TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Paulson Responds To Stiglitz Criticism

We just highlighted a Bloomberg story in which Joseph Stiglitz and other economists story slammed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for not driving a hard enough bargain on behalf of taxpayers when investing the TARP funds.

So it's probably only fair that we post Paulson's response, from an interview Bloomberg TV just conducted with Paulson:

Well, what we were looking to do was not to replicate one off private sector deals. The market was under great stress and the private sector was extracting very, very severe terms and what we were attempting to do, which I think we did successfully was design a program that would be accepted by a large group of healthy banks with terms that replicate what you would get in normal market conditions. And the other point I will make here - this is an investment and I find it highly, highly likely that the taxpayer will get this money and get this money back with a profit because these are preferred, these are - as long as the financial system remains intact and stable, which it will, that these will come back to the taxpayer.

And our objective was not to say how tough a deal can we give to the banks because then what we would have is we would have a - not a program for healthy banks. We would have a failing bank program and it would have a much different complexion. And again, I think history will show that the financial system needed a lot of capital and if you leave it to the banks to say I really need capital, what you're going to get is you're only to get them when they're desperate. And otherwise, what they're going to do is shrink and not play the role we need them to play and pull in their horns. And we needed to get a program that would be accepted by a lot of banks and would provide very much needed capital. So that was the philosophy of the program.


11 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

WTF? This was a program for healthy banks? So Paulson means the "troubled" in TARP was just sort of advisory, and this was actually just a general Asset Relief Program.

if you leave it to the banks to say I really need capital, what you're going to get is you're only to get them when they're desperate. And otherwise, what they're going to do is shrink and not play the role we need them to play and pull in their horns.

Well, gosh, it's a good thing all of the banks that took TARP funding have been going right back out there and unfreezing the credit market.

Of course, from a practical point of view Paulson knows he doesn't have to say anything that makes sense: he got the money, he distributed it to his cronies, and the new guy is coming in in another couple week with no recourse whatsoever.

user-pic

"with no recourse whatsoever"

I believe TARP allows Congress to change the terms of the deals. The banks might squawk, but let them.

user-pic

You've got that right.

And how does Paulsen's excuse explain why so many companies rushed to become banks? So that they would be reluctant to ask for cash, or so that they could get a handout, whether or not they needed and deserved it?

There's a circle in Hell where Paulsen and his ilk will end up. And they can all find out what it's like to get some regulation in the underworld.

user-pic

The "role we need them to play"?

user-pic

Well, wasn't the whole point of this bailout to restore consumer confidence? OK, I have it now. I have confidence in the fact that our banks (Paulson's buddies) will continue to make bushels full of money to do whatever they want with, their CEOs will continue to receive huge, obscene salaries, bonuses, and golden parachutes, and we the people will continue to be screwed! Any questions? Thought not!

user-pic

"consumer confidence" was not the target of TARP. Banking, or financial markets, confidence was.

I think TARP was shoved through without sufficient facts on the table and without sufficient leverage and oversight in the deals.


user-pic

It may have been "fair" to give him his chance to rebut, but it certainly did him no favors. The tide is going out, and we see his choice of attire... or not.

user-pic

With oratorical skills like those, Henry, you should consider running for public office.

user-pic

"And we needed to get a program that would be accepted by a lot of banks and would provide very much needed capital." Needed for what? If it was to faclitate lending, why is the credit market still frozen?

What a fucking scoundrel! And he's learned to parrot W in saying that history will vindicate him, too!

user-pic

Actually the interbank credit market indicators have loosened considerably in the past 3 months. Whether that is due to TARP, despite TARP, or based on psychological consequences related in part to TARP, I don't claim to know.

As long as the TARP funds are secure (preferred stock etc), it wasn't a blanket giveaway it was an investment. It may not have been the best investment possible, as pointed out nicely by Stiglitz, but it wasn't just throwing the money away.

Given the alternatives (buy toxic assets directly at indeterminate market values, and do nothing), the Stock Injection method struck me as worthwhile at the time. Curiously, the Fed now seems to be buying assets, toxic or otherwise. I wonder if that's basically the same thing TARP set out to do when it was Pauslon's Pig. Maybe asset values are better defined now.


user-pic

Well, just as a reminder as to whom we're dealing with, here's a quote from the 2006 Business Week cover story, "Mr. Risk Goes to Washington" , hailing the guy when he was nominated for Treasury:

"Think of Paulson as Mr. Risk. He's one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in their pursuit of profits. By some key measures, the securities industry is more leveraged now than it was at the height of the 1990s boom. It has also extended its global supremacy since then. Goldman, under Paulson's leadership, became one of the greatest and most profitable risk-taking machines ever built."

Yeah, the banks are so healthy that the Fed had to lend $2 trillion more dollars to them and won't disclose which banks they lent to for 'confidence' reasons.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address