A Different Way Forward - One That Would Actually Work

John Hussman has long been defensive on stock market exposure due to excessive valuations, then he became even more cautious at just the right time in late 2007, as first he said -- repeatedly -- throughout September 2007 that the Fed's actions would not succesfully reflate the economy; in October 2007 gave a very rare prediction of near-term market direction, warning that stocks were due to fall significantly; then in November 2007 said that he expected a recession was immediately ahead.

He didn't think the recession would turn out to be too bad, and didn't seem to expect stocks to fall quite as much as they did (though he's always been very circumspect in offering near-term prognostications). But his pessimism was tempered by a presumption that government policy would be fair, well-considered and effective. In that, he gave too many people too much credit. It seems he has been getting increasingly concerned that continued policy mistakes would lead to continued worse outcomes.

In his latest commentary, On The Urgency of Restructuring Bank and Mortgage Debt, and of Abandoning Toxic Asset Purchases, he offers a prescription, much different from initiatives now in place,

Note - Regular readers of these weekly comments will recognize many elements of the following analysis from published remarks over the past year. They are summarized here to provide a clear picture of the current situation, outlook, and the options available to Congress. To the extent that this discussion is consistent with your own views, please forward it to others, particularly to your representatives in the House and Senate. There is far too little debate about alternative responses to this crisis. – JPH

Steps to Stability - Needed Legislation

1) Enable the receivership of distressed bank and non-bank financial institutions (including bank holding companies), encouraging voluntary debt-equity swaps as an alternative to the receivership / conservatorship of insolvent institutions.

2) Stabilize insolvent financial institutions through receivership if the bondholders of the institution are unwilling to swap debt for equity. In virtually all cases, the liabilities of these companies to their own bondholders are capable of fully absorbing all losses without the need for public funds to defend those bondholders. Receivership involves defending the customer assets, changing the management, wiping out the common stock and a portion of the bondholders' claims, continuing the operation of the institution in receivership, and eventually selling or reissuing the company to private ownership, leaving the bondholders with the residual. Massive bailouts using public funds are unnecessary, as are disorganized Lehman-style failures.

3) Allow “toxic asset” purchases using public funds only to the extent that the entire issuance of various securitized mortgage pools can be purchased “all or none” at a moderate percentage of face value. This would allow the underlying mortgages to be restructured - ideally writing them down to a similar percentage of face - reducing their foreclosure risk, and increasing the likelihood that public funds will be recovered.

4) Act quickly on foreclosure mitigation. Establish a Treasury conduit to administer (but not guarantee) property appreciation rights on restructured mortgages, again encouraging voluntary restructuring, using the Treasury conduit as a coordinating mechanism (additional details below).

5) Allow bankruptcy judges to substitute a portion of foreclosed mortgage obligations with equivalent claims on subsequent property appreciation. “Push-down” of mortgage principal without offsetting compensation rights to lenders should be emphatically avoided.

Background

Last week, the U.S. Treasury Secretary advanced two proposals; one was a call for regulatory reform that is absolutely essential to the resolution of the current financial crisis. The other was a recipe for the insolvency of the FDIC, which would squander public funds to subsidize private speculation in troubled mortgage securities.

To understand this financial crisis, it is important to consider the balance sheet of a typical leveraged financial institution. The example below is similar to the one I presented last year in You Can't Rescue the Financial System if You Can't Read a Balance Sheet, but makes allowance for the fact that assets continue to be impaired due to policy failures, and that deposit banks such as Citigroup use more bond financing than investment banks. At the beginning of the recent crisis, the condition of U.S. financial institutions was much like the following:

Good Assets: $90

Questionable Assets: $10

TOTAL ASSETS: $100

Liabilities to Customers: $65

Debt to Bondholders: $30

Shareholder Equity: $5

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDER EQUITY: $100

Now suppose there are losses in those questionable assets - not all the way to zero, but to $4:

Good Assets: $90

Questionable Assets: $4

TOTAL ASSETS: $94

Liabilities to Customers: $65

Debt to Bondholders: $30

Shareholder Equity: $-1

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDER EQUITY: $94

The above institution is insolvent. There are several ways to address this situation.

Direct Capital Infusions

The first possible response is to provide public capital directly to the banks, which is what the Treasury did last year by purchasing newly issued preferred stock of banking institutions. A capital infusion increases the asset side of the balance sheet (cash on hand) and increases the shareholder equity side of the balance sheet by the same amount. The difficulty is that without clear restrictions on the use of that capital, banks have the freedom to continue business as usual, including using the public capital to finance bonus payments and other expenditures. Absent explicit restrictions, there is also no assurance that the public funds will be lent out. To some extent, financing additional loans is not the purpose of capital infusions. The purpose is to replace the cushion of equity (“Tier 1 capital”) that stands between the bank's customers and bankruptcy.

Capital infusions are certainly a viable option to respond to the immediate threat of insolvency. These infusions were largely responsible for reducing the immediate threat to the U.S. financial system in late 2008. However, in the face of large and increasing losses, capital infusions are not sustainable. The public stands to lose the entire amount of funding if the institution fails, unless the infusions can be provided as a senior claim ahead of bondholders in the event of bankruptcy, and still be counted as “Tier 1 capital” otherwise. There are currently no legal or regulatory provisions to accomplish this.

Note that gross private debt currently stands at about 350% of GDP, about double the historical norm. Meanwhile, many of the assets underlying this debt are being marked down in value by 20-30% or more. Given that GDP itself is about $14 trillion, a continued policy of bailouts will eventually require a commitment of public funds amounting to a significant fraction of $14 trillion. The “real” burden of the mounting federal debt will have to be devalued through inflation, or it will place an onerous claim on the nation's future production and capital investment (which might otherwise be able to provide for the needs of an aging population).

Ultimately, if a financial institution is not capable of surviving without large and constant infusions of public capital, the stockholders and bondholders of that company – not the public – should be responsible for the losses incurred. As noted below, this can be achieved without customer losses or a disorganized Lehman-style unwinding.

Toxic Asset Purchases

The Treasury's proposal to address insolvency is to finance the purchase of impaired assets from the banks, primarily using taxpayer funds. But note that if the questionable assets are taken off of the bank's books at their actual value ($4 in the example above), there is absolutely no change on the liability side of the balance sheet. The bank's capital position does not improve. The “toxic asset sale” simply replaces the bad assets with cash. While this might improve the “quality” of the bank's balance sheet, it does not make the institution solvent.

Indeed, the only way for the toxic asset sale to increase shareholder equity is if the buyer overpays for the asset. To accomplish this, the Geithner plan creates a speculative incentive for private investors, by effectively offering them a “put option,” whereby taxpayers would absorb all losses in excess of 3-7% of the purchase amount. This is essentially a recipe for the insolvency of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation itself, which would provide the bulk of the “6-to-1 leverage.” To the extent that it is not acceptable for the FDIC to fail, the Geithner plan implies an end-run around Congress, and would ultimately force the provision of funds to cover probable losses.

An equal concern is that there is no link between removing “toxic assets” from bank balance sheets and avoiding large-scale home foreclosures and loan defaults. All the transaction accomplishes is to take the assets out of the bank's hands, to offer half of any speculative gains to private “investors,” and to leave the public at risk for 93-97% of the probable losses. What the plan emphatically does not do is to affect the payment obligations of homeowners in a way that would reduce the likelihood of foreclosure. Moreover, the last thing that a bank would do with the proceeds would be to refinance such mortgages, because that would provide full repayment to the original lenders while taking on the risk of the newly refinanced loans.

If part of the intent of Congress is to increase lending, this could be done directly by providing funds to GSEs or by broadly providing capital to solvent regional banks. This would be a much more effective way of increasing the volume of lending in the U.S. economy without putting taxpayers at risk of major losses. There is no need for the public to purchase impared assets in order to increase lending activity.

Remember that the “toxic assets” held by banks represent pools of mortgages that have been cut up into dozens of individual pieces; the higher grade pieces having first claim to payments made on the underlying mortgages, and the lower grade pieces having claims to less likely payments. It is improbable that banks will be interested in selling off the better “tranches,” and yet there is no benefit (aside from rank speculation) to owning the lower tranches unless the underlying mortgages can be restructured.

As a result, the only point in the public having anything to do with these securitized mortgages is if all of the tranches of a given issue can be purchased simultaneously, so that the underlying payment obligations of the homeowners can be restructured. That is, if the entire issue could be purchased at 50% of the original face amount, the underlying mortgages could be written down by the same proportion. Those mortgages would then be far more likely to be repaid, and as a result, the restructured debt could be sold back into the financial markets without the need for taxpayers to hold it to maturity. There is no “all or none” mechanism in the Treasury's toxic assets plan to accomplish this.

While the U.S. equity market advanced strongly on the day the Treasury plan was announced, most market indices were lower by the end of the week, and credit spreads (indicators of bondholder concerns about default risk) did not budge. It is far from clear that the Wall Street has confidence in the plan, beyond the fact that a trillion dollars to speculate on mortgage securities at taxpayer expense was not immediately rejected.

Debt Restructuring

From the beginning of the recent crisis, starting with Bear Stearns, I have emphasized that nearly all of the financial institutions at risk of insolvency have enough liabilities to their own bondholders to fully absorb all probable losses without any loss to customers or the American public. The sum total of the policy responses to this crisis has been to defend the bondholders of distressed financial institutions at public expense.

Note that in the example balance sheet above, 30% of the liabilities of the institution represent debt to the company's own bondholders. It is these individuals – not homeowners, not the American public – that are being defended by the promise of trillions of dollars in public money.
For example, while Citigroup has approximately $2 trillion in assets, those assets are financed not only by customer deposits, but also by nearly $600 billion in debt to Citigroup's own bondholders. It is these private bondholders who provided the funds for Citigroup to acquire questionable assets.

The bondholders of distressed financial institutions – not the American public – should bear responsibility for the losses of those institutions. This can be accomplished, without harm to customers or the broader financial system, in one of two ways:

1) The bondholders could voluntarily agree to move a portion of their claims lower down in the capital structure, swapping debt for equity (preferred or common), allowing the bank to have a larger cushion of Tier-1 capital, avoiding insolvency, and hopefully allowing the bank to recover by its own bootstraps , preferably assisted by debt restructuring on the borrower side (via property appreciation rights and the like). Alternatively;

2) The U.S. government could take receivership of the financial institution, defend the customer assets, change the management, wipe out the stockholders and a chunk of the bondholders claims entirely, continue the operation of the institution in receivership, and eventually sell or reissue the company to private ownership, leaving the bondholders with the residual. Indeed, this is how the largest bank failure in history – Washington Mutual – was handled so seamlessly last year that it was almost forgettable. This is not Argentina-style “nationalization,” but receivership – a form of “pre-packaged bankruptcy” that protects the customers and allows the institution to continue to operate, followed by re-privatization. This would fully protect all of the customers and depositors at no probable expense to the public.

What should not be done is what was allowed in the case of Lehman Brothers – a disorderly failure, by which the company was allowed to fail with no conservatorship of the existing business. It was not the failure of Lehman per se, but the disorder resulting from its piecemeal liquidation, that caused distress to the financial markets.

That said, it is true that the bondholders of major banks include pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, foreign investors and other holders that would be adversely affected by a writedown in bond values. But this is part of the contract – when one lends money to a financial institution, one also assumes the risk and responsibility of bearing the losses. Congress always has the ability to mitigate the losses of some parties, such as pension funds, if it is agreed that this is in the public interest. But to defend all bondholders of financial institutions at public expense is to commit the future economic output of innocent citizens to cover the losses of mismanaged financial institutions. As a result of the intervention by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, even the bondholders of Bear Stearns stand to receive 100% repayment of both interest and principal on their bond investments. This is absurd.

Receivership Provisions

More than a year ago, in a March 24, 2008 comment (Why is Bear Stearns Trading at $6 instead of $2?), I emphasized the need for immediate authority to take distressed financial institutions into receivership in order to cut away the stockholder and bondholder obligations, while preserving the ongoing business, as well as its obligations to customers and counterparties:

“At what point will investors figure out that the liquidity problems are nothing but the precursors of insolvency problems? At what point will investors stop begging the government to save private companies and recognize that the losses should be taken by the stock and bondholders of the offending financial institutions? If the Fed and the Treasury are smart, they will act quickly to figure out how to respond to multiple events like we've seen in recent days, to expedite turnover in ownership and quickly settle the residual claims of bondholders, without the kind of malfeasance reflected in the Bear Stearns rescue.”

It is essential for regulators to have the ability to take distressed institutions into receivership, so that customers and counterparties of insolvent financial companies can be fully protected. Ideally, this determination should be made not by the Treasury, but by the FDIC, which has a clearer regulatory role. The objective of receivership provisions would be to allow the failing institution to be partitioned into an operating entity (including whatever questionable loans are on the books), while cutting away the obligations to the stockholders and bondholders of that institution. Upon the sale, liquidation, or re-privatization of the institution, the bondholders would receive the portion of the proceeds that are not required as regulatory capital.

To reduce the indirect effects of such receivership on other institutions, it would be helpful to legislate a restriction on the use of credit default swaps (essentially insurance contracts against the failure of a company's bonds), requiring that such swaps may be used for bona-fide hedging purposes only. That is, a credit default swap could not be entered for purely speculative purposes, but only to offset the default risk of the same or similar bonds held by the investor.

Foreclosure Abatement

Although trillions of dollars have been promised or committed in hope of resolving the current financial crisis, the simple fact is that virtually nothing has been done to reduce the incidence of foreclosures. Even if the plan to remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets is successful (however “success” might be defined), the rate of foreclosure will be unaffected, because no change in the payment obligations of homeowners will result.

As with financial institutions, insolvent mortgages would best be addressed by a) voluntarily swapping debt for equity, or failing that; b) technical default and restructuring of the debt obligation.

From the standpoint of homeowners, a debt-equity swap is equivalent to writing down the mortgage principal, while at the same time giving the lender an equal and offsetting claim on the future appreciation of the home. As I noted in The Economy Needs Coordination, Not Money, From the Government,

“The most useful feature of government in resolving the foreclosure crisis is not its ability to squander taxpayer money, but its ability to provide coordinated action. I still believe that the best approach to foreclosure abatement would be for the Treasury to set up a special “conduit” fund to administer “property appreciation rights” or what I've called PARs.

“Suppose a $300,000 mortgage is in foreclosure (or the homeowner and lender can agree to the following arrangement outside of foreclosure court). A reasonable mortgage restructuring might be to cut the principal of the mortgage to $200,000, and to create a $100,000 property appreciation right. The homeowner would agree to pay off the PAR to the Treasury (and administered through the IRS) out of future price appreciation on the existing home or subsequent property. The homeowner would be excluded from taking on any home equity loans or executing any “cash out” refinancings until the PAR was satisfied. The maximum PAR obligation accepted by the Treasury would be based on the value of the home and the income of the homeowner.

“The lender would receive not a direct claim on that homeowner, but a participation in the Treasury's “PAR fund” which would pay out proportionately from all PAR proceeds received by the Treasury (technically, new shares in the PAR fund would be assigned based on a ratio reflecting the extent to which existing shareholders have already been paid off, so earlier shareholders don't receive more than they have coming to them).

“Importantly, the Treasury would not guarantee repayment, but would simply serve as a conduit. There would be no “free lunch” at taxpayer expense. If the homeowner was to eventually sell the home and not purchase another, the obligation would become a low-interest loan obligation and would eventually be a claim on the estate of the homeowner, but with an initial exclusion at low income and a progressive recovery rate based on the size of the estate. The PARs would be tradeable, since they would be based on a single pool of cash flows, though they would almost certainly trade at a discount to face value. Assuming that the PAR obligations are fixed and don't increase at some rate of interest, then even if home prices were expected to take about 15 years to recover, the PARs would still trade at more than 50% of face. Given that recovery rates in foreclosure are running at only about 50% of the entire loan, it is clear that this sort of approach would be preferable to foreclosure in most cases. If this sort of mechanism were available, lenders might agree to outright principal reductions as well in preference a costly foreclosure process.

“This sort of approach would reduce foreclosures without relying on free money from the government, or violating contract law. The PARs would provide a legally enforceable, diversified stream of cash flows at far lower cost than individual lenders would have to spend to collect from individual homeowners. Since home sales are taxable events, the IRS would be in an ideal position to enforce these obligations.”

The Danger of Inaction

If there is any good news at present, it is that the capital infusions of late-2008 have temporarily stabilized the banking system, and that the U.S. economy is presently enjoying a brief and modest reprieve from the financial crisis. This is largely the result of an ebbing in the rate of sub-prime mortgage resets, which reached their peak in mid-2008, with corresponding mortgage losses and foreclosures a few months later. Since this crisis began, the profile of mortgage resets has been well-correlated with subsequent foreclosures.

Figure 1

Unfortunately, the reset schedule above depicts only sub-prime mortgages. As the recent housing bubble progressed, the profile of mortgage originations changed, so that at the very peak of the housing bubble, new originations took the form of Alt-As (low or no requirement to document income) and Option-ARMs (teaser rates, with no required principal repayments).

A broader profile of mortgage resets is presented below (though even this chart does not include the full range of adjustable mortgage products).

Figure 2

This reset profile is of great concern, because the majority of resets are still ahead. Moreover, the mortgages to which these resets will apply are primarily those originated late in the housing bubble, at the highest prices, and therefore having the largest probable loss. Though many of these mortgages are tied to LIBOR, and therefore benefit from low LIBOR rates, the interest rates on the mortgages are typically reset to a significant spread above LIBOR, and this spread remains constant as interest rates change. Undoubtedly, some Alt-A and option-ARM foreclosures have already occurred, but the likelihood is that major additional foreclosures and mortgage losses lie ahead. If we fail to address foreclosure abatement during the current window of opportunity (early to mid-2009), there may not be time for legislative efforts to contain the resulting fallout.

Figure 3

As a foreshadowing of the probable foreclosures ahead, the following is what the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and the Office of Thrift Supervision noted about option-ARMs and other loans in a colorful little booklet entitled “Interest-Only Mortgage Payments and Payment-Option ARMs: Are They For You?” , published in November 2006:

“Owning a home is part of the American dream. But high home prices may make the dream seem out of reach. To make monthly mortgage payments more affordable, many lenders offer home loans that allow you to (1) pay only the interest on the loan during the first few years of the loan term or (2) make only a specified minimum payment that could be less than the monthly interest on the loan.

"Whether you are buying a house or refinancing your mortgage, this information can help you decide if an interest-only mortgage payment (an I-O mortgage)--or an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) with the option to make a minimum payment (a payment-option ARM)--is right for you. Lenders have a variety of names for these loans, but keep in mind that with I-O mortgages and payment-option ARMs, you could face

* "payment shock." Your payments may go up a lot--as much as double or triple--after the interest-only period or when the payments adjust.

"In addition, with payment-option ARMs you could face

* negative amortization. Your payments may not cover all of the interest owed. The unpaid interest is added to your mortgage balance so that you owe more on your mortgage than you originally borrowed.

"Payment-option ARMs have a built-in recalculation period, usually every 5 years. At this point, your payment will be recalculated (lenders use the term recast ) based on the remaining term of the loan. If you have a 30-year loan and you are at the end of year 5, your payment will be recalculated for the remaining 25 years. The payment cap does not apply to this adjustment.

"Lenders end the option payments if the amount of principal you owe grows beyond a set limit, say 110% or 125% of your original mortgage amount. For example, suppose you made minimum payments on your $180,000 mortgage and had negative amortization. If the balance grew to $225,000 (125% of $180,000), the option payments would end. Your loan would be recalculated and you would pay back principal and interest based on the remaining term of your loan. It is likely that your payments would go up significantly.

"Be sure you understand the loan terms and the risks you face. And be realistic about whether you can handle future payment increases. If you're not comfortable with these risks, ask about another loan product.”

Judging from the reset schedule above, it is clear that more than a few borrowers ignored this advice.

Market Climate

As of last week, the Market Climate for stocks was characterized by reasonable valuations – moderate undervaluation on earnings-based measures that assume a reversion to above-average profit margins in the future, but continued overvaluation on measures that do not rely on future profit margins being above historical norms.

This is an important distinction, because much of my constructive perspective about valuations late last year was based on the expectation of something of a “writedown recession” whereby our policy focus would have been on properly defending customers through greater use of the receivership process – demonstrating that the financial system itself could remain sound even while allowing the writedown and restructuring of debt. I believed, as I wrote a year ago, that

“The U.S. economy will get through this without the requirement of massive public bailouts. What is required, however, is that the stock and bondholders of financial companies take due losses. Customers and counterparties need not, and I expect will not, be harmed.” My optimism that our policy-makers would see clearly enough to follow this course was mistaken (fortunately, we are within 5% of where we stood at the beginning of this bear market).

The misguided policy of defending bondholders against losses with public funds has increased uncertainty, crowded out private investment, harmed consumer confidence, and prompted defensive saving against possible adversity. We observe this as a plunge in gross domestic investment that is much broader than just construction and real estate, and a corresponding but misleading “improvement” in the current account deficit as domestic investment plunges.

Aside from a few Nobel economists such as Joseph Stiglitz (who characterized the Treasury policy last week as “robbery of the American people”) and Paul Krugman (who called it "a plan to rearrange the deck chairs and hope that that keeps us from hitting the iceberg"), the recognition that this problem can be addressed without a massive waste of public funds (and that it is both dangerous and wrong to do so) is not even on the radar.

In short, attempting to avoid the need for debt restructuring by wasting trillions in public funds increases the likelihood that the current economic downturn will be prolonged, places a massive claim on our future production in order to transfer our nation's wealth to the bondholders of mismanaged financial companies, and raises the likelihood that any nascent recovery will be cut short by inflation pressures. We are nowhere near the completion of this deleveraging cycle.

To the extent that we continue to force add-on effects in the form of declining employment and capital investment, we also reduce the likelihood that profit margins and returns on equity will recover to the historically above-average levels which have prevailed in recent years.

The advance of the past few weeks has cleared the prior oversold condition and the market is now overbought in a generally negative Climate. As should be clear from last year's decline, the market can be severely oversold and only become more oversold, so an oversold condition is not a timing tool. That said, oversold conditions in clearly favorable Market Climates are often followed by strong advances, and overbought conditions in clearly unfavorable Market Climates are often followed by spectacular declines. At the recent market low, the Market Climate could certainly not be characterized as favorable, but at the present overbought level, there is considerable risk of a fresh plunge.

Thus far, the recent advance has been focused on low-quality and distressed sectors such as financials, insurance and homebuilders. If the current advance is durable, we would expect to observe stronger market internals, greater participation among higher quality sectors, and a clear easing of credit spreads, which remain near their highs despite the advance in equities. On sufficient improvement in market internals, we would be inclined to establish call option positions that would gradually take us to a significantly less hedged position on persistent market strength, but we do not expect to eliminate our put option defenses until the combination of valuations and market action becomes clearly favorable, or until it is reasonable to expect a sustained economic recovery within a quarter or two. Nothing in our analysis of valuations, market action, or economic conditions compels us that removing downside protection is reasonable at present.

Its Bigger Than You Think

In No Return to Normal in the Washington Monthly, James K. Galbraith explains why the current crisis, and its solution, are bigger than most anyone thinks. (highlights are mine)



Barack Obama’s presidency began in hope and goodwill, but its test will be its success or failure on the economics. Did the president and his team correctly diagnose the problem? Did they act with sufficient imagination and force? And did they prevail against the political obstacles—and not only that, but also against the procedures and the habits of thought to which official Washington is addicted?

The president has an economic program. But there is, so far, no clear statement of the thinking behind that program, and there may not be one, until the first report of the new Council of Economic Advisers appears next year. We therefore resort to what we know about the economists: the chair of the National Economic Council, Lawrence Summers; the CEA chair, Christina Romer; the budget director, Peter Orszag; and their titular head, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. This is plainly a capable, close-knit group, acting with energy and commitment. Deficiencies of their program cannot, therefore, be blamed on incompetence. Rather, if deficiencies exist, they probably result from their shared background and creed—in short, from the limitations of their ideas.

The deepest belief of the modern economist is that the economy is a self-stabilizing system. This means that, even if nothing is done, normal rates of employment and production will someday return. Practically all modern economists believe this, often without thinking much about it. (Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it reflexively in a major speech in London in January: "The global economy will recover." He did not say how he knew.) The difference between conservatives and liberals is over whether policy can usefully speed things up. Conservatives say no, liberals say yes, and on this point Obama’s economists lean left. Hence the priority they gave, in their first days, to the stimulus package.

But did they get the scale right? Was the plan big enough? Policies are based on models; in a slump, plans for spending depend on a forecast of how deep and long the slump would otherwise be. The program will only be correctly sized if the forecast is accurate. And the forecast depends on the underlying belief. If recovery is not built into the genes of the system, then the forecast will be too optimistic, and the stimulus based on it will be too small.

Consider the baseline economic forecast of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency lawmakers rely on to evaluate the economy and their budget plans. In its early-January forecast, the CBO measured and projected the difference between actual economic performance and "normal" economic performance—the so-called GDP gap. The forecast has two astonishing features. First, the CBO did not expect the present recession to be any worse than that of 1981–82, our deepest postwar recession. Second, the CBO expected a turnaround beginning late this year, with the economy returning to normal around 2015, even if Congress had taken no action at all.

With this projection in mind, the recovery bill pours a bit less than 2 percent of GDP into new spending per year, plus some tax cuts, for two years, into a GDP gap estimated to average 6 percent for three years. The stimulus does not need to fill the whole gap, because the CBO expects a "multiplier effect," as first-round spending on bridges and roads, for example, is followed by second-round spending by steelworkers and road crews. The CBO estimates that because of the multiplier effect, two dollars of new public spending produces about three dollars of new output. (For tax cuts the numbers are lower, since some of the cuts will be saved in the first round.) And with this help, the recession becomes fairly mild. After two years, growth would be solidly established and Congress’s work would be done. In this way, the duration as well as the scale of action was driven, behind the scenes, by the CBO’s baseline forecast.

Why did the CBO reach this conclusion? On depth, CBO’s model is based on the postwar experience, and such models cannot predict outcomes more serious than anything already seen. If we are facing a downturn worse than 1982, our computers won’t tell us; we will be surprised. And if the slump is destined to drag on, the computers won’t tell us that either. Baked into the CBO model we find a "natural rate of unemployment" of 4.8 percent; the model moves the economy back toward that value no matter what. In the real world, however, there is no reason to believe this will happen. Some alternative forecasts, freed of the mystical return to "normal," now project a GDP gap twice as large as the CBO model predicts, and with no near-term recovery at all.

Considerations of timing also influenced the choice of line items. The bill tilted toward "shovel-ready" projects like refurbishing schools and fixing roads, and away from projects requiring planning and long construction lead times, like urban mass transit. The push for speed also influenced the bill in another way. Drafting new legislative authority takes time. In an emergency, it was sensible for Chairman David Obey of the House Appropriations Committee to mine the legislative docket for ideas already commanding broad support (especially within the Democratic caucus). In this way he produced a bill that was a triumph of fast drafting, practical politics, and progressive principle—a good bill which the Republicans hated. But the scale of action possible by such means is unrelated, except by coincidence, to what the economy needs.

Three further considerations limited the plan. There was, to begin with, the desire for political consensus; President Obama chose to start his administration with a bill that might win bipartisan support and pass in Congress by wide margins. (He was, of course, spurned by the Republicans.) Second, the new team also sought consensus of another type. Christina Romer polled a bipartisan group of professional economists, and Larry Summers told Meet the Press that the final package reflected a "balance" of their views. This procedure guarantees a result near the middle of the professional mind-set. The method would be useful if the errors of economists were unsystematic. But they are not. Economists are a cautious group, and in any extreme situation the midpoint of professional opinion is bound to be wrong.

Third, the initial package was affected by the new team’s desire to get past this crisis and to return to the familiar problems of their past lives. For these protégés of Robert Rubin, veterans in several cases of Rubin’s Hamilton Project, a key preconception has always been the budget deficit and what they call the "entitlement problem." This is D.C.-speak for rolling back Social Security and Medicare, opening new markets for fund managers and private insurers, behind a wave of budget babble about "long-term deficits" and "unfunded liabilities." To this our new president is not immune. Even before the inauguration Obama was moved to commit to "entitlement reform," and on February 23 he convened what he called a "fiscal responsibility summit." The idea took hold that after two years or so of big spending, the return to normal would be under way, and the costs of fiscal relief and infrastructure improvement might be recouped, in part by taking a pound of flesh from the incomes and health care of the old.

The chance of a return to normal depends, in turn, on the banking strategy. To Obama’s economists a "normal" economy is led and guided by private banks. When domestic credit booms are under way, they tend to generate high employment and low inflation; this makes the public budget look good, and spares the president and Congress many hard decisions. For this reason the new team instinctively seeks to return the bankers to their normal position at the top of the economic hill. Secretary Geithner told CNBC, "We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we’d like to do our best to preserve that system."

But, is this a realistic hope? Is it even a possibility? The normal mechanics of a credit cycle do involve interludes when asset values crash and credit relations collapse. In 1981, Paul Volcker’s campaign against inflation caused such a crash. But, though they came close, the big banks did not fail then. (I learned recently from William Isaac, Ronald Reagan’s chair of the FDIC, that the government had contingency plans to nationalize the large banks in 1982, had Mexico, Argentina, or Brazil defaulted outright on their debts.) When monetary policy relaxed and the delayed tax cuts of 1981 kicked in, there was both pent-up demand for credit and the capacity to supply it. The final result was that the economy recovered quickly. Again in 1994, after a long period of credit crunch, banks and households were strong enough, even without a stimulus, to support a vast renewal of lending which propelled the economy forward for six years.

The Bush-era disasters guarantee that these happy patterns will not be repeated. For the first time since the 1930s, millions of American households are financially ruined. Families that two years ago enjoyed wealth in stocks and in their homes now have neither. Their 401(k)s have fallen by half, their mortgages are a burden, and their homes are an albatross. For many the best strategy is to mail the keys to the bank. This practically assures that excess supply and collapsed prices in housing will continue for years. Apart from cash—protected by deposit insurance and now desperately being conserved—the American middle class finds today that its major source of wealth is the implicit value of Social Security and Medicare—illiquid and intangible but real and inalienable in a way that home and equity values are not. And so it will remain, as long as future benefits are not cut.

In addition, some of the biggest banks are bust, almost for certain. Having abandoned prudent risk management in a climate of regulatory negligence and complicity under Bush, these banks participated gleefully in a poisonous game of abusive mortgage originations followed by rounds of pass-the-bad-penny-to-the-greater-fool. But they could not pass them all. And when in August 2007 the music stopped, banks discovered that the markets for their toxic-mortgage-backed securities had collapsed, and found themselves insolvent. Only a dogged political refusal to admit this has since kept the banks from being taken into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation—something the FDIC has the power to do, and has done as recently as last year with IndyMac in California.

Geithner’s banking plan would prolong the state of denial. It involves government guarantees of the bad assets, keeping current management in place and attempting to attract new private capital. (Conversion of preferred shares to equity, which may happen with Citigroup, conveys no powers that the government, as regulator, does not already have.) The idea is that one can fix the banks from the top down, by reestablishing markets for their bad securities. If the idea seems familiar, it is: Henry Paulson also pressed for this, to the point of winning congressional approval. But then he abandoned the idea. Why? He learned it could not work.

Paulson faced two insuperable problems. One was quantity: there were too many bad assets. The project of buying them back could be likened to "filling the Pacific Ocean with basketballs," as one observer said to me at the time. (When I tried to find out where the original request for $700 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program came from, a senior Senate aide replied, "Well, it’s a number between five hundred billion and one trillion.")

The other problem was price. The only price at which the assets could be disposed of, protecting the taxpayer, was of course the market price. [MW: a minor quibble: its not particularly clear that even paying market prices would've protected the taxpayer if those market prices were not yet low enough at the time of taxpayer-support to be consistent with the ultimate credit performance of the underlying exposures, given that we don't yet know how far collateral value (home prices) will ultimately fall, nor how high unemployment, foreclosures and defaults will ultimately rise; in any case...] In the collapse of the market for mortgage-backed securities and their associated credit default swaps, this price was too low to save the banks. But any higher price would have amounted to a gift of public funds, justifiable only if there was a good chance that the assets might recover value when "normal" conditions return.

That chance can be assessed, of course, only by doing what any reasonable private investor would do: due diligence, meaning a close inspection of the loan tapes. On the face of it, such inspections will reveal a very high proportion of missing documentation, inflated appraisals, and other evidence of fraud. (In late 2007 the ratings agency Fitch conducted this exercise on a small sample of loan files, and found indications of misrepresentation or fraud present in practically every one.) The reasonable inference would be that many more of the loans will default. Geithner’s plan to guarantee these so-called assets, therefore, is almost sure to overstate their value; it is only a way of delaying the ultimate public recognition of loss, while keeping the perpetrators afloat.

Delay is not innocuous. When a bank’s insolvency is ignored, the incentives for normal prudent banking collapse. Management has nothing to lose. It may take big new risks, in volatile markets like commodities, in the hope of salvation before the regulators close in. Or it may loot the institution—nomenklatura privatization, as the Russians would say—through unjustified bonuses, dividends, and options. It will never fully disclose the extent of insolvency on its own. [MW: the looting (bonuses at AIG and the GSEs is bad enough, but it is the gambling-for-redemption that is the major problem]

The most likely scenario, should the Geithner plan go through, is a combination of looting, fraud, and a renewed speculation in volatile commodity markets such as oil. Ultimately the losses fall on the public anyway, since deposits are largely insured. There is no chance that the banks will simply resume normal long-term lending. To whom would they lend? For what? Against what collateral? And if banks are recapitalized without changing their management, why should we expect them to change the behavior that caused the insolvency in the first place?

The oddest thing about the Geithner program is its failure to act as though the financial crisis is a true crisis—an integrated, long-term economic threat—rather than merely a couple of related but temporary problems, one in banking and the other in jobs. In banking, the dominant metaphor is of plumbing: there is a blockage to be cleared. Take a plunger to the toxic assets, it is said, and credit conditions will return to normal. This, then, will make the recession essentially normal, validating the stimulus package. Solve these two problems, and the crisis will end. That’s the thinking.

But the plumbing metaphor is misleading. Credit is not a flow. It is not something that can be forced downstream by clearing a pipe. Credit is a contract. It requires a borrower as well as a lender, a customer as well as a bank. And the borrower must meet two conditions. One is creditworthiness, meaning a secure income and, usually, a house with equity in it. Asset prices therefore matter. With a chronic oversupply of houses, prices fall, collateral disappears, and even if borrowers are willing they can’t qualify for loans. The other requirement is a willingness to borrow, motivated by what Keynes called the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurial enthusiasm. In a slump, such optimism is scarce. Even if people have collateral, they want the security of cash. And it is precisely because they want cash that they will not deplete their reserves by plunking down a payment on a new car.

The credit flow metaphor implies that people came flocking to the new-car showrooms last November and were turned away because there were no loans to be had. This is not true—what happened was that people stopped coming in. And they stopped coming in because, suddenly, they felt poor.

Strapped and afraid, people want to be in cash. This is what economists call the liquidity trap. And it gets worse: in these conditions, the normal estimates for multipliers—the bang for the buck—may be too high. Government spending on goods and services always increases total spending directly; a dollar of public spending is a dollar of GDP. But if the workers simply save their extra income, or use it to pay debt, that’s the end of the line: there is no further effect. For tax cuts (especially for the middle class and up), the new funds are mostly saved or used to pay down debt. Debt reduction may help lay a foundation for better times later on, but it doesn’t help now. With smaller multipliers, the public spending package would need to be even larger, in order to fill in all the holes in total demand. Thus financial crisis makes the real crisis worse, and the failure of the bank plan practically assures that the stimulus also will be too small.

In short, if we are in a true collapse of finance, our models will not serve. It is then appropriate to reach back, past the postwar years, to the experience of the Great Depression. And this can only be done by qualitative and historical analysis. Our modern numerical models just don’t capture the key feature of that crisis—which is, precisely, the collapse of the financial system.

If the banking system is crippled, then to be effective the public sector must do much, much more. How much more? By how much can spending be raised in a real depression? And does this remedy work? Recent months have seen much debate over the economic effects of the New Deal, and much repetition of the commonplace that the effort was too small to end the Great Depression, something achieved, it is said, only by World War II. A new paper by the economist Marshall Auerback has usefully corrected this record. Auerback plainly illustrates by how much Roosevelt’s ambition exceeded anything yet seen in this crisis:

[Roosevelt’s] government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown. It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

In other words, Roosevelt employed Americans on a vast scale, bringing the unemployment rates down to levels that were tolerable, even before the war—from 25 percent in 1933 to below 10 percent in 1936, if you count those employed by the government as employed, which they surely were. In 1937, Roosevelt tried to balance the budget, the economy relapsed again, and in 1938 the New Deal was relaunched. This again brought unemployment down to about 10 percent, still before the war.

The New Deal rebuilt America physically, providing a foundation (the TVA’s power plants, for example) from which the mobilization of World War II could be launched. But it also saved the country politically and morally, providing jobs, hope, and confidence that in the end democracy was worth preserving. There were many, in the 1930s, who did not think so.

What did not recover, under Roosevelt, was the private banking system. Borrowing and lending—mortgages and home construction—contributed far less to the growth of output in the 1930s and ’40s than they had in the 1920s or would come to do after the war. If they had savings at all, people stayed in Treasuries, and despite huge deficits interest rates for federal debt remained near zero. The liquidity trap wasn’t overcome until the war ended.

It was the war, and only the war, that restored (or, more accurately, created for the first time) the financial wealth of the American middle class. During the 1930s public spending was large, but the incomes earned were spent. And while that spending increased consumption, it did not jumpstart a cycle of investment and growth, because the idle factories left over from the 1920s were quite sufficient to meet the demand for new output. Only after 1940 did total demand outstrip the economy’s capacity to produce civilian private goods—in part because private incomes soared, in part because the government ordered the production of some products, like cars, to halt.

All that extra demand would normally have driven up prices. But the federal government prevented this with price controls. (Disclosure: this writer’s father, John Kenneth Galbraith, ran the controls during the first year of the war.) And so, with nowhere else for their extra dollars to go, the public bought and held government bonds. These provided claims to postwar purchasing power. After the war, the existence of those claims could, and did, establish creditworthiness for millions, making possible the revival of private banking, and on the broadly based, middle-class foundation that so distinguished the 1950s from the 1920s. But the relaunching of private finance took twenty years, and the war besides.

A brief reflection on this history and present circumstances drives a plain conclusion: the full restoration of private credit will take a long time. It will follow, not precede, the restoration of sound private household finances. There is no way the project of resurrecting the economy by stuffing the banks with cash will work. Effective policy can only work the other way around.

That being so, what must now be done? The first thing we need, in the wake of the recovery bill, is more recovery bills. The next efforts should be larger, reflecting the true scale of the emergency. There should be open-ended support for state and local governments, public utilities, transit authorities, public hospitals, schools, and universities for the duration, and generous support for public capital investment in the short and long term. To the extent possible, all the resources being released from the private residential and commercial construction industries should be absorbed into public building projects. There should be comprehensive foreclosure relief, through a moratorium followed by restructuring or by conversion-to-rental, except in cases of speculative investment and borrower fraud. The president’s foreclosure-prevention plan is a useful step to relieve mortgage burdens on at-risk households, but it will not stop the downward spiral of home prices and correct the chronic oversupply of housing that is the cause of that.

Second, we should offset the violent drop in the wealth of the elderly population as a whole. The squeeze on the elderly has been little noted so far, but it hits in three separate ways: through the fall in the stock market; through the collapse of home values; and through the drop in interest rates, which reduces interest income on accumulated cash. For an increasing number of the elderly, Social Security and Medicare wealth are all they have.

That means that the entitlement reformers have it backward: instead of cutting Social Security benefits, we should increase them, especially for those at the bottom of the benefit scale. Indeed, in this crisis, precisely because it is universal and efficient, Social Security is an economic recovery ace in the hole. Increasing benefits is a simple, direct, progressive, and highly efficient way to prevent poverty and sustain purchasing power for this vulnerable population. I would also argue for lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare to (say) fifty-five, to permit workers to retire earlier and to free firms from the burden of managing health plans for older workers.

This suggestion is meant, in part, to call attention to the madness of talk about Social Security and Medicare cuts. The prospect of future cuts in this modest but vital source of retirement security can only prompt worried prime-age workers to spend less and save more today. And that will make the present economic crisis deeper. In reality, there is no Social Security "financing problem" at all. There is a health care problem, but that can be dealt with only by deciding what health services to provide, and how to pay for them, for the whole population. It cannot be dealt with, responsibly or ethically, by cutting care for the old.

Third, we will soon need a jobs program to put the unemployed to work quickly. Infrastructure spending can help, but major building projects can take years to gear up, and they can, for the most part, provide jobs only for those who have the requisite skills. So the federal government should sponsor projects that employ people to do what they do best, including art, letters, drama, dance, music, scientific research, teaching, conservation, and the nonprofit sector, including community organizing—why not?

Finally, a payroll tax holiday would help restore the purchasing power of working families, as well as make it easier for employers to keep them on the payroll. This is a particularly potent suggestion, because it is large and immediate. And if growth resumes rapidly, it can also be scaled back. There is no error in doing too much that cannot easily be repaired, by doing a bit less.

As these measures take effect, the government must take control of insolvent banks, however large, and get on with the business of reorganizing, re-regulating, decapitating, and recapitalizing them. Depositors should be insured fully to prevent runs, and private risk capital (common and preferred equity and subordinated debt) should take the first loss. Effective compensation limits should be enforced—it is a good thing that they will encourage those at the top to retire. As Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut correctly stated in the brouhaha following the discovery that Senate Democrats had put tough limits into the recovery bill, there are many competent replacements for those who leave.

Ultimately the big banks can be resold as smaller private institutions, run on a scale that permits prudent credit assessment and risk management by people close enough to their client communities to foster an effective revival, among other things, of household credit and of independent small business—another lost hallmark of the 1950s. No one should imagine that the swaggering, bank-driven world of high finance and credit bubbles should be made to reappear. Big banks should be run largely by men and women with the long-term perspective, outlook, and temperament of middle managers, and not by the transient, self-regarding plutocrats who run them now.

The chorus of deficit hawks and entitlement reformers are certain to regard this program with horror. What about the deficit? What about the debt? These questions are unavoidable, so let’s answer them. First, the deficit and the public debt of the U.S. government can, should, must, and will increase in this crisis. They will increase whether the government acts or not. The choice is between an active program, running up debt while creating jobs and rebuilding America, or a passive program, running up debt because revenues collapse, because the population has to be maintained on the dole, and because the Treasury wishes, for no constructive reason, to rescue the big bankers and make them whole.

Second, so long as the economy is placed on a path to recovery, even a massive increase in public debt poses no risk that the U.S. government will find itself in the sort of situation known to Argentines and Indonesians. Why not? Because the rest of the world recognizes that the United States performs certain indispensable functions, including acting as the lynchpin of collective security and a principal source of new science and technology. So long as we meet those responsibilities, the rest of the world is likely to want to hold our debts.

Third, in the debt deflation, liquidity trap, and global crisis we are in, there is no risk of even a massive program generating inflation or higher long-term interest rates. That much is obvious from current financial conditions: interest rates on long-maturity Treasury bonds are amazingly low. Those rates also tell you that the markets are not worried about financing Social Security or Medicare. They are more worried, as I am, that the larger economic outlook will remain very bleak for a long time.

Finally, there is the big problem: How to recapitalize the household sector? How to restore the security and prosperity they’ve lost? How to build the productive economy for the next generation? Is there anything today that we might do that can compare with the transformation of World War II? Almost surely, there is not: World War II doubled production in five years.

Today the largest problems we face are energy security and climate change—massive issues because energy underpins everything we do, and because climate change threatens the survival of civilization. And here, obviously, we need a comprehensive national effort. Such a thing, if done right, combining planning and markets, could add 5 or even 10 percent of GDP to net investment. That’s not the scale of wartime mobilization. But it probably could return the country to full employment and keep it there, for years.

Moreover, the work does resemble wartime mobilization in important financial respects. Weatherization, conservation, mass transit, renewable power, and the smart grid are public investments. As with the armaments in World War II, work on them would generate incomes not matched by the new production of consumer goods. If handled carefully—say, with a new program of deferred claims to future purchasing power like war bonds—the incomes earned by dealing with oil security and climate change have the potential to become a foundation of restored financial wealth for the middle class.

This cannot be made to happen over just three years, as we did in 1942–44. But we could manage it over, say, twenty years or a bit longer. What is required are careful, sustained planning, consistent policy, and the recognition now that there are no quick fixes, no easy return to "normal," no going back to a world run by bankers—and no alternative to taking the long view.

A paradox of the long view is that the time to embrace it is right now. We need to start down that path before disastrous policy errors, including fatal banker bailouts and cuts in Social Security and Medicare, are put into effect. It is therefore especially important that thought and learning move quickly. Does the Geithner team, forged and trained in normal times, have the range and the flexibility required? If not, everything finally will depend, as it did with Roosevelt, on the imagination and character of President Obama.

No More Lehmans?

With some rare exceptions (Stanford economist John Taylor), most people agree that the meltdown of Lehman (i.e. allowing LEH to fail without some sort of government rescue) was responsible for the September-October meltdown in the credit markets, which in turn was responsible for the meltdown of the stock markets.

As such, “No More Lehmans” has become government policy. On October 10, the Group of Seven pledged to stabilize markets and prevent systemically-important financial companies from collapse: G7 finance ministers and central bankers agreed to “use all available tools to support systemically important financial institutions and prevent their failure.”

While I don’t agree with Taylor that the credit markets actually did not react all that badly to Lehman going under, and that the crisis was really the product of market uncertainty about the effects of government action, I also disagree with the apparent prevailing wisdom.

James Surowiecki and Mark Thoma certainly believe that letting Lehman fail was a mistake and, as best I can ascertain, their views fairly well represent common wisdom.

But have those who take that position considered counterfactual hypotheses? I find it terribly odd that people who believe this seem to believe that the credit crisis and stock market collapse would not have happened had the government perhaps done for LEH what it did with any of BSC, AIG, FRE, FNM, WAMU or Wachovia (take your pick) -- each of which was handled differently, none of which was handled transparently, fairly or well.

Remember, in July we were assured over and over that MER would be fine, and that FNM and FRE were fine; and in less than two months we find out that the distinguished MER was in such desperate shape it could no longer go it alone, and that the GSEs were on life-support. And what happened to WAMU, as John Hempton has so convincingly described here and here and elsewhere, and is also described here, with pretty arbitrary FDIC action, had its own host of consequences.

The crux of the matter is NOT that LEH was allowed to fail; the crux of the matter is that LEH was in such bad shape that it DID fail! (and failed spectacularly -- Lehman CDS set a value of under 10 cents on the dollar for LEH debt)

The confluence of the revelations of the disastrous states of AIG, LEH, FRE and FNM, among others, was reason enough for credit markets to say “Holy Shit, we can’t trust any of these guys – whose next? Who knows? Shit, I’m not getting paid enough for this f’g risk”. Result: Spreads blow out.

And, clearly, both the revelations themselves and the credit market reaction were enough for equity investors to say “Holy Shit, the good old days of corporate profitability that we thought we would soon be able to go back to were a mirage! Corporate claims about their health mean nothing! Balance sheets suck, and who the hell knows about income!” (as an example, MER’s recent earnings surprises have wiped out all of its retained earnings accumulated since 1972). Result: Stocks tank.

But now government policy is being based on a flawed hypothesis, that the failure of LEH is what caused our mess.

Incorrectly diagnosing the root cause of a problem tends to lead to improper and ineffectual attempted “solutions”. All along throughout this crisis, authorities have failed to understand the underlying causes of our problems (unrealistic asset values that have been propped up by unsustainable levels of debt and leverage, both of which were/are endemic as opposed to contained), and have thus failed to come up with realistic solutions (for instance, the remedy of more debt (government / taxpayer) will cure us of too much debt (household debt / financial sector leverage); forcing all banks to accept TARP funds to disguise whom among them is desperately needy, and giving forebearance on things like mark-to-market rules hardly solves the problem of opacity and engenders confidence in the state of our financial institutions).

The belief that we cannot allow another financial institution to “fail” has led government to an approach to string along zombie companies with taxpayers footing a huge bill to prop these failed companies up, with no obvious benefits (certainly not relative to alternative policy approaches, such as Willem Buiter’s Good Bank recommendation), but all-too-already-obvious costs (the looting at AIG being the contemporary popular example), and this before the inevitable but as-yet rarely recognized cost that the U.S. financial system is becoming very Japanese, with all the longer-term ramifications that that entails.

Save the Banking System, Not the Bank Owners and Managers

Lars Jonung served as chief economic adviser to the Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt in 1992-94 when the Swedish solution was implemented, and has been credited with much of the Swedish bank resolution solution’s creation. He shared his thoughts on today's crisis, as compared to what happened in Sweden, in a post at EuroIntelligence (Lessons from Swedish Bank Resolution Policy):

Banks all over the world are in deep trouble. This has created an interest in the successful bank resolution policy adopted in Sweden in the early 1990s. But can the Swedish model of yesterday be applied in other countries today?

When Sweden was hit by a financial crisis in 1991-93, its response comprised a unique combination of seven distinctive features: 1) swift policy action, 2) political unity, 3) a blanket government guarantee of all bank liabilities (including deposits but excluding shareholder capital), 4) an appropriate legal framework based on open-ended government funding, 5) complete information disclosure by banks asking for government support, 6) a differentiated resolution policy by which banks were classified according to their financial strength and treated accordingly, and 7) an overall monetary and fiscal policy that facilitated the bank resolution policy.

Two major banks were taken over by the government. Their assets were split into a good bank and a bad bank, the “toxic” assets of the latter being dealt with by asset-management companies (AMCs) which focused solely on the task of disposing of them. When transferring assets from the banks to the AMCs, cautious market values were applied, thus putting a floor under the valuation of such assets, mostly real estate. This restored demand and liquidity, and thus put a break on falling asset prices.

The Swedish model proved successful. The banking system was kept intact. It continued to function, swiftly emerged from the crisis and remained mainly in private hands. Taxpayers did not lose out in the long run. The net fiscal cost of the bank resolution 15 years after the crisis is close to zero. The policy priority of saving the banks, not the owners of the banks, kept moral hazard at bay.

The bank resolution policy was carried out transparently and openly. The centre-right government under Carl Bildt cooperated with the social democratic opposition, creating public trust in the resolution process.

Today's global crisis is different from the Swedish crisis of the 1990s in important respects. The Swedish financial system was small, with only half a dozen major banks. It was also bank-based, with few major non-bank financial actors, and was less sophisticated and less globalized than the current world financial system.

Still, there are lessons from the Swedish resolution policy that may serve as guiding principles today.

First, the Swedish experience demonstrates that a genuine threat of public receivership or nationalization does galvanize banks into action. With this threat hanging over them, private banks in Sweden made great efforts to solve their problems themselves by asking their owners for capital. The lesson is that no government support should be given to a financial institution with zero or negative equity until its present owners have surrendered their control and ownership.

Banks and their networks of debtors and creditors should be saved – not bank owners and not bank managers. Once this principle is commonly accepted, government rescues will be easier to carry out. Moral hazard will be reined in – today and in the future. Taxpayers will more readily accept the necessary public expenses.

Presently, policy choices are often hampered by a political dislike of public receivership (nationalization) – even if such a step would be economically more efficient and just. The Swedes, however, put ideology and fear of big government aside. Their priority, from the Conservative party to the Social Democrats, was to find a quick, workable solution.

Today, major steps towards pseudo-nationalization have been taken in many countries, creating the worst of all possible worlds: governments are financing bad banks without outright owning them and failed managers and owners are not punished. This creates public distrust in the resolution policy as a whole. Temporary public receivership with a clear exit strategy is a more efficient approach, and less costly to the taxpayers. As any student of finance knows, the value of a bankrupt bank is zero.

Second, the Swedish experience suggests that all banks that are put under public receivership should be split immediately into a good bank and a bad bank, under the control of an independent authority with the goal of terminating the operations of the bad bank in a specified time frame, say within less than 10 years. This avoids Japanese-style "zombie" banks. Alternative solutions include purchase-and-assumption transactions, in which a part of a bank's good assets and matching liabilities are sold to another bank.

The good bank should continue operation and be re-privatized as soon as possible. The bad bank should manage the bad assets taken from the old bank with a view to selling them in due course. This will help recreate a market for such assets.

Third, the Swedish case shows that the bank resolution policy should have an open-ended financial commitment from the government to be credible and efficient. At this stage of the global crisis, it is impossible to estimate exactly the cost of rescuing a financial system in any country. However, the ad hoc measures that have been taken in many countries seem to be an open invitation for struggling banks and institutions to demand more funds. Any attempt to fix a sum for the rescue effort undermines its credibility. It should be made clear that the government is ready to mobilize the resources needed. Fighting a financial crisis is like fighting a war. Losing is simply unthinkable.

Finally, the process of bank resolution should be transparent, based on full disclosure of the steps taken and the valuations of assets made. Openness fosters public trust in the bank resolution policy and in the financial system that will emerge after the crisis. And trust is the basic building block of any banking system.

All Nationalization, All the Time

I keep finding new articles on differing perspectives on nationalization: why, when, how, etc.

But rather than keep posting more of them, I'll just refer you to interfluidity, where Steve Waldman has already nicely collated them for us at the end of his post Nationalize like real capitalists, in which he argues:

The reason to nationalize a bank is because the bank has failed and its former owners have no legitimate claim to its assets. The government has been forced to offer support with public money, thereby purchasing the corpse fair and square. We take the bank into public ownership because taxpayers who have been conscripted to accept extraordinary losses are entitled to whatever gains follow the reorganization they finance.

By the by, Waldman was already singing this tune back in September, in Real capitalists nationalize.

Debt Disaster

John Kemp, from Reuters, who wrote about the Triffin Dilemma I linked to on the 18th, says that the U.S. and UK on brink of debt disaster (hat tip, Joe).

He is, of course, correct --- except in terms of tense. They are not on the brink, they're there. People keep fooling themselves that this is a liquidity crisis; its not, its an insolvency crisis. Our debts are unsupportable based on our incomes.

Its worth reading his full article, but here's the key excerpt:

the necessary condition for resolving the debt crisis is a reduction in the outstanding volume of debt, an increase in nominal GDP, or some combination of the two, to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to a more sustainable level.

From this perspective, it is clear many of the existing policies being pursued in the United States and the United Kingdom will not resolve the crisis because they do not lower the debt ratio.

In particular, having governments buy distressed assets from the banks, or provide loan guarantees, is not an effective solution. It does not reduce the volume of debt, or force recognition of losses. It merely re-denominates private sector obligations to be met by households and firms as public ones to be met by the taxpayer.

This type of debt swap would make sense if the problem was liquidity rather than solvency. But in current circumstances, taxpayers are being asked to shoulder some or all of the cost of defaults, rather than provide a temporarily liquidity bridge.

In some ways, government is better placed to absorb losses than individual banks and investors, because it can spread them across a larger base of taxpayers. But in the current crisis, the volume of debts that potentially need to be refinanced is so large it will stretch even the tax and debt-raising resources of the state, and risks crowding out other spending.

Trying to cut debt by reducing consumption and investment, lowering wages, boosting saving and paying down debt out of current income is unlikely to be effective either. The resulting retrenchment would lead to sharp falls in both real output and the price level, depressing nominal GDP. Government retrenchment simply intensified the depression during the early 1930s. Private sector retrenchment and wage cuts will do the same in the 2000s.

New debt (government or otherwise) is no cure for excessive old debt. As a society, we westerners have borrowed too much from our future, for the last decade or two buying stuff we don’t need with money we don’t have. Time to pay the piper. Which means aggregate demand (AD) way below aggregate supply (AS); which means falling prices as companies try to clear inventory, and more layoffs and falling incomes as companies cut capacity; which leads to even lower AD, so AS has to keep getting slashed => vicious circle!

The public sector is trying to pick up slack for the private sector fall-off, but (a) it will fall short of what’s necessary (as argued by Krugman, etc.), as the private sector retrenchment is simply too big to counteract, (b) fiscal deficits are simply an intergenerational wealth transfer to current from future taxpayers who will ultimately have to pay it back, at a time when demographics works against that dynamic of kicking the can down the road, and (c) therefore, the more government tries to fill that gaping AD-AS gap, the sooner the ultimate day of reckoning when global imbalances unwind in a most disorderly manner, as foreigners stop throwing good money after bad and refuse to finance U.S. deficits. So U.S. interest rates will ultimately skyrocket as everyone finally acknowledges that the U.S. simply does not have the productive capacity to allow it to pay off its debt, requiring it to either default, or repay its bills with tremendously devalued dollars.

Nationalize, Already!

Given precedents, this isn't that hard to figure out. Japanese-style zombie-banks, bad! Swedish-style nationalization, good! We seem to, as Krugman and others keep having to point out, keep coming back to the SuperSIV idea, which is as bad then, despite all the recent acrobatics around it, as it was when the MLEC was first proposed.

I've seen no-one explain that any better than Felix Salmon, in his post Why Nationalization is the Best Alternative, at Portolio.com:

Kevin Drum is a bit like Joe Nocera: he's reluctant to nationalize, but he doesn't really say why.

It's wise to be wary of nationalization. It should be a last resort, and I've gotten a sense recently that a lot of people are talking about it awfully casually. Still, it's true that there are some benefits to nationalization, and one of them is that it allows us to avoid the problem of valuing and buying up toxic assets from troubled banks. If the government owns the whole bank, then the bad stuff can be easily hived off without any kind of valuation at all, and then left to sit for a while before it's sold off -- which is what the Swedes did.If we have to nationalize, then we have to nationalize. But we should understand the precedents before we do, and go ahead only if we have to.

The only argument I can find in here is an argument in favor of nationalization, not against it. Why should nationalization only be a last resort?

Let's work from an ex hypothesi assumption that a certain bank -- let's call it Citigroup -- is insolvent. This is not an unreasonable assumption, given what happened to the likes of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual. But I don't want to get into the details of Citi's balance sheet here: I want to ask what we should do if we've already determined that its assets, many of which fall into the "toxic" category, are significantly smaller than its liabilities.

Now the red-blooded American way of dealing with insolvent companies is bankruptcy: either Chapter 11, where the company continues as a going concern, or some kind of liquidation. For a bank, Chapter 11 is pretty much impossible, since you're not going to find anybody to provide debtor-in-possession financing to keep it going. Except the government. And if the government is in possession, then, hey, you've just nationalized the bank.

As for liquidation, that's not an option, because Citigroup is too big to fail. Dumping Citi's trillions of dollars of assets onto the market in a fire sale would depress asset prices worldwide so much that we'd enter a global depression, not just one in the US.

So what about the bad-bank option? The government buys Citi's toxic assets, taking them off Citi's balance sheet, and leaving behind a healthy bank. Sounds good -- except remember that, ex hypothesi, Citi is insolvent. If the government buys the toxic assets for what they're worth, then that doesn't help, since the amount of money that Citi gets in return isn't enough to pay off the loans that Citi essentially took out against those assets. In housing parlance, Citi's underwater on its recourse loan, and when you're underwater on a recourse loan, selling the house at its market price doesn't make you any less insolvent.

So maybe the government deliberately overpays for the toxic waste? That's a recipe for opacity, and it's very hard to systematize. If you're willing to pay 150% of market prices for Citi's bad assets, shouldn't you do that for everybody else's, too? Even perfectly healthy banks which don't need the money? Or do you just decide that Citi, because it's too big to fail, is going to get a big handout which no one else qualifies for? If you do make that determination, why not just go the whole hog and write a check to the bank outright, and put it straight into Tier 1 equity? Oh, wait, you can't do that, because that's called buying equity, and if you spent that much money on Citi's equity, you'd end up with a majority stake in the bank -- which is nationalization.

Essentially, any government purchase of toxic assets can be split into two components: the market price, and a subsidy. If the subsidy is greater than half the market capitalization of the bank, and the government doesn't end up controlling the bank, then there's something very fishy going on indeed.

It's worth bearing in mind here the first TARP proposal, which envisaged the government buying up bad assets at some kind of long-term value price which was greater than the distressed market price. That never happened, the bad assets stayed on the banks' balance sheets -- and then, in the fourth quarter, we saw some absolutely monster write-downs from those loans' end-September marks, including $15 billion at Merrill Lynch alone. You still think that the end-September marks were distressed bargain-basement prices?

Then there's the insurance proposal -- which is cropping up now in the UK after being rolled out in an ad hoc fashion with Citi and BofA here in the US. Robert Peston explains how it works:

Our biggest banks would identify their bad loans and foolish investments. And they would then pay a fee to a new state-backed insurer to protect themselves from losses over a certain level on these stinky assets.But the banks would retain these bad assets on their balance sheets. They would not be transferred to a new toxic bank. We as taxpayers wouldn't own the stinky loans - though we would be liable for losses on them over a certain level.

This has all the same problems of the create-a-bad-bank idea: the government still has to come up with a price (a/k/a expected default rate) for the bad assets, and there will still be a huge implicit subsidy, in many cases greater than the bank's market capitalization, for any institution which takes the government up on its offer. After all, the mark-to-market value of the insurer is certain to be massively negative, otherwise Warren Buffett would have set up something like this already on a for-profit basis.

Finally, the government could take the Irish approach, and target the banks' liabilities rather than their assets. Keep the assets on the banks' balance sheets, and simply guarantee all of their unsecured debts. After all, there's a government guarantee on a lot of the unsecured debt already, and there has been for years: it's called the FDIC deposit guarantee.

This is basically a massive bailout for all the banks' bondholders, who thought they were buying risky leveraged single-A bank debt, and who will suddenly find it backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. At this point, it doesn't matter if a bank is insolvent, because it can roll over its debt indefinitely, since that debt has a government guarantee. Indeed, it should be quite happy to lever up as much as it's allowed, and spend its cheap new funds on all manner of risky assets, since that gives shareholders the best chance of making lots of money and recovering some of the billions of dollars that they have lost. It's akin to taking a man with a large debt, pointing him in the direction of a casino, and telling him he has unlimited credit to try and pay that debt off. The best way for the government to avoid the obvious outcome in such a situation is for the government to take over and run the bank: nationalization. Since the government has an interest in protecting its own liabilities, rather than maximizing shareholder value, the chances of crazy gambles will be minimized. In any case, since the government is taking virtually unlimited downside, it should by rights have all the upside as well -- i.e.,
ownership.

Given how messy all of these alternatives are, why not simply go down the nationalization route? It's transparent and easy to understand: if a bank is insolvent (and the FDIC is good at making those determinations), then simply nationalize it. That's what the Swedes did, and that's what we should do too.

So I'm interested in what Kevin means when he talks about a situation where "we have to nationalize". Does he mean any situation where a too-big-to-fail bank is insolvent? Or are there further criteria he has in mind?

Why-o-why is restarting credit the be-all-end-all?

So, we've got this little problem of everyone being in too much debt. And the economy is seizing up and apparently, we're told, its because the banks have stopped lending. They should just lend more and everything would be okay! As the always-insightful Steve Randy Waldman explains in his post Expand transfers, not credit, we've fallen into this groupthink mode and have forgotten that credit, in and of itself, is not necessarily a good thing --- it depends on what that credit is used for. And extending more credit to an already debt-loaded consumer so he or she can consumer more is simply inane. As Waldman notes, we need to rethink this from the ground up:

I have a little secret. Please don't tell anyone. I am glad that the banks, for all the hundreds of billions of dollars we are giving them, are not lending. That is not because I want banks to improve the quality of their balance sheets. On the contrary, I don't want banks at all, at least not banks anything like what we've had. I don't want to "use all of our resources to preserve the strength of our banking institutions". Since we have already bought and paid for our nation's banking institutions, we are within our rights to, um, transition them to a different business model. Let's do that.

But credit is the lifeblood of a capitalist economy, right? I keep hearing that line. It's a dumb line.

Credit, also known as debt, is one of several arrangements by which a party with the power to command resources but lacking aptitude or interest in managing a productive enterprise delegates wealth to another party who is capable of creating value but unable to command sufficient resources. You would be forgiven for not noticing, given how habitually we misuse credit, but supplying credit is really just a subspecies of the practice that used to be called "investing". There are a variety of other arrangements that serve the same economic function. Perhaps you have heard the terms like "common stock" and "cumulative preferred equity"? In fact, credit is to investing what heroin is to painkillers: Unusually appealing, in a certain
way. Hard to kick once you're on it. Almost certain to, um, cause problems, eventually. Our overall goal ought not be to kickstart the credit economy, but to kick the habit and move towards financing arrangements that are more equity-like than debt-like. That's going to be hard to do, because historically, we've subsidized the hell out of debt financing, especially bank credit, and alternatives are underdeveloped. But with the exception of war, no still-practiced human institution provokes catastrophe as regularly or as grandly as the misuse of debt. We ought to phase out banks as we've known them since before Bagehot's time, and move to a regime of what are lately referred to as "narrow banks" (banks that lend only to the government that issues the currency of their deposits). We should encourage the development fine-grained equity markets and local-market investment funds to replace bank financing.

The rush to ramp up "consumer credit" is particularly dumb. Usually, financial investing involves funding wealth generating projects in exchange for a share of the anticipated wealth. Consumer credit funds current consumption in exchange for a share of, um, what exactly?

In theory, there's a good answer: consumer credit funds current consumption in exchange for a share of anticipated future wealth that is believed to be endowed already. Economists talk about consumption smoothing, how it may be optimal for a consumer whose income is volatile to borrow during periods of low income and repay (or save) during periods of high income in order to maintain a constant standard of living. That's very well in models where consumers know the true distribution of their future income, where the spread between borrowing and lending interest rates is not very large, and where consumer preferences are time-consistent. In practice, none of these conditions hold even approximately. As we are learning, the future is a very uncertain place. Consumers, like Wall Street quants, may inadequately extrapolate the distribution of their future income from recent observations. They have no access to the true distribution. The interest rates consumers pay for unsecured credit (think credit card rates) are often several times what they receive on money they save. In the world as it is, consumers ought to borrow only to counter severe downward shocks to income, pay off borrowings quickly, and build buffers of precautionary savings, since the cost of dissaving is much less then the cost of borrowing. (You lose 4% interest on your CD, rather than paying 12% interest on your credit card.)

Some consumers behave this way, but very many do not, suggesting that consumers are myopic, overvaluing consumption today in a manner that they themselves will come to regret in the future. If consumers are myopic, if self-today has different preferences than self-tomorrow, then whether taking on credit is a good idea is beyond the comfort zone of positive economics. Credit availability creates winners (self-today) and losers (self-tomorrow), while interest payments reduce the size of the overall pie available to the time series of selves. In the way that economists suggest "free trade" to be good — winners, losers, gains overall — myopic consumers imply that the absense of a credit constraint is bad. Thank goodness the banks aren't lending!

There are obvious wrinkles and objections — What about credit for cars, or home mortgages, or education? The analysis changes when the borrowing is exchanging one pre-existing long-term liability for another. (We are born short basic shelter, and, in much of America at least, short a cheap car as well.) Education can be viewed as an ordinary, wealth generating investment project that in theory could be equity rather than debt financed, but that might be too tricky in practice. It's not my intention to suggest that consumer credit is always bad, only to defend the commonplace notion that for many people and under many circumstances, even loans that will be never be defaulted can be positively harmful, and as a matter of policy we should not be exhorting banks to issue or consumers to accept credit.
But if we let consumer credit contract, and if investment demand is derived from consumption demand, doesn't that spell macroeconomic disaster? There is an alternative. It is called "transfers". What's good about credit from a simple Keynesian perspective isn't that loans get repaid tomorrow, but that they get spent today. If what consumers would do with funds would be better for the economy than what banks are doing with funds, we ought to stop the massive transfers of funds from buyers of government debt to banks, and transfer the funds directly to consumers. If you think that Americans consume too much, and that we need to grit our teeth and endure a "reduction in our standard of living", fine. I disagree, strongly, but at least you're consistent. Then the government shouldn't transfer to anyone, banks shouldn't be encouraged to lend, consumption, investment, and GDP should be allowed to fall until we find a new level. I think that's foolishly pessimistic, though. Americans may need to change the mix of our consumption, but overall I think our standard of living is not only supportable, but improvable, and that our goal should be to get the rest of the world to live as well as we do, rather than to reconcile ourselves with some pseudomoral poverty. The world is full of human want, which we should strive to meet by working to increase our capacity to produce. Problems arise when want and purchasing power are misaligned. We can improve that by redistributing some of the purchasing power from those with lesser to those with greater use for current consumption. If that sounds Commie to you, note that is precisely the function that consumer credit traditionally serves, just without all the residual claims, a large fraction of which will prove to be illusory (at least in real terms). That is, transfers are just a more honest way of doing precisely what a credit expansion does, except without the trauma that comes
from learning that much of the money lent to fund current consumption will never be repaid.

I'm trying to come up with a reasonable opposing view, a case for pushing consumer credit but opposing transfers. Perhaps you can help, because I just can't do it. One might argue on philosophical grounds against coercive transfers, but coercive transfers are a precondition of restarting bank lending, and we've already made transfers to banks on such a scale that banning them now would be like robbing a jewelry store, then piously arguing future looters should be shot. One might argue that bank lending is "smarter" than public transfers would be, that the patterns of consumption and investment that result from private sector credit allocation will lead to superior productive capacity and more sustainable patterns of consumption than direct transfers. Given the awful quality of aggregate investment this decade and the volatility now faced by consumers who were recently credit flush but who under any reasonable lending standard must now be credit constrained, it is hard to be enthusiastic about the special wisdom of bank-mediated credit allocation.

Of course, once we start redistributing purchasing power, there's the thorny question of who gets what. I have an answer to that, it is my new mantra. Transfer flat. Cut checks to every adult in the economy of interest, regardless of whether they pay taxes or have a job. Flat transfers are easy to understand and they pass the smell test for "fair". As an income source unrelated to work, flat transfers increase workers' bargaining power with employers by reducing the cost of refusing a raw deal. (Supplementary income is a better means of enhancing labor bargaining power than unionization, which serves the same purpose but may limit the flexibility and efficiency of production.) Finally, flat transfers align purchasing power in the economy with the problem that we want markets to solve — We want an economy that serves some people dramatically more than others, in order to preserve incentives to produce and excel. But we also want an economy that meets every person's basic needs, even those of people who are unable or unwilling to offer marketable goods or services. We won't let people starve, so why not fund a basic income, however miserly, rather than relying on an inefficient social services bureaucracy or taxing the virtuous by relying on charity?

Tax Pigou and progressive. Transfer flat. Encourage equity. Contain the banks.