« Gempei Nunobiki n Taki and Makura Jishi | Main | Academic Economists and Wall Street Economists »

CBOによるポールソン・プランへの評価と代替案

 CBOによるポールソン・プランへの評価と代替案。非常にわかりやすい。Jackson HallのCalomirisペーパーをめくっていて、今日気になっていたことも書いてくれている。

By some estimates, global commercial banks and investment banks may need to raise a minimum of roughly $150 billion more to cover their losses. As of mid-September 2008, cumulative recognized losses stood at about $520 billion, while the institutions had raised $370 billion of additional capital.

注によれば、

Figures are from Bloomberg as of September 22, 2008. For institutions located in the Americas, recognized losses are about $260 billion, while the amount of additional capital raised to date is $180 billion, which leaves a gap of about $80 billion.

とのことである。資本注入案の問題点も書いてくれている。

  1. They fail to address directly the illiquidity problems for some assets and the associated uncertainty.
  2. The assistance may not be targeted to the institutions most in need of help, and the firms that most need capital may be most reluctant to take it.
  3. The approach could inject additional funds into institutions whose business model is no longer viable. Past experience suggests that extending the operations of insolvent institutions may increase the ultimate cost to taxpayers.
  4. The proposals raise difficult questions about eligibility criteria. For example, would finance companies that are part of large diversified holding companies be eligible?

 1は、資本注入後に民間の市場で解決できないのだろうか。民間より官ができるという発想がよく納得できない。資本注入は潰れるべき会社を見つけるだろう。これは2と3に対処する。4はGE capitalみたいな会社は?う~ん。Hedge Fundを救ってねぇ、と言われるよね。自動車ローン市場はどうなっているのだろうか。

 ANIL K KASHYAP and JEREMY C. STEINがNYTにop-edを書きました。これもよくできています。FTではMartin Wolf。これも良い。G. Calvoのコメントがついていた。

|

« Gempei Nunobiki n Taki and Makura Jishi | Main | Academic Economists and Wall Street Economists »

Economics」カテゴリの記事

Comments

Post a comment



(Not displayed with comment.)




« Gempei Nunobiki n Taki and Makura Jishi | Main | Academic Economists and Wall Street Economists »