America wants this bailout more, even if Congress wants it less

And yet, after reading the Officers’ article here on Time.com, I’m thinking their suggestion may indeed be the better approach.

The problem with the bill that Congress attempted to pass is it did not address the real underlying problems so here is what should be done:

A Systemic Solution to a Systemic Crisis: Hints From IMF Review of Past Crisis Resolutions

Yves Smith, Nouriel Roubini: IMF study of how past banking crises were resolved shows that public acquisition of bad assets is less effective than direct recapitalization of the banking system which can be done with the help of private sector mechanisms such as stop dividend payments, debt-for-equity swap, require matching Tier 1 capital injection by current shareholders, public injection of preferred equity.

Roubini: Any solution to deal with economic overindebtedness must entail a reduction in the face value of the debt outstanding especially for households on the ropes and who have a strong incentive to just walk away which would be the worst outcome for borrowers, lenders, and investors–> Efficient HOME (Home Owners’ Mortgage Enterprise) 10 step plan includes a combination of purchasing illiquid assets at a discount with restructuring/loan modification option in exchange for preferred equity injections.

Strauss-Kahn: Systemic crisis calls for systemic solution with three elements: liquidity provision; purchase of distressed assets; and capital injections into financial institutions. There is also a deeper structural issue to be resolved regarding regulatory failure and rating agency reform.

Martin Wolf: criteria to be used in judging the intervention: First, it would deal with the systemic threat. Second, it would minimize damage to incentives. Third, it would come at minimum cost and risk to the taxpayer. Not least, it would be consistent with ideas of social justice.–> The fundamental problem with the Paulson scheme, as proposed, is then that it is neither a necessary nor an efficient solution.

cont.: to do instead: The simplest way to recapitalize institutions is by forcing them to raise equity and halt dividends. If that did not work, there could be forced conversions of debt into equity. The attraction of debt-equity swaps is that they would create losses for creditors, which are essential for the long-run health of any financial system.

Rajan: Because of collective action issues it makes sense to apply force. Consider two measures. First, all levered financial companies (including banks and investment banks – defining who these are is an important but not impossible detail) should be asked to impose a temporary moratorium on dividend payment immediately. Second, all large well-capitalised levered financial companies should make rights offerings (if the rights are offered at a large enough discount to the market price, shareholders will be forced to subscribe) to their shareholders amounting to 2 per cent of their risk-weighted assets. The value of mandating these decisions is that no individual bank sends an adverse signal to the market. And implemented collectively, they could recapitalise the system, with those getting the most upside from a healthy system paying for it.

Calomiris: Instead of buying toxic assets, the US government should buy preferred stock capital in ailing banks that could raise matching private sector equity. This would avoid the intractable problems of how the government should value the toxic assets and directly address the banks’ immediate problem – a lack of bank capital.

Zingales: it makes sense in the current contingency to mandate a partial debt forgiveness or a debt-for-equity swap in the financial sector. It has the benefit of being a well-tested strategy in the private sector and it leaves the taxpayers out of the picture.

All of these economists are telling Congress how to get it done and get it done right. These guys know how to fix the economy…it’s just that nobody is listening.

SUBPRIME BAILOUT PROTEST SONG
(Melody:One, Two, Three What Are we Fighten For,
Country Joe McDonald)
Lyrics WlliamBanzai7

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He’s got himself in a financial jam
Way down yonder in Wall Street land
So pull out your check books and pick up a sponge,
We’re gonna have a whole lotta fun.

Chorus:
And it’s one, two, three,
What are we bailing for ?
Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,
Next stop is a subprime scam;
And it’s five, six, seven,
Open up them pearly TARP gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! your net worth’s just got blown from the sky.

Well, come on regulators, let’s move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those quant eggheads
The only good shylock banker is the one locked
up by the Feds
And you know that prosperty can only be won
When we’ve blown their balance sheets to kingdom come.

Chorus

Well, come on Wall Street, don’t move slow,
Why man, this is subprime bailout au-go-go.
There’s plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Feds with the derivative tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the FWMD bomb,
They drop it somewhere else like Hong Kong .

Chorus

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Wall Street land.
Come on fathers, don’t hesitate,
Send ‘em off before it’s too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your stocks sent home in a box.

Chorus

Nina Easton over at your sister publication Fortune reports that the plan failed the House because of feedback House members got from constituents. I recognize that this isn’t a direct contradiction of the survey results you report (those surveyed aren’t the same sample as those calling their representatives), but it would be nice if you could tie together these seemingly conflicting sentiments.

@Curmudgeon: A good question. I’m definitely not a political reporter, but I did read that some House members were getting calls 100-1 opposed. My (perhaps too cynical) gut says this is a commentary on who is motivated to call Congress. But I also reserve plenty of cynicism for how truthful people are when they talk to pollsters. Not that they purposely lie, but that people, being people, simply say and do different things. They may “favor” this bill on the phone, but not in the voting booth. I’m not saying anything particularly insightful, I know–but I think it’s a really good question you’re asking, one that I have been, and continue to, turn over.

@Barbara: So young to be so cynical.