What Comes Next After Paulson Abandons TARP Idea?

Has anyone else noticed that whenever Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson speaks the market goes down? Yesterday was no exception, as we learned that Paulson has abandoned the idea of using the TARP funds to buy bad assets from banks using a reverse auction process.

When the idea of auctions first came to light I was very keen on the idea, but others preferred direct capital injections into the banks, in return for preferred shares as well as common stock warrants. Readers pointed out that there was no assurance that an auction would actually happen. They were right.

Instead, TARP money was used to buy stakes in banks and now Paulson says the auctions are no longer a priority. I still believe that auctions address the core problem far better than direct capital injections. As we have seen, the financial institutions can do whatever they want with money if you just hand it to them. Heck, they might even use it to buy other banks or invite their top salespeople on expensive resort getaways. That wouldn't go over too well, would it?

The root cause of the problem, huge losses resulting from bad loans (and the need to raise more capital after losing much of what they had), could be addressed by buying the assets from the banks for pennies on the dollar. Future bank losses would be reduced because the assets causing the largest losses would be jettisoned, and the banks would have cash to make new, hopefully better, loans. The direct capital injections have done nothing to reduce bank losses or help the housing market.

At this point, the remaining TARP money would be best-served by tackling the problem directly. If the Treasury prefers not to go the auction route, then you have to do something to address the home foreclosure problem. On that front, why don't we just use the money to pay mortgage servicers a fixed amount for each loan they modify for borrowers who are struggling to make their monthly payment? Such a move would incentivize the lenders to work with their customers and stem the housing downturn, which is a major impediment to financial stability in the system.

It is in the best interest of everyone involved if the banks agree to take a little less money back on their loans rather than become a real estate developer by foreclosing on properties. If home supply and demand imbalances are corrected, and home prices stabilize, the economy would benefit tremendously.

Comments

[One Jest:]

Why don't we bail out the people who are foreclosing on their houses?
This is how it would work: Anyone who bought a house since 2000 would get a check that they could only use towards paying down their mortgage with their mortgage lender or bank and then fairly renegotiating their morgage. I've heard that there are roughly 50 million homes in the US. Let's just say that half of them have been bought since 2000 (the real figure of course is much less). Instead of using $700 billion to bail out the banks, insurance companies, auto industry....and Tony the pizza guy, you could give 25 million households $28,000 each. I'm no math wiz, but wouldn't that help but homeowners and banks?

2008 Nov 13 07:56 AM

[alajac:]

Get rid of the Fed and its debt money and give every legal resident $1000 per month every month. (That way there is no wealth redistribution). Replace the Fed Income tax with a one-half percent electronics transfer tax. Then get the government TOTALLY out of the finance business and protecting fraudulent practices. Bingo. End of depression.

2008 Nov 13 07:44 PM