8.3.11

The Crisis Reports: A Literary Analysis of The Moral Of The Financial Crisis

The FCIC's Democratic chairman (left) and Republican vice chairman can't agree on what caused the crisis.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP The FCIC's Democratic chairman (left) and Republican vice chairman can't agree on what caused the crisis.
The big report from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is due out tomorrow, and the NYT got a sneak peak. Bottom line, according to the article:
The 2008 financial crisis was an "avoidable" disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street ...
At least, that's the bottom line according to the six commission members appointed by Democrats.
  Two separate, dissenting reports are coming from the four members of the commission appointed by Republicans, the NYT says. One report will focus on a "narrower set of causes," the other on "policies to promote home ownership."
This dissension has been clear for while now; back in December, the Republican-appointed commission members released their own "primer" on the financial crisis. There was even partisan debate over banning certain words — "Wall Street," "deregulation" and "shadow banking" — from the final report.
The FCIC was supposed to deliver a single, definitive story along the lines of the widely praised 9/11 Commission Report. But the partisan split means the nation won't get anything of the sort.
We'll have more on the FCIC's dueling narratives later this week.
In other FCIC news:
The FCIC concluded that "several financial industry figures appear to have broken the law," the Huffington Post reported. The commission referred "multiple cases to state or federal authorities for potential prosecution." No names have emerged yet.


A children's book.
Muffet/Flickr
This was supposed to be a very exciting week for Planet Money: The week the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission came out with the single, definitive story, explaining the financial crisis once and for all.
That didn't happen.
Instead, the commission fractured along partisan lines, and we got three separate stories. (You can read them for yourself here.)
On today's podcast, we talk to commissioners from both sides, and we find that they agree on an awful lot. But in the end, they can't agree on the moral of the story. And that winds up being a big difference.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Chairman Phil Angelides with the official commission report.
Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
The members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission split along party lines and wrote three competing reports. But their reports differ more in style than in substance.
First, the stats.
The report from the Democratic majority — over 500 pages long. Number of footnotes: 6,711.
The main minority report, from three dissenting Republicans — just 26 pages long. Number of footnotes: Nine.
Both reports, of course, seek to explain the causes of the financial crisis that plunged the world into recession. But the majority report reads a lot like a book, and a bit of a potboiler at that.
The commission conducted hundreds of hours of interviews, with industry insiders, policymakers, whistle-blowers and regulators. And the pages of the majority's report are strewn with quotes from these interviews — foreboding, eye-popping quotes.
  A veteran banker at Citigroup says that despite his warnings, the firm continued to loosen its mortgage lending standards and "joined the other lemmings headed for the cliff."
Some sections of the report are downright cinematic.
Warren Peterson, an upscale homebuilder in Bakersfield, Calif., describes the exact day he realized that the housing bubble had popped. Normally, he told the commission, real estate agents would have been lined up outside his office when he arrived at work, vying to buy the homes he built.
But one Saturday in November 2005, the majority report says:
He was at the sales office and noticed that not a single purchaser had entered the building. He called a friend, also in the homebuilding business, who said he had noticed the same thing, and asked him what he thought about it.
"It's over," his friend told Peterson.
The authors of the minority report dismiss these flourishes. They write:
The majority's 550-page report is more an account of bad events than a focused explanation of what happened and why.
But even the minority's slim policy brief has some dramatic moments.
The CEOs of Wall Street's most troubled institutions testified before the commission, and all made essentially the same argument: They said they didn't do anything wrong, their firms were fine, and they wouldn't have needed a government rescue if the market hadn't gone crazy.
The Republican commissioners smack this argument down, in firm but wonkish language. Each CEO, they write, was:
... unwilling to admit that his firm was insolvent or nearly so. In each case the CEO's claims were highly unpersuasive.
The majority and minority reports agree on a lot. They both point to the proliferation of exotic mortgages, the failures of regulators, the incompetence of Wall Street managers.
So why come out with these two separate versions? A lot of it comes down to one sentence in the majority report — a sentence that appears near the very beginning:
We conclude this financial crisis was avoidable.
Keith Hennessey, one of the three Republican authors of the main dissenting report, said that sentence "is, if not the key difference, one of just a very small number" of differences between the majority and the minority.
He says it's too simple to say in hindsight that if people would have just behaved differently, this crisis wouldn't have happened:
I think that the crisis was certainly not foreseen and I don't know that it was foreseeable. ... I don't know that it was avoidable. … It is frustrating to me. … I had to help tell this story. I wanted more than anything to be able to tell a clear story that explains very precisely, 'Here is what we could have foreseen, and here's what we couldn't.' … It's very difficult to draw those conclusions.
Fortunately, now you can draw your own conclusions. All three reports are available for download on the FCIC website, or in book form at bookstores all over the country.

The Book.
Enlarge Chana Joffe-Walt/NPR The Book.
The Book.
Chana Joffe-Walt/NPR
The Book.
Three women walk into a large carpeted office with their sweaters, coffee and reading glasses. Each woman is carrying under her arm a copy of The Book: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
They spread themselves out at the table, offer me coffee, laugh generously at my bad jokes. It feels like we're all sitting down for the weekly Bank Regulators' Book Club. The members of the club — Roberta McInerney, Kymberly Copa and Ruth Amberg — are senior regulators at the FDIC, and their job is to make The Book come to life.


The Book — the big finance-overhaul bill Congress passed last year — calls for lots of changes in the financial system. But it only provides a general outline. All the key details have to be hammered out by people like Roberta, Kimberly and Ruth.
The FDIC is responsible for writing 44 new banking rules. As Roberta shows me her multi-colored tabs referring to key sections, Kymberly Copa nods and holds up an incredibly tattered copy of The Book.
"My book is very worn," she says. "It basically falls open where you need it to."
There are gatherings like this being held at bank regulatory agencies across Washington, D.C.
The Book says banks need to become safer by holding more capital. How much more? That's up the regulators. The Book says derivatives should be regulated. Which derivatives? And regulated how, exactly?

The FDIC is supposed to figure out how to make it so banks aren't too big to fail. Congress wants the FDIC to be able to take over and run enormous troubled banks, as they do with smaller banks.
This gives rise to today's book club conversation: If the FDIC does have to do this, where will the money come from to wind down one of these giants?
Roberta flips to section 206 for discussion, and says:
The FDIC, after 30 days, we can borrow an amount that's equal to 90% of the fair value of the total consolidated assets of each company that are available for repayment.
She stops here for emphasis, with raised eyebrows to indicate, well, obviously here is where the interesting part is:
...this is maybe boring for people, but as a lawyer, well what does the term fair value mean? The term fair value is not defined.
Discussion ensues. Does fair value mean market value? What was the intended meaning of the word "appropriate" in the next section? It's around this point that the Book Club starts to feel more like a Talmud study session.
Details, yes. But you could argue that this is the part of the bank reform process that really matters. At least that's what the bank lobbyists seem to think.
"Those folks, instead of focusing on Congress, because the bill has passed are now focusing on regulators," says another regulator — Commissioner Bart Chilton of the Commodities Futures and Exchange Commission.
"We are having meetings like crazy," Chilton says. "Folks are in talking with us about what they want. We are far outnumbered."
The women at the FDIC say they try their best to steer clear of undue influence as they write their 44 rules. They say they try to stick to The Book.

THE CASE FOR GOLD

Friday, February 18, 2011

Planet Money

The Friday Podcast: Gold Standard, R.I.P.

Montagu Norman, c. 1930
February 18, 2011 On today's Planet Money: The gold standard and the Great Depression. It's the latest in our gold series.
Summary
Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Planet Money

The Tuesday Podcast: The Gold Standard

Jim Grant
February 15, 2011 We visit the charming curmudgeon and respected finance writer James Grant. He says we should go back on the gold standard.
Summary
Friday, February 11, 2011

Planet Money

A 'Wingnut Argument' For The Gold Standard

"Sex, mathematics, music,  gold — all these things are universal." - Jim Grant
February 11, 2011 "Sex, mathematics, music, gold — all these things are universal," James Grant says. Grant has called for a return to the gold standard, even though most economists find the idea "laughable."
Transcript
Thursday, January 06, 2011

Planet Money

Panning For Gold In Panama

Gold scale made of bottle caps.
January 6, 2011 Weighing gold on a bottle cap scale. And making gold teeth from gold you've mined yourself.
Summary
Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Planet Money

Stone Money Under The Sea

The real deal!
December 22, 2010 "...this particular piece of currency was at about 28 metres or so underwater. Wonder who owns it..."
Summary
Friday, December 10, 2010

Planet Money

The Friday Podcast: A Giant Stone Coin At The Bottom Of The Sea

Yap stone money
December 10, 2010 A stone coin that weighs more than a small car says a lot about the meaning of money. The latest story in our gold series.
Summary

Planet Money

The Island Of Stone Money

Yap Stone Money
December 10, 2010 On the island of Yap, people used giant stone coins that weighed thousands of pounds. The island's story helps answer a fundamental economic question: What is money?
Transcript
Friday, November 19, 2010

Planet Money

Why Gold? A Chemist Explains

Sanat Kumar
November 19, 2010 The periodic table lists 118 different chemical elements. And yet, for thousands of years, humans have really, really liked one of them in particular: gold. A chemist explains.
Transcript
Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Planet Money

The Tuesday Podcast: Why Gold?

November 16, 2010 What could take the place of gold? A professor of chemical engineering walks us through the periodic table of the elements.
Summary
Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Planet Money

World Bank Chief Calls For New Role For Gold

Price Of Gold Rises To Record High
November 10, 2010 The head of the world bank says gold should play a role in the global currency system. And the price of gold surges to a new (nominal) high.
Summary
Friday, October 15, 2010

Planet Money

The Friday Podcast: Gold!

October 15, 2010 We buy gold — and find that it raises some unsettling questions. Why is our little gold coin worth $419? You can't eat it. You can't fuel your car with it. And three years ago, it was worth half as much.
Summary

Planet Money

Why Do People Pay So Much For Gold?

We Buy Gold October 15, 2010 PLANET MONEY: Lots of people have been buying gold lately — the price has doubled in the past three years. People say gold has been valuable for thousands of years, so it seems like a safe bet that it will still be valuable tomorrow, and next year.
Transcript

4 Reasons Home Prices Are Likely To Keep Falling


Home prices fell again last year, according to the Case-Shiller index.
Enlarge Alyson Hurt/NPR Home prices fell again last year, according to the Case-Shiller index.
Home prices fell again last year, according to the Case-Shiller index.
Alyson Hurt/NPR
Home prices fell again last year, according to the Case-Shiller index.
It's been almost five years since the housing bubble peaked, and the bust isn't over yet.
Home prices around the country fell 4 percent last year. They're now down about 31 percent from their peak, according to today's Case-Shiller numbers.
Last year's declines were widespread: Prices fell in 18 of 20 major metropolitan areas last year. (The two exceptions were San Diego and Washington, D.C.)
More declines are likely to come. Here are four reasons why.
  1. There's still a glut of houses on the market.
At the current pace, it would take about seven months to sell all of the newly built houses on the market, and eight months to sell all of the existing homes on the market. In an ordinary market, it would take about six months to sell all of the homes on the market. This excess supply tends to push prices down.
2. Distressed sales account for a huge chunk of all home sales.
Distressed sales include foreclosures and short sales, where the owner sells for less than he owes on the mortgage. According to one measure, distressed sales accounted for nearly half of all home sales in January. These homes typically sell at a discount.
That in turn tends to bring down the prices of other homes, even those that aren't distressed sales. This problem is likely to persist: Nearly 5 percent of all mortgages are in foreclosure, which matches the all-time high. (For more on distressed sales, listen to our interview with Mark Zandi.)
3. Interest rates are rising.
The rate on the average, 30-year mortgage hit 5 percent this month, up from a low of 4.17 percent last fall. Higher interest rates make it more expensive to buy houses. As this morning's WSJ points out, that pushes some would-be buyers to keep renting, which in turn reduces the demand for homes.
4. The government will continue to wind down some of the extraordinary measures it took to support the housing market.
More than 90 percent of new mortgages are guaranteed by taxpayers. This props up home prices by making it easier for people buy houses. This is exceptionally high by historic standards, and will decline over time.
The Obama administration has already recommended lowering the cap on the size of mortgages that are guaranteed by taxpayers through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The cap was raised to as much as $729,750 during the crisis, and is scheduled to fall to $625,500 later this year.
The latest downward leg in home prices started after the end of the another government program — first-time home-buyer tax credit, where the government paid people thousands of dollars to buy houses.
It will probably be a long time before prices get back to the heights of the bubble. A study last year looked at more than a dozen financial crises from the past century, and found that home prices tend to remain below their bubbly peaks during the entire decade after each crisis.

For more on home prices: See our recent post, "Should You Rent Or Buy?"

Madoff: 'I Kept Telling Myself That Some Miracle Was Going To Happen'


Good morning. Here's some interesting reading to start the week.
"You have a collect call from Bernie Madoff."
New York Magazine has a long profile of Madoff, based mainly on a series of phone conversations between Madoff and the reporter. Includes audio clips.

It is a head trip. ... It feeds your ego. All of a sudden, these banks which wouldn't give you the time of day, they're willing to give you a billion dollars. ... I kept telling myself that some miracle was going to happen or that I was going to be able to work my way out of it. I just didn't know when that was.
"If we were stupid ... we were going to pay ..."
Warren Buffett's annual letter to shareholders is out. Here's what he has to say about the loans made by Berkshire's Clayton Homes division:
 
Our borrowers get in trouble when they lose their jobs, have health problems, get divorced, etc. The recession has hit them hard. But they want to stay in their homes, and generally they borrowed sensible amounts in relation to their income. In addition, we were keeping the originated mortgages for our own account, which means we were not securitizing or otherwise reselling them. If we were stupid in our lending, we were going to pay the price. That concentrates the mind.
"The Tyrant Tax"
The New Yorker's James Surowiecki on economic stagnation in the Middle East:
In Egypt, at least twenty-five per cent of young workers are jobless. Inflation, even before the recent spike in food and fuel prices, has been a persistent problem throughout the region, and corruption is endemic. The autocracies of the Arab world have been as economically destructive as they've been politically repressive. ...
What the region needs is less crony capitalism and more competition. What it may get is political reform accompanied by economic stasis. When it comes to solving people's economic woes, toppling the tyrants could turn out to be the easy part.
For more:Listen to our podcasts "The Difference Between Egypt And Libya" and "Egypt's Military, Inc."

LINK WITHIN

Related Posts with Thumbnails