The Brian Sullivan Blog
  • September 24, 2008 11:48 AM EDT by Brian Sullivan

    What Hummers and "The Plan" Have in Common

    Comparing big, bad ole SUVs to big, bad ole mortgage assets is the best I can do in helping convey the key sticking point in the debate over the "Trouble Asset Relief Plan", or TARP (though I am considering calling it just "The Plan," or "TP" for short).

    First things first.  The debate about whether we will have a financial rescue plan is over.   Listening to Sen. Chuck Schumer's opening remarks in front of the Joint Economic Committee hearing happening now, it's clear that some type of massive bailout package is coming.   The primary debate now will be centered around exactly how such a plan will work.   And the single biggest question inside that debate is what price the fund will pay for the assets its meant to buy.

    In talking about this pricing issue, Paulson and Bernanke are throwing around terms such as "market to market," "hold to maturity" and "fire sale price" with PhD ease.  Dont' get lost in the language.  What Paulson is saying, and what Congress must figure out, is simply: do we buy the toxic assets from the banks at extremely depressed prices just to get them off the books, or do we buy the assets at a price that we think the assets may be worth down the road?

    Back to Hummers.

    You own a large SUV and want to sell it.   You paid $30,000 for it a few years ago.   The blue book value of the truck is $20,000 and you owe just under that amount.  Unfortunately, because of the weak economy and high gas prices there are many other similar SUVs on the market and few buyers.   You take it to a local dealer who offers you just $10,000 for it, saying he can't pay more because the market for SUVs has collapsed and he can't sell it for higher than that.    You now are faced with just two choices: 1) sell the SUV at a loss to the dealer because at least you can get rid of the gas-guzzler ("fire-sale price") or 2) hold on to the SUV and hope that gas prices fall and the market for big vehicles comes back ("hold to maturity" price).

    These toxic mortgage assets are the SUV.   Once loved and with high resale values, both have become outcasts with no pricing power.

    Like everything else on Wall Street, you can make an argument for both sides of the "fire sale price" and "hold to maturity" price debate.   And believe me, the argument is being made for both sides.    Forget poltical parties, we now have two economic parties, FSPs and HTMs.  Here are the brief arguments each are making:

    Fire Sale pricing: Get rid of that SUV at all costs, because the cost of ownership is too damaging.  That's the idea behind this concept.   Raise the $700 billion, force sales at severely distressed prices, and cleanse the balance sheets.   Supporters argue that this method, while perhaps not getting as much value as possible, is better because it will open the banks up to more lending.   RIght now credit is still very tight, and opening up lending in our credit-based economy will benefit all.  Critics say this method will limit participation by banks, who will want more money and thus keep credit tight by not cleaning their balance sheets.

    Hold to Maturity pricing:  Buy the SUV at the price it may be worth down the road.  This is what Paulson and Bernake favor.    The Treasury Secretary believes that this approach is best because it will maximize the amount of banks participating in the plan as they wil likely get more than they could for the assets in the current market.    Critics point to this as the primary downside; politcally it looks like even more of a "Wall Street bailout" this way, as banks dump assets at prices more favorable to them.

    Based on the Wall Street dialogue I'm reading, it's likely the latter is going to be the method used.  Paulson holds enormous sway, and despite the grandstanding and questioning of him in these hearings, it's likely Congress will defer to him with regard to the deep details of pricing.

    Either way, we should know by the end of the week just how the Hummer will be sold.

chuck

Brian what struck me about the hearing yesterdays was the fact that they couldn't find a price for a murity price. From my perspective Maturity price would vary with the intrest rates. Now they can't find a maturity price fix. One more thing: most politicians are real clueless about economics. How many congressmen and women have studied econ 101? or Macroeconomics? Or Stock market 101?

September 24, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Scott Ryan Anderson

FANTASTIC analogy Brian. That puts things in perspective for those who are not forensic accountants. I say go ahead, do whatever you have to do; and bail out AIG, banks and the auto industry – but I want 80% equity in each company to go into social security custodial accounts that cannot be touched by any government representative. They should continue to be run by the private sector but the people bailing them out should be given equity. The current management should be ousted and the taxpayers should get at least one seat on the boards of these companies. Perhaps the seats should be elected positions. The companies can take it or leave it if they can get a better deal without the tax payer. My complete essay is called “I’m Not your Sugar Daddy” http://www.tableofwisdom.com/MrArbitrage_on_Market_.html

September 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Greg

It seems to me that there is a middle way. Instead of trying to get it at the lowest possible proce, and perhaps, not getting it at all, why not bid, say, 10% above the fire sale which still should be much lower than the final value at maturity and leave room for a profit for the government and also have an incentive for the present holder to sell now.

September 25, 2008 at 11:31 am

chuck

A reminder: Democrats and Republicans in Congress don't understand economics. Only economics they understand is the personal wallets so they can get reelected. How much money has been wasted on earmarks,pork barrels on useless projects? Now does Senator barack obama seriosuly understand mortgages? Welfare housing that some communities perhaps didn't want to take on? One has to wonder if this congressal incumbents of both parties are going to feel the wrath of the voters becouse they didn't satisfy thie constutients. Oh by the way on Lou Dobbs on CNN last night 57% of the Democrats recieved money from Freddie and Frannie. That includes Dodd and Obama. Will the FBI find some incriminating embarrassing evidence that migh make some Democrats blush? Only the Shadow knows.

September 25, 2008 at 4:40 pm

William Kimbrough

I have a question about the Mortgage Backed Securities. If a security has been packaged and sold to an investor, do they benefit from this plan.

September 25, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Angelique

Newt Gingrich spoke briefly about his recommendation and it sounded promising and interesting. Fox News should allow him to do more briefings about the points he mentioned, so the public can learn more. Obviously, when the bill was proposed in Congress and Clinton signed off on it, the people approving it did not understand the full ramifications/downfall and the epidemic we face now. Obviously they did have a knowledge of the goal to increase the economy, jobs, homeownership, and wealth for the financial sector, Wall Street and the world. I took Economics, law classes, Statistics, Microeconomics in under-grad and graduate school. This bill sounded unsafe from the beginning, and now what I have learned thru various programs with Fox News, the downfall is far worse than the benefits, and we find the goal was never met. Those that defaulted on these funky mortgages are not homeowners today! I hope I can sell my home with a acceptable profit, BEFORE, these defaulted individuals can get their credit cleared thru time, and they can qualify to get loans. It is awful that the people with power (Part of: Congress/Govt Agenies/Financial world/Wall Street) frequently turned a deaf ear to the people in power who realized that this bill is creating an economic epidemic (Part of Congress and diff economic grps). This is a contagious epidemic. I am the classic example: have one car and it is a Hummer, as we work with the same employer. It hurts at the pump, but we do not drive much anymore. It affects our spendable cash. We love the vehicle and use it to haul a camping trailer. We hope we can get parts later on. We have been making more than the required big payment, and owe less than $9,000.00. We are going into retirement next yr, want to relocate out of CA, had planned to sell our home and use equity to help buy another home and pay off our other debt. Our equity value is so diminished because of this housing debacle. Part of this plan should be to give back equity or a portion of it to those making payments regularly. Obviously our good credit does not count. I tried to lower my payment because of the lower interest rate, but was turned down because of the appraisal. Now our plan is to get another job, probably diff employers, buy a used car, relocate and rent our home, place our household goods in storage, and live with family until we can sell with some profit and buy another home. We will keep the house and the Hummer, one to ensure our credit stays good, and two - on down the yrs buy another house, and three - because we love the Hummer. Maybe my great grandchildren can sell the Hummer to a museum for a higher price of $10,000.00 in todays value. Your analogy shows my family is a HTM. My isn't life grand! ;-) Excellent article.

September 25, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Biggly

Greg, look closer. The government itself will not get any profit, even presuming there ever is any. Certainly the ordingary taxpayers will never see a dime. That will go directly to the Federal Reserve - which is NOT part of the government when it suits it, and has the full backing of the government when that suits it instead. If there are profits then it will be private, if there are losses then it will be part of the government. That, in a nutshell, is the Fed. They would not do this with their own money, for if financially worthwhile they'd have already done just that. However if they can give it a shot with YOUR money, why not? Ron Paul has been trying to talk about this stuff for the last 20 years or so but hey, he's a kook and crazy and everything, asides from being exactly right. I'd love to say that finally the US and indeed the world will listen to him but sadly they won't. The bailout will happen, the taxpayer will be stiffed, long term damage will be major but no-one will actually starve. The printed money will make figures rise, just figures, but over time the market will eventually recover. Then the government and Fed will claim credit for the recovery, saying how lucky we are they stepped in! And nothing changes. I sell diet software for a living, see as so many people are fat and need to go on a diet. It sells OK but in truth people don't want to diet, or exercise, they want magic. This isn't even a magic pill, this is more like eating a double pizza to lose weight. It's crazy but there ya go. Biggly.

September 26, 2008 at 12:15 am

Dottie Jahoda

Brian, I simply want to say thanks for the explanation. I've been trying like Heck to wrap my head around what's happening now, and even with Fox News and Fox Business, I haven't really understood. I'm sure your explanation pares it down to a very simple analogy compared to the complexity of the actual MESS, but I get a very clear sense of whats happening. (Especially since your example of the Hummer duplicates my very experience some years ago with a 'slightly-used' Chevy Blazer). I'd like to see the fire sale pricing go forward and then we'll have to swallow the bail out anyway. What I would really like to see is some sort of legislation or way to making sure this type of high-handed finance won't happen again. It seems 'unreal' to see the big financial giants going down. And it means that one really can't trust the authorities or experts, no matter what. I don't have a lot of money, and I have no real material assets, so my losses will be relatively small. But with what I do have, I will be even more cautious in the future. Thank you for this explanation....

September 26, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Scott

Madam Speaker, It is with respect that I as an American citizen request that you respectfully recognize that you have single handedly wrecked this economy and resign your position as Speaker of the House. Since you have been Speaker of the House the American Dollar has declined against the Euro and all other world currencies which has caused prices to go up and economy to go down. Your lack of leadership has drawn our nation to the brink of disaster, and I don't think you really recognize your errors or care about our country. Scott

September 26, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Brutus

Is it any wonder that after Congress avoided the electorate's wishes regarding illegal immigrants and drilling for our own oil, and recently passed a midnight aid bill for car companies that there is NO confidence that Congress will fix the financial problem to the advantage of the electorate, particularly since it appears the central players are the main recipients of Fannie and Freddie lobbyist money. Oh yeah, add in the main execs having failed got enormous bonuses for doing so and are now advising one candidate for pres. Oh yeah, and one more thing, the very people that brought us to this point are now going to fix it. It's hard to respect public officials, business executives, or anyone else in the "elite" let alone trust or believe them.

September 27, 2008 at 9:17 pm

B Scott

Seeing that you are a respected journalist with far more connections in Washington than me, I would ask that the next time you are there,could you go to the Federal Office for Politically Correct Words(I am sure such an office exists) and have them add the following to their no no list... Disaster,Crash,Collapse Depression. You see, these words are seriously affecting my self esteem and dreams for the future, not to mention my being able to sleep at night.Your assistance in this matter is appreciated, I will know if you saw this request as legitimate when I watch the news next week and hear the more appropriate words like Hiccup Stall Trip Sad being used.

September 27, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Lester

Angelique; Tough break on your investment. I have perfect credit and own some stocks and bonds that are worth about 70% of what I paid for them. Perhaps the taxpayers could reimburse me for my losses, too. The USA is not yet a Socialist country...though there is a Presidential candidate who would like to lead us in that direction.

September 28, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Robbie

If we wanted to live in a socialist country, we could move to Europe.

September 30, 2008 at 12:11 pm

about this blog

  • Brian Sullivan joined FOX Business Network (FBN) in April 2008 as an anchor. He co-anchors the 10am-12pm ET hours of the FOX Business block. Prior to joining FBN, Sullivan served as an anchor for Bloomberg Television where he hosted the programs Morning Call and In Focus.

most popular posts