Nationalizing banks is a risky approach

The stocks of Bank of America and Citigroup were hammered today after the 'Bank nationalization' rumor started to gain strength. Moreover, editorials and various publications started to raise their voice in favor of nationalizing the failing banks. Though most of the economists are not openly admitting this option, they accept that the tax payers money infused into the big banks is not working.

Considering the banks' high level of dependence on the government funds, now these banks are almost under the orders of Washington. This was clearly evident in the Congress hearing that was held last week. The CEOs of the Eight big banks were literally grilled and pounded by the Congressman. At one point of time, a congressman was asking a CEO to reduce his bank's interest rates and an other congressman asked the CEOs to sell their private jets. It almost looked like hundreds of Board of Directors were questioning the CEOs. Virtually, the bank executives resembled like the government employees of a nationalized bank.

Since these banks are in need of federal funds, it makes sense to nationalize the banks and remove the existing top management which brought the crisis at the first place. This option would be a better one, if the economic crisis is not bad as it is now.

Nationalizing these banks will serve as an additional burden to the govt which is already hands full in executing the stimulus plan. Acquiring these banks and running them successfully along with streamlining the funds of the stimulus plan is an onerous task and there is no room for failure. Considering the size of these banks, it is not an easy task to replace a new management and expect it to run the bank successfully in this tough economic situation. Any error in the nationalized banks would seriously hamper the confidence on US by the world countries. This will also add up to the already huge deficit and would heavily hamper the valuation of US currency. Then, US as a country would like a big corporation at the verge of bankrupt. On the other hand, successful execution of Bank and the stimulus plan would be a dream run. But this is not the time to test the tough waters.

Now the government would like to play safe and not worsen the current situation. But at the same time, it should avoid banks going bankrupt. Debacle of a single major consumer bank is enough to bring down the confidence and which this will eventually prolong the economic recovery process. The only way to help the failing banks is to acquire the toxic assets held by those banks. The government can aggregate these toxic assets into one entity and could alienate the banks from these assets. At the same time, it should ensure that the infused funds are used for its intended purpose. Strict transparency should be enforced in regulating the injected money. Essentially, a new regulatory environment should be setup which should have a greater control over these banks and at the same time a super regulator should be setup to oversee the interconnection between Wall street and Main street. The government can hold up these toxic assets and can sell them to the private investors in a staggered basis, thereby the spent money can be gained back.

The whole nationalization idea is widely seen as an option as the Swedish government followed this approach to recover its economy decades ago. Some say we can follow the same approach and others are against it. But, every situation is different and should be handled with its own pros and cons. US should devise its own customized model to suit the current situation. Revival of a country's economy is not so easy as copy-pasting a model from the history. It all depends on the risk capability of the government in devising an innovative approach.