I Hear Nothing! I Know Nothing!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
That's the way it seems to have been in the last twenty years, since Alan Greenspan first sat in the big chair at the Federal Reserve way back in 1987.
Even more so in the last five years.
During his term, the former Fed chairman was much like Sergeant Schultz on the 1960s hit comedy series Hogan's Heroes. Fans will recall that the good-hearted German POW camp guard would invariably look the other way after spotting all sorts of untoward behavior.
"I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!"
Once in a while a real crisis would develop, but somehow things always worked out.
In a story originating from Irvine, California (aka subprime central), new favorite economist Jim Svinth of Lending Tree wondered why regulators didn't catch on to all the hushed voices and sneaking around over the last few years and acted sooner to avoid the current subprime mortgage mess.
"That horse has left the barn," he commented, adding "the Federal Reserve should have acted three years ago."
It's hard to argue with that assessment or the timeframe.
Early in 2004 would have been an excellent time to have a look at what was going on in mortgage lending. The year before, significant problems were uncovered at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae related to derivatives and credit scoring.
The result? At the urging of the Fed chairman, a bigger share of mortgage debt was offloaded to Wall Street. As shown in the chart below and as noted here previously, "three years ago the GSEs were reined in and then the Fed hit the snooze button".
Wall Street firms and mortgage originators began digging tunnels, forging papers, and all sorts of shenanigans followed.
"I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!"
The Credit Suisse Mortgage Report
The chart above is from the new Credit Suisse paper on mortgage lending, available over at Bill Cara's blog Mortgage Liquidity du Jour: Underestimated No More (.pdf). It is a comprehensive, 67-page accounting of what has happened in the world of real estate finance over the last few years, likely to answer just about any question you might have on the subject.
See pages 52 through 55 for a review of what hasn't happened in the area of mortgage lending regulation - Recent Events May Force Regulators' Hand.
Apparently, back in 2004, it wasn't enough to have short- term interest rates at one percent with U.S. Treasury purchases by the Bank of Japan pushing the 10-year note to about 3.5 percent.
At this same time, mortgage lenders began making "liar loans" in huge numbers. That is, no-documentation and low-documentation loans that make up more than 80 percent of the next mortgage lending trouble spot - Alt-A loans.
What a good time everyone had while home prices rose. Like Sergeant Schultz, many looked the other way including those responsible for regulating the industry.
Now for the bad news - the current subprime mortgage mess is probably just the beginning and all that will be accomplished by new regulation will be to quicken the shakeout currently underway.
Home prices are probably going to go down. Maybe a lot. Here's why.
As noted in the recent report on delinquencies from the Mortgage Bankers Association, the highest rates of foreclosures are occurring in non-bubble states. As noted earlier this week here, the fastest rate of change in delinquencies is now occurring in some of the bubbliest areas.
One possible explanation is that prices have risen so high in bubble areas in recent years that distressed homeowners have still been able to sell and pocket some gains rather than go into foreclosure, though that may be changing.
The foreclosure report was for the fourth quarter of 2006 and if the more recent rate of change in subprime delinquencies is any indication, things are changing very quickly now.
As Mr. Svinth commented, everyone would have been much better off if lenders had been better regulated three years ago.
It looks like Congress is getting ready to do that now.
18 comments:
Tim,
Taxpayer funded bailout is very likely ... what do you think?
Several lawmakers, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), said they would offer legislation to rein in risky mortgages. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) told reporters that Congress will have to consider providing several billion dollars of aid to at-risk homeowners.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300505.html
I think Mish hit the nail on the head:
1st Helicopter Drop Now Being Organized
Agreed. Mish is spot on, although everyone knows/knew that the government/Fed would step in to clean this mess up as soon as it imploded. Else the guys who are responsbile for these loans never would have made them. If we knew that the loans being made were ridiculous then the people in charge did as well.
It's sad that people who are responsbile and live below their means are going to take it on the chin again (via inflation).
I can't wait until the next time the government tells the public that we need to save more. Uhhh... why would the public do this since they know that they will be bailed out of any reckless behaviour by the government.
I wish I could be an optimist, but things are only going to get worse and worse until the currency is totally destroyed.
Anonymous,
you are correct, I think. I feel the same way. THe Fed and the government put in place totally perverse incentives and now are acting surprised that people have taken these risks. Somehow, they only wake up when wall street is taking it on the chin. Who gets squeezed - the people who lived within their means and saved. What a crock. Keep your money in foreign currencies. That is all I can come up with.
Well, if the federal government will be as helpful as after Katrina,I rather be the one who rents, and lives below his means. Anyway, it's going to be the big brokerages who will be bailed out, not Joe Ultra Light Sixpacks.
The idea of a bailout is perverse beyond belief. How does making home prices skyrocket help the poor? The only ones who made any money on this were the money changers.
Froth and skim, froth and skim.
I guess that makes GWB Colonel Klink
Hogaaaaan!
Do you seriously think that the Fed is out there to destroy the economy? What would have happened if the Fed or any other regulator intervened in the subprime market a few years ago? First, all those do-gooder NGOs that lament the high level of foreclosures today would accuse the regulators of stifling the poor's access to credit. Congress would be up-in-arms and the regulators would be forced to backtrack.
The truth is, people got greedy and they will suffer the consequences.
does anyone really think that the fed could do a bailout? by the time the gov actual started handing out money most homeowners would be in foreclosure or in the street. would the money actually go to those needing it (homeowners) or big business? the gov has never been able to effectively solve a crisis..........
The FED is taking care of the whole baby boomer thing by letting inflation run away the SS benefit will be worthless.
Your grandma will get to see you more often now that she's working at McDonalds. Good for everyone, right?
aaron,
The SS benefit is tied to the CPI. I think you mean Medicare.
CPI = the TV affordability index. Convenient if you don't have to eat.
Aaron is right. CPI is a worthless measue of what's happening on the ground: crackers at the store recently had a "price adjustment" that I noticed, and if it's any indication, we're in for it. Old price $1.00. New price? $1.19. I realize those kinds of increases aren't universal or accross the board, but they're popping up enough that even I've begun to notice when they happen. If I were on a fixed income, tied to CPI, I'd really notice. Lunch costs over $12 when I eat out. Lunch. What happens this summer when gas hits well over $3.25? We're frogs in a boiler here. We're screwed people.
CPI?
I challenge everyone to look at their gas, itemized grocery, and fast food receipts from the past 2 years and tell me the CPI is worthwhile.
Let’s see now, Congress is considering legislation to offer aid to folks falling behind in their mortgage payments? You don’t suppose the notion of free money would encourage otherwise responsible borrowers to ’get a little behind’ on their mortgage note do you?
Democrats are proposing legislation to bail out irresponsible borrowers (homeowners) -- would you vote for Democrats?
Suprisingly honest critique, from Bloomberg.com.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQKw_vL7cuLQ
Post a Comment