Re-privatization, Not Nationalization

No, it's a bit more than rhetorics.

Those who're opposed to government intervention in the banking industry, or anything beyond no-string-attached handouts anyway, wisely choose the word "nationalization" to describe it. The neutrals go along. But I don't understand why those who are for it fall for such an obvious rhetorical trap.

As far as I can tell, no self-respecting mouthpiece is calling for nationalization of any banks. Notionalization is not the goal, but rather a temporary measure, a transient point leading to a better, healthier, and more sustainable form of private banking. The Whitehouse declaration today about how they've been supporting a private banking sector "for quite some time" would be comical if it weren't so sad. Really, only for "quite some time", as opposed to since day 0? Does that imply state-owned banking was on their mind some time ago? Now that's worrisome.

No, I don't seriously believe Team Obama has ever entertained the idea of making banks nationalized as an end-point. I bring it up here only to highlight the sad rhetorical mess we've gotten ourselves in on this critical issue. Messages in the public arena as well as from the government have been drowning in mind-boggling confusion. Real issues such as corporate governance, entitlement society, structural corruption of government regulators, chronical decline of savings and manufacturing are pushed aside by relatively trivial, shallow soundbytes such as office furniture and corporate jet. Congress would've appeared only clueless, no worse than the two executive teams so far, if they hadn't put up pathetic political show after pathetic political show bellowing down shallow, tedious indignation on bank CEOs.

Can we at least get one tiny technicality clarified so as to avoid another sad day like Friday? Namely, are we talking about nationalization or re-privatization?

That's a rhetorical question, as I made clear at the beginning of this post. Of course we're talking about re-privatization, aren't we?

I can't speak for others but here's what I mean by re-privatization.

1. Let insolvent banks fail. Throwing money into insolvent banks in a bad, global, likely prolonged recession/depression will not work. Reasons for why this will not work and examples of how this has not worked have been cited ad nauseum in media and blogosphere so I'll not repeat them here. But some people get a mental blackout right here. But if we could peek beyond the mental block just for sport, perhaps the Great Beyond is not so scary after all.

2. Government immediately puts failed bank(s) into conservatorship. Here's the scary N word but hang on with me for a moment. Guarantee deposits as usual. Restructure outstanding debt. Let CDS settle and common/preferred equity do whatever the market fancies to do. Hang on.

3. Segregate the deposits and traditional commercial banking part, re-IPO it, and regulate them as good'ol commercial banks. Re-enact Glass-Steagall and make it a requirement for any foreign banks wanting to do business here. Push for an international standard along the same line later.

4. Set up an RTC as custodian for "bad assets", classified by a one-time sweep. Minimal administrative cost, no trading. The government has incentive to minimize potentially good assets in this pool so as to faciliate the IPO and sale (see below) process and maximize return.

5. Sell the remaining investment banking and capital markets part to private investors ASAP. Make a law forbidding them to go IPO. As I argued before, private partnership is probably the only sustainable governance model for investment banking and capital markets, and public ownership is most certainly not. Extend the safetyguard to all foreign banks doing business here.

Of course, there're a lot of details that need to be worked out. A critical factor is the international aspect. If Uncle Sam unilaterally takes over a multi-national bank, guarantees deposit accounts in US branches but without regard to those in other countries, it could get very ugly very fast. International coordination and cooperation is pivotal. But if there's ever a time for true American leadership, or true American bullying if you prefer, this is it. Get Cheney to chair the G20 meeting with his loose shotgun on the table if necessary. I'm not saying we could force US interest on everyone. But let's face it, it requires power politics, in addition to masterful diplomacy, to get the global villagers to agree on anything without getting hopelessly boggled down on each one's petty issues and historical grudges.

True leadership, both domestically and internationally. Do we have it?