ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


I expect something like this: The government will spend 700G$ purchasing assets. Later the government will spend 300G$ more supporting the bailout plan, but will label it as something else or as "off budget". The government will over time sell its purchased assets for 800G$. It will then claim to have made a 100G$ profit.
Do you think that the government measure will include the cost of funds?
I think it may be a suckers bet. Just some quick points:
Some of these distressed securities are trading at 17 to 20 cents on the dollar. That's right down at bankruptcy levels. Lets say he buys the stuff at 50 cents on the dollar. Now, not only can the Treasury rewrite the rules of "default", keeping these securities alive, they can also pump tons of money into the economy. More importantly, 50% loss rates with 0 recovery would be pretty apocalyptic by any measure. If the problem is (as the Fed seems to be guessing) a liquidity problem, then just holding onto these suckers for a couple of years and selling them back out would net them a profit.
Depending on the asset managers they hire, they would have to work hard at losing money.
Given the government's normal methods of accounting, I think you'd be a fool to make a bet that would depend on reliable and meaningful numbers that stem from government accounting. I guarantee they'll show a profit, though we may have no idea how.
Color me cynical, but I think you're betting on a sure thing. In five years, will Congress and the President want to develop a new program to "recoup its losses"? The answer is surely, "Yes".
So the President will direct the Treasury Secretary to report a loss.
If this is something that can be mechanized relatively easy, can someone set up an intrade contract?
definitely a sucker bet.
Are we sure that the government measure will account for all costs? Will it account for inflation?
I can imagine many scenarios whereby you would win this bet under any *reasonable* measure, but lose it under many possible measures typical of political reporting.
Treasury invests $700Bil. Treasury prints a pile of money, inflation flirts with double digits for a few years. Government sells securities for $800bil, declares $100B profit, while real return was actually negative. 5 years is a long time for games like this to make a giant difference.