Page 1 of 1

Obama making huge mistake with Timmy's toxic asset plan

Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:51 pm
by annarborgator
And most folks are basically calling it retarded. Slide, wtf is up with your boy? Let's shake up the fucking status quo, man, I need a shot of that change Obama was selling all last year. Might do us some good, ya know?

From Yves Smith:
And notice the hint of skepticism from the Times regarding the Administration's supposition that the bidding will result in fair prices. Huh? First, the banks, as in normal auctions, will presumably set a reserve price equal to the value of the assets on their books. If the price does not meet the reserve (and the level of the reserve is not disclosed to the bidders), there is no sale; in this case, the bank would keep the toxic instruments.

Having the banks realize a price at least equal to the value they hold it at on their books is a boundary condition. If the banks sell the assets as a lower level, it will result in a loss, which is a direct hit to equity. The whole point of this exercise is to get rid of the bad paper without further impairing the banks.

So presumably, the point of a competitive process (assuming enough parties show up to produce that result at any particular auction) is to elicit a high enough price that it might reach the bank's reserve, which would be the value on the bank's books now.

And notice the utter dishonesty: a competitive bidding process will protect taxpayers. Huh? A competitive bidding process will elicit a higher price which is BAD for taxpayers!

Dear God, the Administration really thinks the public is full of idiots. But there are so many components to the program, and a lot of moving parts in each, they no doubt expect everyone's eyes to glaze over.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/03/private-public-partnership-details.html

From Krugman:
To this end the plan proposes to create funds in which private investors put in a small amount of their own money, and in return get large, non-recourse loans from the taxpayer, with which to buy bad — I mean misunderstood — assets. This is supposed to lead to fair prices because the funds will engage in competitive bidding.

But it’s immediately obvious, if you think about it, that these funds will have skewed incentives. In effect, Treasury will be creating — deliberately! — the functional equivalent of Texas S&Ls in the 1980s: financial operations with very little capital but lots of government-guaranteed liabilities. For the private investors, this is an open invitation to play heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose. So sure, these investors will be ready to pay high prices for toxic waste. After all, the stuff might be worth something; and if it isn’t, that’s someone else’s problem.

Or to put it another way, Treasury has decided that what we have is nothing but a confidence problem, which it proposes to cure by creating massive moral hazard.

This plan will produce big gains for banks that didn’t actually need any help; it will, however, do little to reassure the public about banks that are seriously undercapitalized. And I fear that when the plan fails, as it almost surely will, the administration will have shot its bolt: it won’t be able to come back to Congress for a plan that might actually work.

What an awful mess.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/despair-over-financial-policy/

From Calculated Risk:
With almost no skin in the game, these investors can pay a higher than market price for the toxic assets (since there is little downside risk). This amounts to a direct subsidy from the taxpayers to the banks.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/03/geithners-toxic-asset-plan.html

Obama making huge mistake with Timmy's toxic asset plan

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:04 am
by annarborgator
Mish is in agreement and calls the plan a confidence game (ouch):
There have been a lot of intelligent comments by Yves Smith, CalculatedRisk, and Krugman. So far no one has said what I think the plan is: a gigantic confidence game.

This is similar in nature to fraudulent schemes that promise "what's inside the bag is worth $1 million, unless you open the bag".

In this case there may be a few "good bags" similar in nature to salting the mine schemes, but for the most part everyone knows what's in the bag is toxic garbage. And what really makes no sense whatsoever is why the government would risk 97% with no upside instead of just buying it all.

Seriously, why would anyone take 97% risk with 0% upside? The very best the government can do under Geithner's proposal is to break even.

Somehow, Geithner (and Obama by implication) believes that igniting a bidding war between hedge funds and private equity over a bag of cow manure will inspire confidence that there's gold in the bag. Such insanity cannot possibly work, which means it won't.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/03/geithners-plan-gigantic-confidence-game.html

Obama making huge mistake with Timmy's toxic asset plan

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:06 am
by annarborgator
Krugman follows up:
Why was I so quick to condemn the Geithner plan? Because it’s not new; it’s just another version of an idea that keeps coming up and keeps being refuted. It’s basically a thinly disguised version of the same plan Henry Paulson announced way back in September. {. . .}

Now, early on in this crisis, it was possible to argue that it was mainly a panic. But at this point, that’s an indefensible position. Banks and other highly leveraged institutions collectively made a huge bet that the normal rules for house prices and sustainable levels of consumer debt no longer applied; they were wrong. Time for a Swedish solution.

But Treasury is still clinging to the idea that this is just a panic attack, and that all it needs to do is calm the markets by buying up a bunch of troubled assets. Actually, that’s not quite it: the Obama administration has apparently made the judgment that there would be a public outcry if it announced a straightforward plan along these lines, so it has produced what Yves Smith calls “a lot of bells and whistles to finesse the fact that the government will wind up paying well above market for [I don't think I can finish this on a Times blog]”

Why am I so vehement about this? Because I’m afraid that this will be the administration’s only shot — that if the first bank plan is an abject failure, it won’t have the political capital for a second. So it’s just horrifying that Obama — and yes, the buck stops there — has decided to base his financial plan on the fantasy that a bit of financial hocus-pocus will turn the clock back to 2006.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/more-on-the-bank-plan/

Obama making huge mistake with Timmy's toxic asset plan

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:09 am
by annarborgator
LOL Mish isn't pulling any punches:
What We Know

Pandit was not truthful to Congress.
Geithner is the architect of this madness.
Obama supports Geithner.
Taxpayers are getting screwed.
Greed at the top is still insatiable.
Geithner is incompetent.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-citigroup-incompetence-squanders.html

Obama making huge mistake with Timmy's toxic asset plan

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:34 am
by Tipmoose
AA: Cmon man...your faith in the democratic process and our elected leaders is sorely misplaced. You should also know that its not important what Obama says...whats important is HOW he says it. Er...How he READS it from his telepromter. Because, AA, he CARES about you. He really really does. He cares so much it hurts him to have to read the bad news to you from that screen in front of him.

Its also not important what he thinks or what he means when he reads it. What's important is what the castrated excuse for a press corps reports. Image is everything, man...image. Is. Everything. Oh...and he cares. He really really does.