The Economist looks at the 3 options facing Britain and America to tackle the financial crisis, and evaluates each option for its merits. It says nationalization is an option, and adds that it supported the nationalization of Northern Rock in the UK early on. Where nationalization is the best option considering the scale of the problem, as in the case of RBS in the UK, this should be followed without exacerbating the problem by pretending that it can be avoided. With its huge losses and large committments by the government of Britain, the state ends up with majority ownership. So for individual banks this policy would be a good one. With the government on both sides of the table, this avoids the major problem of how to value the assets, and of the bank's shareholders plotting to grab taxpayer's money. Expect to hear more about nationalization as a best option under the circumstances, says the Economist. This may also be because the situation is likely to get much worse in 2010. The single most important criteria should be it says returning the individual bank to good health. The other option is to collect toxic assets in a bad bank, with the clean bank rid of these assets not having to set aside reserves for losses of an unknown magnitude. This helps get lending and credit starting to flow again if banks are more willing to lend. The third option is guarantees by the government regarding the bad assets and insurance. The Economist does not think the insurance and gurarantees offered by the British government recently will work by itself, and feels it should have been combined with the separation of toxic assets of banks in a bad bank. The Economist also feels scale will be needed considering the magnitude of the problem and its continual escalation....
Original article 7 minutes, gist 1 minutes