The Contagion Effect

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

One of Ezra Klein’s readers argues that there are some practical problems to nationalization that its supporters haven’t addressed.  One of them is the contagion effect:

Take JPMorgan Chase, for example….It continues to operate from a position of relative strength, meeting capital requirements, and it still has a significant market capitalization. Yet it has also taken TARP money. Should JPMorgan Chase be nationalized in this scenario? If you say yes, why?….And what do you do when you seize JPMorgan Chase? Do you keep management, which did better than just about anybody else? Or get rid of them? Do you really think you’re going to find a better CEO than Jamie Dimon?

….And if you say no, let them stay private, consider the fate of this bank if other large banks are nationalized. Investors would flee the stock, fearing it was next. Short sellers would pummel the stock. The company would face a difficult time raising capital. Business customers would flee to government-owned banks. It would be, as Blinder argues, just a matter of time.

This is a real issue, but there’s also a fairly straightforward answer: do all the nationalizations at once.  The Treasury Department is already moving ahead with its “stress tests” of large banks, and if they chose to, these tests could be used to decide which banks need to be nationalized and which ones don’t.  Then, once the tests are done, the findings are announced at a stroke.  Banks A, B, and C are being taken over.  Everyone else gets a clean bill of health.

If anything, this would help banks like JPMorgan (assuming they passed the stress test, of course).  After all, investors are fleeing bank stocks already, and a firm statement of who’s healthy and who’s not would give investors some basis for thinking that the healthy banks really are healthy and aren’t going to be taken over.  Business customers would also be reassured, and the Fed has made money so cheap, and set up so many term lending facilities in the past year, that non-nationalized banks would almost certainly compete on an equal footing with the banks that are government owned.  That’s how it worked in Sweden, where two banks were nationalized during their banking crisis without bringing down the others.

There are plenty of technical and operational issues with nationalizing gigantic banks, but the contagion argument strikes me as one that can be addressed fairly effectively.  If the tests are seen as fair, and the results are announced all at once, the system will not only survive, it’s likely to be strengthened.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend