7.7 trillion won’t be the final tally, either. Given how much the Fed, Treasury and other federal entities have pledged it’s really hard to understand how little they’ve accomplished. 7.7 trillion is, well, real money but credit in the real economy is still constricting and jobs are melting away faster than an ice cube in a blow torch.
The money has largely been wasted because it was used mostly to lend companies money for lousy assets rather than being used to set a floor under housing prices by resetting such prices with new mortgages, then determing prices for various options through either using cash flow (a security paying $10/year for 10 year is worth $100 discounted by expect inflation) or by resetting those without cash flows by discounting face at the likely default rate, which can be determined simply enough by looking at the market for liquid securities and seeing what sort of default rate is assumed for securities with the same return. Since most Credit Default Swaps have very very high implicit returns, they’d probably have default rates in the 20%+ range. That’s fine, discount them that way.
Inasmuch as this is a confidence crisis, and it isn’t primarily, until everyone knows what the actual damage is and where the floor is, the lack of confidence won’t go away. More to the point, until financial institutions know they aren’t going to be able to buy up rivals for cents on the dollars, they’re going to horde money.
Taking over a few banks and using them to lend directly to the public at whatever rates the Fed thinks are appropriate (a few percentage above prime) is, at this point, the only way to get lending going. It sure wouldn’t cost more than 7.7 trillion, but even if it did, it would actually accomplish the goal of getting real credit into the real economy.
This game of giving bankers money to do what they want with (i.e., horde it) has not solved the economy’s real problems. It has, however, cost ridiculous amounts of money, much of which will never be seen again.
There’s an old saying that if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. It’s past time for the government to do it themselves. Use the banks they’ve taken over to start making loans, issuing credit cards, offering reset rate and face mortgages. If the banks still in private hands don’t join in, they’ll lose all that business, probably more or less permanently, since the banks doing the lending will keep the customers.
Add in a home ownership loan corporation style plan which buys and resets mortgages to fixed rates at lower face amounts (30% of average income in the area, at most) to set a floor under the housing carnage, force securities to actually be priced at something reasonable, then insure those prices through the government, and you’ll have unfrozen the credit markets, restored quite a bit of confidence and actually received something for all the money you’ve received, rather than just allowing executives at banks to keep their jobs despite their corruption, venality and incompetence.
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Throwing more good money after bad money… “heckuva job, Paulie”
Where did Jane go???
As sometimes happens, I think Jane got posted a little ahead of schedule. But I also would wager, she’ll be back some time in the future, with all comments intact.
Isn’t technology a wonderful thing?
It’s a bustout.
Paulson should be in prison.
Kinda blew my mind too – went looking all over no find.
It seems to me that a good place to start would be to fire the guys who are doing such a crappy job of running the bailout, and putting in people who are competent.
Of course, that means getting BushCheney out of the way first, because they don’t want competent people running things; said competent people could figure out who did what with the money, and file charges as appropriate.
Been kinda wondering lately – is the american public to big to fail.
Their ideological blinders prevented them from, first, recognizing the problem and, second, developing a solution that would work. Finally, now that they are on a path that might work, their continued ideological intransigence prevents them from managing it with any success at all.
Step one: fire all the Busheviks.
Step two: start over from scratch.
Step three: do it right this time.
Lemme see…love is a many-splendored thing, so, yeah, technology can be a wonderful thing. Shifting gears . . .
Somehow, I’ve missed the frame of reference here. What is the basis of this estimate and how was the money dispensed and to whom?
i believe that we will be able to suck it up yet another time. you see, it ain’t about us. we just peons.
7.7 trillion?
i think i’m going to be sick.
Step 1 fire the Busheviks
Step 2 nationalize the banks
Step 3 fire all the CEOs, COOs, CFOs
Step 4 hire someone that is competent and has common sense
Step 5 file lawsuits against all those fired in one and 3 above
Exactly, Paulson and Bernanke have been throwing incomprehensible amounts of money to shore up a house of cards, but it is still a house of cards which is why their efforts have no lasting effect.
I’m a broken record on this but to date they have not addressed a single underlying problem which created the meltdown. They have not helped distressed homeowners. They have not gotten banks to declare their losses from their crap assets. And they have not regulated the system. If there were a pantheon of fuckedupedness, Paulson and Bernanke would be gods in it.
not to worry. we will just print the money.
Honey, 7.7 trillion is sort of like a flu shot. A smaller, somewhat concentrated dose to protect against the larger epidemic lurking around the corner.
Bernhard of MoA nails it again…
I don’t doubt that the Romans asked themselves much the same question but were told by their leaders and “media” that no way that could happen. So be reassured.
veni, vidi, vomit, eh Selise?
While Nero fiddled…? ;-)
Correct, some crossed wires. She’ll be up next.
Selise, question for you. A few days ago in threads regarding the economy several people mentioned a name that I am unfamiliar with (although I’m sure I should be.) The name started with a b and was something along the lines of Boulienne. I think I remember you mentioning this person, so I’m hoping you will have a clue about what I am talking about and will be able to reiterate the name so I can look this person up and familiarize myself with him/her. Would you be so kind as to educate me?
please excuse my ignorance of history, but has there ever been a more outrageous act of out right theft?
Yes, banks should be utilities, believe I’ve said the same thing a couple times.
I haven’t looked at the link but the loan facilities, and there are multiple ones, at the Fed, which have gone largely unremarked by politicians and the media are huge. As I have said before, Paulson tosses around hundreds of billions the way Bernanke does trillions.
Bloomberg has a list at the link. It’s mostly loans.
Probably.
not sure i know who you mean. was this a person mentioned in current events or recent (20 years) past?
we definitely need a cast of characters.
Sort of a conflation of Sheila Bair at the FDIC with Nouriel Roubini at Columbia, the guy who has been calling this correctly for a long time now?
Bush pardons 14 and commutes two sentences (on MSNBC).
That you have, Ian, I just wanted to point out similar sane views…! ;-)
*oohh ohhhh, jumps up and down and yells pick me pick me*
this is an easy one;
they gave as much money as conceivably possible to the very same people who stole it in the first place
someone here thinks they weren’t going to steal it again?
of course they were going to steal it again, this was brutally obvious, predictable and it was the first test obama would face as the likely next president,
he failed miserably
do tell
Someone posted a list of some of the retailers going out of business after Christmas. Does this mean that there will be a round of big box foreclosures to come? Are these losses accounted for?
It seemed to me that s/he was mentioned in regard to writings. I did not catch whether it could be a blogger, or what. There may have been an r in the name. I remember the name seeming french-like. I thought it had to do with money or economic or something. I had the feeling it is someone current. May have been mentioned at the same time Stiglitz was mentioned. If anyone else has a clue, feel free to chime in…
How many on CNN and Faux
the first bush election, the second bush election
there
oh, I forgot to mention the war, this was outright theivery, the only purpose of this war was to secure the treasure of the middle east and the assets of the american middle class
The recent announcement of a government program to renegotiate loans at 38% of income are crazy. I think even the 30% figure you give is high. From what I recall 28% DTI or Debt to Income is the max that is recommended. So you can have housing costs that are 28% of your income but no other debt at all!
None!
Firepups, I have nothing on the pardons/sentence commutes yet. It was just a ‘breaking news’ blip on MSNBC but MSNBC has made no comment about it at the moment.
Here it is!
http://www.google.com/hostedne…..wD94LJ0E80
bernhard has been excellent – a must read – on this for some time, but i agree that was an especially excellent post today.
you fergit the spread of the christian faith in that heathen area.
sound like hugh @30 may have it?
Thanks Ian.
Thanks to eureka springs for opening the digg
This is a bummer to read:
“At the same time, Obama advisers say there is little — if any — chance that his administration would bring criminal charges.”
(from the AP I posted @ #42)
Thank you, this really helps.
i have to say i am just stunned by the number – 7.7 trillion
Heh, not just for his financial posts…! ;-)
i read them all to. read all his comments back in the wiskey bar days too.
And they are hearing from the Realtors they talk to that the re-default rate on a lot of these loan modifications are running at 50% – that is half those of modifications aren’t working.” (CR)
Shoring up over priced homes is not a workable long term solution. Housing prices like all the other asset bubbles need to drop to realistic prices before home buying can be affordable for most working/middle class buyers.
$25,000 for every one of us?
wasted? without doing one thing to address the underlying problems?
It’s a shame Billmon took off…! ;-)
look this is no problem. we will just sell insurance shares to the corps that need money. we will guarantee funds fer a year for a fee. prefered would be aaa and cost a bit more than bbb and xxx. so while everyone pays into this process there is no issue. higher risk tranches will dry up first, however so they cost less. simple.
Thanks, Hugh, that may be right after all. (Don’t know why I associated French, obviously this name seems Italian)
Me, too. It’s mindboggling that it would take that enormous amount…and no one in the position to do something got on the stick and did something *before* it got to this point.
When I watched the hearing at the House on this fiasco, Kashkari struck me as arrogant and aloof. He non-answered almost every question with a *cough* heartfelt *cough* “I share your perspective…”
I kept hearing “I feel your pain” of the Clinton years. Kashkari, Paulson, et al, have no clue.
I’m listening to NPR talk about how Geithner knows what he is doing. They are also talking up Obama’s presser today in which he said virtually nothing. This is why the mess isn’t going to get better. Even at this late date both politicians and media remain in denial.
And they are hearing from the Realtors they talk to that the re-default rate on a lot of these loan modifications are running at 50% – that is half those of modifications aren’t working.” (CR)
Shoring up overinflated home prices is not a workable solution. Like all other asset bubbles housing needs to come down to where it is actually affordable for working/middle class citizens.
Keeping people in their homes is important but I have yet to read of a proposal that is not a bailout for builders instead of a lifeline to homeowners. How do you allow home prices to fall to a realistic price and keep people in their homes?
we’ll call them federal reserve default swaps and let them be traded among the corporations so they can lay off the risk. simple.
Thank, Selise, for steering me in what is probably the right direction!
Kashkari was just channeling Paulson. It was all about “market stability” and if markets were stabilized everything else would be OK. No evidence that it would be but he kept repeating that line anyway.
I think that the bottom line that no one will face is that there is no solution to this problem. It’s not fixable. Period.
I liked the comment that Kucinich delivered at the end:
After Kashkari had once again danced around a question by saying how “hard they were working” to fix this mess, Kucinich said, “I don’t doubt you’re working hard…I wonder who you’re working for…?”
got NO hope? how about the return of the chosed one?
Jane returns upstairs
I posted this yesterday, but also seems appropriate here. The cost to stop the foreclosure bleeding is relatively small compared to the trillions people are talking about to save the “too big to fail.” Here is what we could have easily done with the $700 billion TARP money:
There are about 51 million first mortgages in the United States right now — but only about 1.4 million of them are either referred for foreclosure or in foreclosure, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association chief economist Jay Brinkmann. In other words, fewer than 3 percent of American homes with mortgages are in foreclosure. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..d=94921465 (here are some dated government figures from Oct. 2007, which are a little lower than the Brinkman numbers http://www.gao.gov/htext/d0878r.html could not find more recent gov’t numbers)
The average first mortgage on a home is around $225,000.00 with payments of $1780.00 principal & interest for a period of 30 years. Here is the math:
If the US TARP program paid 100% face value for each one of the 1.4 million mortgages in foreclosure or about to go into foreclosure average $225,000.00 the cost would have been 1.4 million X $225,000.00 = $315,000,000,000 or $315 Billion dollars. In other words the US could have paid the lending industry 100% of the value of each of its bad loans, and stopped every foreclosure on every homeowner that was in foreclosure or about to be foreclosed for less than half of the $700 billion TARP program. The US could then have gone to each homeowner and renegotiated the debt to keep a large majority of the people in their homes.
This not only assumes the US would have had to pay 100% face value for each loan, but that each loan it purchased had no value, which is not true. Assuming that the average loss would have been 50%, or stated another way, that the US modified each loan with each homeowner so that it was affordable and the loan was still secured by equity in the property, say at an average loss of 50% (or the average value of each home in foreclosure was 1/2 of the mortgage debt), this means the US would have written down 50% of the $315 billion cost. So saving each homeowner in or facing foreclosure would have cost a little less than $160 Billion. Throw in another $40 billion to set up and administer the program similar to the depression era HOLC program and some unexpected costs and liabilities, the US could have saved almost everyone in foreclosure or facing foreclosure at a cost of around $200 Billion. It would cost even less when you think of the interest that these now performing loans would generate and throw in a small equity kicker say 10% on sale or refi as a condition of the restructured loan.
I think if it is too big to fail it is too big. Maybe now is the time for the US to nationalize all of the consumer home mortgage business, all of the consumer credit card business, and all of the consumer homeowner insurance business. In other words time to use the shock doctrine on conservatives.
it’s the political problems that seem most difficult to me. there are all kinds of good ideas about what to do economically….
There are so many loan modification programs out there that it is difficult to know what’s going on with them. Most of them sound like BS. Bair’s suggested loan modification program which so far seems like the best of the lot covered nonFannie/Freddie loans. Of some 4.4 million of these that had problems, she thought that about half would be eligible for modification (2.2 million) and that 1/3 of these would re-default so in all about 1.5 million homes or about 1/3 of the original number (which again does not cover all the problem mortgages everywhere) would be helped. So the numbers overall are worse than you suggest.
The tragedy is that it was both avoidable and even after it happened it remained eminently fixable. But it will not be fixed as long as we have the idiots who created the problem (and this covers both Bush’s and Obama’s economic advisers) calling the shots on it.
It’s not that I have no hope, I just think that no amount of bailout in any way will solve the problem. Things just have to fail, and a lot of pain has to occur, like it or not. The institutions will fail anyway, no matter how much future borrowings we throw at it. Why waste the money? That may sound hopeless, but I think the recovery can’t happen until then and I’m optimistic about our future then.
point of personal pet peeve…
now that budgets/bailouts/rescues etc. are priced in Trillions (with a “T”) can we now dispense with
the *&^%$#! PENNY ?
(to save a Billion (with a ‘B’)or two each year?)
Is that all they’ve come with? That’s not even close shouldn’t it be about 70 Trillion in all? I wrote a few years ago the need to spell Trillion and now what the next number, anyone?
jo6pac
The race to the bottom continues
Thanks for the great updates Ian
Gotcha. Didn’t see that at first. This is a Bloomberg estimate. And they have litigation demanding transparency with regard to recipients of loans and the collateral accepted that Paulson characterized as ‘counterproductive.’ Right.
The banks need to be split into the constituent parts that existed ante Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Stat.
That’s only $257,000 for each US citizen. Peanuts.
Tim Geithner as new Treasury Secretary and Citigroup’s near failure and bailout dominated the news this weekend. Tim Geithner, who cares? He has been at the NY Fed pulling the levers alongside Bernanke and Paulson so he obviously doesn’t have the magic formula to save the world. As for Citi, I have just a few observations. First, wasn’t Citi supposed to be a potential buyer of Wachovia just 5 weeks ago? Weren’t they the Fed’s horse in that race? Didn’t they jump up and down stomping their feet while talking lawsuit against Wells Fargo’s deal intrusion? Did they have the money 5 weeks ago to purchase Wachovia? If they did then where did it all go? Money center bank, cornerstone of American capitalism goes from solid to bankrupt mush in the blink of an eye? Was it all smoke and mirrors 5 weeks ago? OK, no more questions, just a simple 2nd grade conclusion. It WAS smoke and mirrors then as it is now. It has been smoke and mirrors for so long that Wall Street, Washington, and Main St. all got lulled into believing everything from the improbable to the impossible to be the new certainty.
Picking apart the Citi deal is a little bit humorous. First, Citi has already gotten $25 Billion from the TARP just recently which turned out to have been less than a band aid. In this deal Citi will get a backstop of about $250 Billion for its CDO portfolio and as I understand it this is only for their “on balance sheet assets”, their “off balance sheet assets” dwarf what they show on the books. Citi will also get $27 Billion in exchange for warrants at $10.61 and 8% preferred stock. Citi closed on Friday with a market value of about $20 Billion after receiving $25 Billion just recently so this first $25 Billion has already been flushed, now the government put $27 Billion more and goes on the hook for an additional $250 Billion in guarantees? I don’t get it, the government has put together a $300 Billion package for a company that the market said was worth $20 Billion [and that was Friday before a bailout]. I guess they’ll deal with the bigger problem later [the off balance sheet black hole]
OK so let’s look at this from OUR standpoint, the citizens who are putting up the money. Treasury and the Fed have just put up $27 Billion for a 7.8% stake in a company that was valued at $20 Billion? This is paying 12.8 times the value of the $27 Billion, another way to look at it is the government is on the hook potentially for $306 Billion or 15 times Citi’s market cap. I am not a rocket scientist but with this type of deal I wouldn’t get in a car to the end of my driveway with the Treasury or Fed driving! What about the off balance sheet debacle? The on balance sheet goo was supposed to be “the good stuff”, what happens to the “bad stuff”?
AND AS ALWAYS, WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM??? answer…out of thin air, the government can only borrow it. Well actually they do have another option. Once they can no longer borrow in the capital markets they will have only one option left, this option is always the last one used by every government in history that went bankrupt. THEY WILL PRINT, PRINT, PRINT! There are no other options left. I don’t know how long it will take for the masses to do the math on this but when they do, the “value of a Dollar” will be so far from the old saying “as good as Gold” as black is to white. There will be continued efforts at spin, forget it, the system we knew and loved is toast. Actually toast is too polite, after this fire there will only be ashes remaining.
My two cents, and admittedly my own opinion. Another advantage of Ian’s plan is that it is a way to speed the expected remaining drop in housing prices. Usually the slow deflation of housing bubbles is feature, not a bug. But I think that the current system of mortgage securitization (partially bailed our or not), cannot handle drops (probably not even slower appreciation) in housing prices, or lower than expected cash flows from the newly minted species of mutated mortgage monstrosities.
With the current system there is a good chance the continued, necessary, drop in housing prices in many areas of the country will simply generate more toxic waste securities and more froze up credit markets over the next couple of years.
A Home Owners Loan Corporation style program could help with that problem. It would be nice to see Ian’s mortgag plan coupled with real Scandinavian/Nordic reckoning for financial institutions: partial natioanlization of troubled institutions, triage, program for oderly liquitidations and restructurings as appropriate. With preffered stocks and warrants in firms that can survive for the taxpayer.