by Calculated Risk on 9/13/2009 11:22:00 PM

Stephen Mihm at the Boston Globe looks at Hyman Minsky: Why capitalism fails

Amid the hand-wringing ... a few ... commentators started to speak about the arrival of a “Minsky moment,” ... shorthand for Hyman Minsky, a hitherto obscure macroeconomist who died over a decade ago.
...
In recent months Minsky’s star has only risen. Nobel Prize-winning economists talk about incorporating his insights, and copies of his books are back in print and selling well. He’s gone from being a nearly forgotten figure to a key player in the debate over how to fix the financial system.

But if Minsky was as right as he seems to have been, the news is not exactly encouraging. He believed in capitalism, but also believed it had almost a genetic weakness. Modern finance, he argued, was far from the stabilizing force that mainstream economics portrayed: rather, it was a system that created the illusion of stability while simultaneously creating the conditions for an inevitable and dramatic collapse.

In other words, the one person who foresaw the crisis also believed that our whole financial system contains the seeds of its own destruction. “Instability,” he wrote, “is an inherent and inescapable flaw of capitalism.”

Minsky’s vision might have been dark, but he was not a fatalist; he believed it was possible to craft policies that could blunt the collateral damage caused by financial crises. But with a growing number of economists eager to declare the recession over, and the crisis itself apparently behind us, these policies may prove as discomforting as the theories that prompted them in the first place. Indeed, as economists re-embrace Minsky’s prophetic insights, it is far from clear that they’re ready to reckon with the full implications of what he saw.

An interesting overview of Minsky. And this sure sounds like the recent credit bubble:

As people forget that failure is a possibility, a “euphoric economy” eventually develops, fueled by the rise of far riskier borrowers - what [Minsky] called speculative borrowers, those whose income would cover interest payments but not the principal; and those he called “Ponzi borrowers,” those whose income could cover neither, and could only pay their bills by borrowing still further. As these latter categories grew, the overall economy would shift from a conservative but profitable environment to a much more freewheeling system dominated by players whose survival depended not on sound business plans, but on borrowed money and freely available credit.

And since the failure of many economists to see the coming crisis is being widely discussed, here is a quote from Minsky on macroeconomics:

“There is nothing wrong with macroeconomics that another depression [won’t] cure."

by Calculated Risk on 9/13/2009 06:49:00 PM

From Bloomberg: Stiglitz Says Banking Problems Are Now Bigger Than Pre-Lehman (ht Ron Wallstreetpit)

... “In the U.S. and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger,” [Joseph] Stiglitz said in an interview today in Paris. “The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis.”
...
“It’s an outrage,” especially “in the U.S. where we poured so much money into the banks,” Stiglitz said. “The administration seems very reluctant to do what is necessary. Yes they’ll do something, the question is: Will they do as much as required?”

And on the economy:

"We’re going into an extended period of weak economy, of economic malaise,” Stiglitz said. The U.S. will “grow but not enough to offset the increase in the population,” he said, adding that “if workers do not have income, it’s very hard to see how the U.S. will generate the demand that the world economy needs.”

The Federal Reserve faces a “quandary” in ending its monetary stimulus programs because doing so may drive up the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government, he said.

“The question then is who is going to finance the U.S. government,” Stiglitz said.

Stiglitz also wrote a comment in the Financial Times: Towards a better measure of well-being and I think this comment is very important:

Too often, we confuse ends with means. ... a financial sector is a means to a more productive economy, not an end in itself.
excerpted with permission

by Calculated Risk on 9/13/2009 01:11:00 PM

Kenneth Harney discusses the credit impact of various mortgage choices: Mortgage problems are walloping Americans' credit scores

For example, loan modifications that roll late payments and penalties into the principal debt owed on the house can actually increase borrowers' scores modestly. Refinancings of underwater, negative-equity mortgages ... may have little or no negative effect on scores ...

However:

... short sales can trigger big drops in credit scores. ... strategic defaults [lead to even larger credit hits] "plus negative marks on their credit bureau files for as long as seven years." ... People who file for bankruptcy protection covering all their debts (mortgage, credit cards, auto loans, etc.) will get hit [the hardest]. Bankruptcies remain on borrowers' credit bureau files for 10 years.

Harney has some data on the sharp overall decline in credit scores.

Most of these changes -- fewer people with excellent credit, more people in the lowest brackets -- have been caused by late payments on home mortgages, serious delinquencies, short sales and foreclosures ...

One of the tragedies of the housing / credit bubble was that many people bought homes before they were financially ready - or bought homes they could not afford. Now many of these people will be soured on the home buying experience, and their credit scarred for years.

And there will also be another group of people who make their payments, and keep their "excellent" credit scores, but will be stuck with their underwater homes for years.

by Calculated Risk on 9/13/2009 10:30:00 AM

The "everyone was doing it" excuse ...

“Yes, we spent too much money. Of course we made mistakes. We made the same mistakes that everyone else has made across the country,’’
Roland Fahnbulleh Jr., [a Pequot tribal member].

From the Boston Globe: The wonder, and the fall (ht Lisa)

... casinos rode the wave of easy credit to success in the years leading up to the recession, and Foxwoods was no exception. The Pequots, who had to go to Malaysia to fund the initial $60 million casino because no one else would lend to them, soon had banks lining up with loan offers as Foxwoods raked in customers - and their cash. The tribe quickly expanded the resort, adding hotels, restaurants, and shops to the complex, which now stands at 4.7 million square feet, nearly 20 times its original size. The Pequots also spent big to acquire nearby businesses and invest in other industries, such as shipbuilding -an expensive effort that later flopped.
...
But by the time the MGM Grand at Foxwoods debuted in May 2008, the recession was well underway, and gambling receipts were dipping sharply nationwide. ... Now, the shimmering tower stands as a symbol of excess, with unbooked rooms, empty stores, and a sparsely populated gaming floor.

This has some interesting twists because many of the employees are members of the tribe and have lost their jobs. Plus there are payouts to the tribe members ... but the rapid expansion, with too much debt, are common stories.

by Calculated Risk on 9/12/2009 10:56:00 PM

From Bloomberg: Fed Failed to Curb Flawed Bank Lending, Inspector General Says (ht Stephen, others)

Federal Reserve examiners failed to rein in practices that led to losses from excessive real estate lending at two banks in California and Florida that later closed, the central bank’s inspector general said.

Riverside Bank of the Gulf Coast in Cape Coral, Florida, “warranted more immediate supervisory attention” by the Atlanta district bank, Fed Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman said in a report to the central bank’s board. In overseeing County Bank in Merced, California, the San Francisco Fed should have taken a “more aggressive supervisory” approach, Coleman said in another report, also dated Sept. 9.

Riverside Bank was closed in February 2009 by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. The FDIC DIF is estimated to have lost $201.5 million from the failure of Riverside, or about 38.5% of assets (not an unusually high loss percentage in this cycle, see this sortable table).

Here is the report from the Inspector General: Material Loss Review of Riverside Bank of the Gulf Coast

Inspector General Coleman suggested that there should have been "more immediate supervisory attention" in 2007.

Based on our analysis of Riverside-Gulf Coast’s supervision, we believe that emerging problems observed during a 2007 visitation provided FRB Atlanta with an opportunity for a more aggressive supervisory response. Specifically, FRB Atlanta noted a significant decline in the local residential housing market and observed that new appraisals indicated that the value of certain collateral, particularly developed lots ready for construction, declined by as much as 70 percent. In addition, examiners observed that Riverside-Gulf Coast could no longer sell mortgages in the secondary market and, therefore, would be required to hold and service these loans.

"Emerging problems" in 2007? I strongly believe that action should have been taken much sooner - at least by 2005 - because of 1) concerns about the housing market, and 2) the concentration of loans in residential real estate. From the report:

Historically, Riverside-Gulf Coast focused on growth through real estate lending in its local service area, a business strategy that created concentrations in both the type of loans and the geographic location. In general, local real estate concentrations increase a financial institution’s vulnerability to cyclical changes in the local market place and may elevate a bank’s safety and soundness risk. Examiners noted that Riverside-Gulf Coast experienced rapid growth during its first six years when the bank’s total assets grew approximately 40 percent annually, to $275 million as of December 31, 2003.
...
Riverside-Gulf Coast’s concentration in real estate loans ranged between 92 and 98 percent of total loans during 2003 to 2008. The bank’s real estate portfolio included traditional one-to-four family mortgages and home equity lines of credit. In addition, a substantial number of Riverside-Gulf Coast’s real estate loans, such as those for residential construction, were categorized as CRE because repayment was dependent on the rental income, sale, or refinancing of the underlying collateral.
emphasis added

The signs of excessive risk were apparent in 2003 to 2005. The Fed is aware of the risks, especially of a high growth strategy with a high loan type concentration. If the regulator was unable to step in sooner and evaluate the risk, then the regulatory process is flawed - and the regulator has already failed. It was too late by 2007.

The inability of the Federal Reserve and the Inspector General to recognize the need for tighter supervision in 2005 or earlier is a serious oversight failure.