Explaining Economics one 6 Pack at a time.


  • Tag Archives banking
  • Nature will always win and The Origins of the Crisis

    Posted on by drinker

    The current financial crisis is a big example of how nature will always equalize a system.  When the consequences of an action are eliminated the rate of the action will increase.  Eliminate the hangovers and people will drink more.  I would at least.

    All things in nature will eventually equalize themselves, because a system imbalance cannot exist for long.  For instance if you eliminate the wolves; the deer will eventually over populate the area and start committing suicide by jumping in front of your car.  I think they miss the wolves too much.  So the system self equalizes. 

    Another example of risk and reward system we should all me familiar with is our sex lives.   What do you think would happen if a bunch of 20 something’s were kept on college campus but were told that pregnancy could not happen and STDs could not be caught?   In three months half the campus would be pregnant and the other half would be scratching themselves wondering what is wrong with their pubes.  I am not condemning them.  I would have taken part in such an experiment too (I would have been a whore but nobody wanted to be a whore with me).  So much for memories, either way you should have gotten my point.

    The current crisis can be tracked to who ever let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy very crappy mortgages.  The rest of the funny financials like collateralized debt securities and derivatives were simply the mold that grew from the cesspool of Fannie and Freddie taking risks no one in their right mind would take.   Normally when a private corporation would take unneeded risk it would burn out and die or outside investors would refuse to underwrite the endeavor.  What made Fannie and Freddie different was that they were tacitly guaranteed by the government.  This means that the underwriters had less risk of failure because if worst came to worst the government would take care of everything.  These underwriters, investors or gamblers saw rewards that were better than the risks of underwriting the companies. 

    For period of time the imbalance of the system was balanced periodically without crashing the system because the gains and leverage were not great enough to cause the system to collapse.  Housing prices went up and went down for all of eternity.  What made this different was the timing.  Stocks were tanking after the dot bomb debacle (another example people not using their heads) and the Fed was trying to get the economy moving again.  The Fed lowered interest rates making money very cheap.  In any boom and bust cycle there are still winners.  These winners began investing in real-estate. 

    Shortly before this time Herb Moses an executive a Fannie Mae was playing hide the salami with Barney Frank.  Barney Frank at this time was in charge of making sure Fannie Mae was doing good business.  He opposed the transferring of Fannie and Freddie oversight from the Department of Urban and Housing development to the Treasury Department.  Granted either one is still a government run.  It seems that a government department whose job is to get people into housing would have a conflict of interest with a company who provides financing for homes.  So if said company will provide additional financing for the department’s projects they would overlook the horrible risks they were taking.  I have no proof that this is what happened.  But it is not too much of stretch to think this is what was going on.  Especially since the ramifications became so clear a few years later. 

    Without anyone to watch over Fannie and Freddie and many investors willing to take extra risks because the government would back any risks these organizations ran rampant.  The CEO’s of the companies and the attendant executives began writing bonus rules that had nothing to do with long term viability of the organization.  So the bonuses that were given were for the amount of assets in management (or mortgages owned).  There bonus had nothing to do with the quality of the assets.  Who here can see what is about to happen next?  Raise your hand.

    Fannie began taking all the mortgages they could get from the private companies in the market.  These were sold as all kinds of securities and what not.  Investors not knowing what fannie was doing but believing the government would come to the rescue were willing to write checks to fannie.  The private companies realized that they would not hold the mortgage more than a few months to a year would sell the mortgages to Fannie.  The risk was off the private company but they still had the reward of the first year’s mortgage payments and other service fees. 

    The price of homes began to sky rocket.  Soon few people could afford a home with traditional methods.  But the private company could make up crazy mortgages that started off with smaller payments.  The buyer could afford these teaser rates in the beginning but by the time the real rates came the mortgage would be owned by another company (usually Fannie or Freddie).  These artificial buyers could only maintain this growth for so long.  Soon the market collapsed. 

    In this game of hot potato Fannie and Freddie were left holding the potato.  Which means that the we the American tax payer was actually holding the hot potato.


  • O’Rourke Had It Wrong. The Legislators bought the banks.

    Posted on by drinker

    P.J. O’Rourke said “When the legislature controls what is bought and sold the first thing that is bought and sold is legislators”.  Well as it turns he was wrong.  Who knew that is was the legislators who would be doing the buying of the businesses?

     I am going to explain how this could work out for the better before I tell you how it will actually work.  The government buys large amounts preferred stocks and can start guiding the bank on the right path. The banks will be required to hold the top executives responsible and start making good solid lending decisions.  The economy would start to pick up and they banks would be profitable.  The banks are able to return a dividend and the stock price goes up.  The economy now on its way to recovery the government can now sell its share of the company and use that money toward paying down the deficit (hopefully no new spending, but this is the positive part of the piece so let us assume that).   

     Unfortunately the preceding paragraph has as much to do with reality as my dreams of winning the lottery, moving to the Caribbean with a sail boat and being known as the drunken American sailor.  What will happen is this; the government will start off making good decisions for the bank.  Much like the preceding scenario where lending is restored and top executives can’t pillage the banks coffers; these actions will get the economy moving.  Once people have moved on to a new dog and pony show the rats will show up. 

     The return of the rats will mean business as usual.  These banks will be used as leverage between legislators to get pet projects financed in the legislators’ respective districts and to get deals for their own private homes.  Employment from the mailroom to the boardroom will become a patronage bonanza.  The legislators unwilling to give up control of this grand candy machine will not, I repeat will not sell their preferred shares. 

     The banks being essentially a department of the DMV will stop making smart business moves; instead they will devolve into a fat tub of immovable flesh. The banks will be so dependent on government money they will no longer be able to function on their own.  The patronage jobs and pet projects will have bloated the bank’s own accounting records so much that legitimate loans will be squeezed out.  They will know their master and their master is some legislator who will be voted into office again and again not because of his actions destroying a bank, which will be too hard to explain in a sound bite campaign, but because of his stance on some other issue that the legislators will not change anyway.

     The only thing left to do at this point is to get a large loan from a non-nationalized bank and then use that money to give to a legislator’s campaign.  Then the legislator can get you a big paying job at the bank.  While at the bank you can make a bid to buy the bank you got your original loan from and then lose the paperwork for your loan in the merger.

     Toast your next good beer to taking advantage of government corruption.


  • Savers are bad and Savers are good

    Posted on by drinker

    At first I thought this article about savers had to be a joke.  But alas it is real.

     

    Someone should really take this person’s keyboard away before they hurt someone.  I guess he/she works from home.  After all how do you get to work when you have cart in front of the horse.

     

    For those of you that think this is a good idea, remember that banks lend out money that people save.  Basically the interest a person earns on the money they keep in the bank account is their share of the interest the bank made in loaning it out. If there are no savers, there is no money to lend out.  We have been playing this juggling act of using leveraged assets to buy more assets and then leverage the total again, for too long. 

     

    There is nothing wrong with leverage itself.  It actually enables our economy to function.  It allows most of the successful economies to function. Leverage allows people to take a risk and be rewarded.  But what we have going on now is that the leverage was out of control and that everyone was so leveraged the whole system threatens to fail.

     

    The situation we have is like an alcoholic who functions by taking a shot of whiskey in the morning, we are making our situation worse.  We have to go through the hang over from over consumption. 

     

    The government is going to have to spend money to get things moving but these things have to be done in such a way that the money that is spent is spent on things to enable more private commerce.  I hope the government spends money on new roads, bridges, power distribution, and other infrastructure work.  But we all know what is going to happen.  Think Boston Big Dig but with more money. 

     

    As for the people saving their money and not spending it, well that is just the way things happen.  People afraid that they will lose their jobs try to save money. The problem is not the saving people.  Provided they are not saving their money by putting it under their mattress, which is the only way money is truly lost to non-circulation.  The problem is that banks are not lending money at all.  Unfortunately they are not lending to worthwhile companies either.  Perhaps if enough people put enough money in the bank it will be able to de-leverage it self out of bad situation.

     

    What we need is moderation.  Some spending, not like we have seen, but we also need savers.  Some people have to get burned and some have to be rewarded.  After-all it is those people who saved their money are the same ones who we depend on to get a loan when we need it.


  • Money is worthless

    Posted on by drinker

    I see that the dollar is in a downward spiral again.  Which if you understand what money actually is seems completely rational.  We knock the interest rate to near nothing which will essentially put more dollars in the pool and with more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services you have inflation.  This is what is happening with foreign currencies and the dollar now. 

     

    I am not sure why the Euro is worth anything either as when was the last time you purchased an good or service (Amsterdam red light district excluded) from Europe that was not a super luxury item?  Volkswagen maybe but they are made in México usually. 

     

    This brings me back to my point.  Money is merely a medium to allow an easily exchangeable representation of your good or service.  And when taken on a national level the goods or services you can purchase with the money of that nation.  If that was confusing let me give you a little story.

     

    Tom works for a week at Widget Inc. USA for a week.  He earns 500 US dollars.  Tom then wins a free trip to some country in the EU.  Tom then takes his 500 US dollars and exchanges it for 370 Euros.  When Tom uses those Euros he should be able to buy things made by the Europeans in what he feels is equivalent to his week of work.  This does not mean that some European worked for a week to give Tom something specifically, it means that Tom agreed to an exchange of his week of work via the currency medium for some amount of some Europeans time. 

     

    I will continue the discussion of worthless money in other posts.  And just remember that time is money.


  • Millions, Billions, Trillions

    Posted on by drinker

    I scratch my head at the numbers that are casually just thrown around in the financial crisis.  The numbers are so large they are essentially meaningless.  We have reached the point that no-one can risk stopping the game.  We have feed the monster so much debt it is now so big we can not anger it by not feeding it.  

     

    We basically have an 800ton gorilla that wants its Twinkies.  Unfortunately it also thinks we taste like Twinkies.  At this point we are at the stage that everyone involved is absolutely screwed.  I have yet to see a winner in this whole mess.  Who is making money on this?  Real Estate? Commodities? Military Industrial Complex? Tech Stocks?  I can’t seem to find who is going to make money on this.

     In way that may be good since nobody is looking to get paid.  Just about everyone seems to be losing. I know the following is tongue in cheek, but perhaps we should just reboot.  Just pretend all of this did not happen.  A Re-Do like playing football when you were a kid and the ball hit a power-line or tree.

    Part of me feels that all the bail-outs are nothing more then rearranging the chairs on the titanic.  Or maybe it is just a way for some very rich fat-cats to grab as much money as possible before the ship finally sinks.  Some how I feel the promises of the fat-cats of “We need to take the life boats to go find help” is going leave me in the icy waters. 

     Where is global warming when you need it.


  • The death of capitalism

    I think that what will eventually kill capitalism is these moron CEOs.  Capitalism depends on that the people who are rewarded, are also to take the risk.  But the latest issues with these CEOs who have golden parachutes have thrown the whole system to the wolves.

     I have no problem with the money they were paid per se, what I have a problem with is the amount of money they made with little to no risk.  They screwup and are forced to resign, the company is in ruins and they walk away with a multi-million dollar severance package.  That’s like walking into your neightbors house and throwing your feces on the wall and charging them for painting their house.

     This type of compensation for failure just pisses a lot of people who then vote in a socialist who say that they will take care of everything and tax the rich.  PS taxing the rich never really works.  They tax them which just trickles down to the person who put the socialist in office to begin with.  Which in turn brings more taxes on you etc….  I have whole posts on this crap.

     I would love for these guys to be hung out to dry.  Lets be honest most of these guys are not that smart anyway.  They really do not have some grand talent that makes them really deserve this kind of money. Then again they are not that stupid either they were able to set themselves up in such a way that if they succeed they make money and if they fail they make money and get a vacation.  I guess in the end they are smarter then I am.

     How to solve the problem?  I don’t know.  But rewards for failure should not be part of it.  I think the top salary should be limited.  I know it sounds socialist but the guaranteed pay should be limited.  Everything else should be bonuses.  With something nominal for becoming disabled or whatever, but the principle is simple.  Do good get stuff, do bad don’t get stuff.

     There should also be rewards for post retirement kind of like a five year bonus plan.  One bonus for yearly achievement and then more bonuses for two, three, four, and five year achievement.  This way short term actions that kill the company long run will not be undertaken.  It could be a dividend based system or some other method. 

     Think about it this way.  You go into your neighbor’s house (your neighbor had some bad luck).  You promise to make your neighbor more money this year then your neighbor made last year. They agree (we are going to pretend they really don’t know you too well).  Afterwards you sell everything they have including the house.  Take your 50% cut and leave them with the shirts on their back.  You on the other hand get to walk away with your 50% cut. At the end of the year they have more money but the next year does not seem too good for them.

     The only real punishment for these crooks is to empty their bank accounts and sell their assets.  Then force them to live off a janitor’s salary for 5 years with no-contact of their former business associates.  Then again their business associates are the same people giving out the punishment so fat chance there (Politicians are cheap). 

       


  • Risk and Reward in the Banking Industry Crisis

    I am sure that you have heard all about the banking industry and its crisis.  If you have not, the cave you are in must not have cable or internet in which case you are not reading this.  In the following post I will go into the reason for this crisis from the basis of a simple economic principle of Risk and Reward. 

     In the beginning god created the mortgage payment (part of terms of the agreement was the last payment was to be personally delivered to god himself).  The person who lent you the money for the mortgage was also on the hook if you decided to spend your mortgage payment on lottery tickets instead of paying him.  So he had a self interest to ensure that he did not lend you money, that you could not payback.  There was a self interest on both parties not take too big of risk.  After living on the street because you paid too much for a home you could not afford was your risk, the reward was some place to go when it rained.

     

    All was right in the world, unless of course you lived in California but then again California is fantasy land anyway.  The rest of the world see periodic increases and decreases in home values but they were generally because of real factors, not because you want to live near where Brad Pitt gets his Starbucks. 

     

    So what screwed this all up?  Well the federal bank, which by the way is not run by the federal government lowered interest rates after the dot com bomb to help jump start the economy.  In addition rules(created by the government to help those less fortunate) in the mortgage industry pushed them to help those that had shady or no-credit.  Well with the low fed interest rates the industry was able to offer lower mortgage rates.  These rates were substantially lower then what they were previously and dramatically lowered the monthly mortgage payment made by the average person (most people judge what they can get by the monthly payment and not the actual price).  They could now afford a bigger home.  Since they could afford a bigger home the demand for a bigger home drove the prices for bigger homes up.  This in turn drove the prices for every other type of home also.  After all people still need to live somewhere.  Caves can get musty after all.

     

    So the price of homes began to move up.  Since the price of homes was going up the risk of the loan was lowered since the home was the collateral.  If you had an outstanding balance of 100K but the home was worth 200K you could get out of loan by selling the home and still have some money to find something smaller or less expensive.  In addition if you defaulted on the loan the bank could do the same.  So in essence the risk was lowered.  No matter what happened everything worked out.

     

    With the risk of the these loans lowered the banks were able to start selling these loans to other banks filling their coffers with the sale and then use that same money to offer more loans that are then quickly sold to the next etc..  And here is where the problem started.

     

    The person offering the loan only had a short term exposure to risk but a large reward.  They held it for a few months and sold it.  Very few people fail to make the first year of mortgage payment.  Soon the prices of houses began to get higher and higher, even with the low rates they became unaffordable.  But with the prices still going up and the advent of the “house flipper” mortgage companies got creative (there were always scams out there, these new ones just got rediculous).

     

    So how creative did they get?  Since they were dumping the loans on someone else after a few months, they began to make mortgage terms that kept the price of the loan low in the beginning so they could get the person the mortgage.  Now that they have someone making payments they needed to get rid of it before the terms of the mortgage made the payments too high for the person to afford and they defaulted.  So they packaged all these bad loans into more traditional loans and sold them to bigger banks that could deal with a bad loan here or there.  The first guy selling the mortgage effectively had a big reward with little risk.  This led to more and more risky loans.  People could sign up with no proof of income or negative amortization of the loan (you had a higher balance each month despite making payments). 

     

    It does not take a genius to figure out that this was set to fail.  It depended on three things; home prices rising, dumb people to sign the mortgage, and dumb banks to buy them.  If anyone of these failed the dominos would fall.  And it did.

     

    Everyone knew the game, and they all went along with it.  Except for a few people just looking for a home they could afford,  but most of them were smoking their cigars and drinking their brandy laughing all the way to the bank.  Of course the bank they were walking to eventually collapsed right after they took out their money.  Falling on the guy who just signed up for a loan.

     

    A whole lot of crap was out there basicly poisoning anything it touched.  The whole sham was about to fall in.  Unfortunately those that benefited from this whole thing the most are not going to take a brunt of this mess. They had golden parachutes.  These were all the executives of the banks that knew this crap was going on and authorized it.  After all one year’s salary for these bastards was enough to live for the rest of your life.  So screw it if in two years it all collapses they were safe.  So they did not have any risk.  See a pattern here.  The person benefiting most held no risk.  Therefore they only looked at the reward and the reward was an incredibly high salary and bonus.  Their future well being was not wrapped in the future of the company/bank they were heading it was in the huge bonus they were set to receive in one year.  Year two be damned.

     

    Now here we are.  A bunch of fat cats have beaten the system.  And we are left holding the bag.  And the bag is full of dog crap.

     

    I will go in what to do about it later.  Good luck and make your mortgage payment.



©2012 The 6 Pack Economist Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)  Raindrops Theme