» This Story:Read +|Watch +|Talk +| Comments

Economy Watch Live Updates on the Financial Crisis | MORE » | Business Home »

Page 2 of 3   <       >

U.S. Forces Nine Major Banks To Accept Partial Nationalization

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

During debates on Capitol Hill, Paulson repeatedly described that measure as a way to shore up ailing financial institutions by buying their troubled mortgage securities and other assets.

This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

Now that he has decided to use the $250 billion installment to pump capital directly into the banking system, he is planning to immediately ask Congress for a second installment of $100 billion to buy or insure the assets from institutions, according to congressional staff and banking industry executives briefed on the plan.

"When I was talking to members of Congress back then, they believed they were voting to buy up troubled assets, not to make capital infusions in banks," said Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist and a former Fed vice chairman. "If I were a member of Congress, I would be wondering about bait and switch because that was not really discussed."

Among the first to push the idea of injecting money into banks in exchange for an equity stake was Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who proposed the idea at a Sept. 18 night meeting on Capitol Hill that included legislators as well as Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

After Paulson described his plan for the Treasury to buy up mortgage backed securities, Bachus suggested there were certainly other ways to address the crisis. "There has to be alternatives," he recalled telling the group, in an account that is consistent with accounts of others who were present at the meeting. "Why not inject capital into the institutions?"

At the meeting, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) expressed support for the idea, according to people at the meeting.

But Treasury officials "said this is a crisis and that there was no time," Bachus said. Paulson "was very fearful that if we didn't do something immediately, we were going to see terrible things happen."

He said he thought that Paulson had acted with "integrity" but that "I do believe they had this one plan, and they were saying 'This is it.' "

Bachus answered the objection by saying that the government could take a non-voting stake in the institutions. But opponents in the meeting, including Treasury, were unmoved.

"I do think there were some ideological predisposition against capital injections," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said of the meeting. Also, "their view was that it would take too long because you'd have to do it on a bank-by-bank basis."

Yesterday, few lawmakers took issue with the plan to recapitalize banks. But key Democrats argued that strict executive compensation limits should apply to any institution that accepts government money.

"Restrictions on executive compensation will ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted enriching the same people whose poor decision-making created this crisis," Schumer wrote in a letter to Paulson yesterday. "It is imperative that these restrictions, including limitations on the incentives for executives to take excessive risks and the elimination of golden parachutes, should apply to any capital injection program."


<       2        >


» This Story:Read +|Watch +|Talk +| Comments
© 2008 The Washington Post Company