On Looting
Now that we own their sponsor, U.S. taxpayers should get a free Man U jersey with income tax payment. Or we should be able to have Rooney punch a banker. Either way.
Does listening to pundits discuss he financial crisis make your head spin, leaving you both angry and confused? Do you know that something in the discussion is just not right... in an Orwellian sense? Do you feel like you're watching the aftermath of the largest theft in the history of the world?
If so, you're not alone... and you're right to feel this way.
In the early nineties, a pair of economists classified the behavior that led to this debacle, described the environment that would make such behavior likely, and suggested that it would happen again as the natural result of that environment.
Sixteen years ago, two economists published a research paper with a delightfully simple title: “Looting.”
The economists were George Akerlof, who would later win a Nobel Prize, and Paul Romer, the renowned expert on economic growth. In the paper, they argued that . . . investors had borrowed huge amounts of money, made big profits when times were good and then left the government holding the bag for their eventual (and predictable) losses.
In a word, the investors looted. Someone trying to make an honest profit, Professors Akerlof and Romer said, would have operated in a completely different manner. The investors displayed a “total disregard for even the most basic principles of lending,” failing to verify standard information about their borrowers or, in some cases, even to ask for that information.
The investors “acted as if future losses were somebody else’s problem,” the economists wrote. “They were right.”
[Emphasis added.] Sound familiar?
On certain low-documentation loan programs, such as stated income/stated asset (SISA) loans, income and assets are simply stated on the loan application. On other loan programs, such as no income/no asset (NINA) loans, no income and assets are given on the loan application form. These loan programs open the door for unethical behavior by unscrupulous borrowers and lenders.These loan programs are designed for borrowers who have a hard time producing income and asset verifying documents, such as prior tax returns, or who have untraditional sources of income, such as tips, or a personal business. These loans are called liar loans because the SISA or NINA features open the door for abuse when borrowers or their mortgage brokers or loan officers overstate income and/or assets in order to qualify the borrower for a larger mortgage.
For more on how these loans were abused by lenders, see this Washington Post article from 2007. (And if you have more time, devote an hour to listen to "The Giant Pool of Money," a fantastic report by This American Life.)
So what about the idea that a lot of smart people just made innocent mistakes, or that this is a systemic problem that no one could have predicted? Looting is not just an error in judgment, but knowing, self-interested behavior.
The term that’s used to describe this general problem, of course, is moral hazard. When people are protected from the consequences of risky behavior, they behave in a pretty risky fashion. Bankers can make long-shot investments, knowing that they will keep the profits if they succeed, while the taxpayers will cover the losses.
[The distinction between moral hazard and looting is an important one.]
With moral hazard, bankers are making real wagers. If those wagers pay off, the government has no role in the transaction. With looting, the government’s involvement is crucial to the whole enterprise.
Knowing that their financial institutions were too big too fail, bankers made choices that were only rational in an environment where personal gains were all that mattered, and where a government bailout was seen as inevitable. The government was the escape route, the getaway driver... and the thieves got away scot free.
We should be angry. We've been robbed.
$700 Billion Was Only The Beginning
The shirt Geithner should wear for his first day on the job.
Even before word came on Tuesday that Citigroup might split into pieces to shore up its finances, an unpleasant message was moving through Congress and President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team: the banks need more taxpayer money.In all likelihood, a lot more money. . . .
On Tuesday, Mr. Bernanke publicly made the case that one of the most unpopular and most scorned programs in Washington — the $700 billion bailout program — needs to pour hundreds of billions more into the very banks and financial institutions that already received federal money and caused much of the credit crisis in the first place.
The most glaring example that the banking system needs even more help is Citigroup. Though it already has received $45 billion from the Treasury, it is in such dire straits that it is breaking itself into parts. . . .
Industry analysts estimate rising unemployment and business failures will lead to another $500 billion to $750 billion of losses in coming months. That could bring total losses from the credit crisis to $1.5 trillion to $1.8 trillion, twice as high as earlier estimates.
Citigroup is not alone. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and most other big banks all expect enormous losses as millions of consumers default on their mortgages, credit cards and automobile loans. Other losses are expected on loans made to commercial real estate developers, small businesses and for highly leveraged corporate buyout deals.
Most egregious of these is Bank of America, who already absored Merrill Lynch and received $25 billion from the Treasury via the TARP and then acquired Merrill Lynch. BoA is now "seeking billions more to shore up its balance sheet as it struggles with mounting losses at Merrill Lynch." As a reddit poster notes, this is equivalent to the South Park Underpants Gnomes' [brilliant] synopsis of the moronic dotcom business model:
- Step 1: Bank of America needs and gets bailout money.
- Step 2: Flush with cash, BOA buys Merrill Lynch.
- Step 3: ? ? ?
- Step 4: Bank of America needs more bailout money.
The government’s willingness to feed Bank of America a new tranche of taxpayer money comes on the heels of greater federal intervention in Citigroup. After pumping more than $45 billion in Treasury money onto its balance sheet, the government has put pressure on Citigroup to dismantle its troubled empire in an effort to stop losses and curb capital injections. . . .
[Still,] “Citi is being unwound because it’s too big and the government wants it smaller,” said Paul Miller, an analyst with Friedman Billings Ramsey. “I think Bank of America, either a year or two out, is going to be dismantled also because its returns are going to be too weak. No management has the expertise or brain power to provide the right required return for investors with institutions that are this size.”
Brace yourselves -- this recession (depression?) is just getting warmed up.