What a credit crisis looks like

NY Times:

“Panic can cause a prudent person to do rational things that can contribute to the failure of an institution.” — William A. Ackman of the hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management.

It was early on Wednesday, Sept. 17, when executives at Pershing Square, Bill Ackman’s hedge fund, began getting nervous calls and e-mail messages from investors. Mr. Ackman, 42, has been a top Wall Street player for 15 years, making his clients — and himself — billions of dollars.

But now, Mr. Ackman and his colleagues were taken aback by what they were hearing. His big investors were worried about all of the Pershing assets held by Goldman Sachs, the blue-chip investment bank, whose stock had come under siege.

Never mind that Goldman kept Pershing’s assets in a segregated account, and that the money was safe. And never mind that Mr. Ackman believed Goldman was the world’s best-run investment bank and would come through the credit crisis unscathed.

Pershing investors still feared their money might be exposed. Mr. Ackman advised Goldman executives to do something to restore confidence — such as getting an infusion of capital from Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor. And while Mr. Ackman kept his assets at Goldman, he hurriedly set up accounts at three other institutions — just in case things got much worse.

Pershing had more faith than most. Up and down Wall Street, hedge funds with billions of dollars at Goldman and Morgan Stanley, another storied investment bank, were frantically pulling money out and looking for safer havens.

Panic was spreading on two of the scariest days ever in financial markets, and the biggest investors — not small investors — were panicking the most. Nobody was sure how much damage it would cause before it ended.

This is what a credit crisis looks like. It’s not like a stock market crisis, where the scary plunge of stocks is obvious to all. The credit crisis has played out in places most people can’t see. It’s banks refusing to lend to other banks — even though that is one of the most essential functions of the banking system. It’s a loss of confidence in seemingly healthy institutions like Morgan Stanley and Goldman — both of which reported profits even as the pressure was mounting. It is panicked hedge funds pulling out cash. It is frightened investors protecting themselves by buying credit-default swaps — a financial insurance policy against potential bankruptcy — at prices 30 times what they normally would pay.

It was this 36-hour period two weeks ago — from the morning of Wednesday, Sept. 17, to the afternoon of Thursday, Sept. 18 — that spooked policy makers by opening fissures in the worldwide financial system.

In their rush to do something, and do it fast, the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. concluded the time had come to use the “break the glass” rescue plan they had been developing. But in their urgency, they bypassed a crucial step in Washington and fashioned their $700 billion bailout without political spadework, which led to a resounding rejection this past Monday in the House of Representatives.

That Thursday evening, however, time was of the essence. In a hastily convened meeting in the conference room of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, the two men presented, in the starkest terms imaginable, the outline of the $700 billion plan to Congressional leaders. “If we don’t do this,” Mr. Bernanke said, according to several participants, “we may not have an economy on Monday.”

...

There is much more. Some may think that it was Paulson and Bernanke who panicked. History will have to make that call.

Retreats become a rout when leaders lose control of their troops. When the Chinese entered the Korean war and overwhelmed army troops threw down their rifles and ran that was a rout. In contrast the Marines at the Chosin Resevoir "attacked in a different direction" destroying the Chinese Eighth army in the process of breaking out.

There are some lessons to be learned in the contrast of the two different responses to a set back. We have to restore trust in the institutions that make our economy work. The most important aspect of doing that is unraveling the knots created by the derivetive market. We should be able to do that without too much cost if it is done in an orderly manner. If that is done it should restore the credit markets to businesses that have become collateral damage in the earlier rout.

It requires leadership and not blame shifting. Too many Democrats have been too interested in the latter to do the former and that is one reason the House could not agree on the package earlier.