Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Krugman Shouts "Fire" in a Crowded Theater
Paul Krugman has really picked up his game on the blogging front over the past couple of weeks, and I like the fact that he feels comfortable throwing ideas out there. But this morning, in a post headlined "Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater", he essentially does just what he says in the headline. Given the size of his pulpit, I think his post is irresponsible.
Stripping out the metaphors, this is what he writes:
Bank runs come in two kinds. In some cases, the bank run is a pure self-fulfilling prophecy: the bank is "fundamentally sound," but a panic by depositors forces a too-hasty liquidation of its assets, and it goes bust. In other cases, the bank is fundamentally unsound -- but the bank run magnifies its losses. We're in the second case.
What Krugman is talking about here is the difference between banks facing a liquidity crunch (such as Bear Stearns, over the past few days) and banks which are fundamentally insolvent. Krugman is saying that Bear Stearns wasn't just facing a liquidity crunch; it was also insolvent.
Now Bear Stearns says it has a book value of more than $80 per share. JP Morgan, on its conference call Sunday night, said it was perfectly happy with Bear's marks, and basically agreed with that $80-per-share valuation. The WSJ's Heard on the Street column today, by veteran reporters Peter Eavis and David Reilly, says that maybe you might want to shave a few bucks off the valuation of the level-three assets, but that the investment banks' book values are still very much in positive territory.
Krugman's saying they're all wrong, and that Bear Stearns, along with other financial institutions, actually has a negative book value. He's not giving any reasons why he's right and they're wrong, he's just asserting it. And so I'd ask him: what makes you so sure that these institutions are insolvent? Because if you're not sure, it's irresponsible, in the present environment, to start shouting such things from the virtual rooftop of nytimes.com.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





