7
Why 'bad banks' might be a good thing
Whiteboard Bad banks
I would prefer to simply nationalize the banks that are unable to sustain themselves. If as a taxpayer, I'm to assume the liabilities of their mismanagement, I should also be able to offset that with whatever the assets amount to be.
We could contract for management, and "dollar to a donut" we couldn't do worse than they have done with the management and boards they have now.
We could also then eliminate the offshore tax havens that they use.
I think this is a horrible Idea.
The problem with the expedition metaphor is that the Banks get to escape their bad dealings with little consequences. At least if the bad banks are owned by the Holding company they have to deal with the Toxic debts in the future.
If we the tax payers are having to float the these debts, especially with owning the Assets, these US owned Bad Banks are going to be stuck with peoples homes that are still foreclosing and will have to figure out how the sell the properties. To holding companies investors that can sell them out? The problem is, these families will be out on the streets, unable to refinance for another home.
What is the real world impact on this?
Paddy Hirsch: Your whiteboards are well-done, informative and fun. Cache is pronounced with an 'a' sounding like the 'a' in bad. Toss out the rule that you pronounce vowels long with an 'e' following. Remember it's english, where rules are made to be broken, and anyway, cache probably comes to us from the french, and it's ok to break rules with foreigners, as we're finding these days. Anything goes. Also you used 'you and I' in an objective role, so it's 'you and me'. I is subjective. Now to get to today's whiteboard on 'Bad Banks'. There are also Bad Ideas, and this is one. These so-called toxic assets are really those derivatives composed of numerous instruments, some good and some with near zero likelihood of ever regaining value. So instead of grabbing the instrument wholly, why not simply(simply??) take the damned things apart and cut away the dross, much as one separates those parts of ingredients that we don't want to add to the recipe we are cooking, from those we want(yum), and tossing the bad 'out'. If banks are going to get the toxics off their balance sheets thre is more than one way to do it. Of course then the banks/investment houses/etc will face repercussions in substituting the concept of worthless for toxic. They made lousy choices. Let them acknowledge it. They are like a passel of alcoholics who can't admit their addiction and thereby don't learn the proper behaviour they need to keep from injuring their families and others--like me for instance--all over again.I'm a mere investor. And there are NO guarantees it Won't Happen Again. I balieve tahe government protects them partly because many of the banks involved are partner banks in the federal reserve system. The fed is complicit in this problem,and half measures,like 'bad' banks just serve to prolong the agony, and force the treasury to print more money, representing taxpayer/citizen wealth, and increasing our indebtedness for a problem we didn't cause. The US as you know used to be a productive, creditor nation. We will never be that again so long as ideas like these hold sway. You know the total 'value' of all the derivatives in the world is 2/3 of a quadrillion dollars. What is going on here? Meanwhile, back in the 'real' world the natural environment has been battered by what we have done to it and may not be able to support our depredations for many more years--within our lifetimes. All of the major fish foodstocks, and whales, sharks, and more are down to fractional numbers from which even under the best of conditions may never recover. There are at least 7 'vortices' in the world's oceans where for hundreds and more square miles every inch is covered by non-degradable plastic and things like rubber flip-flops. Sea birds, fish, turtles, and even more seriously zooplankton are dying by eating tiny fragments of the plastics which then get stuck in their digestive systems. Of course when zooplankton is greatly depleted all larger sea creatures have less to feed on. As you can gather there are a number of threats to the marine food supply. And then there are the 'dead zones' which are increasing in size and number throughout the world's oceans. Oxygen doesn't exist in these zones. It has been depleted by a number of different causes. And IF phytoplankton takes a big hit, that plus the clearing of forests all over the world( luckily there are still massive stands of boreal northern forests that represent so I hear, 1/3 of the supply of oxygen) that threatens the planetary oxygen supply. I don't think it will all drop at once to levels that can't sustain us. Sea level oxygen will get thin as at high altitudes. Perhaps Exxon will become Oxxon, selling us gasping humans who can afford it, bottles of oxygen. Clever people will come up with nifty snap-in valves so you can change bottles rapidly. Environmentalist will complain about all the throw-away, spent bottles of oxygen. Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. The planet is in serious trouble. Humans may soon be an endangered species. Now what were we saying about 'bad banks'......... Is anybody with half a lick of sense 'in charge'?
