This week we got to watch as the markets went wild with the realization they were over leveraged on bad debt, until Bernanke rode in with a huge bailout, answering a question (and settling some bets) on whether he was an inflation fighter, or an inflationist (he’s an inflationist, and he has now proved it.) This Monday, we’ll get to see if the markets are reassured enough, and over the next few weeks we’ll get to see whether or not more failures occur anyway (sure, you can give banks money, but do they really want to buy out fundamentally lousy debt instruments at anything near face? Not unless Bernanke and his counterparts have been really twisting arms. Maybe not even then.)
But I don’t want to talk about last week, I want to talk about this last decade, which Stirling Newberry calls the Decade of Stupid. I’m hearing a lot of revisionism from people who should know better, such as Der Spiegel, that Greenspan wasn’t to blame and if he was, well, he had no choice.
The only really appropriate answer to that is, alas, unprintable. So let’s take a march down memory lane. We all remember the Internet bubble of the late 90’s. It should have ended in 98, but Greenspan was caught between a bubble and hard place and he made the fateful decision to put his foot to the pedal and flood the world with money. In 2000 the bubble finally burst, and the rich took a huge loss.
(This chart ends in 2004, but if it were extended to 2006 you’d see continued gains. Note also the loss right after the market collapse.)
That simply couldn’t be allowed, so a few things happened. First Greenspan dropped interest rates to generational low rates. One can argue that this was the right thing to do, so I won’t get on his case too hard. But he kept them there for a year, then raised them much too slowly. The result was a real-estate bubble, one a number of us were talking about as early as 2002. Those mortgages were taken, cut up and turned into securities (CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations) and those were sold as investment vehicles. In the meantime, as the bubble progressed, it started using loan types not seen in large numbers since the depression – nothing down, liar’s loans (where you state your income), variable loans where the payments jumped after a few years but the first few years were very low, and so on. Underwriting standards were essentially abandoned and anyone was allowed to have a mortgage, whether they could afford it or not. Despite all the nattering about “sub-prime” the weakness in underwriting extended well into Alt-A (the sort of good class) and into Prime loans (supposedly solid loans). Because it was a bubble, and because in a bubble people have to pretend it’s not a bubble and will never end the default rate was massively underestimated as well. (Aside: anyone remember Dow 36,000? The authors still get to go on TV and act as “experts – but all they were was shills cashing in on the 90’s stock bubble by telling people it would never end.)
Even as Greenspan started raising rates slowly, money remained essentially free for the wealthy. For most of this period Japan kept its interest rate at 0% or close and if you were in a position to borrow at near prime in Japan, then take that money and use it elsewhere, you were able to massively benefit from arbitrage. Combined with leverage (a fancy word for taking the 10 million you borrowed from Japan and getting a 100 million dollar loan on it so you could gamble, er trade) and a rising market, even fools could and did make very good returns – 20% was the minimum I would have accepted, were I rich, during many of these years, and in many years returns were much higher for those in on the game. (Notice, by the way, how the world became divided into two groups – those with enough money to buy into the best funds; and peons like most people reading this, who were stuck with single digit returns).
But the bailout of the rich required more than this. It also included fiscal, that is to say – tax – policy. Bush’s first major domestic priority, as we all remember, was to drop tax rates on the rich through the floor, so they could recover from the beating they took when the market collapsed.
Nor did Treasury fail to get in on all of this. When Bush dropped tax rates through the floor, combined with a recession, it caused huge government deficits to blossom almost overnight. At this point interest rates in the US were at generational lows. What would you do if you were Treasury Secretary in such a situation? Well, I don’t know about you, but what I’d do is sell nothing but 30 year Treasuries so I could finance the deficit at the lowest possible rates for the longest time – lock in those generational lows. In fact I’d be rolling over as much debt as possible into long term bonds. That’s not what Treasury did – what it did was eliminate the 30 year bond entirely, making 20 year bonds the longest duration – and sold as many short term duration bonds as possible – at a much higher cost to the government for borrowing.
Since the new long term Treasuries were the 20 and 10 year bonds what this meant was that people who had wanted 30 years were pretty much forced to buy the shorter “long” treasuries. Since those Treasuries compete with mortgage backed securities, that flooded the market with more securities. More supply, nothing else really changed = lower prices. Lower mortgage rates. The Treasury was juicing the mortgage market by eliminating 30 year Treasuries. And by selling lots of lower duration treasuries it was also juicing consumer loans and so forth.
Both the hedge fund and housing bubbles then were a creation of coordinated activity by the US government with the help of other nations (primarily the oilarchies and China, which is beyond the scope of this article). Other decisions (for example, allowing banks to ignore reserve requirements by buying “default insurance” thus expanding leverage massively) all did the same thing. Greenspan pushed the both the bubble – telling people that variable rate mortgages were a good buy at the exact best point to get a fixed rate mortgage and testifying before Congress about how tax cuts for the rich were great (and his prestige greatly helped get those cuts through.) So.. at the base of the economy – the housing bubble. At the peaks, free capital for trading and arbitrage games, and for slicing and dicing all the paper produced by the housing bubble and selling it to the world.
The beauty of the housing and securities bubbles, from the point of view of central bankers and rich people, is that they were designed not to cause widespread general inflation. Asset prices in the bond market should have limited impact on people’s lives. Houses are the main asset most ordinary people have, but they are very illiquid, and while there was a fair bit of borrowing against value (the infamous home equity loans, in which home owners forgot that an asset you haven’t sold doesn’t have a real price you can count on).
Of course, it didn’t quite work out – that nasty Iraq war and the price of oil, and all. That has crept into real world inflation (as opposed to the pablum that the BLS feeds us, with core inflation (the inflation you pay if you don’t eat, heat your house, or drive) and which doesn’t measure housing inflation (it uses rent equivalent, which hasn’t kept up). Food inflation has recently spiked up for staples due in large part to the ethanol bill (a 19.5% increase in the price of eggs for example) but they have been rising at a steady clip for years now. Mechanized agriculture is very oil dependent and oil price increases do move down the chain very directly to food prices. More to the point, you have to eat. That’s why food prices are rising while consumer electronic prices aren’t – you can live without a surround sound system (some claims to the contrary), but stop eating, and the food withdrawal symptoms kick in pretty quick as I can attest from personal experience. Whenever you “have to” buy something, that means the supplier has pricing power – he won’t eat his costs in most circumstances.
So the bubble went on, and started bursting about this time last year. Because CDOs and their cousins are listed at book values it took some time for the increasing defaults and bankruptcies to cascade through and start causing failures in heavily leveraged hedge funds and other investment vehicles. When they did, the panic hit, and you either were getting cents on the dollar, or you just couldn’t sell the things at all.
And this is where Bernanke stepped in with loads of cash and a 50 basis point cut. Inflation had already been above target (even by the debased BLS stats) for some time. People actually paying mortgages had been in pain for about a year, and the housing bubble had clearly been deflating for some time. But, as Stirling points out it wasn’t until rich people; until heavily leveraged investment vehicles with no regulation, who have fought against regulation, were in trouble, that Bernanke stepped in. You can’t let rich people face the consequences of their actions, after all – but poor people are being allowed to go sink, despite plans from Edwards and Clinton for some sort of bailout (a billion won’t cut it, but it’s a start.)
The Housing Bubble and the highly leveraged hedge funds were both created by deliberate government policy – not just US policy, mind, but policy choices made in the golden triangle (Asia/America/The Middle Eastern Oilarchies). They were specifically created by deliberate actions by Treasury, the Fed, and Bush’s tax cuts. The rich had to be rescued from their losses when the Internet bubble collapsed. Now the attempt is being made to rescue them from their losses in highly leveraged, unregulated hedge funds which bet heavily on another bubble.
And Bernanke has shown his colors. He won’t cut rates to save normal people (if he was going to bail out ordinary mortgage holders he should have acted this time last year) – but he will bail out the rich. And if it’s a choice between inflation and keeping the rich rich, well, he’s made his choice. He’s no Volcker.
So when people tell you this all couldn’t have been foreseen; when they tell you rescuing the rich is the same as rescuing you; when they tell you Greenspan doesn’t bear the blame for this or that the President has nothing to do with the economy, laugh at them, because unlike them you don’t live in the eternal present and can remember what happened, oh, in the last ten years….
Note: Made a couple minor edits:
1) to clarify that if enough people had taken into account that it was a bubble in assigning risk then it wouldn’t have been a bubble
2) a brief note that while this required concerted government action it also required the ok and assistance of both China/Japan and the Oilarchies (much of which I don’t go into in the article, but one should be aware it’s a gap. Japan gave the free capital; China fought inflation with cheap consumer goods and bought up tons of securities and kept the dollar from collapsing; the oilarchies kept recycling a lot of thier profits into dollar denominated securities.)
Related posts:
- WATB Hedge Fund Managers Demand Their Government Welfare, Dammit!
- Hedge Fund Concern Troll: Chrysler is a Terrible Precedent
- “Funding the Fund”… or Not: Debunking WaPo’s Pro-Supplemental Editorial
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Matt Taibbi, The Great American Bubble Machine
- “Hallelujah!” Health Insurers Reaping “Bonanza” in Closed-Door Negotiations





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Ding dong
2?
zed?
Oooh!
Congrats LS.
And sucks boo to comcast for losing my connection just then.
FunnyDiva
Guido Sarducci’s two minute university
Economics
Buy Low
Sell High
Ian,
I think I know that when Greenspan talked about irrational exuberance he was telling his buddies to get out of the stock market.
People got played.
Phoenix is crashing with this, Southwest Mortgage closed their doors Friday and Tucson’s Magnus Mortgage is no longer offering loans. Two of our Nova M radio network discussed this on these shows – Real Estate Matters and Desert Politics. The all stated that the boomerang of this will make it increasing harder to obtain a mortgage.
We have many of our outlying subdivisions nearly abandoned which is causing health hazard due to stagnate pools and West Nile.
70% of the new jobs created in AZ since 2002 have been in the housing sector, building, landscaping, interior design, mortgage & financing. Think of that…. 70% of new jobs in a single state…… good thing that Sen. Kyl & McCain have been bringing home the bacon in defense contacts!
The US of A needs a complete reorganiztion, a new political party that can obtain a majority, revocation of all government granted broadcast licenses and reapplication permitted on clear and meaningful standards, private investment in digital broadcast technologies for the Internet, a date by which the US will be off fossil fuels and real government granted incentives to develop the applicable technologies, including US military development of new more advanced batteries, hydro and wind technologies, all just for starters.
And no more Clintons, Bushes, Kerry or Gore.
The really, really rich used the money of the really not so rich (but thought they were rich) to get richer and are leaving them hung out to dry…
It’s going to get a whole lot worse.
I’m glad I’m not rich.
EPU’ed so I’ll park my OT here
File under how it gets done. In the NYT,
the article White House to Offer Iraq Plan of Gradual Cuts” By STEVEN LEE MYERS and THOM SHANKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08…..itary.html
If you read this casually you might think it was reasonable and well written. But like most NYT articles on Iraq, it is carrying the Administration’s water.
First, it mentions the Petraeus report without talking about how the White House tried and is trying to game it. The WH still intends to write it and Petraeus could still well testify (after the Administration’s efforts to limit his exposure before the Congress) before the report is released, meaning he won’t be able to comment on it in any meaningful way.
Second, it puts out the WH case, then the military/Petraeus’ case. Only then does it give one quick negative by Harry Reid, and closes with a longer supportive quote by Tony Snow. Sound fair and balanced to you?
Third, in the course of the piece, it regurgitates WH and military points uncritically and with no factchecking. It repeats the WH case that sectarian violence is down although this is both disputed and has not been independently verified. It also mentions that accomplishments were satisfactory on 9 of 18 benchmarks without emphasizing that the WH wrote that report too and that the 9 points referred to lacked any real substance.
In other words, the NYT the gray lady and war whore is at it again. It seems like the days when the paper hired reporters to report and editors to edit are long gone.
10
I’M FOREVER BLOWING BUBBLES (John Kellette)
I’m dreaming dreams,
I’m scheming schemes,
I’m building castles high.
They’re born anew,
Their days are few,
Just like a sweet butterfly.
And as the daylight is dawning,
They come again in the morning.
I’m forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high,
Nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams,
They fade and die.
Fortune’s always hiding,
I’ve looked everywhere,
I’m forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air.
—–
Pretty much sums up this whole affair….
Hey, raven:
Were you in Dewey Canyon II?
If so, please tell me about it.
Hi
Right on story, this site and others need to care stuff like this a few times a week so every one will have idea of what else they’re doing to you. If people thought that loosing their rights was bad, it’s only a piece of the puzzle that this regime has in store for all of us before they leave. In this case they will only save their friend on WS be dammed the rest of us. I in reading CR the other day someone wrote that we take all the paper away and turn in to REIT and let the holders of the paper go bye,bye. The REIT would then redo the loan so people could keep there homes. I would fell bad about the rich loosing the Apen homes, Jets, & Yachts. Not going to happen the unwashed Mass will pay this bill also.
Jo6pac
It’s not only about winning elections with the right people but a mind set. It’s a long battle.
Funnydiva2002 @ 4
Mine does that too! I was trying to comment that things were “spinning”, but it wouldn’t take, so I just came up and got ‘er done!
Get rich quick schemes (housing bubble). Many people never learn.
I support Gore for president.
Wow, Ian, great post! I am really starting to look forward to Economix Saturday at FDL.
One question: will a Democratic president have the guts to order the BLS to count inflation correctly? I love your description of their current measure: “the inflation you pay if you don’t eat, heat your house, or drive.”
So Fed-Daddy is bailing out the rich. What does that mean for ordinary people? A tough time to be trying to get a mortgage, the food inflation we already know about….anything else?
Economics baffles me, but I know one thing, we’re all f*cked.
So what’s the solution?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 16
Each generation learns from prior generations math, biology, physics, law, literature.
Religion is different. It’s learned differently from generation to generation and within each generation.
If we’re in a dark age, religion will be dominant.
Reason: In a dark age, learning new ideas comes to a stop, and religion satisfies the need to understand the universe around us.
TeddySanFran @ 19
Well, they should, but even if they did it means nothing if the Fed doesn’t use it as their guide to policy. And Bernanke will be very strict “by the book” under a Democratic president, is my belief. That’s certainly the way Greenspan was (or rather, he was a good Fed chairman under Bush I but he was a hack under Bush II. The 98 decision, while I disagree with it, was one where he was caught between a rock and a hard place. What he did would have been acceptable if at the same time the fiscal authority (Congress with Pres leadership) had turned around and actually raised taxes on the rich. But they were busy on an impeachment witch hunt (although I’m not sure how Rubin sees this.)
There are also some other technical problems with inflation – even non core inflation is probably undercounting real inflation significantly. Inflation was deliberately set to count somewhat low in the early 90s (under Clinton) because it means pension costs grow more slowly, and that saves the government money.
I suppose the real question is are we headed for an economic depression? I would postulate nobody knows. But I am leaning in that direction. Some say a world-wide depression will foment the last war.
katymine @ 8
The real estate boom has been Arizona’s biggest problem for the last twenty years. The environmental problems caused by such rapid growth, plus tax money being diverted to subsidize infrastructure for those sub-divisions at the expense of needed services. The “build it and they will come” philosophy has been headed for a crash one way or another. If the economy doesn’t stop it, running out of water or something else will.
TeddySanFran @ 19
what Teddy says,
and thanks for putting it in order and in plain English for us.
So. For whatever reasons, the bottom line is there is just not enough goodies to go around?
Hearth Moon @ 20
Because this is a huge hit of liquidity, it will mean either ratcheting back growth next year, or letting real inflation (probably oil inflation) move into the system in a way that will be very hard to ignore (add another dollar to gasoline prices, heating oil price increases, etc…) It also means that a real significant bailout of mortgage holders just got less likely – bail out the top end (the creditor class) and the political pressure for a bailout of the debtor class just became a lot less.
Hearth Moon
As a home owner in AZ, I believe water is the one and only issue and developers suck.
When times are good, the rich get richer –
When times are bad, the rich get filthy rich –
This is an excellent post.
I agree that the housing bubble could be seen years in advance and that the bubble began bursting last year. What does that tell you that the housing market began to cool and that some mortgage companies went belly up late last year but it took until August of this year for that to sink in and for governments and markets to begin to take measures.
Isn’t it strange that on the upside of a bubble everyone is talking about the genius of free markets and the evils of govenment intervention but as soon as the downside hits these same people are the first to expect and demand a government bailout? And being rich they get it while the poor saps holding mortgages they could never really afford get caught holding the bag. Even more as Ian notes, this will have an effect on inflation. So the folks paying for this mess are going to be ordinary Americans who through inflation will be paying what is essentially a regressive tax.
I am also glad to see the mentioning of the leverage aspect of all this which I think has been totally missed in the MSM coverage of this.
Finally, I like the Stirling quote. I have been thinking for some time now that when historians write about us they will call these years the Age of Stupid. Iraq, Katrina, GWOT, global warming, peak oil, the trashing of the Constitution, they were all out there, and solutions were known, and yet in every case the unreservedly worst course of action was taken and persisted in. It is truly the Age of Stupid.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 24
I don’t think we’re getting it this cycle. Probably not until after the Boomers start retiring in large numbers. But no one is entirely certain. A lot of us think it’s coming, but predicting exactly when is the tricky part, and one I’m honestly not that good at (I predicted the housing bubble would start bursting late 2005, early 2006, for example. I’m good at what, not so hot at when, which is very common even amongst decent analysts.)
As a real estate appraiser, I’ve had a serious attitude adjustment this summer — instead of wanting to help everyone, I’ve moved on to triage.
Some folks can be helped, but entire market sectors are beyond redemption — except for Government intervention, or lenders coming to their senses.
The first is possible; the latter, not so much.
Hearth Moon @ 25
How’s the water situation out that way? That’s what really freaks me out in large parts of the country – built on aquifers and once they run out, perma-drought with no way out (except a huge temptation to buy 20 years by draining the great lakes).
Thanks for addressing this issue. It has a lot more political importance than many of the progressive blogs have given it.
For starter a bailout is what is called soci*lism for the rich. This bubble is just the latest flimflam in as continuing series of flimflams since the advent of capitalism.
Capitalism moves wealth upward and not downward.
Capitalism is an economic reality, and is mutually exclusive from the political concept of democracy.
When capitalism is left unregulated it will naturally evolve(there’s that word again) to monopoly and then to oligarchy.
The present bubble has occured under the leadership of the Republican Party, and they should be held directly responsible for it.
If these people are going to bitch about food stamps and welfare moms then there has to accoutability for the rich.
Republicans have been preaching personal responsibility and the importance of the individual to understand economic decisions one makes.
What’s the difference between a person who signs a subprime loan, and someone who trust an investor to make money management decisions for them?
The present reality is that the price of real estate has to decrease to be in line with the value of other components of the economy, or vice versa. This is where Mr. Berneke has a tough row ahead.
Edited ** and released by MOD
I want to point out a partial solution to the sub-prime problem. We amend the bankruptcy code to permit debtors to amend the terms of their mortgages to something they can actually pay. This cuts the Gordian knot of CDOs, and will rationalize the assets underlying these securities. Eventually the pricing will
the idea that letting people buy houses with nothing down is part of the problem is a bunch of bullshit.I put nothing down on my home and even under the current bubble busting Iam still going to make double my money when I sell.the problem is that people were allowed to buy houses they could not afford.its that simple.If you buy a house that fits your income than you will be able to afford the payments weather you put down 20% or nothing.
Ian Welsh @ 28
Oooh! add a buck to gasoline prices. In or near a presidential election. Coolio!
Or will someone “make it all better” _just_ close enough to November of ‘08 to make voters either forgetful or grateful to the ‘thuglicans in charge?
Might a bit of a rock/hard place developing for FedR/Treasury do you think?
FunnyD
Ian Welsh @ 34
Fresh water’s going to be a growing problem everywhere.
Hugh at 31
Agree that this is the Age of Stupid
My question is, to myself, where do we go from here?
Hillary? (I don’t think so.)
John Edwards?
I won’t even go to the repubs.
masaccio @ 35
Ian, what do you think the chances are of this happening?
Excellent post, Mr Welsh. Firedoglake could do with more such.
Busted!!! From HuffPo:
WASHINGTON – Top Commerce and Treasury department officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.
Political appointees in the Treasury Department received at least 10 political briefings from July 2001 to August 2006, officials familiar with the meetings said. Their counterparts at the Commerce Department received at least four briefings – all in the election years of 2002, 2004 and 2006.
Whoops, meant to say eventually the markets will be able to price mortgage based assets intelligently.
Whoops, meant to say that the risk will be clarified, so these greedheads will have some spin to explain their next financial stupidity.
Made a couple minor edits:
1) to clarify that if enough people had taken into account that it was a bubble in assigning risk then it wouldn’t have been a bubble
2) a brief note that while this required concerted government action it also required the ok and assistance of both China/Japan and the Oilarchies (much of which I don’t go into in the article, but one should be aware it’s a gap. Japan gave the free capital; China fougth inflation with cheap consumer goods and bought up tons of securities and kept the dollar from collapsing; the oilarchies kept recycling a lot of thier profits into dollar denominated securities.)
There’s something about learning to save a down payment that teaches people a little bit about responsibility.
We have a whole generation that think in terms of no money down, just make a monthly payment. And the rich profit of them.
idahojim @ 37
The last time no money down mortgages were as common as they were in the last few years was… the 1920’s. It encouraged people to take on mortgages which, as you say, they could not really afford. While I take your point I think that’s splitting hairs rather a bit, shall we say.
Housing bears take about 4 to 6 years to play out (iirc, it’s a substantial number for sure) so I wouldn’t be too sanguine yet, if I were you. The reduction in prices combined with inflation eating away hasn’t yet occured, but it’s coming.
Fascinating post.
Ian,
Where is PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) in all this? I thought that low-down loans all had to have PMI. No?
The Fed lowered the Discount Rate, but not the Federal Funds Rate, by one half percent. This was a bank bailout, and the timing was coincident with options expiration date in order to bailout options writers who were about to get their clocks cleaned. They needed a huge rally and they got one, albeit the rally was insufficient to fully cover these derivatives positions. What the Fed is saying, is they want banks to borrow money from them aggressively, however, they don’t particularly want individuals to borrow more. This is a bank bailout, whereby large financial institutions who are holding depreciated mortgage backed securities suffering from the subprime and spreading prime loan mess can now access dollar denominated cash cheaper. But it is something else. It is a green light for banks to borrow directly from the Fed without the normal scrutiny borrowing from the Fed entails. Financial Institutions cannot sell much of their mortgage backed securities to raise cash because the loss they would take is prohibitive. They are stuck holding the old maid card. They can play games to some extent on the value these deteriorating securities held on the books, however to exchange them for cash is a reality check. They are worth substantially less than what they paid for them, as underlying mortgages default on payments. This is a liquidity rescue of financial institutions. A bank bailout.
Another problem brewing here is the latest stock market plunge. The Wilshire 5000 index is essentially an index of all of the stocks listed on the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX exchanges. At one point Thursday, August 16th, it had dropped from 15700 ($15.7 trillion) to 13800 ($13.8 trillion). This means the stock market had experienced a loss of $1.9 trillion in one month. In other words, the stock market saw 1.9 trillion of wealth wiped out in the past month and a total of 4.5 trillion world wide. If we want to fix the problem…..get rid of the Federal Reserve and we go back to a sound money system as the Constitution calls for. Real money backed by real assets that are no ones liability and that is both gold and silver.
Another aspect of this and one that delayed the sh*t hitting the fan earlier this year is that companies that rate investments were more than slow in factoring in exposure to subprime losses in their ratings. As a result, many of the companies they rated looked much better on paper than they were.
TJ @ 46
It is always about encumbering the people…then they are a dependent slaves…that is how they control everybody. Not a shot fired.
TJ @ 46
When I was in grade school, the local bank had a program where we deposited money every other week, not much, like fifty cents maybe but the idea was to teach us a little about savings.
Any of you with kids in school, are there programs like that today?
Elliott @ 41
The solution I like is very similiar. Offer to buy the mortgages from the people who hold them at a fixed percentage (say 40%). Reset the value to somewhat higher, say 50% (so the government makes a profit), convert to a simple fixed mortgage either with a short term or a very long one (I’m not sure which would be best, there’s something to be said for resetting them all to 50 years, but also something for resetting them all to 10 or 20 years) make them non-trasferable except if someone else is taking over the place as a primary residence, and there you go – bailout of mortgage holders without a bailout of the lenders (who I think need to be let go under) and the government will wind up turning a profit. More details are needed to make sure it isn’t abused and that it doesn’t cause yet another bubble, but that’s the broad outline of how I’d do it.
Katymine,
I am happy to see the crooked developers lose their shirts, but as mentioned above, the rich guys always seem to come out on top and the guys who have to make a living working construction are the ones that will end up suffering. As an Arizona homeowner who refused to buy property on the outer edge of the concentric circle, I would like to see Anthem turned into a ghost town.
It’s your house you bought for 100,000 that you ultimately pay 500,000 for.
It’s your I-Pod you bought for 200 that you ultimately pay 500 for…
It’s your food that you paid 100 for that you ultimately paid 200 for…
Usury.
Ian Welsh @ 45
What is so surprising about this is that all of these players should have known they were buying cr*p yet they were willing to trade short term profits for long term losses, and no one called them on it. Where was the internal oversight?
PMI is only required for Fannie/Freddie A paper loans with LTV’s higher than 80%.
The crisis has come from the Sub-Prime sector, with it’s 80/20–100% LTV loans, with no PMI. The added risk was accounted for with higher interest rates.
FHA and VA loans have Government MI, btw.
If lenders would come to their senses, and refi the killer ARMs into affordable fixed rate products, they could mitigate their losses considerably. Some are doing it, but not nearly enough.
idahojim @ 37
But people were clearly misled about how high, and how quickly, their ARMs could re-set. In the next fourteen months, a trillion dollars of ARMs will re-set higher, in a time of wage stagnation. How are people to meet these new payments? How many of them will lose their homes?
As someone who looked at housing for the past three years in an inflating market, I can attest that real estate agents looked at me like I was crazy when I asked, “How high can this mortgage payment go, anyway?” They were not interested in disclosing that anywhere but in the fine print.
Funnydiva2002 @ 38
I think so. Stirling’s belief is that there is a bipartisan consensus to dump the recession on the next President and Congress (one reason why they aren’t seriously ending the war is that doing so would remove a huge amount of fiscal stimulus and plunge the country into recession almost for sure). But this will make it much harder to do that. (And if they Dems do get really serious about ending the war you know they’ve changed thier mind or didn’t have this consensus.)
Hugh @ 50
Yeah, the rating companies were really slow on this. I haven’t looked into it at all, but I keep hearing mutterings that they were making a lot of money off the status quo. Embarassing.
LS @ 50
Yes, I agree. But sooner or later the populace will simply quit paying their mortgages, student loans and credit cards. The emotional tax paid to sustain the unsustainable is far too high. This is one way the revolution of change will happen. People will get feed up.
Hugh @ 55
Why worry when there’s no external oversight and when the gummint is happy to cover your losses and bail your ass out anyways?
FunnyD
marymccurnin @ 60
I do not understand why our federal institutions are so eager to bail out industries that were so happy being unregulated.
Hugh @ 56
Wall Street has a saying “IBG YBG”
“I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone.”
Another way of saying it is “I’ll be rich, you’ll be rich”.
Sure, crap is hitting the fan, but if you made your millions and never have to work again, and if there’s no real chance that you’ll lose that money to either an agressive prosecutor or to confiscatory taxation, then hey, who cares what happens once you’ve made your bundle?
Same thing happened in the 90’s – all those analysts reccomending stocks they knew they knew were crap. Even after Spitzer took his pound of flesh back, most of them still wound up very rich and set for life.
Mind you, many people really do believe in bubbles while they’re running – I sure argued with tons of them who kept telling me everything had changed. But many of those who know better either keep their mouths shut, or actively try and keep the bubble going as long as possible so they too can cash in. If you’re in the right place at the right time, a bubble can be a once in a lifetime chance to really strike it rich and never have to worry about money ever again.
A friend’s daughter worked briefly selling subprime mortgages wholesale. She was horrified at seeing undocumented workers sign mortgage papers they did not understand. She quit and is now in nursing school. Can you imagine how demoralized these people will be when those mortgage bills double. They will have been sunk by the American Dream.LS @ 62
I wonder if these are the same 50 million that don’t have health insurance.
so when does inflation start looking like the days of vietnam?
Here’s a thought. Have the US Treasury assume all debt of the member banks that make up the Federal Reserve and close it down. Buy them out for pennies on the dollar. This would return us to a Constitutional system with a non fiat currency that is backed by a basket of precious metals.
Ian Welsh @ 34
I don’t live in Arizona anymore, but I hear things are pretty much the same. A lot of people have started harvesting water (collecting it from the roof in bins when it rains) for their gardens, which is a good thing.
The water situation is good metaphor for the money situation. Water is being pumped like there’s no tomorrow so speculators can build housing complexes. It’s also going for green lawns, golf courses, and private swimming pools. Oh, I forgot about cotton fields and other agriculture. The unrestrained growth situation has been the scariest part of the water problem, though, so maybe some good can come from the housing crash. The other troubling part of the water situation is global warming, and the potential for drought.
Great conversation Ian Welsh
It seems people want to hear more about this and I hope you have time to write more about this subject. It’s almost not covered in the Lib Blog world except by Phoenix Women site. For those like me not a lot back ground in it if you read about enough by writes like Ian you’ll learn and it’s never to late. This does tie in to Politics.
Jo6pac
PS There will be NO Paul Volker this time to save the unwashed, they are only save there own.
Ian Welsh @ 59
why on earth would dems think it’s a good idea to dump the recesssion on the next president? well, that is, if they think the next president will be a D.
i’m not challenging stirling’s analysis – i’m just, once again, trying to understand the Ds.
Economics 101..
“Buy high, sell low.”
“But, how do you make money that way?”
“Volume.”
Selise at 72
I continue to ask, why anyone wants to be the next president.
I don’t trust anyone who wants the office.
Great post Ian. Explains things really well. Here in Aus the reserve bank just raised interest rates(just before the stock market went kablooie). Now the banks are talking about how they will have to raise them again, while at the same time our biggest bank notified of an increase in profits of $12b (from some 3fig billion). I see it as the average joe bailing out the rich. Makes me sick.
selise @ 71
I guess they figure that since they’re in charge of Congress (and have lousy ratings) they’ll get some of the blame. I disagree – I think Bush will get the lion’s share, but Dems seem to run much more scared, much more often, than I think they should.
Hmmm… what to say… OK — What Ace said!
I pulled this line out (edit maybe?):
It is where the situation stands at the moment.
There may be more to come as the adjustable rates kick in month after month. That’s what protracts the default deluge. There are other structural credit defects which will become evident soon too.
Thanks for the post — a considerable amount of speculation has taken place — both literally and figuratively in the past. This is truely a Minsky moment.
You guys are ripping!
Ian Welsh @ 60
That sounds like a reason for the Dems to end the war yesterday. Dump the recession on this administration. Maybe they’re afraid of what the Fed will do as far as inflation goes. Nah, they’re not that smart. I have a hard time believing any but a few of them Congress Critters are looking at the economic side of the war, except as it affects their home turf defense contracts.
Debbie(aussie) @ 74
An economist whose name I forget used to call it the “Classic COLA for bankers” – which is to say, central banks almost always raise interest rates enough to ensure that creditors get inflation plus. There are certainly exceptions and it’s not as true as it once was (in the eighties and nineties it was like a law of iron) but I still sometimes think of it.
Jonathan @ 74
one of the reasons I want gore in office after all
for the economists on this thread;
what would happen if a state printed it’s own currency without interest?
is this stll allowed?
take the fed out of the picture, take central debt out of the picture.
is it allowed and would it be a good or bad thing?
Ian Welsh @ 64
I think that is an important point. However, it doesn’t explain why our financial system is geared to facilitate con men out to make a killing. Both governments and financial institutions are very much not IBG YBG although some of their employees may be. It is no doubt naive of me but I would think that there would be some people who could distinguish between maximizing profit and being taken in a scam, especially such an obvious one after the dot com bubble.
I loves me some Gore!!
Vidal!! (and the other Gore too), anyways..:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..20049/7171
The Friday Discount Rate cut was not a bailout in any general sense. It might have been one in the very limited sense. For one player; Countrywide.(Countrywide is a bank and a member of the gang of Fed primary dealers. They very well could be at the Discount Window. By the way the Discount rate is still around a half a percent higher than the Fed Funds rate. No bargain. the big thing was that the Fed made the discount window borrowing not overnight but for up to 30 days. So it might have been a direct short term bailout of Countrywide_
In 2003 the Fed stopped using the Discount Rate as a policy tool. Instead it began targeting the Fed Funds rate, which is the interbank ‘free’ market for bank regulatory mandated cash holdings. The Discount Window policy setting device was a sham in that it was and is rarely used, since using it raises a red flag that the bank is in trouble or rather stupid. So the Fed said it would target the Fed Funds market rate and adjust its open market operations in order to reach it’s target. The old Discount Rate policy worked in the old days because banks usually adjusted their Prime Rates in concert with the Feds change in the Discount Rate. It was all very indirect and ad hoc. So they changed policy.
Fridays big announcement was a sham. A propaganda exercise which had profound consequences for many traders.in the ultra short term and none for the condition of the credit markets long term. From the low of Thursday afternoon, when the surprise was probably made known to the big boys on The Street, to Friday morning the Dow was up almost 500 points. Friday was options expiration day. Billions of dollars in puts were taken out of the money and expired worthless.
Over most of this year the Fed has been stingy in its open market operations. Over the previous five years it had been adding to its System Open Market Account (monetizing, pumping) at a 5% growth rate. Since early this year the growth has stopped On a chart it is at the bottom of the long term 5% uptrend channel, and near flat for all year..
The Fed has been tight. In the face of the last two weeks upsets it has been tight. Except for the previous weeks big repo, which expired Monday and all the money was taken back. Say it again. The Fed has been tight. The Fed has been tight. Astoundingly the Fed has been tight.
Cutting their Fed Funds target won’t really help things out in my opinion and the opinion of many. There is a sudden severe drop in people willing to lend and also in people wanting to borrow. If people, institutions really, don’t want to or can’t lend at todays rates why will they be willing or able to at a lower one?
Hey, whatever happened to that “other” money a few years ago? I’ve never come across it, but someone was legally printing other paper money bills. I don’t remember what they called it.
Ian -excellent post. I too hope we will have these economic issues as a “regular” item at the lake.
Other money…maybe we should print up FDL money:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Busi…..id=2903049
rapier @ 84
I’m really interested in what you say.
Please boil it down to simple terms for a dummy like me.
Just a request.
Ian Welsh @ 54
I like the way you think, thank you for laying that out.
.Ian, Who will bail out the Pension Funds?..When the boomers retire and find out they have no pension, Mom and Pop won’t be able to help the kids keep their homes let alone their own. Great post,IAN. Has anyone seen the movie called “From Freedom to Fascism”? Think you can get it free on Google. Makes you realize just how just how UN-Federal the Fed.Reserve is. Ron Paul narrates part of it…MUST SEE.
Jonathan @ 88
Basically, as is so characteristic of this Maladministration: Too Little, Too Late…!!!
Rapier: I stand corrected. Let’s see if they stay tight and don’t drop the Fed Funds and kick up the open market operations to match. I’m betting they will, but I’ve certainly been wrong before.
As for the “won’t buy at any price”, yeah, that’s the big question – is this so bad that giving liquidity is meaningless without arm twisting “no way man, I’m not buying that crap no matter how much money you lend me.”
If so, we’re in for a world of hurt.
rapier @ 82
I agree that the cut in the discount rate is mostly a figleaf to restore market confidence. If fewer investors are trying to pull their money, it means less pressure on credit and less need to borrow. So I guess it worked for now but as this is a long term crisis I don’t know what the long term plan is or if they have one.
Go rapier! There is alot going on and very little info available to most folks. Plus, the structure is what it has been made to be. Understanding that is important. Then the problems become more evident. Most folks aren’t exposed to this kind of crisis until the panic button is hit. Oddly, now, it is as if everyone has their own panic button and everyone is banging on their own ever more urgently.
Japan is a good example of where thing are going. They have experienced a deflationary period that has brought zero percent interest up until recently. Now things are unwinding and whatever happens to them, we can expect to eventually experience something similar as our path seems linked to theirs.
Grandma Millie @ 89
That post is coming ;) Seriously, the big question of the next 15 years is “who pays”. The US as a society (I’m not just talking government here, SS is not in crisis) has way more liabilities than its income stream. Someone is going to have to pay – either by writing off the liabilities (and a lot of private pension plans are effectively being just abandoned) or by cutting costs significantly (no, you don’t need to be spending 50% of the world’s military budget) or by raising taxes (can you say payroll taxes, sure you can. You don’t think the rich are going to allow real progressive taxation and a massive increase in estate taxes do you? Up to you to force them to.)
I’m kind of gloomy on the subject, but there is reason for some hope – problem is that very powerful constituencies – military/old folks/healthcare/creditors/the rich are all about to smash face first into each other and reality. It’s not going to be pretty, and who wins the rumble is unknown at this time.
Someone’s gonna pay, that much I know. Who it’ll be – that I don’t know – that’s a political question, as many economics questions ultimately are.
Ian Welsh @ 92
The zenith of the Gilded… start of the Depression…!!! Those who fail to learn…!!! 8-(
What about the right to legal tender?
Only one thing wrong with that chart. It purports that the top 1% have almost reached the post-WW2 level of wealth. This is not correct. They have almost reached the pre-WW2 level, and most ominously, are about to reach the peak of 1929.
Carlo @ 98
Exacto mundo, Carlo!!!
Ian @ 95
Question
Someone’s going to pay.
Will it be the 75 million baby boomers?
Jonathan @ 14
Hey Jonathon
I was. There was a whole bunch of us from Champaign-Urbana who went. Here’s a picture that has me in it. I didn’t know it existed until almost 30 years to the day.
I don’t want to bore all the Lakers with stories of the past. Why don’t you shoot me an email at markann at hotmail dot com or got to my facebook and leave a message there.
Grandma Millie @ 90
http://video.google.com/videop…..3867390173
The perfect solution. This is wothy of serious focus
Ian Welsh @ 54
“The United States Coinage Act of 1965 states (in part):
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign, gold, or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
31 U.S.C. § 5103.
With respect to private transactions, this has been construed to apply only to “payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.”[3]
With respect to accepting a contract offer with performance, tender requires both an offer to perform with the demonstrated ability to perform. If both requirements have been met, that is deemed acceptance by performance.”
Okay…so if somebody promised to perform something…like say..look after your money..and they messed up…and they are no longer able to demonstrate their ability to do that…well…
Throw RICO in there and Breach of Fiduciary duty…just for good measure..
idahojim @ 37
I just want to take partial issue here, on the relevance of downpayment. Some of what you say points correctly to the bad underwriting that Ian alludes to; many people in adjustable rate loans (ARMs) were qualified only at the two or three year teaser rate, and at the time of reset, which we’re entering for the 2004 and 2005 classes of loans, can’t afford the new payment. This is a horrible, perhaps fraudulent, practice on the part of the writers of those loans. Good loan practice would have made it clear that the customer could not afford the loan. But the reason it seemed to work for a while —arguably long enough to make Bush’s tax cuts look better than they were to the middle class— was the rising housing market in many regions.
The ARM loans were based on a presumption that borrowers could refinance to a more affordable situation as needed, when the higher interest rates kick in, because their houses would have appreciated. The higher house value was supposed to substitute for the equity contribution of a downpayment. (Even fully amortizing loans don’t accrue much equity in the early years.) That actually happened and bailed out a lot of homeowners for a while, simultaneously of course helping to inflate a lot of regional housing bubbles.
When the values of those houses started to fall, by early this year just about everywhere, those borrowers became unable to refinance without bringing money into the deal. And if they could have done that, one hopes they would have been in a better category of loan. So the lack of downpayment means that more homeowners have hit the underwater state at a time when it really affects their options, and hit it on price declines that in a lot of regions are still not unusual, so far.
(For example, if you have 5 percent equity, a 5pecent drop in the appraisal of your house wipes you out on paper. And 5 percent drops from one year to the next in the value of a typical house are not unusual.)
Jonathan @ 98
Mmmmm, I’m going to guess that those of us with 35-45 more potential working years in our lives will not be spared either. The kids and grandkids? Maybe they just won’t know what they missed as far as an affluent life.
FunnyDiva
What an unfunny discussion. But the level of expertise and eloquence is stunning! Having Ian is amazing enough. Having rapier, et al jump in…whoah. Mindblowing.
I think this is a timely and important post, setting aside that besides the vile and evil slam on the wonderful Bureau of Labor Statistics -they just calculate all sorts of indexes and don’t push any one or other as far as I know. Of course, using their data just saved one of my projects so I am biased right now.
When I have time, I follow the daily developments in the Calculated Risk blog -though I haven’t had time to read it regularly for almost a year. But I just checked now and the blog is saying nice things about Paul Krugman’s sensible recommendation of “work-outs, not bail-outs”.
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/
The person who runs it is a crusty old real estate finance veteran who knows a lot of economics and statistics.
Most fat cats in financial markets won’t acknowledge the frequent existence of significant bubbles because they know they can make money off of them. Most economists won’t because their frequent existence blows a big hole in important parts of free market economic theory.
There has been a battle between economic statisticians and applied economists about the existence of bubbles for more than a year. Some economist who deeply believe economic theory is really really true always everywhere at every instant would produce an analysis debunking the real estate bubble. The statisticians would say ‘then how do explain that part of the your results, which look really weird unless there is bubbliciousness going on?” I never heard a good explanation for all the funny stuff in the stats that had to be curve fitted away or ignored.
The conventional macro finance in me is more sympathetic to bailing out the big shots as needed to keep essential capital markets solvent and functioning. But something is rotten when this is the first and only recourse. And there is also a dangerous blind spot too, since consumer spending is important to macro economy, and what will happen to borrowing financed consumer spending now? Very little attention to what is happening to the small fry mortgage holders and honest small time mortgage finance companies caught up in the bubble.
There is also a danger here in the policy of solving market failures by quickly and thoughtlessly expanding markets, or making more markets, willy nilly. Some of the problem of this bubble collapse is caused by unregulated and thoughtless securitization of mortgage debt. From a mainstream applied free market magic point of view (which is dominant today), this has to improve welfare and keep things running smoother. Especially when there is no intrusive government regulation. Of course, the theory behind it ASSUMES that bankruptcy doesn’t occur, so, hey, not problem! That is the kind of thinking that drives a lot of GOP and corporate Dem economic policy making these days.
It is unfortunate, since some more carefully thought out securitization, and regulation, and more attention to working things out for the small fry would mean more people would be able to keep their homes. It would give some meaning to Bush’s idea of an opportunity society. But that was just an election gimmick, not a serious policy, so I doubt it will happen during this admnistration, or the following if the Biden-Schumer-Emmanuel-DLC wing of the Democrats dominate the next one.
Carlo @ 98
Which set of numbers are you using Carlo? (I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re right. Numbers vary depending on methodology, the actual income and wealth of the very rich has to be teased out, it’s hard to get directly).
Ian Welsh @ 95
That may be a whole new post, but I’m suggesting that the economy sort of dictates the political situation.
LS @ 104
That’s exactly what I’m trying to say…
Jonathan @ 100
Yeah, a lot of them are not going to get the pensions they thought they were. There are going to be a lot of poor old people in the US in 15 years, much more than there are now. But, how much so, is a politicl question. Old folks have a lot of political muscle they will use to try and grab as much of the pie as possible.
New Thread!!!
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..e/#respond
For a excellent analysis on the credit crunch:
http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2871
It is worse than you could ever imagine.
Some comments mention the role of expected appreciation in house values as rationale for lending practices. Watch out when expected asset appreciation plays a big role in estimating the value of an asset, or what kind of debt you can take on. That is where you start flying off into bubble never never land. Big divergences between rental value of houwing services and their asset prices over last several years was an early clue to existence of bubble. In statistics, and other empirical data I sawy, you started seeing a divergence between what part of value could be explained by real economic fundamentals (like value of roof over your head, place to sleep and cook food) and prices being paid. Just like divergence between observed asset prices and what fundamentals could explain before the dot com bust. But art of bull market financial analyst and free market fundementalist religion type economist is to convincingly explain away those divergences. Or get you in such a froth about your chances to get in on the Ponzi scheme before it is too late that you forget about the whole problem.
wesgpc – I love the BLS too. At one time I used to go to their website almost every day. But I hate the way that inflation has been screwed with over the last 20 years and I really don’t think it’s an accurate measure of much of anything.
That said, the Fed doesn’t have to use “core” inflation, they could use the wider measure (which I still have problems with but at least it ain’t ignoring food and energy). And if they’re really concerned with “volatility”, well hell, that’s why you take moving averages, it’s not difficult. The BLS creates the indices they’re told to, and doesn’t control how they’re used, I agree, but I don’t like a lot of what they’ve been told to do. That’s a bigger topic than we can do justice to here though and I’m a bit behind the times on it as well (I believe they stopped using hedonics, for example, but didn’t back fit the data. And then there’s the mortgage equivalent stuff, and so on.)
I’m a bankruptcy attorney. My business has become very brisk thanks to clusterfuck and his buddies. I feel so badly for my clients.
We have such a fragile middle class in this country. One bad decision, one job loss, a cut in overtime, a divorce, unpaid child support, an illness. This is all it takes for a downward spiral to begin. We really need to elect progressives who will fight for the intersts of the middle class. Unfortunately as I have stated before here, HRC will not fight for the middle and working class of this country. If her presidency is inevitable (I’m not conceding this yet), we must start focusing on local, state, and Congressional races so that the progressive agenda is advanced.
What rapier said, including a suspicion that Friday, at least, was mainly about Countrywide getting its act to the window where the damage is more confined.
Changing the fed funds rate affects the whole economy, after a time lag of maybe a few months. Sometimes the effects go well beyond what one would like, e.g. inflation, though maybe not as much as outright printing money unless the fed really pushes it.
Doing the kind of repurchase operation (repo) the fed did several days last week, to fanfare which again was meant to send a message to some of the more excitable members of the market imo (many have seen the video no doubt), affects pretty much just the banking system, but all of it, and has an immediate but temporary effect.
Lowering the discount rate, per Friday, is the fed saying to individual banks, You talkin’ to me, Bud? since they have to come individually and by name if they want a loan.
(Disclaimer: I’m an economist, at least by training.)
hightrekker @ 112
That is an optimistic framing in the sense that it means we will be effectively starting over.
People don’t have an adequate appreciation for how long it will take. Yet.
Fabulous thread, Ian & all you others who have contributed your expertise! I thank you for the education.
Ian Welsh says: August 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pm:
would like to read anything you know about recent developments in how some of those mystery meat indexes have been used, and how they may have contributed to problems in asset markets.
There are some hedonics still being used in the indices. I doubt it can be avoided in PC’s and consumer electronics. Most of the BLS indices are still based on fairly simple basic fixed market basket or fixed expenditure formulas. So something similar to a hedonic adjustment has to be done periodically just to make them sensible over long time spans. Something as simple as taking buggy whips out of the market basket is a kind of hedonic adjustment. But I am in the sats trade, so usually see whether I can do an equivalent analysis with the components or using other more transparent indices. So.. I avoid relying soley on indices with heavy hidden hedonic adjustments unless I have to, and don’t keep up much with how some of these indices are used to making or selling policies.
You, sir, are truly deluded. Unless you plan on selling in 2047. you will not be able to find a buyer at any price. You are not an island of economic self-sufficiency – your ability to sell is dependent on all around you. Good luck, and stay optimistic (not irrational).
BTW: i visited Idaho twice in the past year. It’s amazing how the ranchers there claim self-sufficiency, while leasing acrage at 1/8 the actual cost to the rest of us. Cowboy welfare state.
Whoa!
that was a great article on a challenging technical subject.
I didn’t know they discontinued the 30 yr Treasury?!? wtf?
What about the discontinuation of the M3 money supply index, what is the takehome for that one?
And is dollar devaluation Bush’s solution to the debt and deficit?
Hi, Jim
I look forward to hearing more from your perspective.
Vis a vis local/state/congressional races and progressives, This discussion featuring Dr Steven Porter is well worth a read if you missed it. He’s clearly one of those candidates you’re talking about. Actually, I’d add to your comment that “we” should be focusing on those smaller races regardless of the presidential situation.
Best,
FunnyDiva
jim o’connor @ 115
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot…..-bong.html
Here’ a little thing that helps explain how crazy it is in WS land
jo6apac
These numbers may look small to the trillion-ated eye, but the semiconductor industry has started to falter and shrink…
SEMI: July book-to-bill at 0.84
This jibes with events occurring in Year Seven of the denouement of the Japanese tech bubble — just as the Asian credit meltdown was impacting. Currency devaluations were a part of the crisis, although the Yen was the go to currency and didn’t devaluate. It triggered a six year deflationary period however.
That has implications for US.
Diva,
Good luck to Porter. Could he be a Bernie Sanders in the making?
wesgpc @ 113
Absolutely! Especially regarding real estate. Study after study (like these) shows that over the long run, house price appreciation is zero, adjusting for inflation. It will be a very long time if ever before enough experience accumulates to justify any other claim.
Ian Welsh @ 108
The lines on the chart itself show this. I don’t think the caption is correct.
wesgpc @ 119
Oldman did some analysis of the effects of hedonics on inflation around 2004 and it was really atrocious – it wasn’t just a fraction of a point in many cases, it got into full percentages. But I think they’ve reduced the use a fair bit.
sporkovat @ 121
They relaunched it a while back, but for a few years it was gone. M3 – lot of dispute over that. I’m of the “embarassing number” camp – it shows how much asset inflation has really been going on – if you’re any type of monetarist at all, even slightly, you have to look at it and say “and where is all this money driven inflation going?” Others will point out that M2 doesn’t show much better, and say it’s just a technical adjustment. Myself – they’re still getting all the components, why not give it to us?
Dollar devaluation – no, Bush can’t afford that, it would touch off massive inflation. Is probably unavoidable at some point. There will come a point where China just can’t spend ever increasing percentages of GDP propping up the US dollar. (Again, some disagree. I’m of the “can’t go on forever camp.”)
A cartoon from The Onion that’s been making the rounds at Calculated Risk and elsewhere:
http://tinyurl.com/2fhvba
Because if ever an issue called for a little comic relief …
jim o’connor @ 125
If elected, I wouldn’t be surprised. I was _very_ impressed with that discussion. I haven’t been around the Lake that long, but for a candidate to go through the comments systematically and address every question? Mind Blowing.
FunnyDiva
Glad my Rep in DC is a decent sort or I’d be poaching in PA.
Funnydiva2002…
hi from down in the last thread…
yeah sometimes the tone of the discussion down there raised tension a bit… but ad hominems, and the like from status quo apologists (or anyone really) are usually an indicator that they feel vulnerable, that the evidence and logic they need are not at their fingertips at that moment.
or of course, they could be mean, but that guy turned out not to be mean.
how long have you been around here?
Ian Welsh says:
August 18th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
sporkovat @ 121:
Regarding 30-year bill and M3:
I think it has been recognized for quite awhile that government bond market offerings were designed to manipulate short and long term rates to get US through a series of tight spots. Since fiscal policy has been insane and couterproductive, hard to say whether it was wise or not. Whether it was an intentional policy to ease way out of asset bubbles, (maybe by allowing a series of successively less dangerous bubbles), is subject of debate.
The history of finding meaningful measures of money supply is a grim and depressing one. So, I don’t go along with conspiracy theories about money measure manipulations. They look great, and can look informative, until you try to base real world decisions on them, at which point they have tended to become not very useful or informative. That is my opinion.
wesgpc @ 133
I’m not remotely an economist, but I’m a bit of a Bear watcher, and like to study bubbles.
But are you saying with
that no one really knows how much of a given currency is out there?
Wow! One of the best summaries I’ve seen. Very nicely done. Way too many people are still drinking the conventional wisdom kool-aid that now that Helicopter Ben has printed up a bunch more money, everything is going to be fine.
A few points I would add:
1. The Japanese are still loaning money at 0.5%. I read a story today about investors in Mumbai who are in trouble, because they financed some dubious investments with borrowed yen (the so-called “carry trade”). And now that China is forcing the value of the yen up, they can’t afford to service their debt (since they had counted on being able to pay back the debt with cheap yen).
2. As you note, the US has been lying about inflation. Not only have they tossed food & energy, but they also have stopped reporting the M3 money supply. The only reason they would do that is because they don’t want people to know what it would show (hint: rising inflation).
3. Interest rates in the US are below the real rate of inflation. When that happens, money is free. No one saves. And you get speculative bubbles.
4. One way to fight inflation is to outsource well-paying jobs to China. Wall-Mart can keep its prices low, which masks the real rate of inflation.
5. The US consumes 25% of the world’s resources with <5% of the population. This over-consumption drives the world economy. The world depends on it. But, since we’re hemorrhaging jobs, real wages in the US aren’t growing. The only way for the world’s economy is to grow is for American’s to borrow money (unless of course the Japanese & others would raise interest rates, strengthen their currencies, and allow their workers to consume their fair share). A worrisome sign is that, as mortgages have dried up the past 2 months, credit card spending was up sharply. That’s going to stop some day, and stop hard. When it does, the world economy is going to grind to a halt.
6. We desperately need to raise interest rates to encourage saving. That’s the only way out of a debt crisis. However, raising rates will bring about a global recession (or worse). Lowering interest rates keeps the balloon floating a bit higher, but it will make the crash at the end that much worse. We’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Bernanke is a globalist hack, just like Greenspan before him. The “decade of stupid” just about sums it up.
wesgpc @ 133
I actually think the real estate bubble is more dangerous than the Naz, significantly so. Hits too many real people to hard. Most ordinary people don’t own much in the way of stocks.
sporkovat says: August 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pm:
“no one really knows how much of a given currency is out there?”
I think it is true that no one has found a measure of money that can be used reliably to forecast or control the economy in a signficant way. I think it is agreed that as far as money measures to, the rule has been ‘use it and then lose it as an effective policy tool.’
Ian Welsh says: August 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pm:
“estate bubble is more dangerous”
I don’t know myself. I think a lot of conventional wisdome, among people who *own* at least one house most of us can only dream about, think that real estate bubbles have thicker skins and the bust is slower and more manageable. Securitization that encouraged this one may have changed that, though.
leftdcin72 @ 9
leftdcin72 @ 9
/#9 leftdc72 Trying to do this properly. On May 04 07, there was an exciting announcement made on WKYC Cleveland TV station about a man who has found a scientific method to convert salt water into fuel. No harmful by products. I am hoping a tech saavy member of Firedog Lake can give me a place to send the video of this Very Good News. I am not adept to the net, but i can foreward the clip and maybe one of the whizzez we have here, can put together an entire threrad on the subject. As a side the man was working on developing a cure for cancer, when he made this discovery. Isnt there some one up the food chain who can run with this? Who wants the video sent to evaluate? / Please. Its monumentally important. Thanks.
Sadly most liberals and progressives take ignorance of finance and monetary matters as a point of honor.
It isn’t all that difficult to understand except. Except that matters of money are so personal, so intertwined with everything we do and think, even us who swear we are not money or possession oriented, that clear thinking about it is impossible.
Really strong and fundamental criticism of the financial and monetary system is most commonly the province of the right. The most obvious example being the hard money, gold bug type of thinking. When you see the phrases ‘fiat money’ or ‘fractional reserve banking’ your usually entering the arena of the populist right.
Money is not sacred. Money is an abstraction. Even gold money is an abstraction. Any and every monetary system is fated to be strongly controlled by the elites of government and the already wealthy, for their own advantage. .
Democratic America has always embraced credit and expansive monetary policies and schemes, for better or worse. (On the biggest scale of thing I say for worse for it is our mad consumption which is behind the looming environmental disasters) While over a hundred years ago the money men of the guilded age were total believers in hard money. Todays plutocrats have embraced the softest of soft money and the most insane expansion of credit ever conceived.
In any case under any system there comes a time of crisis where the leaders say we must sacrifice for the system. This is totally wrong of course for the system, any system, must be made to serve the maximum number of people fairly. The strong skewing of asset distribution in America and the world is a scream saying the system needs change so it serves people better.
Calls for the people to sacrifice for an entrenched economic system are antithetical to not only the most fundamental democratic principals but the principals of every religion and every ethical system ever conceived. (Note that the sacrifices called on for people in so called communist systems were the most extreme of all. This is not some kind of comsymp rant, for all wingnuts lurking)
Sir Humphrey: Didn’t you read the Financial Times this morning?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook: Never do.
Sir Humphrey: Well you’re a banker, surely you read the Financial Times?
Sir Desmond: Can’t understand it. Full of economic theory.
Sir Humphrey: Why do you buy it?
Sir Desmond: Oh, you know, it’s part of the uniform.
Hugh @ 11
Since when has the NYT not been the Corporate House Organ?
Rapier rocks! Don’t hold back — you’ve got alot to say… There is alot to be said for elucidation. Sometimes it helps to add perspective for those who seek it. Seekers are us!
I know reading tea leaves is kind of dicey, but if you look hard enough, there are discernible patterns. To read them we need to represent the milieu data in a recognizable form — a chart. In order to interpret the chart, let’s make some assumptions — here’s a biggie:
(Don’t take my word for it — it’s MSM approved.)
Recession occurs when there is change of the Republican guard.
The Upside of Recession?
Nixon; Ford; Reagan; Bush; [New Guy]. That’s what Samuelson’s article is about — the notion that the 2008 election will… cause a recession!
Do you think there will be a recession after the 2008 election… OR BEFORE?
And what about that? Wouldn’t a recession in 2007 be accompanied by a new republican administration using this logic?
So the upshot is that a recession must be avoided at all costs if this administration is to survive until the election. Otherwise, a changing of the guard would consequently take place. Since the stakes are so high, it would seem that the incentive would be to go all out to prevent one. That would put them “all-in”. And whose money are they using for this scheme? Taxpayers money? Their own? How about the rest of the interdependent global economy as well? That approximates the stakes from the point of view of this “conundrum”.
Greenspan’s conundrum was to keep this very situation from coming to pass. I wonder what his thoughts are about now…
EPU’d, but I too want to express deep thanks for the economics posts and contributions.
Ah ha! Can’t get rid of me that easily! No, if I had a real job maybe I wouldn’t sit around blabbing about this stuff. But alas, since the tech bubble burst in 2000 and tech jobs have become scarce, well, there’s not much else to do but complain.
Japan’s technology market experience was very similar in character — it topped out Jan. 1990 — as indicated by the Nikkei 225. Wow, look at that hummer — chock full of recognizable data! Why, it looks like a model “bubble curve” eh? Hey — now that looks familiar! Could it be that there is a quantitative correlation with our bubble experience? Well, yes, if that is your cup of tea you’ve been staring at for years trying to figure what the heck is going on and what to expect for the next ten years…!
So what are we doing here? Still reading tea leaves after all these years? You betcha! Here’s where the Nasdaq comes in handy. It still has a tea-leafy similarity with respect to the 200 day moving average of the Nikkei — so it is still following the “signal”.
Here’s the deal — if the “bubble curve” can be used as a prognosticator for both economic and political circumstances, wouldn’t it make sense to use hindsight to create foresight? Especially if the correlation was suitable for “market timing” and political analysis? People do one or the other but not both, typically.
Hedge funds can play the market using the Nikkei “signal” but I don’t see Nancy Pelosi saying “Impeachment off the table?!! Au contraire! It is a certainty!“.
Maybe not, but is she an economist? I’d guess not. Even if she were an economist she would likely reject the whole theory based on the assumption that we are no longer experiencing the bubble phenomenon. If it is true that the tech bubble influence has subsided then the correlations that would tie us to the Japanese experience would diminish to noise. It may be that we are decoupling from the Japanese influenced market trajectory but one would have to look closely to find out when that departure took place. Some might say October of 2002 at the lows just before the elections. It would be a good argument because if we make the stipulation that synchronized human behavior is the underlying market force then an election would surely influence that behavior — right? Unless behavior is driven by the economy as well — they are both continuous functions. But the organizing force is the place where behavior translates into sustainable continuity — the market.
And thus the means of discerning political will is embedded in the macroeconomic characteristics of the milieu. Got that? Good. Now we are ready to find the recession pattern that tells us something about Modern Politics using the assumptions outlined just above. That recessions can be correlated to a specific political event. Looking at the bubble curve we see the recession from 2001 correlates to both the Nasdaq of 2001 and by inference, the Nikkei 10-ish years removed. We have to depend on the Nikkei of 1998 to tell us something of what will happen in 2008 both politically and economically.
Pop Quiz — What happened in 1997 in Asia? WAS THERE A RECESSION?
Crap, I goofed on the last paragraph that should read:
Looking at the bubble curve we see the recession from 2001 correlates to both the Nasdaq of 2001.
TeddySanFran @ 19
And even the “big-ticket” appliances that ARE included in the measure have SECRET inflationary costs.
When you buy a cheap Haier, Chienese manufactured, wahing machine rather than an older Westinghouse you have to realize that although it costs only 75% as much…you are going to need another one in 3-4 years. Those old Westinghouse models lasted a decade or more.
So you will likely end up buying 3 Haier’s for the same Westinghouse. That means you’re actually paying 225% over the price of the American-made model. Plus you are contributing to the trade deficit (as well as the landfills). It’s the same with all the other items on the inflation index.
It’s why the average consumer can’t keep up even though their “paychecks have exceeded the inflation index”. The CII is a fraud to conceal REAL INFLATION!
Elliott @ 53
Instead I think they have them invest in the stock market…and shill credit cards off on them!
Dagnabbit I still didn’t get that line right. I’ll try again:
It’s getting late…
Anyway, the idea is that we can take the data from the Nikkei beginning in Jan 1990 and use that as a proxy for the timing of events that are indicated by our bubble experience with the proviso that they remain correlated within an upper and lower channel — we can look at the 200 day moving averages and say something about what is happening in either system — the past, the present, or the future as represented by the Nikkei.
What fun! And the best thing is that since the bubbles are synchronized as well as correlated there is alot of predictive value in the chart that we can interpret — years before it actually happens! That’s how we can see what there is to look forward to. The rear view mirror is also a windshield if you know how to look at it. Gotta say though, it is still all speculation.
Let me suggest though, that there is a recession signal emanating from the Asian financial crisis of 1997 that should appear in our economy shortly. Like real soon. Maybe even now? And we could have known that as soon as the economic synchronization was recognized — that is when we realized that our situation was a bubble. Remember “irrational exuberance” — that was 1996. We had a hunch things might be falling apart in an unusual way in 2000. By 2001 it was obvious the bubble had popped and we were heading for a recession. How about that! Who could have known the Nasdaq would go into meltdown in 2001, and again in 2007? (And again some years later.)
What?!!! Wait a minute — What happened in 2008-2009? No recession there so that means “no new republican administration” according to the theory. Sorry Samuelson!
OK, that is pretty far into the future so it may not happen as predicted. I’ll grant anyone reading this some grains of salt because there is something that needs to be added to the mix for me to be satisfied with the underlying significance of the 10 yr 2mo peak to peak synchronous delay. Can you guess what would cause such a linked relationship?
No peeking!
In 97/8 the Fed bailed out the Asians. Who’s going to do it this time?
Ian Welsh @ 95
IIRC Dubya said in 2000 debates that he was going to “save SS” by using 25% of the Projected Surplus to supplement it and place it in perpetual black. Of course, he also said that he was going to use 25% to “Special Projects” (?Cheney’s “Office of Special Plans”?) and then return the remaining 50% to “those who earned it” in tax cuts.
The Pugs now assert that the Clinton Surplus didn’t really exist…and that “everyone knew that” in 1999. Apparently Georgie and his advisors still felt it was a useful lie to tell the American people, though, if it was so ephemeral. And it was equally useful to use as a way of placing billions back into the hands of his wealthy supporters and the military contractors.
Lemme see….he did #2 and #3…but…
Apparently the priority in “Saving Social Security” shifted to his Ponzi “Private Investment Accounts” plan that would further bleed SS, making it go bankrupt by 2018 (rather than several decades from now)…requiring another huge bailout by Congress…more deficit spending.
And the influx of these “Private accounts” (managed by the Big 5 Financial Firms…at a fee, of course) would have spurred those already “IN” the stock market to get vastly wealthier…as they would have to split their highly demanded stocks. But as the accounts reached a demographic breakpoint…further imputs not balancing the withdrawals of retirees…the bubble would burst. But the terms of the “Plans” suggested by Bush, was that these funds were not truly “Private”. One was limited to a set program of managed accounts and could not “play the market”. In fact, one couldn’t take any money from the account until retirement at a specified age. And then the funds would be passed out in monthly installments, the remainder being placed in equity accounts. So no use of the $$$ at retirement to buy that big house, or that business, or take that worldwide cruise.
Meanwhile the rich, who got rich on peon workers building up the market, can pull out of that market when the demand is high, before the bubble bursts. And they will see the “pop” approaching as it will be easily predicted when new worker contributions fail to match the retiree withdrawals in the accounts.
The answer is blindingly simple:
The Sun.
It has a cycle that is 11 years plus or minus. (Try 10 years plus several months.)
When sunspot activity peaked in 1990 and 2000 what happened? So did economic activity! Woah! There is a measurable correlation between enhanced solar magnetic activity and synchronized human behavior. Pretty scary, eh?! Check out this chart of the sun’s recent cycles
They look alot like the bubble curves and the timing is exact.
(Just thought I’d throw that out since this is a lefty blog and Jane tolerates diverse ideas. Thanks Jane!)
So — if behavior is synchronized by high geomagnetic flux sponsored by the sun, would it be de-synchronized during periods of lower magnetic flux? When is the sun’s magnetic influence at its lowest… Well, NOAA would say 1997; 2007-8; 2018-2020.
OK, had enough?
Oh, question! — what happens next? Good question. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Let me frame this another way: Right now, everyone has their own panic button and they’re being activated asynchronously. This cacophony will continue to create chaos until everyone is suitably realigned. That will require a fair bit of political and economic rehabilitation and lucky for us, that takes place in November of 2008.
So things will get better for a change n’est ce pas?
This was a topic of discussion recently… Jonathan had the temerity to ask this on the California Split thread…
Jonathan @ 155
(As AbuG says… “it’s complicated…”)
Let’s start here:
Followed by this response:
So even before the election there was some expectation of the outcome that actually manifested. Fine. So what? We didn’t answer Jonathan’s question. Yet.
Not leaving well enough alone…
But wait there’s more…
OK everyone’s getting tired. Just a little more promotional material…
That was a really fun thread, and it is worth re-reading. Alot happened after the election, but the prognostications kept coming…
But then I realized there is a different solution to the 2010 conundrum…
Uh oh. Something could go wrong. Very wrong…
Then it began…
This pretty much marks the beginning of public awareness. But what about the sinister lining?
That’s right, totally unregulated credit manipulation!
Had enough?
Well too bad, were getting to the
goodbad part… And here’s what we saw coming…Sheese, I’ve used up three links already! But suffice it to say, eCAHNomics nailed it!
All right, time to cut to the quick…
Sounds like a real problem! So by way of explanation…
This was in the same thread…
So here’s what I’m thinking now-ish…
So what does that mean?
The only way that the “powers that be” can maintain control is to dump Bush, promote Cheney and install a new republican-ish VP and then cancel the election.
They’re facing a armageddon either way so that requires action and there is no alternative. Worse, the recession of 2010-2013 take place when the political amalgam bifurcates and the replacement VP takes over. That will cause 36 months of economic decline just like we had when Bush became president.
There, now I’ve said it and it won’t matter if I disappear because now you are no longer in your natural state.
>>>Poof
Comment 60 nails it. The Busco admin in collusion with the oligarchy raided the treasury for war profits, the real estate bubble kept them in office and got them back in 2004. Then they leave the huge debt, the recession, the domestic mess to the Dems to clean up while they party and MSN harasses the dems.
Comment 60 is the only decent thing to do and smart too. It keeps people hustling to keep the status quo and quiets speculation. I have always believed housing was to live in, not to draw equity from or speculate. Our society is hurt by anoniminity, we need more sense of place and community for healthier society. Encourage folks to stick with their community (stability). Good, very good information. But the big point that rises to the top is the great deceit in our business culture which is like a giant boiler room pitching greed to mooches.
The concepts of honesty and solid business practices is the core of a successful economy.We see what happens when confidence is eroded. If the economy is built on trickery, jacking and deceit like CDO derivitives being passed like hot potatoes from one investor until someone is stuck with no value it falters..
But when you look at the true values of the productivty of the WORK FORCE you see that there is a lot of real value being created in goods and services. The shyster trader is a kind of middle man taking a bigger slice of the production than he/she is worth. They are giddy with greed as when Micheal Douglas portrayed the corrupt exec in Wall Street. Corporate welfare is rampant and so is the yax dodge.
It’s raping what you sew.
The huge rise in hedge fund assets was closely correlated with the Bush tax cuts. I recall when the first few hundred billion dollars of tax savings for the top decile were said to have come to pass the amount of hedge fund assets had increased the exact same amount. Such a strong coincidence that I say that a large part of the hedge fund money came from the tax cuts.
Hedge funds are misnamed. They are leveraged speculation funds. The biggest leverage has been used by funds that specialize in credit instruments and their derivatives. The huge amount of money going into the credit market and the credit markets derivative underpinnings like swaps and credit risk bets served to sharply lower the risk premiums for what amounted to crappy debt. From interest only mortgages given to dicy speculators to receivables from guitar shops on sales to slacker kids or breast implants to aspiring manic depressive actresses no loan was seen as a risk at all. Risk had been seemingly transferred into outer space. Risk was soooooooooooo 20th centruy. A worry for losers.
Then too if a hedge fund did worry they quicly remembered that it was other peoples money. They take a percentage off the top and get paid in any case. They make their big money by taking a percentage of all gains. Therefore the incentive was to make the biggests bets so they could make the biggest possible gain in any one year. Most knew eventually a year would blow up but all the incentives were to stay in the game till it blew up. Last year one big commodity hedge fund blew up on energy bets. They closed their doors and I think the ‘investors’ got back a few percent of their money. Within months the head trader was working at a new fund.
Greenspan et. al. have maintained that the the explosion in new types of credit instruments and thier derivatives was safe because the risk has been taken on by those who can afford it. There is some truth to this. The Harvard Endowment. an early adaptor of hedge funds, recently lost $350 million in a hedge fund blowup, but they have $29 billion in assets. Hedge funds typically take money only in six and seven figure amounts. From the already wealthy
Greenspan never mentioned that total risk skyrocketed at the same time as the dynamics of the system were relentlessly mispricing, underpricing, the risk premiums. Systematic risk has increased sharply. Thus the panic of the last two weeks even as the stock market was only a few percent from all time highs. A few days after the Wall Street Journal editorial page announced the best economy of ALL TIME. A few days later slobbering nutball . Jim Cramer was declaring the worst economic crisis of all time.
Which was it? They players know that systematic risk is profound, even as most of them repeat endlessly how everything is under control. They then loose Cramer on the masses to help effect political support for various forms of bailouts.
The modern credit system is little more than a Ponzi scheme. Credit growth has stopped. In any Ponzi scheme it is imperative that new suckers be brought in to support the previous ones. New credit has to be generated in ever larger amounts to support the prices of assestwhich underpin the debt so new credit can be extended. That has now stopped.
It is possible that crackpots like me are wrong and that the system will hold. The jury is still out however.
So, within 24 hours of Countrywide’s admission of near-bankruptcy the Fed rides to the rescue. Why? Krugman suggested that instead of rescuing the perpetrators of the mess, why not help the victims instead? I know. Try to get Countrywide to re-negotiate its current loan contracts to get the payments down to a reasonable level. Mission impossible. Here in Florida, Countrywide is about to become the largest property owner in the state. They already own miles of uninhabited houses in North Port, and they can’t sell them because nobody without 50% down and a half million a year income can get a housing loan. Yet the foreclosure parade marches on. Wonder how this helps shareholder value?
The torches and pitchforks will be distributed shortly. Stay tuned.
Ronzoni Rigatoni @ 161
Any bailout of the victims bails out the perp. There are far too many victims however. It’s much easier to bail out the perp. Sure, a lot of victims will not get the benefit. So it goes.
Let’s not get too dewy eyed about the victims. Yes there are plenty of innocent ones, For every innocent one there is probably one blatent speculator. There are two or three semi innocent buyers who believed real estate inflation would continued forever so they would get rich. Which is more like willfull ignorance than innocence.
The residential real estate bubble was a credit phenomenon. Easy mortgage credit drove up demand and prices. One followed the other, directly. The ball was put in play with knowlege aforethought by Greenspan and the financial elites.
Any fixes will entail forgiving or covering the losses of the elites and saddleing the losses and keeping the debt on the books of average households. Greenspan always knew this too. Greenspan’s entire reign was aimed at transfering wealth to the top. It’s possible but not probable he was not aware of this. I doubt it.
People find themselves with untenable mortgage payments for a variety of reasons, loss of income, massive uninsured medical costs, etc. I believe the vast majority of foreclosures are the result of these types of eventualities, altho’ I do know some speculators who got burned badly as well. Friend of mine sold his 1952-era 800 square foot one bath 2 BR house on Ft. Myers Beach for $675,000 2 years ago (The buy price 5 years ago was $150,000). Whee! The buyer moved back to Iowa, I am told, while the banks now own this house as well as another he bought in Cape Coral. No, this is not the “victim” bailout I am talking about. In yet another case, a single mother with 2 toddler kiddies is saddled with a $1400/month mortgage after her husband skipped town with his new girlfriend. While she has the education to maintain this, there is no affordable child care, so her work options are limited. This is the kind of situation I am seeing down here, the speculators be damned.
TeddySanFran @ 19
The short answer is NO. It doesn’t make much difference whether a Dem Or a Repub is in the WH – they both play the same game.
I haven’t heard any of of the candidates from either party saying anything about removing public disclosure of M3 – the money supply – this was an important but barely commented on sleight of hand.
Neither have I heard anything from the said hopefuls re cooking the measure of inflation – the fact is, it no longer reflects the real cost of living.
In my professional life, it is easier to exclude the USA from comparative studies because there are no reliably verifiable economic indicators being published on a national scale. I have had to fall back on various independently published data but these present their own problems of aggregation across the whole country and time periods vary. Apart from anything else, it sets a poor paradigm for cooking the books for many.
A lot of the foreclosures, and a lot more of those are coming, are the result of ARM”s, adjustable rate mortgages. This is the area where most of the innocent and semi innnocent will get killed. So too the specs.
The ARM mania was given a boost by Greenspan himself when he promoted them, always with a figleaf of denyability, before congress and in other venues. This was unconscionable because he did it at almost the instant of the bottom of the interest rate cycle. Interest rates had been trending down for 20 years. 20 YEARS, and he had the gall to strongly suggest that ARM’s would be a good deal.
In 1982 an ARM, which didn’t exist I don’t think, would have been a windfall for a borrower, In 03 onward it was stupid squared to take one. Greenspan had to know this, It’s fundamental, Fundamental to how markets are understood by all economists to trend cyclically.
Mortgage rates were around 4.5% at the time. Under any possible scenario they could only drop another one percent, and even that was only a pipedream, 4 1/4 was about the bottom for fixed rates soon after. On the other hand mortgage rates were over 12% at the peak of the previous cycle. The risk reward ratio was skewed massivly against the ARM’s borrower from 02 onward.
Implicit in Greenspan’s tout, and that of the entire cheerleading world of the financial industry, the financial press and the MSN, was the idea that prices would continue to inflate strongly for as long as you could imagine. Sure, the low initial rate might rise, but by then the buyer could sell the house and make a killing, and move up to repeat. So the best thing to do was take the low rate now.
Again, Greenspan’s role was not to invent these things but to lend them respectability. This did two things, It made a lot of money for the wealthy through the profits from mortgage transactions and the continued inflation of mortgage related financial assets and it masked the deterioration of middle class incomes. It also did a third thing. It trapped millions into debt. Total mortgage debt rose from less than 40% of GDP to more than 80% during Greenspan’s tenure.
The related home equity line of credit mania was a way to fool people into ignoring their stagnant incomes. Into borrowing to consume, so as to give the illusion of a healthy economy. To entice people into more debt. This was the plan. It cannot be interpreted in any other way.
perris @ 81
Ask Zimbabwe- it can’t buy anything, can’t produce anything yet 15 years ago it was the breadbasket of middle and south Africa. People got trampled to death trying to buy sugar just the other week – this was unthinkable even 10 years ago in that country.
BTW the USA has been doing this anyway but shoring up its fiat grrenbacks with the assurance of the US$ being THE petrocurrency. Those days, however, seem to be over or nearing the end.
Guess you got to ask the Chinese what card they want to play. They hold the aces to sink the US$ and the US economy. They want to minimise their risks but they will not countenance US strongarming.
LS @ 97
Legal tender has ceased to have any real meaning except that it is illegal to refuse to accept the currency denominated the legal tender in the country. Once upon a time legal tender allowed you to exchange paper bills for gold but that has ceased to be the case for a very long time. Legal tender will continue to operate for anybody engaged in a market transaction – all are legally bound to accept and tender payment in the the currency decreed to be the legal tender of the country.
Thanks CK.
” The added risk was accounted for with higher interest rates.”
Not high-enough, I guess?
I’m a market guy, and this is a very excellent analysis. But let’s not forget, that by going back a few more years, we see Greenspan doing the same thing in the early 90’s when he effectively pushed bank money market and passbook interest rates close to 0% I still remember getting .25% on a couple of hundred thousand dollars I had in money market funds at the time), thereby forcing the most fiscally conservative among us to throw their “safe” money into the stock market to get any kind of return at all, bringing in floods of new money in a predictable way and setting the groundwork for the entire stock market bubble that grew through the decade and exploded in 2000.
And very few readers here are probably aware that the Bernanke Fed And Treasury have been increasing what used to be called the M3 measure of money supply by between 11% and 13% per year by simply printing more paper money, which effectively builds a double digit inflation rate into the dollar market regardless of any other aspect of economic performance. This monetary inflation accounts for much of the large stock appreciation (especially for the transnational corps) we’ve seen in the last couple of years all by itself, but the gain is illusory as the dollar has declined steadily as real money people caught on to what was being done with the money supply.
toby martin @ 169
Let me get gentle. BS. The Fed is not “printing money” Certainly not money that is measured by M3 because M1 is money in circulation and that has been pretty sl ow growing. The Treasury can’t “print money” either.
M3 has been growing sharply for years but that is totatlly outisde the Feds direct control. So much so that the growth of M3 had become sort an embarrassment to them so they stopped reporting it.
You are onto something connecting the growth of M3 with stock market appreciation. There is a direct connection between the two. So much so that the growth of M3 from Greenspans first day to last was exactly 9.7% annually. That was the exact number of m3 growth as well. That perfection is an anomoly but it makes the basic point.
The simple dirty way of understanding M3 is that it is mostly money confined to the financial system which hardly makes it into the day to day economy of people buying stuff they need at all. M3 growth is better explained by the financial system ‘printing’ it ’s own money by inventing ever more acane debt instruments. All money today is created by borrowing and credit. Something which boggles peoples minds and makes their heads blow up.
One way of understanding our current crisis with bad credit is that so much credit created by Wall Street has attained the status of ‘moneyness’. By which I mean it is seen to be totally safe as to it’s value and always acceptable in trade. Or should I say had aquired for the safety and tradeability of much credit, mortgage and otherwise ,has now gone out the window. It’s ‘value’ is plummeting and its moneyness shattered.
Inflation is insideous. It is a monetary phenomenon. It is built into the system and it is what people want. From William Jennings Bryan’s call for the ‘free’ coining of silver in the famous Cross of Gold speech to everyones desire for easy credit, mortgage and otherwise, ordinary Americans have always wanted plentyfull money which means strong money growth and a certain amount of inflation. We can’t blame the Plutocrats for all of our problems
“He who is ingorant of the past is doomed to repeat it.”
As a former S&L regulator who was in the thick of things back in the ’80s, I can say without reservation that this current crisis is virtually no different than the S&L crisis.
I call BULLSHIT on all the Wall Sreet money managers who are claiming innocence.
These Wall Street guys are supposed to be very smart finance people – much smarter than guys like me. But as I read this post and today’s NYT article about the bubble bursting, I clearly see that this is another situation where greed overran sound financial analysis.
Those WS guys claiming innocence – they have gotten richer than hell selling this crap to investors worldwide. And yet no one, not the sellers nor the buyers, seem to have paid any attention to the underlying collateral value and liklihood of debt payments continuing as promised.
Basic Finance 101 says that, as you increase your risk you increase your price (interest rate). Therefore, all these sellers and buyers are implicity acknowledging the high risk of the entire debt package when they purchase these ‘high yield’ investments.
But Basic Finance 101 also states that if you have high risk, you must anticipate a higher level of default — thus the difference between the “prime” rate to highest quality debt (US Treasuries) and the “subprime” rate (high risk = high rate).
Now these Wall Street guys are simply too smart to forget about Part 2 of the Basic Finance 101 investment analysis. So the likely explanation, given other facts like outrageously high bonuses paid to the money managers for looking the other way when it came to true analysis, is that the whole system was corrupted and which allowed both the buyers and the sellers to look the other way at their risk management.
Hey Rapier, why do you suppose they stopped reporting the M3 measure? Because supply is supply, and reduces demand. That is the big picture. I used the generally understood metaphor of printing money to express the accurate concept that the money supply is being increased artificially at an alarming rate, and that consequently the value of the individual dollar is going into the toilet, as will the stock market, this week I believe, as the implications become clear.
You say we shouldn’t blame the oligarchs for everything, but the fact is that they are situated to reap immeasurable riches form these machinations, on the upswing as well as the downswing, while the less well-informed realize only a modest benefit from the initial inflation increase but NEVER reap the benefits of the following collapse. It’s done this way because that’s what works out best for the oligarchs. That’s the big picture here.
LS @ 10
A lot of people put their assets into real estate precisely because they didn’t trust the stock & bond markets and the wolves who scour those markets for weak sheep to devour. Now, if real estate isn’t so safe, then where are people to put their assets? Nobody wants to lose their assets.
The Super-Rich are making it unbearable for anybody else to survive at the low end of the pay scale and they’re making it almost impossible for anybody in the upper-middle class or the lower upper-class to build wealth.
Something’s gotta give.
sangemon @ 21
Don’t expose yourself by using credit too much.
Vote for John Edwards.
Support your local unions.
Do anything which will tick off a Rich person.
masaccio @ 36
I agree, so long as these readjustments can be made within government regulations which protect all the parties.
We have to smooth out the kinks and bubbles to protect against massive crashes which would cost a lot of retirees (common folk) their savings.
The Big Guys WANT bubbles. They make money off of them. They make a bubble structure and suck in the vulnerable people like so much air to fill the bubble and then they crash the bubble (like Greenspan increasing interest rates in 2000 to crash the .com bubble and ruin Gore’s presidential hopes) to push out the weakies and (basically) steal their wealth. It’s a fancy scam.
If we can keep the paper value in line with the asset, then we’ll all win bigger, even the Super Rich.
TeddySanFran @ 59
It looks like we can legislate to avoid these problems in the future: fixed rates, required down payments and the like.
But, to fix the current problem we might need to raise the minimum wage again, as Edwards suggests and do some other government required refinancing to avoid a horrendous swathe of lost homes as well as another even larger crash in the markets.
But, how much should we protect the Big Guys from their own greed and ignorance? I’d suggest as little as possible…just enough to protect against total market crash.
After all, just how much money does the federal government have to throw around? We’re overly dependent on the Asians as it is. Another crisis and we’ll not only have trouble keeping people in house and home, but protecting the markets and everyone’s savings and a complete all-around disaster.
Bush is doing so much to destroy the world it might even become possible to convince Republicans that he needs to be evicted before the end of his term.
neokneme @ 109
Good luck trying to find somebody at DoJ who would do that with the Bush crowd in charge!
As to the bailout.
http://wallstreetexaminer.com/?p=1550
So is the Fed’s action as a big deal as the market’s subsequent action and the punditic (yeah, I just made up that word) euphoria would have you believe?
No.
The Fed does not buy securities at the discount window. It makes emergency loans there, and since the rate is at a premium to the market, no one would use the Window if they weren’t in deep squat and were locked out of the Fed Funds market. How much lending is done at that Window? As of Wednesday of last week the total outstanding was $294 million. Not billion, million! Compare this with the total size of the Fed’s asset base of over $800 billion, and you get some idea of how truly insignificant the Fed’s symbolic ploy was.
But the market took the bait, hook, line, and sinker. The flipping and flopping will be something to see when the fish have their oxygen cut off.
shargash @ 135
How long can they do that?
Our economy moved away from savings after the 1970s when it became apparent the corporations weren’t actually going to let anyone save. They forced people into the spend-everything-now mode we’re now in. Also, banks didn’t help by refusing to pay decent interest rates for savings. The Rich control the system, even through politics, and THEY are to blame.
Thank God for Wall-Mart which has helped to protect the People from being ravaged even faster by the loss of jobs and prices they couldn’t afford.
We might well begin to see even more falling prices from other retailers as economic difficulties become more obvious.
I like your summary points. It explains WHERE we are, but leaves open where we should go from here.
We’re definitely in a time of transition as the world economy cranks up. We need to adjust — and fast. We’ve got dummies in charge who think politics is everything.
We need to put in new leadership if only to get fresh minds to look at this new situation and give it another go.
I think we need to get our economic house in order by directing more wealth to everyone but the super rich and, as you suggest, to help them sock it away as savings of some kind (obviously not in real estate they can’t afford), so we’re more sound, better suited for the transition we’re going through.
One last note (for this thread) on companies like Countrywide holding houses unoccupied: they probably like having the asset, rather than a risky steam of cash which might become worthless if there’s big inflation, but how long can they hold them?
How long can Japan offer low interest rates?
How long can Countrywide (or others) hold assets?
How long can the Fed keep liquidity in the markets?
How long will the Chinese prop us up?
How long do we have to fix things?
bubble = ponzi scheme
economy based on credit = ponzi scheme
You will recall how everyone was encouraged to have a portfolio of “stocks”. Some just bought mutual funds which are bundles of stocks, etc.
People believed they need investments for their future and everyone owning a bit of stocks was not only a way for corporate america to get their hands on main street’s cash, but it was a way to spread the hurt around and avoid all the little guys from complaining about propping up their share value.
The little guys get sucked down.. just as they did with Enron.
Foolish people to play the investment game. You can lose. And many will.
A brilliant article, Ian. And one that prompts the eternal question: why do we, the ordinary nonrich, continue to allow policymakers to serve only the rich? We far outnumber them, and we live in “democracies”. Sooner or later — probably later, when our grandkids are wondering what happened to the weather — we need to ask whether this system really does work for us.