Triple Threat: The three things that can go very, very wrong with the mother of all bailouts.
Print
Comment
Email
RSS
Twitter
Making Bail: Tracking the progress of the government's master plan.
Triple Threat
The three things that can go very, very wrong with the mother of all bailouts.
By Chadwick Matlin
Posted Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 4:31pm
The Big Money author Chadwick Matlin will chat with readers about this article and other bailout tidbits at Washingtonpost.com on Thursday. Pose questions in advance here.
About two hours into Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke’s congressional testimony Tuesday, the thought on many economists’ minds was finally made explicit. "I get the sense that while you have given this a lot of thought," Sen. Robert Menendez said, "by the same token, I get some sense that we're flying by the seat of our pants." Remember, Wall Street types are paid to be good on their feet.
Yes, this is where we stand as the country debates spending $700 billion on behalf of companies that regularly earn more than that. The executive branch still doesn’t know the specifics, Congress still hasn’t passed any legislation, and taxpayers still don’t know what to think about the bailout. Given all this, The Big Money thought it would be useful to discuss the three things that could go horribly wrong with the bailout.
1) Don’t procrastinate on deciding how to buy the assets.
Since Paulson first announced a mega-bailout on Friday of last week, there haven’t been any details about how the government was going to buy the banks’ toxic assets. Many of the assets are toxic precisely because there is no market for them. Because of that whole supply-and-demand thing, that means there isn’t an agreed-upon price, either. Paying too little would protect taxpayers’ money, but potentially endanger the very banks that ought to be saved by the bailout. Paying too much would probably save the banks, but it would lead to hundreds of billions in wasted funds.
During Tuesday’s testimony, Bernanke and Paulson floated the idea (and it really was just an idea) that they would hold a reverse auction to take on the clogged debt. This would involve banks competing to offer the lowest asset price to the government. It’s a handy solution that establishes a temporary, limited market. Sounds like a plan, right? Not so much. Elsewhere in his testimony, Bernanke also postured that the government might buy the assets somewhere near a hold-to-maturity price. That means they’ll overpay for the assets and potentially run out of the $700 billion quickly. The reverse auction format sounds like the best bet, although there’s reason to be concerned about banks trying to game the government if they know how much the Fed has to spend.
Comments
Want to reply to a comment? Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
what planet
are these free market capitalists from? They believed in the wisdom of the market all these years and NOW THAT THEIR NECKS ARE ON THE LINE THEY WANT A BAILOUT! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! Bring back the guillotine. If the government bails them out they should all agree to 5 years hard labor. AT GUANTANAMO!
They are trying to scare our senators with bs but they have no clue about the real middle america. The S&L scandal, Enron, Clinton whoring in the White House, Nixon stealing---when will we ever learn?
Our universities rank us only 15th in the world yet the tuitions are astronomical. How can we as a nation pretend we are civilized?
projecting cluelessness
Here is where your analysis goes wrong
1. Not sure. The congress certainly is not sure the Secretary and the Governor know that they can not tell the seller what they will pay before they open the market. What if they bought assets on the auction basis and then sold them at hold to maturity value. would you be happy? That's why they want broad authority and no mechanism written into the bill so that they can do what will benefit the tax payer not make money for hedge funds who are going to trade on it when it is announced in a hearing and weeks away from implementation. Get it?
2. If you want to comment on this and not look like an idiot, pay attention to what they say. Companies doing substantial business in the US are eligible. Don't understand that and you make a sad statement about your knowledge of finance. Don't allow those companies access and you shut yourself (the us taxpayer) out of help from foreign governments (needed).
3. Moot the Secretary already said clearly 'wants oversight.
Pointless article
Bailout
I am a hardworking taxpayer and why should I be responsible for the big man who didn't look where he was going with his business. I didn't see the government nor the banks that are being bailed out working with the little people in time of crisis when they couldn't make their mortgage payments on time. I agree with the first commentor give the $500 billion back to the taxpayers and let them decide how to stimulate the economy again.
Jack's BETTER idea...
I'm all with Jack, but it would have to be stipulated in the Economic Stimulus Payment" that it can ONLY be used to pay off outstanding or future mortgage payments! Good idea Jack, and a great way to save the whole system while helping the common man!
why?
I ask a simple question, why?, why is the goverment bailing out any business? my fathers business went under 9 people lost there job why didnt they help him?, when we bonce a check at the bank, were charged alot, yet the banks can blunder an i should help foot the bill?, i think if they cant survive in the market let them go under! they mad these loans! I dont beleive any goverment should a business that is not what the goverment is designed for it is designed for the people, the presidents an CEO's of all these banks have been raking in the big money for a long time, lets see them suffer?, like they have to move from there 22 room mantions to a more modest 6 room apartment! you ( the goverment give us a 300 dollar surplus check, was this to help payout of almost 2500 hundered for every one to help banks, the people that will suffer most are the people who cant even afford to use a bank because they live from check to check I think if we do this we need to take total control of any entity of which benifits to gain from this, let them live (the officers ) on the average salary that most survive on. any how why do we have bankruptcy if the goverment is going to bail out the big guys when they get in to trouble?
THE Bailout
This whole situation makes me crazy! If the people involved were doctors they would all have been brought up on malpractice charges, they would have had to pay hefty fines, and would probably have lost their licenses to practice medicine. This is a despicable commentary on our society. There is no accountability, no respect, and a total disregard for values. This whole situation makes me ashamed I am an American. Where are the values of our fore fathers? I have not seen anyone with the grace to at least appear to be shamed by their obvious greed. These people need to forfeit the millions of dollars they have made and pay this back themselves. They need to do this without burdening the American people any more than what we are forced to bear because of an incompetent administration. We suffer enough for situations decided on by the few. Let the American people decide where and what we want to spend our money. Enough of the pet projects, pork fat, and the like. This whole situation is disgusting.
A BETTER plan!
Take the same $700 billion [scratch that] - how to save the taxpayers $200 billion: Borrow $500 billion instead of the original $700, devide it equally among every 2007 Federal Income tax filer!
Benefits: Most mortgages would get paid off or caught up; the banks will still get their money; the economy would get the shot in the arm of the century; and we'll save $200 billion dollars!
Congress? Hello, Congress? You folks can read, yes? If not, remember many of us can vote!
Three things: caution, caution, and caution
The mother of all bailouts is going to receive micro-scopic scrutiny. There is simply not a lot of trust with Paulson and the current Bush regime.
Wall streeters will have to wait ahile before lining their pockets with the taxpayers bailout.
I am concerned with the current plan
First of all there should be oversight of some sort. Second, is it really going to cost us 700 billion? Do they need that much? How much of the loans are they are going to buy are garbage loans?
I was listening to Morning Marketplace today and they had a Q&A with Allen Sloan and he was concerned with the current plan(link here: http://tinyurl.com/4y8gqz ). He does not think there is any upside for us taxpayers with the current plan.