"

• DECEMBER 29, 2009

After the Bailouts, Washington's the Boss

By BOB DAVIS, DEBORAH SOLOMON and JON HILSENRATH

In 2008 and 2009, Washington strove to save the economy. In 2010, Americans will get a clearer picture of how Washington has changed the economy.

Only as the recession recedes will it become fully evident how permanently the state's role has expanded and whether, as a consequence, a new, hybrid strain of American capitalism is emerging.

One thing is clear: The government is a much bigger force in today's U.S. economy than it was before the financial crisis. "The frontier between the state and market has shifted," says Daniel Yergin, whose 1998 book "Commanding Heights" chronicled the ascent of free-market forces starting in the 1980s. "The realm of the state has been enlarged."

To prevent crumbling housing and credit markets from sinking the broad economy, the Bush and Obama administrations and the Federal Reserve spent, lent and invested more than $2 trillion on one initiative after another. If you owned a credit card or a money-market fund, had a savings account, bought a Dodge pickup or even a hunting rifle, or borrowed to buy a home or finance a small business, odds are good that the U.S. stood behind you or the firm that served you.

Washington pumped $245 billion into nearly 700 banks and insurance companies and guaranteed almost $350 billion of bank debt. It made short-term loans of more than $300 billion to blue-chip companies. It propped up life insurers and money-market funds.

It bailed out two of the three U.S. auto makers. It lent billions trying to jump-start commercial-real-estate, small-business and credit-card lending. In two February stimulus bills enacted a year apart, the government committed $955 billion to rouse the economy.

Today the U.S. government, directly or indirectly, underwrites nine of every 10 new residential mortgages, nearly twice the percentage before the crisis. Just last week, the Treasury said it would cover an unlimited amount of losses at mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through 2012.

Those who defend this robust interventionism and those who decry its effects are vying to shape the nation's take on the events of the past 16 months.

Lawrence Summers, President Barack Obama's chief economic adviser, says the intervention was essential, short-term therapy, not a reinvention of capitalism. "Our overarching goal was to save an economy that was near the abyss, where depression looked like a real possibility," he says. By that measure, he sees success: "The kind of financial and economic collapse that looked very possible last fall appears remote right now."

The bailouts "were designed to be, and have proved to be, temporary," Mr. Summers says. "There is no aspiration of any kind to change the private-sector basis of our economy."

Even so, he says government won't return to its pre-crisis form. "The way our financial system was operating was much more fragile than many had supposed. Those events point up a need for substantial changes in the way in which we regulate the economy and regulate finance," he says.

John Taylor, a former Bush Treasury official who is now a Stanford University economist, says the government's role will be far greater than Mr. Summers suggests. "While we may be past the emergency, we're still in a mode that will create similar interventions for quite a while, even for minor emergencies," he says. "We have a bailout mentality in this country."

One concern: Even if the government withdraws, business will expect bailouts in the next crisis, and that will inspire another round of cavalier risk-taking. "If we don't re-regulate the banking system properly, we'll either get very slow growth from overregulation, or another financial crisis in just 10 to 15 years," says Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and co-author of a new book on financial crises since the Middle Ages.

The story isn't over yet.

Although the economy is growing, unemployment remains a very high 10%. It is far from clear how strongly the economy will grow when the adrenaline of stimulus is withdrawn.

In finance, the recovery has been striking. Since bottoming on March 9, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 60%, and financial stocks have more than doubled. Yields on junk bonds, issued by companies with the highest risk of default, have fallen from almost 17 percentage points above yields on Treasury bonds in March to about 6.5 points higher now. That signals both an improving economy and a renewed investor appetite for risk.

Most big banks appear back on their feet. Of the $245 billion invested in bank shares by the Troubled Asset Relief Program, more than $175 billion has been repaid. Since the Treasury tested the financial strength of 19 large financial firms in May, they have raised $136 billion in equity capital and borrowed $64 billion without U.S. guarantees.

But the strengthening of the big banks may be distorting the market. Although smaller banks have long had a higher cost of funds than big ones, the gap has widened. The gap averaged 0.03 percentage point for the first seven years of the decade, but it jumped to a 0.66-point disadvantage for smaller banks in the four quarters ended Sept. 30, estimates Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank. That suggests investors think the government would bail out big banks, but not small ones, if crisis erupted anew, he says.

Not all of the rescues look successful. The U.S. had to redo its initial bailouts of giant insurer American International Group Inc. and of GMAC Financial Services, which was once a car-finance and mortgage firm and is now a bank holding company. Both remain unable to raise private capital.

"

Click here for a lot more of this article. . .

==================================

Very good article. I have to re-read this one, slowly this time (thanks to my new glasses that have just arrived today!) LOL

Since I had been watching the Fed's balance sheet a bit a while ago, I found that last chart particularly interesting. I am not so sure that Fed's assets being so down is a good thing. Has the Fed in fact increased its dependence on the government in this process? It appears to be the case.



-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 28th of December 2009 05:21:16 PM