The John Galt Plan Might Save US Financial System

SoCalGal_IHB

New member
The John Galt Plan Might Save US Financial System

By Caroline Baum



Let's face it: The Federal Reserve must be scared to death as it watches the financial system unravel.



Unravel would appear to be the operative word as leverage proves to be as toxic on the way down as it was intoxicating on the way up.



By late last week, events seemed to be spinning out of control. Credit spreads were blowing out, with tax-exempt municipal bonds out-yielding Treasuries by a record and the spread between Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities and government bonds hitting a 22-year high. Treasury bill yields were collapsing (further). The U.S. dollar was sinking like a stone. And commodity prices, in their lofty ascent, had all the makings of a market unhinged from the fundamentals, which, after all, is the definition of a bubble.



Mortgage foreclosures hit an all-time high in the fourth quarter of last year while homeowners' equity, or the value of a home less the outstanding mortgage, sank to an all-time low of 47.9 percent.



This measure of owners' equity has been declining since the Fed started collecting data in 1945. (This isn't your father's housing market.) More unusual was the drop in the value of household real estate in the fourth quarter, one of a handful of declines in the half-century life of the series.



Margin calls are causing forced selling of assets (often what investors can sell, not what they'd like to sell), which makes them cheaper, which triggers additional margin calls and more forced selling. No wonder the Fed announced two initiatives early Friday before the New York Stock Exchange opened to address "heightened liquidity pressures."



Temporarily Permanent



The Fed said it was increasing the amount banks could borrow at the Term Auction Facility (TAF) to $100 billion this month compared with $60 billion in January and February. "The Federal Reserve will increase these auction sizes further if conditions warrant," the central bank said in its press release.



In addition, the Fed will make $100 billion available through term repurchase agreements, collateralized loans to Wall Street primary dealers.



Fifteen minutes after the Fed's announcement, the Labor Department reminded us that the economy's problems aren't strictly financial. Non-farm payrolls fell 63,000 in February, following a revised 22,000 drop in January. Employment has always been the most visible, and perhaps the most important, of coincident economic indicators. Your average Joe doesn't know, and probably doesn't care, if industrial production is expanding or contracting in any given month.



Waiting for a Plan



Jobs are a different story. Statistically there isn't much difference between a decline of 63,000 and a similar-sized increase. It's the sign, and the trend, that matter. Private payrolls fell 101,000 last month, the third consecutive monthly decline.



What is to be done? The Fed has lowered its benchmark rate by 225 basis points since September, with another 75 basis points expected on March 18, based on the prices of fed funds futures. It introduced, and now enhanced, the TAF to address liquidity needs.



President George W. Bush and Congress worked together to pass a $168 billion fiscal stimulus package, including tax rebates for savings-short households and tax breaks for business. The pace of mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures is outpacing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's ability to keep up with them.



Paulson said last week that the administration was looking at the mortgage-origination and securitization process, disclosure, regulatory and capital issues, and the rating companies. We can expect new proposals "in the weeks ahead," he said.



Galt's Solution



The following day, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke encouraged mortgage servicers to write down a portion of the principal on home loans, which would give owners some equity and discourage foreclosure. He advocated a bigger role for the Federal Housing Administration, a Depression-era agency that insures mortgages. Congress envisions an even larger role for the federal government.



Any day, I expect some government official to unveil the John Galt plan to save the economy.



Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand's magnum opus "Atlas Shrugged," stops the world by going on strike. He and the "men of the mind" literally withdraw from the world after watching their wealth confiscated by the looters (the government).



Toward the end of Rand's 1,000-plus page novel (or polemic), the economy is in shambles. Desperate, the looters kidnap Galt and prod him to "tell us what to do."



Galt refuses, or rather tells them "to get out of the way."



Road Is Cleared



You probably can sense where I'm going. Today's economic and financial crisis would resolve itself more quickly and efficiently if the government got out of the way. Yes, there would be pain. Some banks would fail. Others would clamp down on credit to atone for the years of lax lending standards. Homeowners-in-name-only would become renters. Housing prices would fall until speculators found value.



That's not going to happen. The bigger the mess, the more urgent the calls for a government solution, the more willing government is to oblige.



We want laissez-faire capitalism in good times and a government backstop against losses in bad times. It's a tough way to run an economy.



(Caroline Baum, author of "Just What I Said," is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
 
<em>You probably can sense where I'm going. Today's economic and financial crisis would resolve itself more quickly and efficiently if the government got out of the way. Yes, there would be pain. Some banks would fail. Others would clamp down on credit to atone for the years of lax lending standards. Homeowners-in-name-only would become renters. Housing prices would fall until speculators found value.





</em>Can I get an Amen !
 
<p>Hello - did she even read "Atlas Shrugged?" The problem in Atlas Shrugged was that runaway socialism that discouraged the capitalists (such as John Galt). It was written by Ayn Rand, who's father's pharmacy business was confiscated by the communists, leaving them destitute. Ayn Rand, the free markets philosopher who mentored Alan Greenspan.</p>

<p>Our current problems are due to runaway capitalism (ex. dismantling the Depression era legislation to allow the financial Wild West days to return), not the runaway communism John Galt faced.</p>

<p>re: "Today's economic and financial crisis would resolve itself more quickly and efficiently if the government got out of the way" - yes, we tried that under Herbert Hoover. It was a disaster. It was also a disaster under Greenspan/Clinton/Bush as we did away with all the regulations that left us in the mess we are in now.</p>

<p> If her economic understanding matches her literary ones - I understand Tanta's antagonism now.</p>
 
Any type of geopolitical structure will have a finite life span. Powers will rise and fall. Whether Communism, Socialism, Capitalism or somewhere in between, the system can and will be abused by those with the power.
 
<p>lm - that's why our system is based on checks and balances. And why removing one of the checks and balances (ex. regulatory oversight) was a mistake.</p>
 
<p>In any system with rules, there is always a way to game the system. There will always be people who game the system. Socialism, Capitalism, Federalism, MLB, prison, school, work, even something as mundane as Scrabble; there will always be those who exploit the rules to their own benefit at the expense of others. This aspect of human nature is so prevalent that any system that does not account for it will survive only long enough to be destroyed by it. To date, capitalism has worked the longest and arguably the best.</p>

<p>Our current problems are not the result of any one thing, rather a culmination of many things. One could argue, Anon, that the efforts of Hoover were interrupted by FDR, and that interruption delayed recovery until after WWII. Both views are a gross oversimplification of the problem. The reality is that ANY outside influence is going to warp the outcome into something other than a true free-market solution.</p>
 
anon - which regulatory oversights were removed that caused the mess we're in? many would argue that <em>over-</em>manipulation of the financial mkts is the cause of our current woes. i agree with nude that both views over-simplify something as complex as an entire geopoliticoeconomic system.
 
acepme - see

<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10609325">http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10609325</a></p>
 
the article argues that doing away with the separation of commercial and investment banking led banks to pursue risky investments. but it ignores the elephant in the room which is -- what created and encouraged the credit and speculation free-for-all in the first place?





regulation/deregulation/reregulation/dereregulation... it's really all the same thing. when big brother sticks his hands in, it causes a mess. when he pulls his hand out, that leaves a big gaping [loop]hole and creates a moral hazard. the usual response (because its politically unviable to walk away from the mess) is to throw some duct tape over the problem in the form of new regulation, which at some point will be ripped off, creating a new mess. the point is to not get involved in the first place.





i agree with the final thoughts of the piece though which argues that the risk-return relationship must be maintained. if you dont want to allow moral hazards in the banking system and want to discourage deposit-taking, govt-insuranced institutions from making risky investments, you must allow them to fail when they do so.
 
<p>I think it goes like this:</p>

<p>Having banks fail is bad (see history prior to FDIC - even during the booming 20's banks going bust all the time). </p>

<p>So we need to make sure banks don't fail (ie. FDIC)</p>

<p>But if there is FDIC - what if the banks go nuts (ex. let's speculate like hedge funds for higher profits - why not, we cannot go bankrupt due to the FDIC)</p>

<p>Hence the need for Glass-Steagall (ie. since we are going to FDIC bail you out, we need to regulate you to make sure you don't do stupid speculative things and go bk).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's rather like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem - if there's a govt guarantee, they need oversight.</p>
 
well i think we're debating two different things. i agree you can't provide insurance without demanding discipline from the banks in return. it was clearly a mistake to deregulate banks in the late 90s, then open the money spigot and not expect some trouble down the line. that was clearly a mistake, and basically a repeat of the s&l debacle. so i agree with every point given that storyline, but i think the very first line can be viewed differently.





having banks fail is bad -- but does it mean the govt should be in the insurance business to ensure it doesn't happen? there's been several other threads discussing high yield savings and cd's so we can use that as an example. why didn't all of us jump in and dump our money into netbank and fremont's high yield accts that were 100 bps higher than a similar acct at wells/bofa/wamu? obviously risk is a huge consideration and those who choose to bank with one of the big banks are willing to accept lower yields for more security. but of course, your money is no more at risk at fremont than it is at bofa due to fdic. so basically the govt has created a scenario in which depositors are incentived to take more risk, which incentivizes the small banks to continue with their risky investments, and forces larger banks to enter into risky investments in order to remain competitive -- <em>all of that risk being paid for by the taxpayer.</em> and now that even the larger banks are in trouble, because the fdic has unintentionally created a policy in which particular institutions are deemed "too large to fail", another govt entity has to pump money into these banks at the expense of our tax dollars, while weakening what dollars we do have left in our savings accts. all of this designed to protect our savings in the first place.





and because this system is flawed, now there needs to be additional regulation and oversight on what the banks are investing in? at the end of the day, big brother is not only an insurance salesman, he also needs to be a financial planner. if the govt has to end up in all those roles in order to prevent some banks from failing, i wouldnt be surprised if it actually cost our economy less to simply let the banks fail.
 
<p>The problem with Rand is she assumes that capitalists are universally competent and socialists and regulators are incompetent. Alas, it is not so.</p>

<p>Also, she was a "fundamentalist" in that you were banished if you didn't agree. So if you weren't an atheist, you were toast if you persisted in your beliefs.. Makes me wonder about Greenspan's personality.</p>
 
A reminder on why the system is broken from Calculated Risk:





<a href="http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/03/feds-kroszner-on-risk-management.html" linkindex="341" set="yes">Fed's Kroszner on Risk Management</a>

<p>From Fed Governor Randall S. Kroszner: <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20080311a.htm" linkindex="342" set="yes">The Importance of Fundamentals in Risk Management</a>





Kroszner blasted banks for ignoring excessive risk concentration: </p>

n particular cases, senior management was not fully aware of the firm's latent concentrations to U.S. subprime mortgages, because they did not realize that in addition to the subprime mortgages on their books, they had exposure through off-balance sheet vehicles holding mortgages, through claims on counterparties exposed to subprime, and through certain complex securities. And then he cautions on commercial real estate (CRE) loan concentrations: Banks should also remember that past experience is not always predictive of future events, meaning that they should be somewhat creative in designing potential shocks. In CRE, for example, banks should move beyond considering single-name risk and include scenarios involving broader risks to the CRE sector and how such risk may be correlated in times of stress with other parts of the portfolio. It's interesting that the Fed issued a guidance cautioning about CRE loan concentrations at the end of 2006, and yet the evidence suggests CRE loan concentrations at small and medium-sized institutions still continued to increase.
 
Back
Top