Posts from — March 2009

Paul Krugman, in a blog post last week, offers an explanation for how private investors would think about asset purchases under the treasury plan. With no disrespect, here is my explanation:

Assume the purchase of a “legacy asset” (or purchase of a toxic asset, or the purchase of a pool of subprime mortgage) is a the purchase of cash flows for a period of 20 years. Many mortgages go out beyond 20 years, but let’s keep this at 20 for argument’s sake.

How much would I be willing to pay?

Well, a review of march-27-world-bond-yields, with at least an A rating, that go out 20 years, make me think I should get at least 8%. So, if I buy that asset for $100.00 (for which it is valued on the banks books), I’m expecting annual cash flows of $10.25 for the next 20 years.

It is fair to say, that given the horror stories everyone has heard about subprime mortgages, one would need a return far greater than 8% in order to buy one your own.

So the Treasury and the FDIC step in, and debt financing for up to 85% of the assets, with a matching equity contribution.  Assume then that the FDIC is able to offer 85% of the price on a non-recourse basis (meaning no other assets of me, as the the investor, would be touched eg - my home, my car should I be unable to service the debt). Then assume the FDIC offers 5% financing for the full 20 years. This, however, is a big IF, based on the Legacy Loan Terms sheet offered by the Treasury. Rates and Length could be far less generous.

Yet, if I were to receive 5% and 20 years of FDIC debt, my pre-tax return as the equity investor would be ~21%.

Assuming the FDIC offers these terms, the question then is, is a 21% pre-tax return to equity enough to entice investors to buy bank assets at their listed price? Secondly, is the program, with loans and equity contributions enough to remove the glut on bank books and get lending activity going again?

If the answer to either question is no, then the program has not (by itself) done enough to re-gain control of the credit markets, restart lending, and grow the economy.

But back to the 21% return for a second. In an article earlier this month in the FT, there were some pretty grim statistics about households behind on their mortgages. Nearly 12% of all home loans were either a month behind or in foreclosure. This statistic across of all households, but imagine what it is for those carrying “subprime” mortgages. Was this statistic modeled into the asset, valued at $100, on the bank’s books? That is not clear. As the equity investor, if I stress tested not receiving 12% of my cash flows annually, just to be conservative, my equity return under this scenario drops down to 12%. Given that this is a subprime mortgage pool, it could be fair to say, this investment is now not worth it.

Suppose then that a 21% return is the magic number. How much, assuming my stress test, would I offer a bank then for a $100 asset? The answer is $90, or a 10% haircut. The final question then is: Is losing 10% enough to to entice banks to still sell and remain solvent? Again, if the answer is no, then the program has not helped get lending going again.

Reading over this plan, it is my assessment that it will take time to start this program and get it functioning. The key then will be: what might happen in the mean time to banks and the economy and will we need a new set of assumptions to value these assets at that time?