[Skip to the end]
As this goes down, the value of AIG (and probably Lehman) goes up.
[top]
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Dawn wrote:
>
> Amen! 30% of homes in Riviera Beach are in foreclosure because mortgage
> companies wrote loans to anyone with a heart beat. We are now stuck with
> three fairly new housing developments along Congress Avenue that are quickly
> turning into ghettos.
>
Hi Dawn, good to hear that from someone on the inside!
Somehow the mainstream has mysteriously ignored the prime role of fraudulent applications, loan officers working on a commission basis, etc. all to make loans by misleading the lenders and the ratings agencies.
>
> Do you think banks would be amenable to providing low money down/low
> interest rate mortgages to municipal employees with at least a five year
> employment history, proper credit, etc? Mortgage payment could be deducted
> from pay checks. This would allow police officers, firefighters, etc to have a
> vested interest in the community and help the banks get the real estate off
> their books.
>
Yes, I don’t see why not?
They are still in business to make profits by making loans to credit worthy borrowers. Try speaking to the local lenders and mortgage bankers?
Thanks!
Warren
>
> Thx
>
> Dawn
>
[top]
This is what was submitted:
Treasury fact sheet on asset plan
Treasury will have authority to issue up to $700 billion of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of troubled assets. The purchases are intended to be residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, which may include mortgage-backed securities and whole loans. The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets. Removing troubled assets will begin to restore the strength of our financial system so it can again finance economic growth.
While this won’t alter bank capital, bank asset sales shrink balance sheets and ‘make room’ for new lending.
In fact, that was the ‘originate to sell’ model.
This will support output and employment only to the extent it has been constrained by limited capability of banks to lend.
The major effect of having these problematic assets on the books has been in the secondary markets, including interbank lending, which have lesser and only indirect consequence for output and employment.
Supporting the housing agencies ability to lend at lower rates to any credit worthy borrowers directly supports housing and other sectors.
What banks need most is an increase in aggregate demand sufficient enough to increase employment and output.
This proposal for the Treasury to buy bank assists will have little direct effect on aggregate demand.
The timing and scale of any purchases will be at the discretion of Treasury and its agents, subject to this total cap. The price of assets purchases will be established through market mechanisms where possible, such as reverse auctions.
The question of price is problematic.
This is vague as the Treasury doesn’t have clarity on how this might work. It is doubtful that Congress will either. Reverse auctions can result in gross overpricing, which they do not want to happen.
And note the congressional discussion on salary caps for institutions that sell assets to the Treasury – no telling how that will shake out!
The dollar cap will be measured by the purchase price of the assets. The authority to purchase expires two years from date of enactment. Asset and Institutional Eligibility for the Program. To qualify for the program, assets must have been originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008. Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.
[top]
Under this proposal from treasury, they would ask for offerings from the banks and then take the lowest prices for up to $50 billion at a time.
This means they will be paying more and more for each round of purchases, driving up the prices from current market value.
And if the plan is to spend the entire $700 billion they could drive prices up through the roof.
They would need to limit the prices they are willing to pay somehow.
[top]
Remove the $100,000 cap on insured bank deposits. This adds no risk to government. And it will eliminate the need for money funds which the cap created in the first place.
Let them go. If they don’t survive, at worst their assets will be distributed by the bankruptcy court if it goes that far. They do nothing that I know of that serves public purpose and/or the real economy that banks can’t do. And the banks are already regulated and supervised.
Policy holders should be government insured and insurance company assets, and capital regulation should be updated. You will know insurance regulation doesn’t go far enough if there are too many government losses to make policy holders whole.
AIG got short credit (sold insurance on securities at low prices) and lost all their capital as risk and the price of insurance went up. Looks to me like a failure of regulation that allowed that much risk.
Continue to fund the agencies via the Treasury to keep costs of funds at a minimum.
Have the agencies ‘buy and hold’ new originations, and thereby eliminate that portion of the secondary markets. The secondary markets serve no public purpose, beyond working past flaws in the institutional structure that should instead be addressed.
Increase and enforce criminal penalties for mortgage application fraud. Its functionally the same as robbing a bank.
Lower the discount rate to the fed funds target rate and eliminate the need for collateral. This is how it should have been anyway.
Bank assets and solvency are already highly regulated, and how they are funded doesn’t alter the risk of loss due to insolvency for the government.
An interbank market serves no public purpose. Eliminate it out to six months by offering discount lending out to 6 months.
In addition to the FOMC setting the fed funds rate target, it can also set the rate for 3 and 6 month borrowing at the discount window. This both gets the job done and also replaces the TAF and TSLF type of experiments.
Offer (directly or indirectly) a Federally funded $8 per hour full time job to anyone willing and able to work that includes health care benefits. An employed buffer stock is a more effective stabilizer and price anchor. It’s also less costly in real terms, than the unemployed buffer stock we currently maintain.
Eliminate the various payroll taxes as needed to sustain demand.
Implement needed infrastructure upgrades and repairs.
Eliminate health care as a marginal cost of production. People aren’t more likely to get ill if they are employed; in fact, the opposite is likely the case.
The current system distorts pricing, and results in a suboptimal outcome for the economy’s ability to sustain prosperity.
[top]
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Scott asks:
These moves HAVE to be bad for the dollar, no?
Not much effect per se.
Immediate effect is higher interest rates/stronger stocks which very near term helps the USD.
But it seems saudis are hiking price which, if it continues, will again send the dollar down.
Also, the Fed showed some concern about exports softening, which they probably attribute to the recent USD strength.
So seems the Fed and Treasury probably don’t want the dollar to get too strong.
Major equity short covering rally in progress.
When it runs its course, the US economy will still be weak and higher crude prices will be problematic as well.
[top]
(an interoffice email exchange)
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:50 AM, David wrote:
> So creating liquidity for toxic assets RTC style.
>
maybe, jury is still out on how that might work
>
> Make the government a little money and inspire confidence in banks, ok.
>
> We are thinking that this is overtly inflationary for financial assets (maybe all
> assets?)
>
supports a lot of equity value by removing a large element of risk, but cost to shareholders still unknown
fixed income going higher in yield, prices there going down
>
> Should I expect this to re-inflate the commodity asset bubble in the medium
> term???
>
not directly. crude price up to the Saudis.
>
> Do you think the dollar’s rally will help cap any commodity asset price rise???
>
yes, in the competitive markets. crude is not a competitive market. saudis merely set price and let quantity adjust
>
> PS- I expected to come in today to $110+ crude, $8+ gas, and $900+ gold.
>
as above. crude up even with dollar up, but gold down.
warren
[top]
My take is an RTC type solution only works when the government owns the institutions, so this will probably be different.
I suspect it will be more like Japan, where the government bought a new class of preferred stock in the banks to add capital.
Whatever they will do will cause credit spreads to come in, which will make the assets of AIG far more valuable and probably result in a ‘profit’ for the government.
Unsold Lehman assets will also appreciate.
More comments below:
Paulson, Bernanke Push New Plan to Cleanse Books
by Alison Vekshin and Dawn Kopecki
Government Options
Options that U.S. officials are considering include establishing an $800 billion fund to purchase so-called failed assets
I see this as problematic as above and as below.
and a separate $400 billion pool at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to insure investors in money-market funds, said two people briefed by congressional staff. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans may change.
This puts money funds on par with insured bank deposits. Seems no need for both.
Instead, better to remove the $100,000 cap on bank deposit insurance to allow large investors use bank deposits safely. There is no economic reason for the low cap in any case.
Another possibility is using Fannie and Freddie, the federally chartered mortgage-finance companies seized by the government last week, to buy assets, one of the people said.
That’s already in place. They already have treasury funding to buy mortgages.
“We will try to put a bill together and do it fairly quickly,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said after the meeting. “We are not in a position to give you any specifics right now” on the proposals, he said when asked about the potential cost.
The likelihood of the government taking on yet more devalued assets, after the seizures of Fannie, Freddie and AIG and the earlier assumption by the Fed of $29 billion of Bear Stearns Cos. investments, may spur concern about its own balance sheet.
We need to get past this concern about government solvency. It’s simply not an operational issue.
Debt Concern
The Treasury has pledged to buy up to $200 billion of Fannie and Freddie stock to keep them solvent, while the Fed agreed Sept. 16 to an $85 billion bridge loan to AIG. The Treasury also plans to buy $5 billion of mortgage-backed debt this month under an emergency program.
“It sounds like there’s going to be a giant dumpster for illiquid assets,” said Mirko Mikelic, senior portfolio manager at Fifth Third Asset Management in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which oversees $22 billion in assets. “It brings up the more troubling question of whether the U.S. government is big enough to take on this whole problem, relative” to the size of the American economy, he said.
This is ridiculous and part of the problem that got us to this point.
[top]
The JG is job guarantee, and it’s identical to ELR which is simply offering a national service job to anyone willing and able to work.
Bill is based in Australia, and his book can be ordered from this website.
He is one of the few who is ‘in paradigm’.
Excerpts from Bill’s email to me:
>
> I have been in South Africa and now in Europe. Today I gave workshops to
> senior policy managers at the ILO in Geneva on employment guarantees. I have
> some further meetings tomorrow with managers of ILO programs in Nepal and
> Mozambique and they are keen to map out an agenda to introduce JGs in those
> countries.
>
Well done!
>
> I will provide a full report about all the workshops and meetings I have had in
> the last 3 weeks when I get back home on Tuesday.
>
> Hope all is getting back to normal. The financial markets certainly are going
> crazy. No-one has really said that the US government cannot afford to pump 82
> billion here and some more there etc into defending financial capital. That issue
> - of financial solvency and capacity of the Govt hasn’t come up. interesting.
>
There have those giving warnings about solvency, and that the US will get downgraded if it goes too far.
And there are those that say ‘pumping in all that money’ is inflationary.
All the best!,
Warren
[top]
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Eric Tymoigne wrote:
>
> One former FOMC member at least gets it (From the NYT) (well, at least if you
> replace “can create money” by “can create reserve”):
>
I’ve heard him before, and he definately doesn’t quite get it. See my comments below:
September 18, 2008, 3:15 pm
Will Government Bailouts Lead to Inflation?
by Catherine Rampell
A reader asks about inflation concerns, and finds a divided response from our panel:I’m worried about how much the government is intervening. It appears that the last remaining weapon the government will have is printing more money. Is hyperinflation a real concern down the road?  Geoffrey Bell
The question is about hyperinflation.
From Bob McTeer of the National Center for Policy Analysis:
All the offsets do is to alter the resulting interest rate. The offsets have nothing to do with inflation. Fed operations are about pricing, not about inflation per se. The only connection Fed policy has regarding inflation is the further effect of the interest rate they select. It has nothing to do with quantity.
The Fed’s ability to lend is limitless because it can create money.
All Fed lending is ‘creating money’ (changing a number in a member bank’s reserve account).
So it’s not that it’s limitless because it ‘can’ ‘create money,’ it’s limitless because it always/only does ‘create money’.
Its ability to offset the lending is limited by its portfolio. Hence, its request to the Treasury to sell some extra Treasury bills.  Bob McTeer
Yes, and this is a self imposed constraint put on by government.
Functionally and operationally, a treasury security is nothing more than a credit balance in a security account.
Current law doesn’t allow the Fed to take funds into a securities account of its own creation.
This is one of many self-imposed constraints by government that are contributing to ‘the problem’.
warren
[top]