« GOP and Diversity
Paulson Power »



Guest Voice: The Federal ‘Anything but Reserved’; 9/11 Terrorists Strike Again

September 22nd, 2008
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor

Print Print

This guest column is from Ned Lips, the second of his submissions we’ve published. See here for the first. As always, “Guest Voice” posts do not necessarily represent the opinions of TMV or its writers.

——————

President Bush has called for dramatically increased powers for the Executive Branch/Treasury. Before we make that leap, perhaps we should evaluate who is really responsible for the current economic crisis. The answer: The Federal Reserve abetted by the Executive Branch. With relatively limited power, they collectively destroyed our economy. Can we afford to make them more powerful?

A Bit of History

In the 1960s, the now defunct Fannie Mae was re-chartered to buy mortgages from banks, bundle them, register the bundles as securities, get them rated by agencies like Standard and Poor’s, and sell them to investors. These were designed to be long-term investments whose value was based on the underlying loans.

In the 1980s, investment bankers began to hold auctions where mortgage-backed and bond-backed securities could be sold. Auctions were held more or less monthly. Investors began to purchase Auction-Rated Securities (ARS) as short term, high yield and fairly liquid investments.

ARS were rated from investment grade, AAA, to “junk” quality. The latter came with the highest possible return on investment and the highest level of risk. Bundled sub-prime loans were usually rated as junk or nearly junk. ARS were purchased and sold based upon those ratings and had been reliably traded up until the recent crisis.

Fed Overreacts to 9/11

Smart people were investing in securities rated by smart people that were created by smart people and traded by smart people for years. What drove this recent and unprecedented situation?

The answer is simple; The actions of an unbelievably irresponsible Federal Reserve. The Federal Funds Rate is set by the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors and is the rate at which bank’s borrow money. It is the leading driver of interest rates.

On September 17, 2001 the Fed lowered this rate to 3.0%. Historically this was seen as a drastically low rate, reached only once since 1962. Nonetheless, in an over-reaction to 9/11, the Federal Reserve lowered the Fed Funds rate even further, below 3.0% for the first time in 40 years.

Between July 1990 and January 2001, the Fed Funds rate hit a high of 8% (July 13, 1990) – and a low of 3% (September 4, 1992) – averaging about 5.25% during that time.

On January 3, 2001, the Fed Fund rate was 6.0%.

Again, on September 17, 2001, it was slashed to 3.0%.

On October 2, 2001, the Fed dropped this rate to 2.5% — the first time in 40 years, since the early 1960s, it had been below 3%.

The Fed then dropped the rate even further on December 11, 2001 to 1.75% — a drop of 4.25% in less than one year.

On June 25, 2003, the rate was cut again to 1.0%.

While all previous forays below 3.0% lasted only briefly, this time the Fed Funds Rate sat at 1.0% for a full year and did not eclipse 3.0% for three years and eight months. This time of incredibly low interest rates is simply unprecedented in U.S. history and led to dire but predictable reactions in the markets.

Economically Reasonable Response

No lender had any experience in such an environment. Spurred by post-9/11 Executive Branch rhetoric, banks did what banks do, they made loans, with far-reaching consequences that laid the foundation for the disaster we are currently experiencing.

With cheap money:

1. Banks made more sub-prime loans than usual.
2. People who could not afford a home now could.
3. Demand for homes went up.

In 2004, when rates were 1.0% — in the midst of a presidential campaign — home ownership hit all-time highs. Millions achieved a dream they never believed they could reach.

1. The Bush Administration (thanks to Phil Graham) reduced mortgage regulation.
2. When demand increased, home prices rose.
3. Home builders built more homes.
4. Builders borrowed money.
5. Lenders saw prices rising and rationalized higher loan-to-value ratios to make more loans.
6. Home building increased to meet the new demand.
7/ Mortgages were bundled, rated and auctioned off just as they had been for over 20 years.

Who could have predicted what would come next?

Fed Panics Again!

The market predicted that rates would rise, but everyone assumed that after nearly four years of low rates, the economists at the Fed would raise rates gradually over many years to soften the landing. The system was designed for this. It took over seven years the last time rates were nearly this low to get to 5%.

Had the rise in rates proceeded gradually back to 5% over a four- to six-year time-span, the sub-prime mess would have been wholly averted. But of course, that is not what happened. The Fed over-reacted yet again.

Greenspan left and Bernanke entered. He and his group began to raise rates, but not gradually. They yanked them up over a short period of time, starting June 30, 2006.

In just two years the Fed raised the Fed Fund rate 17 times for a total increase of 4.25 %. That was one of the steepest and longest climbs in terms of net rate increase in the last twenty years.

No One Could React

Houses were being built. Loans were being made. And adjustable rate mortgages of all kinds were suddenly untenable. A three-year ARM done in 2004 at 4.0% adjusted to 8.0% or higher. New homeowners, banks, investment bankers, investors and borrowers, found themselves on the wrong end of a bad situation. So whose fault was it?

All players acted rationally, except one. The one everyone else relied upon to know what it was doing: The Federal Reserve. Now all participants are suffering, except, of course, the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve’s blunder of raising rates so precipitously created the following predictable “Economics 101″ results:

1. ARMs adjusted too much, causing unrecoverable pain for millions of borrowers.
2. Excited first-time homeowners could not pay their loans and defaulted.
3. These people were now worse off than before.
4. High rates killed the demand for new housing.
5. Combined with the glut of newly constructed houses, the decline in demand caused housing prices to level off or fall.
6. Home builders could not sell their home inventories; many defaulted and declared bankruptcy.
7. Individuals could not refinance.
8. More homeowners defaulted.
9. Higher mortgage payments decreased available cash to spend.
10. Consumer spending decreased, sending the economy into a tailspin.
11. Investors panicked and refused to purchase any kind of ARS at the auctions.
12. Investment banks could not purchase everything and the auctions failed. The only way for investors to sell, and get their cash back, was gone.
13. Accounting-rule changes required de-valuing these assets on balance sheets, and corporations were forced to restate financials.
14. The stock market fell.
15. Lawyers filed lawsuits to figure it all out.
16. Banks lost billions.
17. Investment houses declared bankruptcy.
18. The dollar fell.
19. U.S. financial markets starting falling apart.
20. We started – and still are – paying for it.

And now Congress is being asked to grant the Executive Branch/Treasury expanded powers. It’s a completely anti-Republican action by a Republican administration. Perhaps they should go back to basic, free-market Republican economics and try again.



This entry was posted on Monday, September 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm and is filed under Guest Contributor. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 2 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    great post
    • ^
    • v
    While I agree with you in theory, the present situation pre-dates 9/11 and a democratic administration was the cause. President Clinton and Secretary of the HUD Andrew Cuomo (now the New York State Attorney General holding Wall Street's feet to the fire over this crisis) forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy loans and lower lending requirements for minorities and lower income individuals (the beginning of mass subprime, no doc, NINJA and Alt A mortgage loans). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as a result were forced to repackage these loans in the attempt to alleviate risk off their books and in a sense becoming hedge funds. Also, in 1997 the credit default swap was conceived and traded as a method of qualifying this paper as AAA as it made the buyer of the paper feel all warm and fuzzy inside believing it was insured and therefore couldn't fail (not to mention the tax free flow of income enjoyed by the financial firms for buying each other's debt and insuring it for a nice premium)Here's an excerpt from an article from January 2001 that explains where it all really started.

    As a result of the rising homeownership rate and the nation's growing population, a total of 70.1 million families owned homes in 1999. There were 8.7 million more homeowners at the end of 1999 than when President Clinton took office in 1993.
    There were 57.7 million white, 6 million African American, 4.2 million Hispanic, and 2.2 million Asian American, Native American and Pacific Islander homeowners in 1999 - all record high annual numbers and annual percentage rates, according to Census Bureau statistics.

    Here's how the homeownership rate has risen since 1993, measuring the percentage of all households owning their own homes and then listing breakdowns by major racial and ethnic groups, as well as location. The category of OTHER includes Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. CENTRAL CITIES are the major cities in metropolitan areas.

    OVERALL 64.0 (non-Hispanic) 70.2 (non-Hispanic) 42.0 46.1 (non-Hispanic)50.6 CITIES 48.6 total of 40 percent of the net new homeowners since 1994 are minorities - even though minorities account for just 24 percent of the population. In addition to hitting annual record highs in 1999, the African American and Hispanic homeownership rates continued growing twice as fast as the white homeownership rate, but still lagged too far behind, Cuomo said.
    "While we've made important strides in increasing minority homeownership, the homeownership gap dividing whites from minorities remains far too wide," Cuomo said.

    Homeownership has many benefits. Homeowners generally enjoy better living conditions than renters; accumulate wealth as their investment in their homes grows; strengthen the economy by purchases of homes, furniture and appliances; and tend to be more involved in promoting strong neighborhoods and good schools than renters. For many families, taking a second mortgage on a home is a way of financing a new family business or a college education for a child. When parents who own a home die, the home is usually the most valuable asset they pass on to their children and helps the next generation find economic security.
    While the booming economy and low mortgage interest rates created by Clinton Administration policies have been the main factors in the growth in homeownership, Cuomo said Administration homeownership programs have also increased homeownership and will continue to do so in the future. For example:
    HUD is working to make more mortgage funds available to minorities, low- and moderate-income families, and city residents. In July, Cuomo announced a policy to require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families. The historic action by HUD raised the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must buy from 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent in 2001.

    The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which is part of HUD, insured about 1.3 million home mortgages in 1999 at a value of $124 billion. Without FHA insurance, many families would be unable to get mortgages to become homeowners. In January this year, FHA began insuring home mortgage loans of up to $121,296 in communities where housing costs are relatively low and loans ranging up to $219,849 in communities where housing costs are high.

    HUD's crackdown on housing discrimination, which was ordered by President Clinton, is opening up new housing opportunities to minorities. HUD is also conducting a major study of housing discrimination around the country as part of its continuing efforts to eliminate discrimination that stands as a barrier to minority homeownership.

    The National Partners in Homeownership - a coalition of 66 national groups representing the housing industry, lenders, non-profit groups and all sectors of government - was created in 1995 as part of President Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy. The Partners have successfully implemented initiatives to make buying a home more affordable, faster and easier. Activities to increase homeownership are also being carried out by 153 local homeownership partnerships established to support the national strategy. Among the activities developed by the partners are homeownership counseling, homebuying fairs, and help with locating homes.

    The Community Reinvestment Act, a federal law that requires lenders to make loans to all segments of the communities they serve, has resulted in some $1 trillion in loans to people in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods since it was enacted in 1977. A significant portion of these funds has been used for mortgage lending that has boosted homeownership.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« GOP and Diversity
Paulson Power »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.