An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Bailing Out Wall Street Perps: Get Ready To Open Your Wallets, Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer

01abush_031408.jpg

Sentient Americans long ago became accustomed to the gap between George Bush’s words and reality. But when the president spoke to the Economic Club in Manhattan the other day his understanding of arguably the biggest economic crisis since the Crash of 1929 was so shallow, his misrepresentation of the causes so complete and his solutions so inadequate that I wanted to cry.

Few of those thinking Americans will miss hearing the phony twang of a man so able to lie and so unable to lead when he commences the search for his squandered legacy among the scrub brush at his Texas ranch 10 months hence.

But when it comes to that ongoing economic train wreck – and believe me, there is a long way to go before the last car careens off the cliff and crashes into Recession Ravine despite the Federal Reserve’s panicked actions yesterday to stave off further chaos — it really doesn’t matter.

This is because no one in a position of authority, let alone any of Bush’s possible successors as president, seems willing to acknowledge let alone confront the demons that got the economy into such a mess in the first place, so throwing money at the toxic waste dump that is Wall Street becomes a substitute for real action. Kinda like those $600 economic stimulus taxpayer lollipops.

In fairness, the president inherited some of the time bombs that are exploding on the economic train tracks. That so noted, the befuddlement of he and his top economic advisors would be hilarious if it was’t so bloody pathetic.

Bush is probably the last person on earth with a Harvard MBA to not acknowledge the U.S. is in recession, but he did say that “Our economy obviously is going through a tough time.”

His cure? Don’t do anything major except keep his tax cuts for the rich on the books after he leaves office: “The temptation of Washington is to say that anything short of a massive government intervention in the housing market amounts to inaction. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. I believe there ought to be action, but I’m deeply concerned about law and regulation that will make it harder for the markets to recover.”

Meanwhile, feckless Fed chief Ben Bernanke, who makes predecessor Alan Greenspan look like a genius, all but contradicted the president the very same morning in pledging a panoply of new government regulations to limit the impact of the recess . . . er, whatever it is.

While Bush and Bernanke were bloviating, there was an old-fashioned bank run on Bear Stearns.

Now understand that Bear Stearns is not an old-fashioned bank, but rather one of those financial institutions — in this case an investment bank — that was given carte blanche by the Clinton White House (no doubt with the hands-on help of the way experienced Hillary) as well as Congress to rewrite lending rules anyway they saw fit without the encumbrance of government oversight.

This regulation-lite environment enabled Bear Stearns to cook its books with gay abandon, so the extent to which this venerable Wall Street institution was infected by the FTDs (financially transmitted diseases) it and many other lenders had picked up at the subprime mortgage orgy was unclear.

Only three days earlier, Bear Stearns claimed it was infection free from all the bad loans. But that was a big fat fib. After all, two of its own hedge funds had been among the first to go kaplooey, and as soon as the run began it had to acknowledge it did not have the liquidity to stay afloat.

Because Bear Stearns has played in the regulation-lite sandbox, its customers do not have the depositor protection that traditional commercial banks have enjoyed since FDR halted the bank runs of the Great Depression through government guarantees.

In an historically precious but otherwise pitiful moment, Bear Stearns was forced to beg Bernanke’s Federal Reserve for a lifeline. This is because it cannot borrow directly from the Fed because it’s not a real bank, so it had to enlist JPMorgan Chase.

The Fed obliged yesterday, approving a $30 million credit line to engineer a Bear Stearns takeover by JPMorgan Chase and announcing an open-ended lending program for FTD sufferers to try to avoid a systemic meltdown in the financial markets.

JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay a mere $2 a share to buy all of Bear Stearns — an extraordinary bargain that represents less than one-tenth the 85-year-old firm’s market price. Oh, and Bear Stearns threw in its headquarters skyscraper for good measure.

While not the housing-market intervention that the president is resisting, the Fed action was massive in its own right and all the more so coming on the heals of a $200 billion loan program it already had announced last week.

So while millions of homeowners continue to suffer, Uncle Sam has ridden to the rescue of the gray-flannel suits at the largest investment banks and will now hold as collateral a wide variety of investments including mortgage-backed securities.

These securities, of course, are now nearly worthless because of the profligate (and I daresay borderline criminal) behavior of Wall Street bigs, which caused the FTD epidemic in the first place, although the actions certainly give new meaning to what former Fed chairman Greenspan called “market flexibility.”

No matter, a full-fledged bailout akin to the massive savings and loan rescue of the 1980s can’t be far behind.

You see, the Wall Street perps won’t have to make good on all of the money they squandered as they snug into their golden parachutes. But somebody will have to do it, so get ready to open your wallets, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.

Photograph by The Associated Press

  • superdestroyer
    You attacked every solution that is being proposed without proposing any of your own or linking to others whose solutions you find reasonable.

    This post is the typical liberal activist rant. Rant about a problem, nitpick others, and then run before you have to discussion any solutions of your own.

    And before you say, "I do not know enough to propose solutions," you wrote toxic waste dump that is Wall Street becomes a substitute for real action.
    So you obviously have some idea of what real action (in the future) would be. It would be interesting to read what you consider real action.
  • mikkel
    A few small details: It was $30 billion, it was more like 98% off from the price that they were only a few days ago, and they own a $1.3 billion building, so JP Morgan spent negative $1 billion for the company.

    As for solutions, I think it is becoming increasingly clear. First, bailouts won't work because there is way too much debt to bail out. Regardless of what we do, the system is going to flush itself, and more energy and money should be spent on making sure that our basic necessities can be met than anything else at this point.

    In my mind there are really only two good options once things rebuild. We can do what the "Austrian school" believes, which is to abolish the Fed, go back to the gold standard and let all interest rates float. If we did this, it would require little government regulation, but liquidity could not be created instantly and we would most likely see smaller booms and slightly larger busts in each business cycle. There would just never be a knock out punch.

    Alternatively, we could keep the monetary system currently in place and have some more regulation, and perhaps changes in how we view culpability in failure. The huge problem is that all the people responsible for the mess did it in the case of hundreds of millions and they aren't going to have to be giving it up because they never did anything illegal (or at least that we know). The entrepreneurial spirit and asset protection that businesses give are about the best thing in the US business system because they allow people to take risks. However, they are more for either small businesses just getting started, or large businesses that get outdated or unlucky. What these people did is downright negligent. I think that there could be laws passed to treat businessmen more like doctors, where if they do something that is not criminal, but so boneheaded that no professional should ever do it, then they are personally liable. Also, companies could introduce either delayed compensation or contractual penalties, where the managers still get paid based on performance, but instead of it being quarter to quarter, their actions will have to pass muster for like 5 years.

    But like I said in a prior thread, I believe the core problem is more human nature than anything and am pessimistic that any long term solutions will work.
  • kritt11
    Another aspect of the disasterous "legacy" Bush will leave us with. Conservatives can try and spin this any way they like, but the cold hard facts are that Bush took the balanced budget and multi-billion dollar surplus, and turned it into a whopping deficit, increased the debt by spending without sacrifice on foreign wars, and did not rein in the lending industry when it was still possible to avert this crisis.

    We produce little and consume much- we are reduced to buying cheap tainted goods from China produced by labor conditions that we ourselves would never tolerate. How can anyone consider voting for more of the same?
  • shaun
    superdestroyer:

    Riddle me this: When Wall Street fat cats are making billions its the free market at its most glorious and capitalism at its headiest. When they get so greedy that they run their institutions into the ground, they beg for bailouts and it's the helping hand of government at its most glorious and socialism at its best.
  • Dave_Schuler
    Shaun, you are aware that the Federal Reserve isn't a department of the federal government aren't you? When the Fed acts it isn't “the government”. The Federal Reserve is an odd public-private hybrid of which we have a number (which itself says something about our system).
  • superdestroyer
    Shaun,

    I assume that you are willing to accept the panic that would occur when everyone tries to get the 401K, IRA, and everything else out of the market and into cash? Of course, the question you would ask is what would the government be willing to give up when tax receipts crash along with the financial markets.

    New regulations can try to prevent the problem in the future but will probably just make the near term situation worse (see the savings and loan collapse of the early 1980's or look what happened when Montgomery County Maryland proposed new regulations on loans about two years ago. If you look at the new regulations that Senator Obama is proposing, a company would have to be crazy to make loans due to the limit upside rewards versus the huge downside risks.

    More regulations means fewer loans and back to the days when minorities received fewer loans than whites, I assume you are also Ok with going back to that.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    mikkel, the numbers you use ignore the assumption of any debt owed.
  • shaun
    Dave:

    "Odd" is a big part of the problem. There is no question in my mind no matter the Fed's status that the taxpayer will be taking an enormous hit.
  • Dave_Schuler

    There is no question in my mind no matter the Fed's status that the taxpayer will be taking an enormous hit.
    reply

    How?

    If the U. S. government bails out some banks using funds out of general revenues, that would constitute “the taxpayers taking a hit”. Otherwise, no.
  • mikkel
    Jim they don't owe much debt, they have $17 trillion in derivative liabilities. (Of course JPM was the counterparty to a lot of that, so they bought them so they wouldn't take huge losses.) Anyway, if things go bad, then the liabilities that JPM just bought will bring them down too potentially.
  • mikkel
    Dave: debasement of currency potentially.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    I'd love to have someone knowledgeable explain how much of the Fed's funding come from taxes. The Wikipedia isn't quite getting me there. Though I'm inclined to say Shaun is much more right than wrong.

    Since he's commented her on that subject, maybe Dave Schuler can clarify. He has a pretty good post at his own blog about what the bailout potentially means. Executive summary: It won't be pretty.
  • AustinRoth
    Either you believe in and support true capitalism, or you don't. If you do, then 'balouts' like this have no place, even for larger companies. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    However, I am not a 'true' capitalist. I do believe that some government regulation and oversight is required, but balouts like this. Anti-competitive monopoly laws and things like the Glass-Steagall laws that raised walls against banking self-interest are a good thing.

    Here is a good overview of the repeal of an important piece of legislation (in 1999), that has led directly to the current banking problems - Re-thinking Glass-Steagall.

    Key point from it:

    Kuttner:

    The enormous loopholes in financial regulation—the hedge fund loophole, the private equity loophole, are justified on the premise that consenting adults of substantial means do not need the help of the nanny state, thank you very much. But of course investor protection is only one purpose of regulation. The other purpose is to protect the system from moral hazard and catastrophic risk of financial collapse. It is this latter function that has been seriously compromised...

    ...[I]f you are going to rescue markets from their excesses, on the very reasonable ground that a crash threatens the entire system, then you have an obligation to act pre-emptively, prophylactically, to head off highly risky speculative behavior. Otherwise, the Fed just invites moral hazards and more rounds of wildly irresponsible actions.
  • cfpete
    “Because Bear Stearns has played in the regulation-lite sandbox, its customers do not have the depositor protection that traditional commercial banks have enjoyed since FDR halted the bank runs of the Great Depression through government guarantees.”

    Heard of SIPIC lately, I guess not.

    However, SIPIC is completely irrelevant because JP Morgan would assume responsibility for any cash and securities held in brokerage accounts.

    If Bear had failed, then SIPIC would have forced bankruptcy and liquidated any assets to compensate customers - unless of course investment fraud was proven.
  • Rudi
    cfpete - I believe the Bear Sterns buyout/liquidation is being backed upped by a federal guarentee for JPM. If BS goes any worse, the taxpayers assume the problem.
  • kritt11
    "Riddle me this: When Wall Street fat cats are making billions its the free market at its most glorious and capitalism at its headiest. When they get so greedy that they run their institutions into the ground, they beg for bailouts and it's the helping hand of government at its most glorious and socialism at its best."

    Yes, Shaun, we have no problem with corporate welfare in a capitalist state. If the bailout were going to New Orleans residents who lost everything-then there'd be a big problem!
  • Jim_Satterfield
    So far as I know, none of the Fed's funding comes from taxes.
  • DLS
    "arguably the biggest economic crisis since the Crash of 1929"

    Very arguably. Every time there is a downturn or even the whiff of one (which is naturally hyped to ridiculous proportions) when a Republican in office it's the next Great Depression, etc. [yawn]

    The main thing is that there should be no bailouts. Sadly, too many people (not just the vast numbers who willingly took on larger debts than they ever could hope to manage, during the real estate bubble) want "something done" (so they enjoy a risk and responsibility free life) while even people in the federal government and economists, who should know better (not blatantly political Dem Party hacks like Krugman, but serious economists) not only believe Washington will consider a number of financial institutions too large and important to fail, but that this is how things _should_ be -- even in the case of institutions that have engaged in poor or even crooked practices.
  • Slamfu
    Maybe Exxon should buy them out instead, they've got some extra liquidity these days.
  • Slamfu
  • StockBoySF
    Slamfu- I LOVED the subprime primer and it's right on! But it doesn't even deal with the derivatives piece, which just adds another layer of complications. :)

    Thanks!
  • StockBoySF
    Bear has highly leveraged- 30x. It may have some good assets, i.e. it's headquarters (that Jamie Dillon likes) and it's prime brokerage operations, but it's impossible to value the securities on its books- since those markets are now illiquid- no one wants to touch the toxic crap. It's impossible to tell how much JPMorgan (or the Fed) will eventually owe to Bear's trading counterparties.

    It's interesting to note that JPMorgan will be overseeing the day to day operations before the merger is complete (or even approved).

    It will be interesting to see if the Fed's action (guaranteeing Bear's obligations) is permissable.

    http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=393118
  • StockBoySF
    mikkel, I don't know where you come up with the "$17 trillion in derivatives liabilities" figure. Do you mean the notional amount?
  • StockBoySF
    I just had to share this, it's from Marketwatch:

    "J.P. Morgan paid less for Bear Stearns than the LA Galaxy paid for David Beckham," said Andrew Clarke, sales trader at SG Securities in Hong Kong.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC