European Tribune

Display:
One caveat before I comment, some would say I know no more than you do!

That said, the history of the Savings and Loans issue and the saga of LTCM indicate that some kind of bailout is rather likely.

(And not necassarily a bad thing that we have enough folk memory of the depression to feel that the banking system can't be left to collapse.)

But, of course, the two worries are:

  1. Are the hedge funds leveraged to such a degree (and the banks so invested in/connected to their transactions) that the governments don't have enough money/power to bail out? That is to say they will only be able to bail parts of the system out and there will still be lots of economic chaos.

  2. Who will actually need bailing out and what will the politics of it all be? The system is so opaque, no-one seems to even have enough info to make a guess.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 07:46:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Buyouts, not bailouts.

That way we would actually get banking for the public interest.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 07:51:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree, but I keep forgetting to stick to the approved party language.

Sorry for the slip, Comrade Migeru.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 07:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Haha!

This hasn't got the Jerome seal of approval AFAIK.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 07:55:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 09:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 09:05:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This actually happened in Norway with a pretty bad bank crisis we had between 1988 and 1991. The government ended up with sole or majority ownership of many banks in Norway, including the three biggest ones. There was a brief debate on whether the government were to keep its shares, as they were making good money on it after the crisis was over, but they decided to "diversify ownership" and I think most of the shares are now back in private hands.
by Trond Ove on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 08:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, in the aggregate, did the government make money or lose money in the operation?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 08:19:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since I can't easily find any numbers on this, I would guess they lost money on the transactions themselves. But they would have gotten much more back this way than if they had just handed out cash, of course.

It is interesting to read about it now thought. I was young when this was going on, so didn't really understand what was going on. From what I gather thought, 23 of the Norwegian banking sector was verging on bankrupcy because of a set of factors eerily similar to some advanced economies I know: First of all, the private banks increased their loan portfolio threefold in half a decade, after the government liberalised the banking regulations. Then, the economy started slowing in the late eighties, especially in IT and oil, two areas of big importance for Norway. Soon after, the norwegian housing boom, fed on by the increased aviability of cheap loans, collapsed. (About 20 percent of the bad loans were to private customers) The housing prices would take almost a decade to recover. (And that in a steadily growing economy)

Sources: (unfortunately in Norwegian)
http://www.nrk.no/underholdning/store_norske/4704274.html
http://www.ssb.no/00/aar2000/art-1999-11-10-01.html

by Trond Ove on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 09:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This does sound like a depressingly familiar set of conditions.

By how much did house prices crash in Norway?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 11:02:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is few online resources on this stuff from before the golden age of the Internet. I could have checked in the University library if I were in Norway at the moment thought. But unfortunately i am not. So sorry, no numbers. (Which of course means that what I have written about the extent of the fall in home prices are taken from my ass. But I still think it is approximately correct.)
by Trond Ove on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 02:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the shares of the banks that were rescued somehow ended up back in the hands of the entities that owned them before the Norwegian goverment saved their butt.

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
by ATinNM on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 10:48:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The stockholders actually lost all of their money. There was alot of grumbling about that at the time, as far as i can remember. The big business banks were really technically bankrupt. The government took them over and then sold their shares for a profit.

So the same interests might have bought them back, but they would have to pay real money for them. When I read about it, i discovered that the norwegian parliament actually passed a bank savings bill which mandated that the Norwegian government kept a "strategic interest" in the biggest business banks. First at 51 percent, then from 97 and on to 2000 at 33,33 percent. The Norwegian government still owns a sizeable part of the shares in the biggest bank consortium in Norway, DnB-NOR (34 percent).

Another one of them was sold off to foreign (Finnish or Swedish) interests however, in contradiction with the set goals of the banking reform law. This after the norwegian Labour got back into power and started playing Blairite disciples.

by Trond Ove on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 02:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series