Fundamental Question, What Happens If There Is No Bailout !

[al_bundy]

I agree with both of your replies, FireDreamer and Bundy, but those reasons do not stop the foreign lenders from putting the screws to Paulson, in fact, give them more reason to do so.

i've been hearing strong dollar since the late 1990's and still no one really knows what it is. we had a strong dollar 10 years ago and it was partly responsible for outsourcing and foreign manufacturing. we have a weak dollar today and we are exporting more than ever.

one of the reasons in selling off dollar assets is inflation and trade agreements. the chineese had agreed to let the yuan trade in a wider range years ago and this involves selling dollars.

 

[FIREd]

Here's an interesting analysis by a contrarian blogger that I read now and then. His whole essay is interesting but I've only included his conclusion below.

charles hugh smith-Weblog and Essays

"...the threat is the Chinese and Japanese central banks will no longer prop up the U.S. bond markets by buying T-bills and other dollar-denominated debt. Well, as the global recession deepens, they won't have as many dollars anyway, so that decline is inevitable.
And if Congress is spineless enough to pass the bailout, then the dollar falling will wipe out hundreds of billions of value from the $1 trillion+ Chinese and Japanese hoards of T-Bills and other debt. "

I have read on bloomberg that some people think that the US' real GDP growth for the next 10 years will be close to nil. Combine that with foreigners buying fewer treasuries (either because they have smaller surpluses due to a global recession or a lack of confidence in America's ability to repay its debts) and there you have it, sooner rather than later we are going to have to live within our means.

But I guess we'll see how the whole thing unfolds!

 

[Gone4Good]

I guess Joe Biden resigned his Senate seat, I didn't see it in the news, though. Is there any legitimate reason we wouldn't want ALL 100 Senators in Washington DC to work on a bill that might be one of the most important in a half century? Some folks on here sure confuse me........

Yup, sure did a heck of a job blowing up the deal that Congress agreed to before the Straight Talk Express even touched down. That's leadership for you!

The OP wondered "What happens if the bailout fails?" and it looks like we just might find out. The credit markets melted a little more today, it's gonna get ugly out there . . . tick-tock, tick-tock . . .

 

[samclem]

Yup, sure did a heck of a job blowing up the deal that Congress agreed to before the Straight Talk Express even touched down. That's leadership for you!

The OP wondered "What happens if the bailout fails?" and it looks like we just might find out. The credit markets melted a little more today, it's gonna get ugly out there . . . tick-tock, tick-tock . . .

Does anybody know what was in that "deal?" Any reason to believe it didn't need to be blown up? I can't wait to see what it was/is--something for everyone, I'll betcha.

How many times did Bush veto legislation? How many times did it need to be vetoed? I think we'd be money ahead with a little more "no" from the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. We sure won't see that if Obama wins--he'll probably just get an autopen installed in the Capitol and press a button.

 

[al_bundy]

the gop idea is to sell insurance to companies that can't afford it and to MBS holders, stock futures are tanking showing how bad this idea is.

dems want mortgage changes by judges and reps are against it, so am i. but i can live with it if it passes. just more regulation in stealth mode

 

[Gone4Good]

Does anybody know what was in that "deal?"

All the specifics, no. But it sounds basically like the Paulson plan with Congressional oversight, some latitude to limit CEO pay and take equity stakes in companies that participate.

Any reason to believe it didn't need to be blown up?

Things are going to get very, very ugly very quickly if this thing craters.

How many times did Bush veto legislation?

Almost never, when his party was in charge of Congress.

How many times did it need to be vetoed?

Almost always.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Does anybody know what was in that "deal?" Any reason to believe it didn't need to be blown up?

It doesnt really matter what the facts are. Stick the appropriate party people in one side of the equation and the opinion comes out the other side.

 

[Gone4Good]

It doesnt really matter what the facts are. Stick the appropriate party people in one side of the equation and the opinion comes out the other side.

Usually that's true. But here you have a bunch of small government, free market types getting on board with this big government plan (just check the WSJ opinion page for proof).

 

[al_bundy]

this is the deal negotiated so far that the GOP is trying to kill, not perfect but good enough

Wall Street Bailout: Bailout Accord Up In Air as Sources Say Deal Dead - Financials * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

Bailout Accord Up In Air; Some Claim Deal Is Dead

CREDIT CRUNCH, FINANCIAL CRISIS, SEC, FEDERAL RESERVE, CONGRESS, FINANCIAL BAILOUT, FINANCIAL BAILOUT, KANJORSKI
By CNBC.com with Wires

CNBC staff and wire reports
| 25 Sep 2008 | 07:13 PM ET

The fate of a $700 billion Wall Street bailout remained unclear as a White House meeting of both parties ended without an agreement and some participants said talks had hit a major snag and may even be dead.

A person close to presidential candidate John McCain said "there is no deal"—a sentiment echoed by sources close to some Democrats involved in the negotiations.
<LI class=textBodyBlack>Credit Markets Frozen: 'No One Is Trading' <LI class=textBodyBlack>Banks Need Another $500 Billion: Gross The uncertainty followed a turbulent day in Washington, with some officials asserting that an agreement in principle had been reached, only to be contradicted moments later by other lawmakers.
The source close to McCain told CNBC that the agreement as it has been described publicly by Congressional and Senate staffers is "dead." However, McCain will work with Congressional staffers tonight to craft a deal, the source said.
Meanwhile, a source close to Democrats in the negotiations described the deal late Thursday as "cratering." The Democrats also plan to continue work into the night, the source said.
Look Ahead to Friday: US Stock Market Futures and Pre-Market Data
President Bush convened the meeting at the White House Thursday afternoon to hammer out an agreement on the bailout. The president urged lawmakers to work out a deal soon.
"We're in a serious economic crisis in the country if we don't pass a piece of legislation," Bush said at the beginning of the meeting. "We know we've got to get something done as quickly as possible. My hope is that we can reach an agreement very shortly."
The president was flanked by Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders as well as the two presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama.
In a dramatic turn, GOP Sen. Richard Shelby emerged from the White House meeting to say: "I don't believe we have an agreement."
<LI class=textBodyBlack>Watch Shelby's White House remarks But in a subsequent interview on CNBC, GOP Rep. Peter King of New York said that Shelby may have been too hasty in saying there was no deal. "I wouldn't say that at all," King said.
Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander also told CNBC that at least 40 of the 49 Republican senators will back the bailout.
In the earlier CNBC interview, Shelby said he would raise several objections to the plan at the White House meeting.
"I have my doubts," the Alabama senator said. "I don't know this will solve all the problems in the economy."
Shelby's comments came after House GOP leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said his party has not reached a deal yet on the bailout plan.
"I am encouraged by the bipartisan progress," Boehner said in a statement. But "House Republicans have not agreed to any plan at this point."

Though no agreement has been reached, there are several key provisions that are being discussed. They include:
- The $700 billion rescue fund would be made available in several installments, starting with $250 billion followed by $100 billion when the president certifies a financial emergency continues and another $350 billion in May.
- Government would get warrants for equity in participating companies as a way of protecting taxpayers.
- Restrictions on chief executive compensation at companies that participate.
- Two oversight boards would be formed—one with congressional representation, another would have the power to undo decisions by the Treasury Secretary.
- The Treasury Secretary would be prohibited from acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner or any way inconsistent with existing law.
- Regular, detailed reports would be made to Congress disclosing exercise of the Treasury Secretary's authority.

- An independent inspector general would be set up to monitor the use of the Treasury Secretary's authority.
- The Government Accountability Office would be required to perform audits to ensure proper use of funds, appropriate internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
- Maximize and coordinate efforts to modify mortgages for homeowners at risk of foreclosure.
- Loan modifications would be required for mortgages owned or controlled by the federal government.
- A percentage of future profits from the bailout fund would be made available to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America's housing needs.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Usually that's true. But here you have a bunch of small government, free market types getting on board with this big government plan (just check the WSJ opinion page for proof).

Eh, I just saw a whole bunch of burgeoning opinions when there arent any facts in evidence.

 

[Gone4Good]

Eh, I just saw a whole bunch of burgeoning opinions when there arent any facts in evidence.

Explain?

 

[socca]

What happens if there's no bailout? Well, there's the technical viewpoint and the emotional viewpoint. Many people make the mistake of believing that gov't is proposing a technical solution to a specific, well-defined problem (in the same way that you might track down a malfunction in a machine, and swap out a part to fix the problem). I wish that this were true, because then you could produce a technical/mathematical model and make rational arguments as to why/why not the proposed 'fix' was a good idea.

No, the gov't is proposing an emotional solution. They are desperately trying to change the 'psychology of the market' from fear, doubt, and uncertainty to happy-happy-happy-everything-is-just-marvelous-happy-happy-happy. On a very limited scale, the gov't does this all the time as part of its routine operations; for example, playing around with the discount rate. A change in the discount rate changes the psychology of the players far more rapidly than it has any measurable technical effect on the economy.

However, there are a lot of people who believe that the gov't has grossly over-estimated the extent to which it can engineer a happy-happy-happy mentality with a massive new round of deficit spending. After all, this isn't Iraq, where you can hide the truth from the American people behind a cloak of military secrecy and carefully constructed pro-war propaganda. Americans see and feel the reality of the economy around them every day.

So, what will happen if there's no bailout? Assets will be valued based in part on technical factors and in part on emotion. The emotional component may drive some valuations unreasonably low, in which case the contrarians will emerge to snap up the bargains. Will there be unjust bankruptcies - bankruptcies due to emotionally-based selling? My argument is that there's no such thing as an unjust bankruptcy. If you're going to play in the free market, you should set aside sufficient reserves to deal with worst-case scenarios. However, bizarrely, a new class of Republican socialists has emerged who strongly disagree. I'm still trying to get my head around this one.

 

[audreyh1]

Hmmmm - I'm starting to be afraid that we are going to get to find out!

Audrey

 

[haha]

If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down,”

At least that is what our leader Bush said toward the end of Thursday meeting.

Poor Paulson- he felt he had to kneel down before Nancy P.

After readng about the Swedish solution I have to say that sounds better than anything proposed in Washington so far.

Ha

 

[Retire Soon]

Negotiations on Capitol broke off after Republicans presented a competing plan. Senator Christopher Dodd said after the meeting broke off, that Democrats were blindsided by the House Republicans' proposal. The demise of Washington Mutual,which is now largest bank failure in U.S. history sent shock waves to the meeting's participants.

In a sign of desperation, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson begged Democratic leaders not to say anything that might jeopardize the fragile talks.

Democrats may decide to try to pass the deal even in the absence of Republican support, but they will have to accept responsibility if the plan fails in the end. Only 30 to 40 House Republicans out of 199 are expected to support the bailout.

The meeting will continue Friday at 11:30 A.M. Eastern Time.

Bailout Negotiations in Disarray - WSJ.com

 

[ladelfina]

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson fears the Wall Street bailout deal is falling apart after a chaotic White House meeting, sources say.

Paulson walked into the room where Democrats were caucusing after today's meeting at the White House and pleaded with them, "Please don't blow this up."

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chair of the House Financial Services Committee was livid saying, "Don't say that to us after all we've been through!"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "We're not the ones trying to blow this up; it's the House Republicans."

"I know, I know," Paulson replied..

Political Radar: Stephanopoulos: Paulson Fears Deal May Collapse

CBS reports that McCain's alternative would "include fewer regulations and more corporate tax breaks for businesses.. kind of a private solution..".
YouTube - McCain bailout plan: More deregulation

 

[socca]

washingtonpost.com

In today's Washington Post:

Under the alternative Republican plan, the government would set up an expanded insurance system, financed by the banks, that would rescue individual home mortgages. The government would not have to buy up the toxic mortgage-backed assets that are weighing down financial institutions.

It's no wonder that Paulson, an investment banker, detests this proposal.

In the absence of further information, I like the alternative plan better (at least, perhaps it's the lesser of two evils). At least support would be flowing to the foundation of the economy - the taxpayer - rather than the investment banking superstructure built on top of the taxpayer. As always, though, the devil is in the details.

Edit: the alternative proposal could be called the 'trickle-up' bailout model while the Paulson proposal could be called the 'trickle-down' bailout model. Traditionally, Republican socialists have favored trickle-down, while Democratic socialists have favored trickle-up. It's bizarre that the Repubs are now walking both sides of the street.

 

[OAG]

This thing is going out of control (if it was ever under control). I am still waiting for someone to define the problem. Everyone is pointing to actual or possible results. But our Congress (all of them) can't define the problem. I am at a loss as to how you can solve a problem you can't define with a solution that may or may not work. Looks like the usual Washington action - we will create a solution to a problem we can't define. Frankly, in this case, like the spring rebate problem, we are going to create a solution in search of a problem. Everyone is running around the BULL RING trying not to get GORED.

 

[Orchidflower]

Thanks, albundy, for that article. I, personally, am so stressed about all this that I feel like Ted Kennedy must have when he found out about his brain tumor: "Screw all this. I'm going to go sailing." And then he walked out of his physician's office. Me, I'm going to go to the gym after I move bank accounts around.

 

[al_bundy]

washingtonpost.com

In today's Washington Post:



It's no wonder that Paulson, an investment banker, detests this proposal.

In the absence of further information, I like the alternative plan better (at least, perhaps it's the lesser of two evils). At least support would be flowing to the foundation of the economy - the taxpayer - rather than the investment banking superstructure built on top of the taxpayer. As always, though, the devil is in the details.

the big MBS holders already paid insurance on the bonds in the form of a CDS which everyone now knows won't be paid back if a lot of these fail. they aren't going to pay a second insurance policy to the US. they will simply pull money out of the US and the dollar will make history for decades to come.

big risk of the dollar losing it's world status and the return of double digit interest rates for mortgages for a long time to come. and everyone's savings here would probably be wiped out as well

 

[al_bundy]

This thing is going out of control (if it was ever under control). I am still waiting for someone to define the problem. Everyone is pointing to actual or possible results. But our Congress (all of them) can't define the problem. I am at a loss as to how you can solve a problem you can't define with a solution that may or may not work. Looks like the usual Washington action - we will create a solution to a problem we can't define. Frankly, in this case, like the spring rebate problem, we are going to create a solution in search of a problem. Everyone is running around the BULL RING trying not to get GORED.

the problem is simple, too much bad debt and not enough insurance to cover the losses and the insurance policy is written by the same people that hold the bad debt and are screaming for cash. if the government steps in and buys up the debt it should calm things down. if we let things go on without intervention we risk a cascading failure when big banks fail and anyone who owns CDS's will start calling them in and it will lead to more failures as people can't pay them back and so on and so on.

 

[tryan]

This thing is going out of control

I can't wait for the absolute auctions of all these seized assets! It'll take about a year ... then the healing will begin. Resolution Trust Corp all over again!

Where there's chaos there's opportunity!

 

[OAG]

the problem is simple, too much bad debt and not enough insurance to cover the losses and the insurance policy is written by the same people that hold the bad debt and are screaming for cash. if the government steps in and buys up the debt it should calm things down. if we let things go on without intervention we risk a cascading failure when big banks fail and anyone who owns CDS's will start calling them in and it will lead to more failures as people can't pay them back and so on and so on.

Well, WAMU, went down (and came back) last night. Looks like a pretty clean action by the MARKET. It is the largest bank "failure" in history!

 

[al_bundy]

if there is no bailout, let's see what happens next week when people start calling in their insurance policy.

this is just the assets going to chase. now that the debt issued by wamu is worthless someone is going to have to repay it

 

[Independent]

So out of the frying pan and into the fire? You take your money out of a MM fund because you think it might fail and put it in a commercial bank that might fail? Sure you have FDIC insurance, but only up to $100K. I don't have a statistic about the composition of MM deposits, but I strongly suspect a very high percentage of total deposits are in accounts that exceed FDIC insurance limits.

Also the "friction" in moving from a predominately market based financing system back to a commercial bank lending model is huge. Right now banks aren't lending. And even if they got a good fraction of the MM withdrawals back in deposits, it would take a long while for them to turn around and lend that money back out.

Sure over the "long-term" we'd adjust but people forget how long the long-term can be . . . we came out of the Great Depression too, over the long-term.

I'm not sure if you are looking at this from the lender's perspective or the borrowers. As an individual with short term cash, I can choose between non-insured MM mutual funds or insured (up to $100,00) deposits in regulated (with reserve requirements) banks. There's a trade-off there. I don't think the gov't is trying to change the rules for the benefit of the savers, and I don't think they should.

I do think they are trying to change the rules for the benefit of the borrowers. It's easier for a firm that has been using commercial paper to get operating cash to continue that instead of switching to bank borrowing. But it certainly isn't impossible. I agree that over the "long-term" everyone adjusts, and the judgement call is how long it takes for the "long-term" to get here. I'm sure there are profitable firms that don't use commercial paper, others can easily get along without it. I don't know if that's most companies or just a few.

I'm thinking that the people who live and breath this every day are somewhat biased - believing that the whole economy is going down the tube just because their business is (I'm talking about the financial industry here). I don't know how much bias there is in their predictions.