Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Financial System Watch

David Stout writes in Sunday's New York Times: "Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will soon announce a new strategy for reviving the country's financial system while making sure that banking executives do not misuse federal money meant to assist their companies, President Obama said Saturday in his weekly address."

"The president said the goal of the strategy would be to get credit flowing again to families and businesses....

"The administration, the president said, would ensure that chief executives 'are not draining funds that should be advancing our recovery'...

"Administration officials have said that restrictions on executive pay at companies benefiting from the rescue program may be announced this week. Later, perhaps next week, revisions in the program will be announced under which the most toxic assets of the banks will be bought up or guaranteed, so that the institutions will have incentives to unclog the credit streams."

Vikas Bajaj and Stephen Labaton write in the New York Times: "As the Obama administration prepares its strategy to rescue the nation's banks by buying or guaranteeing troubled assets on their books, it confronts one central problem: How should they be valued?

"Not just billions, but hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake....

"Placing too low a value would force institutions selling and others holding similar investments to register crushing losses that could deplete their capital and make it harder for them to increase lending.

"But inflated values would bail out the companies, their shareholders and executives at the expense of taxpayers, who would swallow the losses if the government could not recoup what it had paid."

Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times opinion column: "Question: what happens if you lose vast amounts of other people's money? Answer: you get a big gift from the federal government — but the president says some very harsh things about you before forking over the cash...

"I'm talking, instead, about the administration's plans for a banking system rescue — plans that are shaping up as a classic exercise in 'lemon socialism': taxpayers bear the cost if things go wrong, but stockholders and executives get the benefits if things go right....

"In normal times, banks raise capital by selling stock to private investors, who receive a share in the bank's ownership in return. You might think, then, that if banks currently can't or won't raise enough capital from private investors, the government should do what a private investor would: provide capital in return for partial ownership.

"But bank stocks are worth so little these days — Citigroup and Bank of America have a combined market value of only $52 billion — that the ownership wouldn't be partial: pumping in enough taxpayer money to make the banks sound would, in effect, turn them into publicly owned enterprises.

"My response to this prospect is: so? If taxpayers are footing the bill for rescuing the banks, why shouldn't they get ownership, at least until private buyers can be found? But the Obama administration appears to be tying itself in knots to avoid this outcome."

By Dan Froomkin  |  February 2, 2009; 1:38 PM ET
Categories:  Financial Crisis  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Daschle Dilemma
Next: Stimulus Watch


Obama is now "promising" an oversight panel to manage the 2nd half of TARP. Well, the 1st half of the TARP had an oversight panel who issued at least 2 scathing reports about chronic dysfunction but no one paid any attention. I believe the question should be how Obama's oversight panel will do better? Further, what is the strategy this time around???

Posted by: winoohno | February 2, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The taxpayer should be treated like any other investor, i.e. the taxpayer should hold equity in these firms, even if that means holding the majority position. Moreover, the government should vote the shares in the interests of reestablishing fiscal responsibility in these organizations and curbing run-away executive compensation.

Posted by: fzdybel | February 2, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Well one way for Congress to get back all of that bonus money would be to really, really raise taxes on the super wealthy, i.e., those making over a million a year in compensation (or pick a lower number like the $400K a year). For example, sine about $18 Billion was paid in bonuses, how about a 90% tax on them??

Now some will say you will drive all this so-called talent elsewhere. Just who would hire these guys that ran a bank or financial institution into the ground?? If they did hire them, then they are stupider than the original employer. Only in America do we reward the stupid and incompetent.

Posted by: RedRat | February 2, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company