On the Brink (35 page)

From the time I came to Treasury, in July 2006, I’d had a constructive relationship with Sheila, working closely with her on housing issues, about which she had many ideas. She had exceptionally good political instincts. We usually agreed on policy, but she tended to view the world through the prism of the FDIC—an understandable but at times narrow focus. Now she told me that our money market guarantee would hurt the banks.

“There are a lot of bank deposits that aren’t insured,” she said. “And they can now go to the money market funds.”

Sheila had a good solution to prevent this from happening: insure only the customer balances that were in the money market funds on or before that day, September 19. I said that I liked her idea and that I would ask David Nason to work closely with her and her staff to implement it.

The truth is, we had to move quickly as the crisis mounted, and occasionally we stumbled. We grappled with this hard fact every time we worked on a new idea: often our fixes led to unattractive consequences. Whenever government came in—as with the guarantee program—we risked causing massive distortions in the markets. The risk of a misstep was greater the faster we had to move and the less time we had to think through every possible outcome. As a result, we had to be nimble, and flexible, enough to make midcourse corrections as needed.

The money market guarantee was an extraordinary improvisation on the part of Nason and Shafran. They had raced through the night to sketch its outlines and make the plan work. In time, funds participating in the guarantee would pay fees into a reserve that supplemented the ESF, which would not expend a single dollar on the program.

Treasury was operating so much on the fly that Nason drafted staff from the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, which he oversaw, to help formulate the agreements and pricing schemes of the guarantee. It was announced on September 19, opened ten days later, and was, I believe, the single most powerful and important action taken to hold the system together before Congress acted. (The guarantee was intended to be a temporary program, and Congress has since ended it.)

Initially we worried about industry acceptance of the plan. Nason and Shafran had canvassed everyone from executives at Charles Schwab and Vanguard Group to the Investment Company Institute, the industry’s trade association, and found that many were concerned about having to pay to insure what was already a low-margin product. But in the end we had virtually 100 percent market participation and collected over $1 billion in premiums.

That morning, the U.S. government unveiled a package of new programs to boost liquidity and calm the markets. The SEC issued an order prohibiting the short selling of 799 financial stocks for 10 business days (the order could be extended to 30 days). My efforts to round up Tim’s and Ben’s support had given Chris Cox the backing he needed, and after our meeting with Hill leaders the previous night, SEC commissioners had approved the ban in an emergency session. The announcement did not go off without a hitch, however. A number of major companies, including GE and Credit Suisse, had been omitted from the list, which Chris later had to expand.

At 8:30 a.m., the Federal Reserve unveiled its Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Fund Liquidity Facility, better known as AMLF. Under this program, the Fed would extend nonrecourse loans to U.S. depository institutions and bank holding companies to finance their purchases of high-quality asset-backed commercial paper from money market mutual funds. In a separate action to boost liquidity, the Fed said it would buy short-term debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This raft of programs, coupled with news reports that we had gone up to the Hill to get new legislation, acted like a tonic to the markets. Led by financial shares, stocks rallied right from the opening. By 9:42 a.m., the Dow was already up 275 points, on its way to a full-day gain of 369 points. Morgan Stanley’s shares jumped 33 percent in the first few minutes of trading.

As my staff labored on upcoming White House and congressional presentations, my phone pulled me every which way. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein called to express his concern for Morgan Stanley and what its troubles might mean—for the market and for his firm. The market was losing confidence in investment banks, he said, and although Goldman had a strong balance sheet, counterparties and funding sources were scared.

“I’ve never rooted so hard for a competitor,” he said. “If they go, we’re next.”

Dick Fuld also called, and although I didn’t really have time to talk, I stayed on the line with him for 20 minutes. Like our conversation a few days earlier, I found it very sad. He was afraid he would spend years in court. He asked if I could please tell others how hard he had tried and what he’d done. I told him I knew that he’d made a big effort to save Lehman, but the crisis we faced was unprecedented. It was the last time I spoke with him.

The Treasury press office stayed busy that day. At 10:00 a.m., I issued a statement that explained our reasons for going to Congress—how illiquid assets were clogging the financial system and threatening Americans’ personal savings and the entire economy. I said I would work with Congress over the weekend to get the legislation in place for the next week. And I took the opportunity to push for the regulatory reforms I had long advocated.

Forty-five minutes later Ben, Chris, and I stood in the White House Rose Garden with President Bush, who outlined the actions we were taking and announced that we had briefed Congress on the need for swift legislation granting the government authority to step in and buy troubled assets. “These measures will act as grease for the gears of our financial system, which were at risk of grinding to a halt,” he said.

There was much still to be done. Treasury staff took the lead, representing the administration, in working with the House and Senate financial services committees to outline what would become the Troubled Assets Relief Program. I pushed our team to ask for the most expansive authorities, with as few limitations as possible, because I knew we had only one chance to get this from Congress.

In the afternoon, Kevin Fromer took me aside and said, “If you believe there is a possibility $500 billion won’t be enough, we should request more.”

“You’re absolutely right,” I said. I did want a bigger number, and I knew the market would, too. But I didn’t want to run the risk of asking for too much, then getting turned down. “What’s the most you think we can get?”

“The public and Congress will hate $500 billion,” he said. “It’s already unthinkable. But I’m not sure they will hate $700 billion any more. If you get any higher, closer to a trillion, we will have a problem.”

Our choice of the $700 billion figure wasn’t just a political judgment. There was a market calculation as well: back of the envelope, we knew there were roughly $11 trillion of residential mortgages in the country, most of them good. We would need to buy only a small amount of them to provide transparency and energize the markets. And we believed that $700 billion was enough to make a difference.

Still, the $700 billion figure shocked many Americans—and Congress. Maybe my failure to anticipate this reaction showed how inured I was becoming to the extraordinary numbers associated with the prospect of an all-out financial meltdown. I was constantly being confronted by shocking figures. Friday, as the equity markets rallied, the credit markets remained tight, and investors’ flight- to-quality kept demand unbelievably high for Treasuries. Fails to deliver rose to $285 billion that day, a jaw-dropping increase from $20 billion one week before.

We had raced the clock on Bear Stearns, then again on Fannie and Freddie, Lehman, and AIG. Now we were rushing to develop the outline of TARP, even as I feared we could lose four giant financial institutions—Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs—in the next few days.

Congressional leaders had advised us not to present them with a finished document but to work with them, so we prepared a short, bare-bones proposal with open-ended language, knowing that members would add provisions that would make the legislation their own. At about 9:00 p.m. on Friday, Chris Dodd called to ask where our proposal was. “My staff’s been waiting since 5:00 p.m.,” he said, reminding us to be cooperative.

In the end, we cut the proposal down to three pages, and it turned out to be a three-page political mistake.

We asked for broad power to spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets, including both mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, under whatever terms and conditions we saw fit.

The assets would be priced using market mechanisms such as reverse auctions, in which sellers put out bids—not buyers, as is normally the case. Once purchased, they would be managed by private asset managers. The returns would go into Treasury’s general fund, for the benefit of U.S. taxpayers.

Reflecting the urgency of the situation, our draft asked for Treasury to have the maximum discretion to retain agents to carry out the asset purchases, and for protection from lawsuits by private parties who might attempt to derail or delay the program. This freedom from judicial review we modeled in many respects after the Gold Reserve Act of 1934.

We were pilloried for the proposal—not least because it was so short, and hence appeared to some critics as if it had been done offhandedly. In fact, we’d kept it short to give Congress plenty of room to operate; April’s “Break the Glass” review of policy options on which this outline was based was itself ten pages long. Making no provision for judicial review came across as overreaching, and that provision eventually went out the door. But nearly all of what we would ask for, and what would eventually form the basis of the legislation, was in those three pages.

Nonetheless, we could have managed our introduction of the TARP legislation more adroitly. At a minimum, we ought to have sent up the three pages as bullet points, rather than as draft legislation. We might have sent it up sooner: it went to the Hill at midnight, and waiting all day had put lawmakers, their staffs, and the media on pins and needles. And as Michele Davis later pointed out to me, we should have held a press conference that night to explain the language more clearly. We would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble had we emphasized that our proposal was an outline. But the entire staff was crunching to get the language right, and there was no time to consider niceties like news conferences. Later, of course, we would hold many such late-night press briefings.

Even with TARP sketched out, a temporary money market guarantee in place, and a short-selling ban in operation, I still couldn’t breathe easily, because of the intense pressure on Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. They were the top two investment banks in the world—not only for their prestige but also for the sheer size of their balance sheets, their trading books, and their exposures. Their counterparty risk was enormous, much bigger than Lehman’s. And we unequivocally knew that the market could not tolerate another failure like that of Lehman.

Morgan Stanley was particularly beset. Friday’s government actions had done wonders for its shares, which rose 21 percent to $27.21, and its credit default rates had fallen by more than a third. But its clients and counterparties had lost confidence; since Monday, hedge funds had been pulling their prime brokerage accounts, and other institutions were shying away from the firm. In one week the reserves available to the Morgan Stanley parent company had plunged from about $81 billion to $31 billion. We knew that if Morgan Stanley fell, the focus would turn to Goldman Sachs.

On Friday evening, around 6:30 p.m., John Mack called to update me. He was scrambling for a solution. He desperately needed a merger or a show of support from a strategic investor, but he had not gotten far with China Investment Corporation (CIC), Beijing’s sovereign wealth fund, which he had thought might consider an additional equity investment in his firm.

“We’re not making as much progress as I would like,” he acknowledged. “The Chinese need to know that the U.S. government thinks it is important to find a solution.”

“I’ll talk to Wang Qishan,” I assured him. I added that I was prepared to ask President Bush to say something to China’s president, Hu Jintao, if it would be helpful and necessary.

After I got off the phone with John, I spoke with Ben and Tim to set our plan of attack for Saturday and Sunday. Deal talk dominated our conversation, as it would throughout the weekend. We believed that Wachovia and WaMu were on the edge of failing. They were plagued by piles of bad assets and had genuine solvency issues. By contrast, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were suffering from a lack of confidence. Morgan Stanley also faced a near-term liquidity crunch.

Morgan Stanley and Wachovia had discussed a merger earlier in the week. Morgan Stanley had concluded that it couldn’t do one without enormous amounts of government assistance because of Wachovia’s huge exposure, about $122 billion, to so-called option ARMs. Among the most toxic of loans, these adjustable-rate mortgages let borrowers choose from different payment methods; they frequently came with introductory teaser rates and often contained a feature by which the low mortgage payments caused the loan balance to grow.

Tim had had serious doubts as to whether a Morgan Stanley–Wachovia combination would be credible to the market. Both institutions were too wobbly, and these talks ended without Morgan Stanley’s requesting or the Fed’s offering assistance.

Spurred by the Federal Reserve, we discussed a range of ways to combine the investment banks with commercial banks. Our rationale was simple: confidence in the business model of investment banks had evaporated, so merging them with commercial banks would reassure the markets. In truth, I didn’t like the idea of creating megabanks—they were too big and complex to manage effectively, and I believed that both Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had better balance sheets than many of the commercial banks. But we had to find a way to reduce the likelihood of a failure of the investment banks—and the collapse of our financial system.

The Fed was also working on backup plans to enable Goldman and Morgan Stanley to become bank holding companies. This would bring them under the supervision of the Fed, which inspired more confidence in investors than the SEC. That, however, was Plan B, and we didn’t believe it would be enough to save the two investment banks unless they could also raise capital from strategic investors. But in the ongoing market panic, both investment banks were having trouble finding credible partners.