I hate to say it, but I think at least some kind of bailout is going to be necessary to prevent "systemic collapse".

Also, I don't think we need a 30% decline in output to "purge the rottenness" out of the system and fix the moral hazard problem.

A 15% decline should be sufficient.

Nuts.

"Too big to fail" must die! We need to let at least some examples of these corrupt swine go down and clean up afterwards.

At least Poole flat-out admits the problem exists.

...would be a direct result of moral hazard inherent in the current structure of the GSEs.

the first step to solving a problem is realizing that you have one...

Is the FHLB a GSE ? I have read that the various banks have loaned around $0.75T to the financial sector including the infamous loan to Countrywide by the Atlanta bank.

I suspect this has been beat to death before but perhaps an update is in order based on this post. Stealth bailout by the taxpayers or proper execution of the FHLB mission?

Jim

The GSE's have always been viewed as too big to fail, because, well, they are. So are the big banks and brokers.

Hell, if Long Term Capital was too big to fail, I can't imagine the above list doesn't fit into the category.

bobn,
the Tan Man's outfit fits that prescription to a T, don't cha think?

Lessons will be doled out by DC, number one of which is if you took the risk you get the reward, now you want us to pay for those losses?

Nuh-uh. My house goes to heck in a hand basket cause you didn't understand what you were buying trying to make your 2 & 20? STFU wall street and prepare for pain.

Someday this war's gonna end...

We have a total hyper-inflation crash falling into place and these types of retards in charge, who are in denial, are going to fuel the speed at which we crash. We are on a train track frozen by headlights and these people are blind and deaf. Are they taking payoffs, part of some mafia, what the hell is going on?? We will be in a non-stoppable crash if we do not have some accountable authority take charge immediately! We know that person is not Bush, or anyone in this coup.

So who or what will save us??

The current global financial system is based on The Enron Model and the end results of that models outcome have already played out, and thus its just a matter of time for the global economy to fail:

Indeed, Enron's unscrupulous actions were often gambles to keep the deception going and so push up the stock price, which was posted daily in the company elevator. An advancing number meant a continued infusion of investor capital on which debt-ridden Enron in large part subsisted. Its fall would collapse the house of cards. Under pressure to maintain the illusion, Skilling verbally attacked Wall Street Analyst Richard Grubman[3], who questioned Enron's unusual accounting practice during a recorded conference call. When Grubman complained that Enron was the only company that could not release a balance sheet along with its earnings statements, Skilling replied "Well, thank you very much, we appreciate that . . . asshole." Though the comment was met with dismay and astonishment by press and public, it became an inside joke among many Enron employees, mocking Grubman for his perceived meddling rather than Skilling's lack of tact.

CR, dont you read Tantas posts? You guys are confusing me.

As I have said before....the GSE's are pricing loans to spreads and not to risks. A 6% loan in a world where house prices are rising should immediately become say a 9-10% loan(or some number significantly higher)

As was pointed out in the post, both the number of defaults and loss on each default is much greater in a falling market.

It's like pricing life insurance on a nun who used to live in a convent who suddenly becomes a race car driver. It's the same person but entirely different risk environment, which requires an immediate and large repricing to account for added risk.

The effort to get GSE's to add liquidity is simply allowing the only institution who is willing and able to continue to underprice risk and lose money on every new loan.

This will prevent free-market lenders from being able to enter the market and compete.

Those providing money to the GSE's are doing so only because they believe that the government will step in. This "moral hazard" is the only reason GSE's can still access capital.

If they remove moral hazard, they remove the GSE's ability to socialize losses and prop up the housing market.

It there's going to be a bailout, then let's make sure we come out of it stronger:

  1. Allow quick price discovery (fall) of assets, including houses.
  2. Put in place regulations, like minimum capital requirements,etc. for non-bank entities.

I'm too simple to think about little things like this.

The PHeD, lenders and Wall Street are thinking they're cutting the dead wood out when really they've stopped watering their gardens.

What kind of idiots really think that I'm going to keep buying cars to make myself feel better as my main assets decrease in value 50%? No problem,
I'll just write a recently cancelled HELOC check!

Don't worry Wells Fargo (et al), you still have your CD customers - wait, their leaving for higher interest rates elsewhere? Your other credit customers are failing because their customers aren't buying either because their credit is crunched? Its RELATED? Ben didn't tell me that yet...

Congress will probably first make sure the GSEs get into trouble by pushing them to make larger loans in some delusional fantasy of 'stabilizing' the housing market.

Then Congress will bail them out after the GSE's are about to collapse.

Unfortunately, most politicians understand very little economics and the concept that real estate values are out of line with fundamentals and need to decline is one they can't understand. So we'll waste a ton of taxpayer money on a bailout which could have been prevented.

This blows my mind, we are going to watch the commodities market become a casino that will fuel hyperinflation and transform speculations in virtual market derivatives into realistic applied cost increases in things like food, oil, metals and the little things that impact life. As I recall you can now buy futures in water, so why not just start a war where we start killing off the poor and then fight to control food and water?? If we dont control speculation in commodities and shut these markets down within weeks, there will be chaos!

The problem with allowing the institutions to fail is that the critical moral hazard is from the actions of corporate managers, not investors. The people who made the decisions resulting in this mess are the CEOs and other top officers of the IBs, banks, and mortgage brokers. They, for the most part, are making out like bandits. With the current model of corporate governance, stockholders really can't know what their companies are doing and insofar as they do can't stop it either.

The government shouldn't bail the stockholders, but at the same time we need to recognize they aren't the problem and wiping them out leaves the primary moral hazard issue fully intact.

There may not a bailout of the GSEs. The GSEs can go bankrupt and stiff all the bond holders just like any other company. The government does not back the loans.

I'm not saying the government won't make the loans whole, but they may decide it's too expensive. Better to start a new agency from scratch with no debt.

"The government shouldn't bail the stockholders, but at the same time we need to recognize they aren't the problem and wiping them out leaves the primary moral hazard issue fully intact."

The "tough love" version of this is to let the shareholders take it in the shorts and lose trust in the current model of corporate governance.

That's what it took to get a better model back in the '30s. If there's another, less painful route there through the current political and economic power structure, I'd love to hear it.

Evans who heads one of the reserve banks said that the Fed would jack up interest rates fast if need be to stem inflation. So what if the economy is still tanking while inflation is rising? Jack up interest rates in the face of a tanking economy? These guys don't seem to understand the mess they are in.

We cannot kill off the poor. We need lots of poor to create demand for the stuff speculators speculate on.

Bill Gross of Pimco sure seems to believe that Fannie and Freddie are too big to fail, because his bond funds are stuffed with mortgage-backed securities from them.

GSE is backed by U.S. government. If government sponsored agencies could fail today, who can ensure that Treasury is safe tomorrow? Remember Russia in 1999?

Chris,
I think he means they will jack them up at the same time as they are dropping them, thus attacking both problems.

Will "too big to fail" become the next "contained"? The whole too big to fail thing is easily the most annoying financial saying out there. From historical precedent some items too big to fail:
1. The USSR
2. LTCM
3. The Titanic
4. The Death Star
5. The 2007 Patriots

I thought the gov was strictly on the hook for Ginnie only, not Fannie and Freddy. Maybe the bail-out or assist to Fannie and Freddy will be - how do you say - half-hearted?

Poole is wrong, it is not moral hazard that got the GSEs to near insolvency, it was just stupidity. There really is not much financial incentive for GSE executives to take excessive risk. As a GSE senior exec you will make multi millions annually, but there has been no potential to make tens of millions like on Wall Street. In recent years where credit risks taken exploded, the GSE boards and regulators were focused on financial restatements and demonstration of internal controls adequacy and compliance. So again no real incentive for senior execs to take excessive credit risk. It is just that the third raters making the decisions at these institutions chased their idols on Wall Street off a cliff. The Wall Streeters were doing it for 8 figure bonuses not dependent on long term profitability of the deals, The GSEers were doing it because they are stupid lemmings.

CR or Tanta,

Could you comment on the risk of bailout for FHA-insured loans, as opposed to GSE loans? More specifically, I, as a taxpayer, am directly backing FHA, while my backing for the GSEs is (at this point in time, at least) only indirect. There is some shareholder capital between me and the GSEs, while there is nothing between me and the FHA. Why isn't there more concern about the FHA? Is it a matter of size, i.e. is it a "small fry" compared to the GSEs, and bailing it out would be no big deal? Or something else I'm missing? Thanks.

jin, GSE are NOT backed by the government. Government Sponsored Entity is actually a made up term, that has no meaning and does not appear in any law or charter. President Bush has already said that the US is not on the hook for the the "GSEs"

It may be worth noting that GSE agency debt is widely used by foreign central banks to recycle CA surpluses (eg. China). If a GSE bailout became the subject of serious debate, I have to think the ownership of debt being backstopped would become an issue.

Can someone explain, simply, the difference beteween solvency and liquidity? The way I understand it is:

Liquidity Problem = I can't get enough money to borrow.

Solvency Problem = My liabilities are more than my assets, and I can't keep up my payments to my creditors.

Is that about right?

Legally not backed by government does not mean that you could throw it out regardless. Today time you let GSE going down. Tomorrow you will find market would accept fully government backed debt only.

Regarding Bush, he once said "mission accomplished." He was saying he believed in "strong dollar"...

"price discovery" is contingent on settlement. Speeding up settlements - now that would be a trick. How do you do that?

I'm closing today on my first home. Seller is bringing a check for 26% of what I'm paying to closing, while average price change in my price tier in my area is still only down about 3%.

Individual asset price discovery is a messy organic business. Making things worse (by raising rates, encouraging foreclosure, reducing liquidity or accessibility, or preventing bailouts) will probably not speed up settlements, foreclosures, yes - but not price discovery...

If the FHLB is willing to loan money at 4%, based only on collateral consisting of a home mortgage which appraised for the loan amount in 2005/2006, why do we need the banks as middlemen (charging 6% on the other side to consumers)? Why shouldn't every citizen be entitled to a loan at 4% based on the peak bubble valuation for their home?

Well in a wider perspective the "market over all" fools brought all this on themselves. If they hadn't demanded the right to be allowed to run amok, they wouldn't now be reaping the consequences. Fools never learn however big their paychecks may be. Or how "important" they think they are. One very rich guy who isn't a fool also doesn't pay himself all that much and doesn't act "important." Warren is his first name. A model who sadly has not been imitated to the degree he deserves.

Yes, the GSE's are too big to fail, which is why, in essence, the nationalization of the mortgage industry is almost complete.

OFHEO recently lifted the debt caps on the GSE's--and they already owe about $1.5 trillion.

OFHEO also recently lowered the capital requirement, since they were both able to report on time this past quarter. Their reports were of astounding losses ($3.56 for Fannie and $2.45 for Freddie), but nevermind, at least they sorta know how much they lost.

The FHLB is lending money like it prints it. Which, of course, it sorta does--because it too, is too big to fail. Think government-backed SIV and you've about got what the FHLB is up to.

And of course, Fannie has come out w/ its Advantage program that it can only undertake because it is too big to fail. It knows it can jigger around w/ mortgages it is guaranteeing, because ultimately the fed will make its guarantee good, perhaps w/ worthless dollars, but no matter. The little program literally screams moral hazard, but so too did all those years of implicit government backing that yielded those oh, so competitive interest rates.

Folks, say what you wish, the entire residential housing finance industry is effectively nationalized, because--it is too big to fail.

Whether a good thing or bad, it is the reality.

I don't see this idea getting any attention...

Not only should the equity and bond holders be wiped out as a result of the nationalization of the GSEs, but I also think we ought to consider making the solvent "jingle mailers" liable as well. Those miscreants who are solvent bankruptcy, but opportunistically exit their liability ought to pay a greater share of the burden than Joe Q. Taxpayer.

GSE

No Excel required.

First, firms in trouble ought not to be bailed out, unless the bailout takes a form that imposes heavy costs on managers and shareholders

this cause's the most problems in a Capatilistic Society, right?

the shareholder gets to vote every day of the week that the market is open, to dispose of his shares if he views that management is not up to the task of providing reasonable return on invested capital.
Why is it that the major holder's of the GSE's, who happen to be the largest insititutions, (fido,cap re, calper,etc...) don't dispose of there economic interest in said firms by actually doing their due diligence.


Deloitte writes:
Can someone explain, simply, the difference beteween solvency and liquidity? The way I understand it is:

My pub answer is :

liquidity crisis - Nobody will lend you money cos they ain't got any.

insolvency crisis - Nobody will lend you money, not even your rich mother.

-K

Voltron,
I hope what you say is true. Letting Fannie and Freddie hang will be an act of patriotism from my point of view.

«As I have emphasized before, the Federal Reserve can deal with liquidity pressures but cannot deal with solvency issues.»

That is complete and knowing bullshit. The Fed is pumping 3% money into insolvent institutions at a time when tax-exempt riskless munis return 5.5% (and never mind the interest rates those institutions charge to the morons that take their credit cards).

Basically the Fed is giving free (negative real rate of interest) money to insolvent institutions whose business model is the carry trade, thus generating very large "buy low, sell high" profits to counter the large losses made on less safe bets. If that isn't designed to deal with solvency issues...

But then try to propose to have the Fed refinance all mortgage holders at 3% nominal rates -- that would be moral hazard Smile.

«If the FHLB is willing to loan money at 4%, based only on collateral consisting of a home mortgage which appraised for the loan amount in 2005/2006, why do we need the banks as middlemen (charging 6% on the other side to consumers)?»

To recapitalize the banks and provide for huge bonuses for their management by giving them a risk-free opportunity to make a totally effortless margin?

«Why shouldn't every citizen be entitled to a loan at 4% based on the peak bubble valuation for their home?»

Because what is supporting the Free Markets if done for for big speculators is Communism if done for small speculators. Smile

«The way I understand it is:

Liquidity Problem = I can't get enough money to borrow.

Solvency Problem = My liabilities are more than my assets, and I can't keep up my payments to my creditors.»

Well, that i almost right but fundamentally wrong because of the confusion between a systemic problem and a problem for a single entity. Both a system and a single entity can have liquidity problems and solvency problems, but they are quite different in nature.

What matters here is the systemic issue:

  • Systemic insolvency: the system cannot generate enough revenues to pay back the value of their debts, not even by selling the assets that they bought with that debt. This can be the result of the assets returning less than before or losing part of their value. In the current case it is like the latter, that is not appreciating as fast as expected.
  • Systemic illiquidity: the system can in the aggregate generate enough revenues to pay back the value of their debts, but they cannot actually make the payments because they cannot roll over their existing debts even if they are solvent, because nobody is sure that anybody are indeed solvent.

In accounting terms insolvency is about not having enough capital to repay long term debts, illiquidity is about not being able to raise enough working capital to fund day-to-day operations.

Lending money to an insolvent business means losing it, to an illiquid one means making a lot of money, but determining which is which is not so easy. So a partial solvency problem can become a systemic liquidity one.

In the current situation both problems have happened: the system as a whole is insolvent, but the insolvency is not spread equally, so some/most financial businesses are indeed solvent, but even those that are solvent are illiquid because nobody knows for sure that they are solvent, and so they cannot get working capital.

Given that GSE debt is largely owned by foreigners, it makes perfect sense for the U.S. to let the GSEs fail and instead set up a new agency with new Congressionally-approved funding.

Login or register to post comments