TNR BLOGS

September 06, 2008 | 4:31 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:43 PM
September 05, 2008 | 8:32 PM

September 05, 2008 | 2:53 PM
September 05, 2008 | 3:45 AM
September 05, 2008 | 12:25 AM

September 06, 2008 | 3:14 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:10 PM
September 05, 2008 | 4:28 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

September 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
September 03, 2008 | 1:01 PM
September 02, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.07.2008
"Why No Outrage?"

James Grant is about as serious and as honest a financial commentator as there is on the American scene. His Grant's Interest Rate Observer, not a publication written for just plain you and me, is read by just about everybody I take seriously on Wall Street. He is a free marketeer not a government interventionist. But he does wonder why the politicians and the newspapers and the public have been so quiescent in the wake of what he sees as a true economic calamity--one that is far from over.

In a nutshell, "America's 21st century financial victims make no protest against the Federal Reserve's policy of showering dollars on the people who would seem to need them least." In a long article in the weekend Wall Street Journal, “Why No Outrage,” makes the argument that there plenty to be outraged about. "Have we, too, not suffered at the hands of what used to be called The Interests? Have the stewards of other people's money not made a hash of high finance? Did they not enrich themselves in boom times, only to pass the cup to us, the taxpayers, in the bust? Where is the people's wrath?” This is not usual WSJ lingo.

"Now began one of the wildest chapters in the history of lending and borrowing. In flush times, our financiers seemingly compete to do the craziest deal. They borrow to the eyes and pay themselves lordly 
bonuses.  Naturally--eventually--they drive themselves, and the economy into a crisis. And to the scene of this inevitable accident rush the government's first responders--the Fed, the Treasury, or the government-sponsored enterprises--bearing the people's money. One might suppose that such a recurrent chain of blunders would gall a politically potent segment of the population. That it has evidently failed to do so in 2008 may be the only unreported fact of this otherwise compulsively documented election season."

Here is Grant's devastating "catalogue of the misdeeds of 21st century Wall Street: the willful pretended ignorance over the triple-A ratings lavished on the flimsy contraptions of structured mortgage finance: the subsequent foreclosure blight; the refusal of Wall Street to honor its implied obligations to the holders of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of auction-rate securities, the auctions of which have stopped in their tracks; the government's attempt to prohibit short sales of the guilty institutions; and--not least--Wall Street's reckless love affair with heavy borrowing."

Yes, remember, this James Grant in The Wall Street Journal.

Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:06 PM with 24 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

dashendorf said:

Our society has accepted "Capitalism for Gains, Socialism for Losses."

July 20, 2008 3:27 PM

psantillana said:

You're right, dashendorf, but why? I don't understand why anyone is ok with the bailout of Bear Stearns, especially those who are not ok with the partial bailout of some of the foreclosed-upon.

But one thing that is happening at least - class action lawsuits against Charles Schwab and the others, by their customers whose investments tanked, because Schwab did take a totally unreasonable risk, and their customers paid for it. But I don't think taxpayers should then finance the judgment against Shwab.

And good for the wsj.

July 20, 2008 3:47 PM

roidubouloi said:

One reason that made the "bail-out" of Bear acceptable was that the value realized by the Bear shareholders was taken down pretty close to zero.  They more or less took themselves hostage, getting a pretty low payout in order to go away quietly and facilitate the acquisition by Morgan so that creditors and creditors of creditors would not be damaged, with possible far-reaching consequences.  A bail-out model in which the shareholders get little or nothing in turn for surrendering their equity peaceably is not such a bad thing, particularly if the people in charge are not sheltered from liability in any way.  

The problem with the Fannie and Freddie bail-out talk is that there is no indication that the shareholders are going to be more or less wiped out, which is the punishment that a legitimate capitalism demands for mismanagement and necessary if there is going to be any marketplace discipline.  If the stock goes up upon the "news" of a prospective bail-out, something is wrong, the taxpayers are being screwed.  I believe that in the case of Bear the stock declined on the news, which is what should happen -- the recognition that the company is finished and all that will be realized is a minimal salvage value.

The fact that the price rose for the stocks of the financial institutions protected from short-selling by the Feds is similarly not a good sign.  If the purpose was only to prevent a financial panic that took one or more of them apart, okay.  But if the Feds are going to start pumping up stock prices above the market consensus, then there will be worse disasters to follow.

What is lacking is a good mechanism in this country for a "liquidation in place" that would allow essential companies quickly to be re-capitalized as going concerns while getting rid of existing shareholders.  That would better protect the public while retaining sufficient market sanction for excessive risk taking to keep the cowboys honest.  Restoring the balance of bankruptcy law to inhibit lenders from excessive risk in consumer lending would also have a huge salutory effect.

Finally, we ought to acknowledge candidly the role of the Federal government in creating these bubbles.  If you give consumers more money without increasing the supply of goods and services for them to buy, you get inflation.  Demented "supply-side" policies of the current administration have fueled massive trade deficits to finance budget deficits and have also placed far too much liquidity in the hands of the investor class (including the foreigners from whom we import all that stuff) with the predictable and inevitable result of fueling bubbles in one or more investment classes.  Real capital couldn't be expected to grow nearly fast enough to absorb the liquidity created by the wacko Bush tax cuts.  Hence, the prices of investment assets get bid up to ridiculous levels.  When you have dumb and dumber running the country, this is what you get.  

That consumers and not investors should be punished for this is simply outrageous.  Where's the outrage?  Here for one.

July 20, 2008 4:05 PM

tomeg said:

I wish somebody would publish a good tell-all on Greenspan, who yawned through bubble upon bubble. He wasn't responsible for creating crises, but he sure didn't give a damn about the little guy.

July 20, 2008 4:54 PM

mmathog said:

I was gonna tomeg, but this dude beat me to it:

www.amazon.com/.../ref=pd_bbs_sr_2

Besides the utter destruction of Greenspan's reputation, Ronald Reagan is now finally competely dead and buried.

July 20, 2008 5:30 PM

jacksondyer said:

"... Ronald Reagan is now finally competely dead and buried."

One can only hope, but like news of Mark Twain's demise news of Raeganism's demise is a bit premature.

""Why No Outrage?"

The answer is pretty simple; libertarians of all political parties have so befuddles the issues that it's almost impossible for the average person to know what is going on much less whom they should blame.

As usual they’ll end up blaming the wrong people, starting with themselves. ('It's my fault since I signed the mortage deal,' etc.)

July 20, 2008 6:15 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Great post Marty.

Good to see a non economic journalist take an opinion on this. There's far too much cowardice out there from the mainstream opinion makers on such an all engulfing subject.

Why no outrage is a big question. It tells a tale about how terrified people feel,  expressing their opinion, because it's too complicated, too complex and better left to the experts. The experts created this casino.  The issue isn't that complex, Credit Default Swaps are like every other exotic financial instrument - they can be easily explained to the general public with a bit of jargon free common sense.

It's very encouraging to see such thoughts in the WSJ.

Roi - not sure how you can compare and contrast Fannie and friends with Bear Sterns, completely different and non-equivalent, I would have thought.

July 20, 2008 7:12 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Pardon my simpleton response to all this delicious high dungeon, but aren't Fannie and Freddie fully liquid and then some as we speak - and always have been?  

That is always mentioned in passing somewhere in the analysis, even in those hysterical NYT cover stories.  To me it just seems like Paulson being Paulson - a ideological dufus out of his league.  He wasn't ever clear on exactly what he was announcing in the first place.

July 20, 2008 7:45 PM

nbarry said:

Said President Truman, "An expert is someone who's afraid of anything new, because then he wouldn't be an expert anymore."

July 20, 2008 9:16 PM

guptatomic1 said:

Um, wandrey, no offense -- your political commentary, candor, and humor are greatly appreciated.  But you're making Marty's point perfectly clear:  Freddie and Fannie are NOT perfectly liquid; by modern accounting standards they are INSOLVENT.  Maybe you don't like Paulson, or you instinctively don't like any Shrub admin official, or maybe you're confusing him with Snow, who was moronus supremus -- but you don't rise up the ranks at Goldman Sachs being a doofus.  And if you don't trust Paulson, go back through the media to see what Bernanke had to say in front of Congress last week -- it's really, really bad, it's going to get worse, and you and I are the ones who are going to pay.  Mightily.

Marty, why are you the only person at TNR covering this?  At all?  People get on you for your Ahabisms, and I'll admit to finding your obsessions tiresome at times (even when they overlap with my own), but in this case, you're the only one saying ANYTHING.  There's your reason.  The economy is going straight to the crapper in slo-mo -- I mean, the US government last week basically picked up an additional 5 TRILLION DOLLARS of debt -- but all any media outlets are covering is some cartoon in the New Yorker.  Peeps, I was sick of this election 4 months ago -- can we please drop the pretense that there's any real drama here?  Obama will win, he will win big.  Meanwhile, we're likely facing the worst economic/financial wreck in the last 70 years.  Marty, can you call Frank Foer in and tell him it's time to write a book about how soccer's poor reception in the United States represents our economic downfall?  Or at least some intelligent articles about what's going on, and what steps President Obama will have to take to clean up the mess?  Until people are informed, there won't be any outrage.

July 20, 2008 9:24 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Thank you for your very kind words gupta and OK, point taken about Goldman and Paulson (I still think he's oddly vague and unreassuring in the spotlight, confused - and come on, he's one of those Bush people made guys.  Some of them might be competent, but I can't be blamed for mistrusting the genre.  I do like Bernake alot, he makes me feel like I'm in good, if angst ridden, hands.  But what's with the insolvent thing with Fannie and Freddie?  I just don't get it, like I said - I always hear that in the end they are liquid - that's minus Uncle Paulson.  What exactly is he saying in those press conferences anyway?  Is there imminent doom or NOT?  He just isn't clear and neither are our excitable friends in the media.  Lehman looks much shakier and lets not even talk about what lurks in Citbanks books (shiver).

I am glad that Marty mentioned this, we need smart un-financials paying attention and giving their input, God knows all I do is read the paper.  He's on to something too - maybe there isn't more outrage because the whole thing is so fuzzy on exactly what the state of those companies are.  I like my outrage as mch as the next bleeding heart corporate basher, but my ques need to be a bit more readable.

I hope you are right about Obama, but I worry for the guy.  If he's skinny from stress now, imagine his skeletal frame once Citibank's bills come due.  

July 20, 2008 10:37 PM

guptatomic1 said:

So here's the deal.  Fannie and Freddie both have HUGE debt loads.  Now, if they were traditional banks, they would be required to keep a fairly substantial amount of cash on hand in case of potential losses.  In fact, that's the problem companies like Citi, Lehman, and Merrill (not to mention WashMu, Wachovia, BAC, etc, etc, etc) are currently facing:  as the housing market deteriorates, they're forced to write down more and more good debt as bad, which in turn forces them to raise more money, either by turning to the Gulf States and Singapore (in the first round) or, now, selling off major assets and cutting dividends.  It's not that they need the money to PAY the debts, they just need (they're legally required) to have a cash cushion in case things deteriorate further.  However, Fannie and Freddie get a free ride, because they're not exactly banks.  Moreover, because they're public companies whose CEO's get big money bonuses, they've kept very little cash on hand.  To the point that they now essentially have less money on hand, and less prospects for making money, than they have debt.  Which makes them insolvent.

What do companies do when they're insolvent?  They try to raise more money, either by issuing bonds for new debt or by issuing stock.  In most cases, when the situation is as bad as at Freddie and Fannie, they can't do that.  Because, oddly, people in high-stakes finance are not dumb, and will not throw good money after bad.  The situation had gotten to a point where, last Monday, there was a serious fear that the two wouldn't be able to sell $3 billn in new debt.  If they hadn't gotten that money, they probably would have had severe cash flow issues and soon gone under.

In step Paulson and Bernanke, w/ the US taxpayer right behind them!  Lo and behold!  That whole thing where for years and years the US government said Fannie and Freddie were NOT federal enterprises and their debt was NOT backed by the US government -- not true!!!  Suddenly, the Treasury department and the FED will lend money at discount rates to this private company!  What's more, if confidence in Fannie and Freddie deteriorate any further, the US Treasury will itself step in and BUY SHARES in these PRIVATE COMPANIES.

Look, the whole point was to restore market confidence and make sure Freddie and Fannie got that $3 billn, hook or crook.  Frankly, these companies CANNOT be allowed to fail:  the implication is global depression.  But together they have over $5 TRILLN in debt, and, if the situation deteriorates further (which it will:  take a look at graphs of housing prices corrected for inflation -- Krugman had some up last week -- the bubble will take 2 more yrs to deflate), then Paulson and company have just committed the US government to backing the debt.  Explicitly.  This is bad, and all the recent action did was put a littel band-aid on, keeping things quiet for now:  it will get much, much worse, and the total cost when all is said and done will be HUGE.  dashendorf said it best up top.

Meanwhile, not to raise a sore subject w/ you wandrey, but this is why I thought Hilary was the better choice for November.  Not -- again -- that I think Obama stands more than the slightest chance of losing, and not that I'm disappointed to see her on the sidelines.  I still would have preferred Gore to run.  But I think having a Clinton run in a time of dramatic economic upheaval would have been a total slam dunk -- say what you will about them, but the one thing people remember about the 90s is that, economically, it was good times.  I think Obama can do the whole "feel-your-pain" shtick fine, but I haven't heard anything from him (or his advisors, or any of the pundits, or any of the whole goddamn worthless MSM media class) about what reforms/policies he would put in place to face what is very likely to be a very painful first couple years in office.

July 20, 2008 11:47 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"Why No Outrage?"

1. Both parties' candidates are so beholden to the 2-and-20 scammers aka Hedge Hogs for campaign contributions that neither can even contemplate telling these parasites to f--- off. They're literally bought and paid for. Even when Obama raises gazillions over the ether from small donors, eh still refuses to tell his fund manager donors to stuff it.

2. Upon retirement from politics each parties' pols immediately seek gigs with either lobbying firms or investment funds/banks. Cf Marty's #1 Son, Al Gore, who along with Colin Powell is a general partner of the reigning Silicon Valley VC, Kleiner Perkins. KP actually makes money off its carry but the vast majority of these firms make little to zip in the way of carried interest ie performance-driven fees; they make money mainly for showing up, ie, the 2% management fee. Which is where most of our pols, from Edwards to Clinton and beyond, make their post-politics gazillions.

3. Related to #1 and #2, our political class is so divorced from the concerns from ordinary working families ie people who draw a paycheck every other week, that they literally have no grasp of the impact of the shift Grant refers to, ie from a 4.65%  to a 2.35% savings rate on savings instruments. They're focused on their share of the 2% of assets under management.

All of the above underscore why I continue to assert that on issues that affect working families, there is functionally no difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. One spouts all manner of identity politics nonsense, the other fundie flat earth nonsense, and neither has any serious program to alleviate the sources of instability and insecurity in American lives ie the insane linkage of health insurance to employment, the atrocious schools, the bread-and-circus sh*t credit sh*t wage consumer culture, the equally insane importation of some 20 million illiterate campesinos (while we place hurdle after hurdle in the way of the world's best and brightest would-be immigrants)....

Wonder Boy refuses to criticize the Hedge Hogs, won't address the importation of an underclass immigration debacle, won't stand up for UHC. Why is this guy the nominee of the Party of the Working Man, again?

July 21, 2008 12:43 AM

teplukhin2you said:

gupta - "I haven't heard anything from [Obama] (or his advisors, or any of the pundits, or any of the whole goddamn worthless MSM media class) about what reforms/policies he would put in place to face what is very likely to be a very painful first couple years in office."

That's because he's never, in his entire career, paid much attention to those core issues addressed with such clarity by Ji Grant and his Interst Rate Observer" publication. Obama was a "community activist" and a Con Law prof. He's never shown any interest in matters of wealth creation, financial markets, taxation, spending vs saving and investment etc. He doesn't know what to do and wouldn't show much guts even if he did know what to do.

July 21, 2008 12:47 AM

ndmackenzie said:

teplukhin writes:

-- there is functionally no difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee

I think Ralph Nader tried that line in the 2000 election and look where it got us.

July 21, 2008 4:31 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Right Tep - More Tep's Tired Theory of Everything Everywhere Points to Obama's Lameness.  Yes, Bill's scintillating experience as Governor of the second poorest state in the nation had him studying high finance daily in his career -  I hear something like starting the DLC usually has many seminars on high finance as well as I recall.  

Like Obama will do, Clinton surrounded himself with smart finance people during his campaign and came up with the Plan - he certainly had more time to do so than Obama does, who has just a tad few more problems on his mind than Bill did, not to take away from Our Bill  - who was one of our best Presidents ever.

Obama needs the right plan for our times, which are very very different.  George HW Bush was Thomas Jefferson meets Alexander Hamilton compared to his disaster son. Who would have thought I'd say Bush 1 left Bill Clinton with a much stronger economy and country than his ideologically driven, dipshit of a son will leave Obama?

As far as  Hillary - Well, this campaign wasn't Bill Clinton running circa 1991, smartly taking every word Robert Rubin said to heart.  Odd that I even have to say this and I know people forget this detail, but Bill was not on he ticket and thirty year Treasuries are not the answer to all our problems anymore.  

Yes, in a generic sense people remember the economic strength of the 90's and Bill deserve 100% of the credit for it.  I defend Bill Clinton's brilliant economic record constantly.  I will stand by my argument that the Deficit Reduction Package of 1991 was he spark that set off the internet boom in the first place until I die.  Bill was brilliant.  Hillary?  She'd have access to those people yes and I do respect her intelligence and experience a great deal, but she's one of the worst politicians I have ever seen and has no more say on financial knowledge than Obama.  And Obama is a brilliant politician to boot.  No contest in my mind.

Hillary Clinton, with alll her strengths (she kicks Bill's rump on all things military for example, I'd like to see her as Sec Def)  is not Bill Clinton in any way shape for form and that whole nebulous set up was a recipe for disaster.

July 21, 2008 7:48 AM

guptatomic1 said:

wandrey, all things said you're probably right:  especially about Obama as a politician.  But someone, be it him or McCain, needs to start making an issue of the economy now.  It will be really big come November.

As for HRC as SecDef...  I'm trying to see it, she'd be a great administrator and I'm really trying to see it...  But aaaaahhhh!!!  Suddenly I'm flooded in a wave of vicious RWC attacks -- probably worse than if she were Pres or Veep.  God help a President trying to establish his machismo and experience credentials if he made this move.  Esp if Sam Nunn is available.  To quote Amy Winehouse:  No, no, no...

July 21, 2008 8:24 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I'm telling you gupta, the brass loves her!  An open secret!

July 21, 2008 8:36 AM

guptatomic1 said:

The New Yorker's been cribbing:

www.newyorker.com/.../080728taco_talk_cassidy

July 21, 2008 8:47 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Too rich - no pun intended. Ah yes, the glories of unfettered capitalism, we all pay anyay.  I guess we doubled up on Bush 1's Savings and Loans crisis.  Everything twice as bad under the son.  So predictable, ideology kills.

July 21, 2008 9:33 AM

roidubouloi said:

IP,

The implications of a Fannie/Freddie failure are a lot bigger than Bear Stearns to be sure, but that is absolutely no reason why the equityholders of Fannie/Freddie should fare any better.  If we really do reach the point where gains are private and losses are public, the nature of the risks that "private capital" will take will show no restraint whatsoever to the detriment of all.

When private firms fail, the shareholders are supposed to take the hit.  There are other reasons why we have a public interest in protecting creditors of certain firms and their ability to continue to maintain liquidity in credit markets that are essential to the economy and, if permitted to collapse, could do so with broad devastating effects.  One of the things I suggested above is that we need better mechanisms for wiping out shareholder equity while maintaining important firms as going concerns and re-capitalizing them "on the fly."  The current method of bankruptcy reorganization does this, but very poorly in cases where there is a large public interest in continuity.  A recap on the fly is essentially what the Fed brokered for Bear Stearns with Morgan Stanley as the buyer of the recapitalized entity.  It was neatly done at little apparent cost to the taxpayers.

It is in all cases completely completely unnecessary to rescue the equity of the shareholders in order to protect creditors, and it is counter-productive to do so as then shareholders get the message that they need not manage risk properly.

July 21, 2008 1:22 PM

butchie b said:

I seldom agree with roi, but this is one of those times.  Freddie and Fannie cannot fail - they are sinply too big and too intertwined with the rest of the economy.  But their shareholders can by God lose most of their cash.  As noted, there is a real moral hazard created by letting everyone off the hook.  A haircut needs to be taken, and maybe Franklin Raines needs to give some of his millions back.

July 21, 2008 1:37 PM

roidubouloi said:

Sorry butchie.  I hope the experience isn't too painful. :-)

July 21, 2008 3:32 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

I was thinking more in terms of systematic vs unsystematic risk Roi. As I understand it, Fannie and friends are suffering from a downturn in the housing and mortgage market, while Bear Sterns was loaded up to it's eyeballs with Credit Default Swaps.

July 22, 2008 1:59 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.