Paulson's Capital Cram has no Multiplier

I have to change my anti-media rants because there are some outlets and some writers who refuse to submit to the errors of their business overlords and the mediocrity of their colleagues.  NYT and Newsweek, I'm looking at you.  Great article in the NYT discussing how smaller, healthier banks are hoarding the money they received through the TPILF...I mean TARP.  The author, Mike McIntire, did a very simple thing, he went through the transcripts of as many earnings calls and investment conferences, he was able to get a more candid view of the banks plans for the money than what they are providing through worthless press pronouncements.

“With that capital in hand, not only do we feel comfortable that we can ride out the recession,” he said, “but we also feel that we’ll be in a position to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves once this recession is sorted out.” (Walter M. Pressey, president of Boston Private Wealth Management)

This has some amazing implications.  Before the TARP was approved, I had a discussion with a friend of mine who invests in financial institutions for a big-time money manager.  His argument was that TARP should be approved because it would inject money into the economy, which through the magic of an economist's Multiplier Effect would have an outsized effect on the economy.  Looks like Boston Private is exhibit #1 in how that's not going to happen.  If the banks take the money and sit on it, as it appears they are more than happy to do, then it doesn't have any impact other than making already healthy banks wealthier.

And they just approved part II of this beast?  Not only is our government not responsibly regulating bad industries, they now appear to be magnifying their bad decisions.

I'm pretty sure that putting $750 Billion dollars into the hands of the lower economic stratus of our economy would have a much, much larger multiplier effect than these idiots.

CalculatedRisk picks up on the data mess...

CalculatedRisk, a blog that riles me up with their usual one-sided view of the market, points out the fact that the government is dealing with bad data. Granted: this post highlights that data manipulation can go both ways. As bad as Case and RealtyTrac are to the downside -- NAR, MBA and Hope Now tend to skew to the upside. Should we just average their results to get to the real data?
Which just highlights the need for real, objective data issued by professionals with no skin in the game. I raise this point because it's scary to think that our government is making policy and regulations based on skewed and biased data. What happened to their own data collecting capabilities? Expect more analysis of this topic in the future...