Insane Levels of Leverage by the TBTF Banks Caused the Financial Crisis
Insane Levels of Leverage by the Too Big to Fail Banks – Not Deadbeat Borrowers – Caused the Financial Crisis
The Cause of the Financial Crisis: Fraudulent Creation of 3,000 Times Leverage On House Prices by the Big Banks
We’ve repeatedly noted that fraud by the big banks – more than anything done by the little guy – caused the financial crisis.
And we’ve repeatedly noted that excessive leverage helped cause the Great Depression and the current crisis.
Reader McFid – who has been a breach of fiduciary duty expert since 2003 – sent me the following article (edited slightly) which provides a new angle on both themes.
This article disabuses the notion that “deadbeat borrowers” caused the financial crisis. And offers an answer to the question that still lurks in the mind of every American; whether black, white, native American, asian or Hispanic; whether educated or not; whether English, Spanish, or Mandarin speaking.
Taking a big step back, and looking at it like a business process: “How could so many Americans ALL have made the same ill-advised mortgage borrowing decisions?” The answer lies in what did they ALL have in common…
It was all about leverageWhat is leverage?
Leverage is a way to control more of something when you can’t pay for it in full. We do it all the time; when we buy a car — except few of us actually buy the car, we finance it or lease it. We also do it when we buy a house — except almost no one pays cash for a house, we finance the purchase with a loan; it’s secured by a mortgage on the property.
Example of 5 times leverage:
When we buy a house and put 20% down, we buy a house worth 5 times as much as the down payment. If we put $100 thousand down we can buy a house worth $500 thousand. $500 thousand divided by the $100 thousand we put down equals 5 times leverage.
100 times leverage:
By the same calculation ZERO down mortgages were suffice it to say, 100 times leverage, it’s actually more but that’s a discussion for later. Repeat after me, no money down mortgages equal 100 times leverage.
***
Who controlled and approved EVERY leverage decision?
Leverage Approval #1 by:
TBTF Banks (ultimately) approved every one of these loans and bundled thousands of others like them initially into mortgage backed securities (MBS).
Leverage Approval #2 by: [the key, little known fact]
In the past, TBTF Banks used to sell them off (remember that word) to investors like mutual funds, insurance companies and pension plans. In the 2000′s TBTF banks issued almost $17 Trillion of MBS, but did not sell all of them OFF to 3rd parties. They held massive amounts of them to turbo-juice their bonus checks in a 2nd set of books (legally) in OFF balance sheet, special purpose entities. As a refresher Enron did the same type of thing. In the decades, make that for over 60 years before the 2000′s TBTF banks’ leverage was around 12 times; however when they concealed trillions worth of MBS — their leverage increased to over 30 times. Remember 5 times leverage? It was based on how much the house was worth right? And when TBTF banks add more leverage on top of the borrower’s leverage we don’t just add it — we ______? You guessed it — we multiply it.
3,000 times leverage on house prices:
100 times leverage on the borrowers side times 30 times leverage on the TBTF banks’ side is 3,000 times leverage ON house prices.
Lather, rinse and repeat — 100 times 30 equals 3,000 times leverage. Lather, rinse and repeat.
100 times 30 equals 3,000 times leverage.
Remember what I first told you about leverage?
Leverage lets you (or TBTF bank) control something that you can’t fully pay for. Well the TBTF banks’ way of financing them in the Asset Backed Commercial Paper market began to dry up in August 2008, so they couldn’t pay for these assets. This is the direct cause (but not the root) for the Fed and US Treasury to (have to) step in and pay CASH for them in the bailouts of 2008, and again in 2009, and again in 2010 and yet again 2011 via the Fed’s QE trifecta to the tune of over $20 Trillion dollars.
The interactive portion is about to begin:
Is it any surprise that the assets backing the commercial paper were ________? You may have guessed it — MBS.
Is it any surprise that the Fed created a new category to track ABCP in_______? You would be correct if you guessed 2006; just two swift months after Ben Bernanke was appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve by President Bush.
Is it just a random coincidence that almost $17 Trillion of Mortgage Securitieswere created by TBTF banks from 2001 to 2008?
What was that word I asked you to remember?
Oh, right it was OFF.
When TBTF banks’ CEOs, executives or prop traders got their year end bonus check did we hear reports that anyone said it was OFF (or that it was too much)? Nope.
***
The top 12 reasons + oneTBTF banks, before 2008 created a hidden, secret “market” for MBS:
- As stated above TBTF banks changed from financial intermediaries into speculators via their proprietary (for the house only) trading desks;
- Hiding (the FDIC used the word “concealed”) trillions of MBS off balance sheet;
- Allowing their own internal prop traders to value #2 (legal under the SEC’s 2004 Consolidated Supervised Entity (CSE) program) despite the fact few if any, of #2 had EVER seen the light of any “market” trade as one between arms-length parties;
- Why? To maximize same prop traders’, managers’ and CEOs’ cash bonus checks;
- All based on the assumption (almost a religious belief) that national median home prices had NEVER gone down — true, as you may recall;
- BUT the past was under a 60 times house finance, prudently underwritten leverage regime (20% down payments, verified job, income, assets and 12 times bank balance sheet leverage);
- TBTF Banks’ single handedly created 3,000 times leverage on house prices, the underlying collateral of any MBS, CDO, etc.;
- 3,000 times leverage is the product of Zero down loans; 100 times leverage for the borrower and 30 or more times TBTF bank on and off balance sheet leverage;
- Mr Bass testified to the FCIC in January 2010 that TBTF banks’ leverage at the end of 2007 — yes end of 2007 (see page 13) shows almost all TBTF Banks were over 30 times, Citigroup at 68 times leverage; meant an adverse swing (in the value of the underlying collateral or obligations) of as little as 1.5% wiped them out completely — insolvent;
- And we know that leverage worsened in 2008…and we know from Goldman Sach’s 2007 to 2008 collateral call dispute with AIG that MBS valuation marks (not even CDO’s) were south of 90;
- It’s not about Fannie or Freddie either; they were downstream of information from the TBTF banks — again TBTF banks held trillions of MBS, in secret OFF balance sheet; I’m not saying it was necessarily illegal but it was fraudulent; as it was knowing, willful and intentional fraud upon the other side to the mortgage — the borrowers. And it only went on as long as it did — BECAUSE they were hidden;
- And we know it’s not about CRA as home ownership peaked in 2004 nor can we blame it on the variant of “homeownership for all” as just a few too many houses were not primary residences but 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th homes and condos — each time the loan was approved (ultimately) by TBTF banks;
- Last, 3,000 times leverage on home prices represents a 50 fold increase over the 60 times historical norm; more importantly shows that TBTF Banks’ violated requirements of their banking charters; i.e. to operate according to “safety and soundness”.
[TBTF Banks on LSD indeed; massive amounts of Leverage, Swaps and Derivatives.]


Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!





December 31st, 2011 at 9:34 am
This is a step in the right direction that covers some of the key points, but I think it needs to be made more explicit.
The financial crisis was caused by a run on the shadow banking system.
The shadow banking system is essentially the nexus of 1) Repo 2) Commercial Paper and 3) Money Market Mutual Funds.
The way it worked (a vast oversimplification though) is that the big banks used a combination of Repo and CP to fund their asset holdings. They were enormously leveraged in so doing, and also exposed to an enormous maturity mismatch, with most Repo being overnight and most CP being one to three months (whereas the assets in question had effective maturities of many years). The counterparty on the other side of the Repo and CP was often a Money Market Mutual Fund, which in turn obtained its funding from retail and institutional depositors who, in an earlier era, would have placed those deposits with a traditional banks. That’s it in a nutshell.
Where does that leave us? On one level, the shadow banking system, on which the economy had become dependent on for financing, is till broken, hence the anemic recovery. On another level, there has been no real financial reform applied to this system, so if it does recover at some point, we’ll still be just as vulnerable to another crisis down the road.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:18 am
“TBTF Banks on LSD indeed; massive amounts of Leverage, Swaps and Derivatives.” c2011
LOL – oh thats good – I copyright it for you (whoever is WashBlog – BR?)
December 31st, 2011 at 11:32 am
Just a quick math lesson: 0 multiplied by 100 is 0. You’re gonna need another way to define a zero down mortgage if you’re gonna use phrases like, “by the same calculation”.
December 31st, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Why just one view or the other. Sure Wall Street was more leveraged, and the big institutions interconnected in a way home owners could not be, but at the then end of the day, you had an awful lot of home owners in homes with exploding mortgages that required refinancing and home prices going up(something that was not sustainable). And way too many homes were bought for no other reason than reselling a few years down the road.
The banks were over-leveraged, they lent and invested in too heavily with 100-1 leverage the same dodgy loans they helped create.
This left vs right argument feels as if it’s not so much about truth, but control for their vision of the future. Where is Al Smith?
~~~
BR: Understanding causation is a significant part of policy analysis. Its not left vs right, its what actually occurred — what was unusual, different, significant — versus some silly but reassuring narrative.
December 31st, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Sorry james.cappuccio but I might have to correct the teacher in the ‘quick math lesson’…
The deposit is a proportion of the total, so the ‘number of times’ levered is given by the total borrowed divided by the diposit.
So in the first $500,000 example: 500000/100000 = 5 (a leverage of 5 to 1)
in the zero deposit example: 500000/0 = infinity (an infinite amount of leverage – not that infinity makes much sense that often in any maths)
Not sure if I am right but it seems to make more sense that way to me.
In Washington’s defense they did say ‘suffice it to say, 100 times leverage, it’s actually more but that’s a discussion for later’
But taking that point – I dont think a ratio of 100:1 is analogous to a ratio of infinity:1 – not by a long long long way.
December 31st, 2011 at 3:50 pm
oops… scrub ‘borrowed’ in the second line of my last post – damn I am getting to be a pedant in my old age.
December 31st, 2011 at 4:00 pm
One extra point, while the article does a great job, home owner leverage and bank leverage are quite different. Bank leverage is about margin calls and regulatory capital. For the home owner it’s not about the asset but how leveraged your fixed to variable expenses are(e.g. mortgage equal to 25% vs 70% of take home pay..), and given that reality home owners can’t lever up in quite the same way.
December 31st, 2011 at 5:02 pm
To me it is all about capital flows. I guess, I have a different view of it. The huge leverage is because of the flows from the post-information boom bust.
Similiar to the US in the post-WWI timeframe, we had a ton of capital available to muster and we blew it into freaking RE products wasting a generation of capital. Lets face, that is the truth. So the whole “left/right” paradym gets into its personally biased fantasies that don’t add up. For the left is was lack of regulatory oversight and the right it was a pursumed government intervention. As they say, move the hell on. Neither is really right. It goes deeper than that. It goes into how capital moves and flows. The decisions made to allow offshoring, taking more potential avenues for capital. The decision of the Bush administration to force through tax cuts on capital gains and dividends(which Buffet blames for the crisis’s heights as before those cuts, the bubble wasn’t monsterous yet). The lack of oversight in Wall Street and F/F’s relation to the secondary markets were both visably seen. F/F was following the “free market” as much as anything relation to its decision makers. Just like MERS would have started other places if F/F didn’t exist. See Ireland. Even if we banned no doc loans, does anybody really think, in the face of all that capital, that would have stopped lenders? Really?
So the “right/left’ is still stuck in the same problems and they need to move on. Just come to grips that the capital was wasted and we failed. The free market failed, the government failed and we as country failed. But no, we will live in our fantasies and must rebuild the boom that is unbuildable. The only choices is muddle or depression. The former may be fine to some(Ben Bernanke) while the latter fine to others(Ron Paul), but both have real risks, risks that will rock the political world and reinvent “right and left”.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:52 am
The truth is out there for everyone to see!
Nothing will ever be done about this.
Talk is cheap!