JUDGMENT CALLS
Robert J. Samuelson
High Finance Laid Low
It has a split personality: what is productive most of the time can also lead to destructive spasms of greed and herd behavior.
Except for oil executives, no group of business leaders is now more resented than the titans of finance—the heads of banks, securities dealers, hedge funds. It is these folks who are blamed for causing or aggravating the housing crisis that in turn has plunged global financial markets into turmoil and has brought the U.S. economy to the edge of recession or perhaps beyond. The sweeping indictment may seem overdrawn. It isn't. Yet it is only half the story of modern finance, whose basic job is to allocate Americans' nearly $2 trillion of annual savings into the most productive uses for individuals and society.
The paradox of finance is that its advantages and disadvantages are tightly commingled. What we call "financial services"—insurance and real estate, as well as banking and securities trading—has been a growth sector. In 1976, it was 15 percent of gross domestic product; now it's 21 percent. The expansion has produced many benefits: more and often cheaper credit for families and businesses; more investment choices for people saving for retirement and anything else; more investment capital for start-ups and smaller firms. Unfortunately, financial advances have also created periodic episodes of massive waste that threaten to destabilize the entire economy.
The subprime-mortgage debacle is not a rare exception. Before that, there was the tech bubble of the late 1990s when stock valuations floated into La-la Land and anyone with a business plan ending with .com could get money from venture capitalists. (From 1997 to 2000, the annual amount of American venture capital raised jumped from $18 billion to $107 billion.) Earlier, the junk-bond mania of the late 1980s ended badly. According to finance professor Josh Lerner of the Harvard Business School, there seems to be a regular cycle of financial innovation (good), imitation (good up to a point, because it provides competition) and finally suicidal excess. Herd psychology reigns: investors assume that whatever made money yesterday will make money today.
The idea that enlightened government regulation can outlaw this cycle is at best an optimistic exaggeration. Just last week, in a major report, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposed a new framework of government oversight for the financial system. Some ideas are worth adopting: merging the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; expanding the Federal Reserve's powers. But the basic problem is that as long as people are benefiting from innovation and investors are making money, it's hard to impose restraints on the excesses. Only a crackup brings clarity.
In 2005, foreclosures on subprime mortgages totaled a modest 3.4 percent. Warnings about abusive and reckless lending practices went unheeded, as overpaid Wall Street investment bankers stuffed the mortgages into ever more complicated securities. In the disastrous aftermath—the foreclosure rate is now nearly 9 percent and rising—it's easy to forget the brighter side of financial innovation.
Consider mortgages. In 1980, they came in one flavor: 30-year fixed-rate loans. Because fees and closing costs were so high, it was hard to refinance into a cheaper loan even if interest rates fell. The rule of thumb was that rates had to drop 2 percentage points before refinancing made sense. Now homeowners can chose from many mortgages with different maturities, as well as fixed and floating rates. Lower fees and transaction costs (from automated underwriting, among other things) make refinancing attractive if interest rates drop 0.5 percentage points or even less.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: borrowerhotline @ 04/19/2008 10:11:46 AM
Comment: I am an analyst for NLS Securities Advisors and secondary underwriter who sat out the last 5 years. I told the fund managers and the capital markets derivatives traders, then, it cannot last. No chance this deal would sustain itself. You see, there was so much capital committed to the ???beast??? called ABS, MBA when the market commenced to flatten out by 4th quarter 06. The markets breadth and depth measured by originations (receivables) and impairment were unacceptable. But it also was by all means manageable and within the algorithmic for a worst case scenario pursuant to over collateralization and defaults.
Therein, you had a run over the next 18 months consisting of this pain staking and exhausting attempt to resurrect a dead market. Again, the push for stimulating originations was pursuant to commitments totaling billions of dollars for delivery of future mortgage pools needed to fulfill demand for asset back???s (securities) Home sales were flat and rates unable to generate any interest. You have a dead market.
According to web site www. bororwerhotline.com, a consumer advocacy for Predatory lending, Wall Street is the culprit or mastermind. It was mortgage banking and commercial banks who carried out their orders. Wall Street securities and investment houses were releasing bulletin after bulletin and credit program matrix advisements as to new ???LOWER??? credit standards to qualify high risk borrowers and that lead to a sudden downward ratcheting for layered risk. The phenomena were derelict in accordance with ensuring minimum thresholds for integrity and establishing any level of quality earnings from future securities income streams. In translation, what that all means is you now could grant credit acceptance to a immigrant part time maid, a 21 year old Gardner, a shoe salesman and other county employees who fit the $20,000 a month profile using no verification ???Stated Income Stated Assets??? borrower profiles. Each of the professions I just mentioned play a necessary role in our economy but these wage earners are easy to scale along a profession and education earnings spectrum. And now the dream offered to them is no longer there as they cannot afford these $600 to $850K homes they acquired at 100% financing using shadow income. They are not the blame but the victims. But the ability of the street to use the bottom scale of labor and blue collar sector of the economy is insane but did in fact support resurgence in housing activity 18 months longer than expected. These comments are made in reference to home sales activity and maintaining volume originations. But, somehow I just don???t get why the likes of Countrywide???s, Wells and WaMu???s went along with it. By Soliman M. // Mortgage Securities Analyst www.borrowerhotline.com
Posted By: klgottab @ 04/19/2008 9:47:44 AM
Comment: "The best protection against human fallibility and the financial system's self-inflicted wounds is to insist that major financial institutions have ample capital to absorb unexpected losses."
That's exactly right - its what we do in our private finance as well. We don't bet the mortgage money (at least, not the smart ones) because we can't afford to lose it. Of course, we'd have to accept that the Bear Stearns of the world will occasionally collapse so that they can make the bigger money on risky investments. But there should be accountability (to clients) for finance institutions to state the risks of their investments along with the returns.
Posted By: thinkgra @ 04/13/2008 10:17:08 AM
Comment: It appears that your conclusion is to make even more money available to those who have already demonstrated that their greed exceeds their prudence. NIce. The ultimate form of regulation is that those who screw up lose their shirts, yet government under neo-con influence, while refusing to regulate, is all too willing to bail out the perps. (...and people think that the "con" in "Neo-con" comes from the word "conservative." Further research needs to be done to determine whether it from "Con man" or "convict." )
I was around in the Eighties and recall that the Savings and Loan meltdown did not cause deregulation. Deregulation happened first, leading to the S&L crisis. At least get your facts straight.
My question: What happens when you have entities controlling more financial clout that some nation states whose sole raison d'etre is this quarter profit? We're seeing it.