Then came a shocker: Amid one of the most reckless lending sprees in history, regulators focused on the one bank that refused to play along. Beal’s moves confused and worried them, and so they began to probe him with questions. “What are you doing?” he recalls them asking. “You’re shrinking yet you’re raising capital?”
Says Beal about the scrutiny, “I just didn’t fit into any box.” One regulator, the former head of the Texas Savings & Loan Department, Charles Danny Payne, says, “I was skeptical at first, but I’ve gained a lot of confidence over the years,” adding that Beal has an “uncanny ability to sniff out deals.”
Next, the credit rating agencies started pestering him about his dwindling loan portfolio. They never downgraded him but scolded him for seeming not to have a “sustainable” business model. This while their colleagues were signing off on $32 billion of bum collateralized debt obligations issued by Merrill Lynch.
…
He thinks the government is going to be “disappointed” by its various programs to revive lending. He says Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s new plan to guarantee loans to buyers of toxic assets won’t lead to many sales because the problem isn’t liquidity but price. They are not low enough. Half the country’s banks–4,000 in all–would be bust, he says, if they marked their loans to what the loans would fetch in an auction. He says banks are fooling themselves by refusing to mark busted assets down.
“Banks are on a prayer mission that somehow prices will come back and they won’t have to face reality,” Beal says. And that reality, according to Beal, is going to get a lot worse. “Unemployment is going over 10%, commercial real estate hasn’t even begun collapsing and corporate credit defaults are just getting started,” he says. His prediction: depression, without bread lines this time, thanks to the government safety net, but with equal cost to society.
There are some (very few) who succeeded in not acting like lemmings. I wish someone would explain to me why people are worthy of millions in bonuses when they just do what every single other person in their position did that was also getting millions in bonuses. Obviously they were just practicing bankruptcy for profit (which worked out incredibly well for them) and still we seem to think the only solution is to support these moral bankrupt (and now commercially bankrupt) organizations and individuals.
Related: What the Bailout and Stimulus Are and Are Not – Sound Canadian Banking System – More on Failed Executives – Jim Rogers on the Financial Market Mess
663,000 jobs were lost in the USA in March and the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Since the recession began in December 2007, 5.1 million jobs have been lost, with almost two-thirds (3.3 million) of the decrease occurring in the last 5 months. In March, job losses were large and widespread across the major industry sectors.
In March, the number of unemployed persons increased by 694,000 to 13.2 million, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.5 percent. Why is that different than the numbers above? The numbers are from different sources of data, the first from BLS surveys of businesses and the 694,000 from household surveys. This reminds us that this data is approximate, not exact. Undoubtedly the figures will be revised as more data is analyzed.
Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has grown by about 5.3 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 3.4 percentage points. Half of the increase in both the number of unemployed and the unemployment rate occurred in the last 4 months.
The unemployment rates continued to trend upward in March for adult men, 8.8%, adult women 7.0%, whites 7.9% and Hispanics 11.4%. The jobless rates for African Americans, 13.3% and teenagers 21.7% were little changed over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 6.4% in March, not seasonally adjusted, up from 3.6% a year earlier.
Related: Over 500,000 Jobs Disappeared in November – Manufacturing Employment Data – 1979 to 2007 – What Do Unemployment Stats Mean?
As I mentioned a few months ago, the New York Times archive is a great tool to see the history that led to the economic crisis we now face. Here is an article from 1999: Congress Passes Wide Ranging Bill Easing Bank Laws
”Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,” Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ”This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.”
The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation’s financial system. The original idea behind Glass-Steagall was that separation between bankers and brokers would reduce the potential conflicts of interest that were thought to have contributed to the speculative stock frenzy before the Depression.
…
‘The world changes, and we have to change with it,” said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name along with the two other main Republican sponsors, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and Representative Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia. ”We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer.” In the House debate, Mr. Leach said, ”This is a historic day. The landscape for delivery of financial services will now surely shift.”
But consumer groups and civil rights advocates criticized the legislation for being a sop to the nation’s biggest financial institutions. They say that it fails to protect the privacy interests of consumers and community lending standards for the disadvantaged and that it will create more problems than it solves.
The opponents of the measure gloomily predicted that by unshackling banks and enabling them to move more freely into new kinds of financial activities, the new law could lead to an economic crisis down the road when the marketplace is no longer growing briskly.
”I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930’s is true in 2010,” said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ”I wasn’t around during the 1930’s or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980’s when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.”
Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had ‘’seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes.”
This is a great view into how both parties foolishly risked the economy to provide favors to their big donors and golfing buddies. It is sad that we chose to elect such people that play such an important role in our economy. But it is not as though we make these choice without easy access to the information on how they govern. And today listening to the people that took the money and voted for these, and similar changes to favor financial friends, they try and make it sound like they are not responsible. And sadly my guess is most people will accept their excuses. Until we do a better job of electing people we are going to continue to suffer the results of bad policy and to pay for the favors politicians give to those giving them money.
Related: Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren – Copywrong – Pork Sugar – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make – Ignorance of Capitalism – Ethanol: Science Based Solution or Special Interest Welfare – Legislation to Address the Worst Credit Card Fee Abuse – Maybe
Fed to start buying T-bonds today, hoping to move rates
The yield on the 10-year T-note plunged to 2.53% on March 18 from 3% the previous day, the biggest one-day drop in decades. But since then, Treasury bond yields have been creeping higher. The 10-year T-note ended Tuesday at 2.65%. Conventional mortgage rates have flattened or inched up, although they remain historically low, in the range of 4.75% to 5%.
…
On Tuesday the Treasury sold $40 billion of new two-year T-notes at a yield of 0.95%, which was lower than expected, indicating healthy investor demand. The government will auction $34 billion in five-year notes today and $24 billion in seven-year notes on Thursday. Against numbers like those in just one week, the Fed’s commitment to buy $300 billion of Treasuries over six months doesn’t look like much.
…
there’s nothing to stop the Fed from suddenly announcing that its $300-billion commitment will get substantially bigger: The central bank can, in effect, print as much money as it wants to buy bonds — at least, until the day that global investors stop wanting dollars.
The original announcement caused a dramatic move but since then yields have been drifting up, every day, including today. Rates are already very low. And the huge amount of increased federal borrowing is a potential serious problem for lowering rates. And potentially an even more serious problem is foreign investors deciding the yield does not provide a good investment given the risks of inflation (I know that is how I feel). It will be interesting to see what happens with rates.
Related: Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt? – Lowest 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates in 37 Years – mortgage terms
Fluke? Credit crisis was a heist by James Jubak
Of course, just because the plan blew up on the looters, taking off a financial finger here and a portfolio hand there, you shouldn’t have any illusion that they’ve retired. In fact, in the “solutions” now being proposed — by Congress — to fix the global and U.S. financial systems, you can see the looters at work as hard as ever.
He is exactly right.
Answer: Because the federal government had forced them to back off. An aggressive interpretation of the definition of insurance could have let state insurance agencies regulate the derivatives contracts that AIG’s financial-products group was writing out of London. These were, in fact, insurance policies that guaranteed the companies taking them out (banks, other insurance companies, investment banks and the like) against losses on securities in their portfolios.
But Congress had made it very clear in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act — supported by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, steered through Congress by then-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in December 2000 — that most over-the-counter derivatives contracts were outside the regulatory purview of all federal agencies, even the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
With the new law on the books, the market for credit default swaps exploded from $632 billion outstanding in the first half of 2001, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, to $62 trillion in the second half of 2007.
Question: Wasn’t anybody worried about the risk to the financial system posed by a market that dwarfed the assets of the sellers of this insurance?
Answer: Worry about leverage? You’ve got to be kidding.
In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission, after hard lobbying by Wall Street, reversed its 1975 rule limiting investment banks to leverage of 15-to-1. The new limit could be as high as 40-to-1 if the investment banks’ own computer models said it was safe.
Understanding the people paid lots of money to politicians and then (after they got lots of money) those politicians enacted laws that endangered the economy to favor those giving them lots of money. Now maybe these politicians just like letting exceptionally wealthy people endanger the economy for personal gain. Maybe they think that is a good idea. I tend to think instead they do what those they give them lots of money want. But maybe I am wrong on that.
Read more
California jobless rate climbs to 10.5 percent
…
Back then, unemployment remained above 10 percent for a year and briefly hit 11 percent. This time Levy said unemployment probably will break 11 percent and stay there for months, until the housing market hits bottom and starts to recover, healing the state’s biggest economic wound.
…
Metropolitan San Francisco, consisting of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties, had a jobless rate of 7.8 percent in February, better than the state or the nation.
Official unemployment rates above 10% are a huge problem. And the impacts of such high unemployment rates grow over time, so staying above that rate for long is a huge problem. And the odds favor that happening in California and such a result for the USA overall is high. It likely true that the falling housing prices will stop before the economy really starts regaining the ground it has lost recently. But the real key, in my opinion, will be when job losses stop and the economy grows jobs. If we can do that by early 2010 I think we will be lucky.
Look for an improving unemployment rate, but even more important is for the total jobs to be growing faster than 100,000 per month. Long term it needs to grow faster than that but beating that target for several months should be a strong indication we may be reaching a bottom. There are plenty of other factors to look at also: average hours worked per week, increasing average pay, GDP growth, improving consumer confidence, reduction in consumer debt…
Related: USA Unemployment Rate Rises to 8.1%, Highest Level Since 1983 – Bad News on Jobs – What Do Unemployment Stats Mean? – Over 500,000 Jobs Disappeared in November
In normal markets commercial paper is very safe. The very short term business borrowing is made possible by money market funds and provides businesses with short term financing at low rates and provides investors some return for short term cash holdings. But the recent credit crisis does not a normal market make. Companies that depended on the commercial paper market now are thinking about the risks of such dependence.
Coca-Cola Flees Commercial Paper for Safety in Bonds
…
By lessening their reliance on commercial paper, borrowers are paying higher interest rates to avoid the risk of not being able to roll over the debt every few weeks. With the gap between short- and long-term debt rates the widest in at least two decades, the cost of swapping $1 billion of 30-day paper with long-term debt can cost more than $75 million in additional annual interest
Related: Where to Keep Your Emergency Funds?
This week the Financial Times starts a series on the Future of Capitalism with A survival plan for global capitalism
The fiscal cost of this episode is unclear. In some countries, it may be state-busting. Some nations will need to cope with extraordinary fiscal tightenings in the coming years. The domestic impact of government spending – and its geopolitical ramifications – could yet be colossal. Again, much depends on how soon the downturn ends.
There is one certainty. While recessions are inevitable, deep depressions or slumps – or whatever you call them – are neither necessary nor welcome. They destroy wealth, sap happiness and crush old certainties. What is more, increasing poverty is a grave threat to world stability and democracy. Revolutions often start as bread riots, and economically-stagnant countries make belligerent neighbours. Growth must be restarted.
…
governments must take responsibility for dealing with their financial systems. The toxicity which started in mortgage-backed securities is spreading through the world’s banks as ever more assets go bad in the recession. Politicians must make sure that their banking systems are adequately capitalised and deal with the illiquid securities at the heart of this crisis.
The Financial Times has done a good job of presenting the credit crisis, the current state of affairs and what can be done.
Related: Leverage, Complex Deals and Mania – Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Exist – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make – posts on capitalism – Ignorance of Capitalism – Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation
The economy has structural problems. The solution at this time is not to convince people that everything is fine and just go spend money you don’t have. Personal debt is much to high. The practices that allowed huge anti-competitive and economy endangering institutions to threaten the economy have not been addressed. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been given to those who caused the credit crisis. Making the federal debt problem even worse.
Some suggest we need to regain consumer confidence. Unfortunately that fixes nothing. That “strategy” is just to convince people problems don’t exist and buying what you can’t afford is fine. Just convince people to go spend more money, run up their credit card debt, borrow against their house, as long as everyone believes it can continue. That can work for awhile but it then fails due to structural issues. And the solution becomes more and more difficult the longer such a strategy is used. The same way a ponzi scheme eventually implodes.
If you could convince those in a ponzi scheme (and new investors) that they should just be optimistic it can continue. But eventually people ask for their money to buy something and none exists and the scheme fails.
With an economy, after structural problems are addressed then you need to convince people to be less fearful and to be more optimistic. Because often by that time people have become so fearful that they are not taking even reasonable steps. They don’t buy even though they have the money in the bank and have a real need for the purchase. When this happens, convincing people that the economy is stable is important. However, cheerleading and convincing people to just continue to run up their debts to spend more is not wise when the economy is already far to in debt is not wise (though it is politically expedient).
The USA needs to stop living beyond its means. That is the most important factor to long term economic strength. But the focus doesn’t seem to be on doing this, instead it seems to be on printing money to paper over the problems. There are many great strengths of the economy and those have allowed huge federal deficits, huge personal debt, monopolistic practices, destabilizing financial risks taking… Even with that things have been quite good. But those areas need to be addressed over the long term.
Related: Let the Good Times Roll (using Credit) – Families Shouldn’t Finance Everyday Purchases on Credit – Living on Less
Ex-Leaders at Countrywide Start Firm to Buy Bad Loans
Its biggest deal has been with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which it paid $43.2 million for $560 million worth of mostly delinquent residential loans left over after the failure last year of the First National Bank of Nevada. Many of these loans resemble the kind that Countrywide once offered, with interest rates that can suddenly balloon. PennyMac’s payment was the equivalent of 38 cents on the dollar, according to the full terms of the agreement.
Under the initial terms of the F.D.I.C. deal, PennyMac is entitled to keep 20 cents on every dollar it can collect, with the government receiving the rest. Eventually that will rise to 40 cents.
…
Phone operators for PennyMac — working in shifts — spend 15 hours a day trying to reach borrowers whose loans the company now controls. In dozens of cases, after it has control of loans, it moves to initiate foreclosure proceedings, or to urge the owners to sell the house if they do not respond to calls, are not willing to start paying or cannot afford the house. In many other cases, operators offer drastic cuts in the interest rate or other deals, which PennyMac can afford, given that it paid so little for the loans.
…
But a PennyMac representative instead offered to cut the interest rate on their $590,000 loan to 3 percent, from 7.25 percent, cutting their monthly payments nearly in half, Ms. Laverde said.
This is one way the economy cleans up messes. A foolish organization lends money (or buys mortgages, loans…) to lots of people that couldn’t pay back and they then sell those loans at a big discounts. The new owners of the loans now have this mortgage that the homeowner can’t afford. But the cost of the mortgage to them wasn’t anywhere near the amount the homeowner owes. So the new buyer can make a great deal of money just by getting the homeowner to start paying again (even if it is at a much lower rate). They can also make money by foreclosing and then selling the property but truthfully if they can get the homeowner to pay that is likely a much better quick profit for them (and they can then sell the performing loan to someone else – I would imagine). Who knows if PennyMac will make a ton of money this way, but I fully expect many organizations to do so.
Related: Nearly 10% of Mortgages Delinquent or in Foreclosure – Learning About Mortgages – How Much Further Will Housing Prices Fall? – Jumbo v. Regular Fixed Mortgage Rates: by Credit Score