Did we say really? Even by the normal standards of Roubini’s tendency to hyperventilate state his case forcefully, the good professor rises to levels of choler heretofore unseen.
Roubini focuses on many of the issues we have discussed in our earlier posts (most notably this one) but he teases out some of the issues in more detail. And he really hates it, whoops, I think we covered that already.
His big bones of contention are, like ours:
1. The plan is inefficient (ie, it doesn’t discriminate between who ought to be saved or not, and in fact rewards those who created dud assets)2. It runs counter to the best models of how to deal with this sort of problem
3. It does not punish current shareholders or management
But he uses words we haven’t dared to, like “rip-off”, “pathetic” and “disgrace”. Go Roubini!
From RGE Monitor:
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…..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…
….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…..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….
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.
Anonymous 
Posts
Yves,
Who said the purpose is to re-capitalise the banking system?
The real purpose is to conceal systemic politically sponsored theft from abroad.
That is why the “plan” centres on the instruments rather than on the holders of the instruments.
That is why the “hold to maturity” value is computed by using the RISK FREE DISCOUNT RATE.
This methodology specifically validates the “magic dust” concept underlying CDOs. You are discounting BBB- securities at the Treasury rate!
That’s even better than transmuting BBB- into AAA, is it not???
This plan will conceal how much money has been sucked out of the United States by London, utilising fraudulent charitable trusts created under the English common law.
Did you not notice that Lehman, Merril and AIG were sunk by losses at their London subsidiaries? That’s not by chance, you know.
Mission accomplished!
John C