In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 1524 of 8923
- next ›
→ Bailout
Should We Really Be Marking to Market?
Kevin still likes the idea in general, but Joseph Stiglitz doesn't like it when it's applied to Timothy Geithner's public-private investment plan:
Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.
I get the sense Geithner knows this, too. Last week I was speaking with a Congressional staffer who said quite bluntly that the big problem with marking these assets to market was that there was no market for them. So Geithner had to create that market, and the only way to make it worthwhile for the banks and investors is to allow banks to overvalue those assets, even if the banks are unloading their worst, most risky ones. If the asset tanks, the bank—and perhaps the economy in the long run—still wins, the private investor loses a little, and the taxpayer loses big.
Roubini argues
Geithner Presents a Viable Plan to Dispose of the Toxic Assets...that Does Not Rule Out that Insolvent Banks Should be Taken Over
"For the economy to be viable, the financial system must be healthy, and for this to occur, the financial system needs to be cleansed of its poorly performing loans and so-called toxic securities backed by loans, such as mortgage backed securities. This way, once creditworthy institutions and individuals come to the market looking for capital to borrow, financial firms will be in a position to lend them the money and more generally able provide financial services to the economy."
Taxpayer should not have to
Taxpayer should not have to fund insolvent banks. Let the bankruptcy courts function.