|
The Fed and US Treasury announced today a further plan to buy up to $800
billion of mortgage backed securities. This is in addition to the $700 billion
financial bail-out package announced in September. In just past 3 months, over
$1.5 trillion has been committed to help home owners and solve financial crisis.
Let's get this right: Countrywide (now Bank of America) lent Bob $1 million
for a home that's worth $200,000. The genius AIG comes in and insures this
mortgage and collects a premium from Countrywide.
Now that Bob can't make the credit card and house payment, troubled American
Express gets a $20 billion help out, AIG gets a $150 billion bailout from the
insurance obligation, and Countrywide gets to sell Bob's non-paying mortgage
to the Fed?
So what does Bob get from this rescue? Nothing.
Don't be fooled by Mr. Paulson. The case above is not an over simplification;
it is exactly what is happening.
If you were to ask a libertarian like Ron Paul about who the government
should rescue, he will say, "No one". In normal circumstance I would
agree, however, we are living in unusual times. We had over 25 years of massive
credit expansion so the current debt implosion, with no intervention, will
cause a spiral of asset price deflation, social chaos, and leave several
tens of millions of Americans on the street.
If Mr. Bush really wants to help, the government is much better off giving
money directly to the homeowners in trouble. And it can be done: Of the
total $10 trillion US residential mortgages, upwards of $3 trillion are non-performing.
It will cost a mere $150 billion to pay the interests of those $3 trillion
mortgages for one entire year at 5%. This will immediately alleviate foreclosures,
and temporarily stop the bleeding in the values of mortgage securities. To
those who faithfully make payments, they can deduct 200% of the interest payments
from tax returns. This "tax cut" will likely cost another $200 billion.
For the savers who are mortgage free, waiving capital gains tax will generate
interests in investments. The plan will also have the pleasant side effect
of generating housing demands by folks taking advantage of interest tax
write off and zero capital gains tax. The total cost of such a proposal will
still be well below that of Mr. Paulson.
I can't find any rationale to bail out toxic mortgage investors. I am still
waiting for a bailout from last night's black jack losses.
What about the ailing banks? Banks are like airlines, however badly managed,
they must exist for the economy to function. However, I would not rescue Citi,
which benefits solely Citi's shareholders such as the Saudi Prince and the
Singaporean government. Instead the US government should only buy viable assets
from Citi and other failing banks. These assets include buildings, machines,
and banking networks. Next the government should institute a new federal bank
with a clean slate to resume residential and commercial lending. The new bank
would have oversight by independent audit firms and a reasonable salary
scale. After the crisis subdues, the new bank can then seek IPO and replenish
the US treasury with the proceeds.
The idea of nationalizing banks may sound anti capitalistic, but it is exactly
what we are doing right now. In fact, we are doing worse as we leave the good
assets to the bankers and bank shareholders and buy the worst toxic waste from
them. This makes no sense at all.
While we are debating where the government should spend its bailout money,
the funny thing is, the government doesn't have the money! The 2008 federal
deficit is over $500 billion, and if the bail out programs comes
into effect, the federal deficit could easily top $1 trillion or even $2 trillion
in 2009.
Where does the money come from you asked? Stay tuned for part II, where
we discuss the current investment climate and how to protect and profit from
this mess.
|