Madness, Madness

Today the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and the Treasury depart­ment are try­ing to rush the Congress into the steeply priced finan­cial sec­tor bailout. This plan calls for the U.S. trea­sury to pur­chase all the bad debt sur­round­ing the sub-prime deriv­a­tives crater, with a cur­rent price-tag $700,000,000,000. I for one, would not be sur­prised if that fig­ure was a low-ball esti­mate, not least of which since even some senior Republicans believe it will cost at least $1t. Whatever your feel­ings on the sub­ject or the cost or other bailouts you want to add, there really isn’t a way to main­tain the finan­cial sys­tem with­out some kind of mas­sive fed­eral intervention.

The price tag, while beyond all com­pre­hen­sion, is prob­a­bly what it will end up cost­ing. And there are a lot of pet poli­cies I’d like to see enacted to pre­vent this sort of thing in the future: a Tobin tax; laws and insti­tu­tions designed specif­i­cally to pre­vent unreg­u­lated instru­ments; a seri­ous rethink­ing of bank­ing accounting/reporting pro­ce­dures (There has been a major, global credit/debt cri­sis every ten years since the 1970s. Something is insti­tu­tion­ally fucked.) Save it and restruc­ture it at the same thing

One thing I wouldn’t do, how­ever, is repeal exist­ing laws enacted dur­ing the New Deal to pro­tect aver­age peo­ple and busi­nesses from the dra­matic down­sides of a poorly-regulated finan­cial indus­try. Specifically, there was a law passed in 1933 that said “invest­ment banks must be sep­a­rate from com­mer­cial banks”. Effectively, this means that National City Bank can’t play the mar­kets, and Morgan Stanley can’t main­tain your sav­ings accounts.

This was done to cre­ate a fire­wall between the spec­u­la­tors and the savers, so when the invest­ment side of the bank got trounced by a mar­ket crash, they couldn’t raid the accounts of depos­i­tors to pay up. This is what has pre­vented the cri­sis from becom­ing a seri­ous, imme­di­ate, bread/butter issue for Americans right now.

According to Bloomberg, this pro­vi­sion is also on the chop­ping block for the bailout.

The money quotes:

“The announce­ment paves the way for the two New York-based firms, both of which will now be reg­u­lated by the Fed, to build their deposit base, poten­tially through acqui­si­tions. That will allow them to rely more heav­ily on deposits from retail cus­tomers instead of using money bor­rowed in the bond mar­ket — the lever­age that led to the undo­ing of Bear Stearns and Lehman.”

[…]

“‘Deposit-banking is king right now,’ said David Hendler, an ana­lyst at CreditSights Inc. in New York. ‘It’s the only mean­ing­ful critical-mass way to make money.’”

In other words, rather than try to cover their losses on bad debt by sell­ing bonds and get­ting swept away, now they will use the money in deposit accounts instead.

6 Responses

  1. Glad to see you writ­ing about this James!

    So these invest­ment banks are in the process of con­vert­ing into “bank hold­ing” com­pa­nies. The nice thing about that move is they’ll be bet­ter reg­u­lated and lim­ited to lever up only to 12:1. When they were invest­ment banks they were lever­aged up to 30:1.

  2. James Cape says:

    jamesh:

    Yeah, but that’s only to the tune of $100,000/account (which is lower than the oper­at­ing bud­gets of most com­pa­nies). The SEC has also set down-limits on a *lot* of finan­cial stocks, and has allowed “national” exchanges (e.g. NYSE, NASDAQ) to add more to the list. Effectively, the gov­ern­ment is say­ing that any trades which devalue a bank’s stock below some per­cent­age of the pre­vi­ous day’s close (it looks like around 20% from here) are con­sid­ered invalid on their face. There was some arti­cle out there that claimed this was sim­ply because the FDIC can’t afford to bail out com­mer­cial account hold­ers on top of every­thing else.

    ebryn:

    I almost thought you were seri­ous for a sec­ond :-) . They will have to oper­ate under slightly harder reg­u­la­tions so far as how deep they can lever­age them­selves, yes. But I’d be sur­prised if they didn’t get right back into this hole based on more intense schemes a decade from now, because the basic issues remain unresolved.

  3. Philip Langdale says:

    I don’t think it means that the ‘fire­wall’ between com­mer­cial banks and invest­ment banks is being removed — it’s that the two invest­ment banks are turn­ing them­selves into com­mer­cial banks. They won’t be able to raid depos­i­tors to any greater degree than the exist­ing com­mer­cial banks. Essentially it rep­re­sents the aban­don­ment of the invest­ment bank model

  4. pel says:

    Lovely.
    I thought the repub­li­cans were against spend­ing too much money on welfare?

    Seriously though — it is prob­a­bly needed. What I am miss­ing is the whips, chains and **** probes to be used to aid in the reg­u­la­tion of the finan­cial sec­tor. If it doesn’t hurt, they’ll never learn. In my not so hum­ble opin­ion the geniuses at these banks should not be able to sit down for the dura­tion of the next decade.

Leave a Reply

*