struggling under an economy that hasn’t been this weak in decades, the American economy will be hit harder with the inevitable loss of jobs and revenues from suppliers, small businesses and consumers. The required testing is far too costly and restrictive for small businesses or individuals to undertake.

To the Worldwide Economy:
Due to this new law, many foreign manufacturers have already pulled out of the US market. You can imagine the impact of this on their businesses.