Friday, September 19, 2008

Economic "Crisis"

I for one am relieved that economics and policy issues have returned to center stage in this debate (despite a few jabs from both sides). From Black Monday (or Sunday) to today, much has been said about the status and the fate of our economy. Obama has said we’re in crisis. Biden has criticized McCain for not saying we’re in crisis to emphasize the crisis. McCain has seen the light and said we are in crisis after he said the economy was fundamentally strong, by which he actually meant the workers – it’s easy to get the economy and the American workers confused, I know. And Palin has said, oh wait, she’s not allowed to talk to reporters.

The bailouts of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and now AIG, however ugly they might be, are I think, necessary. The collapse of these financial institutions would have meant the collapse of the lives of many (think bye-bye retirement plan, etc.). Worse yet, the problems of these banks are exposing the problems of the entire system which is beginning to resemble the illegitimate lovechild of the Gordian knot and a house of cards.

All loans are backed by some form of collateral, which in the case of these financial institutions tended to be in some type of securities or equities (i.e. shares of stock). If those stock prices fall, so does the collateral. Consider the stock prices of Lehman brothers which are now around a whopping 20 cents*. As your collateral disappears or is devalued, you now have less capital to leverage your old loans, let alone any future lending. You also risk a shockwave of bad news for others as a default on your own loans, now without collateral, leaves them holding the bag.

Ultimately the Federal Reserve has been bailing everyone out, mainly through a variety of loans. My favorite is a 40-85 billion dollar bridge loan to AIG, which is kind of like helping them out until next month’s paycheck arrives. As an added incentive, the Fed levied a 12% interest rate to push AIG to sell off parts of its company quickly. Now with all these loans, can you guess what the collateral is? That’s right, equities of those very same companies. There is nothing like giving loans to shaky companies with the same shaky companies as collateral – did I mention house of cards?

For Bear Stearns these equities included assets believed to be tied up in the sub-prime mortgage debacles and for AIG, this entails the wonderful world of CDSs, or credit default swaps, basically an insurance policy for a loan**. Luckily for AIG and the Fed there haven’t been many bad loans lately, oh wait . . .

However ugly this may be, I think the alternative would likely have been far worse. With the fate of these corporations being knotted to everything else, it’s far better to untangle the knot before you start cutting out pieces of rope.

Are we in crisis? I think the answer is yes, but I’d rather say we’re on the precipice of true crisis. I think the next few weeks will give us a better indication. More on the economy to come . . .

*The 52 week high was over $67.
**A third party, like AIG, agrees to insure a loan for someone else in return for a quarterly fee. If the loan goes bad, AIG covers the losses of the lender.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The bailouts of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and now AIG, however ugly they might be, are I think, necessary."

....

Hogwash.

Your justification for necessary is harm to individuals and their retirement accounts and savings accounts.

I agree - that is a significant problem, but to bail out the company is the wrong approach. Bail out the individuals instead. That is the very purpose of the SIPC and FDIC, and if the situation does not fit within their existing mandates, slight adjustments to those institutions are far more appropriate than bailing out moronic businesses.

Explain to me why, after someone shoots me in the leg, I should give them the gun again? Those institutions that based their economic well-being on dodgy financial instruments that were so complex (and completely of their own making) should suffer the consequences of the market - if they go under, the better for all of us. Bail out the harmed individuals - that's the role of government - not bail out the asinine corporations; that's a form of trickle-down economics straight out of Reagonomics 101.

:-) Happy Saturday.

Erik said...

Thanks for the comments.

I have to admit I would love to see them fall flat on their face, I just don't think it's that simple. Part of the problem is that they are just too big. One giant will topple another which topples another. After everyone's stock is wiped out, the damage is already done and it would be hard to imagine any type of individual assistance being given out in a timely matter (imagine the legal aspects).

I agree that the role of government should be to bail out individuals and that's why I think this was the best way to do it, however bitter a pill it is to swallow. Is this really trickle down... I'm not so sure. Will it work... I'm not so sure either, but I think the alternative would've been worse.

My hope, is that these behemoths will be cut into lots of little pieces (something which will be difficult as they are all transnationals). Without their size, they lose much of their leverage - then I think you can afford to let them fall flat on their face. Otherwise it will all depend on what regulations are put in place to prevent this from ever happening again - I think those will show whether we're moving on to a more just business environment, or if we're really back to (still in) trickle down economics.

Anonymous said...

"...it would be hard to imagine any type of individual assistance being given out in a timely matter (imagine the legal aspects)..."

not any more difficult than believing the 700b number that magically appeared. I can imagine the legal aspects - it won't be hard to identify people affected by failed institutions. In fact, we have government agencies that are quite good at it, and could simply be expanded (SEC, FDIC, SIPC... it goes on).

It's much harder to do anything when you are working both sides, propping up failing corps. Did an individual really suffer because of the corp, or is this drop in stock price normal...

ahh, but I see a new post... off to read that.