As the Bank Run Ends, McCain May Have Another Shot

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 16:07


jump-you-fuckers

Photo from Bartcop

So McCain will have no more mail, TV, or staff in Michigan, though the Republican independent expenditures arm will still be running a campaign on his behalf.  Larry Kissell is leading by 11 points in his North Carolina district, just one more data point this crisis has been great for Democrats (something  Lieberman echoes in lauding the passage of the bailout as good for McCain).  The polling lead for Obama has expanded, but now, if the economy settles down, the race can tighten up again.  Jointly pushing this bailout could take the economic crisis off the table, and bring back Wright and the nonsense of the conventions.

Meanwhile, what we're learning about this crisis, in a terrifically reported article by Andrew Ross Sorkin, Diana B. Henriques, Edmund L. Andrews and Joe Nocera, is pretty awful.  One thing that confused me is how small dollar donors and ordinary people thought this was a travesty, but elites and wealthy progressives were absolutely panicked and crazed that it had to go through.  This article clears that right up; the crisis was essentially a bank run by hedge fund managers and billionaires.  One way to think about investment banks is as basically banks where rich people and companies put billions of dollars; when the Fed let Lehman fail, billions of dollars in those accounts were frozen.  If you are someone with tens of millions of dollars, some of your money at Lehman was inaccessible, and it was supposed to be liquid.  Hence, panic.  This panic was directly Bernanke/Paulson's fault for letting Lehman go under after bailing out Bear Stearns and AIG.

Matt Stoller :: As the Bank Run Ends, McCain May Have Another Shot
Now, normally you don't put a billion dollars into an account without insurance (people like you and me get FDIC insurance, but that only goes up to $100k), but there's no 'real' market for this insurance, because no one except the Fed has the resources to insure the deposits at any of these major investment banks.  Still, a market for something called 'credit default swaps' developed, which were marketed as insurance for these accounts, even though everyone knew that the people selling the insurance couldn't actually guarantee anything.  It would be as if my neighbor claimed his house was worth a billion dollars, was able to borrow money against his house and bet at the track, and I offered to insure his house at a billion dollar rate for ten thousand dollars a week (selling him what's known as a credit default swap).  He and I would know it was a farce, that I couldn't insure his house and his house wasn't worth a billion dollars, but if he could borrow the money against an asset and bet at the track, why wouldn't he?  Someone else is going to be stuck with the bill if he loses, and if he wins at the track, hey, he's got a billion dollars, for real this time.

If everyone pretends that the house is worth a billion dollars, the system works.  But once that pretense goes away, the system collapses, and that's essentially what happened here.  The collapse of Lehman, after the toxic assets and overleverage (aided by a rule change pushed by Paulson as CEO of Goldman) caused it to lose billions betting with money borrowed against overvalued assets (housing stock), created mass panic, because unlike AIG and Bear Sterns, Bernanke decided to just let Lehman go under.  He didn't just punish the stockholders and bondholders of Lehman, he punished the institutions with money in their account at Lehman, which were other banks and very very wealthy people.

And it turns out, none of their vaunted insurance was valuable in a crisis, and they knew it.  You see, most Wall Street types assumed that investment banks were too important to fail, so like my insurance against my friend's billion dollar house, they underpriced the insurance and knew it couldn't actually insure anything.  When the Fed let Lehman fail, credit default swaps skyrocketed in price and credit froze up, because no one knew if any of their normal accounts were safe.  Of course, no one can actually afford to be the insurer of last resort, except the government, so in a sense, these credit default swaps are just a profit stream for the unscrupulous willing to tell you they can insure your money without being able to do it.  When investment banks like Goldman Sachs become unsafe to hold money, then money floods into treasury bonds, the only safe place in a storm; this was the credit crunch, a run on the banks for the mega-wealthy.

As for the $700B bailout plan, it really doesn't make any sense as a solution for this problem.  What is needed is government insurance of the shadow banking system, regulation of that system (which has happened sort of with Goldman and Morgan becoming bank holding companies), and a winding down of the credit default swap market, as well as a recapitalization of the banks.  The $700B can simply be used as a cash injection to take toxic assets off the books through holding companies, and my guess is that this cash is going to be used to help out the Arabs and Chinese, who hold our toxic paper and can at any point stop lending us money.

The politics are almost rote in their routine of bad faith.  Paulson and Bernanke, who screwed everything up in the first place by letting Lehman go under and freezing up all the accounts, thereby setting in motion the bank run, had their 'break the glass' plan ready for the crisis, and after credit began freezing up because of Lehman, Bernanke lied to Congressional leaders (or simply panicked.)

That Thursday evening, however, time was of the essence. In a hastily convened meeting in the conference room of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the two men presented, in the starkest terms imaginable, the outline of the $700 billion plan to Congressional leaders. "If we don't do this," Mr. Bernanke said, according to several participants, "we may not have an economy on Monday."

Well, obviously, he was wrong, the economy did fine on Monday.  One thing the article makes clear is that Congressional leaders want to pass this.  Schumer clearly doesn't care that Bernanke was wrong and dishonest, neither does Dodd, Pelosi, Frank, etc.  They don't know what they are doing, and so are listening to their panicked big dollar donors, who are the depositors making a run on the bank.

For one moment, the wealthy saw that they had lost control of their political leaders, and absolutely panicked.  Warren Buffet bought in to Goldman and GE, and says that he's relying on this bailout to make sure that investments pay off.  We have no idea how many toxic assets these firms own, and we don't know what these assets are worth.  All we know is that Hank Paulson, and whichever Treasury Secretary Obama or McCain appoints, will have a basically unlimited budget to take them off the books of these extraordinarily wealthy people (as well as the foreigners lending us money), and put them onto our backs.  And yes, we will pay for this, deeply.

The monetary system is deeply broken, and this may stave off a crisis for another few months or years, but this won't be the only shot to reform the system.  Let's just hope that the crisis is enough to fully sink McCain's chances.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is confusing... (0.00 / 0)
So, after talking about how politically shitty it was to vote yes on the bailout, suddenly McCain voting yes as well means that he can close with Obama again?

McCain's started tanking once the crisis started, before there was talk about a plan.  The public rightly at least puts most of the blame on Republicans for mismanaging the economy.  To the extent that McCain can distance himself from Republicans, then yeah, he won't get as much of the blame.  But it's still certainly rubbing off on him.

Will the fact that he and Obama voted the same way on the bailout package mean that people think Obama and McCain have the same ideas about the economy?  I don't think so...


apologies (4.00 / 1)
It's the political environment that is helping Obama, not what he thinks about the economy.  If there's a foreign policy crisis, it helps McCain, if there's an economic crisis, it helps Obama.

Does that make more sense?


[ Parent ]
Yes... (0.00 / 0)
But the crisis still exists, with or without the bailout.  The bailout is supposed to soften the landing, not solve the problem.

I'm not sure if there is a "solution" to it... Softening the landing is good, but, as you imply, the economy needs to fundamentally alter in order to really "fix" this problem for the future, but the problem as it exists now can't just be "paid off" with the bailout. The true fixes will (hopefully) come from better regulations and laws, but in some ways, the economy is just going to have to sort itself out as well, and that means there's going to be quite a bit of turmoil in the coming months/years.

But as far as something new is presented in the news cycle, then yeah... the economic stuff might be played out at some point.  The question is whether Obama's numbers are still being somewhat "artificially" inflated like most bounces and will settle back into an equilibrium that has Obama just ahead or tied without any new news, or if an Obama 5-6 point lead is now the new equilibrium that won't get disrupted unless some other news item pops up that favors McCain?  So far, Obama's lead has basically been holding.  We can only hope that it continues to hold. =)


[ Parent ]
It's Obama's fault. He phoned it in. (0.00 / 0)
McCain wouldn't have voted for the bailout if only Obama had met him in numerous town halls with McCainy audiences.  That, and McCain didn't have the opportunity to bail out anything for over 5 years.  

[ Parent ]
this is kinda a side point, your post was just the proverbial straw... (0.00 / 0)
can we please stop saying that 'wright is coming back'?  sure, the mccain campaign might cut wright ads and start running them next week. but then again, they may decide that the potential downside for them is too great....

but if we all start talking about how wright is right around the corner, it becomes basically a self-fulfilling prophesy, both insofar as the blog chatter may percolate up to the trad med, and also insofar as it makes it easier for mccain to get away with bringing wright up again (because we basically legitimize him doing so).

thats all.  


A long time ago... (0.00 / 0)
I was wondering whether McCain would essentially ignore Wright until the very last minute to try and cause a spike in the polls in his favor.  McCain's only chance is to basically catch the electorate during one of his own mini-bounces, so maybe he's going to try and fabricate one for election day.

Of course, with early voting, it may be too late for that now.


[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
But the underlying weakness in the economy is still there and the argument has always been that the rescue package did little if anything to address that. All the crisis did was abruptly stop the McCain convention bounce and focus people back on the issue that favored Dems and Obama all along.

And I Could Marry A Martian. (4.00 / 1)
But don't count on it.  This economic freakout has altered the course of the campaign, the dynamics, the parameters, what-have-you.  Virtually nothing remains the same.  McCain is just as likely to keep slipping--if not moreso--as he is to have a comeback.

Either could happen, of course.  But McCain's cluelessness and confusion were on full display, and it's damn hard to put that toothpaste back in the tube, even if you can manage to find the tube and pick it up.  That's not the hard part, and McCain hasn't even done that yet.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


toothpaste tubes and, uh... (0.00 / 0)
it's damn hard to put that toothpaste back in the tube

A Republican Senator shouldn't have too much problem doing this as they are exactly the kind of men to have the appropriate device lying around the bedroom to help out.  You know, to vacuum expand the tube...    


[ Parent ]
What if Palin, 'maverick' that she is, comes out against the bailout? (0.00 / 0)
See http://openleft.com/viewRating... .

Don't think it's going to happen, but it seems slightly more likely than you marrying a Martian.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
The economy will remain the central issue (0.00 / 0)
Even if the markets are not losing a trillion $ a week, the economy will remain bad for the remaining 5 weeks, and will remain the central issue.

YES! (0.00 / 0)
finally.

Bernanke and Paulson created this problem! Yes Lehman and AIG were apparently HUGE fuckups triggered the run. And now its going to be even more fucked up because the shit heads in Congress wouldn't hold one fucking hearing to listen to anyone but the two retards who crashed the market in the first place.

AMEN!

Stop this deal, recapitalize the banks in exchange for serious equity. Then it actually will be relatively ok - 2 year recession not withstanding.

And seriously, fuck all these congress tards who have been screaming Armageddon while on freaking Vacation!  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


When screwing over the American people, Democrats use K-Y Jelly (4.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, when it comes to Wall Street screwing over Main Street, there is really only one difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans will just ram the con right up there, and say "take it!"

Democrats do the same thing, but will use K-Y jelly, and tell working people "this is good for you".

Along with your previous post about "trust", and bringing up Krugman, you've been doing a great job..

Both are high quality, excellent posts.  My thanks.

The politics of the situation, also bear you out.  The very very rich people are screaming, and they are screaming at both Republicans and Democrats.  This is the real "East Coast elite", hooked into both parties, that no politician can cross.

Real Clear Politics had a look at this as well - New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc - there was almost NO opposition to this bill from Democrats, and only half-hearted opposition from Republicans.

But the Midwest, The Central - anywhere where investment banks weren't really plugged in, basically, which excludes California, Chicago, and a lot of Texas - basically opposed this.  In this case, the smaller (in population) remoter states from the corridors of power, rose up to say "hell no!", for the most part.

With exception such as Sanders, etc.

As I said - "we welcome our Democratic Wall Street Landlords", as a joke - but certainly Dodd, Schumer, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Feinstein - these are people who associate with, and are contributed to by, the super-rich of investment banks, every single day.  Even if it is less than the Republicans get, they can't afford to piss these people off.

(It goes without saying that the Republicans are even LESS willing to piss these people off - in fact, they want to be them, in the revolving door lobbyist game.)

They simply won't bite the hand that feeds them, I think.

You would think some small tax on the investment firms would be a MINIMUM of regulatory oversight.

You would think that some type of clawback would be a MINIMUM.  

You would think if there was relief for the fat cats, there would be a bit of relief for ACTUAL HOME OWNERS.

You'd be wrong.

At least Democrats are more polite about it.


Good article and post, thanks Matt, I do disagree (4.00 / 1)
with the conclusions you draw, but I agree that Nocera's article is really great.  

I think you're jumping to the conclusion that it was "billionaires" and not our money.  It was our money at Putnam (and huge portfolios covered by Calpers, States, etc.).

Because of mutual funds, 401(k)s, pensions and endowments, little investors don't move the market. Our appointed managers (a really small group of people) move the market. Yes, they're usually rich but they're professional money managers not robber barons...  So, when they get scared (and they did) our money runs away (we just don't know it)

I agree that Paulson made a real boneheaded move by not saving Lehman (which triggered this whole house of cards). But, I don't think he's screwed up otherwise.  AIG would have been because of Credit Default Swaps a financial Hydrogen Bomb (as they carried lots of that stuff) and those guys pulled off a great save on that one (getting 80% of a company at $1 a share which used to trade for $80 a share) and have done similar nice moves with Wachovia, WaMU and Bear Stearns.  He and Bernake have been active and flexible.  Imagine if, instead, it were Greenspan and Snow.

Getting crap mortgage backed securities out of Bank of America, Morgan and Goldman books still makes sense. They (and their paper) won't be perceived as solid finanically by the people mentioned in this article until they get the bad uncertain stuff off their books.  And, the Paulson plan lets them do that. It's true that it is perception but it should normalize the markets...

Krugman supports the plan holding his nose but says its doesn't work and that we should just be recapitalizing the banks in return for equity. So, they have enough government paper to fill the gaps on the balance sheet from the now worthless bad stuff and the gov gets equity in exchange.  I think this may work but is completely unworkable politically on a large scale.  It won't work because the GOP want allow banks to be nationalized unless they are going under and Bank of America, JP Morgan and the other now huge survivors aren't going under and because the progressives like you will call this what it is, a real bailout (because they banks will not be nationalized, just invested in). The banks left aren't going under -- they are just frozen in terms of putting out paper and extending loans and so Paulson can't swoop and fix the problem with other means (like he did with AIG and Wachovia).  

So, you are left buying the paper at an inflated price based on what the mortgage securities would be worth in a better market so the banks can get their books back in shape and start issuing paper again.  It does mean that the government will hold lots of paper that will take a while to reach the value they paid for it. But, the value of these mortgage backed securities is highly depressed and it stands to reason they have some value so we should get some portion (if not most) of the $700 billion back at some point...



What are you smoking? (0.00 / 0)
This is epochal change. This is permanent. This is unidirectional.

The world will change radically as it did between 1788 and 1789, or between 1913 and 1914.

Decent intellectuals need to take all electoral politics with a grain of salt and start crafting the Big Picture.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox