boutons_
10-11-2008, 02:26 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/11/business/11bush-600.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
October 12, 2008
White House Overhauling Rescue Plan
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/edmund_l_andrews/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON — As international leaders gathered here on Saturday to grapple with the global financial crisis (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), the Bush administration raced to overhaul its own strategy for rescuing the foundering financial system.
Two weeks after persuading Congress to let it spend $700 billion to buy distressed mortgage-backed securities, the Bush administration has put its original idea on the back burner and is trying to come up with a new plan over the next several days.
The new approach, which would have the government inject capital directly into the nation’s banks, is one that administration officials had publicly opposed until just a few days ago.
(but that's initial approach that other countries took immediately. What's up with that, Paulie? Were you and your silly 3-pager more interested in saving AIG/Goldman rather than Country First? :lol )
Administration officials said they still planned to buy up assets, largely through a series of “reverse auctions” in which financial companies would compete to sell their securities to the government.
But the new plan, which has become the administration’s primary focus, comes closer to a partial nationalization of the banking system than at any time since the Depression. In exchange for providing capital, the government would demand some kind of nonvoting minority stake.
The surprising turnaround by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/henry_m_jr_paulson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has raised questions about whether he squandered valuable time by trying to sell Congress a plan that he and other administration officials had failed to think through in advance.
It also raises questions about whether the administration’s deep philosophical hostility to government ownership in private companies aggravated the financial crisis by delaying rescue action.
( the answers: YES! YES! :lol )
Some experts now say they believe that the Treasury Department’s decision last month not to rescue Lehman Brothers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/lehman_brothers_holdings_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) with taxpayer money exacerbated the panic that quickly metastasized into an international crisis.
( Lehman was a Goldman rival. El Capo Paulie rubbed out a rival )
Underscoring the gravity of the situation, President Bush convened an early morning meeting at the White House on Saturday with finance ministers from the Group of 7 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_seven/index.html?inline=nyt-org) industrialized countries.
“All of us recognize that this is a serious global crisis, and therefore requires a serious global response, for the good of our people,” Mr. Bush said afterward in the Rose Garden, flanked by the ministers, who are in Washington for their annual meeting.
( dubya goes from Greatness to Greatness. There's no limit to his brilliance. :lol )
Mr. Bush said the countries had agreed to general principles in responding to the crisis, including working to prevent the collapse of important financial institutions and protecting the deposits of savers. But he offered no details on other measures, suggesting that there were still differences among countries about which steps to take to shore up their respective financial systems.
Like the United States, Britain plans to inject capital directly into banks.
(uh, let's rephrase that: Like Britain, the US plans to inject capital directly into banks )
But the United States and other countries have not adopted Britain’s proposal to guarantee lending between banks as a way to unlock the credit market. Germany has been reluctant to put state capital directly into banks, though officials said there were signs of movement in the German position on Saturday.
Mr. Bush’s remarks came at the beginning of a day packed with meetings with finance ministers and other officials, as motorcades and limousines with tinted windows clogged downtown Washington.
Among the most closely watched gatherings was a meeting of the Group of 20 nations convened by Mr. Paulson. This group includes major emerging economies like China and Russia, which have enormous foreign reserves and are being viewed as a potential lifeline for smaller countries that run into financial trouble because of the crisis.
With European leaders planning to meet on Sunday, there are growing expectations of a joint announcement of measures to shore up European banks.
Some experts said the delay in carrying out the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout plan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/bailout_plan/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) has only hurt its prospects for success.
“Even if it was adequate before, it’s not adequate now,” said Frederic Mishkin, a professor of economics at Columbia University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) business school who stepped down as a Federal Reserve (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_reserve_system/index.html?inline=nyt-org) governor at the end of August. “If you delay and create uncertainty, the amount of money you have to put up goes up.”
As recently as late September, the idea of letting the government acquire part of the banking system had been unthinkable in the Bush administration. To many officials, such intervention seemed like a European-style government intrusion in the marketplace.
“Some said we should just stick capital in the banks, take preferred stock in the banks. That’s what you do when you have failure,” Mr. Paulson told the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 23. “This is about success.” :lol You're da man, Paulie! :lol
Mr. Paulson told lawmakers it made more sense to jump-start the frozen credit markets with “market measures,” by which he meant buying up assets rather than institutions. He staunchly resisted Democratic proposals to require that the government receive an equity stake in the companies it was helping.
But on Friday, Mr. Paulson not only confirmed his intention to buy up stakes in banks but gave the idea central billing. “We can use the taxpayer’s money more effectively and efficiently, get more for the taxpayer’s dollar, if we develop a standardized program to buy equity in financial institutions,” Mr. Paulson told reporters. Mr. Paulson refused to say whether the capital infusion program for banks would be bigger than the original concept to buy troubled assets.
( free-market ideology meet free-market reality, aka, a total fuckup)
Treasury officials said they hoped to make the first capital infusions within the next two weeks. That would be earlier than any government purchases of unwanted mortgage-backed securities. One reason for Mr. Paulson’s rapid reconsideration was that global financial markets have been going downhill faster than anyone had seen before.
Credit markets seized up and all but stopped functioning, making it impossible for most companies to borrow money on more than an overnight basis. Bank stocks plummeted, making it much more difficult to shore up their balance sheets by raising more capital from investors.
Investors panicked as the House initially rejected the bailout bill on Sept. 29. But they panicked even more after Congress finally passed a bill on Oct. 3 that was packed with sweeteners that added about $110 billion to the price tag.
By the closing bell last Friday, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index had suffered its worst week since 1933. A growing number of analysts argue that Mr. Paulson’s original plan, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program, would have been unhelpful and possibly unworkable. Some noted that Mr. Paulson presented Congress a legislative proposal that was only three pages long and that Treasury officials have yet to provide details how the auctions will work.
Though auctions are common for all sorts of products, including electricity that utilities sell each other, experts said that mortgage-backed securities would pose difficult headaches for an auctions system. The securities are extraordinarily complex, and they come in an almost limitless variety.
( aka, a pig in a poke :lol )
The bonds for a single pool of mortgages are divided into more than a dozen “tranches,” or slices, which have different seniority, different credit ratings and different rules for being paid off. The performance of the underlying mortgages varies greatly from one pool to another, even if both pools are entirely made up of seemingly similar loans.
“I am not aware that the Treasury Department presented any evidence on auctions that have been successful when they are used for assets that are so heterogeneous,” said William Poole, who retired in August as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
“I think implementation of this is going to be a mess,” Mr. Poole continued. “Banks that regard themselves as being in pretty strong position won’t want to sell their assets, and banks that do publicly participate will be self-declaring weakness. Who wants to self-declare that they are in financial distress? That’s the kiss of death.”
People familiar with the early planning efforts for a systemic bailout said the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ben_s_bernanke/index.html?inline=nyt-per), argued that it would be easier and more efficient to inject capital directly into banks. But Treasury officials initially recoiled at the idea, in part because they were ideologically opposed to direct government involvement in business.
( "There They Go Again". Conservative/free-market idealogues fucking everything up )
But as the financial markets spiraled further downward during the last 10 days, a growing number of top-tier institutions, including Goldman Sachs (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/goldman_sachs_group_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Morgan Stanley (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/morgan_stanley/index.html?inline=nyt-org), became worried about their own survival.
“The crisis in confidence goes way beyond the actual losses that will be incurred from debt securities,” Mickey Levy, chief economist for Bank of America (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/bank_of_america_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said in an interview on Friday. “It’s truly incumbent on policy makers to address that crisis.”
( iow, "Bail out our greedy, predatory, unregulated, corrupt, failed asses! )
Treasury officials began canvassing banks and investment firms about the possibility of having the government buy stakes in them itself. The new bailout law gave the Treasury the authority to buy up almost any kind of asset it wanted, including stock or preferred shares in banks.
Industry executives quickly told Mr. Paulson that they liked the idea, though they warned that the Treasury should not try to squeeze out existing shareholders. Mr. Paulson heeded those pleas. In his remarks on Friday, he carefully noted that the government would only acquire nonvoting shares in companies. And officials said the law lets the Treasury write most of its own restrictions on executive pay (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/executive_pay/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), and those restrictions can be lenient if they are applied to a set of fairly healthy companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/business/12imf.html?pagewanted=print
==========
Great comparative graph on how bad the Repugs, neolierablism, Friedman economics, conservatives, and an unregulated/unpoliced financial sector, etc have fucked up the economy vs history
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/11/business/20081011_BEAR_MARKETS.html
==================
Jingos, chauvinsits, and xenophobes can stop reading now. The next graph has financial perspective about the Rest of the World. :lol
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/11/business/1011-biz-CHARTS.gif
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
October 12, 2008
White House Overhauling Rescue Plan
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/edmund_l_andrews/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON — As international leaders gathered here on Saturday to grapple with the global financial crisis (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), the Bush administration raced to overhaul its own strategy for rescuing the foundering financial system.
Two weeks after persuading Congress to let it spend $700 billion to buy distressed mortgage-backed securities, the Bush administration has put its original idea on the back burner and is trying to come up with a new plan over the next several days.
The new approach, which would have the government inject capital directly into the nation’s banks, is one that administration officials had publicly opposed until just a few days ago.
(but that's initial approach that other countries took immediately. What's up with that, Paulie? Were you and your silly 3-pager more interested in saving AIG/Goldman rather than Country First? :lol )
Administration officials said they still planned to buy up assets, largely through a series of “reverse auctions” in which financial companies would compete to sell their securities to the government.
But the new plan, which has become the administration’s primary focus, comes closer to a partial nationalization of the banking system than at any time since the Depression. In exchange for providing capital, the government would demand some kind of nonvoting minority stake.
The surprising turnaround by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/henry_m_jr_paulson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has raised questions about whether he squandered valuable time by trying to sell Congress a plan that he and other administration officials had failed to think through in advance.
It also raises questions about whether the administration’s deep philosophical hostility to government ownership in private companies aggravated the financial crisis by delaying rescue action.
( the answers: YES! YES! :lol )
Some experts now say they believe that the Treasury Department’s decision last month not to rescue Lehman Brothers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/lehman_brothers_holdings_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) with taxpayer money exacerbated the panic that quickly metastasized into an international crisis.
( Lehman was a Goldman rival. El Capo Paulie rubbed out a rival )
Underscoring the gravity of the situation, President Bush convened an early morning meeting at the White House on Saturday with finance ministers from the Group of 7 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_seven/index.html?inline=nyt-org) industrialized countries.
“All of us recognize that this is a serious global crisis, and therefore requires a serious global response, for the good of our people,” Mr. Bush said afterward in the Rose Garden, flanked by the ministers, who are in Washington for their annual meeting.
( dubya goes from Greatness to Greatness. There's no limit to his brilliance. :lol )
Mr. Bush said the countries had agreed to general principles in responding to the crisis, including working to prevent the collapse of important financial institutions and protecting the deposits of savers. But he offered no details on other measures, suggesting that there were still differences among countries about which steps to take to shore up their respective financial systems.
Like the United States, Britain plans to inject capital directly into banks.
(uh, let's rephrase that: Like Britain, the US plans to inject capital directly into banks )
But the United States and other countries have not adopted Britain’s proposal to guarantee lending between banks as a way to unlock the credit market. Germany has been reluctant to put state capital directly into banks, though officials said there were signs of movement in the German position on Saturday.
Mr. Bush’s remarks came at the beginning of a day packed with meetings with finance ministers and other officials, as motorcades and limousines with tinted windows clogged downtown Washington.
Among the most closely watched gatherings was a meeting of the Group of 20 nations convened by Mr. Paulson. This group includes major emerging economies like China and Russia, which have enormous foreign reserves and are being viewed as a potential lifeline for smaller countries that run into financial trouble because of the crisis.
With European leaders planning to meet on Sunday, there are growing expectations of a joint announcement of measures to shore up European banks.
Some experts said the delay in carrying out the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout plan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/bailout_plan/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) has only hurt its prospects for success.
“Even if it was adequate before, it’s not adequate now,” said Frederic Mishkin, a professor of economics at Columbia University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) business school who stepped down as a Federal Reserve (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_reserve_system/index.html?inline=nyt-org) governor at the end of August. “If you delay and create uncertainty, the amount of money you have to put up goes up.”
As recently as late September, the idea of letting the government acquire part of the banking system had been unthinkable in the Bush administration. To many officials, such intervention seemed like a European-style government intrusion in the marketplace.
“Some said we should just stick capital in the banks, take preferred stock in the banks. That’s what you do when you have failure,” Mr. Paulson told the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 23. “This is about success.” :lol You're da man, Paulie! :lol
Mr. Paulson told lawmakers it made more sense to jump-start the frozen credit markets with “market measures,” by which he meant buying up assets rather than institutions. He staunchly resisted Democratic proposals to require that the government receive an equity stake in the companies it was helping.
But on Friday, Mr. Paulson not only confirmed his intention to buy up stakes in banks but gave the idea central billing. “We can use the taxpayer’s money more effectively and efficiently, get more for the taxpayer’s dollar, if we develop a standardized program to buy equity in financial institutions,” Mr. Paulson told reporters. Mr. Paulson refused to say whether the capital infusion program for banks would be bigger than the original concept to buy troubled assets.
( free-market ideology meet free-market reality, aka, a total fuckup)
Treasury officials said they hoped to make the first capital infusions within the next two weeks. That would be earlier than any government purchases of unwanted mortgage-backed securities. One reason for Mr. Paulson’s rapid reconsideration was that global financial markets have been going downhill faster than anyone had seen before.
Credit markets seized up and all but stopped functioning, making it impossible for most companies to borrow money on more than an overnight basis. Bank stocks plummeted, making it much more difficult to shore up their balance sheets by raising more capital from investors.
Investors panicked as the House initially rejected the bailout bill on Sept. 29. But they panicked even more after Congress finally passed a bill on Oct. 3 that was packed with sweeteners that added about $110 billion to the price tag.
By the closing bell last Friday, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index had suffered its worst week since 1933. A growing number of analysts argue that Mr. Paulson’s original plan, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program, would have been unhelpful and possibly unworkable. Some noted that Mr. Paulson presented Congress a legislative proposal that was only three pages long and that Treasury officials have yet to provide details how the auctions will work.
Though auctions are common for all sorts of products, including electricity that utilities sell each other, experts said that mortgage-backed securities would pose difficult headaches for an auctions system. The securities are extraordinarily complex, and they come in an almost limitless variety.
( aka, a pig in a poke :lol )
The bonds for a single pool of mortgages are divided into more than a dozen “tranches,” or slices, which have different seniority, different credit ratings and different rules for being paid off. The performance of the underlying mortgages varies greatly from one pool to another, even if both pools are entirely made up of seemingly similar loans.
“I am not aware that the Treasury Department presented any evidence on auctions that have been successful when they are used for assets that are so heterogeneous,” said William Poole, who retired in August as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
“I think implementation of this is going to be a mess,” Mr. Poole continued. “Banks that regard themselves as being in pretty strong position won’t want to sell their assets, and banks that do publicly participate will be self-declaring weakness. Who wants to self-declare that they are in financial distress? That’s the kiss of death.”
People familiar with the early planning efforts for a systemic bailout said the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ben_s_bernanke/index.html?inline=nyt-per), argued that it would be easier and more efficient to inject capital directly into banks. But Treasury officials initially recoiled at the idea, in part because they were ideologically opposed to direct government involvement in business.
( "There They Go Again". Conservative/free-market idealogues fucking everything up )
But as the financial markets spiraled further downward during the last 10 days, a growing number of top-tier institutions, including Goldman Sachs (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/goldman_sachs_group_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Morgan Stanley (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/morgan_stanley/index.html?inline=nyt-org), became worried about their own survival.
“The crisis in confidence goes way beyond the actual losses that will be incurred from debt securities,” Mickey Levy, chief economist for Bank of America (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/bank_of_america_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said in an interview on Friday. “It’s truly incumbent on policy makers to address that crisis.”
( iow, "Bail out our greedy, predatory, unregulated, corrupt, failed asses! )
Treasury officials began canvassing banks and investment firms about the possibility of having the government buy stakes in them itself. The new bailout law gave the Treasury the authority to buy up almost any kind of asset it wanted, including stock or preferred shares in banks.
Industry executives quickly told Mr. Paulson that they liked the idea, though they warned that the Treasury should not try to squeeze out existing shareholders. Mr. Paulson heeded those pleas. In his remarks on Friday, he carefully noted that the government would only acquire nonvoting shares in companies. And officials said the law lets the Treasury write most of its own restrictions on executive pay (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/executive_pay/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), and those restrictions can be lenient if they are applied to a set of fairly healthy companies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/business/12imf.html?pagewanted=print
==========
Great comparative graph on how bad the Repugs, neolierablism, Friedman economics, conservatives, and an unregulated/unpoliced financial sector, etc have fucked up the economy vs history
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/11/business/20081011_BEAR_MARKETS.html
==================
Jingos, chauvinsits, and xenophobes can stop reading now. The next graph has financial perspective about the Rest of the World. :lol
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/11/business/1011-biz-CHARTS.gif