Noriel Roubini, the New York University professor intoxicated with his prescience and vision, comes out with the astounding view that "some" U.S. banks will be nationalized. Forget that we have had one of the largest rallies in history since the oracle of Greenwich Village spoke last.
What I think matters is that I don't know anyone who would disagree with him. It is obvious that more banks will be nationalized. What has mattered since the beginning of this crisis is that we have a few banks that are not going to be nationalized. Since the last time Roubini spoke, we have had about a 75% increase in the KBW Bank Index, which I regard as being breathing room to create some banks that will be able to absorb the banks that are faltering. If that is nationalization, so be it. The other banks may be not big enough to worry about and can be absorbed by the FDIC. If that is nationalization, so be it.
But since the March low I think we can all agree that the government is in forbearance mode, willing to supply capital as needed but willing to work through the problem without any big banks failing.
I know Roubini and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman are both on the nationalization jihad, and they are compelling figures to believe in. However, if JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) (Cramer's Take), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) (Cramer's Take), Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) (Cramer's Take), U.S. Bancorp (NYSE: USB) (Cramer's Take), PNC Financial (NYSE: PNC) (Cramer's Take) and Capital One (NYSE: COF) (Cramer's Take) keep rising they will be able to raise equity, making it easier for them to take losses and making them more profitable as investments. After all, we see from Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) (Cramer's Take) that when you take losses on assets nobody trusts and get them off your seats, your stock can run nicely and you get a virtuous circle.
There's plenty of skepticism about the public-private plans, and, given the fact that nothing's worked so far, it is entirely possible that this plan will fail too. The incentives for banks to take the hits on assets they haven't written is pretty much nil, except the Goldman example.
I think, however, that everything's at the margin. You get several more months where house prices in areas of the country bottom and you will want to bid 20 or 30 or 40 cents on the dollar for 2006 vintage collateralized debt obligations. You get a rally in 2005 vintage CDOs because the homes are cheaper to maintain than the rents, especially if people qualify for the new mortgage reduction program. (See MainStreet.com for a calculator that tells you.) You get a break in the spiral as people begin to adjust between those bonds that have nothing but worthless junk in them -- and there are plenty of those that use mortgages that are often fraudulent made by all the bad actors in the game circa 2006. Those are never coming back, particularly those with second loans.
But what Roubini and Krugman might be missing is the ability to build, through earnings and higher stock prices and forbearance, a perfect combination of lower loan charge-offs, more equity, and therefore increased solvency.
Or, in other words, those who think that things are not better off since the March bottom strike me as people who are as unrealistically bullish during the 2008 top. You have to adjust if the facts adjust and perhaps Roubini's doing that by saying that "some" banks will be nationalized. If he isn't, I think he will be wrong.
Jim Cramer is co-founder and chairman of TheStreet.com. He contributes daily market commentary for TheStreet.com's sites and serves as an adviser to the company's CEO. At the time of publication, Cramer was long JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-26-2009 @ 10:50PM
beachpaul said...
Roubini is right. The only thing standing in the way is politics. Once the stimulus doesn't do what was hoped it will become politically palpable to do exactly that, nationalize. Numbers don't lie, people do. The numbers everywhere are awful. Ask people on the front lines, they say the same thing, business is very slow.