|
3#

楼主 |
发表于 2008-9-13 17:48:05
|
只看该作者
But the eventual cost to the public purse is unknown and potentially huge. The Treasury says it could buy as much as $100 billion of preferred stock in each of the two firms, though it deems that highly unlikely. Ultimately, the size of the bill will depend on their ability to recover, and that is far from clear. Under American accounting standards they have adequate capital, despite the rapid deterioration of their portfolios. But on a fair-value basis, marking their assets to the current market price, Freddie is insolvent and Fannie not far off. Moreover, with house prices still sliding and foreclosures rising sharply, worse may be ahead.
The taxpayer is on the hook elsewhere, too. Bank failures, almost unheard of in recent years, are ticking up. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which steps in and covers deposits up to $100,000 when lenders go belly-up, is nervously watching its fund shrink. It, too, may soon need to tap the Treasury for funds, especially if a big bank fails. On Monday one of the most vulnerable large lenders, Washington Mutual, forced out its boss in a bid to shore up confidence. More and more pundits are predicting the return in new guise of the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was tasked with taking over and offloading duff assets in the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s. The tab this time is likely to far exceed that institution’s total losses, $124 billion by the end of 1999.
While the short-term goal is to stabilise Fannie and Freddie, thereby bringing down mortgage rates, the longer-term aim should be to avoid an expensive repeat. Mr Paulson stressed that the seizure of the agencies is merely a “time out”; it will be for the next administration and Congress to determine their future form. He is clearly in favour of scrapping their hybrid business model, which delivers profits to shareholders but leaves the public to shoulder life-threatening losses. Both presidential candidates have joined the criticism, with Barack Obama calling the agencies “a weird blend”. |
|