You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.

Has Moral Hazard Hit the FDIC???

Reggie Middleton's picture




The last standout to the Moral Hazard Brigade has finally joined ranks. The FDIC is considering bailing out the banks!!! From IDD Magazine:

WASHINGTON
— As the number of bank failures continues to rise, some industry
representatives are making a case that amounts to political heresy: the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. should prop up dying institutions rather than letting them collapse.

They
argue that the constant stream of failed-bank deals — in which the FDIC
sells deposits on the cheap and guarantees some of the losses — has
scared away potential buyers for open and operating institutions.

If
the FDIC were to consider open-bank assistance in just a few cases,
this thinking goes, it could slow the pace of failures and save the
government money.

"I daresay that in some cases it will be the least-cost solution to provide some kind of open-bank assistance," said Ron Glancz, a partner at Venable LLP.

To
say that regulators and Capitol Hill are skeptical about this argument
is an understatement. The FDIC faces a high legal bar for providing
open-bank aid — and doing so would be politically dangerous.

"Do
you bet on a disciplined resolution to a very troubled institution … or
do you give the guys who got you into this position a chance to do it
again?" said Karen Shaw Petrou, the managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics Inc. "I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but I don't get it."

Still,
some industry representatives said the loss-sharing deals the agency is
cutting to resolve failed banks are so attractive that private-sector
merger activity has all but evaporated.

"There have been some creative deals … but most buyers are just saying, 'I'll wait until it fails,' " said Dan Bass, the managing director in the Houston office of Carson Medlin Co.

I am almost (but not quite) at a loss for words. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that when businesses fail, it may just be because they should not be in business???!!!

The
FDIC should stick to its knitting of protecting depositor's interests,
up to the insured limits. If the deals being cut are too sweet, you
don't cut sweeter deals to remedy it. What the hell is going on in DC?

"I daresay that in some cases it will be the least-cost solution to provide some kind of open-bank assistance," said Ron Glancz, a partner at Venable LLP.

To
say that regulators and Capitol Hill are skeptical about this argument
is an understatement. The FDIC faces a high legal bar for providing
open-bank aid — and doing so would be politically dangerous.

"Do
you bet on a disciplined resolution to a very troubled institution … or
do you give the guys who got you into this position a chance to do it
again?" said Karen Shaw Petrou, the managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics Inc. "I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but I don't get it."

Still,
some industry representatives said the loss-sharing deals the agency is
cutting to resolve failed banks are so attractive that private-sector
merger activity has all but evaporated.

"There have been some creative deals … but most buyers are just saying, 'I'll wait until it fails,' " said Dan Bass, the managing director in the Houston office of Carson Medlin Co.

A majority of the FDIC's failed-bank resolutions this year, 140 as of late Friday,
have included agreements that the agency and acquirer will share future
losses tied to its assets. Typically, the FDIC will cover 80% of losses
on a chunk of the assets, and then 95% beyond that level. (The
agreements run for 10 years for mortgages, and three years for
commercial-related assets.)

The agency says the agreements help
draw more competitive bids for failed banks, mitigate the agency's
short-term cash needs and help it unload a high volume of assets.

Yet
observers say the tactic hurts the FDIC in the long run as it shoulders
risks far into the future, bolstering the case for providing assistance
to a private-sector recapitalization that would stave off the failure.

"The
costs" of assistance "would have been far less than the FDIC is
experiencing in connection with the losses that are being sustained
going forward," said James Rockett, who co-heads the financial institutions corporate and regulatory group at Bingham McCutchen in San Francisco.

Perhaps proponents of this idea should read my latest blog post: Residential Lending Credit Losses Worsen as Unstainable Government Support Proves... Unsustainable. We
are still very much in a housing bubble, and many of those banks that
are anywhere near marginal and have RE exposure will fail. They need to
be put to pasture.

Failed banks "are costly, but they would be costly on an open-bank basis as well," said John Douglas, a partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell
and a former FDIC general counsel. "If you compare a closed-bank
situation and an open-bank situation, invariably the closed-bank
situation will turn out to be less expensive to the FDIC, because you
wipe out so many liabilities in the receivership. You wipe out all
contingent claims, subordinated debt and other types of debt. … You
don't have to deal with it at all."

Bovenzi and Petrou said the mergers and acquisitions market eventually will recover on its own.

"Certainly
for any institution that is flatlining, there is not private investment
capital out there," Petrou said. "For entities that are weak but
viable, there is. There is money out there and there is money moving."

Bovenzi said the pace of deals could pick up after the pace of failures slows.

"Down
the road when you get to the point where there are fewer bank failures,
you're still going to have winners and losers," he said. But "the
winners should be able to buy some of the institutions that wouldn't
necessarily otherwise fail, but would have their share price reduced to
the point where it would become attractive to those acquirers. While
this may not be the time where a lot of that's happening right now, it
doesn't mean it won't down the road."

Lawmakers, many of whom
have condemned the bailouts of larger institutions, are also highly
unlikely to support giving the FDIC more room to assist dying banks. It
could also encourage smaller institutions to engage in more reckless
behavior, knowing they may be saved by the government.

"You'll
have a significant moral hazard issue for smaller institutions to the
degree that the FDIC supports institutions and subsidizes investments
in entities that should have pulled themselves back from the brink,"
Petrou said. "If an institution is in need of open-bank assistance, the
management that got it to that point is at least open to some question."

 To be fair, Sheila Bair has condemned this idea. Thank goodness.

For
their part, FDIC officials have indicated they are not interested in
providing financial help to open individual institutions that are
troubled. Chairman Sheila Bair has expressed some
interest in using resources left in the Troubled Asset Relief Program
to benefit smaller banks, but she has also opposed open-bank
assistance, and urged Congress to prohibit it for nonbank firms in the
pending legislation to create a resolution regime for those companies.

"We're
subject to least-cost. We can't provide assistance of any kind to an
open institution absent a systemic-risk determination," Bair said Dec.
2.

Some observers said proponents of open-bank assistance are
really just interested in getting FDIC help for deals that would not
involve the highly competitive bidding process for institutions that
want to acquire failed banks.

"There are plenty of people who want open-bank assistance," Douglas said.

"The
reason sellers want it is because it gives their shareholders some hope
of recovery in the future. … The reason acquirers want it is they want
the institution without having to go through the bidding process."




Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 12/22/2009 - 08:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 12/22/2009 - 08:50 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/21/2009 - 15:51 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/21/2009 - 14:44 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Goodbye Dollar!  I'll miss you!

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 14:42 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Let me count the thousand different ways the powers-that-be can extend and pretend. Each day, it's becoming more obvious to me that this will continue for as long as we allow it to continue. Up to now, we've been assuming it would all collapse under it's own ever increasing weight. I'm now beginning to believe this could go on for much longer than we expect.

That doesn't mean there won't again be market crashes like the fall of 2008. I'm simply saying the death throes will last years rather than months. 

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 16:20 | Link to Comment drbill
drbill's picture

I agree. The sheeple are totally ignorant of the BS that the banksters are doing. Look who owns the media companies and tell me if you expect them to truly inform the people about what's going on. But I have no doubt that eventually the system will suffer a catastrophic collapse. Its merely a question of timing. That's why I'm not 100% into gold now nor will I be anytime in the near future.

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 16:12 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

I've been thinking the exact same thing.

It seems that there's a certain kind of "prosperity inertia" in this country that continues to coast along, seemingly unchanged.

How far we'll coast is the big question.  Maybe we're even rolling downhill and picking up a little speed.  Do things then level out so we come to a slow stop (giving ample time to those driving our car to tear out the nice stereo system), or does the road become a 45 degree incline and we come to a quick stop and then roll backward to a standard of living equivalent to the 1800s.

...or is there a reinforced concrete bridge abutment that we plow headlong into.

 

I wish I freaking knew.

 

I am fairly sure that someone cut the engine and threw the keys out the window though.

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 16:53 | Link to Comment sepmeier
sepmeier's picture

"I wish I freaking knew."

It'll go as long as the Chinese find not stopping it in their best interests, or until their losses when pulling the plug are calculated to be acceptable.  Without external intervention, nothing will change. One of Newton's ideas...

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 14:16 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/21/2009 - 13:55 | Link to Comment AngryVoter
AngryVoter's picture

Bank failure Friday brought us 2 banks that COULDN'T be sold.  The interuption for customers of having their account closed and a - we'll send you a check in the mail message - can not be a pleasant experience.  What about the checks you wrote that haven't cleared yet?  What about your direct deposit (if you are lucky enough to have a job)?  Do you have automated bill pay?  That will most certainly suck.  And when do you get the check?  What if you have bills to pay on Monday?  How do you put gas in your car?  Do you need groceries in the next several weeks while your money is tied up?  This is serious doodoo for banks as consumers are going to quickly realize that FDIC insured doesn't mean seemless change in management.  Consumers need to have alternatives in place.  They need to have 2 weeks in cash on hand.  They can not rely on one bank for fear that bank will implode and find no buyers.  The risk of increasing bank runs definitely just got exponentially greater.  Which in and of itself guarentees failures if it spreads.

And the recovery????  Prime mortgage serious delinquency were up 20% in the third quarter over the second quarter.  Add in sub-prime and credit cards and the majority of bank lending books starts to add up to very close to the magical 5% default rate of their entire portfolio for the entire industry!  NO  BANK IS SAFE.  If they pull the unlucky short straw in the commercial defaults with loan books this close insolvant even the "best in breed" JPM could overnight become insolvant.  I guessing there are some sore assholes in Washington as an epidemic of shitting bricks was spreading faster than H1N1.

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 15:38 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/21/2009 - 13:42 | Link to Comment JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that when businesses fail, it may just be because they should not be in business???!!!

Exactly Reggie. When you take failure out of the free market equation, you kill innovation. Why prop up failed business models? Any other industry would be laughed at for this type of behavior. This is all fascism, corporate/gov't entanglement.

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 15:03 | Link to Comment A_MacLaren
A_MacLaren's picture

"Why prop up failed business models?" (of banks... of course)

To enable GS and JPM and C and BAC and WFC and the rest of the TBTFs to gather more "assets" and become EBTBTFs. (Even Bigger TBTFs).  Somewhere in all those toxic loans and investments must be enough real value to offset the unrecorded derivative losses hidden by Mark-to-Myth.

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 13:24 | Link to Comment Ruth
Ruth's picture

That's Ben and Larry Tim flavored they're serving?  Wonder if it gets picked the flavor of the year award!  I've heard ice cream cures moral hazard, YUM-MY, and yes you can have it with peanut butter, no problem.

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 13:21 | Link to Comment waterdog
waterdog's picture

You don't cure a hangover with vodka? Then what the hell do you cure one with?

 

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 16:15 | Link to Comment drbill
drbill's picture

Beer and 2 aspirin.

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 13:12 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/21/2009 - 12:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/21/2009 - 12:49 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

Furthering its irresponible approach, the FDIC has come out with its decision that FASB 166/167 incoming assets can start out with a 6 month delay in addressing necessary increased capital.

then again, what's the difference...with creative FASB 157 accounting, i imagine the banks can find a way to bring these off balance sheet items on the books and value them at 105 cents on the dollar.

i'm also happy to report that the Fed has approved lending FDIC insured funds on CRE to levels well in excell of 100 LTV...what could possibly go wrong?

i hope i am alive in 10 yrs to read the history of this debacle and chuckle when the pundits inevitably ask "how could we have been this stupid" or "how come nobody stopped this"....

heckuva job ben.

helluva job larry.

heckuva job tim.

 

 

Mon, 12/21/2009 - 10:18 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/21/2009 - 09:37 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!