[Assam] Pandit's Amortization Trial Balloon: Can It Float US Out of Crisis?
assamrs at gmail.com
Sat Feb 14 20:04:48 IST 2009
I have become rusty over the years on these matters. From my understanding,
the banks are not able to off load these toxic assets... in fact, at any
more than $.30 offered by the PPIB. Basically, the loss (to the banks) is
being written off over 10 years till the economy catches up.
The banks will be more than happy to off load these assets, and then allowed
to amortize the difference at 10% a year:) Who else will take it off the
banks? That is why the Treasury Secy.'s PPIB will have to step in.
- Bank surrenders certain "toxic assets" to the PPIB
- Bank declares such assets as a "loss" but does not record the entire
loss to its income statement
- Bank writes down a portion of the "loss" immediately and schedules to
do same over the life of the asset
- Bank retains the ability to revalue such assets over time via a note
The last sentence should be the give away. I'm sure banks will urge the PPIB
to revalue (upward) in a few years.
Maybe some other netters will be able to shed some more light here.
BTW: C'da, hope you did not miss the good stuff ... the accompanying "world
in review" videos by the
Miyanville (Fox Business news) .
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Chan Mahanta <cmahanta at charter.net> wrote:
> I don't understand this economics mumbo-jumbo, but I saw a question in the
> feedback section Ram.
> What do you make of this:
> Why transfer to the PPIB if the suggested amortization accounting
> rule gives the bank the
> help it needs? Better to keep the toxic assets with the bank which
> has the highest
> motivation to sell for a good price.
> At 12:52 AM -0600 2/14/09, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
>> To those who might be interested in this sort of thing, this seems to be a
>> logical solution out of the present crisis.
>> This from Forbes and
>> Pandit's Amortization Trial Balloon: Can It Float US Out of Crisis? Vinny
>> Catalano <http://www.minyanville.com/gazette/bios.htm?bio=112> Feb 12,
>> 1:00 pm [image: Pandit's Amortization Trial Balloon: Can It Float US Out
>> of Crisis?]
>> Here's how the scheme might work.
>> At yesterday's congressional hearing, *Citigroup*'s
>> CEO Vikram Pandit floated what looked to me like a trial balloon that may
>> turn out to be the path out of the credit-induced economic crisis and, in
>> the process, put to bed the doomsayers' chatter about insolvent banks.
>> In reply to a question from Congressman Gutierrez from Illinois -- who
>> started off referencing a meeting the congressman and Mr. Pandit had the
>> before -- Mr. Pandit, with an intriguing smile on his face, described what
>> sounded to me like an
>> in which the mark-to-market created losses for certain assets could
>> be realized by the banks, not as an immediate and complete hit to the
>> statement (thereby impacting the balance sheet and, therefrom, the capital
>> requirements of the bank), but on an amortized basis over time, which will
>> have the effect of limiting the preposterous losses induced by illiquid
>> markets and their last sale/"fair value" price.
>> To refresh your memory, mark-to-market is an ancient theory tied to the
>> belief that markets are efficient and that the last price represents the
>> fair value of an asset. This is an absurd view of reality and human nature
>> one that should have died a long time ago but still lingers in the minds
>> hearts of the free-market advocates and their closet efficient market
>> cohorts (who don't have quite the faith in unfettered markets as
>> advocates do, yet still can't buy into the behavioral-science fact of
>> inefficient markets in illiquid assets and over short time frames).
>> The Pandit amortization balloon would, in effect, achieve what the
>> alteration and/or elimination of mark-to-market would have accomplished -
>> conciliation between the last sale = fair value mark-to-market ideologues
>> and those grounded in the reality of the behavioral sciences. In other
>> words, a normalization of value that could be adjusted when markets are
>> By surrendering their "toxic assets" to the Private/Public Investment
>> proposal of Secretary Geithner at an acceptable price to the buyers
>> (hedge funds and others who will demand to buy at the lowest possible
>> price), banks would not be forced to record the entire "loss" all at once,
>> thereby generating hits to their balance sheets, thereby incurring further
>> capital charges (making them "insolvent"). This results in what it's
>> resulted in thus far: limited lending.
>> While I don't know exactly what Mr. Pandit had in mind, here's how the
>> amortization scheme might work:
>> - Bank surrenders certain "toxic assets" to the PPIB
>> - Bank declares such assets as a "loss" but does not record the entire
>> loss to its income statement
>> - Bank writes down a portion of the "loss" immediately and schedules to
>> do same over the life of the asset
>> - Bank retains the ability to revalue such assets over time via a note
>> from PPIB
>> In dollars and cents, here's how this works:
>> - "Toxic assets" held on the books for $0.80 on the dollar are
>> surrendered to PPIB at $0.30 on the dollar
>> - PPIB (Treasury and investors) own the assets at $0.30
>> - Bank lists a $0.50 off-balance
>> that is amortized at 10% per year, or $0.05 to the income statement
>> (and then to the balance sheet)
>> - Over time, markets become more normalized, the economy recovers and
>> "toxic assets" rise in value to $0.60, where they come due and cease to
>> - Bank, which has written down the loss over several years, say $0.30
>> cents in total, now realizes a $0.10 gain ($0.60 cents final value,
>> amortized value still on the books, $0.10 gain)
>> *Investment Strategy Implications*
>> Mark-to-market, the disastrous decision that turned a bad recession into a
>> credit -- and now economic -- crisis, needs to be dealt with. Since the
>> forces aligned against its elimination and/or modification are too
>> formidable for the current and past government officials to overcome,
>> getting around the insane rules is the next best thing. Amortizing the
>> losses for illiquid assets with the prospects of capturing any price
>> recovery would make infinitely more sense than continuing the current
>> of efficient-market fantasy thought.
>> Who knows what plans are being hatched behind closed doors. Maybe the
>> scenario is wishful thinking on my part. However, if this or some
>> of getting around the consequences of mark-to-market, produces anything
>> approaches the above scenario, the economic crisis will clearly become a
>> whole lot less intense. And the global economy will benefit immensely.
>> Maybe that's why
>> withstood so much recent bad news and appear to be building a solid
>> base for a sustainable rally.
>> assam mailing list
>> assam at assamnet.org
> assam mailing list
> assam at assamnet.org
More information about the assam