Wall Street Snuffed Out President Clinton's Goal of Homeownership for the Poor

It is one thing for the head of a government (or a government’s executive arm) to set a praiseworthy goal that is in the public interest, and quite another thing to rely on the financial sector to implement it. Finance has its own means tied to its own goals, with plenty of greed in the mix. Governmental officials may tend to minimize the potential damage from ego-laden greed to the goals of public policy. Such policy ideally strives for the good of the whole, whereas the goals of a private sector of a part. This could account, at least in part, for the financial crisis of 2008 and the continuing bear market in housing in much of the U.S.

According to The Wall Street Journal, housing prices had fallen for 57 consecutive months by May 2011.[1] Even though the recession had officially ended in June 2009, the real estate market still had yet to hit bottom.[2] Since the housing peak in 2006, home values nationally were down 29.5 percent, according to Zillow.com. Compared to the same time in 2010, prices were down 8.2 percent in the U.S. markets. In that year, house price depreciation had slowed or stabilized because of tax credits of up to $8000 that expired during that summer. Accordingly, negative equity became even more prevalent in the first quarter of 2011, when 28.4 percent of all single-family homes with mortgages were "underwater."[3] Monthly declines for February and March were "really staggering," according to Stan Humphries, Zillow's chef economist. He claimed that the declines reflected "the true underlying demand," which was "being completely overwhelmed by supply."[4] Fannie and Freddie sold more than 94,000 foreclosed houses in the quarter; this represents 23% more than in the previous quarter.[5] The increase in supply from the foreclosures was at relatively low prices, hence the impact on the market was particularly depressing.

A declining housing price translates into lost wealth for the homeowner. When home values decline, the values of mortgages often do not go down as well. Homeowners lose some of their equity, or the stake they have in their home. When equity becomes negative—that is to say, when the value of a mortgage exceeds the value of the property—homeowners become especially vulnerable to default and foreclosure. “Falling home prices can create a vicious cycle. When a property falls into foreclosure, it tends to depress the values of properties around it, making those homes more likely to experience a similar fate. [In 2010], nearly 2.9 million homes received a foreclosure filing, and more than 2.8 million homes got one in 2009.” based on the data provider RealtyTrac.[6] More foreclosures further reduced the value of residential mortgage-based securities, which in turn reduced the asset-values and returns of companies and individuals investing in the CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) worldwide. This investment asset essentially has mortgage-borrowers pay the holders of the respective CDOs, whose value is thus based on the value of the underlying mortgages.

Problematically, the holders of the CDOs, not the originator of the mortgage, assumed the risk that the mortgage borrowers might stop their mortgage payments. The mortgage servicers had sold their mortgages to an investment bank such as Lehman Brothers, which in turn would pass the then-securitized mortgage-based bonds on to investors such as Deutsche Bank and the two major banks of Iceland. Neither companies such as New Century (or Countrywide) nor investment banks like Lehman would face any risk unless they happened to be holding a significant number of the risky mortgages (or real estate) when the merry-go-round finally stopped in 2008.

Countrywide was bought up by Bank of America (by Ken Lewis, CEO at the time) and Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Both Lewis and Dick Fuld (of Lehman) could be said to be empire-builders—meaning expansion at virtually any expense and even as an end itself. Pure ego plus greed. New Century and Lehman both assumed that they would never get caught with their pants down holding toxic mortgages. They were both wrong—oh so wrong. To be so wrong and yet blame the consumers is, at the very least, bad form.

Unfortunately, the housing market was “plagued by scandal” in the first quarter of 2011.[7] Homeowners and investors filed “numerous lawsuits alleging that big banks misplaced or even faked crucial mortgage documents.” After it was “revealed that companies that processed foreclosures signed thousands of documents daily without even reading them, potentially violating the law, some of the biggest banks temporarily halted their foreclosure proceedings” in the fall of 2010.[8] I suspect, however, that the failure of the underwriters (and compliance folks) is a red herring; most of the sub-prime residential mortgages required no documents proving income or even a job, and many of those mortgage applications contained lies known or even encouraged by the brokers. Not unexpectedly, the brokers and borrowers have differed on whether the latter should be expected to have resisted the, “It’s ok, really. Trust me,” from the “professionals.” In any case, the (in many cases) first-time homeowners were used, and the greed of the mortgage producers was ultimately behind it.

The claim, for example, made by some mortgage brokers and Wall Street securitization arrangers that the borrowers should have somehow known better than to sign low- or no-document subprime mortgages with steep ARM resets of up to double-digit interest rates is more than just disingenuous; the brokers had assured the potential homeowners that the inevitable increase in home equity appreciation from the rising housing market would give them the 20 percent equity stake that was necessary at the time to refinance into a fixed mortgages at a decent, constant interest rate. The brokers did not care whether the borrowers enabling the double commissions could make the higher ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) payments in case they might kick in. One might even say that the system was rigged by the mortgage-producing companies such as Countrywide at the expense of first-time mortgage-borrowers. Preying on the newbies, in other words, could characterize the system’s basis. Of course, such preying is unethical, for it puts others in harm’s way unless the prey should have known better, which I dispute. In short, it was not a fair fight when the harm came as even AAA-rated subprime (i.e., risky) mortgage-based CDOs ruptured in the financial crisis of 2008. 

In conclusion, although Clinton’s goal of putting poor people in their own homes had been laudable, constructing ARM mortgages with resets that low income people could not afford and relying on a rising market to obviate them was a recipe for years of a bear housing market. In other words, the system that the financial world established blocked Clinton’s goal from being sustainable, and thus achieved. Of course, Wall Street was not in the game to do Clinton’s bidding; finance had its own goals, which went on through two terms of George W. Bush in the White House. In retrospect, Clinton should have used government regulation to establish a viable system in sync with the goal rather than allow his henchmen—most notable Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve, Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, and Larry Summers also of the Treasury, to push Congress to keep the CDOs unregulated. In other words, Clinton, in trying to position himself in the political middle, followed Carter in adopting a deregulatory position even as it ultimately rendered his laudable goal unattainable and even reckless.

See Essays on the Financial Crisis and On the Arrogance of False Entitlement, both available at Amazon. 

---

1. Nick Timiraaos and Dawn Wotapka, "Home Market Takes a Tumble," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2011, pp. A1-A2.

2. William Alden, “Home Prices Fall Again in Biggest Drop since 2008,” The Huffington Post, May 9, 2011.

3. Ibid.

4. Nick Timiraaos and Dawn Wotapka, "Home Market Takes a Tumble," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2011, pp. A1-A2.

5. Ibid.

6. William Alden, “Home Prices Fall Again in Biggest Drop since 2008,” The Huffington Post, May 9, 2011.

7. Ibid.

8.Ibid.

The Banks’ Consultants: Guarding the Hen House

Leaving it to consultants hired by mortgage servicers to right the wrongs that the services inflicted on foreclosed homeowners was the unhappy consequence of bank regulators giving ambiguous guidance and failing to install viable oversight mechanisms. According to the Government Accounting Office, “regulators risked not achieving the intended goals of identifying as many harmed borrowers as possible.” Even if the reviews had been completed, there was on guarantee that wronged mortgage borrowers would have received any compensation. On the other side of the ledger, the banks had received billions from the U.S. Treasury with no strings attached. Whether intentional or not, the banking regulators put too much stock in the consultants, who, after all, had been hired by the mortgage servicers."
The report confirms that the Independent Foreclosure Review process was poorly designed and executed," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said. The "report confirms what I had long suspected -– that the OCC’s oversight of the supposedly independent consultants hired by the servicers was severely deficient. The report should serve as a wake-up call.” By referring to the consultants as supposedly independent, Rep. Waters implies in her statement that the flawed review process put the consultants in the position of being able to exploit a conflict of interest.
On the one hand, the flawed oversight means that the consultants were the ones to protect the public interest. The public had to rely on them to correct the wrongs in the interest of the foreclosed. We can label this the consultants’ “public interest” role. The consultants’ other role  was in working for the servicers. As Benjamin Lawsky, the superintendent of New York's Financial Services Department, pointed out, "The monitors are hired by the banks, they're embedded physically at the banks, they are paid by the banks and they depend on the banks for future business." This is the consultants' other role, which can compromise the first role. 
In a conflict of interest, one role can circumvent another, more legitimate role. Even if the conflict is not exploited with the more legitimate role taking the hit, a person or institution in such a position can be reckoned as unethical, according to some scholars. Other scholars argue that only the actual exploitation of the more legitimate role by the other is unethical.
In my view, if exploitation can be seen as a possibility in the relation between two roles, the relation itself is unethical. Put another way, it is unethical to put a person or organization in such a position, even if actual exploitation does not occur. In my view, to create or perpetuate the condition wherein a person or organization can exploit a conflict of interest is unethical.
It follows that the government has a moral responsibility to eliminate the conflicting roles even if they are not being exploited. Furthermore, the person or organization having two such conflicting roles  as can be counted as a conflict of interest is also ethically obliged to pick one role or the other. Often this is not convenient from a short-term financial standpoint, so business practitioners tend to look the other way, rationalized that since no actual exploitation of the conflict of interest has occurred, there are no ethical issues. They are wrong. The mortgage servicers should never have hired consultants to monitor the servicers. This circle itself is problematic, ethically speaking.
The regulators rather than the consultants should have been the key enforcers, and thus protectors of the public interest. The regulators can be faulted not only for their lack of competence, but also ethically in having allowed the conflict of interest to exist.  A business should not be allowed by the regulators to guard the hen house. To permit this to happen is unethical even if no hens are eaten.  


For more on institutional conflicts of interest, see my book, Institutional Conflicts of Interest: Business & Public Policy, available at Amazon.

Sources:

Ben Hallman and Eleazar Melendez, “GAO Foreclosure Report Finds Bank Regulators Failed to Provide ‘Key Oversight’,” The Huffington Post, April 3, 2013.

 Dan Fitzpatrick, "'A Dose of Healthy Competition' For Banking Regulators," The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2013.

Paul Volcker on the Market and Regulation

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, may strike the conventional "wisdom" as an oxymoron regarding the market mechanism and government regulation. I contend that he could  have taught that "wisdom" a lesson or two.

Regarding systemic risk, Volcker has called the perils of institutions that are too large or interconnected to be allowed to fail the greatest structural challenge facing the financial system. In 2011, he said we must shrink the risks these companies pose, “whether by reducing their size, curtailing their interconnections or limiting their activities.” This goes beyond what The New York Times refers to as his “addressing capital requirements (make them tough and enforceable), derivatives (make them more standardized and transparent) and auditors (ensure that they are truly independent by rotating them periodically).” To reduce a large corporation’s size, interconnections, and/or business activities is essentially to say that a company that is too big to fail should not be permitted to continue to exist unless it is downsized. It is not enough, in this view, to increase the capital requirements of a large, $1 trillion plus bank that is too big to fail; the bank itself must shrink. Even though market pressure could lead a bank such as Bank of America to downsize, the market mechanism is not enough; government, according to Volker, should have stepped in after the financial crisis of '08 to make sure the downsizing was adequate even if the market and the banks' CEOs were just fine with the status quo. Essentially, the message at the time was that the market mechanism itself is insufficient to obviate systemic risk. At the same time, Volcker wanted to bolster that mechanism by riding of it of the effects of large players that are guaranteed by government even as they are not controlled by it. 

Regarding Fannie and Freddie, Volcker, who was once a presidential appointee to Fannie’s board said, “A public agency intervening in the mortgage market in a limited way doesn’t bother me. But if you want to subsidize the mortgage market, do it more directly than hiding it in a quasi-private institution.” The very nature of a “quasi-private institution” was abhorrent to him because the profit motive does not go well with being protected on the downside by a government. “You ought to be either public or private; don’t mix up private profit-making opportunities with an institution that is going to be protected by the government but not controlled by it.” Such a mix can be expected to result in distorted incentives, such as unduly risky behavior. Furthermore, the mix enables government officials to hide the government’s potential liability from the guarantee. Referring presumably to Treasury officials, Volcker said, “They didn’t want the mortgage to be a government expenditure. It was a volatile thing to put on the budget. They made the wrong choice.” The choice can be explained by the fact that it followed the path of most convenience, or least resistance, from the standpoint of democratic accountability. Therefore, from both the standpoint of economics and political theory, the private sphere should be clearly distinguished from the public sphere as regards institutions. Volcker was not saying, however, that government ought to stay out of the housing market—only that such involvement should not be mixed with the profit motive.

To be sure, Fannie and Freddie had powerful defenders on Capitol Hill and at the White House in 2011. Extracting the two mortgage guarantors from the housing market would have been an up-hill battle. Concentrated private power of American banks can make use of the U.S. Government's many access-points, moreover, in order to stave off unwanted proposed change. This is also true regarding proposals to regulate mutual funds. “Because they are not subject to reserve requirements and capital requirements,” Volcker observed, “they are a point of vulnerability in the system.” Yet in a letter to the Financial Stability Board, an international organization charged with developing strong regulatory and supervisory policies for financial institutions, the Investment Company Institute said, “We do not believe banklike regulation is appropriate, necessary or workable for funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.” Strangely, Americans have tended to take the rather-obvious positions of such vested interests at face value and accord them validity. Well ok, the conventional wisdom probably concluded, then I guess we shouldn’t regulate mutual funds then. The conflict of interest in the mutual fund industry’s own position regarding regulation ought to have had an immediate effect in relegating the banks' position in the public debate as well as in Congressional offices.

Interestingly, Volcker simultaneously disavowed relying exclusively on the market mechanism (e.g., regulating to minimize systemic risk) and advocated keeping any government involvement in the market from mixing with the profit motive. In other words, he opposed distortions on that motive even as he was not laissez-faire. Because he was fine with a role for the government in the housing market as long as the public sector involvement would not work through an institution’s profit motive, I view him as being closer to the "government regulation" position than the "free market" position. Even so, he should not be pigeon-holed as “free market” or as “big government” because he did not line up with the "purists" on either side. Even as he was for financial regulation, such as the Volcker Rule, he wanted to stress the importance of an "arm’s length distance" between business and government in a market, even that of banking. Theoretically, government can act in its unique way to protect the market itself (i.e., minimize systemic risk by breaking up firms too big to fail and regulating shadow banking) even as the profit motive is protected from government-backed distortion. The rest of us can take a lesson from Volcker’s wisdom. Accordingly, we might want to avoid easy slogans being bandied about on either “side” of the ideological aisle, such as "socialism," "deregulation," and the "free market."

Source:

Gretchen Morgenson, “How Mr. Volcker Would Fix It,” The New York Times, October 22, 2011. 

Wall St. Bonuses and TARP: A Tale of Two Cities

Wall Street profits totaled $21.4 billion during the first three quarters of 2010. The prior year's record of $61.4 billion was fueled by the bailout financed by American taxpayers. Wall Street paid out $20.3 billion in bonuses on the 2009 profits. According to New York City Comptroller John Liu, "The astounding recovery of financial firm profitability in 2009 has been followed by a mixed year in 2010, yet total compensation in the industry is expected to be up modestly once year-end bonuses are paid." Goldman Sachs’ CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein and his top subordinate executives collected about $111.3 million in stock in January 2011. It was a delayed payoff from 2009 and the bank’s record-setting 2007 bonuses, according to a Bloomberg News report. Within a year after the bonuses had been approved, Goldman Sachs took $10 billion from the U.S. Treasury, converted to a bank and was borrowing as much as $35.4 billion a day from Federal Reserve emergency programs, Bloomberg reported. In 2010, the bank paid $550 million to settle U.S. regulators’ fraud charges related to a mortgage-security company sold in 2007.

The full essay is at "Bonuses and TARP."

TARP and Foreclosures: A Matter of Misplaced Priorities

Neil Kashkari wrote up the U.S. Treasury department’s Break the Glass Bank Recapitalization Plan in April, 2008—months before the financial crisis—as a “just in case.” It was essentially the TARP program.  Karshkari states in his plan that governmental purchases of toxic mortgage-based assets would do “nothing to help homeowners without [there being] a complimentary program.” He notes that should there be a crisis, “there would be enormous political pressure” for relief going to homeowners in trouble.  Considering the noted downside to his plan, he may have viewed any such pressure from “the masses” as a problem to be ignored rather than even assuaged.  He also admits in his plan that it would provide “no guarantee banks [would] resume lending.”  It is odd that his was made explicit yet not dealt with.  He does gloss an alternative option (C) that would involve refinancing the troubled mortgages, though he assumes a (needlessly cumbersome) case by case basis and that the servicers would determine which loans to put into the program.  The culprits could opt out to insist on the higher payments. In other words, Kashkari was assuming that the government shouldn’t or couldn’t force the banks to take write-downs.  As a former Goldman Sachs man himself (like his boss at the time, Henry Paulson), Kashkari probably didn’t want to propose anything that the bankers wouldn’t view as being in their interest.

The full essay is at "Essays on the Financial Crisis."