Blog
Why Won’t The Big Banks Sell Their Toxic Real Estate Assets?
Answer: They Can Keep Borrowing At Almost Zero Percent. Forever.
Keep borrowing? Zero percent? Really?
Congressman Brad Sherman pointed out that :
In my opinion, [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner’s proposal [to fix the banking system] is “TARP on steroids.” Section 1204 of the proposal [the proposal being the "Resolution Authority for Large, Interconnected Financial Companies Act of 2009"] allows the executive branch to use taxpayer money to make loans to, or invest in, the largest financial institutions to avoid a systemic risk to the economy.
Geithner’s proposal reminds me of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion Wall Street bailout adopted last year, but the TARP was limited to two years, and to a maximum of $700 billion. Section 1204 is unlimited in dollar amount and is a permanent grant of power to the executive branch. TARP contained some limits on executive compensation and an array of special oversight authorities. Section 1204 contains absolutely no limits on executive compensation and no special oversight.
When I asked Geithner whether he would accept a $1 trillion limit on the new bailout authority (if the executive branch wanted to spend more, it would have to come back to Congress), he rejected a $1 trillion limit, insisting that the executive branch be able to respond without coming back to Congress.
Both TARP and the Treasury proposal have vague provisions under which taxpayers might possibly recover any money lost through a special tax on the financial services industry. Under the Treasury proposal, only the very largest institutions could benefit from a bailout, but the special tax, if ever collected, would fall chiefly on medium-sized institutions.
Thus, the medium-sized institutions will be at a competitive disadvantage for two reasons. First, the largest institutions will be able to borrow money more cheaply because their creditors will believe that if the institution is unable to pay, the taxpayers will. Second, if there ever is a bailout benefiting a very large financial institution, the tax will be imposed on the medium-sized institutions.
Sherman is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and a certified public accountant, so he has a good nose for analyzing proposed financial regulations.
Last week, Sherman made the following comments to the Washington Independent regarding Congress’ proposed bill on the too big to fails: “That is a huge gravy train to the top 20 [financial institutions] because it allows them to borrow money at a lower rate. [That lower rate now is about 0%.] Think of what this does to moral hazard. I’m not looking for a TARP on steroids with oversight. I’m looking for an end of TARP.”
The expected (hoped for?) avalanche of bad commercial real estate notes may be delayed in size because banks would be able to extend their loans. Anything collected above zero percent would thus be a win, and they would be able to continue the charade of make-believe dollar amounts on their books. If big banks are allowed to do this, then Uncle Sam should do likewise with residential mortgages — and cut out the banks as middleman.
Source: Washington’s Blog; Hat tip: Naked Capitalism
Comments
One Response to “Why Won’t The Big Banks Sell Their Toxic Real Estate Assets?”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...[...] 1. If Uncle Sam continues to bankroll these multifamily loans, it will obviate big banks’ role. Big banks will continue squirreling away money from the discount window. They will then invest this money, and cover their eventual need to write down their bad loans, instead of making loans — their ostensible reason for existing. Or as the clever French might say, their raison debt. This is a textbook example of moral hazard. [...]