Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

In which I pretend to have mad forex skillz

by Magnifico Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 04:13:07 AM EST

When I read articles like "As Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit" in the New York Times which claims that "The profits, collected from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, come to about $4 billion", I become skeptical.

My skepticism is compounded when I read in the Financial Times that the Fed makes $14bn profit on crisis loans (hat tip marco).

The Federal Reserve has made a $14bn profit on loan programmes that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity to the financial system since the start of the crisis two years ago, according to Fed officials.

The "Bailout Propaganda Begins" blogs Matt Taibbi. He writes:

Since only a small portion of the debt has been put down by the best borrowers, and since the borrowers in the worst shape haven't retired their obligations yet, it's crazy to make any conclusions about TARP, pure sophistry. Moreover, a think tank set up to analyze TARP, Ethisphere, calculated in June that TARP was still $148 billion down overall, a debt of over $1200 per American. To start talking about what a success TARP is now is beyond meaningless.


So, pretending for a moment that those those 'profit' amounts were actually legitimate, how much of it is offset by the devaluation of the dollar that has happened since the U.S. began handing out bailout checks to the banks?

According to the U.S. Federal Reserve in St. Louis on October 3, 2008, George W. Bush signed into law the $700 billion bailout (pdf).

According to the historical exchange rates at xe.com, the U.S. dollar exchange for the euro on that day was: $1 = €0.7237466905. So the $700,000,000,000 bailout was worth €506,622,683,350.

Today, according to xe.com: $1 = €0.7045619538. Now the $700,000,000,000 is worth only €493,193,367,660.

So in the time since the bailout, the U.S. dollar has further weakened compared to the euro. So how much of that 'profit' is just offset (or lost) by the devaluation of the dollar?

If all my calculator-number punching is correct, that $700 billion is worth $13,429,315,690 less than it was worth the day the TARP money was authorized. So not much a 'profit', if even a fictional one.

Taibbi predicts we'll be reading a lot more in the coming years of "intellectual desperation and magical-thinking" claiming the bailouts were wonderfully profitable. I wonder how little the dollar will be worth when compared to the euro in another 10 months?

Display:
So the best thing the Fed could have done is bail out European banks? (Which might have had the added effect that the dolar would have collapsed further making yet more dollar profit on its investment)

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 Sep 2nd, 2009 at 05:42:26 AM EST
ceebs:
So the best thing the Fed could have done is bail out European banks?

"Could have"?

AIG ships billions in bailout abroad - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com

In all, AIG disclosed payments of $105.3 billion between September and December 2008. And some of the biggest recipients were European banks. Societe Generale, based in France, was the top foreign recipient at $11.9 billion, Deutsche Bank of Germany got $11.8 billion and Barclays, based in England, was paid $8.5 billion.


The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 05:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Should have said

So the best thing the Fed could have done is Just bail out European banks?

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 Sep 2nd, 2009 at 06:06:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps it would have been better to let the private banks fail and let those who took the risks go down with them?

The U.S. could have established a public bank to provide loans with the bailout money instead. A "public option" to the bailout, if you will.

The new bank cost could have been less expensive than the $700 billion bailout since the "public" banks could have done what private banks do using the fractional-reserve system to "create" money out of nothing.

The $700 billion was borrowed. Can anyone explain why should a government have to borrow its own fiat money?

by Magnifico on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 12:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Magnifico:
The $700 billion was borrowed. Can anyone explain why should a government have to borrow its own fiat money?

conundrum of the millennium?

bankstas gotta make an indecent living somehow?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 05:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who was it borrowed from?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 05:23:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the future labour -presumably taxable- of  millions?

the printing press?

as long as money moves, even virtual money, it pays a slice to someone.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 06:18:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean, a government can always create its own fiat currency without borrowing it. The conventional mechanism is to issue bonds and have the central bank create new currency to buy them off the treasury. There is "debt" on paper only.

However, the conventional wisdom of central bankers is that this is inflationary. So, what they force governments to do is to issue debt to foreign or domestic creditors. If the government sells debt to domestic creditors it drains money away from the economy. Which is why a "fiscal stimulus" package funded by selling bonds domestically is taking money away with one hand to return it with the other. Unfortunately this is what some governments are doing.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 08:56:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
I mean, a government can always create its own fiat currency without borrowing it. The conventional mechanism is to issue bonds and have the central bank create new currency to buy them off the treasury. There is "debt" on paper only.

wouldn't that look bad?

is it a buck-stopping-elsewhere thing?

why go the bother making two stages out of one deal, ass-covering, deniability issues?

whom, exactly do they think they're fooling?

if enough of the public understood, would they be able to call it honest?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 10:15:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You could always do it like Hitler.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 10:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is very similar to several local currencies in use in the USA, such as Amesbury Hours.  Most are denominated in terms of some common calculation of the worth of an hours labor.  I.E. an hour of time from a doctor or a lawyer would be worth more units than an hour of yard work. And the units are only accepted locally.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Sep 6th, 2009 at 01:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is why a "fiscal stimulus" package funded by selling bonds domestically is taking money away with one hand to return it with the other.

But presumably money that is available to be put into bonds is of low stimulus multiplier value, whereas direct public spending on - say - railways (to pick a totally random example) has a high multiplier effect.

Besides, if the central bank is maintaining a bond rate target, then the bonds that the state sells will just be bought back by the central bank. Selling bonds depresses prices, which drives up interest rates. Central banks, wanting to lower interest rates during a recession, will buy up bonds (which raises the price of bonds, i.e. lowers the interest rate). (Assuming perfect, efficient markets, perfect, symmetrical information, yadda, yadda.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 3rd, 2009 at 11:10:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do you presume that the Euro is a suitable yardstick to measure the value of the dollar against?

How about US inflation?

And how about the fact that inflation since TARP has been lower than it was in the 12 months before TARP?

And how much of the US devaluation viz. the Euro, or of inflation, or of the year-on-year change in inflation, can be attributed to TARP?

What, exactly, are you trying to prove?

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 09:29:40 AM EST
Why do you presume that the Euro is a suitable yardstick to measure the value of the dollar against?

I don't, however, it is a free floating currency and I see the comparative value of currency a vote in a economy. Meaning, the more comparative value a fiat currency has the more faith and confidence there is in that economy and government.

There was more faith and confidence in the U.S. economy when the euro debuted, and the exchange rate was inverse of what it is today. That faith and confidence in the U.S. has eroded during Bush's tenure. Obama's policies seem to be a continuation of, at least, the bailout initiated by the Fed and Treasury Dept. during Bush's last term.

I expect the same exercise could be done with the dollar versus the euro purchasing power for any commodity. The dollar's buying power is less because spending money on the bailout has weakened it further.

How about US inflation?

Wouldn't inflation in the U.S. further weaken the dollar when compared to the euro?

What, exactly, are you trying to prove?

Um, nothing. Like I said I am pretending. But since you want me to have a point, how about it would have been cheaper for an American to travel to Europe last October than it is today. :-)

by Magnifico on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 12:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ProPublica has an update on the bailout.

Your August Bailout Update: $393 Billion Outstanding
by Paul Kiel, ProPublica

Recent reports have drawn attention to the billions in revenue that the Treasury Department has collected from companies early in returning their TARP investments. While those returns have been encouraging, there’s no question that the taxpayer remains deep in the red.

In total, $392.6 billion remains outstanding to 641 recipients ($297 billion under the TARP and $95.6 billion that’s gone to Fannie and Freddie). That total excludes the 35 companies that have returned a total of $71.6 billion...

That said, money is flowing in as it’s flowing out. The TARP has two main sources of revenue: quarterly dividend or interest payments and warrant redemptions. Unlike returned money, which can be used again, the Treasury is obligated to use that revenue to pay down the national debt...

Put all that together, and you get a total of $12.4 billion in revenue. Compared to the $392.6 billion in bailout funds still outstanding, it’s reason for cooling any thoughts, at least for now, of the taxpayer pulling a profit.

No profit.

by Magnifico on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 01:36:51 PM EST
Not quite right, but it's an interesting argument.  The $700 billion bailout was not spent on Oct. 3, 2008.  Much of it wasn't spent at all, in fact, but what was spent largely occurred after the Euro had devaluated sharply against the dollar and the Yen in the months following Oct., 2008, so it is likely that in money exchange terms, the bailout was still profitable from a European purchaser's perspective. You'd have to look at the documented expenditure amounts and use the exchange rates for that particular day to verify it.
by santiago on Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 at 02:10:21 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]