Mon 20 Aug 2007
I was reading an article over at CNN/Fortune by Alan Sloan about the recent “bailout” from the feds. I don’t think I’m quite as angry as Alan about the whole affair, but I think he raises a great point how many people including myself cast bailout of institutions differently than bailouts of individuals or even corporations.
Had the Government stepped in and decided to help the many sub prime borrowers who are on the verge of defaulting on their loans, there would be chorus of protest from the one of end of the political spectrum, and cheers from the the other end. While I’m incredibly sympathetic to the individual plight of homeowners who may lose their home, I do not feel it’s the government’s place to step in when people bet wrong. I am in general a firm believer that people must reap the consequences of their actions.
The Fed has effectively come to the rescue of Wall Street by its initial injection of 38 Billion into the banking system, and then subsequently cutting the discount rate, the rate at which the Fed lends banks money, by half a point to 5.75%. While these moves do not target any particular corporation or help any specific hedge fund, the Fed has made a life a little easier for the corporations like Countrywide who are tapping their lines of credit, and the many hedge funds who have had their fill of sub prime secured debt and are now having a hard time finding buyers. The Fed has effectively extended easy money to the distressed. The Fed doesn’t help directly, but through moves that filter themselves easily and widely through the banking system. The last time the Fed stepped in so directly into an impending financial crisis was the collapse of Long Term Capital in 1997.
In general I think these moves by the Fed are good ones. I do believe the Government should have a hand in preventing financial collapse. The Feds actions of the last week are not unlike FDIC insurance. FDIC insurance may seem like benefit to bank customers, but what it really does is help the institution of banking. During the great depression, “bank runs” were common. A bank run occurs when too many bank customers attempt withdraw funds all at once. A Bank Run nearly destroyed George Bailey’s Saving and Loan in It’s a Wonderful Life. The Government set up FDIC insurance in 1933 and bank runs have since ceased to be a major issue as the public has greater confidence in the safety of their funds. The Fed by injecting liquidity into the system by both by buying mortgage backed securities, and making money cheaper is basically trying to prevent something akin to a bank run.
While I applaud these proactive actions, I also find them unfair. Yes, we need to make sure are financial institution continue to work, but these bailouts also reward poor behavior on the part of some hedge funds and corporations who unwisely misjudged risk. In itself it doesn’t bother me that much some people/organization have effectively been given another lease at life. What bothers me is that those at the bottom of the food chain, the ultimate borrowers, gain no direct benefit yet wealthy hedge fund managers and their clients have much to gain (or rather not lose).
In the next couple months we’ll see if the actions by the Feds will be enough to advert disaster for both individual organization and the economy as a whole. In the meantime, I’m make time to read When Genius Failed , the highly rated book covering the collapse of Long Term Capital by Roger Lowenstein. I’ve been meaning to read the book for the last 2 year, and have been putting it off to reader other fare such as Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows…
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed
August 20th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The bailout was not free. It was done at your expense. Well, yours and everyone elses. When the Fed injects money into the banking system, it does so by increasing the money supply. This lowers the value of the dollar slightly and causes a bit of inflation. You may not notice the difference right away, but the accumulated effect of bailouts over the years does make everyone poorer. That’s why I’m not generally in support of bailouts.
August 20th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
To be fair, it’s not only the US Fed Bank, other central banks from around the world had injected money in the past couple of weeks.
For the sake of argument, [part of the reason for]the injections were to calm investors and savers. Yes, there’s always the short vs. long run argument…free market theory works best…etc. However, if the fed and other central banks around the whole don’t do anything, many people will panic, not only will the market crash because of fear and people running to their banks demanding to withdraw their money. (I read there’re some people demanding to withdraw their deposits from CountryWide the banking unit).
August 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
rstine, I didn’t mean to imply the bailout is free but as GoldnSilver points out a move to calm investors just like the function of FDIC insurance. I’m generally not supportive of bailouts either, but I’m also a pragmatist and mostly a utilitarian - do something because it works rather than just purely on principle.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I wonder, though, if it wouldn’t be more helpful to allow one or two of these big, foolish banks who lent to much to subprime borrowers to fail. It might cause more conservative lending in the future, which would create a more stable basis for the housing-related economy. All this bailout has taught the banks and the investment firms is that if they scream loudly enough that the sky is falling the Fed (and the central banks of the world) will trip over their own feet to bail them out. At some point this will dilute the value of the dollar, as rstine says. Obviously you can’t just keep bailing out bad decisions forever - that’s fundamentally undermining the economy.
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Speculative buyers, House flippers, greedy investors, greedy bankers, greedy Mortgage companies, and greedy people buying more than they can afford to keep up with the jone’s. I live with my wife in a 900 sq foot home in Montana. We baught this home because it was the only thing we could afford at the time. We had a sizable down and have fairly low monthly payments (doing well). Now our neighbors down the street who moved into a 2500 square foot newer home with a newer lexus and pick-up are at risk of loosing it all due to the reseting of their mortagage and the FEDS (our tax dollars) are going to bail them out?? I am working to support their lifestyle? What kind of lower life form thinking is that? So my hard earned tax dollars are going to subsidize greed and bad decision making? What are they going to do for those of us who made the right decision and live within our means?? Are they going give me a 5.0 or lower fixed teasor rate APR that the jone’s will have locked in by the program they are proposing to replace my fixed 6.25?
The economy NEEDS to go through this cleansing (recession). The Feds need to leave it alone. What they are doing is unfair and preventing housing prices to go to a level that is more realistic.
I do not feel sorry for any of them getting ready to loose their home. What about the poor souls who already lost their homes? Is it fair to pass-up help to those who did not get the help in time and already lost their home?
If I was stupid enough to borrowed more than I could afford and if all this mortgage mess was not happening (business was usual) and I lost my home due to financial hardship it would be on my shoulders and no one would be there to help me. It’s simply not fair.
The problems started when housing went from “a roof over your head” to a money maker for people who wanted to make a quick buck and gouge the public by raising the prices and people were stupid enough to buy at those prices.
“Money easily earned is money easily lost.”