政治学与国际关系论坛

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

查看: 335|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

DECISIVE INACTION2DK HEAD

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
1#
发表于 2008-9-12 17:59:40 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
The US government has bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The market now seems to view Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual as next in line, with possibly more to come. It is time for the authorities to step back. Further such rescues should be avoided like the plague. It is the job of a government to save the financial system, not individual institutions. What has been done so far should be enough.

Yes, banks are going through tough times. The loss of shareholder value in Fannie and Freddie adds to losses from exposure to the housing market and consumer debt. The settling of the credit default swaps on the two mortgage giants may also be messy. Raising fresh capital is also increasingly difficult. This is not surprising, however, given how bad news has kept dribbling out.

Yet a sudden failure, such as that of Bear Stearns in March, seems unlikely, since liquidity is assured by the Federal Reserve's decision to open the discount window to investment banks. This is buying damaged institutions time needed to come up with a private sector solution. That is what they must seek.
分享到:  QQ好友和群QQ好友和群 QQ空间QQ空间 腾讯微博腾讯微博 腾讯朋友腾讯朋友 微信微信
收藏收藏 转播转播 分享分享 分享淘帖
2#
 楼主| 发表于 2008-9-12 17:59:49 | 只看该作者
Apart from offering short-term liquidity, the Fed and the Treasury should remain on the sidelines. It is not obvious how they could help a bank such as Lehman, other than by injecting equity. It is even less obvious why they should.

The government was right, however, to bail out Fannie and Freddie. Their failure would have been a disaster for housing finance. Given their scale and the implicit government guarantees of their debt, failure would indeed have had systemic consequences. Yet this is not true for other US institutions .
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

3#
 楼主| 发表于 2008-9-12 17:59:58 | 只看该作者
The authorities now need to draw a line. Provided the system as a whole is kept functioning, weak institutions must be allowed to fail, as part of the ongoing adjustment. Equity holders have suffered in previous bail-outs, but creditors should also lose where banks prove insolvent. In the case of commercial banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation takes charge. No such scheme exists for investment banks. But, having addressed market panic, through the provision of short-term liquidity, orderly wind-ups must be allowed, where needed.

It is only if house prices fall much further and losses mount to enormous magnitudes that the authorities might have to contemplate a fiscal bail-out, as in Japan and Sweden in the 1990s. Fortunately, from what one can identify at present, the US financial system is a long way from that. An accommodative monetary policy and an aggressive fiscal policy is as much as markets should now hope for.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|小黑屋|中国海外利益研究网|政治学与国际关系论坛 ( 京ICP备12023743号  

GMT+8, 2025-4-9 13:57 , Processed in 0.078125 second(s), 29 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表