This is how Geithner’s awful plan works:
Consider an asset that has a 50-50 chance of being worth either zero or $200 in a yearâ€™s time. The average â€œvalueâ€ of the asset is $100. Ignoring interest, this is what the asset would sell for in a competitive market. It is what the asset is â€œworth.â€ Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership!
Assume that one of the public-private partnerships the Treasury has promised to create is willing to pay $150 for the asset. Thatâ€™s 50 percent more than its true value, and the bank is more than happy to sell. So the private partner puts up $12, and the government supplies the rest â€” $12 in â€œequityâ€ plus $126 in the form of a guaranteed loan.
If, in a yearâ€™s time, it turns out that the true value of the asset is zero, the private partner loses the $12, and the government loses $138. If the true value is $200, the government and the private partner split the $74 thatâ€™s left over after paying back the $126 loan. In that rosy scenario, the private partner more than triples his $12 investment. But the taxpayer, having risked $138, gains a mere $37.
Even in an imperfect market, one shouldnâ€™t confuse the value of an asset with the value of the upside option on that asset.
(Courtesy of the New York Times.)
Tim Geithner is not a confident Secretary of the Treasury. Timothy Geithner should step down.