Before Coming to the White House, Orszag Called For 'Clarity' on Insolvent Banks
Before he became White House budget director, Peter Orszag headed the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- and in a little-noticed blog post six months ago, he called for "more clarity" on the relative solvency of individual banks as a means to help heal the economic crisis.
Orszag's call for transparency about the financial health of banks came during the early days of the bailout debate, before the Bush Treasury Department abandoned its plan to purchase toxic assets from banks and decided to provide large-scale capital injections instead. The bulk of his blog post is dedicated to a defense of mark-to-market accounting standards, which government financial regulators are about to relax.
Yet Orszag's emphasis on clarifying the solvency question is worth heeding as the Obama Treasury sends mixed signals on whether the results of its coming bank "stress tests" will be made public. The head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said last month that the administration would look to the banks themselves to reveal the outcome of the "stress tests" to the public, while the Times reported outright that not every bank's solvency information would be openly revealed.
Orszag's team, however, is not tasked with determining whether the results of bank solvency testing will become public. The stress tests are being conducted under the purview of Tim Geithner's Treasury Department.
Orszag's blog also touches on the debate over whether the current crisis is one of illiquidity or insolvency, which HuffPo reported on last week. In a foreshadowing of the eventual course of the bailout, the future White House budget director wrote that "restoring solvency to insolvent institutions requires additional capital injections, and one possible source of such capital is the federal government."
















A question. Isn't there a possibility that the Stress Test Data might cause those very same banks to tank when it's revealed they can't hack it?
March 17, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, depending on the results of the stress tests, public disclosure could be problematic for the banks. If they do poorly on the stress tests (i.e. if they are found to be under-capitalized), it could prove difficult to get investors back on board, and could, given the current climate of fear, lead to a run on deposits by account holders. So while I favor transparency in most cases, this is one case where I would want to be convinced that releasing the data would cause no additional harm to the banks, and would serve a useful purpose in terms of making the bailout more efficient.
March 17, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So this is what we'll have. The results of the stress tests will probably leak out, and we'll find out that way.
Or, the banks that pass the stress test with flying colors will publicly announce their results. The others will be tight lipped about it.
However, I would like to know the criteria for the tests, and how easy it will be to fudge ther results. Will this test be done using the new, modified mark to market rules? I have an uneasy feeling that, wow, all the banks are solvent! They just need a little more capital, not much, but just a few more billion $ for this quarter.
March 17, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a reason to keep this secret. The markets would totally tank if some of the big banks were said to be insolvent by the WH.
March 17, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The current laws require insolvent banks to go into receivership to reorganize and get them back to solvency. So, why the pussyfooting around about it, just do it. If those banks are insolvent, they will shortly run out of capital and be forced to go under anyway, only by then the government obligations will be even greater.
Again, by law, no one can lose their deposits in those banks, if they have $250000 or less in that bank in any one account. So, what is the problem?
March 18, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink