lunes, 23 de marzo de 2009

Plan de Obama para los Activos Tóxicos

Hoy anunció el gobierno de Estados Unidos, vía su secretario del Tesoro, el siguiente plan para enfrentar el problema de los activos tóxicos en el sistema financiero. Sólo hay que recordar que este es uno de los problemas centrales, si no el más importante en este momento, y si no se resuelve ya, será irrelevante discutir las acciones monetarias y fiscales para recurperar y estabilizara a las economías. Mientras no se resuelva el problema de fondo con las condiciones de insolvencia en el sistema financiero mundial, seguiremos en serios problemas, que pueden ser aún peores como señala Roubini
.
En el WSJ, Geithner escribió:
The Public-Private Investment Program will purchase real-estate related loans from banks and securities from the broader markets. Banks will have the ability to sell pools of loans to dedicated funds, and investors will compete to have the ability to participate in those funds and take advantage of the financing provided by the government.The funds established under this program will have three essential design features. First, they will use government resources in the form of capital from the Treasury, and financing from the FDIC and Federal Reserve, to mobilize capital from private investors. Second, the Public-Private Investment Program will ensure that private-sector participants share the risks alongside the taxpayer, and that the taxpayer shares in the profits from these investments. These funds will be open to investors of all types, such as pension funds, so that a broad range of Americans can participate.Third, private-sector purchasers will establish the value of the loans and securities purchased under the program, which will protect the government from overpaying for these assets.
.
.
Algunas opiniones interesantes son:
.
Secondary Sources: Geithner’s Bank Plan, Doubts, Asset Values: Paul Krugman ha mostrado dudas: writing for The New York Times, already says the plan is crap. “The Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets… But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact. You might say, why not try the plan and see what happens? One answer is that time is wasting: every month that we fail to come to grips with the economic crisis another 600,000 jobs are lost.”
.
Otras opiniones de Krugman se encuentra en su Blog
.
Brad DeLong lo ha apoyado: The Geithner Plan FAQ en donde esxplica los aspecto más importantes.
.
Esta es otra opinión interesante, de Felix Salomon en Market Movers, How Treasury's Bank Bailout Could Make Things Worse
.
Lo que sí queda claro es que si este progrmaa no camina bien, todos saldremos perdiendo en las próximas semanas

1 comentario:

Nancy Vivar dijo...

Por el momento me quedo con la preocupación de darle salida al tema de los activos tóxicos, pero no me queda muy claro cómo se determinan cuáles préstamos son considerados bajo este esquema y si es posible contar con un mecanismo que evite abusos que terminarían endosándose al gobierno.

Este tema me parece muy interesante. Podría darnos una explicación sobre este tema de los activos tóxicos y las implicaciones para el sistema financiero internacional?