Secretary Geithner's Speech: A Viewer's Guide
At 11am this morning, from the Cash Room at the Treasury, Secretary Geithner will lay out his vision (and hopefully some convincing details) regarding how to get the US financial system back on its feet. What should we listen for as indications that this is heading in the right direction?
1) If there is a "once and for all" audit of the banking system, as President Obama seemed to say yesterday, what do we learn about the toughness of the rules under which this will be conducted? Annoucing an thorough assessment is potentially a positive step, but vagueness spells trouble (for us, not the banks) down the road. We need this audit to force major banks to use market prices to mark down fully their portfolios; anything else is evasion and procrastination.
2) Are there any indications that the Treasury will pursue other policies that are tough on the bankers? We already know that in terms of executive compensation, Mr Geithner argued for - and won - very weak limitations (or, you might say, a generous insurance scheme for their future bonuses). And the NY Times is reporting that he also prevailed on whether bank executives should lose their jobs or bank shareholders suffer further losses. Is there anything at all in the speech that would at least make the CEO of a major bank frown? Writing in the Financial Times yesterday, Lloyd Blankfein (head of Goldman Sachs) essentially said that it is "business as usual" - is there any sign Secretary Geithner will call his bluff?
3) Is the Secretary using private equity to reform or to shore up the banking system? Any hint that Treasury will send private equity in to clean up banks and clean out their managers would be most welcome. But if today's proposals bring private equity's interests into line with the bankers, e.g., because they both gain from hidden government subsidies in a private-public toxic assets acquisition, that is not helpful. The financial lobby is powerful and our only hope is to split it and use, for the time being, some of the Finance Oligarchs against the others.
4) Then, of course, we have to figure out how to contain the power of the Oligarchs who win big. It would be would be a major breakthrough for the Secretary recognize, in any fashion, that the largest banks are "too big to exist." Is there even a hint that he thinks the size and concentration of our banking system is a problem, and that our new regulations and supervisory structures should take this on? Does he make any move that would create incentives or pressure for large banks to break up (or to be broken up by new owners)?
5) What is the market reaction? If the stock prices of the largest, most troubled US banks are up after his announcements, that means the market is expecting further generous handouts for these compananies and the people who run them. This is a rare instance when a Treasury Secretary's words should aim to push down at least some prominent stock prices.
I've talked over the past few days with people with extensive financial market experience, with journalists who've covered every angle of this story, and with academics who think about these issues all day and night. And I've had remarkably similar conversations with each. After a short warm up on the depth of our predicament and the excess of our bankers, the person looks at me and says: "of course, we should just nationalize."
Personally, I don't favor nationalization in the sense of the government trying to run the banking system. But I increasingly feel that, ultimately, the government will have to (a) properly recapitalize the banks, (b) as a result, acquire the right to determine who are the next private owners of these banks, and (c) bring in private equity and other financial interests to clean up the banks (yes, oligarch v. oligarch). I don't know how long it will take to get there, but I'm afraid most of the time between now and then will be wasted.
Unless Secretary Geithner can lay out an alternative path with convincing detail today, my expectation remains: the banks will not be fixed with the current approach, and the true reckoning still lies before us.
(Along these lines, our detailed proposed questions for Secretary Geithner's Senate hearings, this afternoon and tomorrow morning, are here.)















"ultimately, the government will have to (a) properly recapitalize the banks, (b) as a result, acquire the right to determine who are the next private owners of these banks, and (c) bring in private equity and other financial interests to clean up the banks (yes, oligarch v. oligarch)."
(a) Proper recapitalization is necessary in any governmental purchase of any securities. Accepting the banks evaluation for "toxic assets" is just giving away taxpayer money without any controls since the value of the most "toxic" assets is less than zero.
(b) The government (Politicians) determining who are the next private owners of these banks sets an extremely bad precedent. The "private owners" who contributed the most to their campaigns (gave the politicians the biggest bribes) would have the inside track.
(c) Bringing in private equity. Sounds good until consideration is given to where this "private equity" is to come from. Given the downturn in the stock markets, there is no private equity available to be brought in.
Instead of nationalizing the current banks, how about setting up a national bank to compete with these failed private banks - using any "bailout" funds for capitalization? Why continue to support failed institutions and incompetent managers with taxpayer dollars?
February 10, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why continue to support failed institutions and incompetent managers with taxpayer dollars?
Why indeed. I did not like phase one of this mess and the current incarnation smells even worse than 10 day old cat fish.
C
February 10, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea -- a (or several) parallel bank(s) owned by the taxpayers.
Could those "taxpayer banks" be run inside Citi and BoA and Wells Fargo using the employees already in place? Give those loan officers a passel of cash and let them loan away -- hell, give them bonuses for making good loans (if there are such things).
Leave the other side of the bank to go down the tubes.
February 10, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Instead of nationalizing the current banks, how about setting up a national bank to compete with these failed private banks - using any "bailout" funds for capitalization?"
- I don't really see the sense in this alternative.
Nationalization= Seize citi and BofA, wipe out shareholders and give bondholders a haircut, replace management, and - voilà - there you have your national bank. (if you want it)
Your alternative: let the big banks liquidate, and their staff be laid off, while you set up a new bank, hiring the unemployed bankers out there, get it up and running after some 1-2 years, at which time the economy will have long crashed and burned.
hmm. I like Nationalization.
February 10, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Nationalization
I think we have a bumpersticker.
February 10, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johann's plan may take too much time to set up, but ---
It does solve the problem of post-nationalization lawsuits based upon the claim that the government's acts in nationalizing, generally, and in selecting the banks it did, specifically, was "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable."
February 10, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. But given our previous exchanges, Ellen, I'm surprised to see you worrying about lawsuits the government might face. :-P
In any case, depends on how you nationalize - you could just buy out current shareholders at current prices, which are falling every day...
February 10, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the shareholders I'm concerned with; it's the bondholders.
February 10, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't we need a divide-and-conquer clause as well, to make sure that every reconstituted organ of Finanzkapital is so small that nobody will give a hoot when the Harvard Victory School MBA's do their thing and it fails?
Happy days.
February 10, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
My vote: nationalism.
BTW, Mr. Johnson, you may think it is foolish to limit the pay of execs to $500,000. But the American folks have just about had it (finally) with those in power (law writers - the high $$$$$$ folks). I LIKE the plan. The ones who created this are worth more? In what universe?
February 10, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My vote: nationalism."
Think you mean nationalIZATION. nationalism is for nazis. We're all marxists here, thank you very much!
February 10, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The nationalization solution is better than the Schiavo solution - it's dead but we'll keep feeding it and hope a miracle happens.
February 10, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Annoucing an thorough assessment is potentially a positive step, but vagueness spells trouble (for us, not the banks)"
Well, it was vague. But there will be pork.
February 10, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink