Something Progressive as The Alternative

SEIU Endorses DeFazio Bill to Address Financial Crisis, here's the draft (Via DKos):

DRAFT

No BAILOUTS Act

Bringing Accounting, Increased Liquidity, Oversight and Upholding Taxpayer Security

 1. Require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require an economic value standard to measure the capital of financial institutions.

This bill will require SEC to implement a rule to suspend the application of fair value accounting standards to financial institutions, which marks assets to the market value, no matter the conditions of the market. When no meaningful market exists, as is the current market for mortgage backed securities, this standard requires institutions to value assets at fire-sale prices. This creates a capital shortfall on paper. Using the economic value standard as bank examines have traditionally done will immediately correct the capital shortfalls experienced by many institutions.

 2. Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restricting naked short sells permanently

This bill will require SEC to implement a rule that blocks naked selling, selling a stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring the shares can be borrowed. Such practices many times harm the companies represented in the sales and hurt their efforts to raise capital. There is no economic value produced by naked short sales, but significant negative effects.

 3. Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to restore the up-tick rule permanently.

This bill will require SEC to implement a rule that blocks short sales without an up-tick in the market.  On September 19, 2008, the SEC approved a temporary pause of short selling in financial companies "to protect the integrity and quality of the securities market and strengthen investor confidence." This rule prevents market crashes brought on by irrational short term market behavior.

 4. "Net Worth Certificate Program"

This bill will require FDIC to implement a net worth certificate program. The FDIC would determine banks with short-term capital needs and the ability to financially recover in the foreseeable future.  For those entities that qualify, the FDIC should purchase net worth certificates in these institutions.  In exchange, these institutions issue promissory notes to repay the FDIC, counting the amount "borrowed" as capital on their balance sheets.  This exchange provides short term capital, with not cash outlay.  Interest rates on the certificates and the FDIC notes should be identical so no subsidy is necessary.

Participating banks must be subject to strict oversight by the FDIC including oversight of top executive compensation and if necessary the removal of poor management.  Financial records and business plans should be subject to scrutiny while participating in the program.

In 1982, Congress approved a program, known as the Net Worth Certificate Program, that allowed banks and thrifts to apply for immediate capital assistance.  From 1982 to 1993, banks with total assets of $40 billion participated in the program. The majority of these banks, 75%, required no further assistance beyond the certificate program.

 5. Increase the FDIC Insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000.

The bill will require the FDIC raise its limit to provide depositors confidence that their money is safe and help eliminate runs on banks which are destabilizing to the industry.


Here's Andy Stern on this plan:
"We finally have a plan that will restore confidence in the financial markets without writing a blank check to the same Wall Street banks and CEOs who got us into this mess," said SEIU President Andy Stern. "This is an important, short-term solution that protects taxpayers and their savings accounts. To revive the economy over the long-term, we must address rising unemployment, stagnant wages, the healthcare crisis, and a tax system that is tilted in favor of the wealthy."

Ian Welsh, via FDL has more, as does Digby. The bill above is apparently a draft emailed out from the staff of Rep. DeFazio. At least an alternative is in the process of being developed. Marc Ambinder, as I do, think the Bush-Paulson-McCain-Obama-Pelosi-Reid bailout rescue deal is in the bag now. I'm told that, before the Monday vote fiasco in the House, that Republicans had 30-40 votes for this in the Senate. So once its' out of the House, it'll steamroll to Bush.



Display:


One question (none / 0)

Why do you think the bone heads in Washington can do any better?  Seems to me their medling is to blame.


"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"
by Classical Liberal on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST

Did Clyburn say to on MSNBC (none / 0)

that nothing is passing without the bankruptcy reform provisions?  Perhaps that's what the CBC and the HBC are holding out for.


by Blazers Edge on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:38:42 PM EST

Re: Did Clyburn say to on MSNBC (none / 0)

Yes, that appears the case.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:39:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is he fooling? (none / 0)

Passing the bill with that provision is the only scenario where I can envision Bush vetoing the bill.

The Senate is voting on the bill tomorrow evening; who do you think is going to vote no from our side?


by Blazers Edge on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:41:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is he fooling? (none / 0)

I shoulda looked into it, but didn't. There's no one in a tight race at all. Probably Brown, Tester, to name a couple, Webb too?


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about Landriex? (none / 0)

Is she "safe" as of this moment?

Thune must be chomping at the bit to vote no on this thing.  Ambinder thinks he has 2012 in his sights; Romney and even Palin to an extent are tied to this deal, while Huckabee is keeping his powder dry.

Someone should ask Jindal for his thoughts.  

How do you think Dole is going to vote?  I think she's on the relevant committee.  Stevens voting no may just move him into a commanding lead against Begich.


by Blazers Edge on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Landriex? (none / 0)

Up big. But she might just to be cautious.

Dole, McConnell, Weicker, Smith, Collins (did Allen vote no?), Stevens, I don't see how they get anywhere close to 40 republicans, we'll see.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 10:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

Draft item #1 seems a lot less expensive than what has been proposed.  The entire draft proposal, in fact makes a lot of sense.  Wonder why it wasn't proposed/considered initially?


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:38:58 PM EST

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

It would be nice to see if economists other than Isaac think this will solve the problem.

This creates a capital shortfall on paper. Using the economic value standard as bank examines have traditionally done will immediately correct the capital shortfalls experienced by many institutions.

On first blush, this explanation seems rather naive.  The problem isn't just the capital shortfall in the books.  It's also the unwillingness of the short-term credit markets to lend.

Will just changing the on-paper capital holdings of a bank (but not changing anything concrete) really change lending patterns?  I have no idea, but it isn't self-evident.


by randomscientist on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get it. (none / 0)

How is changing mark to market rules going to help fix this problem.  Are we going to return to mark to make-believe rules that we had during the Enron debacle?  The reason those capital write-downs occurred is because that sub-prime backed paper they have IS worth nothing.  That's the reason for the credit crisis.  Are we going to pass this and then believe the bankers when they say it's worth something?


by shalca on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

I support it fully. The Bush-Paulson-Pelosi bill was the Iraq war all over again, just an attempt to line pockets one more time.

But to stop the slide in the Real Estate market, which is dragging the economy under, we need a moratorium on foreclosures. Not all foreclosures forever, obviously, or I and millions of others would just stop paying my (their) mortgage. However, for the sake of the market, not to mention common decency, those who have a chance to recover and hold on to their houses by paying something at a decent fixed rate, should be saved.


by antiHyde on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:39:35 PM EST

The lighter side of deregulation (none / 0)

In a world gone insolvent, an unstoppable force travels from our past to destroy our future.  He is . . . The Deregulator.

http://snipurl.com/3xln8

Then kick back and enjoy America's least favorite reality game show:  Drop the Regulations!

http://snipurl.com/3xlop


by McCainBush08 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM EST

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (2.00 / 1)

These are all excellent ideas but I have trouble seeing at first blush how they really address the credit problem at the heart of this whole mess.

Suspending mark-to-market accounting (the only dubious idea in the bunch) is a case of too little, too late.  If Bank X is refusing to loan money to Bank Y because it's afraid that Bank Y might not be solvent, changing the accounting rules to make things easier for Bank Y won't really give Bank X any comfort.  They'll know that Bank Y continues to hold the exact same portfolio of impaired securities and that the newfound solvency exists solely on paper.

The only item that might serve to increase banks' confidence in one another is the net worth certificate program.  But again, this is paper solvency; even if we don't require banks to list the promissory note to the FDIC as a liability on their balance sheet, it's still a liability in the sense that it has to be repaid (and you can bet it will be repaid before the bank's obligations to other creditors are repaid).

Further, even if banks really would feel confident about lending to other banks once they are accepted into the net worth certificate program (in other words, "I guess we can loan money to this bank since the FDIC is committed to keeping them afloat"), which is the best-case scenario, it seems like we create a situation where EVERY bank has to get into the program or they're just screwed.  Imagine what would happen to a bank if word got out that they applied for assistance under the program and were rejected.

Essentially, this plan seems to be premised on the assumption that a liquid market for all those yucky mortgage-backed securities will reemerge as long as we get ourselves over the hump by restoring confidence in the short term.  I don't really know why that would be the case.  I'd like to at least hear some basic ideas on what these progressives see as the long-term solution.

I look forward to being set straight by those more knowledgeable than I.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:44:38 PM EST

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

Whoa, I wrote my post above without reading this.  Not only did I make a similar point to one of yours, but I used the same language.  Creepy  :-o


by randomscientist on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Senate going first (none / 0)

Gee, what a shocker.  Wall Street wins ... and right here in America, too!  I really had to laugh at the notion the House would suddenly become the Swedish parliament.  What a waste of time.  Pass the damn bill and get it over with.  We all knew it was inevitable.  Plus now we can wallow in about 10,000 "Impeach Reid," "Pelosi Sucks" and "Democrats Are Sellouts" posts all over the blogs.    


by Tangie3 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:45:55 PM EST

Not good enough (none / 0)

Where are the provisions that make Wall Street bear some of the burden of the bailout cost?

Bush can object all he wishes, but if he doesn't give middle class voters a fair shake on this deal, his party will lose the election along with a lot of seats in Congress.

There is no downside for Dems or Obama in backing a fair and sensible bailout. None.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You guys are being hoodwinked and bambozoled (2.00 / 1)

Pass nothing.  Let the open marker commit suicide.  This entire process is fraudulent.


by nzubechukwu on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:05:10 PM EST

No chance (none / 0)

No way this would pass through congress/signed

That restriction on short selling? Never

But even if it goes through?  Is this on top of 700 billion?


by gil44 on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 09:11:31 PM EST

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

Why is everyone stuck on the 700b figure? Paulson himself said that it was largely a confection, based on an estimate of 5% of the total value of mortgage debt, and that he expected it would be paid out over a period of 14 months.

If thats the case, why not just pass 150b now, or even 75b, and see if a) it works and b) there's a need for more.

To me, the answer is obvious -- as much as we all want them to win, the Democratic party is by and large tethered to Wall St. And the only way to offer a real opposition is not to have to depend on the financial sector for money. Thats why I felt, and feel, that public financing is an essential component of a progressive agenda.

Even with record amounts of small-donor fundraising, Obama and all other Democrats are simply too dependent on large donors from the financial sector to be able to stand against their interests.


by desmoulins on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 01:27:36 AM EST

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

Rachel Maddow had a conservative Republican congressman on tonight who was basically pushing points #1 and #5 as a sort of "wait and see" plan.  Like, maybe these minor tweaks will fix everything and we won't have to spend any money.

#5 seems to be supported by everyone although no one seems to realize that raising the FDIC cap involves something of a tax increase.  No, not higher taxes for you and me, but higher insurance premiums for the banks that are covered by the FDIC.  This is perfectly fair, but it also means you're hitting these banks with a higher charge to stay in business, at precisely the time when some of them are struggling to stay afloat.  I'm not saying this is the end of the world but I've yet to see anyone even acknowledge it; it's like people think we can just wave a magic wand and up the FDIC protection to $1 billion if we wanted to.

As for this mark-to-market thing, Rachel (a very smart person, obviously) didn't seem to grasp what it was about and was instinctively skeptical that some kind of accounting change could really make all the difference.  The excellent financial blog Calculated Risk had some choice quotes on the topic:

   "Suspending mark-to-market accounting, in essence, suspends reality."
    Beth Brooke, global vice chair at Ernst & Young LLP, WSJ, Sept 30, 2008

   "Blaming fair-value accounting for the credit crisis is a lot like going to a doctor for a diagnosis and then blaming him for telling you that you are sick."
    analyst Dane Mott, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bloomberg

   "Suspending the mark-to-market prices is the most irresponsible thing to do. Accounting does not make corporate earnings or balance sheets more volatile. Accounting just increases the transparency of volatility in earnings."
    Diane Garnick, Invesco Ltd., Bloomberg

Now, even though it's just accounting gimmickry, maybe a little accounting gimmickry isn't a big deal if it saves us from spending $700 billion.  But as I mentioned in my comment above, I'm pretty skeptical that accounting gimmickry can accomplish anything real, even if it makes everyone's balance sheet suddenly look healthier.

The reason is that the root cause of this crisis is that banks don't want to lend to other banks due to solvency fears.  Well, banks and other sophisticated market players are not going to be fooled by accounting gimmickry.  If they're afraid a bank might go belly-up, they're going to continue to be afraid even if accounting gimmickry helps that bank produce a better-looking balance sheet than it otherwise would have.

Now, in combination with item #4, the net worth certificate program, maybe the gimmickry is worth something because now you're doing something legitimate to help out the banks in addition to changing the accounting rules.  So I'm not prepared to dismiss the progressive plan out of hand, in fact I'd love for someone to show me where it's actually a great idea.  But I'm pretty sure we can dismiss the conservative idea that maybe we just change the rules and everything will be great.  If you're a bank, and no one wants to lend you money because you have all these toxic mortgage-backed securities on your books that might not be worth any money at the end of the day, the opinion of those lenders is not going to change just because a new accounting rule arbitrarily assigns a higher value to those securities.  You still hold the same potentially-worthless crap that you did before the rule was changed.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:11:15 AM EST

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

Steve, mark-to-market is a new rule, about a year old. This bill restores the former accounting rule, the one in effect for about 70 years.

The mark-to-market rule change was to align our accounting standards with Europe. It probably should have been phased in. Instead, it was a neutron bomb that destroyed the banks' asset base.


by antiHyde on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 07:42:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

What exactly is the new component?  I was handling lawsuits involving mark-to-market pricing a decade ago.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:03:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something Progressive as The Alternative (none / 0)

I'd like to see anything remotely progressive in this "progressive plan."  Hell, at least the Senate bill gets the production tax credits for renewables through.  The core problem is expecting an economy based on pushing paper to work.  The "progressive" bill does zip, zilch, zero to change that.  I'm stunned at how pathetic it is.


by dday on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:20:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Add the Bailout to our $900B deficit in 2008 (none / 0)

See http://truecost.wordpress.com

The deficit is much larger than the $400 Billion Bush & Co would have us believe, and they cook the books on it every year. Now they'd like $700B more to add to it?

They're pitching the bailout as an investment. If the US wants to make an investment, why not invest $100B in infrastructure like roads and public transit? I'm sure the return on that investment would be much better than the return on buying some really bad mortgage backed securities.


by praveen99 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 12:44:19 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.