R. Shah Gilani, a retired hedge-fund manager and Money Morning contributing editor who is emerging as an expert on the worldwide financial meltdown, noted that the plan was apparently still that – a plan. Even so, he said that “any bailout plan that directly addresses foreclosures is political posturing that will ultimately be overwhelmed by inevitable economic realities.”

The New York Times carried the first reports of the Bush Administration’s new housing rescue new proposal yesterday…

R. Shah Gilani, a retired hedge-fund manager and Money Morning contributing editor who is emerging as an expert on the worldwide financial meltdown, noted that the plan was apparently still that – a plan. Even so, he said that “any bailout plan that directly addresses foreclosures is political posturing that will ultimately be overwhelmed by inevitable economic realities.”

The New York Times carried the first reports of the Bush Administration’s new housing rescue new proposal yesterday…

According to the newspaper report, this program would be the most sweeping and direct government initiative aimed at home-loan borrowers since the financial crisis started last year. As proposed, the federal government would incur half the loss on a home loan if the mortgage company that controls the loan agrees to lower the borrower’s monthly payment for at least five years. On any given loan, the mortgage company would reduce the payment borne by the homeowner by writing off part of the loan balance, reducing the loan’s interest…

According to the newspaper report, this program would be the most sweeping and direct government initiative aimed at home-loan borrowers since the financial crisis started last year. As proposed, the federal government would incur half the loss on a home loan if the mortgage company that controls the loan agrees to lower the borrower’s monthly payment for at least five years. On any given loan, the mortgage company would reduce the payment borne by the homeowner by writing off part of the loan balance, reducing the loan’s interest…

According to the newspaper report, this program would be the most sweeping and direct government initiative aimed at home-loan borrowers since the financial crisis started last year. As proposed, the federal government would incur half the loss on a home loan if the mortgage company that controls the loan agrees to lower the borrower’s monthly payment for at least five years. On any given loan, the mortgage company would reduce the payment borne by the homeowner by writing off part of the loan balance, reducing the loan’s interest…

The rally was sparked by commitments from the major financial nations to cooperate in getting the credit markets functioning again, and by news that U.S. officials were putting the finishing touches on Washington’s version of a rescue plan under which the U.S. Treasury Department will invest an estimated $125 billion in nine major U.S. banks, and another $125 billion in smaller financial institutions, Bloomberg News reported early this morning (Tuesday).

The White House announced that U.S. President George W. Bush would meet at 7:30 a.m. EDT today with members of his financial markets working group. He’ll make a statement about the plan at 8:05 a.m. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. “Hank” Paulson Jr., U.S. Federal Reserve Chief Ben S. Bernanke and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila C. Bair will discuss the plan during an 8:30 a.m. news conference, MarketWatch.com and Bloomberg both reported.

“These are tough times for our economies, yet we can be confident that we can work our way through these challenges and America will continue to work closely with the other nations to coordinate our response to this global financial crisis,” President Bush told reporters yesterday following a meeting with Italy Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi at the White House.

After an eight-day losing streak – the worst for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index since 1996 – those dramatic worldwide developments were enough to spawn a rally of historic proportions in U.S. shares. The S&P 500 rebounded from its worst week in 75 years with an 11.6% advance, jumping 104.13 points to close at 1,003.35. The Dow zoomed 936.42 points, or 11%, to close at 9,387.61 – eviscerating the previous record of 499 points, set in March 2000, and posting its best percentage gain since 1933.

The Nasdaq Composite Index climbed 194.74, or 12%, to 1,844.25. Sixteen stocks gained for each that fell on the New York Stock Exchange.

Last week’s 18% declines pushed both the S&P 500 and Dow down more than 40% from their peaks last October.

The S&P 500 ended the trading day Friday at 17 times reported earnings of its companies, the cheapest valuation in more than a year. Yesterday’s really boosted the Price/Earnings ratio to 19.2. The S&P 500 is still down 32% this year, positioning it for its worst yearly loss since 1937.

“The worst of the immediate danger is past,” Bruce McCain, chief investment strategist at Key Private Bank (KEY) in Cleveland, which manages $30 billion, told Bloomberg, the well-known financial news service.“It’s always easier when you’ve got markets going up and you’re not having to talk clients back in off the ledge.”

Kevin Divney, chief investment officer at Putnam Investments in Boston, told Bloomberg Television that “the real catalyst is the levels of valuation.”

But not everyone was quite so sanguine. Money Morning Investment Director Keith Fitz-Gerald cautioned that one strong day in the markets – even a record one – doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a full-fledged rebound in store.

“The real economic growth rates in the financial sector are unclear,” Fitz-Gerald said in an interview. “To say that it’s an accounting nightmare is an insult to the Hollywood honchos who actually make their living transforming nightmares into movies. Fiction writers could not concocted a better horror story than the one that’s rocked world financial markets since last November. Despite all the mergers and acquisitions, and the emergency bailouts, that we’ve seen to date, Wall Street hasn’t even begun to address the underlying business prospects – on anything more than a superficial level – of the lion’s share of the companies that are being bailed out.” [For Fitz-Gerald’s full take on yesterday’s market action – including some insights on how he believes investors should navigate the uncertainty – check out his special market commentary that appears elsewhere in today’s issue.]

All 10 industries in the S&P 500 added more than 7%. Monday’s worldwide rally – which ranged from Tokyo to New York – sent the MSCI World Index up 9.5 %, the biggest gain since the gauge was created in 1970, MarketWatch reported.

The bond market was closed for the Columbus Day holiday. The dollar fell the most in three weeks against the euro.

Details of a Bailout/“Rescue” Plan

On Sunday, the major European Union nations committed more than $2.3 trillion to safeguard their banks and financial system, according to The Associated Press.  Global efforts to rescue the international banking system gathered force yesterday, with Europe leading the way to provide money to shore up its financial sector and calm traders, and the U.S. hinting it’s on board with its own rescue plan, MarketWatch reported. [For details of the sweeping European rescue plan, check out this related report elsewhere in today’s issue of Money Morning.]

U.S. bankers were summoned to the Treasury Department yesterday, as the U.S. government prepared additional measures to stabilize markets, reported the U.S. shortwave broadcasting service, The Voice of America.

Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Paulson had called the heads of the five biggest U.S. banks to come to Washington for face-to-face talks about the rescue plan, according to people briefed on the matter. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein, Morgan Stanley (MS) CEO John J. Mack, Citigroup Inc. (C) CEO Vikram Pandit, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon and Bank of America Corp. (BAC) CEO Kenneth D. Lewis were all asked to attend, according to The AP.

The CEOs had been in Washington this past weekend to meet with international finance officials at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. This group of U.S. banking sector leaders met with Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke for about three hours yesterday, several news sources have said.

When asked for precise details about the plan that’s to be unveiled early today, U.S. Treasury officials remained mum. Indeed, sources would only say that it would include a “series of comprehensive actions to strengthen public confidence in our financial institutions and restore functioning of our credit markets.”

However, after the CEO meetings, some details began to leak out. Industry insiders speculated late yesterday that the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department had outlined a plan to inject as much as $250 billion of the $700 billion rescue plan into top U.S. banks.

In addition, to jumpstart “Interbank” lending, the FDIC would actually insure new senior preferred debt for three years.

The Treasury Department would take the equity stakes in banks using authority it was granted under the $700 billion bank rescue plan enacted two weeks ago.

“We’re talking about making investments in these banks in a way that doesn’t necessarily punish existing shareholders,” Charles Bobrinskoy, vice chairman of Ariel Investments LLC, which manages $13 billion, said on Bloomberg TV. “Most of the bank actions to date in the U.S. have been good for bondholders but terrible for common stockholders.”

Government actions this year to prevent bankruptcies at investment bank Bear Stearns Cos., mortgage lenders Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG) resulted in near-total losses for the firms’ shareholders.

The collapse of New York-based Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ) on Sept. 15 precipitated the latest chapter of the 14-month-old credit crisis, causing banks to stop lending to each other out of concern they may not get their money back.

Direct investments of this magnitude represent a new approach for Treasury Secretary Paulson, who initially advocated a bailout targeted at illiquid mortgage-related assets. When the markets didn’t respond positively to earlier plans, the Treasury Department shifted gears – in a big way.

“They’ve decided they need to do something drastic and this is drastic,” Gerard S. Cassidy, a bank analyst at RBC Capital Markets (RY) in Portland, Maine, told Bloomberg.

The proposed cash injections in exchange for preferred shares are said to be destined for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), JP Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. (MER), Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp. (STT), and Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK).

“The government has gone to ‘Plan B’ and it packs a big wallop,” Frederic Dickson who helps oversee $25 billion as chief market strategist at D.A. Davidson & Co. in Lake Oswego, Oregon, told the financial news service.

The Treasury plans to spend $25 billion each for stakes in Citigroup and JPMorgan, people said. Another $25 billion will be divided between Bank of America and Merrill, which agreed last month to be acquired by Bank of America. Wells Fargo is to get at least $20 billion, Goldman and Morgan Stanley will each get $10 billion, and State Street and Bank of New York will get about $3 billion each, people said.

The government will obtain its stakes with a type of security designed not to dilute the value of common shares.

None of the nine banks getting government money was given a choice about it, said people familiar with the plans. All of the banks involved will have to submit to compensation restrictions as mandated by Congress, people said.

The remaining $125 billion will be used to recapitalize other financial institutions around the country, the people said. Neel Kashkari, the U.S. Treasury official overseeing the rescue of the financial system, yesterday said the equity purchases would be aimed at “healthy” firms.

Source: Dow Zooms to Record Gain Yesterday on Reports The Government Will Reveal Banking Bailout Plan Details Early Today

First, what is the source of the crisis? Is it as is asserted here in this statement from John McCain today?

....

There are certainly plenty of places to point fingers, and it may be hard to pinpoint the original event that set it all in motion. But let me give you an educated guess. The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn't afford them, while turning around and selling those bad mortgages to the banks that are now going bankrupt. Using money and influence, they prevented reforms that would have curbed their power and limited their ability to damage our economy. And now, as ever, the American taxpayers are left to pay the price for Washington's failure.

...

I certainly concur with the first sentence. But I do wonder about the assertion that the problem started with and is fundamentally driven by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After all, neither of these two institutions were at the heart of the massive surge in subprime mortgages that are the most toxic component of these asset backed securities. Smarter people than me (Justin Fox, Tanta at CR h/t Mark Thoma) have been similarly dubious.

Moreover, the originating entities for these subprime mortgages were not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by large, but rather the banks that the Federal government refused to let state agencies regulate. Or the ones the Treasury's OTS itself failed to regulate. To refresh memories, consider this article from December 18, 2007 NYT:

WASHINGTON-- Until the boom in subprime mortgages turned into a national nightmare this summer, the few people who tried to warn federal banking officials might as well have been talking to themselves.

Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford.

But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.

In 2001, a senior Treasury official, Sheila C. Bair, tried to persuade subprime lenders to adopt a code of "best practices" and to let outside monitors verify their compliance. None of the lenders would agree to the monitors, and many rejected the code itself. Even those who did adopt those practices, Ms. Bair recalled recently, soon let them slip.

And leaders of a housing advocacy group in California, meeting with Mr. Greenspan in 2004, warned that deception was increasing and unscrupulous practices were spreading.

John C. Gamboa and Robert L. Gnaizda of the Greenlining Institute implored Mr. Greenspan to use his bully pulpit and press for a voluntary code of conduct.

"He never gave us a good reason, but he didn't want to do it," Mr. Gnaizda said last week. "He just wasn't interested."

Today, as the mortgage crisis of 2007 worsens and threatens to tip the economy into a recession, many are asking: where was Washington?

An examination of regulatory decisions shows that the Federal Reserve and other agencies waited until it was too late before trying to tame the industry's excesses. Both the Fed and the Bush administration placed a higher priority on promoting "financial innovation" and what President Bush has called the "ownership society."

...

On Tuesday, under a new chairman, the Federal Reserve will try to make up for lost ground by proposing new restrictions on subprime mortgages, invoking its authority under the 13-year-old Home Ownership Equity and Protection Act. Fed officials are expected to demand that lenders document a person’s income and ability to repay the loan, and they may well restrict practices that make it hard for borrowers to see hidden fees or refinance with cheaper mortgages.

It is an action that people like Mr. Gramlich and Ms. Bair advocated for years with little success. But it will have little impact on many existing subprime lenders, because most have either gone out of business or stopped making subprime loans months ago.

...

The Fed was hardly alone in not pressing to clean up the mortgage industry. When states like Georgia and North Carolina started to pass tougher laws against abusive lending practices, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency successfully prohibited them from investigating local subsidiaries of nationally chartered banks.

Virtually every federal bank regulator was loathe to impose speed limits on a booming industry. But the regulators were also fragmented among an alphabet soup of agencies with splintered and confusing jurisdictions. Perhaps the biggest complication was that many mortgage lenders did not fall under any agency's authority at all.

...

And for some more concrete examples of how deregulatory zeal had an effect, consider this account from the WSJ (March 22, 2007):

Regulators appointed by President Bush often have been more sympathetic to industry concerns about red tape than their Clinton administration predecessors. When James Gilleran, a former California banker and bank supervisor, took over the OTS in December 2001, he became known for his deregulatory zeal. At one press event in 2003, several bank regulators held gardening shears to represent their commitment to cut red tape for the industry. Mr. Gilleran brought a chain saw.

He also early on announced plans to slash expenses to resolve the agency's deficit; 20% of its work force eventually left. When he left in 2005, Mr. Gilleran declared that the OTS had "exercised increased diligence in its review of abusive consumer practices" while reducing thrifts' regulatory burden. But his successor, Mr. Reich, a former community banker, has reversed many of Mr. Gilleran's cuts. Citing "understaffing," he hired 80 examiners last year and plans to add 40 more this year. A spokeswoman for Mr. Gilleran, now chief executive of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, said he wasn't available to comment.

So, from my perspective, locating the source of the current crisis in corruption/influence peddling surrounding Fannie and Freddie exhibits a misreading of recent history. (More important might have been lax monetary policy and the saving glut, and exemptions from capital requirements for certain investment banks... [see Ritholtz])

Second, how hard will the rescue be given the reckless decisions of the past? It seems that whatever entity is established to purchase these bad assets will require some fiscal outlay. Estimates are all over the place, given that there is so much uncertainty over how much the assets will be bought for and eventually sold; here is one account:

U.S. Debt May Grow $1 Trillion on Rescue, Barclays' Pond Says

By Sandra Hernandez

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. may have to borrow an extra $700 billion to $1 trillion to fund the biggest rescue of the financial system since the Great Depression, according to Barclays Capital Inc.'s Michael Pond.

Federal takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and American International Group Inc.; the central bank's expansion of lending to financial firms; and a slowing economy will add $455 billion to the Treasury's borrowing needs, the New York-based interest-rate strategist estimated. Pond said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan to rid banks of "hundreds of billions" of troubled assets would bring the amount to $700 billion assuming the plan costs $200 billion.

"We could easily add up to an additional trillion to the outstanding Treasury debt just from the initiatives announced over the past couple of weeks," said Pond, ranked the best Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities analyst in 2008 by Institutional Investor magazine.

The government's liabilities swelled in past weeks as policy makers sought to arrest a growing financial crisis by taking over financial institutions threatened by a shortage of capital.

The Treasury on Sept. 7 took over mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said it would buy mortgage-backed debt in the open market. The Fed this week boosted its Treasury auctions to bond dealers by $25 billion, loaned $85 billion to the insurer AIG, and quadrupled the amount of dollars foreign central banks can auction to $247 billion. Paulson today said the government will buy illiquid assets from banks' balance sheets and insure money-market mutual fund holdings.

Deficit Widens

"The odds of the deficit becoming enormous are certainly there," said Nils Overdahl, a bond fund manager in Bethesda, Maryland, at New Century Advisors, which oversees $500 million. "I suspect you will see issuance at a variety of maturities."

The deficit will likely widen to $650 billion in fiscal 2009 because of the U.S. rescue of Fannie and Freddie, analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. wrote in a Sept. 12 report.

Over the next decade, the gap between spending and receipts will swell to $5.3 trillion, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts wrote Sept. 10, revising a previous forecast of $3.6 trillion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office forecast a record $438 billion deficit for 2009 on Sept. 9.

"The deficit will soar to enormous proportions,'' said Lou Crandall, the chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. ``Even before this week's events, estimates based on visible factors were pointing to a deficit above $500 billion next year, with the prospect of billions of mortgage- backed securities on top of that."

See also this Bloomberg article.

Here, I want to return the issue I've brought up countless times before. We cut taxes, and we embarked upon a war of choice, and in addition to the opportunity and fiscal costs, this constrained our range of actions for the future. Even if you thought the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "benefitted" the US economy on net, we know that the war in Iraq has cost on the order of $653 billion nominal dollars from FY03-FY0-09 [2] -- in current dollars that's even more given inflation. Those dollars could have been spent fixing the financial system. Now, we'll have to either borrow or tax to to finance the operation.

So, if you wanted the McCain extension of the Bush tax cuts, and the additional $1.3 trillion tax cuts, then you might wonder about the impact on US borrowing rates. If you were hoping for more domestic initiatives, perhaps to give tax relief to the lower and middle income households, or to invest in infrastructure, the borrowing constraints will be more binding than they otherwise would have been.

Perhaps that's obvious, but sometimes in the midst of crisis, the obvious bears repeating. Here's a picture to illustrate the budget balance outlook pre-intervention....

The purple square is just for illustrative purposes. If you think the Treasury will only have to borrow $350 billion in FY2009, then the orange square is relevant. Further, if we're lucky (and Brad Delong is right), in future years we will recoup all and more of these outlays, so the deficit will be smaller than otherwise. But, in the short run, we'll have to take a hit (of unknown magnitude) now and hope for the best.

Technorati Tags: , subprime, Fannie Mae, Freddie+Mac, and deregulation, Office of Thrift Supervision, and tax cuts.

First, what is the source of the crisis? Is it as is asserted here in this statement from John McCain today?

....

There are certainly plenty of places to point fingers, and it may be hard to pinpoint the original event that set it all in motion. But let me give you an educated guess. The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn't afford them, while turning around and selling those bad mortgages to the banks that are now going bankrupt. Using money and influence, they prevented reforms that would have curbed their power and limited their ability to damage our economy. And now, as ever, the American taxpayers are left to pay the price for Washington's failure.

...

I certainly concur with the first sentence. But I do wonder about the assertion that the problem started with and is fundamentally driven by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After all, neither of these two institutions were at the heart of the massive surge in subprime mortgages that are the most toxic component of these asset backed securities. Smarter people than me (Justin Fox, Tanta at CR h/t Mark Thoma) have been similarly dubious.

Moreover, the originating entities for these subprime mortgages were not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by large, but rather the banks that the Federal government refused to let state agencies regulate. Or the ones the Treasury's OTS itself failed to regulate. To refresh memories, consider this article from December 18, 2007 NYT:

WASHINGTON-- Until the boom in subprime mortgages turned into a national nightmare this summer, the few people who tried to warn federal banking officials might as well have been talking to themselves.

Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford.

But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.

In 2001, a senior Treasury official, Sheila C. Bair, tried to persuade subprime lenders to adopt a code of "best practices" and to let outside monitors verify their compliance. None of the lenders would agree to the monitors, and many rejected the code itself. Even those who did adopt those practices, Ms. Bair recalled recently, soon let them slip.

And leaders of a housing advocacy group in California, meeting with Mr. Greenspan in 2004, warned that deception was increasing and unscrupulous practices were spreading.

John C. Gamboa and Robert L. Gnaizda of the Greenlining Institute implored Mr. Greenspan to use his bully pulpit and press for a voluntary code of conduct.

"He never gave us a good reason, but he didn't want to do it," Mr. Gnaizda said last week. "He just wasn't interested."

Today, as the mortgage crisis of 2007 worsens and threatens to tip the economy into a recession, many are asking: where was Washington?

An examination of regulatory decisions shows that the Federal Reserve and other agencies waited until it was too late before trying to tame the industry's excesses. Both the Fed and the Bush administration placed a higher priority on promoting "financial innovation" and what President Bush has called the "ownership society."

...

On Tuesday, under a new chairman, the Federal Reserve will try to make up for lost ground by proposing new restrictions on subprime mortgages, invoking its authority under the 13-year-old Home Ownership Equity and Protection Act. Fed officials are expected to demand that lenders document a person’s income and ability to repay the loan, and they may well restrict practices that make it hard for borrowers to see hidden fees or refinance with cheaper mortgages.

It is an action that people like Mr. Gramlich and Ms. Bair advocated for years with little success. But it will have little impact on many existing subprime lenders, because most have either gone out of business or stopped making subprime loans months ago.

...

The Fed was hardly alone in not pressing to clean up the mortgage industry. When states like Georgia and North Carolina started to pass tougher laws against abusive lending practices, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency successfully prohibited them from investigating local subsidiaries of nationally chartered banks.

Virtually every federal bank regulator was loathe to impose speed limits on a booming industry. But the regulators were also fragmented among an alphabet soup of agencies with splintered and confusing jurisdictions. Perhaps the biggest complication was that many mortgage lenders did not fall under any agency's authority at all.

...

And for some more concrete examples of how deregulatory zeal had an effect, consider this account from the WSJ (March 22, 2007):

Regulators appointed by President Bush often have been more sympathetic to industry concerns about red tape than their Clinton administration predecessors. When James Gilleran, a former California banker and bank supervisor, took over the OTS in December 2001, he became known for his deregulatory zeal. At one press event in 2003, several bank regulators held gardening shears to represent their commitment to cut red tape for the industry. Mr. Gilleran brought a chain saw.

He also early on announced plans to slash expenses to resolve the agency's deficit; 20% of its work force eventually left. When he left in 2005, Mr. Gilleran declared that the OTS had "exercised increased diligence in its review of abusive consumer practices" while reducing thrifts' regulatory burden. But his successor, Mr. Reich, a former community banker, has reversed many of Mr. Gilleran's cuts. Citing "understaffing," he hired 80 examiners last year and plans to add 40 more this year. A spokeswoman for Mr. Gilleran, now chief executive of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, said he wasn't available to comment.

So, from my perspective, locating the source of the current crisis in corruption/influence peddling surrounding Fannie and Freddie exhibits a misreading of recent history. (More important might have been lax monetary policy and the saving glut, and exemptions from capital requirements for certain investment banks... [see Ritholtz])

Second, how hard will the rescue be given the reckless decisions of the past? It seems that whatever entity is established to purchase these bad assets will require some fiscal outlay. Estimates are all over the place, given that there is so much uncertainty over how much the assets will be bought for and eventually sold; here is one account:

U.S. Debt May Grow $1 Trillion on Rescue, Barclays' Pond Says

By Sandra Hernandez

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. may have to borrow an extra $700 billion to $1 trillion to fund the biggest rescue of the financial system since the Great Depression, according to Barclays Capital Inc.'s Michael Pond.

Federal takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and American International Group Inc.; the central bank's expansion of lending to financial firms; and a slowing economy will add $455 billion to the Treasury's borrowing needs, the New York-based interest-rate strategist estimated. Pond said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan to rid banks of "hundreds of billions" of troubled assets would bring the amount to $700 billion assuming the plan costs $200 billion.

"We could easily add up to an additional trillion to the outstanding Treasury debt just from the initiatives announced over the past couple of weeks," said Pond, ranked the best Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities analyst in 2008 by Institutional Investor magazine.

The government's liabilities swelled in past weeks as policy makers sought to arrest a growing financial crisis by taking over financial institutions threatened by a shortage of capital.

The Treasury on Sept. 7 took over mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said it would buy mortgage-backed debt in the open market. The Fed this week boosted its Treasury auctions to bond dealers by $25 billion, loaned $85 billion to the insurer AIG, and quadrupled the amount of dollars foreign central banks can auction to $247 billion. Paulson today said the government will buy illiquid assets from banks' balance sheets and insure money-market mutual fund holdings.

Deficit Widens

"The odds of the deficit becoming enormous are certainly there," said Nils Overdahl, a bond fund manager in Bethesda, Maryland, at New Century Advisors, which oversees $500 million. "I suspect you will see issuance at a variety of maturities."

The deficit will likely widen to $650 billion in fiscal 2009 because of the U.S. rescue of Fannie and Freddie, analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. wrote in a Sept. 12 report.

Over the next decade, the gap between spending and receipts will swell to $5.3 trillion, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts wrote Sept. 10, revising a previous forecast of $3.6 trillion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office forecast a record $438 billion deficit for 2009 on Sept. 9.

"The deficit will soar to enormous proportions,'' said Lou Crandall, the chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. ``Even before this week's events, estimates based on visible factors were pointing to a deficit above $500 billion next year, with the prospect of billions of mortgage- backed securities on top of that."

See also this Bloomberg article.

Here, I want to return the issue I've brought up countless times before. We cut taxes, and we embarked upon a war of choice, and in addition to the opportunity and fiscal costs, this constrained our range of actions for the future. Even if you thought the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "benefitted" the US economy on net, we know that the war in Iraq has cost on the order of $653 billion nominal dollars from FY03-FY0-09 [2] -- in current dollars that's even more given inflation. Those dollars could have been spent fixing the financial system. Now, we'll have to either borrow or tax to to finance the operation.

So, if you wanted the McCain extension of the Bush tax cuts, and the additional $1.3 trillion tax cuts, then you might wonder about the impact on US borrowing rates. If you were hoping for more domestic initiatives, perhaps to give tax relief to the lower and middle income households, or to invest in infrastructure, the borrowing constraints will be more binding than they otherwise would have been.

Perhaps that's obvious, but sometimes in the midst of crisis, the obvious bears repeating. Here's a picture to illustrate the budget balance outlook pre-intervention....

The purple square is just for illustrative purposes. If you think the Treasury will only have to borrow $350 billion in FY2009, then the orange square is relevant. Further, if we're lucky (and Brad Delong is right), in future years we will recoup all and more of these outlays, so the deficit will be smaller than otherwise. But, in the short run, we'll have to take a hit (of unknown magnitude) now and hope for the best.

Technorati Tags: , subprime, Fannie Mae, Freddie+Mac, and deregulation, Office of Thrift Supervision, and tax cuts.