Following Blind Leaders
The initial Paulson/Bernanke/Bush, bailout plan was to get the toxic “assets” off lenders books so they could begin lending again. They came to the conclusion that accounting rules and lack of liquid assets had caused the credit market to “seize up” as they described it… much like your car’s engine would do if deprived of sufficient lubrication. That was the original plan, but it quickly changed to infusing billions of dollars into ailing financial institutions, trusting the management to use it in ways to actually help the economy. We’ve all seen how well that worked.
The accounting rule most reviled by the banks was the “mark to market” rule which required them to carry assets on their books at values they could reasonably expect to sell them for on the open market. That never seemed to be too unreasonable a procedure. That alternative would be keeping values on the books that were greatly inflated beyond any thing they could actually be sold for. For example, why should a five million dollar building be shown on the books for ten million dollars when no one could realistically be expected to buy it at that price? In most other contexts, that would come pretty close to something called fraud. Of course write downs like had a negative impact on the corporate statements. It was, however, a more accurate picture than retaining the higher value and hoping it would, one day, return.
The other rule hurting banks involved reserve requirements for non-performing loans. When a loan, whether a car payment or mortgage is paid on time every one is happy. When the borrower stops paying in timely manner and slips further and further in arrears, the loan is listed as non-performing and the bank needs to keep reserves to cover the situation. This is why lenders will sometimes give substantial discounts to buyers who will take such properties off their books. Considering the costs involved in foreclosures and the release of reserves for other uses, these transactions often turn out to be a win for every one involved. The bank gets a toxic “asset” off the books, the buyer gets a good deal and the borrower is relieved of a debt he can’t pay. Read more of this article »

















