Buying Bad Debt From Banks __EXCLUSIVE__
As distressed debt resolution specialists, local AMCs are tasked with assuming the credit risks of the NPLs from banks and resolving NPLs outside the banking sector. We analyze detailed transaction-level data from a leading local AMC and document five revealing facts:
buying bad debt from banks
Collectively, these results are more consistent with NPL transactions concealing rather than resolving troubled bank assets. Three parties are involved in the concealment process: (1) banks, which want to remove NPLs from their balance sheets to comply with the quantity-based loan quality regulation; (2) AMCs, which are compensated for acting as pass-through entities; and (3) third-party bank affiliates, which are the ultimate owners of the NPLs and borrowers of the bank.
This act:Establishes the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) as a permanent central bank
Prohibits interstate banking. This prohibition is not repealed until 1994
Authorizes hometown branches for national banks, if allowed by the state. This authorization helps to put national banks on par with state banks. National banks still cannot branch outside of the city in which they are headquartered
Gives national banks the authority to buy and sell marketable debt obligations.
Clarification (Nov. 11, 2022): This story has been updated to clarify that some banks have received offers of 60 cents on the dollar from investors for a piece of the Twitter debt, according to Bloomberg.
Do you want to see how debt fits into your bigger picture? Calculate how much leftover cash you have each month by subtracting your monthly debt obligations and other expenses/bills from your after-tax monthly income.
A few months ago, in a blog post available here, we develop and use a very simple model of the economy to represent the relationship between equilibrium interest rates on reserve balances, Treasuries, bank loans, and deposits at banks, as well as Fed, bank and household holdings of these instruments. The model consists of a household that uses its wealth and bank loans to fund investments in deposits and Treasuries; a bank that uses deposits to fund investments in Treasuries, loans to households and reserve balances; and the Fed, which just uses reserve balances from banks to fund purchases of Treasuries. The household and the bank both seek to hold balanced portfolios of assets and respond to relative interest rates on their assets and liabilities.
It is important that you respond as soon as possible if a debt collector contacts you about a debt that you do not owe, that is for the wrong amount, that is for a debt you already paid, or that you want more information about. Make sure you respond in writing to dispute the debt. If you don't, the debt collector may keep trying to collect the debt from you and may even end up suing you for payment.
Debt collectors cannot make false or misleading statements. For example, they cannot lie about the debt they are collecting or the fact that they are trying to collect debt, and they cannot use words or symbols that falsely make their letters to you seem like they're from an attorney, court, or government agency.
Debt collectors may not be able to sue you to collect on old (time-barred) debts, but they may still try to collect on those debts. In California, there is generally a four-year limit for filing a lawsuit to collect a debt based on a written agreement. However, it may be hard to figure out when the clock on that period starts to run or can be restarted (for example, a partial payment of the debt may restart the clock), and a debt collector that is time-barred from suing you may still send you collection notices, call you to try to get you to pay, or report your debt to credit reporting companies. If you think your debt may be time-barred, you may want to consult an attorney.
In short, this allows the Treasury to purchase illiquid, difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The targeted assets can be collateralized debt obligations, which were sold in a booming market until 2007, when they were hit by widespread foreclosures on the underlying loans. TARP was intended to improve the liquidity of these assets by purchasing them using secondary market mechanisms, thus allowing participating institutions to stabilize their balance sheets and avoid further losses.
TARP does not allow banks to recoup losses already incurred on troubled assets, but officials expect that once trading of these assets resumes, their prices will stabilize and ultimately increase in value, resulting in gains to both participating banks and the Treasury itself. The concept of future gains from troubled assets comes from the hypothesis in the financial industry that these assets are oversold, as only a small percentage of all mortgages are in default, while the relative fall in prices represents losses from a much higher default rate.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) requires financial institutions selling assets to TARP to issue equity warrants (a type of security that entitles its holder to purchase shares in the company issuing the security for a specific price), or equity or senior debt securities (for non-publicly listed companies) to the Treasury. In the case of warrants, the Treasury will only receive warrants for non-voting shares, or will agree not to vote the stock. This measure was designed to protect the government by giving the Treasury the possibility of profiting through its new ownership stakes in these institutions. Ideally, if the financial institutions benefit from government assistance and recover their former strength, the government will also be able to profit from their recovery.
Another important goal of TARP was to encourage banks to resume lending again at levels seen before the crisis, both to each other and to consumers and businesses. If TARP can stabilize bank capital ratios, it should theoretically allow them to increase lending instead of hoarding cash to cushion against future unforeseen losses from troubled assets. Increased lending equates to "loosening" of credit, which the government hopes will restore order to the financial markets and improve investor confidence in financial institutions and the markets. As banks gain increased lending confidence, the interbank lending interest rates (the rates at which the banks lend to each other on a short-term basis) should decrease, further facilitating lending.
On October 8, the British announced their bank rescue package consisting of funding, debt guarantees and infusing capital into banks via preferred stock. This model was closely followed by the rest of Europe, as well as the U.S Government, who on the October 14 announced a $250bn (143bn) Capital Purchase Program to buy stakes in a wide variety of banks in an effort to restore confidence in the sector. The money came from the $700bn Troubled Asset Relief Program.
To qualify for this program, the Treasury required participating institutions to meet certain criteria, including: "(1) ensuring that incentive compensation for senior executives does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution; (2) required clawback of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive based on statements of earnings, gains or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate; (3) prohibition on the financial institution from making any golden parachute payment to a senior executive based on the Internal Revenue Code provision; and (4) agreement not to deduct for tax purposes executive compensation in excess of $500,000 for each senior executive". The Treasury also bought preferred stock and warrants from hundreds of smaller banks, using the first $250 billion allotted to the program.
The first allocation of the TARP money was primarily used to buy preferred stock, which was similar to debt in that it gets paid before common equity shareholders. This had led some economists to argue that the plan may be ineffective in inducing banks to lend efficiently.
In the original plan, the government would buy troubled (also known as 'toxic') assets in insolvent banks and then sell them at auction to private investor and/or companies. This plan was scratched when United Kingdom's Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to the White House for an international summit on the global credit crisis. Prime Minister Brown, in an attempt to mitigate the credit squeeze in England, planned a package of three measures consisting of funding, debt guarantees and infusing capital into banks via preferred stock. The objective was to directly support banks' solvency and funding; in some economists' view, effectively nationalizing many banks. This plan seemed attractive to the Treasury Secretary in that it was relatively easier and seemingly boosted lending more quickly. The first half of the asset purchases may not be effective in getting banks to lend again because they were reluctant to risk lending as before with low lending standards. To make matters worse, overnight lending to other banks came to a relative halt because banks did not trust each other to be prudent with their money.
On February 5, 2009, the Senate approved changes to the TARP that prohibited firms receiving TARP funds from paying bonuses to their 25 highest-paid employees. The measure was proposed by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut as an amendment to the $900 billion economic stimulus act then waiting to be passed. On February 10, the newly confirmed Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner outlined his plan to use the remaining $300 billion or so in TARP funds. He intended to direct $50 billion towards foreclosure mitigation and use the rest to help fund private investors to buy toxic assets from banks. Nevertheless, this highly anticipated speech coincided with a nearly 5 percent drop in the S&P 500 and was criticized for lacking details. 041b061a72