U.S. Banking Crisis: Is Nationalization the Answer? 11 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Over the past week, many of the U.S. banks have been hit hard due to fears that nationalization of our banking system could happen soon. How likely is this option though? The U.S. has prided itself on being one of the strongest free market economies. If banks were to be nationalized, how would that affect the rest of the economy and the morale of investors?
In July 2008, I wrote an article about the future of investment banks and the extreme likelihood that there wouldn’t be a pure play investment bank by the end of the year. I underestimated the speed in which this transformation would occur, especially with the unexpected bankruptcy of Lehman. Now, after looking at the U.S. banking system, it is apparent that without a sharp turnaround in the financial markets, action is necessary to prevent a total collapse on the U.S.’s financial system. The one thing the Fed cannot allow to happen is the freezing of payments and lending not only between banks, but also to consumers and businesses. Without an easy flow of money, the economy will come to a screeching halt.
click to enlarge
Loans Outstanding
Over the past year, the U.S. government has already handed out nearly $180 billion in preferred equity to the largest U.S. financial institutions, including:
- Citigroup (C) C: 2.14, 0.00 (0.00%)
- Bank of America (BAC) BAC: 3.91, 0.00 (0.00%)
- J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM) JPM: 19.51, 0.00 (0.00%)
- Wells Fargo (WFC) WFC: 11.03, 0.00 (0.00%)
- Goldman Sachs (GS) GS: 80.07, 0.00 (0.00%)
- Morgan Stanley (MS) MS: 18.82, 0.00 (0.00%)
- PNC Financial Services (PNC) PNC: 24.61, 0.00 (0.00%)
- U.S. Bancorp (USB) USB: 11.33, 0.00 (0.00%)
This amount doesn’t include the backstop funding provided to Citigroup, Bank of America, and American International Group [(AIG) AIG: 0.53, 0.00 (0.00%)]. The approximate market cap of all of these institutions combined is approximately $266 billion. This poses an interesting situation for the U.S. government. If the financial sector continues to plummet due to the further de-valuation of assets on these banks’ balance sheets, an overhaul on the system may be necessary. Although this outcome is extremely unlikely, it is still an option that the Treasury may elect to take to restore confidence in the system.
Selective Nationalization
The solution to the problem may be selective and temporary nationalization to fix the banks with the most risk. The government has been against this idea in the past, as President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner have spoken out against this plan. Recently Senator Lindsay Graham, spoke about how nationalization may just be the answer in our current situation. When the thought of nationalization is talked about in the media, many Americans often misinterpret it. The government wouldn’t look to take control of the banking system and make decisions for large banks, but rather allow them to restructure their businesses to allow them to operate effectively again.
Under the FDIC, they already have the authority to take over banks that are in distress. One way the FDIC can accomplish this is to put the banks into a receivership. This is exactly what the government did to Fannie Mae [(FNM) FNM: 0.50, 0.00 (0.00%)] and Freddie Mac [(FRE) FRE: 0.50, 0.00 (0.00%)]. This is also what the FDIC did to Washington Mutual after the bank looked to be insolvent. In the case of WaMu, the FDIC stepped in to secure the good assets and deposits, puts these assets into a new company and then sells off those assets to a stronger financial institution. Wamu’s good assets and deposits were sold to Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan. What happens to the equity holders of these banks? They usually end up in bankruptcy court to get anything they can from what is left from the remaining company.
Another way in which the FDIC could help in a “nationalization” way is to provide open bank assistance. This doesn’t force the company into bankruptcy or a merger, but allows them to continue to operate at the government’s expense. This outcome is extremely likely for banks like Bank of America and Citigroup. They have already sought the government’s help to backstop the losses on their bad assets. A bad bank structure is a very likely outcome of this situation. The government has already hinted at this possibility over the past months. Last quarter, Citigroup announced that they would be splitting up their business to Citigroup Holdings Corp. and Citicorp. Both of these companies still operate under the Citi name for the time being, but it allows them to be spun off or sold off easier in the future. Citigroup Holdings Corp. would be the entity that would be spun off into the “bad bank” structure if the government chose that route.
Many analysts believe that Bank of America is also at a huge risk to join this structure. Analysts believe that BofA is also behind Citi in the markdowns that they need to take on their bad assets. By the end of 2009, it is likely that both Citi and BofA will need more assistance from the government. This assistance is likely to come in the form of a “bad bank”, government bailout structure.
Citigroup and Bank of America have received $50 and $45 billion, respectively. Considering that the market caps for Citigroup and Bank of America are $15 and $21 billion, respectively, it makes a little bit of sense for the government to invest $40-50 billion more to take control of the outstanding common equity. With the purchase of their common equity, it would allow them to restructure their businesses privately and allow them to strengthen their balance sheets.
Wrap-Up
As I mentioned above, the whole U.S. banking system relies on confidence and liquidity. Right now, we are at a unique time in history in which both are under attack. It is absolutely necessary for the banks to restructure their businesses and balance sheets to restore confidence in the system. The U.S. financial system is teetering on the edge of complete failure if another catastrophe occurs (such as the failure of Lehman Brothers). Although another failure is a possibility, it is very unlikely as the government learned its lesson back in October. The most likely outcome is a bailout through some type of a receivership of the banks that desperately need it.
Disclosure: The mutual fund the author is associated with is long GS and JPM.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 11 comments:
They are excited that shareholder value could go to zip and make their puts soar until the country crashes.
What we need is to go back to:
The 4 Golden Rules
1. Reinstate the Up-tick rule
2. Crack down on naked short selling
3. Institute some rules on what should be said on National TV to prevent rumor-mongering
4. Pass a Wind-Fall Capital Gains Tax of 65% on ALL short sales retroactive to 01/01/08.
So until more details are released, we have to look at what has been said and read between the lines and rely upon and our own thinking and the thoughts of those close to the unfolding process.
As part of the stress test, bank regulators will consider how much capital a bank has left if it were to register its losses immediately. The test is expected to also examine a bank's capital position over the next two or three years by taking into consideration its losses over that period.
Each bank's tax position and what credits they have available will be examined as well.
Depending on the level of failure discovered through the stress test, the government may take convertible preferred shares, or if a bank is clearly insolvent, some believe bank regulators will effectively nationalize it by taking over common stock and putting in a board of trustees made up of current bank managers.
Should the government take this route, it will be called something other than nationalization as they are on record as not wanting to nationalize banks.
After taking effective ownership, the government will attemp to arrange shotgun marriages or may be forced to break down the assets of the acquired bank into good and bad assets. The good assets could easily be sold off and the bad assets may need to be held by an aggregator until the public-private partnership is up and running.
All deposits would be insured by the FDIC and the only question is how hard would the bond holders of the acquired bank be hit.
If you want a real sobering read, go read Cramer www.thestreet.com/p/_y...
I'm not the biggest Cramer fan but this hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD!
"So how about this? How about considering what the government will have to do to unwind a large bank that has problems, like Bank of America (BAC - commentary - Cramer's Take). Take a look at the real BofA based on December consolidated financial statements. Ask yourself: Can the team run by Tim Geithner, a team that can't even staff itself, be able to run this bank with these stats? This is what you would have to run if you owned BofA based just on the off-balance-sheet items from bank at the end of the year. That's right, forget about all of the bad loans, both residential and commercial, forget about all of the difficult servicer issues involving Countrywide and just consider this horror show:
* 1.3 trillion in binding unfunded loan commitments
* $80 billion in letters of credit
* $1 trillion "matched" book of credit default swaps
* $1.4 trillion notional swap book
* $60 billion in liquidity commitments to conduits
* $26 billion in residential loan guarantees related to loans sold but still serviced
* I don't have the numbers handy on variable-interest SPVs but they're not insignificant.
As one of my friends -- in fact, my most sophisticated friend in banking who has worked as a primary regulator of financial institutions, including with the Resolution Trust Corp., or RTC -- says, "This would be an unmitigated disaster."
Get over it people, nationalization just wouldn't work period!
In case the truncated link above doesn't work here it is again.
www.thestreet.com/p/_y...
Shut up the Republicans who brought us here.
and shut down the short sellers !
Why the hell do you buy financials for your retirement? Is it greed or gambling? With an Armageddon striking all kinds of solid companies: Oil majors, commodities (Copper, Gold miners, Gas producers) and Utilities (You will still get electricity and Water even if banks are not around anymore), why do you buy financials? Stick to some nice, healthy dividend paying stocks. Mc Donalds or WalMart are also golden stocks to buy into your portfolio
On Feb 24 09:01 AM Billki wrote:
> What happens to the Preferred Securities I bought for income for
> my retiement. If the banks get nationalized.
Most of all, does it make sense to "still be lending" largely unsecured funds to the riskiest consumers?
I have read and heard a lot of analysts talk about the bad bank model, but no one seems to know exactly what that would look like for Citi with regard to its divisions Citifinance, Citimortgage, and the by- now completely unwarranted Citiauto. Can anyone help paint this picture?
Both Parties are the same in their execution.
Substance Over Symbolism !!!
Emotion is for guidance; it makes terrible decisions by its self. Do not give in to the rush of preconceived notion brought about by words that vary by interpretation - Republican/Democrat. Action is the only measure. Be American First - Remember the Constitution and the mindset of the founders.
Humans are Humans no mater what you call them. Both "Parties" Are Culpable.
On Feb 24 09:17 AM James Wilson wrote:
> Want postive results ?
>
> Shut up the Republicans who brought us here.
>
> and shut down the short sellers !
The moment you announce nationalization, the default event of CDS is triggered which will immediately seize the credit market which will bring down massive bank failures around the world which will eventually bring down the USA government itself.
The 6 too big to fail banks (BAC, WFC, JPM, C,GS, MS) just cannot allow to be failed. Eventually, shorts and naked CDS speculators will come to the term and move on.