The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Tag: FDIC

The FDIC Is Levying Money From Banks To Spend: Not For “Confidence”

Brian Angliss notes that the FDIC is levying a huge 20 cent per 100 dollars on deposit at the bank fee. He notes that the largest banks, having received lots of TARP money, will be able to pay that off using their taxpayer money, while smaller banks will get hammered and may either go under or be forced to cut back on jobs, branches and so on.

But Brian seems to take the FDIC’s announcement that they are doing this to improve confidence at face value.  I think, rather, the FDIC has made this sudden cash grab for a different reason: it needs the money for Geithners plan to buy up toxic assets.

Remember that the FDIC is providing most of the cash of the first part of the plan, up to 850 billion dollars worth of it.  That’s a lot of money.  Of course, the levy won’t raise that much, but it can and will be leveraged to buy up the toxic assets.  So what is taken away from the banks will be given back, in the form of removing toxic assets at overvalued prices.

The question though, is which banks will benefit. By and large, so far, the largest banks have received the majority of help from the Feds.  If assets are not proportionally bought from all the banks (and they won’t be) this could well lead to exactly what Brian fears—money being taken from small banks disproportionately, which will damage them and cause many to fail.

More Details On Geithner’s Plan

US Gold Coin

US Gold Coin

Bloomberg’s has more highlights of Obama’s plan for toxic assets that will be unveiled Monday by Treasury Secretary Geithner.  Newer details include:

  1. Geithner will ask Congress to give the Treasury and FDIC more powers: to guarantee more types of debt, limit payments to creditors,  and break executive compensation contracts.
  2. The Federal Reserves Term Asset Loan Facility program (TALF) will expand to riskier assets. Financing will be 1:1, and will apparently include private partners (in a way similar to the Treasury fund) who will make the investment decisions.  Profits and losses will be shared between the government and the private sector.

I still don’t like the FDIC funding plan, because the public component is up to 97%, but the Fed TALF plan makes a lot more sense.  Doing the funding 50% public, 50% private is much more fair, is not nearly as heavily leveraged (although leverage can be applied in other ways) and losses are shared much more equally, assuming these are not non-recourse loans (which they appear not to be, though that’s not certain.)

The additional powers Geithenr is asking for are acceptable, except for the ability to guarantee more types of debt.  The FDIC is already guaranteeing many bank assets: the idea of them guaranteeing even riskier classes only serves to set up  taxpayers to shoulder even more losses from the private sector’s.

Many of these concerns would be moot if the administration would just nationalize firms which are effectively insolvent. But, given that the administration won’t nationalize the banks, at least parts of this plan are not completely stupid.

The plan does however appear to perpetuate the trend of taking on private losses and putting taxpayers at risk for most of them.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén