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

Bernanke Gives Up on Reverse Auction Idea
Maybe the bailout won't be structured as a reverse auction after all. This comes from Ben Bernanke, testifying to Congress today:
"I believe that under the Treasury program, auctions and other mechanisms could be designed that will give the market good information on what the hold-to-maturity price is for a large class of mortgage-related assets. If the Treasury bids for and then buys assets at a price close to the hold to maturity price, there will be substantial benefits," said Bernanke.
Under a reverse auction, Treasury wouldn't bid at all. It would circulate a list of assets, and then buy them from whichever bank was willing to sell them for the lowest price.
The way Bernanke sees the auction working, however, it's the other way around: the banks would tender their assets for sale, and then Treasury would put in a bid at what it considers "close to the hold to maturity price".
As Henry Blodget says,
this is a huge boon to banks and will likely hose taxpayers. Why? Because the government will not have time to figure out what the true "hold to maturity" value of these assets is. Instead, it will have to take the word of banks who have every incentive to dump their crap on taxpayers.
Certainly under this system no outside investor would ever want to get involved. This is a bailout pure and simple, with the government paying too much money for banks' assets. And I don't like it at all.
I do understand that if the government paid a market-clearing price for the assets, the banks would have to take enormous charges against their capital base, and then be recapitalized. Well, so be it -- that's basically what the Dodd plan has in mind.
Transparency is a good thing. If the aim is to use government money to strengthen banks, then do that directly, by injecting it directly into the capital structure. Don't do it indirectly, by overpaying for toxic assets.
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.





