Henry Paulson - On the Brink - Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System

With Merrill Lynch seemingly secure in the arms of Bank of America, all eyes were on Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. If either remaining investment bank failed, it would almost certainly bring down the other and touch off a worldwide run that would be catastrophic for the American people. And a failure was a very real possibility.

We had set a meeting with congressional leaders for 7:00 p.m., and as I rode up to the Hill, Ben called to review our strategy. I thought we were as well prepared as we could be. Ben would lay out the economic picture of what would happen if there were a systemic collapse. I would describe the powers we needed and provide some details. Kevin Fromer and I had agreed that we would need the authority to buy at least $500 billion of bad assets, but we didn’t want to commit to a number yet.

We were to meet in Nancy Pelosi’s conference room, adjacent to her office in the Capitol. Always smartly turned out, the Speaker of the House maintained an elegant, almost formal atmosphere, with fresh flowers and bowls of chocolates, that was quite removed from the rough-and-tumble of the floor. Once, when I walked in with a cup of Diet Coke, she’d said, “Oh, we don’t use plastic cups,” and an aide promptly handed me a very nice glass for my drink.

Ben and I conferred as we waited for the leaders to arrive. Chris Cox joined us. He was under heavy fire—at a campaign event earlier in the day, John McCain had said that if he were president, he would fire him. Soon the Hill’s most powerful leadership figures came in, including Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Barney Frank, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, ranking Financial Services Committee member Spencer Bachus, and Democratic Caucus chairman Rahm Emanuel from the House; and the Senate’s Harry Reid, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd, Richard Shelby, Chuck Schumer, and Democratic Conference secretary Senator Patty Murray.

We squeezed around the long table. I sat across from Nancy and Harry Reid, flanked by Ben and Chris. It was a long, tough meeting. Congress was about to break for recess in eight days, and no one was happy to be there. Ben described the severity of the crisis we faced, and I said that Treasury needed the money and powers to recapitalize the banks by buying toxic assets from their balance sheets.

Ben emphasized how the financial crisis could spill into the real economy. As stocks dropped perhaps a further 20 percent, General Motors would go bankrupt, and unemployment would rise—to 8 or 9 percent from the prevailing 6.1 percent—if we did nothing. It turned out to be a rather mild assessment of what would hit us (as I write, unemployment is now in double digits), but it was enough at the time to leave the members of Congress ashen-faced.

“It is a matter of days,” Ben said, “before there is a meltdown in the global financial system.”

The room erupted into questions. Everybody had an agenda to push or an opinion to voice. Spencer Bachus asked why we didn’t recapitalize banks by buying shares rather than assets. It was a good question, and I was glad he asked it, because it allowed me to emphasize my main point: the program wasn’t meant as a sop for failing banks. We wanted financial institutions to sell illiquid assets so we could develop a market for them. This would encourage the free flow of capital for healthy banks, help them clean up their balance sheets, and break the logjam of credit.

Speaking for the Democrats, Barney Frank laid out provisions that he wanted to see in the bill, including pay restrictions for executives at the companies receiving government money. “If they sell, you’re presumably doing them a service,” he said. “They should be willing to have restrictions.”

Though it didn’t surprise me that Barney made this point, I pushed back hard. To my mind, restricting compensation meant putting a preemptive stigma on the program. And that is exactly what I didn’t want to do. My priority was to get it off the ground fast so the system didn’t collapse while we were still negotiating. Tim, Ben, and I wanted a program that encouraged maximum participation. Hundreds of perfectly sound banks across the country had toxic assets they’d be better off unloading—if only they could. We didn’t want to discourage them from doing so, either by forcing their executives to take cuts in pay or by making it appear that participants, ipso facto, were all weak. They couldn’t afford that perception in the marketplace.

I would continue to resist pressure on compensation restrictions for several days. I was as appalled as anyone at Wall Street’s pay practices, particularly the flawed incentive structures, which we had tried to avoid at Goldman Sachs. When I was CEO, I did my best to align incentives with long-term performance. I knew compensation was too high industry-wide, but I couldn’t change that. We needed to be competitive if we were going to have the best people.

By removing the CEOs at Fannie, Freddie, and AIG, the government had already demonstrated that we weren’t going to reward failure, but in retrospect I was wrong not to have been more sensitive to the public outrage.

Understandably, the lawmakers pushed me to provide a dollar figure. But I was purposefully vague. “We don’t have the number yet, and we want to work with you on this,” I said. “It’s got to be big enough to make a difference.”

How big was “big,” they wanted to know.

“We need to buy hundreds of billions of dollars of assets,” I said. I knew better than to utter the word trillion. That would have caused cardiac arrest. “We need an announcement tonight to calm the market, and legislation next week,” I said.

What would happen if we didn’t get the authorities we sought, I was asked.

“May God help us all,” I replied.

By the end of the meeting, everyone, with the notable exception of Shelby, was supportive to some degree. The tumult in the market had forced a rare bipartisan consensus. The leaders appeared to understand that something had to be done and that the only way to do this was to present a united front.

“This is a worldwide problem,” Barney Frank said. “But we own it.”

Chris Dodd told me that he wanted the administration to cooperate in drafting the legislation; he didn’t want to be handed a fait accompli. The House and Senate needed to be able to sell any legislation we came up with, and the political calculus was tricky just weeks before an election. Averse to bailouts, voters would never grasp the pain of a meltdown unless they experienced it. As Barney put it: “No one will ever get reelected for avoiding a crisis.” Nancy Pelosi noted: “We have to position this as a stimulus and relief for the American homeowner.”

As we got ready to leave the nearly two-hour meeting, I was relieved at what soon became a public show of support and rather naïvely thought that legislation was going to be easier than I had first expected. But Harry Reid offered a more realistic assessment: “We can’t act immediately,” he said, noting that it usually took Congress weeks to get anything done.

I had been in my office for 15 minutes Friday morning when I received a call from an upset Sheila Bair, just after 7:00 a.m. We were scheduled to announce the money market fund guarantee in less than an hour, and in the rush we had not consulted with the FDIC chairman—or even notified her. She’d learned of our plans from press reports and was calling to complain. She said she knew I was under a lot of pressure, but it was outrageous that we had not checked with her first.

From the time I came to Treasury, in July 2006, I’d had a constructive relationship with Sheila, working closely with her on housing issues, about which she had many ideas. She had exceptionally good political instincts. We usually agreed on policy, but she tended to view the world through the prism of the FDIC—an understandable but at times narrow focus. Now she told me that our money market guarantee would hurt the banks.