The UK government committed to pay up to £50 billion to improve the balance sheets of stricken banks, by way of direct investment including preference shares. The bailout package also included £200 billion to provide emergency funding via extension of the Special Liquidity Scheme which enables banks to borrow for “short term” liquidity needs and £250 billion for debt issuance backed by the government.

The emergency injection of capital into the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland, could not be seen as an investment of capital because the UK government did not have the capital available to invest. Consequently the money will be added to their borrowings. When coupled with the nationalisation of Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley the government has broken its golden rule of only borrowing to invest over the economic cycle and not for funding day to day spending needs.

In comparison the US on the 2nd of October committed to $700 billion to buy “toxic” assets of stricken financial organisations to provide liquidity until asset prices recover, a plan which was amended later to include the US government taking positions in the recapitalisation of some institutions.

The use of the emotive word “toxic” conjures up images of some form of Chernobyl disaster, and whilst that may be an appropriate analogy, that’s not the only imagery associated with toxic. It would be difficult to find a positive value or price for something toxic, unless one was using it to injure someone. The apparent rationale for the bailout plan is that while the injection of tax payers' money into the Wall Street casino may not be fair, it is a necessary evil that will free up the “troubled assets” and create liquidity in the financial markets, thereby triggering a much-needed new wave of lending, borrowing and the next round of growth. There are several problems with this approach.

1. The inability to find buyers for the “toxic assets” (such a contradiction in terms) is not a liquidity problem but a price problem. There is a market for them, but the problem is that the price in the market is unpalatable to banks and investment funds that want to survive. If the market prices them as junk, who is the government to price them otherwise? This betrays the real problem of confidence. The problem is one of a lack of faith and trust, and this is because of too much junk/overblown assets relative to real assets. The liquidity crisis is not that there is no liquidity available, simply that those with it will not spend in a serious downturn and with overblown asset prices. Owners of liquidity are not willing to lend it to owners of junk, particularly if they may fail.

2. Although $700 billion is a really large number, it is no way large enough. It is only a fraction of the accumulated bad debts and likely debts moving forward. The Washington Post reported on the 29th of September that 20 of the US’s largest financial institutions owned $4.7 trillion in mortgages and mortgage backed securities (with non recorded CDOs on top of that). CDS losses are also now beginning to hurt and this too is unregulated, unreported, and huge. It is now very questionable as to whether the assorted bailout, loans, and guarantees from the US/UK/European governments will ever be paid. Amounts which as of December 4, 2008 were in excess of $10 trillion.

3. The main underlying problem of the housing bubble and sub prime lending is not addressed. Consequently millions in the US will lose their homes and be driven even further into poverty. At the same time that the government is bailing out major financial institutions, following aggressive mortgage selling by those same institutions there are millions who will lose everything (their homes, wealth, and jobs). There is no provision in these bailouts for the victims of the housing bubble and the media is quick to point blame at them for “over-extending” or taking out mortgages they couldn’t afford. Yet the aggressive sales policies are not punished. Why are the victims not being bailed out to enable them to keep a roof over their heads? If the governments did this then they would at least be taking on real assets (houses).

4. The economic stimulus packages are only an inconvenient “add-on”. The auto industry pleaded for a $25 billion bail out due to the overall economic malaise and decline in their own industry. The financial bailout will send good money (from the taxpayers, or via inflated money supply – printing of more dollars) to cover the toxic losses of the speculators. That money will fall into a black hole to cover their (bank’s) losses and will not help homeowners or the general public.

Concerns about the profligacy of the US government’s spendthrift bailout policies have accelerated. The NY Times reported on the 27th of November that with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury announcing a new $800 billion in lending programs on Tuesday the 25th, that they were sending a message that they would print as much money as needed to revive the nation’s crippled banking system.

“In the last year, the government has assumed about $7.8 trillion in direct and indirect financial obligations. That is equal to about half the size of the nation’s entire economy and far eclipses the $700 billion that Congress authorized for the Treasury’s financial rescue plan.” 1

In addition to the government bailouts, distressed lenders are looking to the suspension of "mark to market" accounting rules as a means of salvation. These rules required institutions to value their mortgage assets according to the most recently traded price. However, changes recently implemented by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) under pressure from the large banks to allow more advantageous model based valuations have now been brought in. Lenders are now able to pretend that the losses do not exist, or defer accounting for them, thereby dangerously removing the transparency that investors so desperately need.

“It gives companies more leeway to employ estimates and their own judgment in many cases when they deem the market to be "disorderly" or seized by liquidity problems” 2.

As a result the banks can now present inflated values for their mortgage assets, and that their balance sheets are well capitalized. They would not need to raise more capital in order to fund new loans. However, like the person with no sensitivity to pain runs the risk of serious injury, this move encourages the same financial institutions to take greater risks. In the end this will likely lead to more losses, allowing them to try to gamble their way out of the problem without reporting their true economic position.