Mortgage Bubble

Porn More Interesting to Media Than Flaws of Financial ‘Reform’ Bill; Obama Is “Lying His Face Off”

by Hans Bader on April 26, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Insurance, Legal, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony

There are plenty of problems with the financial “reform” bill, but the media aren’t interested in that.  They’re much more interested in revelations that senior enforcement staff at the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, which would gain new powers under the bill, spent many hours looking at porn on their office computers.

The porn issue certainly deserves some attention, given just how much time some SEC staff wasted looking at porn at taxpayers’ expense: “A senior attorney at the SEC’s Washington headquarters spent up to eight hours a day looking at and downloading pornography. When he ran out of hard drive space, he burned the files to CDs or DVDs, which he kept in boxes around his office.”  You have to wonder if this kind of inattention to its duties led the SEC to ignore the $50 billion fraud by Bernard Madoff, which was repeatedly brought to its attention to no avail, and the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme committed by Robert Allen Stanford.  But it probably didn’t.

While the media, including the New York Times, has reported on the porn, it has largely ignored substantive criticism of the financial “reform” bill, which is a Trojan horse that would reinforce risky practices that led to the housing bubble, while ignoring needed reforms, harming insurance policyholders, and giving executive branch officials arbitrary power to bail out or take over banks and financial institutions.

As journalist Matt Welch notes, Obama “is lying his face off about financial reform.”

President Obama has collected millions from Wall Street special interests, his administration contains many Wall Street lobbyists, and he supported the unnecessary $700 billion bank bailout.  But now, he’s pushing a deceptive financial regulation bill with phony rhetoric about “reform,” claiming it is “not legitimate” to point out that the bill could lead to yet more bailouts and government takeovers (as economists and banking experts like Peter Wallison have demonstrated).

Obama’s legislation would do nothing to rein in the worst offenders behind the mortgage crisis, the government-subsidized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as it would enrich the politically-connected liberal Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs (recently accused of fraud), enrich left-wing lobbying groups and community organizers, and give the government the permanent ability to bail out and take over Wall Street firms.

Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary, tax cheat Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.” Worse, the Obama administration lifted the $400 billion limit on bailouts for Fannie and Freddie, so that they could continue to buy up junky mortgages at taxpayer expense, and showered their executives with $42 million in compensation.  The Obama administration is now expanding the bailouts of these mortgage giants so that they can lavish pay on their CEOs and reduce the payments of deadbeat mortgage borrowers.  (At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac is now running up $30 billion in lossesto bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes.  Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public.)

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by acting as loan toilets, buying up risky mortgages and thus creating an artificial market for junk.  “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”

Why did they buy these risky loans?  They put up with Clinton-era affordable-housing regulations that required them to buy up lots of risky loans, in order to curry favor on Capitol Hill and thus retain their annual $10 billion in tax and other special privileges (which they possessed owing to their status as “Government-Sponsored Enterprises” or GSEs). They paid their CEOs millions in the process, and engaged in massive accounting fraud — $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone — to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses.  As GSEs, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

Banking expert Peter J. Wallison, who prophetically warned against the risky practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, says that Obama’s proposals will lead to “bailouts forever” and give big, politically-connected banks that are “too big to fail” the ability to drive smaller rivals out of business at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.  His colleague Alex Pollock notes that Obama has not lived up his Administration’s claims that it would back reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Obama claims that it will not lead to more bailouts, but even congressional Democrats admit that it will.  As Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) admitted, the “bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. . .The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.”

Government pressure on banks to make loans in economically-depressed neighborhoods was another key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis.  If Obama has his way, that pressure will increase.  The House earlier approved Obama’s proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  It would do so without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness, even though the Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.

Obama’s proposed financial regulations would also harm retail banking operations used by middle-class people and small businesses.

Trojan Horse Financial “Reform” Bill Enriches Goldman Sachs, Rips Off Taxpayers

by Hans Bader on April 19, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

The Obama administration and Congressional leaders are pushing a trojan-horse financial “reform” bill that would enrich the wealthy and powerful investment bank Goldman Sachs, which was recently cited for massive fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  That’s the discovery of John Berlau, who won the National Press Club’s Sandy Hume Memorial Award for exposing the conflicts of interest of a former IRS Commissioner.

Earlier, the administration used the AIG bailout to give billions in legally unnecessary payments to Goldman Sachs, which is so rich that it has admitted it didn’t even need the money.  Goldman Sachs, one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors, is using its political connections to reap record profits.

Moreover, Obama’s legislation would do nothing to rein in the worst offenders behind the mortgage crisis, the government-subsidized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as it would give the government the permanent ability to bail out Wall Street firms.

Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.” Worse, the Obama administration lifted the $400-billion limit on bailouts for Fannie and Freddie, so that they could continue to buy up junky mortgages at taxpayer expense, and showered their executives with $42 million in compensation.

The administration is now expanding the bailouts of these mortgage giants, which are now giving lavish pay to their CEOs and reducing the payments of deadbeat mortgage borrowers.  (At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac is now running up $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes.  Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public).

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by acting as loan toilets, buying up risky mortgages and thus creating an artificial market for junk.  “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”

Why did they buy these risky loans?  They put up with Clinton-era affordable-housing regulations that required them to buy up lots of risky loans, in order to curry favor on Capitol Hill and thus retain their annual $10 billion in tax and other special privileges (which they possessed owing to their status as “Government-Sponsored Enterprises” or GSEs). They paid their CEOs millions in the process, and engaged in massive accounting fraud — $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone — to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses.  As GSEs, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

Banking expert Peter J. Wallison, who prophetically warned against the risky practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for years, says that Obama’s proposals will lead to “bailouts forever” and give big, politically connected banks that are “too big to fail” the ability to drive smaller rivals out of business at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.  His colleague Alex Pollock notes that Obama has not lived up his administration’s claims that it would back reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Government pressure on banks to make loans in economically-depressed neighborhoods was another key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis.  If Obama has his way, that pressure will increase.  The House earlier approved Obama’s proposal to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  It would do so without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness, even though the Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.

New Federal Program Kills Jobs, While Costing Taxpayers Half a Billion Dollars

by Hans Bader on January 11, 2010

in Agriculture, Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, International, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere

A federal biofuels program enacted in the name of fighting global warming and reducing dependence on foreign oil is instead killing jobs while perhaps doing more harm than good and costing taxpayers half a billion dollars, reports the Washington Post.

“It sounded like a good idea: Provide…government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.” But it is now killing jobs by “driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that…used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry.”  Meanwhile, “the Biomass Crop Assistance Program…has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy.” It’s a “Biomass Blunder,” says environmental law professor Jonathan Adler.

At least this program isn’t resulting in malnutrition and death, unlike ethanol mandates and subsidies, which cause starvation and unrest in the Third World.  Ron Bailey writes about the “global food crisis” that has resulted in food riots across the world, including countries like Mexico, Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen, Haiti, and Egypt.  The crisis, he noted, is caused by “stupid energy policies” in the form of ethanol “mandates” and subsidies, which result in the world’s farmers producing less food and more ethanol.

Food rioting spread throughout Haiti in 2008, endangering the government of its “U.S.-backed president”:  “A desperate appeal from the president Wednesday failed to restore order to Haiti’s shattered capital, and bans of looters sacked stores, warehouses, and government offices.”   The government responded with tear gas and bullets, as this video shows. Food riots also occurred in Ivory Coast and El Salvador.

As the Washington Post earlier noted, “the increasing use of land to produce ethanol” “has led demand for food to outstrip supply.”

In the U.S., “The federal government’s love affair with ethanol subsidies drove up food prices, depleted plains-state aquifers, and subsidized the destruction of water fowl habitat.”

For all this cost, ethanol subsidies do not even reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, ethanol subsidies threaten to cause an enormous amount of environmental damage, deforestation, and soil erosion. For this and other reasons, the New York Times advocates getting rid of ethanol subsidies.

Wheat production is down in the world’s breadbaskets, like the United States, as farmland shifts away from wheat to ethanol production.  In Egypt, a major wheat importer, the fall in worldwide wheat production has triggered bread shortages and unrest as poor people find it difficult to get enough to eat.  The unrest is strengthening support for Islamic extremists opposed to Egypt’s relatively pro-American government.

Many Afghans, facing higher food prices, now have little choice but to grow opium to pay for food: the Soviet invasion and occupation destroyed their irrigation works (and roads), making large-scale food production and transport extremely difficult. And when food prices went up in 2006 and 2007 as a result of ethanol mandates and rising demand for food in India and China, thousands of Afghan children starved to death.

Harmful ethanol subsidies and mandates are likely to expand, thanks to Obama and congressional leaders.  In 2008, Obama repeatedly attacked John McCain for opposing ethanol subsidies, which McCain opposed as a form of corporate welfare for powerful corporations like ADM.

Obama backs expanded ethanol subsidies contained in a huge cap-and-trade carbon tax bill that would do little to protect the environment, while costing the economy trillions. The cap-and-trade bill was pushed through the House before its text even became available. The bill was over 1090 pages long and contained special interest giveaways to a legion of big corporations and their lobbyists. At the last minute, 300 more pages were added to the bill that few in Congress had even read, and had to be manually inserted into the existing 1000 pages after the bill was passed, based on guesses about where those pages would fit in. Thus, the bill did not even really exist at the time it was passed.

In 2008, Obama privately admitted to a San Francisco Chronicle reporter that his cap-and-trade carbon tax would cause people’s electric bills to “skyrocket.” The cap-and-trade bill supported by Obama would lead to big tax increases, administration officials privately have conceded, even though they publicly claim otherwise. “Officials at the Treasury Department think cap-and-trade legislation would cost taxpayers hundreds of billion in taxes, according to internal documents circulated within the agency and provided to the Washington Times” by CEI. It could raise household taxes by $1761 per year, equivalent to a 15 percent tax increase. It would also result in “loss of steel, paper, aluminum, chemical, and cement manufacturing jobs.”

The cap-and-trade bill will do little to cut greenhouse gas emissions, since it contains so many special interest giveaways and environmentally-destructive provisions like subsidies for ethanol.  Instead, notes the Examiner, it will result in massive destruction of the Earth’s forests.  Although the bill’s supporters claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them by driving industry overseas to places where there are fewer air pollution curbs, resulting in dirtier air.

Meanwhile, Obama has thwarted more use of nuclear energy, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions, by blocking use of the Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste disposal site after billions of dollars in taxpayer money had already been spent developing it.

In other news, a $75 billion Obama mortgage bailout program is actually harming the economy, the housing market, and the construction industry, economists and real estate experts say.  Nobel-Prize winning economist Gary Becker says that Obama’s policies in general are harming the economy.  The $800 billion stimulus package has failed to stem rising unemployment, while reducing the size of the economy over the long run.

Congress Mulls More Credit Card Restrictions, in Legislation Likely to Backfire on Consumers

by Hans Bader on January 5, 2010 · 3 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony

Some in Congress want to impose interest rate ceilings on credit cards and restrictions on interchange fees.  Australia tried the same thing, and it backfired, harming consumers by forcing credit card companies to increase annual fees on responsible credit cardholders and scale back rewards programs.  (Ironically, recent interest rate hikes are partly the product of a law recently passed by Congress, the CARD Act, which forces responsible people to bear the costs of irresponsible borrowers.)

As law professor Todd Zywicki notes in the Wall Street Journal, the proposed legislation would harm both consumers and small businesses, since it would

reduce the quantity and quality of credit cards by restricting credit availability and cutting back on product innovation or ancillary card benefits. This is exactly what happened when Australian regulators imposed price controls on interchange fees in 2003: Annual fees increased an average of 22% on standard credit cards and annual fees for rewards cards increased by 47%-77%. Card issuers also reduced the generosity of their reward programs by 23%. Innovation, especially in terms of improved security and identity-theft protection, was stalled. Card issuers also increased their efforts to attract higher-risk customers who generate interest and penalty fees to offset lower interchange revenues from lower-risk transactional users.  The most important pro-consumer innovation in payment systems of the past two decades has been the general disappearance of annual fees on most credit cards. Cardholders now carry and use multiple cards at little or no cost. The consequences for consumer choice and competition have been profound—card issuers compete for consumer business literally every time they open their wallet to make a purchase.  Annual fees are essentially a tax on card-holding. Policies that produced a return of annual fees would strangle this process of competition by making it more expensive for consumers to hold multiple cards and to switch cards easily. Small businesses, three-quarters of which rely on credit cards, would also have to pay more to maintain access to multiple credit lines, stifling the most potent engine of economic recovery.

Earlier, Congress and the President misguidedly attempted to reduce burdens on irresponsible credit card borrowers, through a new law, the CARD Act of 2009 (Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act), that backfired and resulted in the return of annual fees, bizarre interest rate hikes for some responsible borrowers, and the elimination of many cash back and rewards programs.

All these bailouts are taking their toll on the economy.  Economists and real estate experts say a $75 billion mortgage bailout program devised by the Obama administration is actually harming the economy, the housing market, and the construction industry.

Congress Moves to Reinflate the Housing Bubble That Caused the Financial Crisis

by Hans Bader on October 19, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Features, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Veteran political commentator Michael Barone reports that liberal congressional leaders are pushing policies to “inflate the housing bubble again,” even though “our financial system broke down because we had, thanks to government policies, a housing bubble.”

Congressional leaders are ignoring warnings from experts across the political spectrum, such as conservative Peter Wallison’s October 16 piece in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Barney Frank, Predatory Lender,” and liberal Charles Lane’s recent piece in the Washington Post, “Doubling Down On the Wrong Housing Policy.”  (Wallison, a banking expert, prophetically warned for years about the risky practices of the government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the core of the financial crisis, and later had to be bailed out by taxpayers at a cost of around $200 billion.)

The Obama administration is also busy promoting the junky, risky mortgages that fueled the housing bubble, showing that it has learned nothing from history.

In the Washington Examiner, Meghan Cox Gurdon explains how housing policies affected two sisters, one responsible and one irresponsible.  The financially-irresponsible sister, who was unable to manage her own finances, and had recently defaulted on a small car loan, ended up getting a taxpayer-subsidized mortgage.  Meanwhile, the responsible sister and her husband were unable to obtain a mortgage loan, despite having an “excellent credit rating” and money for a large downpayment.

Billions More for Failed Bailouts

by Hans Bader on March 30, 2009 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

Ironically, by getting rid of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner, the Obama Administration has made it even harder for it to demand the painful changes needed to make the company competitive — meaning that the billions of additional dollars the Administration plans to dump on GM will likely be wasted (the way that England’s attempt to bail out its automakers failed, wasting billions). As Mickey Kaus notes,

“After visibly defenestrating GM CEO Rick Wagoner, and moving to replace the board of directors, won’t Obama now ‘own’ the GM problem? If the company shuts down in the near future, costing tens of thousands of blue collar jobs, it will be under executives implicitly or explicitly chosen by Obama. It will be Obama’s failure, not simply GM’s failure, no? . . . Doesn’t that make it harder, not easier, for the administration to walk away and force the company into bankruptcy? And doesn’t that, in turn, make extracting the necessary concessions (by threatening bankruptcy) more difficult as well?”

Moreover, only bankruptcy — not a bailout — can save the automakers from having to pay billions of dollars in payoffs to redundant, politically-connected, car dealers. Those payoffs are mandated by exploitative state laws that ought to have been preempted long ago.

While getting rid of Wagoner, the Obama Administration has stuck by incompetent Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, even though Geithner played a key role in the disastrous $170 billion AIG bailout, and previously shaped economic policies that helped destroy the economy of Indonesia, an important oil-producing nation of 200 million people, in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has been using AIG to artificially juice up banks’ profits, and indirectly the stock market, in order to give Obama the political capital needed to pass his deficit-exploding budget, which will increase projected deficits by $4.8 trillion to $9.3 trillion, breaking his campaign promise of a “net spending cut” in a big way. (The AIG bailout has also been used to shower money on Goldman Sachs, which does not need the money, and which has given millions to liberal politicians like Obama).

The automakers were bailed out using money from the bank bailout, which was written so broadly that its supporters say it can be used for almost anything. George Will argues that such a standardless law violates the Constitution‘s non-delegation doctrine. We earlier argued the same thing.

AIG employees gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to ethically-challenged Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, who helped draft the stimulus and bank-bailout bills (and inserted the language that protected their bonuses). That includes $160,000 from employees in the division that later drove AIG into insolvency.

In the Wall Street Journal, scholars debate the principal causes of the mortgage bubble and subsequent financial crisis. Economics professor David Henderson says “the main fed culprits are the beefed up Community Reinvestment Act and the run-amok Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” An investment banker cites “mortgage fraud, the Bush administration’s weak-dollar policy and Lehman bankruptcy decisions, and Congress’s reckless housing policies through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act.” Economists Judy Shelton and Gerald O’Driscoll and law professor Todd Zywicki say that the Fed’s monetary policy was the single biggest factor. Historian Clayton Cramer previously argued that regulations adopted under the Community Reinvestment Act spawned the mortgage crisis.

Congressional leaders blocked Senator Judd Gregg’s modest measure to limit the explosion of the national debt. Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) has been busy quarantining harmless library books in the name of child safety.

In other news, PETA, which claims to care about animals, has been busy killing pets.

Toxic Asset Rip-Off

by Hans Bader on March 23, 2009 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Features, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere, Zeitgeist

That’s how analysts describe the trillion-dollar toxic-asset buy-up program proposed this weekend by the Obama Administration: “the president is putting forth his idea to have the Treasury become the new AIG. In order to get hedge funds to buy up toxic debt, Obama is proposing that the Treasury provide loans up front and insurance against potential losses on the back end. It’s what Paul Krugman called ‘heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose.’ By the way, it may cost another $1 trillion.”

The Treasury Secretary claims taxpayers won’t lose a full trillion, because the assets aren’t as worthless as their current market prices suggest. But if that’s true, why does he continue to insist on federal accounting rules that force banks to value their assets at the current depressed market prices? Either the accounting rules are right — in which case taxpayers will end up losing a trillion dollars — or they are wrong, amplifying financial panics — in which case the rules should be repealed, so that banks, not taxpayers, will be able to take the risk of holding the assets. (If these accounting rules, known as “mark-to-market” accounting, had been in place in the late 1980s, “every major commercial bank would have collapsed,” wiping out the economy).

It’s not even clear that all these bailouts are needed. As William Seidman, the banking official who helped clean up the S&L Crisis as head of the RTC, notes, the government’s $170 billion AIG bailout was absurdly expensive and wasteful. “We paid off huge debts that AIG had in the swaps market, which we probably did not have to do. We bought a number of assets from AIG at high prices, which we probably did not have to do.”

That includes a huge unneeded windfall for the investment bank formerly headed by Treasury Secretary Paulson, Goldman Sachs, which received billions of dollars from taxpayers that it did not even need, through the AIG bailout. As James Piereson notes,

“Goldman wound up receiving $12.9 billion in December from AIG in an initial payout from the TARP money. Thus, taxpayer funds were used not so much to bail out AIG, but rather its “counterparties,” including Goldman and a dozen or so other major banks. Now, in an interview with the press on Friday, Goldman’s chief financial officer has declared that the company was never in jeopardy from a collapse of AIG — that it held some $7.5 billion in collateral against its AIG account and that it had hedged the remaining $2.5 billion in its net exposure using credit-default swaps with other parties. . .David Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, insisted that the company would not have been damaged if AIG had been allowed to collapse. Even so, the company profited handsomely from the payout from AIG, courtesy of the American taxpayer. Goldman could not turn down the payout without damaging its shareholders, Mr. Viniar said. In other words, if the U.S. government — via AIG — was going to offer a gift, Goldman was not in a position to turn it down. Which raises the question: What then was the point of the AIG rescue? The claim by Paulson et al that a collapse of AIG would bring down the international financial system was entirely unsubstantiated. Congress passed the bailout bill under pressure from the financial authorities that they had to act to ‘save the system.’ It turns out that this was far from being true. The lesson from this is that everyone — most especially members of Congress — should look skeptically upon claims that this or that institution is ‘too big to fail’ or that a catastrophe awaits of a major financial institution is not bailed out.”

Politicians frequently claim the sky will fall if their proposals are not implemented, even when they know that is not true. Obama claimed the $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “disaster” and “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by his own Congressional allies, admitted that the stimulus package will shrink the economy over the long run, in reports released both before and after the bill’s passage.

While pushing through $8 trillion in bailouts, and trillions more in debt from massive budget increases, the Obama administration has ignored inexpensive possible remedies for the financial crisis like reform of “mark-to-market” accounting rules. Many commentators are now calling for relaxation of those rules in order to stem the financial crisis, including former FDIC Chairman William Isaac, Congressmen Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) and Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), the Wall Street Journal, John Berlau, Jeff Miller, Holman Jenkins, Newt Gingrich, and the Republican Study Committee

Fed Chairman Uses Incompetent Ratings Firms for Bailout

by Hans Bader on December 18, 2008 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Precaution & Risk

“Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is basing hundreds of billions in emergency lending on credit ratings from companies that gave AAA grades to toxic securities. The Fed has purchased $308.5 billion in commercial paper and lent $631.8 billion” based on appraisals by the bond rating agencies Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch.  So reports Bloomberg News.

Before the financial crisis, we repeatedly warned in vain that these ratings agencies were failing in their job, and that regulations that prevented independent companies from competing with them should be eliminated.  But the Fed continues to rely only on these firms, and shield them from competition, bowing to their special status as the  “major nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations,” rather than relying on independent ratings firms, such as those accountable to investors.

“Policy makers should take the opportunity to spearhead a change in the system by elevating the independents, said Alex Pollock, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.  Unlike the top three, they are paid by investors who subscribe to their services, rather than by businesses whose products they rate. That makes them less likely to grade securities favorably, Pollock said.  ‘Why would you limit this to the dominant ratings agencies that helped get us into this situation?‘ he said.”

“It is foolhardy” to rely on the major rating agencies, said Keith Allman, chief executive officer of Enstruct Corp., which trains investors. The major raters issued top marks to $3.2 trillion in subprime mortgage-backed securities at the root of the financial crisis.  “They’re outsourcing the credit assessment to a group of people whose recent performance has been unbelievably bad,” said Allman. “If their goal is to not take a loss on these assets, they should be hiring independent analysts.”

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke should be removed from office.  He is destroying the value of the dollar and discouraging investment in the U.S. through his reckless printing of money and buying up of risky and worthless securities at taxpayer expense.  He has impoverished savers and punished thrift through his irresponsible interest rate-cuts and giveaways to banks.  He has promoted irresponsible bailouts for deadbeat mortgage borrowers.  And he has ignored statutory limits on Federal Reserve authority through a succession of failed bailouts that are both radical and unauthorized, legally justifying his removal from office.

Fed Cuts Rates, Punishing Thrift, and Impoverishing Savers

by Hans Bader on December 16, 2008 · 4 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

The Federal Reserve has just cut the federal funds rate for loans to banks to an unprecedentedly low rate — ranging from 0.0% to 0.25% — well below its prior 1 percent rate.  After taking inflation into account, the Fed is literally giving money away.  The Fed’s low interest rates since 2001 helped spawn the current financial crisis and the mortgage bubble, greatly weakening the value of the U.S. dollar and reducing capital investment in the U.S.

The Fed’s rate cut will also have the effect of reducing already very low interest rates on savings accounts, costing savers money.   Not only is your bank interest rate less than the inflation rate, eroding the value of your savings, but to add insult to injury, you have to pay income tax on the insultingly-low interest, too.

The Fed’s action misdiagnoses the cause of the financial crisis.  Banks aren’t refusing to lend money because interest rates are too high — they’re refusing to lend because they are afraid they won’t be paid back.  The Fed’s irresponsible actions lend weight to such fears.

The Fed’s action, which is partly intended to prop up overextended borrowers by reducing their interest payments, sends the message that the government will protect such borrowers from the consequences of their own overspending and recklessness, regardless of the cost to others.

That same mentality is behind Obama’s campaign call for a freeze on foreclosures; the FDIC’s failed policy of reducing the mortgage payments of delinquent borrowers at failed banks; and calls by politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bail out defaulting mortgage borrowers.   Banks’ reluctance to lend money in such a political climate, and fear that they won’t be fully paid back, is understandable.

Unbelievable Gall from the New York Times

by Hans Bader on December 9, 2008 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Nanny State, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

As economists and the Wall Street Journal have noted, the Community Reinvestment Act was an important ingredient of the financial crisis, by pressuring banks to make risky loans to people in low-income, predominantly-minority neighborhoods, even if such loans were unlikely to be repaid. Now those loans, which were economically unjustifiable, are defaulting, resulting in pain for both banks and borrowers alike.

So what does the New York Times recommend as a solution? To “strengthen” and expand the Community Reinvestment Act’s provisions “requiring banks to lend, invest and open branches in low- and moderate-income areas,” by making it even more onerous and inflicting it on even more lenders! As if we don’t already have enough risky subprime mortgage loans fueling the mortgage crisis. The mindset of a Manhattan liberal is truly beyond belief. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again (even after it has proved unsuccessful), and expecting a different result, then the editors of the New York Times must be insane.

The New York Times is getting criticism for its role 75 years ago in concealing Stalin’s “terror famine,” in which the Soviet dictator deliberately starved to death six to ten million Ukrainians, in an artificially-engineered famine that the New York Times denied was occurring, even as its Russia correspondent, Walter Duranty, was writing glowing reports about Russian harvests, and receiving expensive gifts from the Soviet government. (The Times has refused to return the Pulitzer prize that Duranty and it received for their misleading coverage of life in the Soviet Union).

← Previous Entries