Monday, July 14, 2008

Reactions to Bailout

Reactions to the bailout announced by Paulson on Sunday night are slowly appearing online. Bloomberg provides extensive coverage. Very similar to the announcement of the Bear Stearns bailout that was also announced on Sunday evening.

From cryptogon.com:

The firms that make the mortgage industry possible in the U.S. are about to be taken onto the books of the U.S. Government.

I don’t know of any clearer way of summing it up.

In all of my years of observing the farce of “the free market” in the U.S., it has never appeared more absurd than it does right now. This news is remarkable, even to someone as short the U.S. Dollar as me. This is take-your-breath-away kind of news.

Are they using the term “unlimited” because that somehow sounds better than $5.3 trillion, or is there something else we don’t know about yet? The U.S. taxpayer and dollar holders are essentially going to eat the real estate crisis.

The advice I used to give was: Get your ass, your family and your money out of the U.S. It’s probably too late for that. Dig in. Shelter in place. Brace for impact, etc.

From Paul Krugman posted today but written prior to the bailout:

The case against Fannie and Freddie begins with their peculiar status: although they’re private companies with stockholders and profits, they’re “government-sponsored enterprises” established by federal law, which means that they receive special privileges.

The most important of these privileges is implicit: it’s the belief of investors that if Fannie and Freddie are threatened with failure, the federal government will come to their rescue.

This implicit guarantee means that profits are privatized but losses are socialized. If Fannie and Freddie do well, their stockholders reap the benefits, but if things go badly, Washington picks up the tab. Heads they win, tails we lose.

[...]

And yes, there is a real political scandal here: there have been repeated warnings that Fannie’s and Freddie’s thin capitalization posed risks to taxpayers, but the companies’ management bought off the political process, systematically hiring influential figures from both parties. While they were ugly, however, Fannie’s and Freddie’s political machinations didn’t play a significant role in causing our current problems.

Still, isn’t it shocking that taxpayers may end up having to rescue these institutions? Not really. We’re going through a major financial crisis — and such crises almost always end with some kind of taxpayer bailout for the banking system.

And let’s be clear: Fannie and Freddie can’t be allowed to fail. With the collapse of subprime lending, they’re now more central than ever to the housing market, and the economy as a whole.

From Atrios:

Actually, Fannie and Freddie can be allowed to fail. Their shareholders can eat shit, and they can be reconstituted as a wholesale federal entities. There are zero reasons that I can think of that we should have shareholder owned entities which "probably but not necessarily" are going to get a government bailout every time they need it.

Both short and long term we might think that having such creatures exist to be mortgage backstops is a good idea. I probably agree with that. But there is no reason for them to be publicly traded companies.
-Atrios 23:23

more to come...

~BT

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Major Bailout for the rich and well connected

I have been following the "big shitpile" as Atrios calls it and with today's news about the bailout of FannieMae and FreddieMac, I wanted to share a critique of Henry Paulson's plans.

This line of criticism is all over the market/macro finance blogs that I follow:

Nouriel Roubini, discussed the apparent insolvency of both Fannie and Freddie earlier this weekend, laying out the various policy options that were available. Roubini speculated on what would be done:
The creditors/bondholders of Fannie and Freddie should not be made whole, i.e. bailed out, once the insolvency hole of these institutions emerges .... Will this optimal policy solution - an haircut for bondholders - be undertaken? Most likely not as the political economy of housing, mortgages and of “privatizing profits and socializing” losses may dominate the policy outcome.
It seems that Paulson has chosen the worst of all options. Roubini reacted earlier tonight:

Sunday evening update:

The Sunday statement and plan by Secretary Paulson to rescue Fannie and Freddie is the ultimate implementation of socialism for the rich and the well connected. Under the plan the U.S. government would become a major shareholder in the two GSEs (the unofficial figure being rumored is $15 billion for each institution); it would massively extend the Treasury line of credit to the two institutions that is now only $ 2.25 billion for each of them (the unofficial number being rumored is one of a line of credit as large as $300 billion per each institution); finally while marxist comrade Paulson (to borrow the term used by Willem Buiter) waits until Congress passes this legislation comrade Bernanke is providing the two GSEs with access to the discount window on same terms as commercial banks. So the lender of last resort support of the Fed - that was already extended via the PDCF to the non-banking primary dealers - is now officially extended also to the two GSEs: this is "quasi-fiscal recapitalization of two insolvent institutions" as Willem Buiter has correctly argued and imposing a potentially large burden on the U.S. taxpayer without a formal act of Congress.

Congress should not bail out Fannie and Freddie, at least not without wiping out equity holders and giving a "haircut" to debt holders. By the way, the largest foreign holders of this debt are China and Japan. Pimco's Bill Gross who recently tripled his bet on mortgages will be a huge beneficiary of this move

This all sounds like a US-taxpayer funded bailout of irresponsible investors. Moral hazard anyone?

The reactions roll in.

~BT

My Agenda

Participatory politics
Seeking truth
Liberal-minded
Pushing for progressive change
Sustainability
Human rights and dignity
Transparency
Making sense of the networked age
Pragmatic idealism

This is just a first draft. What do you think?

~BT

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Breaking the long silence

I haven't really blogged on a regular basis since February and a lot has happened since then, both in the political world and my personal life.

In the political world:

  • Obama won the Democratic primary after a long drawn out battle with Clinton that lasted until after everyone had voted
  • We are in the midst of a worldwide food crisis, the US and World economy are drastically contracting as a result of the implosion of the US housing market and ongoing credit crisis and ridiculously high oil prices (which will continue to rise).
  • In Canada, Stephane Dion is shopping around his bold Green Shift policy of imposing a carbon tax and reducing income taxes. It looks like this will be what we will fight over in the next election. The question is whether people will understand it or fall for the Bush/Rove-like tactics of Harper and his Conservative cronies.
  • The chatter continues about Obama VP selection (my guess is Janet Napolitano but I wouldn't put any money on it) and McCain is getting the easy treatment in the media.
What I have been reading:
And on a more personal note:
  • I graduated from the University of Pennsylvania earning a B.A. in Political Science and a B.S. in Economics from the Wharton School.
  • I am currently living in Toronto but plan to head to Washington by the end of the summer.
I am trying to figure out what I will be doing with this blog. I will be clarifying the scope of the blog and hope to be writing regularly in addition to my daily links.

If there are topics or stories you would like me to comment on, put them in the Comments section or reply by email if you are receiving this by email

~BT