Read it and punch the wall. It's the story of the 2004 Securities & Exchange Commission rule change -- a regulatory move that wasn't even covered by the media -- that let the big five investment banks throw caution to the wind. Excerpt:
Many events in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere around the country have led to what has been called the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency's failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks.
They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.
The five investment banks led the charge, including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr. Two years later, he left to become Treasury secretary.
A lone dissenter -- a software consultant and expert on risk management -- weighed in from Indiana with a two-page letter to warn the commission that the move was a grave mistake. He never heard back from Washington.
One commissioner, Harvey J. Goldschmid, questioned the staff about the consequences of the proposed exemption. It would only be available for the largest firms, he was reassuringly told -- those with assets greater than $5 billion.
"We've said these are the big guys," Mr. Goldschmid said, provoking nervous laughter, "but that means if anything goes wrong, it's going to be an awfully big mess."
Every single member of the SEC -- including the Democrats -- voted in favor of the rule change.
And by the way, did you catch this Wall Street Journal collection of quotes from (mostly) Democratic politicians defending and denying that Fannie and Freddie were in serious trouble? One of many fetid examples:
Rep. Maxine Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.Tumbrels. Tumbrels. Tumbrels. The national leadership class of this country is a disgrace. The 2008 election won't be the decisive one. Wait till 2010.Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Correction: re China and IMF. This activity was directed to Paulson re: US government money policies and activities, not private US banking industry.
Corrections:
re China and IMF. This was directed to Paulson re: US government money policies and activities, not private US banking industry.
"invisible hand" not "silent hand"
(heading for another cup of coffee .. apparently the first one didn't take :)
Additional comment: Blaming CSE lending does not fly with anyone who knows anything about what happened. It is being sold by the political right as a convenient Willy Horton type distraction, but it is just that. A distraction. (Surely you are better than that ... surely you don't want to participate in that.)
CSE lending did not have the zero down, teaser rates, adjustable rates etc. The loans did not go thru fly by night mortgage loan companies, and the repayment of loans thru CSE is not at the heart of the problem. And the Community Reinvestment Act DID NOT require banks to lend to borrowers who were unable to pay their loans or credit unworthy.
Corrections:
re China and IMF. This was directed to Paulson re: US government money policies and activities, not private US banking industry.
"invisible hand" not "silent hand"
(heading for another cup of coffee .. apparently the first one didn't take :)
Yes, I want to smack a wall but it wouldn't be very productive.
Washington let people like me down -- no doubt about it.
But there are deep linkages between the mortgage meltdown, the end of cheap oil, sprawl, and the overbuilt McMansion subdivisions that drove the mortgage fraud that fueled -- along with the Bush crowd's ideological blindness, a collassal mess.
It was all about me, me, me.
This was true of builders.
It was true of realtors.
It was true of mortgage brokers, bankers, title insurance agents, and others in what was - for a few years - an incredibly lucrative network of Ponzi scheming fraud.
And every one of them that I met the past ten years was bragging about their tax-deductible PAC contributions to the GOP.
So howdy, look at how the chickens eventually come home to roost...
Ask yourself: why would a GOP administration have the guts or brains to stop the spigot on all the obscenely fat, happy jerks who helped feed that beast?
And why is it not at all surprising that McCain's 'strategists' (i.e., lobbyists on leave long enough to get him into office so they can scarf up any leftover gleanings at the public trough) have so many associations with homebuilders and loan industries? I don't find it one bit surprising; if anything, it only underscores my point.
Basically, by pretending that markets can achieve Perfect Equilibrium, and that de-humanized 'actors' make a series of 'perfect decisions' because they have 'complete information' about The Market, we end up forgetting that economics, like politics, is a profoundly human enterprise.
This article also explains a new view of what is called 'post-autistic economics'. It's no surprise that this topic is currrently receiving new attention:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/05/0080538
I'm thinking the problems with the economy has more to do with people having less spendable income to purchase real goods and services. Perhaps more money would flow through the system if average people could afford a little more than the very basics in life. Many people can't even afford that. Many people don't even own a home. I seriously doubt that a few people who couldn't pay their mortgages caused this problem. If anyone in the mortgage industry is responsible it would be those who sell and resell paper that has very little real value. Back to regular people. When and American who works a full time job making minimum wage can't actually live on that wage, we have a problem. Perhaps those folks whose homes are in foreclosure thought their wages would go up enough over the years to pay for the jump in their ARMs. There is no way that a few people defaulting on loans created any of this. Lack of living wage jobs, affordable housing, and affordable healthcare create a sense of drowning with no way out. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is something all who work should be able to achieve. People who can earn a living wage will spend money on the very things that keep our economy strong. The great sucking sound is coming from the top, not the bottom. 850 Billion is proof of that.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.