The Truth behind the Citigroup Bank "Nationalization" -- By F. William Engdahl
On Friday November 21, the world came within a hair’s breadth of the most colossal financial collapse in history according to bankers on the inside of events with whom we have contact. The trigger was the bank which only two years ago was America’s largest, Citigroup. The size of the US Government de facto nationalization of the $2 trillion banking institution is an indication of shocks yet to come in other major US and perhaps European banks thought to be ‘too big to fail.’
November 25, 2008 "Global Research" -- The clumsy way in which US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, himself not a banker but a Wall Street ‘investment banker’, whose experience has been in the quite different world of buying and selling stocks or bonds or underwriting and selling same, has handled the unfolding crisis has been worse than incompetent. It has made a grave situation into a globally alarming one.
‘Spitting into the wind’
A case in point is the secretive manner in which Paulson has used the $700 billion in taxpayer funds voted him by a labile Congress in September. Early on, Paulson put $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for his old firm, Goldman Sachs. However, if we compare the value of the equity share that $125 billion bought with the market price of those banks’ stock, US taxpayers have paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could have bought for $62.5 billion, according to a detailed analysis from Ron W. Bloom, economist with the US United Steelworkers union, whose members as well as pension fund face devastating losses were GM to fail.
That means half of the public's money was a gift to Paulson’s Wall Street cronies. Now, only weeks later, the Treasury is forced to intervene to de facto nationalize Citigroup. It won’t be the last.
Paulson demanded, and got from a labile US Congress, Democrat as well as Republican, sole discretion over how and where he can invest the $700 billion, to date with no effective oversight. It amounts to the Treasury Secretary in effect ‘spitting into the wind’ in terms of resolving the fundamental crisis.
It should be clear to any serious analyst by now that the September decision by Paulson to defer to rigid financial ideology and let the fourth largest US investment bank, Lehman Brothers fail, was the proximate trigger for the present global crisis. Lehman Bros.’ surprise collapse triggered the current global crisis of confidence. It was simply not clear to the rest of the banking world which US financial institution bank might be saved and which not, after the Government had earlier saved the far smaller Bear Stearns, while letting the larger, far more strategic Lehman Bros. fail.
Some Citigroup details
The most alarming aspect of the crisis is the fact that we are in an inter-regnum period when the next President has been elected but cannot act on the situation until after January 20, 2009 when he is sworn in.
Consider the details of the latest Citigroup government de facto nationalization (for ideological reasons Paulson and the Bush Administration hysterically avoid admitting they are in the process of nationalizing key banks). Citigroup has more than $2 trillion of assets, dwarfing companies such as American International Group Inc. that got some $150 billion in US taxpayer funds in the past two months. Ironically, only eight weeks before, the Government had designated Citigroup to take over the failing Wachovia Bank. Normally authorities have an ailing bank absorbed by a stronger one. In this instance the opposite seems to have been the case. Now it is clear that the Citigroup was in deeper trouble than Wachovia. In a matter of hours in the week before the US Government nationalization was announced, the stock value of Citibank plunged to $3.77 in New York, giving the company a market value of about $21 billion. The market value of Citigroup stock in December 2006 had been $247 billion. Two days before the bank nationalization the CEO, Vikram Pandit had announced a huge 52,000 job slashing plan. It did nothing to stop the slide.
The scale of the hidden losses of perhaps the twenty largest US banks is so enormous that if not before, the first Presidential decree of President Barack Obama will likely have to be declaration of a US ‘Bank Holiday’ and the full nationalization of the major banks, taking on the toxic assets and losses until the economy can again function with credit flowing to industry once more.
Citigroup and the government have identified a pool of about $306 billion in troubled assets. Citigroup will absorb the first $29 billion in losses. After that, remaining losses will be split between Citigroup and the government, with the bank absorbing 10% and the government absorbing 90%. The US Treasury Department will use its $700 billion TARP or Troubled Asset Recovery Program bailout fund, to assume up to $5 billion of losses. If necessary, the Government’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will bear the next $10 billion of losses. Beyond that, the Federal Reserve will guarantee any additional losses. The measures are without precedent in US financial history. It’s by no means certain they will salvage the dollar system.
The situation is so intertwined, with six US major banks holding the vast bulk of worldwide financial derivatives exposure, that the failure of a single major US financial institution could result in losses to the OTC derivatives market of $300-$400 billion, a new IMF working paper finds. What’s more, since such a failure would likely cause cascading failures of other institutions. Total global financial system losses could exceed another $1,500 billion according to an IMF study by Singh and Segoviano.
The madness over a Detroit GM rescue deal
The health of Citigroup is not the only gripping crisis that must be dealt with. At this point, political and ideological bickering in the US Congress has so far prevented a simple emergency $25 billion loan extension to General Motors and other of the US Big Three automakers—Ford and Chrysler. The absurd spectacle of US Congressmen attacking the chairmen of the Big Three for flying to the emergency Congressional hearings on a rescue loan in their private company jets while largely ignoring the issue of consequences to the economy of a GM failure underscores the utter lack of touch with reality that has overwhelmed Washington in recent years.
For GM to go into bankruptcy risks a disaster of colossal proportions. Although Lehman Bros., the biggest bankruptcy in US history, appears to have had an orderly settlement of its credit defaults swaps, the disruption occurred before-hand, as protection writers had to post additional collateral prior to settlement. That was a major factor in the dramatic global market selloff in October. GM is bigger by far, meaning bigger collateral damage, and this would take place when the financial system is even weaker than when Lehman failed.
In addition, a second, and potentially far more damaging issue, has been largely ignored. The advocates of letting GM go bankrupt argue that it can go into Chapter 11 just like other big companies that get themselves in trouble. That may not happen however, and a Chapter 7 or liquidation of GM that would then result would be a tectonic event.
The problem is that under Chapter 11 US law, it takes time for the company to get the protection of a bankruptcy court. Until that time, which may be weeks or months, the company would need urgently ‘bridge financing’ to continue operating. This is known as ‘Debtor-in-Possession or DIP financing. DIP is essential for most Chapter 11 bankruptcies, as it takes time to get the plan of reorganization approved by creditors and the courts. Most companies, like GM today, go to bankruptcy court when they are at the end of their liquidity.
DIP is specifically for companies in, or on the verge of bankruptcy, and the debt is generally senior to other outstanding creditor claims. So it is actually very low risk, as the amount spent is usually not large, relatively speaking. But DIP lending is being severely curtailed right now, just when it is most needed, as healthier banks drastically cut loans in the severe credit crunch situation.
Without access to DIP bridge financing, GM would be forced into a partial, or even a full liquidation. The ramifications are horrendous. Aside from loss of 100,000 jobs at GM itself, GM is critical to keep many US auto suppliers in business. If GM failed soon most, possibly even all of the US and even foreign auto suppliers will go under. Those parts suppliers are important to other auto makers. Many foreign car factories would be forced to close due to loss of suppliers. Some analysts put 2009 job losses from a GM failure as high as 2.5 million jobs due to the follow-on effects. If the impact of that 2.5 million job loss is seen in terms of the overall losses to the economy of non-auto jobs such as services, home foreclosures caused and such, some estimate total impact would be more than 15 million jobs.
So far in the face of this staggering prospect, the members of the US Congress have chosen to focus on the fact the GM chief, Rick Wagoner, flew in his private company jet to Washington. The Congressional charade conjures up the image of Nero playing his fiddle as Rome goes up in flames. It should not be surprising that at the recent EU-Asian Summit in Beijing, Chinese officials mooted the idea of trading between the EU and Asian nations such as China in Euro, Renminbi, Yen or other national currencies other than the dollar. The Citigroup bailout and GM debacle has confirmed the death of the post-1944 Bretton Woods Dollar System.
The real truth behind Citigroup bailout
What neither Paulson nor anyone in Washington is willing to reveal is the real truth behind the Citigroup bailout. By his and the Republican Bush Administration’s adamant earlier refusal to take an initial resolute action to immediately nationalize the nine or so largest troubled banks, he has created the present debacle. By refusing on ideological grounds to instead reorganize the banks’ assets into some form of ‘good bank’ and ‘bad bank,’ similar to what the Government of Sweden did with what it called Securum, during its banking crisis in the early 1990’s, Paulson and company have created a global financial structure on the brink.
A Securum or similar temporary nationalization would have allowed the healthy banks to continue lending to the real economy so the economy could continue operating, while the State merely sat on the undervalued real estate assets of the Swedish banks for some months until the recovering economy made the assets again marketable to the private sector. Instead, Paulson and his ‘crony capitalists’ in Washington have turned a bad situation into a globally catastrophic one.
His apparent realization of the error of his initial refusal to nationalize came too late. When Paulson reversed policy on September 19 and presented the nine largest banks with an ultimatum to accept partial Government equity ownership, abandoning his original bizarre plan to merely buy up the toxic waste asset-backed securities of the banks with his $700 billion TARP taxpayer money, he never revealed why.
Under the original Paulson Plan, as Dimitri B. Papadimitriou and L. Randall Wray of the Jerome Levy Institute at Bard College in New York point out, Paulson sought to create a situation in which the US ‘Treasury would become an owner of troubled financial institutions in exchange for a capital injection—but without exercising any ownership rights, such as replacing the management that created the mess. The bailout would be used as an opportunity to consolidate control of the nation’s financial system in the hands of a few large (Wall Street) banks, with government funds subsidizing purchases of troubled banks by "healthy" ones.’
Paulson soon realized the scale of crisis, largely triggered by his inept handling of the Lehman Brothers case, had created an impossible situation. Were Paulson to use the $700 billion to buy up toxic waste ABS assets from the select banks at today’s market price, the $700 billion would be far too little to take an estimated $2 trillion ($2,000 billion) in Asset Backed Securities off the books of the banks.
The Levy Economics Institute economists state, ‘It is probable that many and perhaps most financial institutions are insolvent today -- with a black hole of negative net worth that would swallow Paulson's entire $700 billion in one gulp.’
That reality is the real reason Paulson was forced to abandon his original ‘crony bailout’ TARP plan and opt to use some of his money to buy equity shares in the nine largest banks.
That scheme as well is ‘dead on arrival’ as the latest Citigroup nationalization scheme underscores. The dilemma Paulson has created with his inept handling of the crisis is simple: If the US Government paid the true value for these nearly worthless assets, the banks would have to write down huge losses, and, as Levy economists put it, ‘announce to the world that they are insolvent.’ On the other hand, if Paulson raised the toxic waste purchase price high enough to protect the banks from losses, $700 billion ‘will buy only a tiny fraction of the 'troubled' assets.’ That is what the latest nationalization of Citigroup is about.
It is only the beginning. The 2009 year will be one of titanic shocks and changes to the global order of a scale perhaps not experienced in the past five centuries. This is why we should speak of the end of the American Century and its Dollar System.
How destructive that process will be to the citizens of the United States who are the prime victims of Paulson’s crony capitalists, as well as to the rest of the world depends now on the urgency and resoluteness with which heads of national Governments in Germany, the EU, China, Russia and the rest of the non-US world react. It is no time for ideological sentimentality and nostalgia of the postwar old order. That collapsed this past September along with Lehman Brothers and the Republican Presidency. Waiting for a ‘miracle’ from an Obama Presidency is no longer an option for the rest of the world


Comments: 17
It is apparent that the finance/insurance industry is a little bit better class of citizen than those who actually produce a product! They have long played by their own special set of rules and now the congress is abetting them.
We have a mixed system, part capitalistic and part socialistic. We've always had that to some extent but it has increased radically this year. It is wrong? That depends on who you ask. It is within the prerogative of the American people to adopt or reject if they wish.
We need capitalism for innovation, creativity, growth and other things. We need socialism for humanity, compassion and some other things. A total of either one is a disaster.
The corporate cons broke the system let them hold a bake sale to fix their own mess.
Bailouts are for socialist government controlled economies not for a capitalist system of make it or get out. Chapter 11 takes care of failing companies not taxpayer welfare.
Their is no fix for the economy until we have our living wage jobs back that were sold off to the highest communist bidder.
A loan is not welfare. Welfare has no qualification about repaying it. But regardless of that rather minor detail, we don't have a true capitalistic society and never have had. It has always had elements of socialism within it. Our highway system is socialistic, as is police, fire and many other services of government. However, that does not address your point specifically. Just irritating side facts.
On another note,m I don't believe that chapter 11 will work in this instance for the auto companies. That would not make them into corporations that could easily get financing for the retooling, etc. that they need and would ultimately simply put them out of business. We cannot afford to loose any more living wage jobs than we already have, in my humble opinion! Of course, everyone has an opinion on this as well.
The big thing is, I would like to know just what action you would propose to "get our living wage jobs back" as I agree totally with this need! I have a few ideas but the are too lengthy to detail here and don't really mean a thing since I'm not in congress. This whole thing has been playing out since Regan took office and has only reached a peak in this last administrations, who did nothing to curb the trend.
If there is a logical way to accomplish what you and I want, it needs to be teased out of the myriad number of random ideas being thrown around, and promoted for what it is! And I'm certainly not sure what it is. Obama feels he knows and I certainly hope he does. The entire nation needs it!
When the public wants something it pays its own way through taxes only now the public does not get anything for the money that is taken from it, all the money goes to corporate welfare, cronyism. Obama promised not to do this and he promised to get rid of the Washington insiders and put in some new blood. Their are plenty of qualified people to take the positions that Obama has elected to give to Bush and Clinton cronies.
Any way you try to justify giving the economy away in bailout is not right and just supporting a corporate socialist state. The fact is without jobs their is no economy and that fact can't be change or argued out of existence.
Make work is a temporary thing like infrastructure and parks. Its a very temporary thing that puts a few workers to work and give huge sums of money to more companies.
They are legally obligated to pay back loans. They must sign on the dotted line and make that commitment.
Obama is the "new blood" and the appointees are there to assist him for maximum accomplishment. And I don't agree that there are plenty of qualified people to take the place of those appointed. To get the actual experience, you need someone with that background. However, I didn't have a problem with them being appointed by and serving Clinton!
You are dead right, there must be jobs! And there I am asking, what do you want to see done to create these jobs. I don't believe it is reasonable to expect Obama to go to the unemployment or welfare line to recruit these folks to his administration just to give them jobs when they are unqualified. So what do you want to see done? That is the major question. If it is not done after a reasonable period of time then complain all you want and probably have much company. But we need to know just what it is you want in order to have a standard by which to judge.
If who Obama appoints was your standard, did you make it known to the organization just who you wanted appointed? They do not claim any mind reading ability. People need to share their good ideas with those capable of enacting them.
Investments in infrastructure, bridges, highways, etc. is a recognized and accepted means of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Temporary? Yes some of them are. But after working on some of these type of things for five years there may well be a lot more job opportunity that exists than today. Besides, the workers on those projects get to eat and feed their families. Those are important things in my mind, I don't know how you think about them. It is necessary for companies to get the money to give it out as wages.
"Supporting corporate welfare state" has become nothing more than an anti establishment slogan. What specifically in the process don't you want to see done? And did you contact your congressional delegation and make them aware of your desires when it was being formulated? Unfortunately, I did not and have some complaints about the way it has been done but I failed to make my desires known.
This was a measure on which public outcry would possibly have made a great impact. However, the cry from the public seemed to be, do something! So they did something. We all tend to blame our congressional delegations for things that really carry as much responsibility on our part as theirs.
I don't expect perfection from any elected officials. I do expect honest effort to do the job for which they have been selected and to try to make it work and work well. I believe that there is no reason at this time, that Obama's team should not be able to accomplish this!
Simply summarized, we do not have a welfare state, even though there has been both corporate and personal welfare provided by the government at time. We have a capitalistic system with some socialism built in to make the "user friendly" rather than oppressive. Finally, it looks to me like Obama is doing the right things and saying the right things. However, there is no proof of anything until he gets in office, at which point he could disappoint me seriously. I do not expect that but it is certainly within the realm of possibility!
Keep in touch Jack, and we'll see where things go in six months! I can be totally wrong and I'll readily acknowledge that. But I don't think so at this time.
Their is no economy no matter how much money you hand these criminals. We either get our jobs back from China and India or we will not have an economy.
Good idea, get our jobs back from China and India! Now, how do we do that?
You're ducking the question, what do you want them to do? Not just who are they. I've asked this several times and I'm really curious as to what you'd recommend as I'm sure you have some ideas in mind to know if they are being met or not. I frankly, don't have an answer or I'd be suggesting it!
Your response sound terrific but tells me nothing! I'd agree with what you say a hundred percent. Get rid of all the politicians taking kick backs, get new blood into congress and get rid of the political cons that are destroying us. These are commendable ideals but we need specifics at this time if we are to comment to our delegations as to what we want done. We are not in disagreement on this, but I'm still left with real questions.
Again, I'm thinking of you and wishing you the best.
Our jobs will come back when our politicians are made to stop taking payoffs from corporate cons, the public stops buying cheap junk that is made by slave labor in communist countries. America has a lot to learn before we can ever recover this time if ever. Supporting communism just so you can run to Wal-Mart and buy cheap junk which a good part of it is poison to our children does not help the economy. To keep living beyond your means with the credit scam will not help the economy.
Obama needs to keep his election promises to the public or we will not make it to the next election.
Obama will either give companies a choice to bring our jobs back home or start taxing them on the goods they bring into the country.
As soon as the corporate cons get the last dollar they can print we will be finished. What do you think is going to happen James because of all this worthless money they are printing without anything to back it up? Its going to create a huge bubble that will burst and put us in the mother of all depressions.
The "worthless money" is of concern to me as well. It is sure to have a negative effect on the value of our currency and can be inflationary in normal times. Under this economic situation, I'm not sure of the outcome.
Obama made a promise several time in his campaign, that he would work across the isle and eliminate the overly harsh political partisanship that has prevented any real action on a number of issues in recent years. His choices for his cabinet clearly reflect that he is attempting to do just that, keep his promise and eliminate or reduce the partisanship problems.
And Jack, I'm sorry but I don't understand how we are going to get everyone to quit buying Chinese products and to be morally straight. Of course, it is not just Walmart as I see the same brands and things in all the other stores, that Walmart carries. And it is not just the Chinese made products but those made in Mexico, Portugal and a dozen other places in the world outside the US!
It is a clear violation of the existing laws for a politician to take payoffs! If you know of a politician who has personally taken payoffs it needs to be reported to authorities and prosecuted. Just like Senator Stevens in Alaska has been. I know it does occur and is despicable. He is not the first nor will he be the last but that is what needs to be done with all who are guilty of that practice!
I do agree that there needs to be both an incentive to keep jobs in this country and a penalty for those who choose to export jobs. I'm totally with you on that one.
I do agree that it is improper for people to live beyond their means and when they do, they must deal with the consequences. Ruined credit, foreclosures, higher insurance premiums, etc. That does not keep them from doing it but it is some incentive.
For a job, you should contact some of your congressional delegation and offer to help them by reviewing their intended actions and acting as their moral compass! You clearly understand the ethics we need and could help them when they have become too jaded to realize they are doing anything wrong. Just like Stevens, he insists that he has done nothing wrong and justifies things by saying that he didn't ask for them or didn't know how much something costs. You, as a working person, understand such things and could easily make the proper ethical judgments for them and keep them out of trouble!
You mention representatives, do you know any that listen to the people that elect them? None listened when they were told not to vote for the pork bailout. My senator Dodd has already been proven to have taken one and one half million from banking lobbyists so where is the justice and he is also head of the banking commission. Dodd does not respond to mail any more all he does is ignore the people that elected him and shows up to pat corporate business on the back for the failure they caused. Lieberman is just another GOP slave and does not respond with anything but the same old form letter.
As far as Obama's team goes where is the change? He has kept Gates which means Bush and Cheney will still control the military and the rest are the old Clinton regime, many who have helped to cause this economic crash. The government is finally admitting we are in a deep recession and have been in recession for a year but why the cover up saying " the economy is strong". The facts remain the same and until we get our jobs back we will not have an economy and all the bailouts are nothing but cronyism weather its Bush or Obama handing out the checks and nothing will change except we are headed where this country has never been before.
Well, I understand that you have a very pessimistic attitude and feelings about things. And while I'm sure you feel right now that it is warranted, just hang in there and we'll see where things are in six months.
Some things are not in total agreement by the people and the congressional delegation has to make a decision based on what they believe to be the most favored position or most effective position. The bail out was one of those, you say there were told we didn't want it but that is not completely correct, many people, including myself, were sufficiently unsure and said nothing to them. Many others said "vote for it!" and they did the latter.
You are sufficiently knowledgeable to know that one individual cannot tell the delegation what to do. Nor is the delegation obligated to stick their finger in the wind to see which way it is blowing before every vote. They are elected because we hope they have the knowledge and will to do what is in the overall best for their constituents. That guarantees that what I want or what you want will not always be what they vote for.
My delegation always responds to me when I contact them. They don't always agree or do what I would like them to do but will write me back a letter telling me why they disagree and what they intend to do. What they write is seldom a surprise as I know what we agree on and what we do not! BTW, has senator Dodd taken one and a half million dollars personally, or just campaign contributions which cannot be converted to personal money? If it is personal, you should be calling this to the attention of the legal people for prosecution. A senator that doesn't accept money for campaigns is what we lovingly refer to as the ex-senator. I'd like a system that eliminated that situation as it does tend to make them beholden to those who contribute.
Like I said, Obama promised to work across the isle and eliminate some of the partisan division which has prevented the government from doing its job for the last eight years. Keeping Gates and selecting the Cointon people was simply part of keeping his promise to the people who elected him. Abraham Lincoln did the same thing in 1860 and most folks think he was a great president, although he was castigated at the time for his selections. And this is a significant change, when did you last hear of a president working across the isle and trying to eliminate partisan conflict? That is change I can believe in!
So really Jack, hang in there and I hope you find what you are looking for soon. Things need to turn around and I have faith that they will but it is not going to be instantaneous and not nearly as fast as we really need. I hope things work out for you personally regardless what happens on the national level.
Best of luck to you, Jack!