Ten Reasons Why the Stress Tests Are “Schmess” Tests and Why the Current Muddle-Through Approach to the Banking Crisis May Not Succeed
Nouriel Roubini
|
May 8, 2009
What shall we make of the recently announced results of the stress test? Are they credible? Will they restore confidence in our battered financial system? Will the current approach to resolving the financial crisis work, be effective and minimize the fiscal costs of the financial bailout? For a number of reasons these results are a significant underestimate of the capital/equity needs of these 19 large US banks. Also this underestimate of the losses and the current “muddle-through” approach to the banking and financial crisis may accelerate the creeping partial nationalization of the US financial system, exacerbate moral hazard distortions, not resolve the too-big-to-fail problem, increase the fiscal costs of this financial crisis, make the credit crunch last longer and lead some near insolvent financial institutions to become zombie banks. Let me explain in ten points why I hold such views (see also my two recent op-eds with Matt Richardson in the WSJ and the FT): Register for RGE EconoMonitorsAccess to some RGE EconoMonitors, including Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor, is reserved for registered users, so sign up now to read and comment on current postings. These writings are only a small part of the insights and commentary available through RGE Monitor. Contact us today at info@rgemonitor.com or 212.645.0010 to learn more about becoming a full subscriber. |
Subscriber Login
Also on RGE Monitor
Recent Posts:
Topics
Archives
Restoring Financial Stability
How to Repair a Failed System A Bird's-Eye View—The
Financial Crisis of 2007-2009: Causes and Remedies
Agenda for Reform
Building an International Monetary and Financial System for the 21st Century
by the Reinventing Bretton Woods Committee Download the ebook |
||||||||||||