Earlier this week, Hank Paulson forced the nine top banks to take $125 billion in taxpayer money in exchange for perpetual preferred stock that pays a 5% yield, which rises to 9% after five years plus warrants to buy 15% of the banks' stock. Does this mean that the banks will now start lending out that money to get the economy off its back? Absolutely not. It could go to paying banker's bonuses instead.
And why not? After all, the write-offs of sour investments have more than wiped out all the "profits" these banks reported over the last three years -- during those boom years they reported $305 billion in profits and have recently taken $323 billion in write-offs. And with more losses looming, the top nine banks need to raise $275 billion more.
How much of these reported bank profits were faked to boost banker's bonuses? Why are the bankers who booked these lousy deals keeping the multimillion bonuses they got during those years? And why did Paulson decide to inject taxpayer money into these banks if they're not going to use it to boost the economy?
Paulson's capital injections are not solving the basic problem -- which is the extraordinarily high level of fear in the short-term lending market. For example, the TED Spread -- the difference between 3-month Libor and the 3-month Treasury bill rate -- is at 4.08%. In August 2007 it was at 0.08%. Banks are still very worried that if they lend the money out, they won't get it back. To solve the problem, the Treasury needs to cull -- merge or close the weak banks -- before injecting capital into the winners.
Just as American International Group (NYSE: AIG) used our $122.8 billion for upscale retreats, the nine banks that got our money will probably use it to pay bonuses to the bankers who created this mess. There's nothing that forces them to lend it out and nothing stopping them from using it to enrich the top bankers.
With three million homeowners in foreclosure, there may be more deserving recipients of our hard-earned tax dollars.
Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He owns AIG securities.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
10-17-2008 @ 12:52PM
Iridium said...
Of course the banks will use the money to fund bonuses and pensions.
The 25 billion going to auto companies isn't going to be used to develop alternative fuel vehicles. It is going straight into the white collar pension fund.
GM is laying off thousands of workers to save the white collar pension fund. It really is sick.
Banks aren't going to start lending again until their balance books show a black line. That can't happen until every last bit of debt is paid for by world governments. Bad loans, margin calls, credit default swaps. During the boom banks were overstaing earnings by billions to drive stock up. They were using swaps to finance trillions in risky bets.
We still aren't even close to figuring out how much bad debt is out there. Just like the American people there may actually be more outstanding debt right now than the GDP. It will be impossible to buy it out.
10-17-2008 @ 7:38PM
Sojourner said...
$700B "rescue pkg" divided by 300m U.S. citizens = $2,333,333 per person. If the real objective was to rescue the financial system then why not give every U.S. citizen $2.3M?
Wouldn't that be a real stimulus incentive?
Most people would be broke in 3 years but their spending would equate to revenues and profits. Then the bankers could do it all over again on a grander scale, maybe $700T next time around.
Spiritually, this is how the enemy corrupts what would otherwise be good. Greed, power and arrogance are the real problems behind the faultering economy.
Age old, human faults easy manipulated by the lure of the tangible physical realities VS the timeless spiritual realities subjected to man's speculation and wisdom. The stage is being set for accountability and eternal consequence.
Money is a tool, misused it holds the user accountable.
Without being subject to something greater than yourself you assume the power and therefor the responsibility and consequence.
10-17-2008 @ 8:20PM
Just Math said...
I believe you might have carried the zeros wrong in your math, how about $2,300 per person. I really don't need the money, maybe I can send it to someone else who can spend it more wisely than myself. Personally, I think I should be able to put my retirement funds into my house, that would help out the housing market and I wouldn't have to compete with multi-billion dollar hedge funds. Congress should revise the ridiculous rules of "an investment" is only in stocks and bonds, what about your own house?
10-18-2008 @ 12:39AM
More math said...
Well..u r both right...to a point...while there are 300M citizens in the US...there are not nearly that many workers and taxpayers. A family of 4 would get 10K...or is paying 10K by this math. I certainly could put 10K to better use than funding a retreat, or donating it to the local bank that made some really bonehead investments.
10-18-2008 @ 9:01AM
Fabian said...
Hang them all....!!!! it happen in France.........
10-18-2008 @ 11:05AM
Dave said...
You now know the definition of "capitalist pig" and why greed isn't always good.
10-18-2008 @ 11:30AM
eingreifen said...
Why should a culture based upon perpetual fraud be changed by a member of that culture who has enriched himself in the process? It will only change when the American people take back control of the government from the professional politicians; who are controlled by the PAC contribution which is also fraud. The last eight years will have managed to destroy the currency; the middle classes; the working classes; and the banking system.
We must thank the plutocracy for this enormous gift of destruction and predatory capitalism.
10-18-2008 @ 11:21AM
rob said...
the bailout plan completely and conveniently forgot about the homeowners. if homeowners are forced to declare bankruptcy, the banks are then forced to take on more bad debt and the downward sprial continues. If the government bought the mortgages or at a minimum refinanced the mortages for those who were in danger of losing their homes, then then there would be less empty houses in the neighborhoods, thus providing better stability for the housing market while at the same time keeping people in their homes. Some people made bad decisions and probably bought more they could afford, but right now evicting those who might otherwise stay in their homes would only cause my 401K to go down even more
10-18-2008 @ 12:26PM
ajgorm said...
Banks get charged 5% what will our cost be to get a loan. Last week mortgage rates went up are banks passing the added cost to us with higher rates ?
10-18-2008 @ 12:48PM
gumbo koontz said...
All the lost trillions are already hidden in the Swiss Alps!
10-18-2008 @ 12:50PM
gumbo koontz said...
Hey Osama Bin Laden
When you are ready to bomb somewhere, do it in Swiss Alps... all the targets are decoy in America.. Nothing worth bombing here in America... The banks in the Swiss Alps are worth bombing.. Go there!!
10-18-2008 @ 1:09PM
Isaac said...
I tell you,that same bank, BA is charging me 18% interest and considers my account high risk,yet they keep sending me blank checks that I can use towards anything I want.by the way my credit score is 720.I called them up for an explanation,why if I was high risk,why would they keep sending me these checks.And now my tax dollars is going to help these stupid Giant corporations that do not even know what one hand is doing from the other hand,we are giving them more of our hard earned money,to do what ,give me a break,they have enough tax breaks as is.
10-18-2008 @ 1:13PM
jo said...
No matter how you look at it the TAXPAYER is getting SCREWED!
10-18-2008 @ 1:16PM
edneedstoknow said...
Peter, if the stated objective of the $125B was to ease the bank credit line, why was that not explicit in the stock investment agreement? How can I be sure that you are stating the facts correctly? We certainly don't trust banks at this point and based on your changing view of the economy over the last few months, we are disinclined to trust you either.
Is your point that the banks had money to loan, and were afraid to do it? We give them the $125B to loan, and they loan it, but don't loan the money they were cluching to their chest. The point was to get the money loaned, and that was accomplished. Are you now concerned about what they do with the money they were afraid to loan? It seems you are ignoring the money that flowed out as planned, and are assuming the worst about the money they are still holding. We didn't nationalize them, although I still think that threat might scare them into responsibility.
10-18-2008 @ 1:33PM
2018c133 said...
I think we shoulde take a page from China on what to do with these thieven bankers who got us into this mess and thats to take them out and put a bullet in their head and send their famaily a bill for the bullet.Our goverment lets these people ruin lives and destroy livelyhoods and get bounses for doing so .Makes me really want to pay my taxes so they can live it up while honest people suffer.Congress has no backbone or is in bed with them
10-18-2008 @ 1:45PM
Silverfox said...
Seems kind of strange they we taxpayers are investing our indebted funds into financial organizations that are still being managed by the executives who created this whole mess in the first place. Even more curious was the public's early concern over Paulson's unquestioned authority to dole out those billions, but we now hear not a sound over how those getting our money will use it. I guess we will just continue to place our blind trust in all multimillionaire Wall Street CEO's , knowing they will handle our funds as unselfishly and prudently as they have handled the near bankrupted corporations they have been managing all along.
10-18-2008 @ 2:15PM
Socialist State said...
Honestly....no one should have been bailed out....from the dishonest bankers to the idiot consumers who took out loans on terms they could never aford on houses priced three times as high as they were six months ago....let the whole housing and banking system collapse and then restart with "real" mortgages based on "real" housing values.
10-18-2008 @ 2:49PM
Lenore Sussman said...
This money should not have been made available to strong banks like Bank of America instead to Banks that actually were weak and there should have been conditions as to the expenditure of money as to lending purposes only - no money to be used for anything else. There won't be any money for problem banks. The government is not able to handle this kind of program. Instead I would have rather have seen negotiated pay downs on mortgages that are over the present value of the properties were the owners want to stay in their homes which would improve our economy by stabilizing property values. The government needs to stay away from handing out large sums of money as they do not know what they are doing they need to call in people who have worked in the field to help administer programs. Total waste and the Democrats will waste more money on handouts that won't improve anything.
10-18-2008 @ 7:04PM
Frank Cellura said...
Compare the banks and financials to a large porker feeding at the trough. First the hogs ravaged the mortgage market by overextending to credit to unqualified buyers, then proceeded to package the deals for multiple flip transactions (called securitization) then created exotic paper transactions nobody understood (called derivatives) to enhance profits and leverage from the original tainted transactions, while riding a wave of government incentive programs for first time buyers and favorable insurance underwriting (Fannie and Freddie, or Fric and Frac). Now that those troughs have run low, they are lining up to receive a whole new type of fattening feed from Uncle Sam directly called infusions to keep the process alive. Infusions=growth hormone. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the average responsible American who has modest real estate investments is being squeezed from many directions, not the least of which are local taxes, commodity and food price spikes and hidden inflation in the form of fees for a host of government and utility services.
10-18-2008 @ 5:54PM
Jonesy said...
Poulson said he spent the tax payers money on commen shares with none voting rights.
Citi Group has toxic assets. :o)