Hilson touted over Geithner

[koganbot]

While everyone's talking about the Keri Hilson album having leaked, it's worth noting that the administration's plan for fixing the financial system has also leaked. Early responses are less favorable to Geithner than to Hilson. I didn't understand the plan as reported by the NY Times, hence I don't have an informed opinion. Paul Krugman's reaction is despair (and more detailed despair). Yves Smith calls the plan an abortion and she also uses the words "crappy" (in regard to what will be bought under the terms of the plan) and "idiots" (the administration's perception or misperception of who constitutes the public). And this guy, who may not actually be an economist, puts concerns to music.

(The Hilson, by the way, is yet another interesting album (see Vanessa Hudgens', Ryan Leslie's, and The-Dream's) by someone with no presence or charisma as a singer. So far the bits of beauty and the mere gestures towards passion seem sufficient, somehow, or fairly likable half the time, anyway. Better than I'd expected, though my expectations were lower than some people's. See my reappraisal of "Turnin' Me On" here.)

EDIT: DeLong, on the other hand, seems fairly happy with it, unless I'm misreading his tone, which I may well be. Not that I understand his analysis either, obviously, but my guess is that some of you will, since he's laying things out pretty simply.

Comments

[koganbot]

Andrew Ross Sorkin ('No-Risk' Insurance at F.D.I.C.): These loans, while controversial, were given a warm welcome by the market when they were first announced. And why not? The terms are hard to beat. They are, for example, "nonrecourse," which means that if an investor loses money, he owes taxpayers nothing. It's the closest thing to risk-free investing — with leverage! — around.

But, as we've learned the hard way these last couple of years, risk-free investing is an oxymoron.

So where did the risk go this time?

To the F.D.I.C., and ultimately, to us taxpayers. A close reading of the F.D.I.C.'s statute suggests the agency is using a unique — some might call it plain wrong — reading of its own rule book to accomplish this high-wire act.

. . .

The F.D.I.C. is insuring the program, called the Public-Private Investment Program, by using a special provision in its charter that allows it to take extraordinary steps when an "emergency determination by secretary of the Treasury" is made to mitigate "systemic risk."

Simple enough, but that language seems to bump up against another, perhaps more important provision. That provision clearly limits its ability to borrow, guarantee or take on obligations of more than $30 billion.

. . .

So how is the F.D.I.C. planning to insure more than $1 trillion in new obligations? This is where things get complicated and questions are being raised.

The plan hinges on the unique, and somewhat perverse, way the F.D.I.C. values the loans. It considers their value not as the total obligation, but as "contingent liabilities" — meaning what it expects it could possibly lose. As the F.D.I.C's charter dictates: "The corporation shall value any contingent liability at its expected cost to the corporation."

So how much does the F.D.I.C. think it might lose?

"We project no losses," Sheila Bair, the chairwoman, told me in an interview. Zero? Really? "Our accountants have signed off on no net losses," she said. (Well, that's one way to stay under the borrowing cap.)

By this logic, though, the F.D.I.C. appears to have determined it can lend an unlimited amount of money to anyone so long as it believes, at least at the moment, that it won't lose any money.