Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congressman Pete DeFazio offers Bailout Alternative:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:32 PM
Original message
Congressman Pete DeFazio offers Bailout Alternative:
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.


Sincerely

Peter DeFazio
Member of Congress

http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=441
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. I understand point #5, but I'll have to wait til Thursday so Sarah can explain #s 1-4 to us.
Really, thank you for posting this. I have to read it over a couple more times to understand it before I comment on the content.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I've heard many people say we have a Trust problem, not a Liquidity problem...
Too much opacity in the markets.

Seems to me the fix is to establish true value instead of buying junk at face value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. "Trust" as in confidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Ditto. Must mull this over before being able to assess it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. well, it's a brilliant acronym anyway....
Edited on Tue Sep-30-08 07:44 PM by mike_c
It's certainly better than Paulson's monstrous taxpayer rip off. But we need to include incentives to set monetary policy that raises the value of the dollar, not further weakens it. I'm not sure whether this would do that-- if it doesn't require any subsidies it shouldn't require increasing the money supply-- I mean, where else would the government get several hundred billion dollars for buying bad debt under the Paulson "plan" except through borrowing at interest, then "creating" the money to cover what Congress authorized it to borrow and ultimately sending the bill to taxpayers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. We're going to restore confidence by pretending banks have money and assets?
Obviously, mark to market is going to have to be re-explained to me. Keep in mind that I believe short selling is fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I'm no expert, but Mark to Market
Allows institutions to value assets at a theoretical future market value when the asset has little or no immediate market value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_to_market

The banks do have assets, they are not worth much in the short term. If you own a mortgage that has been foreclosed, at least you have a claim to the property the mortgage was taken out on. It may not be possible to sell the property for face value, but it is still an asset. "Illiquid" is a term I was hearing recently. So Mark to Market would probably allow them to value a mortgage at face value.

DeFazio seems to be making some recommendations that would prevent this kind of nonsense from happening in the future, but does not address the problems of victims of predatory lenders.

At least he is not recommending we fork over a $700,000,000,000 ransom to a gang of crooks! In fact this is not spending any money at all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC