One of the items mentioned in President Obama’s address to Congress was about the continued mess in the financial sector. Billions have been given to various banks yet the credit market is still too tight to help ease the economic mess we are in. If credit isn’t flowing then businesses have no way to buy new inventory or equipment and some may not be able to make payroll. Economist Paul Krugman makes the case that these “zombie” banks need to taken over and I agree.
Krugman writes:
Let’s be concrete here. There’s a reasonable chance — not a certainty — that Citi and BofA, together, will lose hundreds of billions over the next few years. And their capital, the excess of their assets over their liabilities, isn’t remotely large enough to cover those potential losses.
Arguably, the only reason they haven’t already failed is that the government is acting as a backstop, implicitly guaranteeing their obligations. But they’re zombie banks, unable to supply the credit the economy needs.
To end their zombiehood the banks need more capital. But they can’t raise more capital from private investors. So the government has to supply the necessary funds.
But here’s the thing: the funds needed to bring these banks fully back to life would greatly exceed what they’re currently worth.
What has been happening is the previous administration as well as Obama’s have done everything short of taking over the essentially failed banks. What I don’t understand is the aversion to do it since it happens all the time.
During the Great Depression and earlier it was common to have bank panics. There would be some incident or economic downturn which then led to a “run” on banks – where depositors lose confidence in a bank and remove their money. If too many people did this the bank would close and go out of business. Generally banks didn’t keep enough cash on hand to pay out all the deposits so unless you got your money out early you would lose any money still at the bank.
In 1933, 4,004 banks closed putting thousands of people in a world of hurt. One of the ways bank runs were minimized and are rare today was the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). It provides insurance for up to $250,000 of a person’s deposit at a member bank. In return FDIC has oversight on the bank. If the health of a bank reaches a certain point, FDIC moves in, removes the management, cleans up the books, and runs the bank for a short time before it either liquidates it slowly or sells the assets to private investors.
In 2008, 30 banks have been taken over in this way by FDIC.
It is clear that the recent bail outs provided to the various banks haven’t freed up the credit market and in some cases the banks have continued on as if nothing is wrong – like spending on lavish parties or using tax payer money to give out bonuses. The bad management needs to be removed and the banks made over.
I know some are saying “But Doug, you support a bail out of the auto industry. Why can’t we let those fail too?”
The simple fact is there is a program to allow a bank to be cleaned up and continue under new ownership. If an auto maker was allowed to fail, more than likely it would be liquidated meaning it would be gone along with the thousands of jobs they had and the ones at the associated suppliers on down the line.
The solutions can’t be the same since the problems are completely different and the outcome of not doing anything are completely different.
