Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Exactly the same?

IIRC, the swedish bailout consisted mainly of two things: an unlimited guarantee for bankcustomers to prevent a run on the banks (later scaled back) and the government taking over Nordbanken and Gotabanken (later merged to Nordea and sold of). The banks cost quite some as the debts exceed the assets, though I think it was a bit different to what is happening now in the US.

Citing Grave Financial Threats, Officials Ready Massive Rescue

The plan involves using hundreds of billions of dollars in government funding to buy bad loans, leaving banks with more money and fewer problems, according to two sources familiar with what was said at the meeting.

The main difference would be that the swedish government took over assets and debts (stockholders got nothing, as the alternative would have been bankrupcy), while the US is proposing to take only the bad and leave the good.

Though I have to admit that my memory of the events are kind of sketchy, and I fail to find a good link to back up my memory.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 at 10:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Swedish government did indeed buy up huge amounts of bad loans to get it out of the hands of Nordbanken. A quarter of the entire credit portolio was taken by the new state owned company Securum.

The other banks just managed to avoid that fate, even if it was a close shave for SEB.

Solving the crisis in this way would very likely have been against EU regulations, but thankfully Sweden was not part of the EU then.

The subprime mortage crisis is almost a blue copy of what happened here in 1991-1994. Google "Securum".

   

The Swedish approach to the problem of tidying up after the banking crisis by transferring troubled debt to specialized asset management companies is often held up as an example for other countries to follow. The most unusual aspect of Securum was the great degree of independence given to the company, combined with the rather broad terms in which its assignment was formulated. The Swedish state, as owner, announced that the winding-up would be permitted to take considerable time and that it should proceed keeping the best interests of taxpayers in view. In all other respects, Securum's board and management were given a great deal of freedom in shaping the company's policies. Moreover, the board was dominated by experts, with representatives of the ministry and the political domain being a limited element.

    Furthermore, the legal structure chosen was such that Securum's operations were not subject to the laws applying to financial institutions, particularly not the constraints imposed by the regulatory framework of banking legislation. The company was also allocated sufficiently substantial equity that the risk of the management needing to return to the owner and ask for more funds was virtually non-existent. Consequently, the material prospects of independence were good.

In a happy twist of fate, the guy who was put in charge of the swiftly created authourity "The Bank Support Committee" (generally called the "Bank ER") is now the the chairman of the Bank of Sweden, and another key person, Bo Lundgren, then minister of taxation (and later chairman of the liberal-conservative party) is now the head of the Swedish Debt Office.  

So for once we have smart expereinced people in exactly the right place to deal with this crisis



Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 at 10:57:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series