The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Financial Crisis Page 9 of 12

Incentives Do Not Work To Change Bank Behavior

The FDIC has put out a proposal to penalize banks whose pay practices incentivize risky behavior.

It won’t work.  The time is long past to stop using incentives and to simply tell them what to do.  The banks in Britain are eating almost the entire cost of the banker bonus tax of 50%.  Bankers have no concern with the health of their banks, only with the size of their own salaries, since they know that if necessary governments will spend any amount of money to bail them out if they go under.

This is not going to change, because we just spent trillions proving it to them, and they won’t believe words over actions, as they shouldn’t.

Getting Ready for the next Disaster

Via Corrente. Bloomberg:

[Barney Frank’s bill, H.R. 4173] supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around.

Best of all, the bill contains a provision that, in the event of another government request for emergency aid to prop up the financial system, debate in Congress be limited to just 10 hours.

Hahahahahaha.

1) the next crisis is inevitable, and the elites know it

2) they don’t intend to get stuck with the bill

3) Barney Frank is a whore.  I find it funny that Dodd’s the one in trouble, because Frank is far far worse, and has been all along.  He’s also smart enough to know exactly what he’s doing.

How To Bail Out Ordinary Mortgage Holders And Not Just Banks

I wrote this post originally in September of 2008.  It appears that Fannie and Freddie are getting their unlimited line of credit because underwater mortgages are sharply up, and they are expecting foreclosures to go through the roof next year, as well as the commercial real-estate market to collapse.  So, here’s what should have been done for homeowners well over a year ago.

I have received multiple e-mails today suggesting that instead of the bailing out banks at the expense of taxpayers, the government should give mortgage holders money to pay off their mortgages.

Both ideas are bad. But there is a better solution.

Why the Government Shouldn’t Just Bail Out The Banks

The government is talking about setting up a Trust to buy distressed debt then sell it again. The problem is that the Trust company will simply bail out banks at taxpayer expense without helping mortgage holders much. The mortgages it sells will still be underwater, or too expensive for many people to service, especially as their houses lose value.

The other proposal, just giving money to people to pay for their mortgages, is bad also. Housing prices are actually dropping, most mortgages issues were bad mortgages with horrible penalty clauses, based on assumptions about housing values which are just wrong. House prices are going to keep dropping.

What the government should do instead is set up a Trust to buy mortgages at a discount, then reset them to 20, 30 or 50 year fixed mortgages with a reduced face amount. If the house is later sold, half of the increase goes to the government, so that taxpayers make a profit. The mortgage cannot be paid off before the end of its term so that financial scavengers cannot come around and, as they did over the last ten years, say “get rid of that mortgage, and take ours. It’s better. Honest!”, because we know that when they say better, they don’t mean better for the mortgage holder. The mortgage is attached to the property and is transfered to any new buyer. And the mortgage cannot be removed from the property, and any new mortgages attached to the property are junior to the government mortgage.

End results:

a) a floor is set for mortgage prices. (Whatever discount the government is buying at. Probably 60% to 70%, but it should be based on what the long run price was in the area before the housing bubble.) This ends the confidence crisis in these securities, because there is now a market price—what the Trust will pay.

b) It helps homeowners stay in their homes.

c) It gets rid of overly complex mortgages and puts in their place a dead simple mortgage that anyone can understand.

d) It punishes lenders, which they deserve, for making loans they should never have made.

e) While it does keep homeowners in their homes, it doesn’t let them off scot-free either. In exchange for a good mortgage they can service, they give up some of the future profits on sales in their houses.

f) The government will almost certainly make a long term profit on this. This is important, because it’s not fair for people who aren’t underwater on mortgages to spend hundreds of billions or trillions bailing out those who are without some expectation that in the end it won’t be more than just a transfer of wealth to them and to investors and banks.

This bailout can be done right. It’s up to Democrats, who appear to be in danger of stampeding into a hasty decision, to stand firm and make sure it’s done right. The last two times they didn’t stand firm and do things right, we got the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. This is too important for Democratic fecklessness. Too important for them to just give the Bush administration whatever it wants.

If they do give the administration what it wants, then Wall Street and the Banks just got bailed out, no help goes to ordinary people and you get stuck with a trillion dollar bill. Taxpayers get all the toxic assets, but Wall Street, who paid themselves more in bonuses in 2007 then 80 million Americans got in raises, keeps the profits.

Democrats need to stand up for ordinary Americans and do the right thing.

Update December 2009: Well, obviously they did give the Bush administration what it wanted, then they gave the banks everything they wanted in 2009.  The result has been as predicted, except the bill may be even larger than I thought at that time.  It is not too late (in theory) to do the right thing.  If the Obama administration can spend unlimited money without Congressional approval to bail out Freddie and Fannie, then they can spend the money instead to set up a Housing Trust which helps everyone but also spreads the pain so it isn’t only ordinary people taking it on the chin for once.

Oh Wait, the Freddie/Fannie Scam is Now Unlimited

Update: Go read Numerian.

Per Bloomberg:

The U.S. Treasury Department will remove the caps on aid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the next three years, to allay investor concerns that the companies will exhaust the available government assistance.

The two companies, the largest sources of mortgage financing in the U.S., are currently under government conservatorship and have caps of $200 billion each on backstop capital from the Treasury. Under the new agreement announced today, these limits can rise as needed to cover net worth losses through 2012.

The Obama administration is “beginning to realize it’s not getting better and it’s not likely to get better” soon in the housing market, said Julian Mann, who helps oversee $5.5 billion in bonds as a vice president at First Pacific Advisors LLC in Los Angeles. “They don’t want the foreclosures now, so they’re saying, we’ll pay whatever it takes to continue to kick the can down the road.”

Basically, at this point, almost all mortgage lending is guaranteed by the federal government under the FHA, or it doesn’t happen.  Private lending has pretty much dried up.

Since there’s no way Freddie and Fannie took unlimited losses, one has to wonder what all this money is going to be used for.  Is it to make up losses they don’t want to admit?  Is it to make future bad mortgage loans?  Is it so they can take bad debt from the banks and put the government at risk for it?

Notice also how they’ve made an unlimited commitment without consulting Congress.  You only need Congressional approval to spend money on wars and healthcare, when it comes to bailing out banks, apparently the Presidency controls the power of the purse all by itself.

It’s also interesting that this is unlimited till the end of 2012.

(See also the earlier post when it was just a 400 billion increase, not unlimited.)

The 400 Billion Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Robbery

Jane Hamsher connects the dots over at FDL. The NYTimes has reported:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy and resell mortgages, have used $112 billion — including $15 billion for Fannie in November — of a total $400 billion pledge from the Treasury. Now, according to people close to the talks, officials are discussing the possibility of increasing that commitment, possibly to $400 billion for each company, by year-end, after which the Treasury would need Congressional approval to extend it.

Now, on the face of it, this makes no sense whatsoever.   They’ve only spent $112 billion of 400 billion and they need another 400 billion?  There two most likely possibilities, which aren’t mutually exclusive are that Freddie and Fannie have a ton of bad crap on the books that they haven’t acknowledged yet.  I have always believed that their losses would be much higher than originally acknowledged.  The second is what Jane suggests, and which I think must be part of the picture:

The White House knows it can’t get approval for more TARP money through Congress, so the administration is going to double the commitment to Fannie and Freddie from $400 billion to $800 billion, and then they can use the money to buy up more toxic assets from the banks

Jane also points out that due to a bill Rahm authored, there is no inspector for Freddie and Fannie.

Because there is a good chance the Fed will be audited, and because banks are still very impaired with bad debt (ie. they still need to be bailed out) Freddie and Fannie may be the only place left to store all the toxic financial wage—to take it off the banks hands.  In the meantime, this is a back door extension of TARP, done this way because the administration knows that Congress would never approve it.

Citygroup Roulette

So, Citigroup is being allowed to pay back its TARP money minus billions of taxes they should pay, but also:

Bank regulators including the FDIC and Federal Reserve want to permit a phase-in of capital requirements that rise starting next month under a change approved by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The rule, passed in May, eliminates some off- balance-sheet trusts, forcing banks to put billions of dollars of assets and liabilities on their books.

If they don’t have enough money to recognize their liabilities, why are they being allowed to pay back their TARP money?  (Bear in mind, that it is certain that they have many more liabilities than just these.  They are only being forced to recongize some of their liabilities.)

Well:

  • TARP needs to be seen to make a profit
  • TARP is going to be used by the President for further stimulus.  With 40% of Democrats saying they’re going to stay home in 2010, Obama needs a money Congress can’t deny him.  The banks give the money back to TARP, and Obama can use it as a slush fund.
  • With TARP repaid Citi can pay better bonuses, avoid reorganization and are out from under the government’s thumb.

Citigroup is almost certainly bankrupt, if it were actually forced to bring everything back on balance sheet and value assets at market prices.  But hey, job in America is making sure Bankers never face any responsibility for destroying millions of lives while paying themselves billions.

And Job is being taken care of.

JPMorgan Illustrates What Banks Do When They Have Money

And it isn’t lending it out cheap:

JPMorgan will on Thursday unveil a £1bn deal to buy Cazenove, the UK broker with which it has had a joint venture for the past five years.

The bank is to pay about 535p a share in a deal in which David Mayhew, widely recognised as one of the City’s best-connected corporate advisers, will retain the title of chairman of the Cazenove brand.

Last year myself and Stirling both noted that what would be done by banks if they were bailed out is to horde their money, not lend it out cheap, and save it to buy up competitors, make leveraged plays and so on.  That is EXACTLY what has happened.  Exactly.

During a downturn, if you have money, you don’t want to lend it out for low gains when you can buy up competitors, cheap.  You don’t want to lend it out cheap, when you can make leveraged plays off the bottom of a stock and commodity market which is bound to go up because trillions are being poured into it by central banks.  You want to take that money, and buy things while they are cheap, not lend it out for 4 or 5% returns, when you can make many many times that.

Why, exactly, governments expect banks who have better ways to make money to act like retail banks who don’t have any other way to make money but lend out at prime +3 or 4 percent is beyond me.  They think they’ll do it out of gratitude for being bailed out, or some sort of sense of civic duty?  Most politicians may be stupid, venal and corrupt—but it’s that very greed and venality which means they should understand that banks will do no such thing.

Banks will do it only if they are forced to do it.  Remove retail banking from investment banking, insurance and brokerage services, and disallow any risky games on the markets for retail banks.  Remove all special facilities from non retail banks because Goldman Sachs should not be doing highly leveraged plays with free money from the Federal Reserve.  And reinstitute serious leverage limits, not just for retail banks but for everyone.

As for retail banks, if they don’t lend to the public at rates approved of by the Federal Reserve and Congress, they too should lose their access to special facilities.  Banks are given the valuable right to borrow money for almost nothing, and to, in effect, print money by lending out money they don’t have.  Those are privileges which are given to them in the expectation that they will use them to benefit the economy.  If they refuse to do so, they should lose the privileges.

None of this is rocket science.  Those of us who predicted both the crisis and what the bungling of the crisis would cause, however, are precisely the people who are not listened to by those in power.  Obama is having his jobs summit, and forget nobodies like me, he isn’t even inviting somebodies like Stiglitz and Krugman.

If you’ve been right down the line, then you are precisely the sort of person who isn’t “serious” and shouldn’t be listened to when it comes to what it takes to fix the problem.

Why?  Because everyone knows that fixing the problem will end the gravy train for a lot of very rich people.  A lot of very rich people who give a great deal of money to Democrats in general, and gave a lot of money to Obama in particular.  If the cost of keeping that gravy train and the donations it enables going is tens of millions of unemployed people, well, so be it. Because serious people know that real change isn’t going to happen under Obama or under this Democratic Congress, so there’s no point in even talking to people who might suggest it.

Plus ca change. Plus c’est la même chose.

Dodd Fumbles Reform

Dodd’s proposal for financial sector reform is out. It amounts to increasing discolosure, making banks pay for a bailout fund, adding another regulator, and giving more power to existing regulators.

For example:

Creates an Office of Credit Ratings at the SEC, which will be tasked with enforcing higher levels of disclosure, and will maintain a right to deregister an agency.

Disclosure is not the problem with credit agencies, and higher levels of disclosure will not solve the problem.  As long as the model is that credit agencies get paid by those whose debt they rate, they will not be fixed.

Disclosure in general is not the issue.  And anyone who thinks that either

a) new regulatory agencies will solve anything

or

b) that the old regulatory agencies, if given more power, will use it sensibly

is insane, or on the payroll.  The old regulators had enough power (especially the Fed).  The Fed could have stopped the credit bubble any time it wanted.  The FDIC could have shut down any bank it wanted.  Etc…

What is needed is to reinstate Glass-Steagall, or something close to it. Keep insurance, retail banking, investment banking and brokerage businesses separated from each other. Any company which is too big to fail should be broke up the second it gets that big.  A proposal to do anything else is a joke.

Next.

(Sean-Paul Kelley’s thoughts on the subject)

Page 9 of 12

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén