We all know the story to one degree or another. The financial sector set up a system that encouraged mortgage initiators to prefer subprime loans to prime loans. They stopped asking for any documentation proving an ability to pay back home loans. They sought out unsavvy borrowers and steered them to riskier loans because they got bigger bonuses that way. The garbage loans were packaged up into derivatives and given deceptively high credit ratings. Then those derivatives were sold to unwitting customers who lost tons of money when they went bad. Meanwhile, the big banks bet against their own financial products even as they marketed them as safe investments. When the house of cards fell, the government had no choice but to save the banks because our economy can’t function without a banking system. Then the bankers took the money and paid themselves big bonuses while millions lost their jobs, their homes, and their retirement security.
There are a few bankers who are honest about what happened.
As a regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, [James] Theckston shoveled money at home borrowers. In 2007, his team wrote $2 billion in mortgages, he says. Sometimes those were “no documentation” mortgages.
“On the application, you don’t put down a job; you don’t show income; you don’t show assets,” he said. “But you still got a nod.”
“If you had some old bag lady walking down the street and she had a decent credit score, she got a loan,” he added.
Theckston says that borrowers made harebrained decisions and exaggerated their resources but that bankers were far more culpable — and that all this was driven by pressure from the top.
“You’ve got somebody making $20,000 buying a $500,000 home, thinking that she’d flip it,” he said. “That was crazy, but the banks put programs together to make those kinds of loans.”
Especially when mortgages were securitized and sold off to investors, he said, senior bankers turned a blind eye to shortcuts.
“The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas.”
One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.
These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.
Theckston, who has a shelf full of awards that he won from Chase, such as “sales manager of the year,” showed me his 2006 performance review. It indicates that 60 percent of his evaluation depended on him increasing high-risk loans.
In late 2008, when the mortgage market collapsed, Theckston and most of his colleagues were laid off. He says he bears no animus toward Chase, but he does think it is profoundly unfair that troubled banks have been rescued while troubled homeowners have been evicted.
I kind of regret that I didn’t spend most of the last decade living in a series of multi-hundred thousand dollar homes. I did sell two homes, making a great return both times. That’s the only reason I was ever able to become a blogger. But that was just an accident, or good fortune. It wasn’t an investment. It was life unfolding in a fortuitous way. I never lied about my income to get a mortgage. And I was never stupid enough to get suckered into lousy terms.
When it came time to save the system, the Fed wound up giving the banks the equivalent of $25,000 for every American citizen. I wonder what would have happened if they had just given the people that $25,000 instead. I suppose we would have all descended into some kind Mad Max war of all-against-all. Most of us would have died and become food for those who survived. Believe me, I understand that the too-big-to-fail concept isn’t some kind of joke. The banks had to be saved. But I don’t see any reason why the people cannot exact their revenge now, at their leisure. Of course, it’s not too late to send us our checks.
Too big to fail, to big to exist:
Bank of America
Bank of China
Bank of New York Mellon
Banque Populaire CdE
Barclays
BNP Paribas
Citigroup
Commerzbank
Credit Suisse
Deutsche Bank
Dexia
Goldman Sachs
Group Crédit Agricole
HSBC
ING Bank
JP Morgan Chase
Lloyds Banking Group
Mitsubishi UFJ FG
Mizuho FG
Morgan Stanley
Nordea
Royal Bank of Scotland
Santander
Société Générale
State Street
Sumitomo Mitsui FG
UBS
Unicredit Group
Wells Fargo
I wonder what would have happened if they had just given the people that $25,000 instead.
A real American would have blown it all on crystal meth and guns.
So true.
Theckston admits that banks looked for deals that could fail, but keeps with the banking industry’s “stupid borrowers” meme. When in fact there was fraud going on at each step of the process from origination to foreclosure.
Mortgage originators moved people who qualified for prime loans into subprime loans at higher interest rates, saying that they did not qualify for prime loans. Mortgage originators tried to get people to buy higher-priced houses on adjustable rate mortgages that had big adjustments. Mortgage originators forged papers. Mortgage originators filed paperwork in the MERS system without filing paperwork at county register of deeds.
Resellers of the mortgages packaged them into bundles and rated them at better quality than they were, often ignoring the fact that a major bump up in the interest rate could make the mortgage fail. These then were packaged and repackaged each time they were sold, often without updating the MERS information as to who the mortgage holder was.
These bundles were rated with inflated ratings for purposes of creating credit default swaps, a hedge against the risk of failure.
The credit default swaps were sold to persons who had no financial interest in either end of the deal but were placing pure bets. This created financial obligations out of thin air.
Fraud at every step of the way, and some perfectly legal fraud.
You ask what would have happened if he Fed had given each one of the American people $25,000. I would narrow that to what if the Fed had given $25,000 per person to pay off a homeowner’s (as opposed to a property investor’s) mortgage. I think that the results are pretty clear.
Households in the US would be substantially less in debt. Many households would have owned their homes then free and clear. The banks would have mortgages (which are assets) taken off their books, reducing their paper profitability but increasing their solvency. The holders of the bundled mortgages would have been paid off early, reducing the stream of income from interest. None of the credit default swap would have been triggered. None of the third-party holders of “naked” credit default swaps would have made money on their bets. European banks, which were major counterparties partially compensated, would not have been thrown into crisis, forcing the Eurozone into crisis. There would have been no housing depression and unemployment, nor would have property values plummeted. The national debt would be less than what it currently is.
But the accounting would have been screwed up because the Fed did it. And the Fed can work only with banks. The rules are important. And think of the situation if Congress was brought legislation to change the rules to permit the Fed to do this. A dangerous precedent. Rewarding bad behavior (by homeowners). Socialism……
What the Occupy Wall Street movement is discovering and exposing is that the rules can be broken by the 1% but never can governments change the rules to permit benefits to the 99%. Serving the 99% is unthinkable.
“The banks had to be saved.”
NO they didn’t need to be saved.
Yeah, they did. Look at the rate of job loss in the first sixth months of the crisis. They needed to be recapitalized ASAP. What you did with them later was more flexible, but in the crash, the banks needed a massive influx of cash. It turned out to be about 8 trillion dollars overall.
If you gave that money to the people, we wouldn’t have been able to loan it to the businesses that employ people and job losses would have been at least double or triple what they were.
It was over $8 trillion. And it did not need to be given to the banks that cratered the financial system — without conditions. They were all insolvent.
When are progressives going to learn that bailing out these worthless assholes BLOCKS the adoption of progressive policies. We had the leverage to completely restructure the TBTF banks AND save the economy.
That opportunity has now been lost. Fuck, even John McCain at the time was calling for nationalizing the TBTF banks.
I don’t think there’s an argument here about whether to bail out the banks in late 2008. It’s the Fed’s job to be the “lender of last resort” so that the financial system doesn’t collapse.
And, not to speak for Booman, but I think he’d agree that the bailout shouldn’t have happened without conditions.
Granted, there are major differences between the auto industry and the finance industry, but the auto industry bailout provides a model for how the financial industry could have been bailed out more effectively:
*take control of the companies;
*hold people (management and board) accountable;
*transform the companies;
*relinquish control ASAP.
That is not tantamount to “saving the banks.” In fact, that is tantamount to NOT saving the banks.
The amount is closer to $16 trillion. To allege that there was no other way to push $16 trillion into the economy over three years is preposterous. It’s just Obama ass-covering.
those are two different questions.
The banks had to be infused with capital so that the whole economy didn’t seize up. Actually, the economy did seize up. The only way to unseize it was to recapitalize the banks.
Then the question was how to reform the system.
As far as I am concerned, my position at the time has been vindicated in at least one respect. Geithner’s Plan was a better deal for the taxpayer than nationalization. Nationalization would have locked in incomprehensible losses.
But you’re right that there was an opportunity to destroy the banks and recreate a banking system on firmer footing. It’s just that it would have extremely expensive, highly disruptive (by design), and incredibly risky.
They now need another bailout — they’re still all insolvent. Do you support another bailout? Do you support the Fed helping to bail out European banks? Where does it end?
Banks bailouts are not about saving the economy; they’re about ensuring that the banks don’t have to pay for their fraudulent practices. They’re about making sure that the 99% pay.
With all due respect, you need to drop your knee-jerk support of Obama and look at this for what it is: Class Warfare.
I support the Fed making dollars cheaper for Europe’s Fed.
As of today, our banks are not insolvent and do not need bailouts. That could change, of course. But I frankly do not know what you are referring to.
I’d argue that the bailouts were sensible and thrifty. The problems lie elsewhere. Letting the banks set up a casino with House Rules and a corrupted
SECGambling Commission is a much bigger problem than recapitalizing them.Given the fact that the banks’ books are not transparent and auditing firms have a conflict of interest, how do you know? The FDIC side of the house might be solvent as audited by federal regulators, but the investment side might be as filled with junk as it was in 2007-2008. The same is true for European banks.
The banks’ insistence on austerity is driving towards a global financial crisis.
What is going on is central banks trying to inflate their economies through monetary policy. That just pumps more money into the casino without it ever touching the real economy. A recipe for another bubble.
Here.
People have a right to complain that the banks are flourishing, but not to claim that they simultaneously insolvent.
Most of them seem to be doing fine, although they are still dangerously exposed.
There is a difference between net income and net worth. Their exposure is against their net worth. What is not apparent is how much all that profit (net income) improved their solvency and how much was not committed to the future.
The banks here are not insisting on austerity. Goldman Sachs has been insisting on stimulus — at least in America — for ages.
The banks that were bailed out should have been put in FDIC receivership with their boards and senior management teams fired with cause. But such is not the case. Timmee must be feeling mighty pleased, this has been the biggest theft in history.
You couldn’t put them into receivership via the FDIC. What do you think the new resolution authority in the financial reform bill is for?
you did read the story at Bloomberg about Paulson giving the banks the inside track about Fannie and Freddie…right?
how the fuck was that legal?
It was hedge fund managers, if I’m not mistaken.
It was sloppy at best. He definitely provided insider information. I don’t know that that was his intent, however.
a lot of people made fun of alan grayson for voting with that wacky ron paul to audit the fed. turns out he was right.
alan grayson is, in fact, the only politician I give money to.
Alan Grayson is a buffoon on the Fed. Ron Paul is even worse.
but he was right.