« Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Peso Problem | Main | Assorted links »
Don't attack the shareholders
So says Ricardo Caballero, here is more:
First, a private sector solution to the current crisis requires fresh capital injections into financial institutions. However, in an environment of widespread uncertainty where the instinctive reaction is to run away from risk-taking, private capital is likely to remain on the side for much too long. Thus, the optimal policy response is to encourage and leverage private risk-taking, not to discourage it with a pending threat of exemplary punishment were a fragile situation turn worse, regardless of cause. Economic policy risk is compounding the private sector’s reluctance to capitalize financial institutions...
Second, during periods of high uncertainty and the potential for runs, large or coordinated shortsellers are more likely to succeed in triggering socially inefficient panic-selling. Rumor-mongering and persistent selling pressure eventually weaken wary investors and depositors. Unfortunately, by choosing to punish shareholders, Secretary Paulson has rewarded shortsellers and raised their ammunition to cause further financial instability. Again, while shortselling plays a very useful role during normal times, it can turn into a source of instability during periods of high uncertainty.
Two points: first, if we are going to nationalize this argument implies we should do it quickly to avoid further hemorrhaging. Yet the mortgage agencies are not quite proven to be unsalvageable failures (much as I opposed their initial creation that does not imply immediate obliteration as the proper current response). Second, even if nationalization is the right response this time, it might not be the next time a financial institution gets into fiscal trouble. Yet in that subsequent case nationalization will be that much harder to avoid, given the understandable fears of private capital if nationalization happens this time. Every time you nationalize and wipe out shareholders, you create a dangerous precedent and scare away private capital for a long time.
You are probably reading lots of absolutist recommendations around the blogosphere but these are truly difficult issues and the correct policy responses are not obvious.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 15, 2008 at 09:31 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Caballero's argument seems to be to save the stockholders. This is fine if you are a stockholder; otherwise it is rubbish. Paulson's at least attempting to keep some moral hazard.
[disclosure: mutual funds I own, hold FM)
We pretty much have to save the bondholders (i.e. not default on the bonds). But if we save ALL the big financial guys while letting individual mortgagees hang out there with half-measures (because they aren't small individual people who aren't organized) then we are risking the mortgagee equivalent of food riots.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Jul 15, 2008 10:49:39 AM
I probably agree with Tyler on this issue. But I can't help but notice the language used: the "correct" policy responses are "not obvious," thus neccesitating an economist to discern the right path for us.
Again, I don't disagree, but I think the idea that there is a "correct" policy choice, without regard to assumptions, is misguided. Policy is driven by the goals that we wish to achieve, not an end onto itself.
Posted by: Dave at Jul 15, 2008 12:18:52 PM
I am, quite frankly, and against my own financial interests, enjoying seeing the trouble a New Deal institution is falling into. I have never thought home-ownership should be privileged by a "Government Sponsored Institution" which we now know is an insured institution. Lately, more and more institutions are "too big to fail." I foresee more institutions and programs invented by the New Deal Brain Trust getting into trouble in the future.
Posted by: Mario Rizzo at Jul 15, 2008 12:34:36 PM
Isn't another name for "too big to fail" just "too big?"
It's true that now that we have them, it's a bit like "how to dismantle an atomic bomb." But we aren't talking about water or mail provision here. A little pain won't kill anybody. The market is already a shambles. When would be a better time be for them to go down?
Shareholders' job is to investigate their investment and when it stinks to sell down to the takeover point. Just because almost all shirk this responsibility doesn't mean others should be held accountable in their place.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 15, 2008 1:53:23 PM
Callero's argument against the shortsellers is pure handwaving. 'socially inefficient panic-selling'? 'raised their ammunition to cause further financial instability'? Someone isn't maintaining a neutral viewpoint on short selling. The shortsellers in this case (as with speculators generally) are speeding the reaction time of the entire financial system - they're giving us advance notice that these entities are bound for failure.
Posted by: bbartlog at Jul 15, 2008 2:08:13 PM
Don’t forget about us:
I’m under thirty, with a rare professional trade, an MA (Econ!) and a near perfect credit score. I’m looking forward to scooping up relatively cheap real estate and stocks.
Are there “inverse-Pareto efficiencies”, where you cannot make someone worse off without making someone else better off?
Not that I like bad things to happen to decent people, but there ARE silver linings.
Posted by: P. Blank at Jul 15, 2008 4:12:53 PM
I'm surprised that Tyler would claim there is a "correct policy response" given his previous humility in epistemology. What are we aiming at that there should be a response at all? Beware the ugly incentives of central planning; their roots are in the belief in "correct" policy responses.
Posted by: mpkomara at Jul 15, 2008 5:26:14 PM
Tyler:
Anything "too big to fail" is, de facto, part of the government. Best to nationalize to so tax money is not transfered to executives and private shareholders. The US financial system really needs to be more honest.
Posted by: zanon at Jul 15, 2008 9:42:46 PM
P. Blank writes: "Are there “inverse-Pareto efficiencies”, where you cannot make someone worse off without making someone else better off?"
Certainly, provided the basic fabric doesn't tear (few opportunities in the Great Depression).
As I've posted before, unless housing prices go down, millions of people (my daughter who teaches elementary school among them) won't find anything affordable. But the process of lowering real housing prices is going to be painful. So she, and you, will benefit from housing price declines.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Jul 15, 2008 11:14:30 PM
May as well nationalize the terrible twosome. Then people will know them for what they really are: taxpayer funded housing subsidies. Up until now, it was arguable that they were something other than, and a lot of good people got tricked as a result. Frankly, talking about Fannie and Freddy's misbegotten nature in good company used to get you treated like a loon, no matter which way your crowd voted in an election, Democrat or Republican.
Posted by: Jason Armstrong at Jul 16, 2008 12:41:23 AM
Short sellers like vultures are a key part of an good ecosystem, and do a hard days work for their meals.
Posted by: nyongesa at Jul 16, 2008 6:33:04 AM
Flyff gold
flyff Penya
flyff money
buy flyff penya
cheap flyff penya
cheap flyff gold
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 18, 2009 10:29:27 PM