PDA

View Full Version : Sub-prime Loans and the Failure of Credit Welfare



EJ
03-14-07, 06:25 PM
http://www.itulip.com/images/welfarecredit.jpgSub-prime Loans and the Failure of Credit Welfare
Bad for the poor, bad for taxpayers

The big story since U.S. markets tanked yesterday, with Asian and European markets following suit this morning, is the "big surprise" in the U.S. sub-prime market: when a big chunk of your borrowers can't pay back loans they should never have been offered in the first place, the lender's business suffers. With legislation already proposed (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1x64z58hsB4&refer=home) to bail out borrowers and lenders with government funds, the politics of selective government protection from risk is already making the econ blogs (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/03/1st-helicopter-drop-now-being-organized.html).

Here's my position.

The idea of making credit card (unsecured) and mortgage (secured) loans available to anyone with bad credit or no credit record in amounts greater than any reasonable, historical measure of credit-worthiness justifies in order to "help" them is a fraud.

Credit, like savings, to be long lasting and meaningful must be built over time. Credit cannot be given away as a one-time windfall so-called "loan." Institutions, backed by the state and taxpayers, either via insurance or implicit bailouts, that lend money to individuals with insufficient credit, are conducting what amounts to state sponsored credit welfare, and doing it badly. We learned over decades that a system of poorly managed incentives in the cash state welfare system (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy/curricula/welfare.html) does not help most poor in need; it creates disincentives to develop the skills needed to increase income, fails to get money to those who need it most, where it will have the most beneficial results, and wastes taxpayer money. Why is anyone surprised that bad lending practices by banks, made economical only by government supported GSEs and obtuse financial engineering, disingenuously packaged as a ticket to the land of "ownership," is proving to be a loser, too?

Lending marginal borrowers more money than their income enables them to repay does not help them. It sets them up to fail (pdf) (http://www.nw.org/network/pubs/brightIdeas/documents/coverStory_BISummer06.pdf.). Evidence abounds that coercion and fraudulent lending practices–such as no-doc loans, misstatement of income on loan applications, manipulation of FICO scores, and so on–have been used by lenders with scandalous frequency for years, while regulators looked the other way, resulting in loans that destined for default. When these bad loans inevitably go into default, sometimes when the very first payment is missed, credit which took years–often a lifetime–to build is destroyed.

This is helping the poor and middle class?

If not borrowers, then who is helped by this lending? Investment banks feeding the seemingly bottomless market for securitized debt products over the past few years and commercial banks adding hundreds of billions in assets to their balance sheets.

Who will pay the price when the borrowers default, besides those who were coerced and defrauded of their already limited credit? The risks of these bad loans is supposedly magically hedged away by the banks via credit derivatives, but this default insurance merely temporarily disperses and hides the liabilities created by widespread fraudulent lending practices. When these bad loans go into default, the price of derivatives used to hedge credit risk for new loans of all kinds rises the way flood insurance shoots up after a deluge. The result is tighter lending standards, higher interest rates and fees for loans of all types for all kinds of borrowers. This hurts small businesses, families, and the U.S. economy as a whole, and will contribute to the recession that we are expecting later this year. In addition to increased loan costs, decreased loan availability, and economic malaise, to add insult to injury legislation is in the works which proposes to use taxpayer money to bail out the lenders and banks that made these bad loans in the first place–welfare for banks.

Lending more money to anyone than can be repaid at high rates of interest using coercion and deceptive practices is the domain of loan sharks and criminals. FDIC insured banks and lenders registered with the government that engaged in these practices need to be treated according to existing laws against these practices. Under no circumstances should these banks be bailed out with taxpayer money as the first line of defense. We believe strongly in free markets; these banks should be allowed to fail, their remaining assets sold off on the open market to the highest bidder, the proceeds from the sales of the assets used to compensate borrowers in those cases where coercion and fraudulent lending practices can be demonstrated. Only after these measures are taken should the taxpayer be tapped.

Credit welfare needs to be reformed with the objective of creating a lasting incentive for banks and lenders to desist from further abusive and dysfunctional lending practices, and support those with poor credit by allowing them to build it systematically over time–over many years–rather than just in time to add a few more bucks to a bank's books to help them make the quarter.

iTulip Select: The inside scoop (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1032).
__________________________________________________

Special iTulip discounted subscription and pay services:

For a book that explains iTulip concepts in simple terms see americasbubbleeconomy
For a macro-economic and geopolitical View from Europe see Europe LEAP/2020 (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=728)
For macro-economic and geopolitical currency ETF advisory services see Crooks on Currencies (http://www.isecureonline.com/reports/CRC/WCRCH100/)
For macro-economic and geopolitical currency options advisory services see Crooks Currency Options (http://www.isecureonline.com/reports/CCO/WCCOH212/)
For the safest, lowest cost way to buy and trade gold, see The Bullionvault (http://www.bullionvault.com/from/itulip)
To receive the iTulip Newsletter or iTulip Alerts, Join our FREE Email Mailing List (http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?m=1101238839116&p=oi)
Copyright iTulip, Inc. 1998 - 2007 All Rights Reserved

All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Nothing appearing on this website should be considered a recommendation to buy or to sell any security or related financial instrument. iTulip, Inc. is not liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. Full Disclaimer (http://www.itulip.com/forums/../GeneralDisclaimer.htm)

synthesis66
03-15-07, 03:40 PM
Privatise profits, socialize costs. Same scam, different day.

grapejelly
03-15-07, 04:22 PM
Privatise profits, socialize costs. Same scam, different day.

How true.

The homeowners are mere pawns in the scheme to continue inflating the currency through yet more and more borrowing. The true "kings" of the scheme are the government (the biggest beneficiary of inflation of all) and the banks (second biggest.)

Now, when they bail out the banks/homeowners, they will be re-inflating to make up for the disinflationary loan defaults and resulting body count. Thus sowing the seeds of the next Ka-Poom cycle.

miju
03-16-07, 10:34 AM
Fair enough for the ethical problem and human disaster: However I have finally revisited all figures on mortgage. Only 1/3 of 9500 billions home mortage is held directly by banks. that is aboout 3500 bn. suppose a loss on this amount of 3 % that represents 105 bn. A lot of money compare to the net profit of the industry (150 bn in 2006) but nothing compared to their base capita (above 1000 bn). The balance is securitized among private investors (2300 bns) and agencies ( 3752 bns). Suppose a loss of 5 % on the value of these securties on average that is about 305 bn. a big amount but nothing compared to the loss of value of the Wall sreet market cap since February. Economically speaking it is more an investor problem than a banking problem.
Having said that they are 2 points to be made. 1) Agencies who hold these MBS are not very solid, and then comes the question "who will bail out them ?" chinese again ? 2) banks who have transferred the risk to the investors have re-created risks by lending to hedge funds investing in CDO's who are investing in MBS instead of increasing their treasury bond holdings. but here opacity is the rule. my conclusion : it is not going to be Japan made in USA. it is going to be quite different.
have fun digging figures in statistics !
Miju

metalman
03-16-07, 12:04 PM
Fair enough for the ethical problem and human disaster: However I have finally revisited all figures on mortgage. Only 1/3 of 9500 billions home mortage is held directly by banks. that is aboout 3500 bn. suppose a loss on this amount of 3 % that represents 105 bn. A lot of money compare to the net profit of the industry (150 bn in 2006) but nothing compared to their base capita (above 1000 bn). The balance is securitized among private investors (2300 bns) and agencies ( 3752 bns). Suppose a loss of 5 % on the value of these securties on average that is about 305 bn. a big amount but nothing compared to the loss of value of the Wall sreet market cap since February. Economically speaking it is more an investor problem than a banking problem.
Having said that they are 2 points to be made. 1) Agencies who hold these MBS are not very solid, and then comes the question "who will bail out them ?" chinese again ? 2) banks who have transferred the risk to the investors have re-created risks by lending to hedge funds investing in CDO's who are investing in MBS instead of increasing their treasury bond holdings. but here opacity is the rule. my conclusion : it is not going to be Japan made in USA. it is going to be quite different.
have fun digging figures in statistics !
Miju

this is exactly what happened post s&l crisis... banks were forced into liquidation, assets sold on the open market to maximize return to limit the costs to taxpayers, anyone who broke the law got jail time. i recall the japanese came over to the u.s. in the mid-1990s to learn how we did it, to see if some of the 'merican techniques will fly in japan. i read that they went away thinking... "wow, air dirty laundry by selling assets in public? throw law breakers in prison? we could never do that!" the crisis was not one of the u.s. system's proud moments, but i thought the way we handled it was, showed one of the strengths of the u.s. system. but, if miju is right... and i think he (she?) is... looks like the banks have figured out how to get the benefits of bad lending without suffering the consequences. what a racket.

miju
03-16-07, 12:36 PM
a racket ? can you blame banks when there is a market opportunity to make money without taking the risks ? you have to admit that in front of them, they were either innocence or stupidity. Is it to the business to set the rules to avoid an exageration or is it to the legislator ? well ,hum... i agree the legislator is always late

metalman
03-16-07, 01:06 PM
a racket ? can you blame banks when there is a market opportunity to make money without taking the risks ? you have to admit that in front of them, they were either innocence or stupidity. Is it to the business to set the rules to avoid an exageration or is it to the legislator ? well ,hum... i agree the legislator is always late

if the businesses are obeying the law, sure. but many of them flaunted the law. same happened during the tech stock bubble. no need for new laws, like sarb-ox... through the ken lay and bernie ebber's into prison DURING the bubble, not after. we already had enough laws, but a lack of political will to enforce them... too much tax revenue $$$ flowing in. all sarb-ox did after the bubble was over was create the priv equity bubble by forcing companies out through the debt markets for liquidity. really stupid because a debt value collapse is much more problematic than an equity value collapse, due to leverage. same deal with big companies taking advantage of bankruptcy laws to get out of pension obligations... legally, earned back-pay. pensions are money these workers earned! not paying it is theft. it's up the gov't to close the loopholes. but they only get closed after the gov't pension insurance funds run out of dough, because then the pols have to go back to voters for more $$$, and they don't like to do that. assuming the same modus operandi, does fdic insurance need to run out before the lending rules are changed again?