Could taxpayers make money on the federal bailout?

Could taxpayers actually make money on the federal bailout of distressed assets when the market unfreezes? An L.A. Times story asks the question:

...some economists say that the mortgage-backed securities the Treasury proposes to buy from crippled banks have been so beaten down in price that taxpayers could actually profit once the market for these securities -- now virtually nonexistent -- unfreezes.

"It's entirely within the realm of possibility that we'll make money on this deal," says J. Bradford DeLong, professor of economics at UC Berkeley.

DeLong observes that several government bailouts of the past have ended up in the black, including the 1994 rescue of the Mexican peso. The U.S. government eventually recorded a $500-million profit on its share of Mexico's $50-billion international loan package.

Of more immediate relevance, the government's takeover of stricken insurance company American International Group may have already produced a paper profit, and could produce more gains as AIG's asset portfolio is sold off or recovers its value...

No one is yet sure how the Treasury Department intends to set a price for its asset purchases, assuming Congress grants its request for $700 billion in buying power. Treasury officials have said only that the price might be set in a so-called reserve auction, in which each bank hoping to sell mortgage bonds to the government would state the lowest price it would accept and the government would buy first from the banks offering the lowest price.

"The devil is in the details," says Sandeep Dahiya, a finance professor at Georgetown University. "The government would pay something between the current market price, which is effectively zero, and the full fair value. But we've heard very little about how the auction would work out."...

One uncertain question is whether the government purchases will entice private investors to start bidding again for mortgage securities, creating an active market that could relieve the Treasury of the need to spend its entire fund.

Bailout plan details unveiled

Details of the $700 billion bailout plan of Wall Street were unveiled today as a rancorous Congress continues to debate the issue. From an L.A. Times story:

Congressional and administration officials unveiled their $700-billion rescue plan for Wall Street today, setting up the largest government intervention in the economy since the Great Depression.

The plan includes a program to purchase bad assets and an insurance program to underwrite others. It would also require the government to gain an equity stake in companies that benefit from the rescue, ensuring that taxpayers would make money once the assets regained some value. And the deal would require curbs on executive pay and the $700 billion to be released in installments...

The 110-page bill is posted on the website of the House Financial Services Committee. It is expected to be voted on by the House as soon as Monday and by the Senate on Wednesday...

But the plan faces fierce opposition from Republicans and Democrats angry at what they say is a taxpayer bailout of Wall Street "fat cats." As the House opened for an unusual Sunday session, lawmakers from both parties rose, one after another, for one-minute speeches denouncing the agreement -- and signaling a continuing struggle as policymakers and their staff work out the final details...

Both caucuses will be meeting in the afternoon, including a Democratic offshoot called the "skeptics caucus," at which members will hear from economists who oppose the bailout plan.

In separate appearances on the Sunday talk shows, both presidential nominees said they were inclined to vote for it.

"I'd like to see the details, but hopefully yes," Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican candidate, said on ABC's "This Week." "And the outlines that I have read of it, that this is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with. The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option."

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic nominee, told CBS' "Face the Nation," "Ultimately, I believe that we have to get something done. And so if I feel that those are meaningful provisions that provide some constraints on how the Treasury operates, and this is not going to be welfare for Wall Street, then my inclination is to support it because I think Main Street is now at stake. This could affect every sector of the economy."

The rescue plan, which grew from a three-page proposal sent to Capitol Hill by the Treasury secretary a week ago to more than 100 pages, would allow the federal government to purchase bad debts from ailing financial institutions in an effort to stave off more bankruptcies and provide cash for new loans to ease the credit market freeze-up.

The plan is expected to call for the money to be made available in installments instead of one enormous lump sum. It is also expected to include additional oversight of the government's spending, limits on the pay of executives of firms that receive government aid, help for homeowners at risk of foreclosure and a provision that taxpayers share in any profits from the sale of distressed assets...

"I think the devil is in the details," Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the GOP deputy whip, said on CNN's "Late Edition." "And, as you know, in Washington there may be a tentative deal, but oftentimes when the writing starts, the renegotiations begin. . . . I think the important thing that the Republican members in the House want to see is that taxpayers are not the ones left holding the bag."...

House Republicans, who have been critical of the growth in government spending under Bush, have been pushing to reduce the cost of the bailout. Unlike the president, they must stand for reelection this fall, and are willing to break with Bush as they try to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

Bailout still ignores all of those pesky vacant homes

It's the empty houses, stupid.

So starts a blog post from the MSNBC.com's "The Red Tape Chronicles" (no relation to this blog other than smartly selecting the generic term "Chronicles") on how the bailout of Wall Street mortgage junk still does nothing to address the problem of empty homes across the land. More from the blog post:

In case anyone has forgotten the core of the current economic crisis, here's a reminder: empty homes, both present and future. Empty homes are behind all the supposedly worthless mortgage-backed securities that no one wants to buy on Wall Street. Fear of the coming avalanche of empty homes -- what the Center for Responsible Lending calls the “tsunami of foreclosures” -- has made Wall Street’s mortgage-related paper nearly worthless.

It seems that filling those empty homes by dealing with foreclosures and stoking demand to buy homes should be the first order of business. So why -- as we discuss the most dramatic government intervention in nearly a century -- is there only passing mention of all these vacancies?

By every industry measure, foreclosure is a huge problem. Earlier this year, the financial services giant Credit Suisse estimated that there will be 6.5 million U.S. foreclosures during the next five years.

And even if you pay your mortgage on time, foreclosures will likely hurt you, too. Each time a family is kicked out of a home, there's collateral damage to the value of nearby homes. The Center for Responsible Lending says that the closest 50 homes lose an average of $3,000 in equity every time there’s a foreclosure. The organization estimates that 40 million families will lose nearly $350 billion in equity due to foreclosure collateral damage during the next five years...

There are really two related but distinct economic crises facing America right now. There’s the liquidity crisis on Wall Street, which has us all breathlessly watching CNBC, and there’s the housing crisis, which is kicking 6,000 families per day out of their homes and is draining equity from the rest of the nation’s homeowners...

“This was kind of a game of chicken and I'm afraid it looks like the consumer advocates in Congress are the ones who blinked ,” said Adam J. Levitin, a bankruptcy expert at the Georgetown University Law Center.

Details of the not-quite-completed-bailout-plan are still emerging, but by all accounts it will not include the most obvious and direct tool to stem the empty house problem: adjustments to bankruptcy law that would allow judges to modify the mortgages of at-risk homeowners.

Such assistance could still materialize in Congress, but the Senate voted to reject the idea in April, spurred on by agressive bank lobbying. By agreeing to this bailout deal without fixing bankruptcy law, Main Street’s advocates have surrendered nearly all their leverage...

"The only way to stop the free-fall of housing prices is to stop foreclosures," Kathleen Day, spokeswoman for the Center For Responsible Lending, warned. "If you don't do something for consumers, this is going to be unfair and ineffective."

The proposal to amend Chapter 13 bankruptcy law (the kind where debtors repay their loans, but buy time and get some discounts) is hardly revolutionary. Under Chapter 13, filers can rework all kinds of loans: car loans, vacation home loans, investment/rental property loans. But primary residence loans are exempt. Struggling homeowners face two choices in current bankruptcy law -- pay every penny or walk away. The limitation stems from a 1970s law that was intended to encourage banks to lend more money to would-be homeowners.

The simplest way to prevent the coming avalanche of additional empty homes -- and thereby make those asset-backed-securities have some real value -- is to prevent people from getting kicked out. It's stunning that $700 billion is about to change hands with no direct plan for keeping them in their homes.

Public simply doesn't trust federal government on bailout

Considering what's happened in American politics over the last generation (and not just the last 8 years), it's certainly understandable why the public simply doesn't trust anything that comes out of Washington, including the proposed federal financial bailout. From an LATimes story:

As congressional leaders struggled to craft a bailout plan for the nation's troubled financial system Thursday, angry protesters mobbed Wall Street, telephones rang off the hook in House and Senate offices and a group of prominent economists sent off e-mail blasts critiquing the proposal.

Numerous opinion polls taken this week came to wildly varying conclusions about the level of support among Americans for the Bush administration's $700-billion plan. But the increasingly loud roar coming from all corners of the nation shows that the idea of a bailout has touched a particularly sensitive nerve among the public...

"It's getting really controversial," said Peter DeMarzo, a professor of finance at Stanford who was among 166 academics who signed a letter sent to House and Senate leaders calling on lawmakers not to rush deliberation on the plan. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) held a copy of the letter as he attended a meeting on the bailout negotiations at the White House. Shelby cited the letter as support for his stance against the Bush plan...

Polls taken in recent days have found little consensus among the American people on the Bush plan, which would provide funds to purchase huge quantities of mortgage-backed securities and other bad debt from troubled financial firms.

A poll by Rasmussen Reports early in the week found that 44% of Americans opposed the plan and 25% supported it. However, a USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday showed more than 75% favored congressional approval of the bailout. A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted Sept. 19 through Monday showed 55% opposed to government bailouts of private companies.

More than 1,000 protesters clogged the street in front of the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, bearing signs calling the bailout a "class war crime." A quartet dressed in business attire contrasted with the mob, holding up signs asking Congress to "have a heart, save a hedge fund," as other demonstrators jeered and shouted obscenities at them.

Meanwhile, some online conspiracy theorists think that a move by the military to bring back the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team from Iraq to focus on the homeland for 12 months beginning October 1st is intended to keep the masses in line should public protests get out of control. From the ArmyTimes.com (hat tip: Patrick.net):

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks...

The command is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones...

The 1st of the 3rd is still scheduled to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2010, which means the soldiers will have been home a minimum of 20 months by the time they ship out.

In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack...

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

Wow, I feel better already.

The story behind the bailout discussions

There's a very interesting story on the website politico.com (hat tip: Drudge Report) that discusses in some detail exactly what happened at the White House on Thursday:

A high-profile White House meeting on Treasury’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan ended on a sour, contentious note Thursday after animated exchanges among lawmakers laced with presidential politics just weeks before the November elections.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came up to the Capitol hours later to revive talks, but House Republicans did not participate, and Democrats warned that the whole process could collapse unless President Bush gets them to come to the table...

Both McCain and his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, would leave the White House without comment, and the meeting was described as among the wildest in memory. A beleaguered President Bush had to struggle to maintain order and reassert himself. And when Democrats left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room, Paulson pursued them, begging that they not “blow up” the legislation...

It was McCain who had urged Bush to call the White House meeting but Democrats made sure Obama had a prominent part. And much as they complained later of being blindsided, the whole event turned out to be something of an ambush on their part—aimed at McCain and House Republicans.

“Speaking professionally,” said one Republican aide, “They did a very good job.”

When Bush yielded early to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D- Nev.) to speak, they yielded to Obama to speak for the assembled Democrats. And it was Obama who raised the subject of the conservative alternative and pressed Paulson on what he thought of the idea.

House Republicans felt trapped—squeezed by Treasury, House Democrats and a bipartisan coalition in the Senate. And while McCain spoke surprisingly little after asking for the meeting, he conceded that it appeared there were not the votes for the core Paulson plan without major changes...

The wild White House meeting may have the effect of uniting Democrats more. And only hours before, Dodd, Frank and bipartisan set of prominent senators had reached a bipartisan agreement Thursday on the framework for legislation authorizing the massive government intervention.

But passing the Treasury plan is still an uphill climb, and Pelosi will be reluctant to expose her members if House Republicans are sitting out the process. And the whole sequence of events confirmed Treasury’s fears about the decision by Bush, at the urging of McCain, to allow presidential politics into what were already difficult negotiations...

Paulson was left feeling bruised on two fronts. He was not part of the Capitol discussions in the morning, which stretched to nearly three hours and will now require extensive follow-up with Treasury. This process began last night and will continue Friday morning, while the leadership takes the political temperature for going forward.

At the same time, Frank, a strong Paulson ally, feels the secretary is being undercut in front of the president.“McCain and the House Republicans are undercutting the Paulson plan, talking about a wholly different approach,” Frank said prior to the meeting. And this was very much the line of attack at the White House: “This is the presidential campaign of John McCain undermining what Hank Paulson tells us is essential for the country.”...

There is a greater emphasis on efforts not just to relieve Wall Street firms of their bad debts but also to help homeowners threatened by foreclosure. Companies that benefit from the plan would be expected to limit pay and severance packages for their executives, and community banks are expected to benefit from a new $3 billion tax break as a result of their stock losses in the government takeover of the two mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...

Paulson had asked for the $700 billion funding authority as part of his initial bill, arguing that the large number is an important signal to the markets of the government’s commitment. Nonetheless, the administration has since paid a heavy political price for not better explaining its initiative as an “investment” by taxpayers — and one which will surely be repaid to some level as the economy improves.

The whole debate has exposed an angry anti-Wall Street cultural divide, and Paulson, a former Goldman Sachs CEO, has been the target of critics who argue that “Main Street” taxpayers are being asked to aid other wealthy bankers. Getting the full $700 billion, without any encumbrances, has become almost impossible politically in Congress.

The proposal agreed to in the Capitol meeting would allow $250 billion, immediately followed by another $100 billion, for a total of $350 billion. What happens to the second $350 billion is sure to be the subject of intense bargaining still with Treasury. But lawmakers signaled that Congress would have the authority to deny any more money through a joint resolution — but that it would have to overcome a presidential veto to do so...

The cost debate illustrates just how nuanced the massive intervention will be. Paulson has often stumbled this week when trying to describe its intent, and the clearest voice has been Bernanke, a former college professor who casts the whole effort as an unprecedented experiment in “price discovery” that will add not just capital but also precious knowledge to jump-start the credit markets.

With the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, mortgage-related securities are caught in a vicious downward cycle, commanding only “fire sale” prices, Bernanke says. The government purchases, through a series of novel auction mechanisms, will help the market value these assets, he says. And this could be the spark needed to get markets working and the economy’s engine turning over again.

This explanation is very different from the “bailout” imagery that surrounds the debate. And the great challenge for both sides has been to find some path in between these two poles — able to satisfy the anger voters feel toward Wall Street but also leaving enough room for Bernanke’s experiment to function.
One issue where this comes up is the question whether Treasury should demand warrants or options to hold stock in the companies — a way, perhaps, to turn a profit for taxpayers in the future. Many Democrats argue that this is only fair given the risk the Treasury is assuming by buying up the bad debts. But Bernanke worries that it will be seen as a punitive step and discourage companies from participating — and thereby reduce the competition in the market.

Politics derails bipartisian bailout plan

In the beginning, there was a $700 billion Plan (at least the first phase of it), and some thought it was good (others weren't so sure). Then the President went on national television to explain the catastrophic consequences of failing to approve the Plan (i.e., a potential Depression), which some thought good and others thought was simply more fear-mongering.

The Plan was about to be approved and then -- Poof! -- Republican candidate John McCain put his campaign on hold and swept into Washington to -- what? derail the Plan? fly off to Alaska with Sarah Palin and watch Russia from a doorstep? -- and now it seems that Congress is at an impasse. Obama's waiting for a Plan to be announced first before he issues his own specifics on what to do (sort of like voting "Present" instead of "Yes" or "No").

Rome -- burning. Leaders -- fiddling. Voters -- really sorry now that they thought the proper way to vote for candidates of high office was to consider sharing a beer (although that Shiner Bock from Texas is good stuff!). From a New York Times story:

The status of a rescue plan for the nation’s financial system was in doubt on Thursday, at least for the moment, as lawmakers emerged from a meeting with President Bush to say that negotiations had a ways to go...

One critical snag seems to be opposition to the $700 billion plan by conservative House Republicans.

“My hope is that we can get a deal,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, hours after House and Senate negotiators had announced that an accord was at hand. President Bush had hoped that an agreement could be announced after the late-afternoon meeting.

Mr. Dodd, looking tired and annoyed, complained that the late complications were making the episode sound more like “a rescue plan for John McCain,” the Republican presidential candidate, than one for the financial system.

It does no good, Mr. Dodd said, “to be distracted for two or three hours by political theater.”...

Mr. McCain and his Democratic opponent, Senator Barack Obama, left the White House by a side entrance without commenting. The initial silence of the presidential candidates reinforced the impression that thorny issues still need to be addressed...

It has become abundantly clear, that members of Congress are hearing from their constituents, many of whom are furious about the proposed rescue.

Democrats said that Senate and House Democrats and Senate Republicans and the White House were ready to hammer out a deal, but that House Republicans balked.

“We were ready to make a deal,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who attended the meeting and was standing next to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Mr. Paulson Jr. asked for more time.

“The House Republicans now tell us we’re not for this, we have got something else,” Mr. Frank said.

He complained that the new House Republican counter-proposal included ideas about private mortgage insurance and a cut in the capital gains tax that Mr. Paulson had already testified would not work...

Conservative Republicans, in particular, have said that such a huge government intervention violated their free market principles.

A senior Republican lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to undermine the party leadership, said there was a “violent reaction” among House Republicans to the Paulson plan. He said backers of the alternative, one of several that have been proposed in the House, are calculating that they can force the negotiators to accept it as part of a larger deal.

Good news! Only $700 billion!

More details continue to emerge from Treasury Secretary Paulson's proposed bail-out of distressed mortgages from various financial institutions. Whereas some pundits are predicting a cost of up to $1 trillion or more, this initial request is for $700 billion, thereby putting to rest any administration hopes of invading Iran! From a Wall Street Journal story:

The federal government is asking Congress for $700 billion to buy up distressed assets as part of its plan to help halt the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

The Treasury Department sent Congress legislative language last night asking for broad authority to buy assets from U.S. financial institutions. The request is just two-and-a-half pages and contains a broad outline of how this new entity would function. The government wanted to keep the plan simple, in part because it wants the flexibility to adjust what its doing as market conditions change, a person familiar with the matter said.

Among the things the government is asking for is the authority to hire asset managers to oversee the buying of assets. The bare-bones request may irk Congress, which is already expressing concerns about the plan. It could present an opportunity for Congress to stack the bill with other provisions, such as more housing relief.

The proposal would give the Treasury secretary significant leeway in buying, selling and holding residential or commercial mortgages, as well as "any securities, obligations or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages."

The only limitation would be that purchases couldn't exceed $700 billion outstanding at any one time. That figure compares with the $515 billion President George W. Bush included in his fiscal 2009 base budget request for the Department of Defense. The plan also calls for an increase in the public debt limit, boosting it to $11.3 trillion...

House and Senate lawmakers, working hand-in-hand with the Bush administration, are expected to work throughout the weekend on finalizing the details of the plan. Congressional leaders have targeted a vote on the comprehensive plan for the coming week, though that will depend on the ability of the White House and Congress to agree on a final product.

The proposal would expire after two years but would allow the government to hold the assets purchased from financial firms -- which must be headquartered in the U.S. -- for as long as is deemed necessary by the Treasury. Any assets purchased through the program would have to be tied to mortgages originated before Sept. 17 of this year.

The plan offered to Congress also gives the Treasury legal immunity from any lawsuits. "Decisions by the secretary pursuant to the authority are non-reviewable … and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency," the proposal says...

The most ambitious part of the government plan is to create a new entity to purchase impaired assets from financial firms. The process could work as a type of reverse auction, in which the government would buy from the institution that sells its assets for the lowest bid.

However, the government may find itself in a quandary: Does it pay more than fair-market value for hard-to-assess distressed assets, putting taxpayers on the hook for any losses? Or does it drive a hard bargain, buying for pennies on the dollar? The latter approach would further hurt financial institutions, since they would have to write down the losses and take additional hits to their balance sheets. The Treasury department, which hasn't commented on specifics about the plan, is expected to propose issuing debt in $50 billion tranches to fund the purchases.

"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative -- a continuing series of financial-institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Mr. Paulson said at a morning press conference...

In another bid to provide liquidity, The Fed Friday, said it would buy short-term debt issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Federal Home Loan Banks through primary dealers. The Fed said it would buy up to $69 billion of these securities, called discount notes, to ease the crunch in the market.

The SEC ban on short selling of some financial stocks -- an attempt to stem some of the worst stock-market slides in years -- is effective immediately and will last 10 days, but could be extended for up to 30 days.