Paging Karl Marx


On my initial scan through the news the morning I read that the Treasury is planning to convert some of its preferred shares (purchased under the original TARP bailout for distressed banks) into common stock.  It’s supposed to be a way for the feds to stretch their bailout dollars because, according the New York Times, “The change to common stock would not require the government to contribute any additional cash, but it could increase the capital of big banks by more than $100 billion.”

That didn’t seem to make any sense, but hey, what do I know about high finance?  And then I got annoyed by California’s latest ballot initiative, and then intrigued by the Jane Harman wiretap, and forgot all about it.

But I guess I’m not crazy after all.  (Not totally crazy, anyway.)  James Kwak, who knows a thing or two about this, says the whole thing sounds ridiculous.  Here’s Kwak highly condensed:

If you don’t give a bank any more money, it doesn’t have any more money. By converting preferred into common, you haven’t changed the chances of the bank going bankrupt….If you accept the idea that converting preferred into common creates new capital, then you are implying that those preferred shares weren’t capital in the first place….Tangible common equity and Tier 1 capital are just two ways of measuring the health of a bank. Taking money that wasn’t TCE and calling it TCE doesn’t serve any economic purpose.

Right.  Back when the original TARP bailout money was handed out, the preferred shares were very deliberately and very conspicuously called Tier 1 capital.  That’s the bestest capital there is, and converting it into common stock doesn’t make it into super-duper Tier 1.  It does get the banks off the hook for paying dividends on the stock, but since most of these banks are (or claim to be) extremely cash flow positive, that shouldn’t be their biggest worry at the moment.

So….I dunno.  This is weird.  Might there be text hidden in the conversion contracts that releases banks from those horrible restraints on executive pay that they hate so much?  Or is there more to this than meets the eye?  Stay tuned.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.