Posts filed under “Really, really bad calls”

Declining Bailout Costs or Bad Math ?

There is a bizarre article in this morning’s WSJ. It declares that the bailouts will cost less than initially feared. It is notable not for what it includes, but what it managed to completely ignore.

The 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Fund passed by Congress was over $700 billion dollars — not $250B.

There is no mention of the trillions of dollars on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. The ongoing costs of the Federal rescue of Fannie and Freddie — indeed, the complete takeover of $5 trillion in mortgages by Uncle Sam — is glossed over. The journal also seems to have forgotten about the cost of bailing out Chrysler and GM (they mention GM possibly going public, but just barely).

Foreclosure trends are increasing; second liens are defaulting in greater numbers. Banks now have over $30 billion in bad home equity loans. Somehow, these are not mentioned in determining the health of rescued banks.

Depleted FDIC reserves? Not mentioned. Bad loans on bank balance sheets? Ignored. FASB 157 authorizing fantasy bank accounting? Never mind.

The newly concentrated banking sector’s lack of competition is apparently too abstract for discussion. Nor does this final calculation so much as consider any future problems caused by moral hazard (its not so much as mentioned). Future inflation? US Dollar debasement? What TF are they?

Here’s the WSJ:

“The U.S. government’s rescue of wobbly companies and financial markets is starting to look far less expensive or long-lasting than once feared.

As momentum grows at companies that looked like zombies just a few months ago to repay taxpayers for lifelines they got during the financial crisis, the projected cost of the bailout is shrinking to just a fraction of previous estimates. Treasury Department officials say the tab is likely to reach $89 billion, which includes the Troubled Asset Relief Program, capital injections into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, loan guarantees by the Federal Housing Administration and Federal Reserve moves such as buying mortgage-backed securities and propping up the commercial-paper market.”

You can read the article, but you might notice it has a hole or two . . .

>

Total Bailout Costs = $89B! WTF?

>

Source:
Light At the End of the Bailout Tunnel
DEBORAH SOLOMON
WSJ, April 12, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304846504575177950029886696.html

Profit for Banks Dimmed by Home-Equity Loss Seen at $30 Billion
Dakin Campbell and David Henry
Bloomberg, April 12, 2010
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayhRMX.B.hJE&

Category: Bailouts, Financial Press, Really, really bad calls, Regulation

10 Psychological, Valuation, Adapative Investing Rules

This morning’s post discussing Floyd Norris front page NYT column generated even more pushback than I expected. I am always trying to create rules to help make better investment decisions and fight against my own wetware.  The earlier comment stream led me to these ten ideas; ignore them at your own risk: • Whether a…Read More

Category: Apprenticed Investor, Markets, Psychology, Really, really bad calls, Valuation

Everyone Talks Their Book . . .

Alternative title: Overlaying Ideology On Every Market Event/Crisis One of the things I love most about the market is how it acts as a Rorschach test for participants and other various hanger on-ers. For any market event, there are myriad explanations, rationals, and Monday morning quarterbacking. Experience shows us that most of these commentators are…Read More

Category: Psychology, Really, really bad calls

American Pastime: OverPaying CEOs

There is a longish Sunday NYT article on CEO pay that I plan on reading. But before I get to it, I wanted to share some longstanding thoughts of my own on exec compensation. While there was a temporary drop in exec comp caused by the market crash, we still have structural compensation issues that…Read More

Category: Really, really bad calls, Wages & Income

Misunderstanding the Last Financial Crisis

I wanted to address a glaring error in a David Leonhardt NYT Sunday Magazine article, titled Heading Off the Next Financial Crisis, In the column, Leonhardt wrote: “But there was a fatal flaw in the new system. The banks’ new competitors received scant oversight. They were not directly bound by Roosevelt’s restrictions. “We had this…Read More

Category: Bailouts, Derivatives, Financial Press, Really, really bad calls, Regulation

Shorter Greg Mankiw

In the Sunday NYT, Greg Mankiw posits the following: • Governments cannot Regulate. Proof? Radical Deregulation failed… • “I’m not saying Fannie Mae was THE cause of the collapse — but they were a major causal factor.” • We have no clue why Economists suck — but they just do. You can read the rest…Read More

Category: Really, really bad calls, Regulation

NYT: John Dugan is a Bank Tool

The Sunday NYT catches up with what many others who watch banks have known for a long time: John C. Dugan, the former banking lobbyist and Bush appointee to the job of Comptroller of the Currency, is a tool. Dugan’s contribution to the collapse of the United States began way back in 1989. Congress had…Read More

Category: Bailouts, Credit, Really, really bad calls, Regulation

March Madness: The Worst Companies In America

I love this bit of bracketology from The Consumerist: > click for bigger graphic > Hat tip Mike Panzner

Category: Bailouts, Psychology, Really, really bad calls

More Foreclosures, Please . . .

I have been dismayed about the latest actions out of Washington and Wall Street. The banks are now pushing all manner of mortgage mods and foreclosure abatements. These are little more than “extend & pretend” measures, designed to put off the day of reckoning. They are not only ineffective, they are counter-productive. They reward the reckless and punish the responsible, and create a moral hazard. Worse yet, they penalize middle America for the sake of giant Wall Street banks.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but the best thing for the nation (but not necessarily the banks) is to allow the foreclosure process to proceed unimpeded.  We need more, not less foreclosures.

How did we get to this bizarre place in history? A brief recap of our story so far:

It started with the ultra-low rates of 2001-04. It was aided and abetted by an abdication of traditional lending standards, at first by non-bank lenders, but eventually, by nearly all. The Lend-to-Sell-to-Securitizer NonBanks pushed lending standards ever lower to the point of non-existence. This increased the pool of potential mortgage buyers, credit worthiness be damned.

The net result of all this was a credit bubble. I estimate that making mortgage requirements disappear  brought between 10 and 20 million marginal new home buyers into the real estate market during the 2,000s decade. This drove prices to unsustainable levels, leading to a huge boom and eventual bust cycle in housing.

Prices have fallen about 30% nationally from the 2005-06 housing peak. As the artificial demand created by free money and an accompanying gold rush mentality disappeared, the housing market collapsed.

Despite this, even down 30% or so, prices still remain elevated by historical metrics. The net result has been 5 million foreclosures and counting. One in four “Home-owers” are underwater — meaning, they owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth. There are another 3-5 million likely foreclosures coming over the next 5+ years.

The net results of the credit bubble are as follows:

1) An enormous number of families living in homes they cannot afford.

2) Bank balance sheets laden with current bad loans and lots of potential future defaulting loans.

3) Real Estate Sales, despite being propped up with historic low mortgage rates and tax purchase credits, are continuing to slide.

4) A weak overall economy with a very slow, soft recovery.

Whether a function of populist politics or bad economics, the proposals so far appear to address items one and three. But upon closer examination, they do nothing of the kind. In fact, they are actually gaming the system to help issue two — the bad loans the banks are carrying.

Even worse, they are making issue #4 — the economy — increasingly problematic.

We should allow the real estate market to experience a healthy price normalization process. Even though home prices have fallen dramatically, they have yet to reach their historical means relative to income or the cost of renting. This is to say nothing of the usual careening past the median towards under-valuation that typically follows a massive mis-allocation of capital.

We own a home, and have a vacation property. Rooting for falling prices is “talking against my own book.”

Why is it so beneficial to allow foreclosures to proceed unimpeded? Consider the following benefits of foreclosure:

Increasing Economic Activity: The areas of the country with the greatest foreclosure rates have seen the biggest increase in real estate activity. Look at California and Florida — they have seen enormous upticks in sales versus the lower foreclosure states.

The process moves real estate holdings from weak hands to stronger ones. When someone purchases a home they actually can afford, they end up spending quite a bit of money on additional goods and services. They do renovations, hire contractors, make durable goods purchases, buy cars. They do lawn work, plant gardens, paint and repair. They even hire  baby sitters, go out to diner and movies, they spend money in the local community.

The people who are hanging on by their fingernails, however, do almost none of these things. They pay a vastly disproportionate amount of their incomes to service their mortgages. This is not productive economic activity.

Helping Families: Foreclosures, wrenching thought hey may be, move over-stretched families into housing they can afford. They avoid a steady stream of all manner of excess fees. The banks squeeze whatever they can from delinquent homeowners, who end up futilely tossing $1000s of dollars down the drain.

Worse, the HAMP programs have been totally ineffective in keeping families in their homes. The vast majority ultimately default anyway. More fees paid, more debt accrued, for nothing. The last thing these families need is a banking fee orgy, before they ultimate lose the house anyway.

The HAMP programs have been an enormous taxpayer subsidized boondoggle for the banks, however.

Punishing the Prudent: The boom and bust saw irresponsible and reckless behavior by lenders and home buyers alike. They overused leverage, disregarded risk, ignored history. Having the taxpayers subsidize this behavior presents a moral hazard.

Worse than that, it punishes the people who behaved prudent and responsibly. Those who refused to buy a home they could not afford, chose not to over-extend themselves, and have been saving for a down payment are the net losers in this.

By working so feverishly to artificially reduce foreclosures and prop up home prices, we punish the first time home buyer, the newlyweds, the savers who want to buy a house they can actually afford.

The net result of all these programs and subsidies for recklessness is that we prevent home prices from normalizing. The people who are punished the most are the group that was not reckless, speculative or foolish.

Rewarding Bad Banks: Despite the helping families rhetoric, it is not what these mods are about. The various foreclosure abatements, mortgage mods and capital write-downs are little more than a game of kick the can down the road. All of these programs are part of a broad “Extend & Pretend” mind set. They are an extension of the FASB 157 rule changes that allows banks to hide their bad loans.

The entire set of proposals canbe described as “Whats good for the banks is good for America.” Only they are not. The various foreclosure programs are essentially a way the banks don’t have to take their write offs now. Avoid the hangover, have another shot of tequila, push the pain of into the future, regardless of economic cost.

Were the banks required to report their mortgages accurately and/or write them down, they would be revealed as insolvent.

~~~

Now we get to the ugly Truth
: The mortgage mods and foreclosure abatement programs are really all about propping up insolvent banking institutions on the taxpayer dollar and at the expense of the middle class. These programs are another losing round of helping Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. It is the worst kind of trickle down economics.

Herbert Spencer wrote, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” We have done precisely that.

Read More

Category: Bailouts, Credit, Real Estate, Really, really bad calls, Regulation

Question for Economic/Finance Students

At the recent Make Markets Be Markets conference, I got to ask a questions of the esteemed panel — Joseph Sitglitz, George Soros, Jim Chanos, Simon Johnson, Elizabeth Warren, etc. That question was simply this: Why do Bad Ideas seems to persist for so long? How do certain concepts hang around, long after they have…Read More

Category: Really, really bad calls