home

More On The Geithner Plan

One senior lecturer at the University of Chicago is dissatisfied with the Geithner Plan:

Even if it is successful, the [Geithner Plan] will add very little new capital to the banks — roughly only the amount paid for toxic assets that is over and above their current value.

[More...]

There is a simpler, sounder and fairer way to recapitalize an insolvent bank. The government should seize it, as it is already authorized — indeed, compelled — to do. Then it could inject cash (in the form of Treasury notes) as equity in the bank and, at the same time, remove the toxic assets the bank holds. Bank regulators might perhaps swap Treasury securities for toxic assets “at par” — that is, in an amount equal to the original purchase price of the assets removed. This would be a fair transaction, and it would cost nothing, because the government would own both the bank and the bonds. The toxic assets could then be placed in the basement of the Treasury building while we wait to see what they turn out to be worth.

(Emphasis supplied.) Actually, that would not be a fair transaction as the government would be overpaying for the toxic assets. But at least this plan is honest about the problem. The Geithner Plan's fundamental problem is its disingenousness. This proposal, which I do not favor, has the benefit of being honest about what the problem is and what the proposal intends to do - cover the bank's debts with taxpayer money.

Let's hope a former senior lecturer from Chicago adopts a more honest approach than the Geithner Plan.

Speaking for me only

< Judge Enters Sua Sponte Orders in Ted Stevens Case | What's In Those Torture Memos? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The fox is guarding the hen-house (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:48:33 AM EST
    Geithner's another one of the big-shot banker types, the same political elite that got us into this mess, the same ones that Obama met secretly with in June of 2008. Who's giving who orders?

    The Fed Reserve (which isn't Federal at all, but a consortium of private banks) is at the heart of the problem. Why should the US Government be reliant upon The Fed, when, Constitutionally, Congress had the responsibility for regulating the currency? Why be charged interest on our own money?

    Enough with these fiscal bloodsuckers! They don't need bonuses, they need wooden stakes, holy water and garlic cloves!

    here is the TeresaInPa plan (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:16:54 AM EST
    bail out the people not the banks, AIG and Mortgage companies.  Let the people determine what businesses deserve to survive.  Regulations that break up huge corporate entities so that no corporation becomes so big it's failure tanks the world economy.  NO MORE bonus money.  It may be only symbolic but it is offensive and it encourages continued bad behavior like personal greed over company health and community well being. NO MORE asking Chris Dodd to change legislation to get around the congress and give bonuses while out of the other side of your mouth saying how outraged you are as President.


    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    and the Administration's plan on foreclosure relief is similarly one sided in favor of lenders (capital providers).  Specifically, it  allows for interest rate relief,restructuring the temr of the loan but it  deems sancrosanct the principal balance of the loan.  Like Geithner's Plan, for some reason it is beyond debate that a debtor, be it a bailed out bank or underwater homeowner, must repay every cent of a loan.  

    Normally a good principle to live by.  Not today though.  Rewriting loans and putting banks in receivership in a way that could result in lenders taking a haircut is a necessary part of any solution.

    Do I like my neighbor getting a break on his mortgage that I will not get?  No.  But I like the idea of his house being empty, neighborhood blight and competing with forclosed prpeorties when the time comes to sell my home even less.

    Parent

    As I feared, (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by BobTinKY on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:52:25 AM EST
    not just bondholders getting ready to insure they get repaid by becoming Fund applicants and managers, this too:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/358e479a-1fbf-11de-a1df-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http% 3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F358e479a-1fbf-11de-a1df-00144feabdc0.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1& _i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwhiskeyfire.typepad.com%2Fwhiskey_fire%2F2009%2F04%2Fwhiskey-fire-should-run -the-treasury.html&nclick_check=1

    I posted a dkos diary (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/24/712438/-My-question-for-Obama-on-Geithner-Plan) explaining my fear banks would simply exchange each other's toxic waste using 92% taxpayer provided funds.  A commenter posted a portion of the fund manager application which seems to have anticipated this concern.   Nevertheless, Financial Times is saying bailed out banks are apparently planning to game the Geithner PLan in this manner.

    So....... actual evidence that it is going to (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    happen and the plans are being made.  lambert gave me a link somewhere around here to such a matter being discussed at Naked Capitalism.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:29:07 AM EST
    at least this person is offering some palatable options. I'm simply tired of being told that Geither is the only option and I just have to learn to "live with it".

    But, but ,but, but, but (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    The high rollers who created the junk/trash assets will be left high and dry and so will their junk financial industry companies.  Wall Street would take a hit and it would be two years before it vigorously began growing again.  No! The only thing we can do is feed the monster that we have and bleed the little guy investors on Wall Street every single day drier and drier and drier........all those poor people waiting for the market to recover so that someday they can retire......and the market will just slog and waller and sputter away all of "puts" they give it trying to establish unfraudlent solvency again while the CEO's will still make lavish salaries and bonuses..........because we must have them play with us.  If they didn't play with us it could make someone sad!

    What's dishonest about it? (none / 0) (#2)
    by BigElephant on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:53:47 AM EST
    What is dishonest about the Geithner plan?  It's probably the clearest plan I've seen out of Washington in eight years.  The plan makes the guarantees very clearly.  Actually its more honest than the above stated plan, as Geithner never says anything like "it would be a fair transaction that costs nothing".  That statement is disingenuous and not true.

    I don't think anyone is being lied to.  If the toxic assets are worth less than the private investors pay then taxpayers will pay for it.  There are problems with the plan, but it's better than the plan presented in that article.  As flawed as the Geithner plan is, it's still the best plan I've heard.  

    Low bar (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:58:59 AM EST
    "Most honest plan to come out of Washington in 8 years."

    I am shooting for something a bit higher than that.

    Parent

    Remember the S & L's? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    "Give me control of a nation's money
    and I care not who makes the laws."
    - Mayer Amschel Bauer (1744 -1812), Godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe.

    And does anyone think the people who made this mess give a d@mn about US laws, when they're the heads of transnational corporations?

    This is shaping up to be worse, with the taxpayer's footing the bill and the bankers diddy-bopping over the horizon to their Cayman Island bank accounts, and laughing the whole way.

    We are still paying for the S & L debacle (which the Bush family had a very large hand in); our great-great-grandchildren will be paying for this one, unless control of the currency is wrested back to the lawful authority which was originally intended to wield it.

    Parent

    the tax payers (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:18:34 AM EST
    are broke and losing homes and healthcare.  The tax payers can't pay for it.

    Parent
    Have your taxes gone up? (4.00 / 2) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:25:56 AM EST
    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:28:27 AM EST
    Not a non sequitur (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:45:53 AM EST
    This is a false GOP meme that the general public has bought into whole hog.  We won't know for some time how much this will actually cost us, since anywhere from some to a lot of it will come back eventually since much of it is in loans and a lot more in equity.  If taxes do eventually have to be raised to help pay it all off, it won't be until well after the economy has recovered, however long that takes.

    There are various economic disaster scenarios that could change all that, but those are essentially unknowable and IMO unlikely.  In any case, nobody's going to be raising taxes on ordinary folks even in those scenarios.

    So wailing about taxpayers having to foot the bill when they're already hurting so badly is the actual non sequitur.

    Geithner plan may or may not be the right thing to do, but taxing Americans struggling with a tanking economy isn't in the cards no matter what.

    Parent

    Some are paying more already (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:08:49 AM EST
    -- more than a fifth of Americans -- and the rest just haven't paid more taxes yet, but your taxes have increased.

    In just a few months President Obama and a Congress controlled by the Democrats have increased non-defense discretionary spending by 8 percent, and then by an additional 10 percent and then by who knows once Congress finishes with the budget. The national debt, says the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, will double over the next five years. And triple not too much longer after that. . . .  Obama said [it] was his "firm pledge" not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 a year. . . .   "Not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."  He might have well said, "Read my lips." Like a bad April Fools' Day joke, the federal excise tax on cigarettes increased April 1, 2009 by 156 percent (or 61 cents per pack). . . .  One in four smokers live below the poverty line and 55 percent of smokers can be defined as "working poor," which means they make something less than $250,000.00 per year.

    From U.S. News & World Report.

    Parent

    Then how do you propose that it be paid? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    For paid it must be.

    'Pay' for the bail-out with hyper-inflated currency, courtesy of Treasury printing up more Fed Reserve Notes? The taxpayer pays for that in prices at the grocery store. We're feeling the pinch already; the same items cost more, and the prices are rising.

    Inflate the currency, and our foreign creditors get ansty; China's already p!$$ed at us, and is making noises about how the rest of the world should drop the dollar for something else to measure oil wealth in. Do that, and the buck becomes a nothing like the zloty or the peso...and we sink into Weimar Republic social and political chaos.

    Our foreign creditors, for the most part, don't want to see that, as their own economies (and societies) are symbiotically tied to ours. We go down today, they go down tomorrow, as the housing bubble demonstrated.

    So...do we try to maintain the present (broken) system that benefits all those big-shot bankers at the US taxpayer's expense, like the S & L mess? Or do we give them the heave-ho and start over, preferably with a sounder currency not prone to private bank(er) manipulation?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    one way of paying is to raise income taxes (the only potentially fair tax) and stop increasing taxes based on the habits of what are frequently lower income workers.

    IMO raising tobacco taxes is just another way of excusing everyone else from their obligations as citizens.  This is nothing more than taxing the least influential among us.

    Parent

    But that treats the symptom, not the disease (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by SeeEmDee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:02:58 PM EST
    Raising taxes...on hyper-inflated money. Considering the stagnation in wages can expect to continue, that only creates more stress on those least able to endure it. The system that got us into this mess would remain intact. Those who benefited from this mess will continue to remain in their cushy boardrooms, puffing cigars and snickering at the rubes for not understanding what Jefferson warned us about so long ago:

    "I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

    The present bill for the latest swindle is being smilingly presented by those bank(st)ers...and we and our heirs, for the next four generations, will have to pay it, and they will curse our memories for sticking them with it. That is, if we continue to play the bank(st)er's game.

    John F. Kennedy had the right idea: Executive Order 11110 would have broken the back of the bank(st)ers and returned the power of currency control to the Treasury. It would have also made foreign military adventurism such as Viet Nam very difficult to engage in. Pity he never got the chance to follow though on that...

    This is what happens when you allow private banks to run your economy...and many of those private banks in the Federal Reserve are foreign owned. Foreign-owned, private banks...essentially controlling the US Treasury. Brings new meaning to the word, 'globalism', doesn't it?

    Parent

    And, the quote from the President who (none / 0) (#46)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:14:29 PM EST
    signed the Federal Reserve Act:

    "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
    -President Woodrow Wilson


    Parent
    Just so you know (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:45:42 PM EST
    That is a fictional quote, although he apparently uttered a few fragments of it at various times.

    Parent
    Just so you know (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:40:54 PM EST
    characterizing the entire quote as "fictional" is false.

    My research says the likelihood he did say all of it, though possibly not in one continuous thought, is greater than him not saying it. Only the first two sentences ("I am a very unhappy man." and "I have unwittingly ruined my country.") are questioned.  

    Parent

    A GOP talking point is a nonsequitor (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    there.

    the issue is taxpayers' money - not whether taxpayers will pat more in taxes in the future. They are paying taxes now. That money should be spent for the Common Good, not for the good of the Masters of the Universe.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:11:46 AM EST
    good morning and thank you.  

    Parent
    woah...WRONG (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    wow, no, you don't get it.  Tax payers need to pay for those things that are a priority...not lousy econonomic plans that prop up the rich.  The tax payers are those people who lost jobs and need help, not the oportunity to continue to pay through the nose for things that will NOT benefit them.
    It's all the same pool of money you know.

    Parent
    Remember (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    those obnoxious bumperstickets that something like "work harder millions on welfare need your money" or something to that extent. Well, maybe we should start "work harder, millionaires need your money to keep up their lifestyles." or something like that.

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    While my take-home pay and investments have declined in value.

    Next question.

    Parent

    Heh, my county assessor in Coffee county (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:28:18 PM EST
    said that my house is worth more this year than it was worth last year :)  Really?  Ummm okay dude.....

    Parent
    Can you guarantee they WON'T? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:16:39 AM EST
    I'm confident that once the dust from this settles just a bit that our federal taxes will increase.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:50:30 AM EST
    But I'd be happy to bet against it because it makes no sense economically to do it.  Taxes are already set to go up on the people who aren't struggling, which is fine with me and long overdue.  But those aren't the people referenced.

    Taxes on higher incomes may well go up a good bit more after the economy stabilizes and starts growing again, but I have no problem with that, either, nor should anybody else.

    This idea of middle-class families struggling through a depression with a greatly increased tax burden is cr*p being promulgated by the GOP as a scare tactic.

    Parent

    My state (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:10:08 AM EST
    is considering an income tax and has already increased sales tax to a whopping 9.5%.  I'm a student, and they're talking about raising tuition by $1000/yr.  Our property has been assessed at far higher value than it's worth and our county pretty much admits they know they did that.

    If federal money on this level were going into states at the same ridiculous rate as its going to crooked bankers, then possibly none of this would be happening.

    So, yes, my taxes are going up, painfully up.

    And do you think that we can survive indefinitely on deficits?  At some point we have to pay for this.

    Parent

    Yes, yes they have (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    I'm here in California and yes, our taxes and fees (a tax by any other name) have gone up.  Also, I could be incorrect, but didn't Congress take out the permanent middle class tax cut from the budget?  

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:07:50 AM EST
    my income has gone down along with a lot of other people...got logic?

    Parent
    Some of mine have.... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    a 159% increase as a matter of fact.  A clean break of a campaign promise made by Obama too...that no one who makes under 250k would see an increase.

    Parent
    You and more than 45 million (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    Americans who already are paying more in taxes as of last week, kdog.  That's another number from the article excerpted in comment #20 above.

    Parent
    There's no public benefit (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:03:06 AM EST
    for paying taxes into such a bailout for banks.

    I suspect that there will be a re-branding of the word Bank Now.  They will be called something else.
    Beyond Banking, Money Depositary...or some such nonsense.

    Parent

    How about (none / 0) (#32)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    Post-Monetary Facilities?

    Parent
    How unfair is the G. plan? (none / 0) (#5)
    by koshembos on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:14:30 AM EST
    It overpays the banks, in their current life support state, huge amounts of money that could be used for the better good.

    It sells the toxic assets in a convoluted way to shadowy entities that include the banks/owners of the toxic assets themselves. In effect overpaying the banks twice for garbage.

    It leaves in place a huge over compensated management that should be throwen out on their butt including returning of previous money they looted from the bank.

    As it is, the banks, like AIG, continue to suck money, get their managers filthy rich and still using the same personnel that brought us to where we.

    Socially, the plan accepts a layer of people, probably several thousands, who are paid like the elite in third world dictatorships. That is a terrible social phenomenon that should not be tolerated in a democracy.

    This list can continue.

    Can someone explain (none / 0) (#11)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:55:09 AM EST
    the economic difference between (1) issuing Treasuries to China in return for borrowed funds, and then using the funds to buy up toxic assets, and (2) issuing Treasuries in direct exchange for toxic assets?

    From the government's (and thus the taxpayers') side of the equation they look exactly the same to me.  So why is this a superior idea?

    No difference (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:59:20 AM EST
    This statement of the UC lecturer (none / 0) (#25)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    is not correct. "...the [Geithner Plan] will add very little new capital to the banks -- roughly only the amount paid for toxic assets that is over and above their current value."

    Bank capital will be increased to the extent the purchase price is higher than the value that the banks are currently carrying the assets on their books (financial statements). Many of the securities have already been written down significantly--due to the mark-to-market rule and otherwise. With respect to loans, the banks' loan loss reserves have been increased substantially (and these reserves would/could be decreased as corresponding bad assets are sold).

    In any event, the goal of the Geithner plan is not only to increase bank capital. In fact, I believe biggest benefit is hoped to be increased confidence in the banks' balance sheets--as there won't be as much risk and uncertainly left on the balance sheets.

    In addition, the plan will also likely create a more active market for these types of assets which will allow banks/accountants to mark up similar assets remaining on the balance sheets.

    How does the increased purchase price (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:32:08 AM EST
    of a fraudulent asset.....a make believe asset that cannot provide return....lead to new capital within the economy?  Inquiring minds would like to know.

    Parent
    Explain why these are fraudulent assets. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    I don't see these as fraudulent assets, but I'd be happy to hear your explanation--hopefully a detailed one.

    Parent
    As Black and a few truthful others have said (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    These legacy assets/bundled securities that were even given a AAA rating are now experiencing an 80% default rate......and the supporting economic structures of such bundled securities, things like middle class jobs, are flushing like one of those new unstoppable efficient toilets that you can flush unbelievable things down and it never impedes the flow.  I don't see how anyone can have much hope of return on the last 20% that seemed slighty hopeful last month but will be completely worthless in six months.

    Parent
    MT, you do acknowledge (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    that the vast majority of U.S. home owners are still paying their mortgages, just as the vast majority of us are still employed?

    The main reason all of it is considered "toxic" and causing such a problem, as I understand it -- and please set me straight if I'm wrong on this because I'm just an ordinary shmuck trying to understand this stuff -- is because the bundling and then securitization and "collateralized debt obligations," blah, blah, blah, largely has the minority of bad stuff all mixed up hopelessly with the majority of good stuff and nobody really knows where it is or which bundle is primarly "good" and which one is largely "bad."

    So I think Black is talking about a particular subset only of those AAA-rated pieces of crapola that can be identified as crapola, presumably through their clear origin with overwhelmingly fraudulent mortgage lenders. (See CNBC's fantastic documentary "House of Cards" for some of this.)

    I think Jamie Galbraith is right that the only way to sort it all out is to unwind every one of these things and figure out who's going to be paying their mortgage and who likely isn't, but with tens of millions of individual mortages involved, I don't know how that can be done in practical terms.  I keep coming back to Buffet's lament that when he tried to unwind and get rid of a bunch of this stuff that was owned by a relatively small company he bought, it took his people five years to do it.

    So my perhaps flawed understanding is that much of this stuff is "worthless" only because nobody knows what's in it and doesn't want to take a chance on it, and not because it inherently has literally no worth at all.

    Agreed that when the next round of ARMs kicks in, there will be another wave of defaults and foreclosures and rising unemployment will put more people into default, as well.  So it's certainly going to get worse, but short of total economic collapse (in which case our problems go way beyond mortgage-backed securities), the majority of home owners will still be paying their mortgages.

    Parent

    I disagree that most of the stuff is worthless (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    for this reason though there is no way that it can't also be a factor in the worthlessness of this bundled and sliced and bundled and sliced garbage.  Our economy is flushing jobs endlessly at such a rate that there is NO WAY that what people can pay for this month and what they will be able to pay for next month is even going to be something anyone can rely on.  To me that's just looking at the data from only one sector of our currently volatile and molten economy and not wanting to see how other happenings in our economy will affect whole.  The AAA rated stuff (which most didn't even fit the criteria to be classified AAA but the raters weren't checking) was so leveraged it was 16 to 1.

    Parent
    It's a bit worse (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:31:13 AM EST
    than you think. Actually more than a BIT worse.

    You really should read Simon Johnson's article in the Atlantic.

    This whole matter goes very deep into our society.

    Parent

    It is NOT true that 80% of the AAA/bundled (none / 0) (#43)
    by Green26 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    securities are now experiencing an 80% default rate.

    This is total BS. Some of these securities apparently still AAA rated, according to the government information on the new program to buy legacy assets.

    It's my understanding that most of these securities are NOT in default.

    Note that mortgage-backed securities assume certain percentages of underlying mortgages will go into default.

    Parent

    Fraud makes fraudulent assets (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by reslez on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    The assets are fraudulent because the mortgages which make up these assets were underwritten under false pretenses. Falsified income, imaginary employment histories, inflated appraisals, you name it. We have two years' worth of mortgages -- at the height of the bubble -- where fly-by-night mortgage lenders were throwing money at anyone with a pulse.

    Any kind of cursory inspection of the paperwork would have revealed fraud. That's why they didn't look.

    This is what causes the 80% losses MilitaryTracy is talking about. And yet these assets were given AAA ratings. Insanity.

    Parent

    Exactly so (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    But my point was (and is) that it's 80 percent of those very bad and mostly fraudulent mortgages, not 80 percent of all mortgages.

    The CNBC doc "House of Cards" has some absolutely hair-raising stuff on one egregiously fraudulent subprime mortgage lender in California owned by a guy whose biggest previous job was as a car wash attendant.  The guy got fabulously rich, of course, and the Wall Street f**ers slurped up his bundled mortgages like ice cream and begged for more.  All AAA-rated by credit rating f**ers, of course.

    Parent