Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Socialising risk, privatising rewards

By Jonathan J. Ariel - posted Tuesday, 7 October 2008


It turned out that many of these financial promises weren't worth the fancy paper they were written on. Reich asserts that while the subprime mess triggered the collapse of trust, financial markets were in danger of such a free fall even before mortgage-backed loans were shown to be worth far less than anyone assumed. That's because when the market was roaring a few years back, so many financial players were clueless as to what they were buying or selling. Even worse, they didn't care a hoot, as long as they were reeling in the cash.

A suite of financial instruments, such as complex derivatives and collateralised debt obligations erected a mirage of solid value. But it was just a mirage. These securities had sweet little behind them.

The leverage some financial institutions took on board seemed to have no limits. Lehman Brothers, for example, started this year with a gearing ratio of 30:1. Imagine that. Imagine rolling up to your home mortgage provider and stumping up a $100,000 deposit, to be offered a $3m loan. Now that’s my kind of home loan.

Advertisement

Why the former Labor Secretary should even enter the debate on the housing originated sub prime fiasco - given his party’s fingerprints all over the mess in the first place - is incomprehensible.

Since the mid 1990s, Democrats, both in the Clinton White House as well as in Congress, fought tooth and nail against major reforms to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under closer financial supervision.

A bit of history is in order.

The Democrats lit the sub prime fuse by railroading lenders to spoon out cash to people who could not possibly qualify for a home loan. This came into being via the irresponsible modifications to the Community Reinvestment Act. While President Bill Clinton was not unzipping his trousers for Ms Monica Lewinsky, he applied pressure to US financial institutions to lend to minorities and those in poor neighbourhoods, in a misguided effort to increase home ownership in United States.

One of Clinton’s more appalling changes to the Act was giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5 per cent of capital to back their investments, versus 10 per cent for banks.

The Democrats, under Bill Clinton’s Secretary for Housing and Urban Development, Mr Andrew Cuomo (the youngest such secretary in history), made several ignorant and partisan decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the current financial crisis.

Advertisement

Cuomo took actions that helped plunge Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the subprime markets while disallowing the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with shoot-the-moon loan ceilings that required no money down, in time making it a major lender to minorities (code for blacks and Hispanics who earn little, have poor credit histories, but vote Democrat).

The Democrat-manufactured current mortgage crisis involved strong-arming home loan providers to lend with no-doc provisions. Low-doc would have been a godsend in comparison. There was no verification of income. No verification of assets. Little assurance of the ability to pay the mortgage and little or no down payment.

So, with rules like these, who wouldn’t expect that in time, something unpleasant would hit the fan?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jonathan J. Ariel is an economist and financial analyst. He holds a MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management. He can be contacted at jonathan@chinamail.com.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jonathan J. Ariel

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Jonathan J. Ariel
Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy