About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The Wall Street Meltdown, As Explained to an Idiot (Me!)

Despite yesterday's 936 point Wall Street rally, many of us remain deeply worried about our economy. Some of us believe the $700 bailout is the only thing standing between us and another Great Depression. Others, like a blogger named Ryan, condemn Congressman Charlie Dent for finally agreeing to an infusion of public money. "I am seriously considering voting for a "write-in" rather than yourself. Sam Bennet is an idiot but you have stabbed me in the back... what really can I do here? Please contact me and tell me I still have some reason to vote for you."

This American Life, hosted by Ira Glass, is one of my favorite radio programs. But it's the last place I'd look for an explanation of our current financial crisis. But Lehigh County Commissioner Dean Browning, who himself is something of a financial maven, has recommended the program because it explains high finance in terms I can understand. We're all aware that there's simply too much debt. We're all aware that subprime lending and a runaway housing market helped create this mess. But few of us, myself included, know a damn thing about the commercial paper market or credit default swaps. Yet those seemingly obscure concepts have played a major role in our meltdown. Here's a summary of this very interesting program.

Commercial Paper Market

This commercial paper market are business IOUs, short-term loans, valued at hundreds of billions of dollars every day. A major business might need $50 million today that it can pay back tomorrow. It's relatively boring business.

It stopped being boring when the most liquid market in the world suddenly froze up.

How did this happen?

That's because of money market mutual funds, which are like savings accounts, traditionally one of the safest places to store money. Money market managers are the folks who often make these short-term corporate loans. Money market managers always seek a stable $1.00 net asset value (NAV): they aim never to lose money. If a fund's NAV drops below $1.00, one says that the fund "broke the buck". For the first time ever, one of the biggest and oldest funds, The Reserve Fund, "broke the buck." Its share dropped from $1.00 to 97 cents. It actually lost depositors' money.

How did this happen?

The Reserve Fund did so with when it gave Lehman Brothers a short-term loan in exchange for commercial paper. Lehman suddenly went bankrupt. All the money lent was gone, and The Reserve Fund was in trouble. Then another mutual fund broke the buck. Money market managers freaked out, and refused to lend any more money, preferring instead to invest their money in the U.S. government. As the panic spreads, no one will lend any money at all, which pretty much destroys capitalism.

Because businesses can't get money, they have to cancel or delay plans. McDonalds, for example, had to delay the installation of latte machines. General Electric, the second largest US company, saw its stock prices fall because it was unable to borrow the money needed to function.

There's another financial product making our financial crisis even worse.

Credit Default Swaps

Credit default swaps, called "financial weapons of mass destruction" by Warren Buffet, classically apply to bond owners who want to transfer the risk of default to someone else. You enter into an agreement paying a third party a percentage every year, and he agrees to pay you if the bond defaults.

What happened is that people who don't even hold the bonds began basically to bet on them. It's like buying insurance for a house you don't own. There are $5 trillion in bonds, but $60 trillion in credit default swap protection worldwide. AIG had to be rescued because it had promised over $400 billion to people holding credit swap default agreements with them, $400 billion it did not have.

The same groups often both buy and sell credit default swap agreements, and there is no way of knowing who in that chain has and does not have the money to pay in the event of a default. After Lehman Brothers, it became apparent that many guarantors simply lacked the capital to pay. Default credit swaps, unlike options and other financial arrangements, are unregulated.

Would it have helped to have swap cops?

That idea was first rejected in 1998, during the Clinton administration, because these products are exchanged by sophisticated financial institutions. Government would just get in the way. In 2000, Congress actually decided (95 to 0) against regulating credit default swap agreements, right around Christmas.

It was a bipartisan failure.

Will the bailout help?

It is a severe and scary crisis, but spending $700 billion will help. Under the Paulson plan, we are about to become the proud owners of a big load of bullshit burgers, i.e. toxic assets. (I give you $1,000, but take all the crap out of your garage). A clear majority of economists prefer a stock injection plan. (I still give you $1,000, but now I own part of your house, and I can evict you if you have not measured up). We still give the bank money, but become a part owner. Conservative Republicans and banks themselves really hate this idea.

Under the bill that passed, the stock injection plan is a possibility.

The majority of economists believe this plan is probably the best we can get, and we have to do something sooner than later.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

I don't know why this fact hasn't seen the light of day in the media, but we should reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act. Created after the last great Depression, it broke up the trusts and required the brokers to be separate from the bankers. In the 1990's congress and President Clinton repealed the act, permitting bankers and brokerage houses to merge. Don't blame corporate greed for this meltdown. Blame the lack of proper governmental regulation and oversight, over decades.

Re-establishing the Glass-Steagall Act won't cost the tax payers anything, and it will do much to restore the system of checks and balances.

While we are at it, banks, insured by the FDIC, should have never been able to invest in derivatives, the next toxic financial blow up about to occur.

Anonymous said...

Bernie, these explanations do a very good job of educating, they're well written.

The Banker

Anonymous said...

Addional Info:
Fact Is 2/3's of the loans that failed were not Freddie nor Fannies!

Between 2004 and 2006, private investment banks — NOT Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost 2/3 of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie,
Private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

But I know people enjoy the political bickering. So I'm sure the fingers will still be pointing to each and other. While there is still arguement for that, Fannie's & Freddie's were not the trigger.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:38

While lack of regulation and oversight contributed greatly to the problem, greed and criminal acts carried the day.

If you mother leaves the room and you steal the cookie, you are still a theft.

Anonymous said...

Glenn, there was plenty of blame to go around. Were Fannie/Freddie the sole problems? No they weren't - but they sure as hell played a role in it.

The "trigger" to use your term was real estate speculation on a massive scale. Fannie, Freddie, Wall St., CRA, low interest rates, etc. were all ammunition.

The Banker

Bernie O'Hare said...

Banker, Thank you. I pretty much just took notes as I listened to the program and then did a little research. It is pretty much a summary of the program, and I thank Dean Browning for recommending it.

Anonymous said...

Here's a good article to help in blame allocation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101100173.html

While everybody gets tarred, here's one of the more telling paragraphs:

"No sir, it wasn't lending under CRA rules that took down the mortgage industry. It was greedy, reckless banking executives, lending officers and mortgage brokers who were supposed to properly screen borrowers and apply prudent loan underwriting standards. It was lax and inadequate federal and state regulation that allowed exotic and predatory mortgages to be sold to borrowers."

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:19pm, thanks for the link.

In my opinion the premise of Ms. Singletary's column, that what we face today was caused soley by the Community Reinvestment Act, is faulty. As I have previously stated, there is more than enough blame to go around, including the blame she casts on mortgage companies and Wall St. They earned it and they deserve it. As a citizen, taxpayer, and long-time banker, what has happened here pisses me off to no end.

She also is right on the original intent of CRA when it was passed. And I don't know any true banker that believes the original intent was poor - we all agreed with it.

But she misses the point in that the CRA was bastardized by the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Banks were forced (yes, forced, I'm not exaggerating) to loosen credit standards to meet the regulators' interpretation of the CRA. Bankers were absolutely forced to make bad loans to pass the exam. If you didn't pass the exam, there was hell to pay so the bad loans were justified as a cost of doing business.

It is a fact, I was there when it happened and that is part of the problem today. Not all by any stretch, but definitely part.

The Banker

Anonymous said...

My pleasure Bernie. Making complex topics understandable is a real skill, thanks as well to Mr. Browning for pointing it out.

The Banker

Anonymous said...

Hi.

I will second the Banker's compliments. Bernie's summary is a good start and very fair.

Whether we are able to survive the culmination of many years of greed and the bursting of a huge asset bubble remains to be seen, but the number one lesson of 1929 was that having a lender of last resort is absolutely critical in a crisis.

The interesting part is that we are now moving from lender of last resort to buyer of last resort. This is where we are now.

Nevertheless in either case, lender or buyer, success depends on the productivity of the nation to pay off loans or return dividends on the equity. I'm not sure if that is possble unless our deplorable educational system and widening inequality gap are reversed. A growing population that is not productive will not enable us to recover from the additional debt we will incur or the equity positions the taxpayers are taking during this recovery phase.

As we have learned, bank deposits, bank reserves, and currency are backed only by the ability of the nation to be productive (pay back the loans through earnngs or taxes. That is the fundemental truth of a monetary system based on credit.

We know that the system can work if properly regulated and avarice is controlled by personal "self-command." Interesting, Adam Smith, author of the Wealth of Nations, noted in his book written 2 decades earlier, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that self-command is the only weapon we have agains greed. I hope that we have learned that there are risks relying on pure free markets. Some governmental control is absolutely necessary.

Best regards,

Michael Donovan