Is a bank takeover 'nationalization'?
The U.S. government's possible takeover of troubled banks has prompted concerns about nationalization. Bob Moon talks with analyst Josh Rosner, managing director at financial research firm Graham Fisher, about what nationalization really means.
Josh Rosner (pbs.org)
More on America's Financial Crisis
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Bob Moon: Look, we'd like to write the ending to this story -- preferably a happy one -- as much as you'd like to hear us tell it. But we haven't even reached the page that actually defines what form nationalization -- if it's deemed necessary -- might take.
Consider the comment a Marketplace listener posted to our Web site. He argues the model for this type of recovery has been used successfully since the 1930s to "take over -- not nationalize -- bad banks."
OK, so what's the difference between a takeover and nationalization?
Josh Rosner is on the line from New York. He's managing director at the research firm Graham Fisher. Hi, Mr. Rosner.
ROSNER: Hi. How are you?
MOON: Great, thanks. So, when we talk about some banks seemingly moving closer to nationalization, I think the image that a lot of people get is of some Latin American despot taking over some industry. What would nationalization mean in your eyes?
ROSNER: Well, look, I mean, it certainly can be anything from that to something a lot more benign. I would argue and point out that the FDIC nationalizes banks on a regular basis. Actually, it's increasingly seeming like Thursdays and Fridays are nationalization days, where they essentially go in and they take over the depository institution -- either from an open-market save, where they strip out the bad assets and find a strategic buyer for the good ones; or by taking over the institution, winding it down, working off the obligations, and then selling the healthy assets to the living.
MOON: Do we need to be careful about the terminology that we're using here? Is it nationalization, or is it something else?
ROSNER: Well, no, I think that it's actually resolving. I think it's the resolution. I don't think that it's nationalization. It's essentially restructuring. And you gotta remember, I mean . . . One might argue that that's the process that happens everytime there's a bankruptcy of an institution in this country.
MOON: Temporary receivership, perhaps?
ROSNER: Exactly right. Or conservatorship. Or something to that end. What we have now is actually, really, the half-dead.
MOON: Now, does this get into a question of semantics here, because in the case of Citigroup, for example, we're talking about the government buying more Citigroup stock. That, in essence, is a percentage of nationalization, is it not?
ROSNER: The approach that we're hearing is, frankly, a neither/nor. I don't think it's going to be very effective by way of an approach. I don't think it ultimately will resolve anything. And, ironically, it seems unlikely that even if we did end up with, let's say, the 40 percent ownership of Citi that is rumored, the government would probably not vote its shares. I would think that actually we really at some point need to stop treating the equity holders like there's any value because I think when all is said and done there isn't really any equity value in this company left.
MOON: Now, is this the problem in the stock market right now -- that a lot of people don't know just how far the government intends to go here?
ROSNER: I think that's THE problem. I think, frankly, the government has cast itself in a very dangerous position where it's made, you know, implicit promises to various classes of investors, leading those investors to believe that there are lines that the government won't cross. And at the end of the day, I think that's driven us to actually treat, as example, all banks as though they've got the same problems. If you don't draw the line in the sand between healthy and unhealthy, living and dead, then, frankly, investors really don't know how to invest. And, unfortunately, that is where we are today.
Now, I think it's also, by the way, very important that we get this message out. That we need to make sure that people who have their money in these banks understand that, even if the banks were "nationalized," taken over, put in receivership, that the depositors are actually OK. And so, you know, part of I think what's a responsible approach at this point, is for depositors -- people who actually have accounts at these banks -- to not worry about their money, unless they are over that $250,000 limit. Depositors need to actually understand that they're helping the situation if they are under the FDIC limits and leave their money where it is. They'll be OK.
MOON: Josh Rosner is managing director at the research firm Graham Fisher. Thanks for joining us.
ROSNER: Thank you.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Birmingham, AL, 02/24/2009
VERY informative. Thank you!
02/24/2009
Mr Rosner, wasn't tasked to cover the stock market, but he brushed on an important point. The goal of the stock market is to raise cash for businesses, who can't get bank loans or other money, by selling parts of the company without losing those parts--in other words, share certificates.
It wasn't designed to be a retirement investment, or anything else requiring stability. Its a step above a casino, so the idea that people are taking risks, not knowing whether a company will be stabilized by the government or left to fall in a free market, returns us back to the concept that the stock market rewards--or punishes--risk takers.
From St. Louis, MO, 02/23/2009
Wow! Thank you for the description of what happens when the FDIC takes over a bank. Your message de-politicizes what the FDIC has long done, and has done well. Stories like this are essential to move our national discussion from "the sky is falling" to "forget politics for a minute, how can we fix this thing—quickly?" I only hope that your careful description of the effectiveness of FDIC take-overs gets out quickly enough to change the political direction and to avoid another 250 point lost on the Dow Industrials. After all, how long can we continue to dither in an effort to save a few large financial institution equity investors at the expense of every other investor in the country?
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.