Posts Tagged ‘banks’

The culture war

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

The past eight years has seen the growth of a culture war between traditional values, like marriage and religious belief, and cultural attitudes toward gay rights, gay marriage and the environment. Some of these differences have become heated, such as animosity toward religious believers by gay marriage advocates. Another set of values that is under attack could be called “fiscal prudence” or “The Protestant Ethic.” We work and save and get an education and eventually we own something like a house and a car and some money in the bank. Recently the latter value system has come under attack by a political party that believes in “spreading the money around.” When I was a child, there was a nursery story called “The Three Little Pigs” which emphasized the point that the prudent person is safest in the long run.

Of course, John Maynard Keynes dismissed this idea by pointing out that In the long run we are all dead.

The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.

We can see that our present leadership is firmly of the belief that short term plans are best because who knows what the future brings ? What we see right now is a war on capitlalism and saving and investing.

There is a major cultural schism developing in America. But it’s not over abortion, same-sex marriage or home schooling, as important as these issues are. The new divide centers on free enterprise — the principle at the core of American culture.

Despite President Barack Obama’s early personal popularity, we can see the beginnings of this schism in the “tea parties” that have sprung up around the country. In these grass-roots protests, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans have joined together to make public their opposition to government deficits, unaccountable bureaucratic power, and a sense that the government is too willing to prop up those who engaged in corporate malfeasance and mortgage fraud.

The data support the protesters’ concerns. In a publication with the ironic title, “A New Era of Responsibility,” the president’s budget office reveals average deficits of 4.7% in the five years after this recession is over. The Congressional Budget Office predicts $9.3 trillion in new debt over the coming decade.

The US educational system has been busy re-educating the youth about capitalism and the free market.

Just 35% of American voters believe that a free market economy is the same as a capitalist economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 38% disagree and 27% are not sure.
This helps explain earlier data showing that 77% prefer a free market economy over a government managed economy while just 53% prefer capitalism over socialism.

That is surprising since I don’t know how a free market operates in any but a capitalist system. I expect that this is a consequence of Marxist professors teaching college students that capitalism, a word coined by Marx, is bad. They aren’t completely stupid, though, because they don’t think the government can run the auto companies. Only 18% expect Obama to do a good job with them. I guess that’s his base. Democrats, as expected, are clueless.

However, two-thirds of Democrats (67%) say it is at least somewhat likely that Chrysler and GM will become profitable again under union and government ownership, a view shared by just 34% of Republicans and 33% of unaffiliated adults.

What is going on ? We are seeing the Chicago Way in action as the Obama people threaten those, like the Chrysler secured creditors, who would like the law to apply instead of Obama “spread it around” favoritism. Megan McArdle, who voted for Obama, has reservations but a little late. We could have told her.

This is troubling, because it’s now clear that the worry many of us had at the time of the bank bailouts has come true: the government is using its intervention in the banking system to pressure banks to give special deals to the government’s special friends.

(The government is apparently still taking the line that they are only intervening because the automakers are splendid, robust companies that got caught in a “perfect storm”. If so, Chrysler must be stuck in the Bermuda Triangle, because owners have been playing “hot potato” with its dying brands for most of the last decade.)

Countries that use their banking systems this way don’t get good results. If you’re a fairly uncorrupt developed country, you get slower growth and bloated “critical” sectors that are usually more critical in providing campaign support, lavishly remunerated make-work jobs, and photo ops, than any products the public actually wants. Then, if something like Japan happens, you have a twenty-year “lost decade” while everyone pretends as hard as hard can be that everything is all right, in the sincere but misguided believe that wishing hard enough will make it so.

If you are a badly managed country, you end up like much of Latin America or Africa, with a dysfunctional economy that booms only along with the price of some commodity you happen to produce.

We are hardly Zimbabwe, or even Venezuela. But if we keep using TARP to create a sort of “Most Favored Borrower” status, we’ll erode the safeguards that keep election to office in America from being the kind of giant spoils system that’s common in much of the world. What the bankruptcy judge did was entirely right and proper–it’s his job to allocate losses among creditors. And it’s always true that some of the credtiors won’t like the deal they get. On the other hand, what the administration did really wasn’t. It got its pet majority stakeholders to screw both their own shareholders, and the other creditors, in order to give a powerful union a sweetheart deal.

Imagine even having to say that “We are not Zimbabwe” under the last president.

This will not end well.

A better explanation

Monday, April 6th, 2009

A better explanation of what happened is now published in the WSJ today. It may not be the last word but it makes sense.

Why does one large asset bubble — like our dot-com bubble — do no damage to the financial system while another one leads to its collapse? Key characteristics of housing markets — momentum trading, liquidity, price-tier movements, and high-margin purchases — combine to provide a fairly complete, simple description of the housing bubble collapse, and how it engulfed the financial system and then the wider economy.

They believe that the housing bubble was unique because it involved heavy leverage and a low income segment of the population who could not service their debt once property appreciation ended. They were betting that trees grow to the sky. I have lived through other housing bubbles.

In just the past 40 years there were two other housing bubbles, with peaks in 1979 and 1989, but the largest one in U.S. history started in 1997, probably sparked by rising household income that began in 1992 combined with the elimination in 1997 of taxes on residential capital gains up to $500,000. Rising values in an asset market draw investor attention; the early stages of the housing bubble had this usual, self-reinforcing feature.

The 1979 bubble ended with inflation and high interest rates. In those days, however, the down payments and income requirements kept some level of sanity. In 1979, my partner built a custom home in a new gated section of Mission Viejo that was located on a lake. His neighbors on either side also built custom homes but, when the time came to convert from construction financing to permanent home loans, the interest rates were 21% and neither could qualify for the loan in spite of excellent incomes.

The 2001 recession might have ended the bubble, but the Federal Reserve decided to pursue an unusually expansionary monetary policy in order to counteract the downturn. When the Fed increased liquidity, money naturally flowed to the fastest expanding sector. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations aggressively pursued the goal of expanding homeownership, so credit standards eroded. Lenders and the investment banks that securitized mortgages used rising home prices to justify loans to buyers with limited assets and income.

There are You Tube videos of Franklin Raines explaining to Congress in 2004 that single family home values could never decline.

But they did decline and we have seen the consequences. Why did this bubble take down the financial sector of the economy ?

In the equities-market downturn early in this decade, declining assets were held by institutional and individual investors that either owned the assets outright, or held only a small fraction on margin, so losses were absorbed by their owners. In the current crisis, declining housing assets were often, in effect, purchased between 90% and 100% on margin. In some of the cities hit hardest, borrowers who purchased in the low-price tier at the peak of the bubble have seen their home value decline 50% or more. Over the past 18 months as housing prices have fallen, millions of homes became worth less than the loans on them, huge losses have been transmitted to lending institutions, investment banks, investors in mortgage-backed securities, sellers of credit default swaps, and the insurer of last resort, the U.S. Treasury.

I think this is as close as we will get to an explanation for a while. Now, we have to worry about efforts to reinflate the bubble, which is what seems to be going on now. Here is another data point. Home equity withdrawals have gone negative, meaning people are paying down mortgages instead of drawing cash out.

And we don’t need this.

The same banks that offered warehouse lines of credit often turned around and bought the finished product — the mortgage-backed securities. Tom Lindmark, a former banker with a background in real estate, says, “In the boom years the banks looked to the third-party originators to be their sales force.” The big commercial banks like Bank of America and Wells Fargo provided the financing on the front end and bought the securities on the back end, but the independent mortgage banks actually made the loans. The problem with this business model was that it outsourced due diligence to third parties that didn’t have skin in the game. They were under enormous pressure to keep making loans with other people’s money, so many let their standards slide.

The mortgage originators lived on fees and had no risk with default. This must be left behind as a relic of the bad practices during the bubble.

There is still time for common sense.

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

The House has passed the pork-filled “stimulus bill” with no Republican votes and 12 Democrats voting no. It passed because the Democrats have a large majority just now. Those 12 Democrat no votes may believe that the majority will be less in 2010 if it passes and they may believe they are prime candidates to suffer the consequences.

Earlier, the House rejected a Republican substitute that would have emphasized tax cuts. Republicans said their version would have created twice as many jobs as the Democrats’ bill.
“The American people need a plan that works,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Tax cuts, like a payroll tax holiday, would immediately put money in working families pockets and would cost no more than the obscene pork laden wish list the Democrats just passed. I am proud of the Republicans for sticking together.

The next step is in the Senate but, hopefully, second thoughts about TARP II will derail the Pelosi-Reid express. Not everybody was convinced.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Alice M. Rivlin, who was President Bill Clinton’s budget director, suggested splitting the plan, implementing its immediate stimulus components now and taking more time to plan the longer-term transformative spending to make sure it is done right.

“Such a long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package. The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away,” said Rivlin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. The risk, she said, is that “money will be wasted because the investment elements were not carefully crafted.”

Some of those Democrats have not lost their senses.

“Every penny of the $825 billion is borrowed against the future of our kids and grandkids, and so the question is: What benefit are we providing them? What are we doing for the country? It’s the difference between real investment that will serve the nation for 30, 50 years and tax cuts, and that’s a very poor tradeoff,” said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.). “I go to my district and people say, ‘Yeah, I can use 10 extra bucks a week, but I would rather see more substantial investment.’ We’ve gone through a couple bubbles that were borrowing and consumer-driven. We want a recovery that’s solid and based in investment and productivity, and that points us at building things that will serve us decades to come.”

Then, they have to consider that TARP II, the funding for the “Bad Bank” is coming soon, if that program is adopted. That might be a real solution instead of the pork party the “stimulus bill” passed today has become.

The Obama administration is moving closer to setting up a so-called bad bank in its effort to break the back of the credit crisis and may use the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to manage it, two people familiar with the matter said.

U.S. stocks gained, extending a global rally, on optimism the bad-bank plan will help shore up the economy. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index rose 3.1 percent to 871.70 at 2:40 p.m. in New York. Bank of America Corp., down 54 percent this year before today, rose 84 cents, or 13 percent, to $7.34. Citigroup Inc., which had fallen 47 percent this year, climbed 17 percent.

The financial stock rally should show that this is a real stimulus, not a pork barrel project.

The deal

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

UPDATE: This comparison looks better but the bill isn’t signed yet.

JP Morgan did a much better job with the Panic of 1907, a financial panic resulting from the San Francisco earthquake and immense insurance losses. I reviewed a book on this topic last spring.

The negotiations in Washington seem to have resulted in a deal. The resulting legislation is being drafted and will be posted on the internet at noon today. That will be the only positive development, in my opinion. The cause of this crisis has been described here in other posts. The essence of the solution, and the reason why I am pessimistic about it, is that the solution has been drafted by the same people who caused the crisis. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are the parents of the monstrosities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become. The disastrous expansion of subprime mortgages has poisoned the credit markets of the world.

The story of John McCain’s suspension of his campaign has still not been very well explained. The Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress. They did not need Republican votes for the original Paulson package if they were able to keep all their own people in line. What happened was that the House Republicans were not going to vote for the bill and Pelosi had stated that she would not bring the bill to the floor unless she was assured of 110 yes votes by Republicans.

When McCain announced he was returning to Washington, the Democrats quickly announced that they had arrived at a solution and his action was unnecessary. What they did not say was that they did not have the Republican votes that Pelosi said she needed.

“You were being asked to choose between financial meltdown on the one hand and taxpayer bankruptcy and the road to socialism on the other and you were told do it in 24 hours,” Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, head of the conservative group, said. “It was just never going to happen.”

If they were willing to pass the bill without Republicans, they were correct. They had a deal. The problem was that it was a deal between the Bush Administration and the Democrats. However, Pelosi was still determined to have Republican votes as cover for the huge groundswell of anger directed at the Congress and Wall Street over the crisis. What McCain did was sit down with the House Republicans and make sure they were included in the negotiations. The Democrats poisoned the bill with ludicrous provisions to fund radical socialist groups like ACORN, which has had many members convicted of vote fraud and which has been involved in expanding the toxic mortgages that are at the root of the problem. The worst provision was this:

DEPOSITS. Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

USE OF DEPOSITS. Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1) 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

That means that ANY transaction that realizes a profit, regardless of profits, or losses, on the overall bailout program, will deposit 20% of that profit in a fund which goes to ACORN and similar organizations. These “community organizer” groups are at the root of the problem. They are Democrat activist groups and affiliated with the far left of the party, like Obama, who once worked for them.

A current comparison of provisions is linked here. It is a Word file. At present, the Republican leadership is circulating this list of provisions to correct a few concerns. However, not everybody is satisfied. A House aide sends this warning:

1) This is, essentially, the same bill. Total deal is $700b, which Paulson or next Treasury Secretary can spend the first $250b even if he believes unnecessary. He/She can spend second $450b if thought necessary. A new bill isn’t passed with veto proof majorities to repeal it. This is substantively identical to the original Paulson plan. Congress always had the power to repeal some or all of the authority if it has veto proof majorities.

2) As for Acorn and bankruptcy, they were never in the bill. Dodd/Frank tried to push those in mid/week, they weren’t in the plan already rejected by conservatives on Monday. Even Obama conceded that those provisions would come out. They were simply a red herring, used for extra bargaining power by the left.

3) Lipstick has been put on the pig, and perhaps some Members will be fooled by it, but their constituents will not. I think some political careers will be ended over this.

When I ask this aide if there is anything to be happy about, this aide replies:

Unclear. Still confusion over whether the “insurance” is a fig leaf (secretary’s choice to use – in which case, he wouldn’t) or substantive (mandatory).

We will see how this turns out but I am very pessimistic this morning.