Let some big banks fail!
There is lots of talk about what should happen now that the stress test results are out. Commentator Dean Baker says one thing we should consider is letting some of the big banks fail.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. (Center for Economic and Policy Research)
More on Commentaries, America's Financial Crisis
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Tess Vigeland: Wells Fargo was one of the banks that reportedly did not ace the stress test. And this afternoon it announced a $6 billion public stock offering to raise some cash.
There's been plenty of debate over whether these stress tests were stressful enough. Did they go with a true doomsday scenario? But for now, the idea is that all this transparency should give investors a little more faith in the banking system. They know who's in real trouble, and who's not. But nowhere in all of this is there talk that well, now that we know all we need to know, maybe it's time to let some of them fail. And that's why commentator Dean Baker thinks we're going with the wrong conclusions from the stress tests.
DEAN BAKER: The results of the stress tests are in, and many commentators are now declaring the banking crisis over. But this story doesn't make any sense.
Citigroup and Bank of America are projected to need more than $80 billion in new capital between them to stay afloat. They plan to cover most of this need by converting the preferred stock that the government holds into common stock, the government stands to take a large loss on the deal.
For example, the government lent Citigroup $45 billion. The total current value of Citigroup's common stock is just $20 billion. And, even this $20 billion market value figure is inflated because the government has guaranteed $300 billion of its troubled assets, which it is propping up its stock price.
Furthermore, there are reasons for questioning whether the parameters of the stress tests accurately reflected the grim state of the current economy. The "bad" scenario assumed that the unemployment rate would peak at 10.3 percent next year. With unemployment likely to hit 9 percent in April, a peak of 10 percent now seems like wishful thinking.
In the case of house prices, the bad scenario assumed a 20 percent price decline for 2009. However, house prices have been dropping at the rate of 2 percent monthly for the last several months. If even the bad scenario prove to be too optimistic then the stress tests were not a good measure of the banks' health, so passing these tests is meaningless.
At some point we have to be prepared to come to grips with the fact that some of the country's biggest banks are insolvent, that is, bankrupt. Rather than covering up their problems and throwing good money after bad, we should look to do with Citigroup what we have done with IndyMac and dozens of smaller banks.
We should have the FDIC take them over and restructure them. In this story, the shareholders would get wiped out, which is what happens when a company goes bankrupt, and the bondholders may be forced to take hits on some or all of their holdings. But, this is likely to be the least costly route for taxpayers and the quickest way to get the financial system back on a sound footing.
VIGELAND: Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From MO, 05/08/2009
This concept should have been adopted back in Spetember when so many big banks were in dire straits.
The theory was if we let the big banks banks fails then there would be a dominoe effect. I am convinced that it was just that -- a theory.
How can we convince Guitner and the Obama administration that failure is as much a part of capitalism as exercise is a prt o being an athlete.
In my life I have learned more from failure than I have learned from successes, it is time the banks do teh same.
Thank you Dean Baker for a common sense and effciient approach.
From HI, 05/07/2009
"
should have the FDIC take them over and restructure them. In this
"
Now let me get this straight. For years and years banks have had reserve requirements. Reserves have to be deposited to Fed. When things start to get more flaky the Fed Chairman raises the requirements for how much cash bank needs to put into Fed. When the live-on-re-mortgage-forever-Ponzi-scheme took a dive in 2006 things started to turn pale. By then it was too late to raise reserve requirement. By then such a raise would have precipitated instant melt-away.
.
Solution -- raise the reserve requirement; but also lend money to banks so that they can maintain reserve. Fed gives money to banks so that banks can deposit money into fed to satisfy the reserve requirement.
.
Hey! What you guys doing? Fed gives to bank so bank can give to Fed? Is this smoke and mirrors or is this smoke and mirrors? Don't answer that. I am tired of being lied to. No need to lie to taxpayers. We have no marines, no water-boards.
Now let me get this straight. You want FDIC to finally wake up in The Catskills then wander down the mountain then add just one more sleepy Van Winkle layer of management to the Rip-off bank. For what?
Whoahhhhhhhh
!
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.