White House Embarks On Toxic Asset Purge

Treasury Secretary Unveils Long-Awaited Plan To Ease Credit Flow, Pleads For Patience

(CBS/AP)  The Obama administration launched a new effort Monday to end a paralysis in lending, saying it will team with investors to sop up a half-trillion dollars of bad assets from banks that have been reluctant to make loans to consumers and companies.

In announcing the program, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pleaded for patience, saying that work to rehabilitate an industry with such systemic problems must go forward despite "deep anger and outrage" over executive bonus payments.

Geithner's performance in President Barack Obama's Cabinet has come under heavy criticism from some in Congress. The secretary announced the initiative in a Treasury Department room with no cameras allowed. He was with Obama later in the morning, however, when the president spoke briefly, saying he was "very confident" the latest plan will succeed.

Mr. Obama called it "one more critical element" in a multi-pronged effort to revive the economy and said the depressed housing market is beginning to show glimmers of hope.

Geithner said the new program will seek to harness government and private resources to purchase a half-trillion dollars of bad assets off the balance sheets of banks and said he expects purchases eventually could grow to $1 trillion.

The latest rescue plan represents another test for the embattled Geithner, whose performance has come under heavy criticism from some in Congress.

White House officials pressed their case that it was not about bailing out irresponsible financial institutions, but about improving the borrowing prospects for homeowners and small businesses.

"It's always been about Main Street, Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers told CBS' The Early Show Monday.

"We're not trying to rescue everyone. We're trying to rescue the system."

Wall Street seemed to feel rejuvenated, at least at the opening. In late morning, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 221 at 7,500. Reaction to an earlier administration bank rescue program on Feb. 10 was anything but enthusiastic, with dispirited investors sending the Dow Jones plummeting by 380 points.

The administration's newest toxic-asset repellant was another in a string of banking initiatives that have included efforts to deal directly with mortgage foreclosures, boost lending to small businesses and thaw out the credit markets for many types of consumer loans.

Administration officials said the plan put forth Monday will deploy $75 billion to $100 billion from the government's existing $700 billion bailout program for the purchase of bad assets - resources that will be supported by loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and a loan facility being operated by the Federal Reserve.

Under a typical transaction, for every $100 in soured mortgages being purchased from banks, the private sector would put up $7 and that would be matched by $7 from the government. The remaining $86 would be covered by a government loan provided in many cases by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Geithner defended the decision to have the government carry so much of the risk. He said the alternative would have been to do nothing and risk a more prolonged recession or have the government carry all of the risk.

Geithner also said there would be significant advantages from having private market participants bidding against each other to set prices for which the bad assets will be purchased. "There is no doubt the government is taking risks," he told reporters. "You can't solve a financial crisis without the government taking risks."

Devising bailout plans has never been easy work, and the brouhaha surrounding millions in executive retention bonuses paid out by financially strapped American Insurance Group, Inc., hasn't improved the political atmosphere.

Geithner himself has been under siege from many quarters, with some congressmen saying they don't believe he's up to the job, but Mr. Obama repeatedly defended his Treasury secretary in an exclusive interview Sunday with 60 Minutes.

"One of the challenges that Tim Geithner has had is the same challenge that anybody would have in this situation. People want a lot of contradictory things. You know, the banks would love a lot of taxpayer money with no strings attached. Folks in Congress, as well as the American people, would love to fix the banks without spending any money. And so at a certain point, you know, you've got just a very difficult line to walk."

In opinion piece in Monday's Wall Street Journal, Geithner said the new program was designed to "resolve the crisis as quickly and effectively as possible at the least cost to the taxpayer. ... Simply hoping for banks to work these assets off over time risks prolonging the crisis."

Officials said they expect participation by a broad array of investors ranging from pension funds and insurance companies to hedge funds. To achieve that goal, the program would be set up to entice private investors with low-cost loans provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve. The government itself would shoulder the bulk of the risk.

Geithner has said that the country cannot afford to simply wait for banks to work off these bad assets over time.

[xstr8guy]

You sir or madam, are an idiot! The price tag for that solution is 40 TRILLION DOLLARS!


"This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times
Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers
for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?"
Dear
Mr.President,

Patriotic retirement:

There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work force
- pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations.


1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings
-
Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered
- Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house/pay off their mortgage -
Housing Crisis fixed.

WHY DOES OUR GOVERNMENT MAKE IT SO DIFFICULT? "

[sjc_1]

" (I) Wonder why Bernanke and Geithner didn't buy off the toxic assets like they were supposed to do in the first place? "

Because the hole in the balance sheets of banks is much bigger than the $700 billion authorized, so they are using public/private leverage through FDIC and the Fed to make what dollars they have left go farther.

[bumpedoff1]

$1=0.30

[noloyalisti]

Welcome to America, where it is Socialism for the Rich and capitalism for the Poor. I hope we learn our lessons and off a few big corporations.

[AJMarine12]

One very big question for these administration genuises, "Who in his/her right mind would want to buy an asset defined as toxic?"

Posted by ramos1129 at 10:34 AM : Mar 23, 2009


"A little more risk for a little more reward"

These assets are undervalued. A person willling to take the risk could stand to make a nice profit if they buy them and their values good up with a recovering economy.

[Solarrays247]

My question: Is the size of AIG really the problem, or is the problem directly related to one small department at AIG that simply carried a big stick.....ie derivatives?
Posted by Solarrays247 at 11:24 AM : Mar 23, 2009

Both.

The one division could have brought the whole company down. And if the company wasn't so big, we could have just said, "too bad - let it go under".
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 11:35 AM : Mar 23, 2009

Thanks, hungry1969! You are so right with this! And it is too bad that we could not just have let it sink. And I know better.....so I better get back to work! You have a good day! Enjoyed your post, as usual!

[hungry1968-15]

My question: Is the size of AIG really the problem, or is the problem directly related to one small department at AIG that simply carried a big stick.....ie derivatives?
Posted by Solarrays247 at 11:24 AM : Mar 23, 2009





Both.

The one division could have brought the whole company down. And if the company wasn't so big, we could have just said, "too bad - let it go under".

[Solarrays247]

.....By seperating the segments, AIG would also no longer be "too big to fail". Our problem is that our suggestion will not result in anythin because of the old symdrone - NIH (Not Invented Here).
Posted by ramos1129 at 10:33 AM : Mar 23, 2009

You have an interesting concept, ramos1129. I didn't copy your entire post, but it certainly would not hurt for those on the inside to examine your proposal. Of course, who knows, perhaps someone already has. I personally have a problem with the government splitting up any more companies, unless of course, a company has broken a law.

[Solarrays247]

The government broke up Ma Bell several years ago, because it was too big. Then went after Microsoft, because it had too much control of the market. Why not the same for AIG? Break it up into smaller more manageable companies.
Posted by gordon102-2009 at 10:15 AM : Mar 23, 2009


Actually, the government broke up Ma Bell approximately 25 years ago! I think it was 1983 or 1984. And opinions are still divided as to whether that breakup was beneficial for the consumer!

My question: Is the size of AIG really the problem, or is the problem directly related to one small department at AIG that simply carried a big stick.....ie derivatives?

[ramos1129]

One very big question for these administration genuises, "Who in his/her right mind would want to buy an asset defined as toxic?"