they expected to be bailed out

TO BE NOTED: From the FT:

"Insolvent banks should feel market discipline

By Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini

Published: May 6 2009 14:48 | Last updated: May 6 2009 14:48

Joseph Schumpeter famously argued that the essence of capitalism was creative destruction, by which new economic structures are born from the rubble of older ones. The government stress tests on the 19 largest US banks, the results of which are due be announced on Thursday, could have facilitated this process. The opportunity looks likely to be missed.

The tests, which measure how viable banks are under adverse economic conditions, have no “failed” category, even if as many as 10 are reported to need additional capital. But, given that the economic environment already reflects the tests’ worst-case scenario and that recent estimates by the International Monetary Fund of financial sector losses have doubled in six months, the stress test results will not be credibly interpreted as a sign of bank health.

Instead, market participants will conclude that banks requiring extra capital have, in fact, failed. As a result, these institutions will not be able to raise outside capital and will immediately require government help.

Once again, the question will be how the near-insolvent banks can be kept afloat, to avoid systemic risk. But the question we really should be asking is: why keep insolvent banks afloat? We believe there is no convincing answer; we should instead find ways to manage the systemic risk of bank failures.

Schumpeter’s biggest fear was that creative destruction would lead capitalism to collapse from within, because society would not be able to handle the chaos. He was right to be afraid. The response of governments worldwide to the financial crisis has been to give the structure of private profit-taking an ever-growing scaffolding of socialised risk. Trillions of dollars have been thrown at the system, just so that we can avoid the natural process of creative destruction that would take down these institutions’ creditors. Why shouldn’t the creditors bear the losses?

One possible reason is the “Lehman factor” – the bank runs that would occur as a result of a big failure. But we have learnt from the Lehman collapse and know not to leave the sector high and dry when a systemic institution fails. Just being transparent about which banks clearly passed the stress tests would alleviate many of the fears.

Another reason is counterparty risk, the fear of being on the other side of a transaction with a failed bank. But unlike with Lehman, the government can stand behind any counterparty transaction. This will become easier if a new insolvency regime for systemically important financial institutions is passed on a fast-track basis by Congress. Problem nearly solved.

That leaves the creditors – depositors, short- and long-term debt-holders and preferred shareholders. For the large complex banks, about half are depositors. To avoid runs on these deposits, the government has to provide a backstop. But it is not clear it needs to cover other creditors of a bank, as the failures of IndyMac and Washington Mutual attest.

Even if systemic risk were still present, the government should protect the debt (up to some level) only of the solvent banks, not the insolvent ones. That way, the risk of the insolvent institutions would be transferred back from the public to the private sector, from the taxpayer to the creditors.

The government may be able to avoid the mess by persuading long-term creditors to swap their debt for equity, at a loss. The recent failed effort with Chrysler suggests this will not be easy. But a credible threat of bankruptcy could scare creditors into negotiation, to avoid bigger losses.

Suppose the systemic risk problem is solved. The other argument against allowing banks to fail is that after a big loss by creditors, no one would be willing to lend to banks – which would devastate credit markets. However, the creative-destructive, Schumpeterian, nature of capitalism would solve this problem. Once unsecured debtholders of insolvent banks lose, market discipline would return to the whole sector.

This discipline would force the remaining banks to change their behaviour, probably leading to their breaking themselves up. The reform of systemic risk in the financial system would be mostly organic, not requiring the heavy hand of government.

Why did creditors not prevent the banks taking excessive risks before the crisis hit? For the very same reason creditors are getting a free pass now: they expected to be bailed out. For capitalism to move forward, it is time for a little orderly creative destruction.

The authors are professors who contributed to the recently published Restoring Financial Stability: How to Repair a Failed System"

Rather than taking over and running banks, the FDIC should split each bank into two parts.

TO BE NOTED: From the WSJ:

"Banks Need Fewer Carrots and More Sticks

Insolvent institutions should be taken over by the FDIC.

By R. GLENN HUBBARD , HAL SCOTT and LUIGI ZINGALES

The results of bank stress tests -- expected tomorrow -- will no doubt prompt calls for further government guarantees and capital injections. But continuing to prop up the banks with government cash is a mistake. There is a better approach.

Getty Images

A well-capitalized banking sector is a necessary ingredient for effective intermediation and economic recovery. But today's system is not well-capitalized. How can we move in the right direction?

In a market economy, the government can create the right incentives by using a combination of carrots and sticks. Thus far, the government has only used carrots with the banks. One major carrot is the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The initial infusions were very generous -- the Treasury got back securities worth $78 billion less than the $254 billion it invested -- as the Congressional Oversight Panel pointed out recently. In addition, the FDIC's guarantee of short-term debt was worth $100 billion just for the original nine TARP-participating banks. And the mortgage-related asset guarantees offered to Citibank and Bank of America were worth tens of billions of dollars more.

A new round of expensive TARP injections -- by converting the government's preferred stock into equity -- may follow the release of the stress-test results. In addition, the Treasury's Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) plans to subsidize the purchase of banks' "toxic assets" by hedge funds and other investors. We estimate that the government will spend $2 for every $1 the private sector will put in. Yet even with this large subsidy, PPIP's chance for success is low because of the substantial gulf between the bid and ask prices on the toxic assets, and the reluctance of investors to partner with the government.

Not only is the carrot approach not jump-starting lending, it is also angering the American people. It's hard to justify to taxpayers that we need to reward the same group of people who, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as responsible for the current situation.

It's time for government to use the stick, beginning with creditors. The first step should be an announcement that the FDIC guarantees of short-term debt, set to expire at the end of October, will not be renewed. Insolvent banks -- defined not by stress tests, but as those that cannot fund themselves in the private market -- will be taken over by the FDIC. Of course, this takeover plan must be clear and credible. Otherwise creditors will play "chicken" with the government, knowing that at the last minute the government will flinch and fail to remove the guarantees.

Despite the clarity of such an approach, the market might be skeptical for several reasons. First of all, the FDIC lacks the staff to oversee, let alone run, several large and complex banks which may become insolvent. Second, the FDIC's main approach so far, as with Washington Mutual and IndyMac, has been to restructure the banks for acquisition. The trouble with this plan is that it is unclear who will buy the largest banks in the near future. Finally, it is politically unappealing to have a government institution run a significant fraction of our banking sector. Waiving the specter of nationalization, the creditors may try to force the government to bail them out.

We believe these problems can largely be avoided by adopting a simple approach. Rather than taking over and running banks, the FDIC should split each bank into two parts. One part ("the bad bank") will assume all the residential and commercial real-estate loans and securitized mortgages as assets, and all the long-term debt as liabilities. In addition, "the bad bank" will obtain a loan from the "good bank." This loan is necessary because the long-term debt of the old bank is not likely to be sufficient to fund the assets of the bad bank. The good bank will have all the remaining assets, including derivative contracts and its loan to the bad bank. It will have all the insured deposits and the FDIC-guaranteed short-term debt as liabilities. Once the split is accomplished, the good bank can be cut loose from FDIC receivership.

On the one hand, this split separates the toxic assets, whose value is very uncertain, in an institution that has no insured or guaranteed liabilities and poses no systemic risk. The bad bank will be like a closed-end mutual fund and can be run as such. The good bank will be well-capitalized, and the value of its assets will be clear.

The losers in this reshuffling are the long-term debtholders who get stuck in the bad bank. For this reason, we propose that they be compensated by receiving all the equity of the good bank. The old shareholders will get the equity in the bad bank. (In any restructuring, bondholders should do better than equity.) And the FDIC minimizes its risk because it guarantees the deposits in the good bank.

In fact, long-term debtholders who have debt claims against the bad bank and equity claims against the good bank will be better off under this plan than if the bank were liquidated or continued to operate as one bank. If the bank were liquidated, bondholders would stand to lose almost all their investment. If the bank continues to operate with government subsidies, the benefit of the subsidies are shared by both debt and equity. Under our plan, the debtholders will get all of the equity in the "good bank" and therefore all the upside of its future performance.

One of the major objections to letting banks fail is the argument that they are not really insolvent; they are just facing a temporary dislocation in the marketplace. But if this observation were true, the bad bank would surge in value, and the old shareholders of the banks, who received the shares in the bad bank, would gain. If it is false, the bad bank would default and the old shareholders would receive nothing (as they should).

In order for this plan to work, legislation would need to take effect before the withdrawal of the FDIC guarantee in October, so that FDIC procedures for handling failed banks can be applied to bank-holding companies. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair has called for such legislation. Most importantly, this plan won't impose any new cost on the taxpayer.

Bold stress tests and government intervention reflect President Obama's use of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a model in dealing with the current crisis. But he got the wrong Roosevelt. He should instead follow the motto of Theodore Roosevelt: Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Mr. Hubbard, dean and professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. Mr. Scott is a professor of international financial systems at Harvard Law School. Mr. Zingales is professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business."