Banker Writes Letter AGAINST The Bailout

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
This topic was also discussed on Real Time w/ Maher recently, about how sweeping, horrific changes in our government have been enacted in 11th hour deals while the American public is busy rubber-necking.

This could be worse than the decision in 2003 to go to war in Iraq. We already know the FDIC needs to be re-capitalized immediately if we want to keep our money protected against further industry failures. By all accounts, people are estimating that this economic crisis will last for another 12 months, and the housing market crisis will last for another 24 months...and those are BEST case scenarios. A lot more can and will go wrong in that time.

Two more smaller banks failed this week, but the talks of this bailout drowned out the news. If one more big bank (WaMu?) goes under, the FDIC will have little or nothing left to insure $1 trillion in at-risk deposits.

Chances are most if not all of the major commercial and investment banks are insolvent. Not one of them is opting out of the do-not-short list, and they don't seem to have the confidence in their survival to opt out of the L3 asset swap program Secretary Paulson is proposing.

It is also very likely that acutely dangerous systemic risk already exists, not merely from direct lines of credit among the banks, but especially from credit default swaps, which if activated by more than one large bank default would probably bring down many others. Remember, though, that this systemic risk is highly concentrated in the top 25 or so banks in the world, and does not jeopardize the 6,000 other community banks in the U.S.

Third, it is also highly probable that as this recession worsens, and as housing values continue to sink, forcing more foreclosures, the large banks will be even closer to collapse.

Having worked for many years in the banking industry and been closely involved with risk management and derivatives, I can tell you that it looks like catastrophe is already here.

What Sec. Paulson wants you to believe is that catastrophe is approaching, but it can be averted if only Congress acts urgently to give him the extraordinary authority he is requesting. The implication is if you don't give him $700 billion in borrowing authority within a week, markets will collapse and it will be all your fault.

We've seen this drill before, with the Patriot Act and with the Iraq War authorization. The scare tactics, the urgency, the implied threat of blame for any failure - this is what the Bush administration does. Some of you in the Senate were able to stand up to this pressure, and that type of strength is desperately needed now.

If insolvency is here now for the big banks, the last thing you want to do is throw $700 billion of money that is not yours at bailing out the banks who created this disaster. You'll need every bit of that money to protect the taxpayers and their deposits in these banks when these financial companies are thrown into the bankruptcy courts. You'll need that money to make sure consumer deposits are protected with insurance, and you'll need it to keep the healthy parts of these banks that deal with consumers and businesses functioning until they come out of bankruptcy.

And forget about comparing Paulson's plan to the RTC. These L3 assets aren't homes, condos, or commercial real estate that can be easily sold at the right price. They are bits of paper giving the bond holder the right to some small portion of thousands of mortgages, a right that is shared with all the other investors, who are required to agree on what is done with foreclosed properties in the pool. This is one of the reasons no one wants to buy this stuff, and no one will for many years until it is crystal clear what the final losses will be.

Once you give Paulson the authority he seeks, he will buy these securities at 65 cents/dollar, then quietly auction them off at a nickel each. It will be "unfortunate but necessary" to revitalize the banking industry, even though you will discover the banks won't be lending after this is all over to any but the finest credits. You will have rewarded the banks for their calamitous decisions, stuffed the taxpayers with huge losses, squandered your remaining ability to shore up the FDIC, not prevented the big banks from collapsing anyway, done nothing to help the community banks that will constitute the new banking system in this country when these problems are solved, and in the end made the situation much worse.

If you want to do something practical, require the SEC to go into these banks, open up their L3 holdings to public scrutiny, auction off a sampling of these securities, and apply those prices to the L3 portfolios of all the banks. In this way we will know which banks are insolvent. You won't need to go through this charade of having the Treasury take ownership of these assets, because the core of the problem is not that these assets are clogging up bank balances sheets, as Paulson says (which is tantamount to saying, by the way, that no one will buy them). The core of the problem is that there is no transparency about these portfolios and their real worth. Congress doesn't need $700 billion of our money to create that transparency, and if it shows as I suspect that many of these banks are insolvent, that's why we have bankruptcy courts. You can certainly protect the banks from bank runs while they are in bankruptcy.

Paulson is basically rolling you and the rest of Congress into giving him unprecedented power to protect his friends on Wall Street. This decision you are making is probably as momentous as the Iraq War resolution. Don't fall for this bailout disguised as the only way to prevent Armageddon. Armageddon is already here - at least for the big banks - and it needs an entirely different solution. Spend our money protecting us, by ensuring the FDIC is properly funded, by throwing these too-big-to-fail banks into bankruptcy if they truly are insolvent, by preserving the healthy parts of these banks while in bankruptcy, and bringing them back out again so they function under much better safety and soundness regulations. We've had airlines functioning properly and safely for years while in bankruptcy, and there is no reason we can't do the same with banks.

Please, please, do not fall for some useless compromise or bipartisan agreement that gives the administration what it wants in the end. Kill this proposal here and now, protect us from this bailout, and deal with the real problem - the insolvency of the major banks, not the paper that is supposedly blocking their lending capabilities.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
If you believe that "this could be a worse decision than that made in 2003 to go to war in Iraq," then I must ask, where will Obama stand on this issue?

:D
 

MorrisDancer

Member
Aug 7, 2005
97
0
0
The dollar is dropping like a stone tonight in overnight markets. I don't know what to do with cash. Buy gold?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
If you believe that "this could be a worse decision than that made in 2003 to go to war in Iraq," then I must ask, where will Obama stand on this issue?

:D
He won't be standing with this guy on deregulation.

Way to avoid the question. ;)
All we have is Paulson's plan right now. We'll see if what comes out of the House and Senate amounts to a blank check or not.

Both candidates aren't second guessing Paulson at this moment because no candidate with a political IQ over 70 would tell the American people to let these companies fail. Yes, I will freely admit the sad reality that affects both Obama and McCain; the fact that they're campaigning means they'll ride the fence on this.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
If you believe that "this could be a worse decision than that made in 2003 to go to war in Iraq," then I must ask, where will Obama stand on this issue?

:D
He won't be standing with this guy on deregulation.

Way to avoid the question. ;)
All we have is Paulson's plan right now. We'll see if what comes out of the House and Senate amounts to a blank check or not.

Both candidates aren't second guessing Paulson at this moment because no candidate with a political IQ over 70 would tell the American people to let these companies fail. Yes, I will freely admit the sad reality that affects both Obama and McCain; the fact that they're campaigning means they'll ride the fence on this.

So in other words "politics as usual."

Yep, the candidate for change. I can see the wave of change coming. Pass me the Obama flavored Kool-Aid, I'm kinda thirsty.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
If you believe that "this could be a worse decision than that made in 2003 to go to war in Iraq," then I must ask, where will Obama stand on this issue?

:D
He won't be standing with this guy on deregulation.

Way to avoid the question. ;)
All we have is Paulson's plan right now. We'll see if what comes out of the House and Senate amounts to a blank check or not.

Both candidates aren't second guessing Paulson at this moment because no candidate with a political IQ over 70 would tell the American people to let these companies fail. Yes, I will freely admit the sad reality that affects both Obama and McCain; the fact that they're campaigning means they'll ride the fence on this.

So in other words "politics as usual."

Yep, the candidate for change. I can see the wave of change coming. Pass me the Obama flavored Kool-Aid, I'm kinda thirsty.
I've got a jug of it right here for you my friend.

Better than the prune juice the McCain camp is passing around. 26 years of expertise in deregulating Wall Street; exactly the change America needs :laugh:
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,099
10,422
136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
Way to avoid the question. ;)
All we have is Paulson's plan right now. We'll see if what comes out of the House and Senate amounts to a blank check or not.

Both candidates aren't second guessing Paulson at this moment because no candidate with a political IQ over 70 would tell the American people to let these companies fail. Yes, I will freely admit the sad reality that affects both Obama and McCain; the fact that they're campaigning means they'll ride the fence on this.

Why the hell not?

Maybe we haven't made it clear enough that bailing out these companies makes them public enemy number one.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
Way to avoid the question. ;)
All we have is Paulson's plan right now. We'll see if what comes out of the House and Senate amounts to a blank check or not.

Both candidates aren't second guessing Paulson at this moment because no candidate with a political IQ over 70 would tell the American people to let these companies fail. Yes, I will freely admit the sad reality that affects both Obama and McCain; the fact that they're campaigning means they'll ride the fence on this.

Why the hell not?

Maybe we haven't made it clear enough that bailing out these companies makes them public enemy number one.
You can make it clear with your vote in November. Just vote third party; that'll really show them you're serious.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
Way to avoid the question. ;)
All we have is Paulson's plan right now. We'll see if what comes out of the House and Senate amounts to a blank check or not.

Both candidates aren't second guessing Paulson at this moment because no candidate with a political IQ over 70 would tell the American people to let these companies fail. Yes, I will freely admit the sad reality that affects both Obama and McCain; the fact that they're campaigning means they'll ride the fence on this.

Why the hell not?

Maybe we haven't made it clear enough that bailing out these companies makes them public enemy number one.
You can make it clear with your vote in November. Just vote third party; that'll really show them you're serious.

You still think Democrats will do anything differently? I'm not sure who's more deluded: people who still believe the Republicans are for smaller government or Democrats who think their party hasn't been sold to the highest bidder.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: BoberFett
I'm not sure who's more deluded: people who still believe the Republicans are for smaller government or Democrats who think their party hasn't been sold to the highest bidder.
Voters who believe McCain is the best option in November win that award by a mile. I'd start engraving their names in the trophy right now.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

If investors see any kind of disagreement over this...

The market is going to SINK today.

And if they don't, the effect might be far worse later, after a bad policy is enacted.

Privatize gains, socialize losses.

There was a good line on the Maher show by the wonderful Naomi Klein:

'If we're going to throw the rule out the window and start nationalizing, why don't we pick a company that makes money like Exxon?'
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

If investors see any kind of disagreement over this...

The market is going to SINK today.

And if they don't, the effect might be far worse later, after a bad policy is enacted.

Privatize gains, socialize losses.

There was a good line on the Maher show by the wonderful Naomi Klein:

'If we're going to throw the rule out the window and start nationalizing, why don't we pick a company that makes money like Exxon?'

So you think this latest regulatory action against Goldman is the wrong idea?

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
You should give an attribution, i.e. the banker's name and the publication.

I agree with this guy, whoever he is. Congress is acting in Herd Mode Zero and will pass something really stupid, just as they passed the Iraq War authorization. Mortgaged backed securities are probably not worth a nickle either. ;) For ALL of them. Where was the SEC when that was done? LOL. McCain is right about Cox.

-Robert
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
I just have a hard time believing that these financial "geniuses" (including the advice they are undoubtedly getting from their European and Asian counterparts) have no idea what they're doing.

 

bamx2

Senior member
Oct 25, 2004
483
1
81
They are constantly being influenced by their cronies and industry lobbyists ( and looking out for future jobs when there leave office) .


"I just have a hard time believing that these financial "geniuses" (including the advice they are undoubtedly getting from their European and Asian counterparts) have no idea what they're doing."


 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

If investors see any kind of disagreement over this...

The market is going to SINK today.

And if they don't, the effect might be far worse later, after a bad policy is enacted.

Privatize gains, socialize losses.

There was a good line on the Maher show by the wonderful Naomi Klein:

'If we're going to throw the rule out the window and start nationalizing, why don't we pick a company that makes money like Exxon?'

So you think this latest regulatory action against Goldman is the wrong idea?

I didn't say that; I just answered your point about the risk of not passing this fast, with the risk of passing it fast if it's bad, i.e., I think they need to use caution and be thorough. For what it's worth, I have a pretty good opinion of the radio financial advisor Bob Brinker, and he's praising the plan, with some reassuring commentary.

His show was just before the news on Goldman-Sachs, and he didn't comment on that specifically, but he did the larger 'TWAP' plan.

On the other hand, I'm a big fan of Paul Krugman, and I just checked he's taking the same position I am on caution to get it right, plus he has some concerns.

link
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136



from Boberfett-

You still think Democrats will do anything differently? I'm not sure who's more deluded: people who still believe the Republicans are for smaller government or Democrats who think their party hasn't been sold to the highest bidder.

Lemme see... you cite the proven track record of Repubs, then offer conjecture as fact wrt Dems.

Dems may or may not do things differently. There's only one way to find out, and nay-saying them before they have the opportunity isn't it- it's just another rightwing attempt to poison the well after they've drunk their fill...
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: BoberFett
You still think Democrats will do anything differently? I'm not sure who's more deluded: people who still believe the Republicans are for smaller government or Democrats who think their party hasn't been sold to the highest bidder.

Absolutely correct.

I haven't seen enough details of the proposal to really have an opinion, but to all those saying "just let them fail!" etc etc, you're failing to consider the implications for the public at large, including you. Innocent people who have done nothing wrong will get hurt, and badly.

That's not to say this is the "must have" plan, but something definitely has to be done if a meltdown can be prevented.