This Recession of Ours

The de-regulation started under Clinton. However, I am not blaming Clinton even though I am a Repub.

I don’t blame Clinton for Enron, Worldcom, the dot com bubble, and the corporate earnings scandal that all started in the 90’s and culminated in 2000, 2001 and 2002 anymore than I blame Bush for this.

The problem with the dems on this is that they seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Different regulations - yes. A ton more - no. Many things will correct themselves because who wants to lose money?

My fear is that Washington will overreact to this if the dems are in the Whitehouse.

We need to keep things in perspective. Foreclosures are at 2.5%, in the great depression it was 50%! Problems yes, catastrophic - no.

An interesting selection of responses to the op.
I read daily the below sites’ articles to get a view of the US situation. I balance this against the various daily news articles, and property forums.

http://www.agorafinancial.com/

The above sites are in consencus, that the current problems were seeded when the USD was taken off the gold standard. Additionally Mr.Greenspan’s thumb keeping interest rates artificially low after the dot-com bust has a lot to do with it as well.
Hedo’s post was a good summary.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Freddie and Fannie, AIG, Merrill Lynch…

Who’s fault is this? Where does the blame lie? Was it a lack of regulation? Or something else?

I’m almost entirely ignorant on this subject, and while we’ve had some discussions about what to do now, and HOW this happened, I don’t think we’ve had a blame game thread :smiley:

So, Clinton? Bush? Reagan? Lincoln? Congress? Who’s fault is this?[/quote]

Uh, how about the heads of those companies? The same heads who will undoubtedly get 10’s of millions of dollars in severance.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Freddie and Fannie, AIG, Merrill Lynch…

Who’s fault is this? Where does the blame lie? Was it a lack of regulation? Or something else?

I’m almost entirely ignorant on this subject, and while we’ve had some discussions about what to do now, and HOW this happened, I don’t think we’ve had a blame game thread :smiley:

So, Clinton? Bush? Reagan? Lincoln? Congress? Who’s fault is this?

Perhaps 30 years ago or more the collective “government” made a decision to try and increase home ownership. Freddie and Fannie were spawned to buy the mortgages that banks and mortgage companies underwrote.

The real estate boom hit in the 70’s and people went to real estate as a hedge against inflation. Rates rose to the point that construction stopped in the late 70’s. Eventually the fed learned to balance things out and the economy generally enjoyed sustained growth from about 1984 thru 1999 with a few bumps and corrections along the road.

The real estate market got hot about the year 2000. It got so hot it drew in amatuers and speculators not just homeowners and investors. This is where the problem really manifested itself. Fannie and Freddie were quasi-government institutions.

The underwriters and mortgage sellers were not. The real estate mortgage underwriters were able to get mortgages for anyone who could sign an application and pay a fee…and freddie and fannie bought the mortgages. It all depended on constantly rising real estate prices and easy credit for boorowers. The rising market assured liquidity.

Unlimited capital, easy liquidity and an endless supply of new buyers. The perfect storm really for a bubble.

The big investment banks got fat and happy bundling the “safe mortgages” and peddling them as secure investments. Investors put money into these “safe” investments with the expectation they were secured by real mortgages and had the US Govenment behind them to some degree. After all they were quasi government agencies.

Then prices started falling. Foreclosures rose and borrowers defaulted. This caused lenders to tighten up credit which slows construction which is a major driver of the economy. Then it got worse.

Banks and brokers who held FNMA and GNMA bonds saw the value of their investments drop and they needed to “mark them to market”. They did and suddenly their capital bases dried up and they became insolvent overnight…not over time.

Bad guess on their part and too quick to do anything about it. These were pro’s by the way. Greedy pro’s, but professionals none the less.

The market will correct itself and the fed and the administration are actually doing a decent job managing the risk and heading off some of the really bad outcomes that could happen. Right now it’s all about liquidity and stabilization of the markets and prices for real estate.

In reality 98% of mortgages are NOT in default. 94% of those who want to work are working and GDP is expanding. The US is still the engine driving the world economy and will continue to do so for a long time.

McCain was right when he said the fundamentals are strong. Most of the listeners, including Obama’s staff, are not literate enough in economics to understand the statement.

This is bad but the late 70’s were worse. The S&L crisis in the 80’s was also worse in my opinion. This one however is not over so who knows where it will lead.

Not to interject politics but a tax increase at this point would slide this economy off the ledge. Business needs an incentive to invest and Sarbanes-Oxley is prohibitive cost for most companies stifling growth.

[/quote]

That about sums it up.

Hedo summed up the real estate aspect of the current financial crisis very well, but this is about a lot more than real estate. It’s about easy credit in general, which was being used for a lot of things besides real estate.

Sub-prime mortgages are certainly a PART of what is bringing some of these investment banks down, but they are by no means all of it.

Bear, Lehman and Merrill had LOTS of crazy debt instruments on their balances sheets which started defaulting and causing them to go tits-up, and much of that didn’t even have anything to do with consumer mortgages.

It became very popular over the last decade for banks and investment banks to structure all kinds of asset-backed securities and CDOs.

What are these? (CDO stands for collateralized debt obligation, by the way). Anytime a bank or lending institutions has lots of any type of receivable, meaning something on which they are owed money – like a mortgage they’ve given to a homeowner, a credit card they’ve given to a person, a student loan, commercial things like airplane leases, equipment leases, etc., etc. – that’s called a receivable.

It’s something in which the borrower owes that bank money, so the deal (the loan) is looked at by the bank as “almost” guaranteed money coming in at a set rate, but of course there’s always the risk that the lendee will default.

So it’s a deal where someone owes me (the lender) a certain amount of dollars and they’re going to pay me X dollars a months (part of the principal debt plus some interest) for the next 15 years (or whatever it is), as per our agreement.

But as far as the bank’s CREDIT QUALITY and balance sheet go – these things represent money that they don’t yet have back, and there is some risk that the lendees might default and never pay them back.

Now, why do the banks care what their balance sheet looks like? Because it affects the bank’s credit rating. Depending on the rating system you look at, the highest rating is AAA, then AA, then A, then BBB, and so on.

Every bank would like to be able to advertise “We’re AAA-rated, so do your banking with us. We’re very safe. We’ll NEVER go under!”

But if you have a lot of outstanding loans on your balance sheet that are owed to you, there’s a risk that the people who borrowed money from you might default on those loans, and if a LOT of those people default, then you (the bank) COULD go under.

So how do we (the bank) make it look like our balance sheet doesn’t have all that outstanding risk, even though it does, thus convincing the credit rating agencies to keep giving us a AAA or AA rating? :slight_smile: We collaterilize it. We wrap it all up into big bundles and sell it off!

Say you’re a bank (or a mortgage broker or whatever – any kind of lending institution). You probably have thousands upon thousands of credit cards that you’ve given out to people. Those are all receivables.

You probably have thousands of mortgages you’ve given out to people. You probably have thousands of commercial leases, student loans, equipment leases, sometimes sports stadium leases, etc. that you’ve given out.

If you take ALL of your credit card receivables and bundle them up into one package, you can SELL that package to an investor (usually an investment bank, hedge fund or other institutional investor) for an agreed-upon price.

Why does the investor want to buy this bundle of receivables? Because it’s (semi-) guaranteed money coming in every month, every time those people make their monthly credit card payments or loan payments. Some of them will even be paying pretty high interest rates on that outstanding debt.

NOW, there is the risk that some of those underlying lendees will default, but you take that into account when you negotiate the price for this whole package that you’re buying. This is called an asset-backed security.

It’s been made into one big bundle, one product (a security) and it’s backed by these underlying assets (credit card receivables, or some kind of receivables) that will give you payment streams every month.

CDOs are a form of ABS (asset-backed security). I’ve listed some simple examples, but some of them got REALLY complex. Sometimes the underlying assets wouldn’t be just of one type (like credit card debt), but would be a big mixture of different types of debt underlying one CDO.

There were also CDOs of CDOs (no joke!), and the underlying debt instruments got to be zany, zany shit that you would never even imagine – really high-risk stuff at times. Movie rights receivables, record sales receivables (David Bowie famously did a CDO on one of his albums a few years ago) . . . crazy shit.

These ABS/CDO products became very very common, to the point where they were tradeable, and were very openly traded by investment banks and hedge funds. You buy one, after a while you either think the default risk is more than you want to deal with, OR you just think you can get a great price for it, so you sell it to someone else.

So GENERALLY, the way it would work was that the investment banks (Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch) would approach the lending institutions (commercial banks like Washington Mutual, North Fork, Comerica, your local bank, etc.) and say, "You guys have got all this ugly-looking shit on your balance sheet that’s negatively affecting your credit rating.

Let us structure a deal for you where you can wrap it up and sell it off. We (the investment bank) will take it off your hands. We’ll hold it ourselves for the time being, but will quickly be able to sell it because we’ve got institutional investor clients who will be happy to buy these kinds of CDOs/ABS."

So Lehman, for example, would take on all this risk by holding onto a bunch of these products. Many of them they would sell off to investors, but some of them they might just hold for themselves if they thought it was a good deal.

Also, though, the trading desks at these investment banks would buy and sell these things on a proprietary basis (meaning, just for the bank’s own sake), so if a trader at Lehman thought that a certain bunch of CDOs looked like a good investment, he’d buy them – and they would be held on LEHMAN’S balance sheet until he sold them.

So now LEHMAN, the investment bank (and investment banks have a much higher risk tolerance than commercial banks do) has a LOT of this shit on THEIR balance sheet.

Then the people who took out those loans and owed them money every month – whether they’re homeowners, credit card holders, big companies that borrowed money to buy expensive equipment, whoever – started to default.

(For a variety of reasons – the housing values plummeted so people decided to just walk away from their houses, the economy in general slowed for a variety of reasons so big companies are having losing quarters for the first time in history and can’t pay back their loans that they took out to buy new equipment, etc.).

Now Lehman has a bunch of this shit on their balance sheet that’s defaulting all at once – so now they’re going bankrupt.

That’s a very simplistic explanation for it, but it gives you the gist.

Damn, nice post Damici. I just learned a lot. I always wondered how CDOs worked.

Damici

Good explanation of the CDO.

No question they are unraveling. I see a big tightening of credit going forward which will impact growth and the ability to recoup losses and move on.

What do you think?

Damici,that was an excellent post.

No question there will be some tightening of credit going forward, but I doubt it well ever REALLY solve the problem of having assets that are high-risk and/or very hard to value. CDOs and basic ABS products are even a very simplistic example – there are exponentially more complicated takeoffs on those ideas that I myself don’t remotely understand, so just trust that there’s some complex, complex shit out there. The rating agencies (Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s) often don’t know how to value this shit.

How do you look at a collateralized security whose underlying assets might be a mixture of credit card debt, stadium leases, British pub leases, student loans, commercial equipment leases, auto parts receivables . . . in ONE security? Thousands upon thousands of different individual receivables, of several different types. How do you rate that?? No one knows.

The investment banks will ALWAYS be coming up with new financing schemes and products like this – it’s not “greed,” it’s their job to think of innovative ways to make money. And while it’s all working out just fine (like it was for many years), everyone made money, no one got hurt and everyone was happy.

But there will always be new financing structures popping up that the government doesn’t understand yet, sees no way of regulating since they can’t really comprehend it yet and haven’t had time to watch how it works, and the rating agencies have no idea how to rate it. But the government can’t just say “YOU CAN’T DO THAT! IT’S . . . um – er – NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE!” They can’t say that! If two parties agree to a deal in writing, i.e. you’ll sell me these assets and I’ll pay you X, then it’s just a legal agreement between two parties.

I know that doesn’t answer your question. Will credit tighten up? Yes. But probably to a small-ish extent due to government regulation and to a somewhat larger extent due to banks and investment banks instituting their own risk management rules and being more gun-shy about taking on risk – for a little while. Then they’ll think of new and crazier ways of making fast money that are extremely profitable that know one else has figured out yet, and the game will continue.

[quote]hedo wrote:
Damici

Good explanation of the CDO.

No question they are unraveling. I see a big tightening of credit going forward which will impact growth and the ability to recoup losses and move on.

What do you think?[/quote]

So Damici, what do you think should be done regarding bailouts? Should these banks be allowed to fail, should they be bailed out this time and then split up or what should or should not be done to help ourselves both now and later?