评论垃圾回收法案和破产法案 -- by DaFo

armhy

不长篇大论了, 只列提纲.

1, 垃圾回收法案上次已经说了. 现在通过了. 是政府出钱, 收购银行的有毒资产. 政府拿纳税人的钱, 给银行剥离有毒资产. 能让几大银行免于破产. 市场在欢呼这个法案.

2, 而正讨论的破产法案可以让mortgage不一定失去房子, 而是和银行协商, 从而降低欠银行的债务.比如张三(不一定是次贷者我特意去看了条款)申请个人破产, 欠银行40W的房子抵押贷款. 可以因房子降价而变成20W. 这个发暗民主党搞,凹八马更是要和垃圾收购法案捆绑. 看来通过在所难免.

3, 如果说1只是让政府和纳税人欠了更多债务, 但避免大银行倒闭而发生经济休克, 还有点理由的话. 破产降低房子的债务,则会带来灾难性的后果. 直接被淘汰的是很多信用卡公司和车贷者. 因为那些本来已经没资格住在房子的人, 利用这法案降低房子的债务时候,他申请破产了, 他的信用卡和车欠钱全以便购销. 留给这些公司巨大的突然的坏帐从而导致很多类似的公司立即破产.这点怕是向左转的奥八马门在讨好选民的时候不曾想的.

4, 日本曾经搞过类似的破产法案. 辩论了近一年. 一实行, 立即大批人申请破产. 只几个月, 日本信用卡公司的balance降了30%(就是信用卡行业损失了30%的业务). 大量信用卡公司破产. 经济此后又长期低米.

5, 这个破产法案破坏经济的基本原理是: 一些人利用这一法案免除个人债务. 他申请破产, 依靠法律,可以不执行原来签的抵押贷款协议而是和银行重新协商. 那么这些房子价格会继续大幅度下降. 他们同时顺便就把欠的信用卡钱和车贷给免了.信用业务的减少, 消费低迷, 经济低迷. 同时房子价格持续下跌. 美国已经国有的FRE/FNM的带来的损失更大. 让美国政府背上更长期的包袱.

6, 这个破产法案给金融业带来毒药的原理是: 信用卡的利息是很高因为信用卡没抵押, 风险大. 房贷款利息低是因为有抵押风险小. 而该法案,让房贷的抵押成协议无法执行. 那么房贷的风险就大幅度增加. 那么房贷的利息也就会增加. 还有因为房贷款的风险大了, 那些FIX INCOME的投资者就会谨慎甚至不投. 那么房贷款公司融资成本提高. 还是导致房贷利息上涨. 房贷款利息上涨会加大房子价格的下降压力.房子价格持续下降的后果大家都很清楚了.

7, 政治上大幅度的左右转化, 一定是带来不顾及后果的, 欠深思熟虑的, 而且很容易因狂热通过的有毒法案. 社会成本是高昂的.中国80年代还是表面繁容的情况下搞的左转右, 搞十年也是GDP排名下降低3位. 原来的左或右本是好的, 但是因长期搞的结果, 太极端.比如BUSH的自由发展经济, 能提高经济效率, 但太自由了对金融行业缺乏监管, 等能源行业缺乏监控, BUSH也搞过破产法案,不过是增加破产难度. 现在都向另一极端演化. 最终的结果不容乐观. 但有一点可以肯定, 政府和纳税人的债务会天文数字的爆炸.

8, 对市场影响上. 垃圾回购法案, 让市场欢呼. 破产法案, 则是毒药. 尤其对信用卡和车行业. 市场欢呼涨的时候, 等破产法案通过, 就是空的机会. 当然, 凹八马各种奇怪的法案还会有. 但这个政客我觉得是个酱克.

http://gaofamily.com/viewtopic.php?t=9114&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=435&sid=88d0de2dd5c90a623ff7728479700846

unipeak

:(310)::(310)::(310):

happylux

Nice analysis.

jackie8443

学习

再问下，政府出钱是按什么价格收购有毒资产？市场价的话银行就惨了。

gldloser

JL01

Thanks much for information.

李隆基

pricing 是个问题

usami

我想问一句： 这些道理难道08那些高参们不懂？  如果他们懂的话， 那为啥还要这么干呢， 总有原因吧， 不论是私还是公。

李隆基

保护银行大股东的利益

lite1067

US now is ruled by populist... as O8 told republican congressmen, "I won. I trump over you"

gear

Nice

Taurus168

I still don't understand the outcome if US government just lets bank go bankruptcy.  Could HH explain?  I don't understand if bank isn't profitable last year, how come that they have big bonus?

ybgx

I will worry about national bankruptcy, hahaha...

yaobooyao

Everybody knows the issue and root cause of the crisis.

The real challenge is how to execute the plan,  like right now the 'Bad Bank' idea,  nobody can tell how to define a proper 'bad asset' price,  make the buyer happy, and keep the bank alive. And where is the money to pay it, as US is deeply buried under government debts.

Maybe to resolve the financial crisis caused by high leverage, the government have to use leverage as a tool?  I don't think the can bear the real money burden to save their banking system.

The fundamental of the strategy is, how to create a new market system that doesn't violate 'MARK TO THE MARKET/FAIR VALUE' accounting rule, but at the same time to by pass it so that save banks balance sheet crisis.

The systematic risk of high leverage is,  suddenly the capital liquidity stop flowing,  everyone will be panic at the same time,  and the funny thing is buyer/seller all gone bankruptcy at the same time.  Just like Buffet said about when the tide off, you will see who is naked.  The funny thing here is every banker naked.

maple888

dafo

Baruch

Thanks.

tu1990

Ding. Thanks.

marole

Here are my two cents.
1. Five possible routes for the current crisis.
Nationalization. It is bad for equity holders as well as some credit holders. And when a big guy is taken by the government, the rest will fall as well. If the nationalization route is taken, the government will not gain much because it lacks efficiency, experience and the market will be in more severe seizure. On the other hand, private equities who participate in the asset sale may benefit the most. It will also be a hit to the general equity market.  The economy may recover sooner but the investment will not be as active as early 2000. A series of tight regulation will accompany the nationalization. It may not be bad thing.
"Bad bank". The pricing of the assets is one problem. But politics is the other. How to talk the lawmakers into giving another 1 or 2 or more trillions is tough. Back to the pricing issue, I personally think there is always compromise can be made if the situation is really bad. Some of the people who speak against the bad bank are likely the ones waiting for the nationalization, like Julian Robertson and Meredith Whitney. But no matter how the "bad bank" is played, tax money will not be fully recovered.
"Let them die". This is equivalent to the nationalization because the government has stake in the banking system.
Keep injecting capital and etc. If nothing is done about the balance sheets, banks will not do any good to the economy. The only hope is that we can wait it out. However, this also may end up as the nationalization when the breaking point is reached.
Hybrid. We actually don't need the full capacity of the lending power of the banks. So set up a small "bad bank", insure some future loss and get some common shares.

Everyone is playing an angle.

ybgx

Do you want to continue?

gdtrader

哪里通过了？？坏银行方案难产了！