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

It’s Time to Nationalize the Banks

In what I think was President Obama’s first substantive error (not including the easily fixed nominee battles), his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner offered an outline of a financial plan that skirts around the main problem facing the financial system. Geithner’s plan is based on three parts:

1) Give $50 billion to homeowners struggling with foreclosure. Details on this will come later but it is, in my opinion, a necessary element.
2) Institute a “stress test” to determine which of the remaining banks are insolvent. If they are found to be insolvent, then…
3) Establish a public-private entity to swallow up the bad assets and sell them later

Some critics charge that this is just Paulson redux. I don’t think that’s entirely fair; Paulson was openly hostile to aid to homeowners, and he quickly abandoned any plan to buy up toxic assets.

The heart of the problem, however, is this: how do you price those toxic assets?

Geithner seems to be calling in the vulture investors to buy up this junk as they have done before.

But the vultures are unwilling to do so at this point because the banks won’t sell the bad assets at their true bargain-basement value.

As economists realize, somebody must buy these toxic assets from the banks if they are going to lend again. Geithner’s public-private plan is vague on who those people are, and, more importantly, how they would price those assets.

in fact, the deeper problem is that the toxic assets have infected and rendered insolvent the entire financial system. It isn’t buyers who cannot be found. It’s sellers: the banks don’t want to sell at market prices because then they would have to take a massive loss on their books and be revealed as utterly insolvent.

Consider these numbers: Citigroup has around $1 trillion in assets, but only $18 billion in equity. Bank of America is worth only $28 billion.

As Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz argues: the banks are already insolvent and just don’t want to admit it. If the housing market dropped one percent more, those 18-28 billion would fall to zero and the gig would be up officially.

Why, then, does Secretary Geithner continue to insist that a public private partnership can somehow coax the big banks to sell their toxic assets at a price that won’t rob taxpayers? Because he’s afraid of nationalization.

President Obama was asked about nationalization and claimed that Sweden could get away with it because Sweden only five banks, unlike our large system. But the problem in America is limited to about six major banks – all of which are facing or in total insolvency.

It’s time to face up to facts: the financial system in this country bet everything on bad loans and lost. Now it’s time for the government to take over the banks, wipe out the bank investors, fire the management, sell the toxic assets at bargain basement prices to the vultures, and then release the cleaned up banks to the market again. Call it “reorganization” or “receivership” if nationalization sounds too radical. Either way, that’s the only way out of this mess.

  • StockBoySF
    One thing to consider when talking about the nationalization of the largest banks is what that move would do to the stock market and people's savings. Shares in these institutions are held by individuals, institutions and probably more importantly employees and former employees (who have a good chunk of their retirement staked on the share prices) of those institutions. Nationalization of the largest banks, each of which probably employees a couple hundred thousand employees would put a strain on the economy for years to come. Those people in retirement or nearing retirement have already seen years (or decades) of their savings go up in smoke....

    Nationalizing the banks would just deepen and prolong the economic crises.

    Also I don't believe our problem is with "six major banks". More than six banks have accepted TARP money and some analysts put the estimate of bank failures at between 1,000 and 1,400 in the next couple of years.....
  • Don Quijote
    Shares in these institutions are held by individuals, institutions and probably more importantly employees and former employees (who have a good chunk of their retirement staked on the share prices) of those institutions. Nationalization of the largest banks, each of which probably employees a couple hundred thousand employees would put a strain on the economy for years to come.


    Shareholders are the owners of the bank, they get to hire, supervise and fire the management. It's not my fault they didn't do their jobs.
  • Silhouette
    Well you know what Don Quijote, we all lost from Bushco's illegal Bigoil corporate takeover of the Middle East to further their monopoly. That war was the straw that broke the camel's back. My kids' college funds lost half their value and so they work instead of attending school.. as long as the job lasts. We all lost, all of us. Every single one of us thanks to Bush and Cheney's siezing of our Whitehouse and using it as a strongarm to pump the BigOil monopoly...the same monopoly whose drones now argue vehemently in Congress why we cannot fund the national security necessity of alternative power (that would be like Pepsi and Coke teaming up to finance a new cola brand trying to get started).

    I digress...sort of...not really....it's all interrealted...

    So you appoint a team to scrutinize fair value and have Uncle Sam partner with private sharks to strike a compromise between the banks and this unholy team. AND any profits over "x" amount gained by the sharks, they kick back to Uncle Sam in a percentage basis...depending on how much Uncle Sam subsidized in the original sale.
  • elrod
    Stockboy,
    Do you know what the value of Citigroup is right now? It's trading at about $3 a share.

    I'm talking about receivership, mainly. The top management is replaced but the core operations of the bank continue as before.
  • Stockboy,
    As elrod said, these banks have already seen their share prices tumble to absurdly low numbers. The people that would be truly hurt at this point would have to own vast quantities of stock in these companies, meaning their probably well enough off anyways.

    Besides, how would well would these people do if the government didn't intervene at all?
  • StockBoySF
    elrod, yes, the market value of C is aroudn $20bn. I think they were at a high of some $270 bn.

    I understand that their shares have plummeted (and that many have lost savings). However I think there are two considerations. One, if the banks are nationalized the value to their shareholders is reduced to zero (but if a bank is forced to be taken over by another institution at least the shareholders own stock in the new institution). Second, as long as the shareholders own stock then their share value will increase..... Maybe not much and it may take a few years, but it's not a total wipeout.

    If the government nationalizes banks and wipes out shareholder value then the government is essentially stealing money from the shareholders, who have lost so much already.

    But obviously if, as elrod indicates, the bank is in receivership and the shareholders still own the institution, then it's not a total loss for the shareholders.

    I think the government has already subsidized the shareholders.... C has received $45 billion in TARP and their stock is less than half that. The government is actually propping up the shareholders at these institutions. Plus the government guarantees, while not a direct prop of shareholder value, certainly supports shareholder value becvause it reduces the losses the banks (and their shareholders) have to endure.

    What's interesting is that normally issuance of more shares cause a dilutive effect on the value of the stock. But these are not normal times and of the trillion or two in assets that C has, no one knows how much the value of those assets will decline....

    Under "normal" circumstances, if it was one bank that was failing due to poor management decisions (like those made at C), I would say, "let it fail." But we've seen that a failure (or a rumor of trouble) can have ripple effects.... and the current economic conditions are something most of us have never experienced before. I think we need to preserve (and create) jobs and shareholder equity even though it otherwise go against our "ideals" in a "perfect" world. We need to limit the damage to individuals as much as possible. If people have their savings wiped out or are forced to government assistance, then it will only become much more expensive for the government. Can you imagine the government spending on millions of people on unemployment if we reach depression era levels?
  • StockBoySF
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC