Why the Government Had to Step In

I had a lot of readers write me very nice letters this week, starting out with how much they like my letter, my insights, etc. Then they (mostly – but not all – and politely) launched on me for backing the rescue plan. Many of you had much better ideas than what was passed by Congress, which is not surprising.

I really do hate the idea of having to support a rescue plan. It goes against my every instinct. But I also know that doing nothing would result in an economy which would blow right through 10% unemployment within a few quarters, and take years to recover. The stock markets and the savings of millions of retirees would be wiped out. Home values would really go into a tailspin. Being right in theory is not worth seeing that kind of devastation.

Herbert Hoover sat by and decided to let the market solve the problems of 1929. He decided to run budget surpluses and ignore collapsing institutions. Combined with disastrous Federal Reserve policy (raising rates in a recession) and Smoot Hawley (which caused major trade wars and a slowdown in global trade), what should have been a serious recession turned into the Great Depression and resulted in the conditions for World War II.

The rescue plan does not address the need for the increased levels of capital needed by banks. As noted above, it simply creates the conditions under which capital might be raised. Banks have already raised $440 billion. They have written down $590 billion. Losses are estimated from a mere $1 trillion to as much as $2 trillion. About half of those losses would be in banking institutions worldwide. That means anywhere from $200 to $400 billion more must be raised in order for banks to get back to capital adequacy. It is probably closer to the latter number.

Until banks are adequately capitalized, they are not going to be able to do normal business lending. Further, large deposits are fleeing banks. Even with the new level of $250,000 of FDIC insurance, there is $1.9 trillion in uninsured deposits. These are mostly deposits of small to large businesses and financial institutions, which can leave a bank at the push of a button.

Nouriel Roubini tells us that there are 800 billion dollars deposited in US banks by foreign counterparties. Up until this week, if you were a foreign operation, would you rather be in large money-center US banks or European banks? Tough choice, but on balance you would pick the US. Then this week Ireland decided to simply insure every deposit in Irish banks, no matter the size. Predictably, money started flowing from all over Europe into Ireland. National banks and finance ministers are furious with Ireland.

However, Ireland may have no choice but to backstop its own depository institutions to keep them from losing deposits and becoming insolvent from a bank run by corporations acting in their own best interests. Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg each took 49% of their respective parts of Fortis Bank in return for a massive injection of capital, declaring the bank too big to fail – also wiping out a lot of already diminished shareholder equity. Europe has its own quite serious problems.

But what if the various countries, one by one, decide to guarantee deposits in order to protect their own banks? If you are an international corporation, especially if you are outside the US, do you want your $10 million in Europe or the US if Europe guarantees your deposits with no limit? Could we see silent runs on US banks?

I think it is about an even chance that the government will have to guarantee for a period of time (say 6 months to a year) every bank deposit, regardless of size, in the US.

That is a staggering thought. The potential will be large for almost-insolvent banks to pursue risky behavior to try and work their way through problems. If such a policy is pursued, tight controls must be administered so risky banks do not offer high CD rates in order to garner assets. The FDIC must closely monitor such activity. Perhaps such guarantees should be for existing depositors and not new customers. Insolvent banks and those on the edge must be shut down quickly in such an event, to prevent risky behavior.

Unthinkable? I bet you there is a working committee of government and Fed officials thinking about just that very thing and how to do it. It would be even more scary if there is not one. We are in completely uncharted waters, and every contingency needs to be thought through well in advance. We simply don’t need more last-minute Paulson plans.

In the next few weeks and months, I think you can count on more extraordinary actions by the Fed and Treasury to try and jump-start the credit markets. Actions which were highly improbable a few months ago will be on the table. Will the Fed open its balance sheet to non-banks? Possibly. If they can guarantee money markets, will there be a scheme to insure commercial paper at some price? Not out of the question. Will European governments take more equity in large European banks? Very likely. Will the Fed and/or the Treasury invest even more capital in larger financial institutions? Given that We the People now own 80% of AIG and 100% of Fannie and Freddie, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that we will be the proud owners of even more private institutions.

Again, this is not just a US issue. We will likely see similar actions in Europe and some of the developing world. This is a worldwide crisis, and the response will be from central banks all over the world.

Understand, I am not advocating these actions. I am simply trying to help you understand what actions might be put into place by the various government of the world in an effort to avoid systemic economic collapse.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Pages: 1 2 3 4