July 17, 2010

Origins of the current financial mess

Watch it on Academic Earth

Most of the readers here will probably disagree with the narrative / ideology of the speaker but the talk itself is interesting, especially since it was given contemporaneously, Jan 2009 I think (actually Nov 200 . (Be warned, the facial tic is disturbing)

Causes according to Dr. Blinder:

Risky lending - based on abnormally low default rates over the past 5 to 6 years (from 2003 to 2009). This was backed up by mathematical models that didn't look back far enough also.

Housing bubble - Irresponsible mortgage lending and irresponsible taking of mortgages by consumers. Refinancing ponzi scheme, liar loans, no-doc loans, ninja loans (no income no job or assets). Brokers made risky loans because they would only hold the loans for a short time and then they would be passed on so any defaults would be someonelse's problem. Blinder believes that mortgages should be federally regulated, he also believes there should be a suitability standard, and that brokers should have to hold some percentage of loans they originate to maturity.

Regulatory failure - specifically failure to rein in subprime lending.

Mortgage backed securities - as noted above the mortgages were bad so the securities were bad. When the defaults started the banks held huge amounts of debt. This was caused by bad risk management practices including poor diversification of capital classes (up to 80% in mortgage backed securities).

Rating agencies - didn't do their due diligence. Conflicts of interest exist because the agencies are paid by the bond issuer. He also advocates a bit of Caveat Emptor in that the lage firms should do some of their own investigation and rating.

Derivatives based on mortgage backed securities - unregulated and excessively leveraged. Very short term financing which led to a lack of liquidity when defaults started. (AIG) An attempt was made to regulate these derivatives and it failed. I personally don't know if this would have made a difference but maybe enforcing some liquidity requirements and limiting leverage would have.

George Bush - Of course it had to be George Bush's fault. My memory of events is different that Dr. Blinder's but I am not the one giving the lecture.

The Lehman Brothers failure - destroyed confidence in the financial system.

During the question and answer session it becomes very clear that Blinder was not a fan of TARP or the auto industry bailout. He also disputes the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a large role to play in the sub-prime crisis. I can’t find anything to dispute him but I specifically remember in 2008 / 2009 large numbers of Fannie / Freddie mortgages being defaulted on and it being pointed out that they held huge numbers of subprime mortgages.

Posted by: chad98036 at 08:53 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I'm new-ish, so I don't know where other commenters stand. But, off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of areas where he's wrong.

First, regulating subprime mortgages. Those are the result of regulation, for federal mandates related to minority and "community" banking. The government couldn't reign in something they were telling people to do and do more of.

The housing bubble was the result of bad monetary and credit policies, not the cause of it. Housing prices skyrocketed because demand skyrocketed. Any limited supply will increase in cost to meet demand. That's econ 101. The spike in supply (overbuilding) is what ultimately led to the bubble bursting. That, and the first tidal wave of ARM resets in spring 2008. (That was the 3-year resets from the peak selling time of spring 2005. The next tidal wave is the 5-year resets ... that was this summer! "Double dip" my eye. This was way foreseeable.)

Second, low interest rates made money very cheap. In essence, the Fed devalued money in order to make it more appealing for people to spend instead of save. That fed the bubble, but it wasn't only in housing. It was in cars, credit cards, personal debt, new business growth, luxury items (e.g., eating out and expensive trips), college tuition, and also housing.

Posted by: Ella at July 17, 2010 09:04 PM (DmnMk)

2

Welcome Ella, nicely said.

This guy reminds me of Megan McArdle:  not so much in philosophy, but in having a vague idea of the issues, then blathering on endlessly, demonstrating that his grasp of finance doesn't go beyond 'vague'.

The 800 pound gorilla is TBTF (too big to fail), and the associated crony capitalism / political-financial oligarchy.   This guy is still feeling around at the trees, looking for a forest.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at July 17, 2010 10:16 PM (HSn53)

3

To say that CRA mortgages are not guilty is to say that a blod clot that leads to a brain embolism is not guilty.  OK, that's a truly terrible metaphor ....

One has to disregard the effect of competition to completely absolve the effects of the CRA.  If Walmart lowers their prices, driving margins down, one imagines that Target will do the same, or risk losing too much business.  To get the full effect, one has to not only account for actual CRA-compliant loans, but estimate how many other loans were made in an attempt to compete with the CRA-compliant institutions.  To claim that the CRA was the entirety of the issue would be foolish (I agree that excessive liquidity was/is a bigger issue, although there is some interplay), but it was certainly a factor.

Finally, citing the Fed (and to a lesser extent the FDIC) on anything related to the current financial debacle is a grave error.  This is an institution that breaks laws, lies, obfuscates and otherwise acts against the interests of the average American to an astounding degree.  Even assuming I accept the basic numbers as cited here, the amount of obfuscation is spectacular.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at July 17, 2010 11:27 PM (HSn53)

4 Dr. Blinder can't be trusted. He conveniently left The Jews off his list of  prime causes of this disaster. I guess they got to him.

Posted by: Dr Spank at July 18, 2010 01:38 AM (xO+6C)

5 As Hermit Dave notes, the CRA was kind of the first crack in the dam. Prior to that, most of these risky loans would never have been considered. And as Ella notes, it is hard for the government to prohibit that which they promote. Also, there was the classic "new market" problem, in which far too many loans were made in this high risk market due to the potential for great returns, resulting in carrying a higher risk. This is hardly the exclusive sphere of the banking industry. Look at the internet bubble and wonderful companies like Pets.com.

Posted by: XBradTC at July 18, 2010 08:27 AM (W6plW)

6 Hmm, with the deleted comments, my previous comment is kind of out of context, but since it includes a good anti-Fed rant, I suppose it can stand on its own.

Posted by: Hermit Dave at July 18, 2010 01:14 PM (HSn53)

Hide Comments | Add Comment






26kb generated in 0.1248 seconds; 67 queries returned 153 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.