LyrArc Article Gist
Hubbard at Columbia, Scott at Harvard, and Zingales at University of Chicago, go over the options. Bad bank option has the drawback that you have assets that are written down and you put them in a bad bank, but what about all those assets that deteriorate as the economy deteriorates, would'nt they have to be be put in the bad bank too? Banks hold $6 trillion of mortgages and mortgage securities, with mortgage securities of $1.3 trillion. Option two, guaranteeing bad assets has been tried for Citigroup, where taking asset pool of $306 billion which was created, Citigroup absorbed the first $29 billion losses, Treasury and FDIC jointly fund next $15 billion, and Fed holds 90% of remaining losses. The government getting $7 billion in preferred stock with 8% yield. This Citigroup option according to a conservative estimate would cost the government $60 billion after stock warrants received. This would cost for all the banks something like the $700 billion of the TARP, and if bad assets deteriorate further as is likely, could end up costing the government trillions. So this isnt a great option. Hubbard, Scott, and Zogales, say that the option of encouraging banks to spin off toxic assets into separate affiliated bad banks would be a reasonable one. But the government should't guarantee the assets of that bad bank if it poses systemic risk. And banks with negative capital or close to negative capital should be taken over by the government, nationalized, through already established FDIC procedures, such as bridge loans.