This week’s $1 trillion question is whether Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner’s public-private bank bailout plan will lure enough investors into buying up bad assets to end the nation’s lending paralysis.
Wall Street cheered the plan - as well as a welcome increase in home sales - by sending the Dow up nearly 500 points. Yet economists and cautious leaders in the financial community had their doubts.
The plan calls for using the fast-dwindling remainder of the $350 million share of the bank rescue money when economists say a great deal more will be needed to finance the government’s share of the buyout deal. Financial experts told me Monday that private investment funds were going to be very hesitant about buying up assets “when no one knows how much they are really worth.”
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the scourge of American capitalism, said Mr. Geithner had talked President Obama into “recycling” the Bush administration’s “cash for trash” plan that then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. tried last year - only this time with a few more bells and whistles.
But Mr. Geithner’s scheme is a one-way bet that is doomed to fail, Mr. Krugman argues. If the government’s incentives to buy the bad assets drive up their value, investors and banks profit - but if they don’t, taxpayers will be left holding the bag. Mr. Krugman, a bleeding-heart socialist, thinks the feds should take control of the insolvent banks, as Sweden did in the 1990s.
University of Maryland economist Peter Morici levels similar complaints. The plan Mr. Geithner “is cooking up could unnecessarily stick the taxpayers with big losses on those toxic assets and give the banks big, unearned profits. It could save many bank executives’ careers while running up the federal deficit even further and undermining international confidence in the dollar,” Mr. Morici said.
Other economists maintain there are not enough funds left in resources of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (even with government loans and guarantees) to bankroll a plan aimed at potentially trillions of dollars in bad assets.
Treasury will need at least another $400 billion to make a noticeable dent in the toxic assets clogging up the financial industry’s books, said Wall Street economist Mark Zandi at Moody’s financial rating company.
”The plan could fail to remove enough toxic assets from the balance sheets of the banks to unlock private credit markets. Ultimately, the resulting federal deficits and domestic economic paralysis could make financing federal budget deficits, through domestic and foreign borrowing, extraordinarily difficult,” Mr. Morici said.
The Obama administration’s latest attempt to bring some stability to the financial system comes at a time when it is getting poor to failing grades for its handling of the economy thus far.
Economists and private investment fund analysts tell me they think Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has been doing the heavy lifting in policy initiatives up to this point.
A survey I conducted last week of several government and economic analysts turned up surprisingly blunt assessments of Mr. Obama’s performance - even from some very liberal quarters.
”His success thus far is the stimulus bill, which is a necessary though not sufficient condition for keeping the recession from leading to deflation and global depression,” said Thomas E. Mann, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
”The financial rescue efforts have been shaky. What little public support for the effort that existed under Bush has diminished further under Obama. He has been behind the curve of populist anger, which leads to the kind of harmful legislation that the House passed Thursday” to slap a draconian 90 percent tax on American International Group Inc. executive bonuses, Mr. Mann told me.