Liquidations were completed by 1997 at a smaller cost to the taxpayers than was anticipated. Securum returned to the state nearly SEK14 billion ($1.8 billion in 1997 dollars) of its SEK24 billion ($4.5 billion in 1997 dollars) initial capital--admittedly, in depreciated kronas.
O. Emre Ergungor, "On the resolution of financial crises: the Swedish experience," Policy Discussion Papers, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, issue Jun. 2007, page 6-7
So Securum lost nearly two thirds of its assets when adjusted for inflation. Over half if we ignore inflation.
And I have no idea where you got that GDP cost estimate from.
Swedish investors cool to risks of stock ownership - The Local
Small-time investors in Sweden transacted 36,300 stock trades a day in August, an increase of 1 percent from July, but a 16 percent drop compared to August of last year. Normally private stock trading increases by about 10 percent after the summer months. "Savers didn't return to the stock exchange in August like they used to, but instead stayed away... The number of Swedes who own stocks has steadily decreased in recent years and is at its lowest level in eight years, according to Avanza. "We're getting close to having two million savers who own stocks. That can sound like a lot but there are many who only own a share in Ericsson or TeliaSonera. It's an altogether older group who sell to use the money for their retirement," said Hemberg. "It's probably the case that most Swedes aren't made to own stocks. When there is this much uncertainty, people discover how hard it actually is. Mutual funds are simpler and not as sensitive. Bank accounts have also been winners in the last year."
"Savers didn't return to the stock exchange in August like they used to, but instead stayed away...
The number of Swedes who own stocks has steadily decreased in recent years and is at its lowest level in eight years, according to Avanza.
"We're getting close to having two million savers who own stocks. That can sound like a lot but there are many who only own a share in Ericsson or TeliaSonera. It's an altogether older group who sell to use the money for their retirement," said Hemberg.
"It's probably the case that most Swedes aren't made to own stocks. When there is this much uncertainty, people discover how hard it actually is. Mutual funds are simpler and not as sensitive. Bank accounts have also been winners in the last year."
(Though two million, that would still be c. 30% of all adults.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Some people say that the end cost to taxpayers was about 2 % of GDP, but the majority view is that it ended up recouping almost all the costs, or even made a profit. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
But since you provide no sources, it is a bit difficult to respond properly.
"If I go into a bank," said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden's deputy minister of finance at the time, "I'd rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer." Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today's dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States. But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.
Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today's dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States.
But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.
I've heard the same from a number of other Swedish media sources. Though considering the quality of Swedish journalism, that's probably reduces the likelihood that I'm right. </snark> Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
It is a bit sad how there seems to be such a chasm between academia and "serious" journalism in cases like this. Especially when relevant academic papers are actually easy reads and makes more sense than the scribblings of financial journalists in over their head.
I don't believe for a second that the final cost was "closer to zero", but I have no problem believing that thats what the journalist was told by an overenthusiastic bureaucrat somewhere.
Well, that is beside the point however.
The Scandinavian approaches were pretty similar. The main difference, ie separating bad debts into a separate company, is interesting thought, for several reasons.
First of all, the Norwegian banking crisis was slightly earlier than the Swedish, so the Swedish bailout was undoubtedly influenced by the how it was done in Norway. Why did they choose the different approach?
My only idea so far is the simple one - politics. Norway was run by social-democrats during the crisis, Sweden by what passes for conservatives there. To each his own.
