|
||
What the Hell is Paulson Thinking???
Secretary Paulson announced on Wednesday that the $700 billion that Congress authorized under the Troubled Asset Reclamation Program for the purchase of asset-based securities will not be used to purchase any asset-based securities. Instead, the Treasury will continue to pump money into banks. This follows on the announcement of a renegotiation of the loan to AIG on terms much more favorable to the company - and much less favorable to the taxpayer - than had been negotiated earlier. That announcement follows on the gift of $125 billion to nine large, unnamed banks. At this point it seems salient to ask, what the hell is going on?
Start with the AIG loan. Originally, AIG received an $85 billion 2-year bridge loan, of which $61 billion has been drawn. The rate on the loan was Libor + 8.5% -- currently around 10.6% -- plus fees. In addition, AIG has drawn approximately $20 billion from a securities lending facility created by the Fed of New York, and is participating in the government commercial paper facility with a line of $20.9 billion of which $8 billion was outstanding. (Timothy Geithner, the president and CEO of the New York Federal Reserve, is on Obama's short list for a potential Treasury Secretary.)
The new plan, in addition to a new infusion of $40 billion, involves renegotiating the loan to a 5 year term at lower interest. It also involves creating two new facilities by the New York Fed. One is designed to purchase asset-based securities ("RMBS," or "residential mortgage-backed securities), using $1 billion supplied by AIG and $22.5 billion supplied by the New York Fed. With that program in place, as AIG executives put it in a conference call, "AIG's remaining exposure to losses from its U.S. securities lending program will be limited to declines in market value prior to the closing of this entity and our $1 billion of funding." The second new facility will provide $30 billion in government money to purchase up to $70 billion in credit default swaps at discounted prices, to accompany $5 billion in subordinated funding to come from AIG. Approximately 95% of the write-downs AIG financial products has taken to-date is in its CDS portfolio. (I have discussed the background issues involved in earlier posts.)
Critics of the plan are outraged, and with good reason. But as of Wednesday we learned that the renegotiation of AIG's loan was part of a larger strategy. As reported here, Paulson said that the administration will not, after all, use any of the $700 billion that was provided under the TARP program to purchase asset-based securities: instead, the Treasury will continue to use $250 billion of the program to purchase stock in banks and is looking at a major expansion of the program into the markets that provide support for credit card debt, auto loans and student loans. Paulson said that the consumer credit market urgently needs support. "This market, which is vital for lending and growth, has for all practical purposes ground to a halt." Of the $2.6 trillion in consumer credit outstanding in September, finance companies were the third largest holders with $600 billion after banks ($845bn) and ABS ($678b). To justify his actions, Paulson explained that the administration has decided that using billions of dollars to buy troubled assets is not, after all, "not the most effective way" to use the $700 billion bailout package. In other words, "we changed our minds."
What the hell is Paulson thinking? Never mind the economics of all this, what about the politics? I have to assume that members of Congress are going to be absolutely enraged. Remember the hard sell on the original bailout package? We had to immediately purchase toxic assets or a Depression would ensue, there would be riots in the streets, cephalopods would fall from the sky. "Really, seriously," said Paulson, "this is absolutely the only thing we can do and there's no time for discussion." Now he is saying "actually, we have a better idea." But the bait-and-switch aspects of the deal are not restricted to the original hard sell. Among the objections to the TARP plan from the outset was the argument that it was funneling money to the very entities that had created the problems (the stories about executive bonuses being paid by banks receiving money under the bailout plan have not done much to improve the image of the banks involved.) That objection is only made stronger by the declaration that buying assets is not, after all, as important as funneling money to banks.
In the face of a certain political firestorm, did Paulson first present this to congressional leaders and secure their support, or attempt to secure support from the incoming Obama team. Don't be ridiculous. No more than he is willing to identify the nine banks receiving $125 billion in public money (Bloomberg has sued under the FOIA to try to obtain that information), and no more than Neel Kashkari - the "bailout czar" and yet another Goldman, Sachs alumnus - was willing to entertain questions after a speech on Monday. The absolute arrogance of the Bush Executive has not diminished a whit.
Wait, there's more. Paulson also praised a new set of guidelines issued Wednesday by the Federal Reserve and other bank regulators. These guidelines "urge institutions to continue lending to credit worthy borrowers and to work with mortgage borrowers to avoid defaults," and "encourage the banks to set dividend payments for shareholders and compensation for executives with the current crisis in mind. "The Fed, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision said all financial institutions were expected to follow the new guidelines, even those not receiving federal assistance." Note the verbs, here. "Urge," "encourage," "expected"; it's the same old completely discredited game of voluntary compliance. We are still not learning from the British example that the way to get banks to lend money is to provide them with funds on the condition that they lend them. We - our President and his administration - are still parroting the tired old "magic of the markets" line even after Alan Greenspan's mea culpa (he was shocked, shocked, to learn that people will not voluntarily forego profit in order to preserve the integrity of the system.)
Meanwhile, is all of this shoveling of money at banks working? Keep in mind that the TARP program is not by any means the only game in town. All told, nearly $2 trillion has been lent by the Fed, more than $1.1 trillion just since September 14th when the rules governing collateral for such loans were relaxed. These loans have been made under 11 different programs, 8 of which have been created in the past 15 months. In addition, there is the $300 billion that was allocated in July for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which is authorized to buy back and renegotiate an estimated 400,000 mortgages. Then there is the Commercial Paper Funding Facility that was mentioned earlier in connection with AIG. Under that program, which went into operation at the end of October, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York agree to buy outstanding unsecured and asset-backed 3-month loans. The New York Fed loaned the money to a newly created purchasing entity, which will hold the commercial paper until maturity and will use the proceeds from maturing commercial paper and other assets of the SPV to repay its loan from the New York Fed. What is extraordinary about the CPFF is that it actually seems to make sense.
The results of all this for the credit markets? The Labor/Treasury spread, which was up to 480 in October, is now "down" to a little over 200; prior to Sept. the all-time record was 250 and the 10-year average was 22. The total amount of "Asset Backed Credit Products" - i.e. total pool of all credit for car loans, student loans, floorplan loans, fleet loans, mortgages - is down 51% ($748b) since June 2007.
By the time Obama takes office, the Bush administration will have transferred a staggering amount of money, measured in trillions of dollars, to private banks. That money will no longer be available for the kind of employment-based stimulus package that we desperately need, nor for targeted and potential more effective mechanisms to increase liquidity in the credit markets such as an expanded version of the CPFF, nor to secure access to education. On their own, large private lenders - including Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase -- are renegotiating mortgages, but there is no organized, centralized effort and no leadership coming from the government (my own lender, Countrywide, called while I was writing this post to see if I want to refinance.) Only advisory "guidelines" and buckets of money. And once again, the Bush administration is seeking to jam this enormous program down the throats of Congress and the American people without consultation, oversight, or transparency. Will Congress just stand there and watch this happen? What is Paulson thinking?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
We need radical tax, monetary, and foreign policy changes over the next 4 years.
1) No more unconditional foreign aid to anyone
2) remove all troops from all countries stationed overseas (130 countries); bring them back to protect our borders
3) flat tax rates of 20%, with 15% going to your state government, 5% going to the federal government. Let individual states administer any public services their people want; starve the federal government into only having control over the military, the postal service, and very few other civil institutions.
4) Abolish the Federal Reserve and Treasury Departments,
5) give people the option to choose commodity-backed currency that will create stable long-term value to our money.
6) eliminate all federal lobbying groups. all of them. transparent and simplified government.
No one's talking about how continuing to print money and more money and more money is what is going to make the recession worse next year because of the increased inflation that causes. I'm quickly becoming a fervent Ron Paul disciple with each crooked move the Fed and Treasury Dept. makes every day. If we have malinvestment and debt it needs to be liquidated. We can't just print more money and then have banks lend it freely to create MORE debt and subsequently devalue the dollar even more - while making consumer prices higher without wage growth.
Without getting melodramatic, we're destroying the economy even further with all this and it's really bad. Really bad. I don't even know what to say. Also, frankly I'm discouraged by the selection of Geitner, and the fact that Larry Summers is in Obama's ear as well.
This is scocialism under the Bush. regime spread the wealth from the poor to the rich. It is anti american and Bush has secured his future and thrown away all of ours.
Paulson is thinking the way conservatives think when they get handed billions of dollars with no regulation and no strings attached
I blame the democrats, they wrote the bailout bill.
Its like blaming Bush for invading Iraq after you pass the resolution authorizing force. Yes, the conservatives are idiots and they will execute any plan incompetently and corruptly that you charge them with. Were you all surprised that Paulson is misusing the power they gave him? You shouldn't be
Unfortunately British banks aren't lending either, they're playing much the same game. They recently had to be humiliated into passing on a 1.5% interest rate cut, which they were more than happy to sit on until the press forced their hands.
The powers are available to the Government as the author intimates, however the timidity of Government appointees to bank boards still disappoints.
When will we learn with these people...to quote one of your sons "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself"
"In the face of a certain political firestorm, did Paulson first present this to congressional leaders and secure their support, or attempt to secure support from the incoming Obama team. Don't be ridiculous."
Okay, so where's the firestorm? We're still waiting for the outrage over the "adjustment" to the tax code reported days ago by the Washington Post. No wonder Paulson thinks he can ignore Congress. Someone should tell the Democrats they actually have to govern now.
Someone explain please:
American Express is a credit card company.
Now, American Express is converting itself to a BANK.
Now, American Express wants 3.5 Billion from the bailout funds?
The american public should incorporate into one large bank, then ask for our handout.
Conservatives were the only ones who tried to stop the $700 billion ripoff. Hank Paulson is not a conservative. Sucking up to Bush to get a job is not the same as being a conservative. All the real conservatives voted against the bailout and want Hank Paulson to be fired. Those liberals you claim we can trust are the same people who pushed the bailout through congress.
You've got a point there, Ohio. I'm a Democrat for thirty years and this chickens&*t, knee jerk reaction by Dems on the Hill makes me want to puke.
A poster said " he's going to give the $750 billion to his friends on Wall Street, to the Republican supporters, without any oversight by Congress, and without any liability to himself or to any of the recipients."
Well, how do you expect them to rebuild the Republican party? It is going to take a lot of money from "supporters" to fund all those Republican candidates, not to mention to pay for Sarah Palin's new outifts for the 2012 race.
Let’s see now: First we have conservatives who define mankind as inherently evil people who need strong institutions like the military, police, and church, to restrict and control them. Next we have this conservative named Paulson who says give me 800 billion dollars without any restrictions or controls on it and I’ll fix the economy. Then liberals are shocked and surprised when Paulson does not do what he said he was going to do.
Conservatives continue to prove over and over again they can’t be trusted and liberals continue to be surprised and shocked. Let’s all grow up.
The only way to fix this problem is to start a brand new bank that has no existing accounts, debts, mortgages or loans. The government gives this brand new bank the 800 billion dollars with explicit instructions to loan the money. You loan the money or you will be shut down and sent to prison for ever.
Oh, and by the way, at least half of that money will be loans to renewable energy projects to begin immediately. Lend the money to some entrepreneurs, some university professors, and throw in a few crack pots working out of their garages for good measure.
Just like the way they handled the response to 9/11 . Without a clue or a shred of logic. These people are certifiably insane and we are are expected to pay them our taxes?
Let's not pretend Paulson is acting on his own. He is a Wall Street man, brought into the Bush administration to keep control of the country in the hands of Wall Street.
What is he thinking? He's thinking he's going to give the $750 billion to his friends on Wall Street, to the Republican supporters, without any oversight by Congress, and without any liability to himself or to any of the recipients. Just like he said at the outset. Or Cheney, or whoever drafted that initial ransom note.
I'll bet Paulson is the #1 name on Bush's list for a pardon. He'll walk away, nobody can touch him or his friends, and the country will be broke.
This isn't a bailout -- it's looting and pillaging. Let's stop pretending that Paulson has anything in mind other than completing the Bush goal of taking every penny from the working people and transferring it to the rich. If Paulson thought otherwise, he wouldn't be working for Bush.
The real question should be: What are the Democrats thinking? Why is it the Democrats who have pushed through this final looting of our treasury? Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Emanuel, Hoyer -- every single photo op shows them smiling with a big fat check they're sending to Wall Street. Maybe our attention should be on our own people. What's their percentage? How much will be kicked back to them?
You are leaving out one important person that voted for this bailout....Obama.
I'm confused.
The $700 billion was to be used to buy the so-called "toxic assets" created by the investment banks, who by their own admission, were just playing a shell game with the securities to hide their own losses; with the blame for it all placed on mortgage holders shoulders for accepting the loans in the first place.
Now the money will be given to banks for credit loans and like products that the banks collect billions of dollars in fees alone from consumers. Not for the bad securities, and not to help the mortgage holders.
Why could'nt the money have been used to PAY OFF the bad mortgages? Wouldn't this action have relieved the mortgage holders and stopped the landslide of foreclosures, as well as backed up the rotten securities? Because if the root of the problem was that mortgages were tied into securities and there was no capital behind either, then paying off the mortgages would have shored the whole problem up from the base. No money would have to be used by the banks for credit because people would still be in their homes and the securities would be made of real capital, not will-of -the wisps.
Could someone tell me why we couldn't help those who really mattered?
HuffPost's Pick
I had trouble working out what you were confused about, since you gave a lucid and intelligent description of the problem and the best solution to it. Then I got to your last sentence and I understood. Those involved would say "what are you talking about? We DID help those who really mattered. Namely, ourselves. Furthermore, we are continuing to help ourselves, and will carry on doing so for as long as the cash spigot is open."
Debt is a way of enslaving debtors. Mutual debts are easily cancelled - if I owe you $10,000 and you owe me $10,000, we can agree that both debts are cancelled, and suddenly we are both emancipated. Therefore, in order for enslavement to be perpetual, debts must be non-mutual. There must be indebtedness to the banks, not balanced by indebtedness on the part of the banks, and there must be no way of introducing new money into the system without increasing the indebtedness of people to banks. So, when new money is printed, it's given to banks, and they loan it out, creating a debt. Taxpayer money can be given to banks as a free gift to bail them out. Never the other way around. Bank money can never be given to taxpayers as a free gift, only as a loan.
It seems to me that Paulson and his 'pals' are employing the "Take The Money And RUN' strategy.
Right. Right. Right.
Well put....Hank Paulson in a remake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UHOgkDbVqc
There was near universal criticism of Paulson's ill conceived plan to use the Treasury to buy out "toxic assets." It passed anyway. Now that he has abandoned that misbegotten scam, I guess we should be glad. But we should still be outraged that we allowed ourselves, yet again, to be panicked by tried and true shock tactics into passing another bill giving a free hand and a blank check to another department of the government, Paulson's Treasury.
Paulson should have had the decency to resign. Instead, he and the other miscreants surrounding him have control of the nation's checkbook and their cronies are lining up for their shares.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
