Posted By Jerome Chen Share

Carl Leahey of consulting firm Decision Economics commented to Reuters today on U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's plan to buy up the financial industry's bad assets:

What is happening now is what people have worried about for decades, that when the financial system blows up, the average American taxpayer has to foot the bill, socializing the losses, but privatizing the gains. Wall Street has discovered a great business where the upside is potentially unlimited, but the downside is ultimately put on the taxpayers' tab."

This really gets to the crux of modern finance. The argument may seem an unimpeachable critique of Wall Street's greed and selfishness, but it's easy to unfairly characterize Wall Street's practices. Yes, securitization and insurance, two areas in which the modern financial industry really excels, are all about privatizing gains and socializing losses.

But then again, with a fire insurance policy, you can enjoy your private abode with peace of mind. If your house burns down, the cost of your claim gets socialized across the other customers paying premiums to your insurance company. It is a legitimate method for risk dispersal and enables us to enjoy a higher standard of living.

In fact, the real problem is that AIG just didn't socialize its potential losses enough. It was unwise to hold such large amounts of credit default swaps (insurance they issued on bonds), ultimately leading to its troubles. Those could have been sold to various investors, thus socializing any potential losses!

So it's important to make the point: What is reprehensible here is that losses have now been socialized to taxpayers. This is because outsized risks were taken due to the availability of easy credit and the upwards march of housing prices, exacerbated by poor risk management and defective bond ratings schemes. In the future, many new regulations will be required.

"Privatizing gains, socializing losses," though? There shouldn't be an inherent stigma to this concept. We live with it every day.

EXPLORE:ECONOMICS, FINANCE
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

NICKLEMBO

5:26 PM ET

September 19, 2008

Don't write about finance if

Don't write about finance if you don't understand it!!! This is above your head and its rather obvious. While your thesis may have some wider merit AIG is a terrible example. The American taxpayer will probably end up breaking even in the end but whether they see any of it depends on future political will and whether authorities actually break it back up when the balance sheets are again stable.

 

JGARZIK

5:39 PM ET

September 19, 2008

Profit versus payback

Good point: It seems likely that these purchases will be made with profit (for the government) in mind, and unless the price floor fails, profit will be made. Will the taxpayers be paid back for their troubles? How will the government spend that extra cash, years down the road?

An extra aircraft carrier or two?

Jeff @ Armchair FP

 

PNJ

6:20 PM ET

September 19, 2008

Your analogy is wrong

The financial crisis is not akin to my buying fire insurance and socializing the risk of a fire to my house.

It's more akin to my buying fire insurance, setting fire to my own house, and collecting the insurance while society pays the cost.

There is and should be a stigma to this concept.

 

AJLONGINI

10:40 PM ET

September 19, 2008

Creative thinking...

But I think at least Nouriel Roubini would disagree: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8429

 

JOSHUA.FOUST

9:33 AM ET

September 20, 2008

Bad Analogy

""Privatizing gains, socializing losses," though? There shouldn't be an inherent stigma to this concept. We live with it every day."

The key difference here is people make voluntary choices to join insurance schemes. When I buy home insurance, I am knowingly paying money I know I might never recover on the off chance that if my house burns down I won't be ruined.

AIG is a bad analogy. Not only were tax payers not given a choice, the buy-out is not structured like insurance. If the government instead required all financial firms to pay a certain nominal fee for "collapse insurance" or something similar, then we could have the discussion. A better analogy is an insurance company choosing only to reimburse the richest households in a devastated area because if the rich people leave then the regional economy will suffer.

Which is, obviously, unfair. And I would argue immoral.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More