Banks – Donald Marron

Swedish Lessons for EU Bank Owners

Sweden is rightly admired for the way it handled its banking crisis in the early 1990s (and its ensuing fiscal challenges).

In yesterday’s Financial Times, Dag Detter looks back for some lessons for Europe as it struggles to resolve its current banking crisis:

When the Swedish banking system crashed in 1992, the government faced an identical problem. Yet in the end, Sweden’s taxpayers came very well out of their experience of bank ownership. How was this achieved, and what lessons can be learnt for Madrid and the EU’s new bank resolution policy?

First, move fast. Spain and bankers have been in denial about the scale of bad lending for too long. The Rajoy government rightly came to office this year on a promise to force banks to write down bad loans. The situation has predictably turned out to be much worse than assumed, but their policy is the right one. Painful as it is, transparency on the scale of bad debt is vital for the market to be confident that it understands risk and uncertainty in Spain and can therefore price it properly.

Catharsis can come only with a purge of bad assets. Banks should present plans to handle problem assets, strengthen controls and improve efficiency. This might require government or even supranational assistance in the orderly closure of moribund institutions. In addition, “bad” bank parts must be demerged from the “healthy” to facilitate recapitalisation. The state should never be left holding the junk while the healthy part of a bank wriggles free.

Second, maintain commercial principles. In Sweden, each state bank investment was made on what would have been commercial terms in a normal market, always with the aim of maintaining competitive neutrality. The terms of the investment must be structured in a way that gives the bank and its owners no grounds to request more state funding than is necessary, combined with the incentives to facilitate a swift exit. Yet it must be sufficient to ensure that the bank can return to profitability without additional government assistance.

The whole piece is worth a read.

Will September Bring Another Banking Crisis?

Over at the Economist, Greg Ip points us to a new IMF working paper that surveys all the systemic banking crises–147 in all–since 1970. As Greg notes, one of Luc Laeven and Fabian Valencia’s most striking findings is that banking crises disproportionately begin in the second half of the year, with a particular spike in September:

So let’s enjoy what few days of June remain.

P.S. Theories to explain this pattern are appreciated. Or maybe it’s a spurious correlation, at Tyler Cowen hints.

Update: Joshua Hedlund at PostLibertarian crunches the underlying data and finds that (a) the authors provided a date for only 63 of the crises and (b) that 22 of the 25 in September happened in 2008. ht: Tyler Cowen

Bank Marketing When Interest Rates Are Almost Zero

Judging by all the ads I saw on my commute this morning, Capital One has rolled out a new marketing campaign. At least half-a-dozen ads on my Metro car announced that Capital One offers interest rates that are five times higher than offered by their competitors:

And what is that 5x interest rate? Just one percent.

Such are times–and bank marketing–when short-term rates are almost zero.

A Second Thought on the Cost of TARP

Two commenters (Jack B. and John L.) raise an important point about the $25 billion price tag that the Congressional Budget Office recently placed on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Their concern is that the $25 billion figure includes some impacts that should rightfully be attributed to other government actions, not to TARP itself.

To illustrate, suppose that Treasury used TARP to buy $10 of preferred stock in Bank X in 2008 and that a year later Treasury sold its position for $12, including accrued dividends. This investment would be recorded as achieving a $2 profit in TARP (subject to one technical caveat, see below).

That’s the normal way of calculating profit on an investment, and is what CBO was instructed to do for its part of TARP oversight. But as Jack and John point out, there’s an important complication here. During the year, the federal government undertook many other policy actions which may have boosted the value of Bank X (remember all the new acronyms?). From the perspective of policy evaluation, some or all of the $2 gain should be attributed to those other policies, not TARP.

It could be, for example, that absent further action, Bank X would have struggled, leaving Treasury with stock worth only $6. Other government actions, however, breathed enough life into the company (or, at least, boosted the value of its assets) that the stock ultimately became worth $12.

In that case, you could argue that TARP, by itself, resulted in a $4 loss, while the other government actions created a $6 gain. That puts the budgetary impacts of TARP in a different light: a 40% loss versus a 20% gain in this example.

Of course, you could also argue that the $6 gain was only possible because of the TARP ownership stake. There’s certainly an element of truth to that. But the basic concern still applies: the $2 gain in this example reflects both TARP and subsequent government actions, not just TARP alone. That’s an essential point when trying to evaluate these policies after the fact, and we commenters should keep that in mind when interpreting CBO’s findings.

And that’s not all. The other government actions may also have imposed additional direct or indirect costs on the federal budget. As a result, the $2 gain in this example may be offset (or more) by other costs that aren’t included in the calculation.

Bottom line: One reason that TARP appears much less expensive than originally predicted is that many of its investments benefitted from other government actions whose costs show up elsewhere in the budget.

Caveat: CBO’s methodology actually judges the profitability of investments relative to benchmark rates of return. The details are surprisingly complex, but just for purposes of illustration, suppose that the appropriate benchmark rate of return for investing in Bank X was 10%. If Treasury sold the stock for $11 after one year, CBO would deem that as breaking even. If it sold it for $12, that would be a $1 profit.

How Much Did TARP Cost? $25 Billion

The much-maligned TARP program will cost taxpayers only $25 billion according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. That’s substantially less than the $66 billion CBO estimated back in August or the $113 billion that the Office of Management and Budget estimated in October.

The good news, budget-wise, is that the government is on track to make about $22 billion on its assistance to banks.

However, CBO estimates that TARP’s other activities will cost $47 billion. This reflects aid to AIG ($14 billion), the auto industry ($19 billion), mortgage programs ($12), and a few smaller programs ($2 billion).

The Looming Budget Battle over the Bank Tax

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner appeared before the Senate Finance Committee today to push the Administration’s proposal for a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, more commonly known as the Bank Tax. The purpose of the fee is to

[M]ake sure that the direct costs of TARP are paid for by the major financial institutions, not by the taxpayer. Assessments on these institutions will be determined by the risks they pose to the financial system. These risks, the combination of high levels of riskier assets and less stable sources of funding, were key contributors to the financial crisis.

The fee would be applied over a period of at least ten years, and set at a level to ensure that the costs of TARP do not add to our national debt. One year ago we estimated those costs could exceed half a trillion dollars. However, we have been successful in repairing the financial system at a fraction of those initial estimates. The estimated impact on the deficit varies from $109 billion according to CBO to $117 billion according to the Administration. We anticipate that our fee would raise about $90 billion over 10 years, and believe it should stay in place longer, if necessary, to ensure that the cost of TARP is fully recouped.

As noted by other participants in today’s hearing, the bank tax raises a host of questions: Is it possible to design the tax so that it is ultimately paid by major financial institutions (by which I presume Geithner means their shareholders and top management), or will it get passed through to their customers? How much, if at all, would the tax reduce bank lending? Is it fair to target the banks even though the bank part of TARP actually made money for taxpayers? Would the tax reduce risks in the financial system?

Those are all interesting questions, but today I’d like to highlight another one: Can Congress embrace the idea of a bank tax that would be used to “ensure the costs of TARP do not add to our national debt”?

As described by the Administration, the bank tax would be used to reduce the deficit, thus offsetting budget costs of TARP. Congress, however, is hungry for revenues that it can use to offset the budget costs of new legislation, e.g., extending the ever popular research-and-experimentation tax credit or limiting the upcoming increase in dividend taxes. With PAYGO now the law of the land (for many legislative proposals), some members are looking at the $90 billion of potential bank tax revenues as the answer to their PAYGO prayers.

All of which points to a looming budget battle: Will the bank tax be used to pay off the costs of TARP, as the President has proposed, or will it be used to pay for other initiatives?

Microlending Comes to Washington

Banks continue to be reluctant to lend to small businesses. As a result, NPR reports (ht Ray), some small businesses are turning to a form of microlending. A case in point is Ryan Fochler, a pet care entrepreneur:

After being turned down by bank after bank, Fochler came across the Latino Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit microlender based nearby in Washington, D.C.

Fochler is not Latino, but he was told that was OK. The LEDC works with all kinds of local businesses that have been turned down by traditional banks. Their goal is to help fledgling, independent businesses get on their feet.

They don’t operate exactly like microlenders in the developing world, some of which issue interest-free loans and let recipients repay whatever they can, whenever they can.

In contrast, American microlenders charge competitive interest rates, and the loans must be repaid on time. Defaulting on a microloan has the same consequences as defaulting on a bank loan.

The LEDC issues loans ranging from $500 to $50,000. Often in the past, those who came to the LEDC to apply for a microloan had little or no credit history.

But Rob Vickers, director of lending at the LEDC, says the profile of his average microloan applicant changed dramatically during the credit crisis.

“I was seeing clients that I couldn’t believe weren’t bankable coming in, and thinking, ‘Wow, this person has a credit score in the mid-700s, their business existed for more than two years, and yet, not only are they not able to obtain a bank loan, but they’re having their credit line slashed.'”

As noted, it isn’t exactly the same as the microlending made famous in developing economies. But it has some interesting similarities.

For more, read the transcript on which the NPR article is based.

Can TARP Be Used to Pay for a New Jobs Program?

Washington is abuzz with the idea that Congress, the White House, or both may try to use unspent TARP funds as a way to promote job creation (see, e.g., this WSJ story and this WaPo story). Over the past two days, many reporters have asked me about the mechanics of this idea–can the government really use unspent TARP money this way? Here’s my best answer (given what I have learned so far).

There are two basic ways that our leaders could try to use TARP money to pay for new initiatives: through executive action or through new legislation.

Executive Action

Treasury Secretary Geithner has the ability to use TARP funds largely as he sees fit, as long as those uses are within the boundaries set out by the original legislation. As you may have noticed, the exact location of those boundaries–well, even the rough location of those boundaries–has been a topic of great debate during TARP’s existence. But the basic idea is that TARP can be used to purchase troubled assets, which the bill defines as follows:

(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and

(B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.

If our leaders want to use TARP through executive action, they will have to come up with programs that fit within these limits. Additional support for small-business financing or home mortgages could certainly be structured to fit within these parameters; indeed, TARP already has programs for both of those. It would require substantial ingenuity, however, to figure out a way to support some of the other ideas being floated (e.g., aid to local governments).

New Legislation

The second approach would be for Congress to enact legislation that would increase spending on various programs and then pay for it, at least in part, by reducing the amount of money in the TARP program.

There have already been at least two pieces of legislation that have taken this approach:

Continue reading “Can TARP Be Used to Pay for a New Jobs Program?”

Capital One Warrants Bring in $146.5 Million

Yesterday the Treasury auctioned off its TARP warrants in Capital One. Treasury sold the warrants for $11.75 a piece, well above its $7.50 reserve price, but below some private estimates of $19.00 or more. I wouldn’t have gone as high as $19.00 myself, but I would have ended up a winner in the auction if I had found a broker with access. Oh well, maybe I can pick some up when they start trading on the NYSE (ticker COF WS) in the next week or two.

Disclosure: I have no position in any Capital One securities.

TARP Warrants: Let the Bidding Begin

Thursday is a nice milestone in TARP’s history: with the help of Deutsche Bank, Treasury is auctioning off the warrants it received when it invested in Capital One. The company has already paid off the preferred stock that the government purchased last fall, and will now be free from TARP oversight once the warrants are in private hands. Or, perhaps, in its own hands. Although Capital One declined to purchase the warrants from Treasury at a negotiated price (as had other firms that repaid the government’s TARP investments), it can still bid in the auction.

A few months ago, I pointed out many benefits from auctioning the warrants rather than selling them back to the companies at negotiated prices. To my mind, the biggest benefits are transparency and the fairness of market pricing. Everyone—including, at least in principle, small investors—can bid in the auction.

If you are interested, here’s the prospectus, which includes (pp. S-15 to S-16) a list of participating brokers. I don’t see my broker on the list, which is disappointing, but maybe others will be luckier.

For a nice discussion of the auction mechanism (a modified Dutch auction in which all winning bidders pay the market-clearing price, very similar to the method used to sell Treasury bonds) and some estimates of the warrant values, see this Seeking Alpha piece by Linus Wilson.

Disclosure: I have no position in Capital One and, apparently, no way to bid on the warrants. If I find a way, I might do it for fun.