Banks retreating from partnership with Obama administration
posted at 12:14 pm on June 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
And after seeing what happened to executives at AIG and other TARP recipients, no one needs to ask why — except apparently for the Washington Post. Thanks to rapid infusions of cash, banks can now take their time unloading mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives, known colloquially as “toxic assets”, without a government partnership. The Obama administration doesn’t sound happy about it:
The rush of capital into the banking industry over the past month is allowing firms to postpone the painful process of selling devalued mortgages and other troubled assets, a step many financial experts still consider necessary to fully revive lending.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Wednesday that it would suspend indefinitely the launch of a program to finance investor purchases of banks’ troubled loans because few companies were interested in selling. A related Treasury Department program to finance purchases of mortgage-related securities remains on the drawing board months after both were announced with fanfare.
The FDIC decision marked a victory for the banking industry, which has argued that such a program would transfer profit from banks to investors at public expense. It also showed the limits of the government’s ability to impose its will on the banks. Regulators generally cannot compel firms to sell assets, and the inflow of private capital has undermined the argument that the banks must take urgent steps to get healthy.
But FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair said yesterday that the best course for banks, and for the broader economy, remained a combination of raising new capital and shedding old problems. She said that the FDIC would continue to prepare to help banks sell assets.
Banks learned a lesson from the TARP cramdown, which is that letting government “help” you means that government runs you. Every business transaction, even contractual obligations, becomes political fodder for pandering populists. AIG’s bonuses, disclosed as normal in their annual report last November, started a wave of faux outrage in the Beltway, which wound up backfiring in the end when it became obvious that the biggest shriekers knew full well about the bonuses, and that Chris Dodd in particular lied about his involvement in protecting them.
Not that the banks had much choice on the TARP funds anyway, as Judicial Watch has already reported. Hank Paulson threatened them with regulatory action if the banks didn’t willingly take government money and along with it further government control. However, as the Post explains, the government doesn’t have the regulatory power to compel them into the public/private partnership on toxic assets (at least not directly), and therefore they have chosen not to willingly yoke themselves yet again to Treasury and the Obama administration. In fact, many of them are trying to find ways to give back the TARP funds to end the forced partnerships they already endure.
As the housing market stabilizes, the values of the MBSs and derivatives should become more clear, and the banks can sell them privately at a more leisurely pace. They don’t trust the Obama administration to set a market where they get fair value and suspect (as with the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies) that the White House will tilt the transactions for political favors rather than rational value. They’re probably right; thus far, Obama seems a lot less concerned about contract law than he does in pandering to unions.
This split is the natural result of the Obama administration’s contempt for contract law and private transactions. Expect the financial industry to take a much more adversarial position with the Obama administration, especially as they shed their TARP leashes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Democrats seem to have a very negative effect on the military and finance. Their emotionally distorted views don’t seem to interface with the reality of life, death and math. I imagine bankers ignoring calls from Bawney Fwank, and when the Pentagon reads a call from their commander and chief on caller ID, lets the machine get it.
Good thing the American people have elected the greatest collection of stooges in US history to manage things.
Hening on June 5, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The government is sure helpful isn’t it. The AIG bonuses that supposedly upset congress were known and approved by congress and paid to people not involved in the meltdown, but who were trying to recover the company. However at Lehman Brothers, those who destroyed the company received $2.5 billion in bonuses after going bankrupt. Thus I saw a large portion of Lehman’s assets going to undeserving individuals while I lost more than 10% of my life’s saving in their premium bonds; savings that I happen to live off of in my retirement. Some day I may be awarded a portion of my investment. I lost another 30% in diversified and other “safe” investments. I wrote my Senator Mikulski (D-MD) about investigating this action by Lehman Brothers and I got Democratic talking points back.
Well she is a spend and tax Democrat who has voted for all of the spending proposed in congress. Now will she vote for the federal VAT (sales) tax if it comes to the floor of the senate, the cap and trade bill HR-2454 or the proposal to tax IRA’s and 401k’s yearly gains. This week I am picketing her Annapolis office for her tax and spend policies in my civil grass roots war effort and urge you to do the same if you have tax and spend congresspeople representing you. They are ignoring our letters and the TEA Party rallies by folks like you and me, so time for more direct but peaceful action as MLK did!
Most in our government have probably forgotten that in 1786 under the weak Articles of Confederation, the corrupt government in Massachusetts ignored the non-violent attempts to stop their corrupt actions and the seizing of farmers’ land; that led to Shay’s Rebellion and our present constitution. Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, but in this case they just may have the lesson of rebellion repeated on them.
amr on June 5, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Ed, You seem think they should go to the market and dilute their common shareholders property. How is this better than working under the auspices of TARP until the banks have receovered and the market potential returns?
I seem to recall your suggesting that the US economy was sound around August of last year. Think of the money that taxpayers could have saved if practicality ruled over ideology and the fed bought shares rather than handing over balance sheet cash or if the governement would have intervened more heavily when relatively small Wall St failures became apparent.
Hening on June 5, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Give examples if you are going to make sweeping statements like ‘good for finance.’ Are recessions ‘good for finance.’ Part of the reason why the Republican brand is in the toilet is because they completely mismanaged the economy and are as fiscally incontinent as the Democrats. Do a little research on recessions and see which party has more or fewer.
lexhamfox on June 5, 2009 at 5:31 PM
I can accept the blame people instinctively place on the R’s after seeing this start on Bush’s watch. But if that is obvious to the nation, then why are the D’s ramping up the same bad policies and running the economy into a wall? If D’s are so much smarter, then what the Hell are they doing about it? STOP DIGGING already!
leftnomore on June 5, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Republicans? Hell, where are the DEMOCRATS on this? They’re just willing to give all of their power away because they like the guy that’s taking it?
darwin-t on June 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM
leftnomore on June 5, 2009 at 7:37 PM
True and yet show me an economy which does not use deficit spending to exit or mitigate a recession. Fiscal prudence is paying off debt and even fostering surpluses when times are good. That did not happen.
lexhamfox on June 6, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2