NYT Econ Journalist David Cay Johnston: It Doesn't Add Up

by: Paul Rosenberg

Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 18:15


NYT Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston, author of Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill, has written a letter to fellow journalists that deserves wide attention, urging a fundamentally skeptical approach to reporting on this purported crisis, warning against repeating the mistakes of the recent past, reporting on other Bush Administration panics:

Journalists, start your skepticism.

In covering the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street don't repeat the failed lapdog practices that so damaged our reputations in the rush to war in Iraq and the adoption of the Patriot Act. Don't assume that Congress must act instantly, as so many news stories state as if it was an immutable fact. Don't assume there is a case just because officials say there is.

The coverage of the Paulson plan focuses on the edges, on the details. The focus should be on the premise. And be skeptical of what gullible Congressional leaders, most of them up before the voters in a few weeks, say after being given a closed-door meeting on supposed horrors.

The Administration has scared the markets and some key legislative leaders, but it has not laid out a coherent, specific and compelling need for this enormous proposal, which is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge. (Instead the money will be borrowed, so ask from whom and how this much can be raised so quickly if the credit markets are nearly seized up with fear.)

He then goes on to talk about specific journalistic question-asking around the chief question of the day: is credit really about to vanish?

Paul Rosenberg :: NYT Econ Journalist David Cay Johnston: It Doesn't Add Up
Johnson continues:

Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up?

If they are then lots of business owners should be eager to tell how their bank is calling their 90-day revolving loans, rejecting new loans and demanding more cash on deposit. I called businessmen I know yesterday and not one of them reported such problems. Indeed, Citibank offered yesterday to lend me tens of thousands of dollars on my signature at 2.99 percent, well below the nearly 5 percent inflation rate. That offer came after I said no last week to a 4.99 percent loan.

If the problem is toxic mortgages then how come they are still being offered all over the Internet? On the main page AOL generates for me there is an ad for a 1.9% loan (which means you pay that interest rate and the rest of the interest is added to your balance due.) Why oh why or why would taxpayers be bailing out banks that are continuing to sell these toxic loans?

These are all questions that business/economic reporters can readily ask, anywhere in the country.  And even though it's not my specific beat, and I have other stories assigned, I've started making some calls myself.

Journalist or not, you should make some calls, too.  Not just for the public good, but for your own.  What's your outlook if you should be needing a loan?  Why not find out? And then share what you discover.  Because we damn sure can do real journalism, right here, right now on this here blog.

Johnson continues:

How does the proposal help Joe and Mary Sixpack who can afford their current monthly payment, but not the increased interest rate that has been or soon will take effect? Every day bankers work out loans with customers -- so why are taxpayers being asked to act when banks are largely on strike, refusing to negotiate revised deals with many loan customers?

How about interviewing small landlords who were drawn into these toxic loans. Are banks negotiating with them? If not it means more foreclosures and renters who had nothing to do with this being evicted. Ask why banks are refusing (landlords I spoke to said they are) to negotiate with small landlords.

What steps are being taken to take back bonuses, fees and other compensation from the folks who got rich selling toxic mortgages and illiquid investments that Secretary Paulsen claims are threatening the whole system.

How will adding $700 billion to the national debt ease strains on the credit markets?

As of now we are, as a group, behaving just as we did the last two times the administration sought to rush through a hastily thought out, ill-conceived plan. Why in the world are we being so gullible and naive? whatever happened to the core value of journalism -- check it out?

Thre's more, but that's more than enough to give you the idea.  There are far, far more questions than answers here.  It's time to start acting like Americans.  It's time to start asking questions.  Uncomfortable questions.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Rule #1 (4.00 / 3)
And it is always rule #1:



A conservative agrees... (0.00 / 0)
that there is no evidence that a crash in the financial securities market will lead to a credit crunch on Main Street.  From Alan Reynolds of the WSJ:


First of all, the financial storms over the past year have -- before last week -- been largely confined to securities markets and to interbank loans among commercial and investment banks. Bank loans to commercial and industrial business, real estate and consumers continued to expand nearly every month. Commercial and industrial loans exceeded $1.5 trillion this August, up from less than $1.2 trillion a year earlier. Real-estate loans exceeded $3.6 trillion, up from less than $3.4 trillion a year ago. Consumer loans were $845 billion, up from $737 billion. Credit standards are tougher, which is surely a good thing, but interest rates for creditworthy borrowers remain low.

The ongoing slow but steady availability of bank credit helps explain the much-remarked contrast between Wall Street and Main Street -- the shaky condition of exotic financial markets compared with relatively benign statistics for industrial production, retail sales, employment and the rest of the nonhousing economy. Most people go about their business without depending on investment banks or exotic varieties of commercial paper.

The connection between the financial sector and business/consumer credit that economists like Krugman are worried about may just not exist, and if its not there, we do not need a bailout.  The lack of a close correlation certainly seems to suggest that there is time to take a breather.


And To Take A Less Drastic Approach (4.00 / 1)
Such as--as noted elsewhere--putting firms into receivership, selling bad assets at discount, and taking the difference from bondholders.

The number of firms balking at any sort of punitive terms is a further indication that we're still dealing with more greed than need.

"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


[ Parent ]
An anonymous comment from economistsview: (4.00 / 1)
Given that this is obviously a Wall Street crisis, not a main street problem, it should be resolved on Wall Street without burdening the taxpayer at all. Nouriel Roubini calls this a "bailin" versus a "bailout". A number of authors (Luigi Zingales, Nouriel Roubini, Willem Buiter, John Hussman) have outlined plans for debt-to-equity swaps that would give Wall Street essentially infinite solvency overnight. Given that debt-to-equity swaps would restore solvency, restore moral hazard, enable real market pricing of assets, and cost the taxpayer nothing I see no compelling reason to give any further consideration to the Paulson plan.

I guess this is what you were talking about in your reply to my previous comment.  Seems more and more like the direction to go.


Right! (4.00 / 1)
Roubini adds a lot more credibility to this.  He's been well ahead of the game for quite some time now.

"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

[ Parent ]
Another economistsview comment that I'm not in a (4.00 / 1)
position to completely evaluate.  It would explain the reason why the $700 billion was mentioned as the amount the Fed would be able to get at any given time.
from what I know, the outstanding mortgage paper market is about 15T. Many analysts are calling for 500B to 1T in writedowns on this paper -- which is about an 5% writedown. If the government bought only 700B of this paper to hold to maturity, this would only take care of 700B * .05, or 37.5B in total writedowns that banks need to make. There would still be roughly 14T in securities held by the private sector.

The only way this bailout can work is if the government 'churns' through this paper -- i.e. the government will buy 700B worth of paper from the banks, sell it at a 5% discount, and net a 5% loss, or 663B in proceeds from the sale. The government will then take the 663B, buy more paper, sell it at a 5% discount, and do it again, up until it has run through the 700B the plan is allocated.

In order for the plan to work, it must help the banks cover the writedowns they will be forced to make, and since the MBS market is so highly leveraged, the government cannot take all of the MBS paper off the bank's hand at any one given time. This is basically how it works when you go to a casino -- you start out with, say, a thousand dollars, and make a whole bunch of bets. Along the way you win some and you lose some, but ultimately run down your thousand to zero. But if you look back, the total amount you wagered over the course of the night would be many many times the cash you started out with.

The administration doesn't want to make this clear, but churning through the MBS paper market is the only way the plan can work. That means that there is almost ZERO chance the tax payer can make any money out of this, and almost a 100 percent chance the taxpayer will ultimately lose the entire 700B cap amount.



It could also be where the (0.00 / 0)
$700 billion number comes from in the first place.  The estimated amount of the writedown.

[ Parent ]
That's It Exactly (0.00 / 0)
At least as far as I understand it, using my journalist's smarts to suss out a field I'm not expert in.  The churning strategy was pointed out a few days ago, at first in terms of uncertainty about how much was involved.

But I instantly grasped that it was much more than that, and indeed was central to making the plan go--and hiding it from the too-dumb-to-question crowd.

Now, this passage makes it "perfectly clear" that what Paulson has in mind is basically the same sort of firm-by-firm macro methodology that Hussman et al are talking about, but with a crucially different micro-methodology--one that leaves the bondholders whole, and sucks the money out of the taxpayers instead.  So the difference between the two approaches now appears to be rather small--merely a matter of who gets dinged, rather than how things are done.

This might not be 100% correct, but it's probably substantially so.

"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


[ Parent ]
Some Responses to Johnson (0.00 / 0)
Via Yglesias
Here
Example:
Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up?

They already have seized up. That's the problem. All you need to do is look at the TED spread, which is now a whopping 250 basis points.

And here
Example:

Ask this question - are the credit markets really about to seize up?

If they are then lots of business owners should be eager to tell how their bank is calling their 90-day revolving loans, rejecting new loans and demanding more cash on deposit. I called businessmen I know yesterday and not one of them reported such problems. Indeed, Citibank offered yesterday to lend me tens of thousands of dollars on my signature at 2.99 percent, well below the nearly 5 percent inflation rate. That offer came after I said no last week to a 4.99 percent loan.

If the problem is toxic mortgages then how come they are still being offered all over the Internet? On the main page AOL generates for me there is an ad for a 1.9% loan (which means you pay that interest rate and the rest of the interest is added to your balance due.) Why oh why or why would taxpayers be bailing out banks that are continuing to sell these toxic loans?
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Answer]: But what about things like credit cards and revolving business loans? Look, if we get to the point where banks are restricting basic credit lines on which nearly all Americans depend for use in daily life, then we're beyond recession territory-we're in depression territory. And it's not like things weren't heading in that direction. Last week we were all sitting there watching the crisis progress from one institution to the next. Now that the blaze on the bottom floor is under control, people are like, "but we don't know that it would have spread to the top floor!" And it's not as if the threat has entirely diminished. Days after the bailout was announced, the spread between interbank lending rates and rates on loans from the government is some five times higher than it would be under normal circumstances. That's huge. And it rose on Monday and Tuesday after falling over the weekend.

That's one reason why time is of the essence. Confidence that a comprehensive solution is forthcoming has calmed markets for the moment, but if markets begin to doubt that a firewall against collapse is going to be there, then the downward spiral will begin again. Another reason is that jammed credit markets aren't exactly healthy for the economy. Does this need to be done this week? No, but can it wait until January? Almost certainly not.

I'm not sure of the philosophies behind these answers or their validity, but Yglesias buys into them.

I sure don't know what to make of all this mess... but it sure is pissing me off nevertheless.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search