Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 1, 2009
AIG and New Banks

A well written piece on AIG. The exposes the core of a nuclear economy whose meltdown we observe.

AIG wrote unhedged Credit Default Swaps, insurance against credit defaults of packaged debt obligations like mortgages, in a notional value of $450 billion. That stack is now down to $300 billion. The U.S. people have so far pumped $150 billion into AIG. That this is exactly the amount AIG has now less in CDS exposure is certainly not pure coincidence.

We can expect that all CDS's AIG has written will be called on as all classes of debt will have very high default rates over the next years. There were several other fields of faulty financial engineering AIG 'invested' in that will result in additional tens of billions of losses.

Tomorrow AIG will post a new quarterly loss of $60 billion ($460,000 per minute). Also tomorrow the U.S. government will put another $30 billion of fresh capital into AIG. We can be sure that more will follow each quarter for many years to come.

Why does the U.S. government do this?

If we let A.I.G. fail, said Seamus P. McMahon, a banking expert at Booz & Company, other institutions, including pension funds and American and European banks “will face their own capital and liquidity crisis, and we could have a domino effect.” A bailout of A.I.G. is really a bailout of its trading partners — which essentially constitutes the entire Western banking system.

There is certainly no lack of people who think it would be a good idea to let the entire 'western' banking system fail.

But unfortunately we do need banks to 1. aggregate savings, 2. allocate the aggregated savings as credit to productive investments and 3. administrate the general public payment systems.

So either the U.S. bails out AIG or the sky falls down.

But there may be a way out. Why not instantiate a new banking system?

Set up clean New Banks in all countries under very strict regulatory rules and give them some basic capital. Then declare all credit default swaps null and void and let the dice fall where they may. When the old banks default, the new banks will pick up their good assets and business.

The advantage of such a 'shock and awe' solution is that the drag on the real economy will be over much faster than in any other solution. The current slow pace of backing up the system again and again does not generated trust. It is devastating for real production, trade and the livelihood of billions of people.

Comments

I think that’s a decent idea, but the new banks must be federal, not private. Private banking is a large part of what got us into this mess. The Federal Reserve needs to also be abolished in the process. I agree with you that banking needs to be set up as a utility, and the federal government should be in charge of that utility. If you continue to allow it to be private, and profits accrue to the waelthy shareholders, then we will just see more of the same in the future. There will be a slow but sure unwinding of regulations and an increase in wilde and speculative behavior.
Alas, there’s a part of me that strongly feels any change is just a postponement of the inevitable crash of civilization, and humanity. We seem to have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that we cannot evolve, socially, and the current form is leading to extinction. I do believe there are those of us who do want to evolve, socially, but the current social systematical structures in place quell these forces, and will continue to do so until it’s too late.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Mar 1 2009 16:13 utc | 1

A new model?
Merkel: “We got ours. Fuck you. Every crumb for himself.”
ahahahaha.
Germany prefers to turn the east into an encampment for the industrial reserve army of workers.
Now, that’s some good, old timey, ruthless capitalism.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 1 2009 17:08 utc | 2

Prying the accumulated savings of three hundred years of western capital out of private hands into public hands would seem like trying to board an ocean liner from a canoe. After all, the public hands are only agents of the private hands to begin with.
It’s become glaringly obvious in the US that the government totally lacks the resources on its own to run the vast rescue and clean-up programs it’s legislated. It has to go to the very firms it’s cleaning up for the personnel talent required.

Posted by: seneca | Mar 1 2009 17:49 utc | 3

b, how long would this take? How would you phase it in? A year? Five years? Ten years? And if it’s a long, drawn-out process of unwinding, what would work as a banking system during the change-over?

Posted by: alabama | Mar 1 2009 18:18 utc | 4

There is certainly no lack of people who think it would be a good idea to let the entire ‘western’ banking system fail.
Works with me. Perfectly fine. Now, enough talk, let’s do it.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Mar 1 2009 18:53 utc | 5

@alabama – b, how long would this take? How would you phase it in?
One month after an international meeting at G20 level. Setting up new banks is easy (simply by up a bunch of small community bank shell and staff them up). But it needs a month to press the new regulations/laws through the parliaments. Then for the CDS null-and-void shutdown close all banks for a week, let them restate earnings and balance sheets without CDS and then, depending on the outcome, either let them live or die.
@sloth – Germany prefers to turn the east into an encampment for the industrial reserve army of workers.
In case you did not notice, that was their function since 1989 and it has led to serious wage deflation in Western Europe while Eastern Europe, led mostly by arch-neoliberal leaders with excellent U.S. relations and A+ MBA degrees, loaded up with foreign-currency debt and consumed as much as it could.
Remember old-Europe new-Europe?
That said I think Merkel is mistaken here. Taking from Henry Ford – you need to pay the people so they can buy your stuff – there should be some rescue for Eastern Europe to help the real economies in Western Europe by keeping their markets alive.
But how could she make sure that such rescue money would not be plundered by the neolib leaders in Eastern Europe for some new ludicrous scheme? And how could giving $100 billion to Eastern Europe be explainable to German taxpayers?
That’s the questions she is likely asking her staff and I have doubt that they have answers.

Posted by: b | Mar 1 2009 19:40 utc | 6

As much as the nullification of credit default swaps seems appealing, they do have a function. Eliminating the insurance aspect of them would result in a greater reluctance in investment and severe reduction in loans.
The problem seems to be that the true risk premiums were undercharged. If they reflected the real risk of default they would have probably been too expensive to buy. This would have canceled many ventures that should not have occurred.
Another issue is the concentration of CDS issuing firms and the lack of limits to exposure in one area. A well run insurance company will offer flood, fire, earthquake, etc. policies but will limit its exposure in each city or region.
If an insurance company is over-exposed to flood insurance due to lack of oversight by regulators, you shouldn’t just declare insurance policies void in the event of a flood. If homes and businesses can’t get flood insurance they won’t build in flood plains.

Posted by: biklett | Mar 1 2009 19:52 utc | 7

And how could giving $100 billion to Eastern Europe be explainable to German taxpayers?
This is an immense roadblock to a coordinated eurozone response. And reverting to indigenous cave groupings and mounting trade wars–we talked about this the other day–are real threats to capitalist class unity.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 1 2009 19:56 utc | 8

“And reverting to indigenous cave groupings and mounting trade wars–we talked about this the other day–are real threats to capitalist class unity.” (sloth)
Where was this discussion? That’s a concept worth talking about. I thought the Iraq invasion revealed class disunity, but maybe that was just an ecample of a sociopath standing out in a crowd of normal people.

Posted by: seneca | Mar 1 2009 20:29 utc | 9

@biklett – @7 – while your reasoning is right, you miss the biggest issue.
CDS -“insurances” were bought by many people who did not own the underlying asset.
If 2, 20, 200 people unrelated to you take out a $200,000 fire-insurance on the house you own for a buck each, how well would you sleep?
There is a case to insure against credit default if you are the one who gave the loan. But if everyone can make a bet on Joe’s Sixpack ability to pay his credit card debt some might take such insurance and try to bankrupt Joe to cash in on that insurance without having lend him any money.
There has been little reporting on such cases in CDS so far. But those will come.
Some people, especially as the U.S. now underwrites AIG’s obligations, have a high financial interest to make certain debts (GM?, GE?) default even though they have no direct interest in those debts.

Posted by: b | Mar 1 2009 20:52 utc | 10

Eliminating the insurance aspect of them would result in a greater reluctance in investment and severe reduction in loans.
I don’t see any problem with this. It’s pretty obvious credit – for firms as well as for people – was way too easy in the currently dying system, and is one of the reasons it’s dying right now. Besides, I’m of the opinion investment should mostly be undertaken by the state.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Mar 1 2009 21:03 utc | 11

If homes and businesses can’t get flood insurance they won’t build in flood plains.
Is this a bad thing?

Posted by: David | Mar 1 2009 21:47 utc | 12

@12,
Try to avoid flood plains, or earthquake faults, or rising coastlines?
@10,
I agree with you about 3rd party CDS. I just don’t know how you could separate them.

Posted by: biklett | Mar 2 2009 0:36 utc | 13

b6) ya, except as soon as the Fed establish chartered Federal deposit banks (your “Sauberkeit Banken”) the global financial sector would crash and burn. Why? Because the plug was pulled. Think of it this way. It’s August in Bremen, hot as bejeezus, and your air conditioner just crapped out, running on its last legs. You go buy a new one, but you only have the one available outlet to plug it into; if the fuse blows you can’t find a replacement; and they won’t sell you Freon anymore, you have to transfer it from the failing air conditioner. You pull the plug, the fuse blows and yet you work frantically in the stiffling heat, so hot the Freon explodes out of the old air conditioner and quickly gone. Poof! Now all you got is your new air conditioner that doesn’t work in one hand, and a pile of warm shit in the other. Hence the Humptey Dumptey parable, and the need to become infinitely precise in our dialectic chess game, and not be diverted by these fruit-loop intellectual thought experiments. There isn’t enough M1 to bail out AIG, C and BAC. Q to R2. Your move.

Posted by: Hans Oberflunder | Mar 2 2009 3:28 utc | 14

What do you think about the Canadian banking system? There’s a great editorial on this topic.
Here is the the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/opinion/28tedesco.html?em

Posted by: Micheline | Mar 2 2009 4:27 utc | 15

@biklett – @13 – I agree with you about 3rd party CDS. I just don’t know how you could separate them.
An insurance bound to the debt. Only the debt owner can cash in on the insurance like only a houseowner can cash in on a fire insurance if his house burns down. Very easy to do. Deliver the underling, show the papers otherwise the insurance does not pay.
@Micheline – Canada has much better regulation than the U.S. – it is not a secret that regulation is the key but the U.S. philosophy was against it since Reagan at least.

Posted by: b | Mar 2 2009 7:40 utc | 16

How our national piggybanks ended up filled, not with pennies, but with helium.Before banks went bust, they went modernist, and in a final burst of creativity, postmodernist.

Posted by: Madison Guy | Mar 2 2009 16:30 utc | 17

CDOs, CDSs, these are the real poison, as b pointed out in a previous post.
The problem stems, at its heart, from the melding of traditional bank business – lending, borrowing, investing, which in theory at least can be unwound with matching up IOUs (to cancel them out) default here and there, and making those who took on ‘risk’ eat their losses, with insurance, which is a different kettle of fish.
In the past, banks failed and were re-born in the traditional way, because their obligations could be sorted; some end-point, or final accounting ledger, in a brief, specified temporal horizon, could be attained.
That is not possible for insurance, which is a tricky business. That is why insurance is very expensive. (> Leading insurers to charge too much for black swan events where they can get away with it.)
Betting on the horses – the odds are posted, it is quite transparent, etc. (somewhat similar to the stock market) – the bookie takes his % and never goes bust, unless horse races are forbidden. However, one can’t insure oneself against losses at the track….No insurer would take that on ever, without a cap on what would need to be paid out (losses), thus on the bets themselves (a max of x), which would not be attractive for the bettor except in rare cases (nephew gives cash to crazed auntie to have a good time, etc.) Wasn’t done in this case..

Posted by: Tangerine | Mar 2 2009 16:48 utc | 18

In theory, it sounds lovely; however, I’m afraid that the real world implications would be far worse than we can imagine…On the other side of this crisis are the real assets underlying all of these financial instruments. These real assets have tangible value, but the mess in the financial system has helped to skew the market value of homes downwards…
While fixing the financial system is of fundamental importance, the current gov’t plans to help home owners is woefully inadequate. Rather than reward the bozos who got in over their heads, the government (specifically HUD) should take an alternative tact to fix housing; expand the Section 8 housing vouchers.
*While not perfect, this plan does have the two main elements of a free market economy: Punishment for poor choices and rewards for taking risks.

Posted by: JFN | Mar 2 2009 22:18 utc | 19