As reported all over the place,
including the FT, the Obama administration is avoiding the word "Bad Bank" and going for "Aggregator Bank" in a public-private partnership. Implying that the risks and rewards will be shared equitably between private investors and the US taxpayer, unlike a bad bank scheme (what we in Asia used to call an AMC, or Asset Management Company in the good old bad old days) in which the taxpayer bears all the cost (bad bank => bad scheme!)
"The exact details of how the private-public partnership will work are not known. One option discussed by policymakers is for the authorities to co-invest alongside private investors in a “bad bank” or “aggregator bank” that would purchase the toxic assets." (FT)
Head fake.
What it is starting to look like is a scheme whereby the US taxpayer limits the downside to the private investor (hedge funds and the like) while handing them all the upside, should there be any. An (almost) free option - especially if the hedge funds get cheap govt financing to buy that stuff in the first place!
If it was possible to properly price the toxic assets
with upside potential across a basket of the assets, the hedge funds would already be buying them off the banks... and it would just leave an
even bigger (if not terminal)
hole in bank balance sheets as the assets would be marked to the sale price (rather than
to model or market.)
"Many (probably most, possibly all but a handful) high-profile, large border-crossing universal banks in the north Atlantic region are dead banks walking - zombie banks kept from formal insolvency only through past, present and anticipated future injections of public money. They have indeterminate but possibly large remaining stocks of toxic - hard or impossible to value - assets on their balance sheets which they cannot or will not come clean on." (Willem Buiter in the FT)
It certainly IS necessary to take the toxic crap off the books of banks to help them to start providing credit again. We in Asia
know this - because that's what had to happen
before our banks got recapitalized in the '90s. (Yes, that's the right order of things - keep up!) But, in my view, that
does not entail a bailout of the existing equity holders of those banks, and certainly does not require (OK, almost) free options to be handed out to hedge funds (especially those borrowing at government rates and/or on a non-recourse basis to do so.)
----------
Here's more on the potential lunacy of
marking to market... from Willem Buiter of the FT, again. (Though look at it from the effect on the balance sheet: as the liabilities get written down, the bite on the other side is
out of the equity base, which makes sense... but it does also make it sound awfully odd on the P&L.)
.
::
Stumble It!
Posts
