 Print Article
|
So it is no surprise to find many investors cursing US politicians for rejecting the US$700 billion (S$1 trillion) bailout that was supposed to inject a massive jolt of confidence into battered financial systems and get them operating smoothly again.
For Asian investors, it is double jeopardy. They have worked hard to pay off the massive debts incurred during a similar banking crisis a decade ago when Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were nearly bankrupted by immense currency devaluations.
Now, just as they are beginning to enjoy the fruit of their success, Wall Street's turmoil threatens to spill over, creating chaos in regional stock markets and sending currencies sliding.
Yet, blaming US politicians facing re-election in five weeks' time for a problem created by Wall Street may be unfair. As The Economist observes: 'Devoting US$700 billion of taxpayers' money to rescuing the country's least popular industry is clearly not a vote winner.'
But try telling that to investors.
Yes, Wall Street was instrumental in getting the US and the rest of the world into a financial mess of colossal proportions, yet for lawmakers to do nothing and watch the global financial system go belly-up is irresponsible.
Some will argue that while the bailout would have cost US taxpayers US$700 billion at most, Wall Street's Monday losses alone came to US$1.2 trillion.
Still, is it wise to approve a plan - any plan - just so that Wall Street can stay afloat? It sounds too much like giving a drowning man a straw to clutch at.
US lawmakers were right to reject Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's flawed plan involving buying troubled assets off battered banks at unspecified prices as it would do little to restore jittery financial markets to health.
A similar plan being operated by the US Federal Reserve involving US banks exchanging illiquid assets for cash has yet to reap any appreciable benefit, despite costing hundreds of billions of dollars.
Given the ability of Asian markets to recover their poise yesterday after the initial knee-jerk selldown, some believe that the sense of panic that caused Mr Paulson to conceive his rescue package might have ebbed.
Similar sanguine reactions by European bourses suggest that US lawmakers may get a much-needed break to take another shot at coming up with a sensible alternative plan to safeguard the investments, deposits, money market funds and life savings of millions of Americans and people around the world.
Certainly, the US ban on short-selling financial stocks imposed two weeks ago has left banks in a race against time to restructure their operations or find a stronger partner to help them weather the financial storms.
In the last few days, Citigroup has bought most of the assets of beleaguered Wachovia, the sixth-largest bank in the US by assets, while JPMorgan Chase has snapped up deathbed bank Washington Mutual.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley - the two remaining Wall Street titans - have sought the safeguards offered by the US Federal Reserve by converting themselves into commercial banks.
Europe is not immune from the fallout, as any investor in Swiss giant UBS can tell you. But as the US contagion flares up with a vengeance across the Atlantic, European governments have taken decisive actions since Sunday to shore up investor confidence.
Belgian-Dutch banking group Fortis was partly nationalised after being thrown a ¥11 billion (S$22.3 billion) lifeline by three European governments, while troubled Belgian lender Dexia received a ¥6.4 billion cash infusion.
The Irish government even gave a two-year guarantee on savers' deposits for its six major local banks to stop the contagion.
This has, so far, managed to stanch a systemic risk in the European banking system and prevent panic over a stricken bank from triggering a collapse in others as well.
In the days ahead, there will be a confluence of factors that will determine whether the year-old credit crunch crisis shows signs of ending or continues to snowball out of control.
Tomorrow marks the last day of a temporary ban on short-selling of financial stocks in the US, unless it is extended.
Given the jittery state of Wall Street, it could lead to even more hysterical selling.
Hopefully, next month's elections will focus the minds of US lawmakers on devising a sensible plan to tackle the fear in financial markets while not alienating their constituents back home.
Given the precedent set by European governments in trying to restore calm to their own financial markets by throwing lifelines to ailing banks, suggestions are gaining ground that the US government should rescue wobbly financial institutions directly rather than buy troubled assets.
One way or another, investors may know the answer by Friday.
The clock is ticking. The fate of the fragile global financial system rests on the US Congress' wager.
