Display:
is who pays for all the losses from the toxic assets. It's one thing to identify how much the losses are (ie finding willing outside investors to buy them), and another to allocate the losses - remeber that these are potnetial losses, not realsied ones, and they may end up being higher or lower:

  • one part of the allocation is the price at which assets are sold: if high enough, it means the buyers are taking some of the risk; if low, it means it is fully borne by the sellers

  • then the main allocation is the loss between the banks and the State entity which backs the scheme up, and inside the banks, between shareholders (already largely wiped out), preferred lenders (including the government, form previous capital injections), bondholders/senior creditors;

  • note that there can be a separate allocation of any potential upside as well, which will have significant depending on the price agreed to above.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 08:20:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You only need to realise the losses by selling the assets if you want to open up room in the balance sheets for more lending (sell off the bad loans so you can give out more loans).

So stabilizing the banks won't solve the credit squeeze. It will just stabilize the financial system. Which is no mean feat, but still only a partial solution to part of the problem.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 10:08:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Stabilisation is needed in the interbank market for normal lending to re-start. Right now, banks do not trust one another, and thus do not fund one another.

Cleaning up banks will unclog several basic functions of the banking world which are very necessary and are still seriously constrained right now.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 10:27:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But is this really the best of all possible ways to clean up the banks?

Or at least, to clean up the banking functions which they're supposed to perform - which may not be the same thing.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 06:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. But if nationalisation is Geithner's aim (as you too seem to be claiming), then where is the need for this "State entity" (aka PPIF)?

It is going to take a lot of time for this entity to get set up and find willing private partners and, together with them (or thanks to their superior market know-how), analyse the often very complex vehicles involved.

Meanwhile, an audit is going to estimate the banks' exposure to bad stuff. (How that is to be done convincingly without evaluating assets I don't see). There will then be an injection of a capital "buffer", and/or nationalisation (according to the Trojan Horse theory). This may well occur well before the PPIF has got far in its price-setting and allocation tasks. What use will it then be, what will be its role?

I think that if major American banks are nationalised, that will be because it becomes inevitable, not because this unclear, confused communication from Geithner masks a cunning plan to reach that goal without Wall Street seeing it coming.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 10:13:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
it is not necessarily by Geithner. A theory I was told is apparently making the rounds in Brussels is that he is being set up as a goat, ie his plan will fail, and will make it politically possible to go for a more radical plan. Some people in Brussels seem to think he won't be around in a few months' time.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 10:29:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't be at all surprised that he should disappear within a few months.

But I'm not impressed by the very-cunning behind-the-scenes plan explanation. Once Obama's main project for dealing with an urgent financial crisis has failed, I don't quite see what extra leeway to introduce more radical policy he'll have gained.

We shall see.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 11:29:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a nice theory - but why set up someone to fail? There would have to be a political advantage of the 'We tried it your way - now let's try my way' kind.

What evidence is there that Obama works like that, or has ever worked like that?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 06:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having Watched the Iraq war, I'm sure that would result in, "you havent tried it our way for long enough" as a response till the next presidential  election where he would loose as the recovery would be perpetually round the next corner.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 08:44:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Concerning the losses on the assets.

Let the Chinese exchange (essentially) worthless pieces of paper (US IOUs) for the properties.  The US declares that we put one over on them (Those stupid Chinese!) and the Chinese have a peaceful invasion of the US.

EVERYBODY WINS!!! (Throw confetti here)

In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Wed Feb 11th, 2009 at 10:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series