Comment comprendre le plan de sauvetage

Incroyablement, nous vivons une crise financière et un plan de sauvetage a été rejeté par la Chambre des représentants aux États-Unis, mais peu de médias expliquent vraiment le plan en question de façon simple.

Je trouve que The Economist résume bien le tout en peu de mots:

The new law would have provided the Fed with an additional tool for combating the latest stage of the crisis: from October 1st it would have paid interest on reserves that banks maintain at the Fed. This would have let it pump almost unlimited cash into the money market without fear of interest rates falling to zero, Japanese-style.

Mr Paulson or his successor would have been given $250 billion immediately, $100 billion more at the president’s discretion and $350 billion upon Congress’s approval. The Troubled Asset Relief Programme, or TARP, would be allowed to buy mortgage-backed securities, whole loans (those not bundled into pools) and, in consultation with the Federal Reserve chairman, anything else necessary to stabilise the financial system. That includes taking control of entire companies. Mr Paulson said on Sunday that would get the power to avert “the potential systemic risk from the disorderly failure of a large financial institution,” implying the ability to bail-out a company while punishing its owners, as was done with Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG. Given the frequency with which institutions are collapsing, he would have been keen to invoke that power soon.

Voilà.

Michel Munger

I am an experienced communicator who worked in journalism for 15 years at La Presse, the TVA Group and Le Journal de Montréal. I spent a year at the United Nations in Germany and now am an internal communications editor at DHL. I founded the Bayern Central blog in 2011 and ran it for seven years. Cyclist, beer and coffee snob.