Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business

Do we have a plan, people?

The reports keep coming (and they started, sort of, right here on this blog) that Treasury is putting together a plan that will involve recapitalizing banks (in exchange for equity stakes), temporarily guaranteeing all deposits, and guaranteeing all bank debt maturing in the next 36 months or so. There's talk in D.C. that they may make some kinda big announcement on it today. (Update: Now the talk is probably not today.)

What this amounts to is the Swedish solution--a plan of action nearly identical, albeit it of course on a much larger scale, to what the Swedish government undertook during a banking crisis in 1993. And while I certainly am not gonna take credit for introducing this idea (the Swedes should get that, and they in turn give some of it to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his bank rescue in 1933; plus some guy at the Cleveland Fed wrote a paper on "The Swedish Experience" [pdf] more than a year ago), there was a time early this year when I and Merrill Lynch's David Rosenberg were about the only people discussing it as a legitimate possibility and others seemed to think we were a little nuts. Wrote Paul Krugman back in March:

Justin Fox suggests that we learn from the way Sweden dealt with its financial crisis at the beginning of the 90s. I'm looking into it.

What Justin doesn't mention, however, is that (according to Reinhart and Rogoff [pdf!]) the resolution of Sweden's financial crisis imposed a fiscal burden — that is, required a taxpayer-financed bailout — equal to 6 percent of GDP. That would be $850 billion in America today. Just saying.

The Swedes say that they ended up recouping a lot of their losses and that in the end the cost was somewhere between 2% and 0% of GDP. But whatever: At the time my response to Krugman was:

[A]n $850 billion price tag attached to a cleanup that resolves most of the current credit problems, wipes out the shareholders of insolvent institutions, and leaves us with a more rational regulatory setup (as the Swedish bailout seems to have done) actually sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

I'll stand by that. And if Treasury needs any advice on exactly how to proceed, Stefan Ingves, one of the main behind-the-scene architects of the Swedish rescue, is in Washington for the IMF-World Bank meetings (he's now head of Sweden's central bank). So is Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden's Minister of Fiscal and Financial Affairs in those days and now runs the Swedish National Debt Office. I have Lundgren's cell phone number in case Hank Paulson needs it.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (4)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    Just curious....

    the Swedish solution "worked", in part, because that nation has a very strong social safety net for its citizens. Does your bailout scheme include additional spending to ensure that the social/economic impact of the proposal do not result in disproportionate (and undeserved) suffering for poor and lower-middle class americans?

    Additionally, its clear that much of this crisis is due to its "pyramid scheme" nature -- money and debt became a commodity in its own right to not merely trade in, but speculate with. Do your recommendations include safeguards against this happening again? (I'm personally in favor of a graduated sales tax on investments that is pegged to how long the investment has been held--and no tax if an investment is held for two years, and higher capital gains taxes on profits realized through higher stock prices than on dividend distribution.)

  • 2

    I think we should all just move to a central lending platform like https://us.zopa.com/

  • 3

    and as another idea, why don't we get those developing world micro-lenders to come here and start making some loans.

  • 4

    I have been for a version of the Swedish Plan because:

    1) It worked.

    2) It's clearer, easier to understand, and therefore easier to assess, and so likely to be cheaper than hybrid/compromise plans.

    3) It's what the markets are actually counting on.

    4) It will be easier to exit.

    Do you agree that it will be easier to exit? I do, precisely because it is clearer and easier to assess.

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Curious Capitalist Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
ROBB LEVIN, resident of Fairfax, Virginia, on the $15,000 lawsuit settlement made against Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the White House gate crashers, who are also involved in at least 15 other civil suits

Stay Connected with TIME.com