Chicago, IL - June 30, 2009 - Zacks.com announces the list of stocks featured in the Analyst Blog. Every day the Zacks Equity Research analysts discuss the latest news and events impacting stocks and the financial markets. Stocks recently featured in the blog include: J.P. Morgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C), Wells Fargo (WFC) and Omnicell Inc. (OMCL).

Get the most recent insight from Zacks Equity Research with the free Profit from the Pros newsletter: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5513

Here are highlights from Monday's Analyst Blog:

Supreme Court Rules Against Banks

In a surprising 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that national banks are still subject to the laws of the states they operate in. What made the ruling unusual is that Justice Scalia wrote the opinion and the other four conservative judges were in dissent (Roberts, Thomas, Alito and the normal swing vote Kennedy).

The ruling overturned an appeals court ruling that said that state attorney generals cannot investigate banks if they operate in more than one state.

The case in question involved the enforcement of fair lending laws in N.Y. State, specifically allegations that some banks were charging minorities higher interest rates. Instead, even though these are state laws, the appeals court had said that only the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) had the power to investigate. In practice, this means that the laws were null and void, since the OCC has a lousy track record on such issues.

Enforcing state laws is simply not a priority for a division of the Treasury Department. While clearly there can be a problem if multiple agencies have jurisdiction in regulation, allowing things to slip through the cracks, there can also be problems when there is only one regulator and that regulator is in the pocket of the regulated. It is harder to capture all 50 state attorney generals and the OCC, than it is just the OCC alone. Make no mistake, the head of the OCC, John Dugan, a holdover from the last administration, is very much a creature of the big banks he is supposed to be overseeing. The OCC ranks just behind the OTS in being an ineffectual regulator during the bubble.

While the state attorney generals will not be able to issue subpoenas on their own authority (they need approval from a state judge), it does mean that they do not have to sit on their hands if they think the banks are breaking the law. It also will mean a more fair application of the law.

If the appeals court ruling had been allowed to stand, then the state attorney generals would have been free to go after a little community bank that only operated in their state, but unable to go after the big banks like J.P. Morgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC) that dominate the banking business. Sort of like telling them, yeah, it's okay for the state to go after the street level drug traffickers, but not allowed to go after the kingpins.

This is a major win for consumer protection, and a loss for the banks. It is also a big win for states in the ongoing struggle between state and federal jurisdiction. I guess the Supreme Court is not as susceptible to campaign contribution influence as the Congress is.

Omnicell Stays on Hold

Headquartered in Mountain View, CA, Omnicell Inc. (OMCL) founded in 1992, develops and markets end-to-end automation solutions for the medication-use process.

These automation solutions contain medication and supply dispensing systems, central pharmacy storage, retrieval and packaging solutions, a bedside automation solution, a physician order management solution, a decision support application, and a Web-based procurement application. These solutions enable healthcare facilities to acquire, manage, dispense and deliver pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, as well as enhance patient safety, reduce medication errors, improve workflow, and increase operational efficiency.

Want more from Zacks Equity Research? Subscribe to the free Profit from the Pros newsletter: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5515.

About Zacks Equity Research

Zacks Equity Research provides the best of quantitative and qualitative analysis to help investors know what stocks to buy and which to sell for the long-term.

Continuous coverage is provided for a universe of 1,150 publicly traded stocks. Our analysts are organized by industry which gives them keen insights to developments that affect company profits and stock performance. Recommendations and target prices are six-month time horizons.

Zacks "Profit from the Pros" e-mail newsletter provides highlights of the latest analysis from Zacks Equity Research. Subscribe to this free newsletter today: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5517

About Zacks

Zacks.com is a property of Zacks Investment Research, Inc., which was formed in 1978 by Leonard Zacks. As a PhD in mathematics Len knew he could find patterns in stock market data that would lead to superior investment results. Amongst his many accomplishments was the formation of his proprietary stock picking system; the Zacks Rank, which continues to outperform the market by nearly a 3 to 1 margin. The best way to unlock the profitable stock recommendations and market insights of Zacks Investment Research is through our free daily email newsletter; Profit from the Pros. In short, it's your steady flow of Profitable ideas GUARANTEED to be worth your time! Register for your free subscription to Profit from the Pros at http://at.zacks.com/?id=5518.

Visit http://www.zacks.com/performance for information about the performance numbers displayed in this press release.

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ZacksInvestment

Join us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Zacks-Investment-Research/57553657748?ref=ts

Disclaimer: Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should always research companies and securities before making any investments. Nothing herein should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security.

Contact:
Mark Vickery
Web Content Editor
312-265-9380
Visit: www.zacks.com

However, at yesterday's congressional hearings the topic that drew the most fire was the idea of making the Fed the "systemic risk regulator." Clearly there is a need for such a regulator, so in my mind, doing nothing would be the worst possible option.

Then again, is putting the Fed in charge the right answer? As I see it there are four possible answers.

• 1) Put the Fed in charge
• 2) Form a new agency with those powers
• 3) Give those powers to another existing agency, for example the FDIC or the Comptroller of the Currency
• Have a committee of regulators do the job

There were several steps the Fed could have taken to have prevented the crisis or at least greatly minimized its impact.  Not all of them require remarkable 20/20 hindsight.  

On the other hand, the Fed does have considerable expertise in these matters, and proper supervision of banks is closely tied to monetary policy. The Fed already has some expertise in dealing with non-commercial banks -- for example the investment banks that are also primary dealers in government securities, such as Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS). As both a plus and a minus, of all the regulatory agencies the Fed is the most independent and the least susceptible to political interference (and oversight).

Forming a new agency would take time to get it up and running, and would probably lead to turf battles between it and the existing and remaining bank supervisory role of the Fed. A reasonable case could be made for putting the FDIC in charge, and in the post mortem of the crisis, the FDIC will probably be regarded as the regulator that did the best job (talk about damning with feint praise).

However, the systemic risk regulator will have to deal with financial institutions that are not depository institutions, like banks or thrifts. The FDIC has no particular experience or expertise in dealing with them -- ditto for the Comptroller of the Currency. And the FDIC sort of has its hands full at the moment as it is.

Leaving it to a committee would simply defuse responsibility and accountability, and aside from doing nothing is the least appealing option.

Thus, I do come down on the side of giving the job to the Fed (but could be persuaded to give the job the FDIC). However, I would like to see it accompanied by several major changes at the Fed. The Fed is currently owned by the banks, (literally, not just figuratively) and they get to pick the regional presidents and make up the boards of directors.

This is an obvious conflict of interest. As part of the reform, the regional presidents should be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The term in office could be set so it is different from the presidential cycle.

The boards should include non-bank directors. There is also a bill moving through Congress to audit the Fed. This should be passed and the audits done, and released in an annual report to the public (and Congress).

The administration has focused on five key areas for reform, which we have highlighted below along with the important actions proposed in those areas:

1) Promoting Robust Supervision and Regulation

• Raising capital and liquidity requirements
• Supervision by the Fed for all "too big to fail" firms
• Establishing a council of regulators for better coordination
• New National Supervisor to supervise all federally chartered banks
• Registration of hedge funds with the SEC
• Enhanced oversight of insurers

• Enhanced regulation of securitization markets
• Stronger regulation of credit-rating agencies
• Regulation of all OTC derivatives
• Payment & Settlement systems to be overseen by the Fed

• Establishing a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency

• Resolution mechanism for the orderly resolution of "too big to fail" financial companies
• Improving  accountability of Fed's emergency lending powers

The plan greatly extends the supervisory powers of the Federal Reserve as it would become a consolidated supervisor over all large financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs (GS), JP Morgan Chase (JPM), AIG (AIG), etc., whose problems pose potential risks to the economic system. However, the Fed would be required to receive approval from the Treasury for emergency lending under "unusual and exigent" circumstances.

The proposal will most likely be debated strongly as many critics of the Fed argue that its loose monetary policy and failure to exercise the existing powers over banks ultimately led to the current crisis.

In order to fill in regulatory gaps and coordinate with the various agencies, the plan would create a council of regulators headed by the Treasury Secretary.

The plan also requires all hedge funds and private equity funds to register with the SEC and open their books to regulators.

Some of the existing regulatory agencies' powers to oversee mortgages, credit cards and other kinds of consumer debt are proposed to be given to a new regulator, called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The Office of Thrift Supervision will be merged into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, to create a single agency to supervise all banks with national charters.

The plan would impose tighter rules for securitization. It would also require the companies that issue mortgages to retain at least 5% of them on their books to discourage companies from marketing unsuitable loans.

The proposal also mentions that Treasury will work with other agencies to determine the future role of GSEs, Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) and a report will be presented at the time of 2011 budget release.

The administration has focused on five key areas for reform, which we have highlighted below along with the important actions proposed in those areas:

1) Promoting Robust Supervision and Regulation

• Raising capital and liquidity requirements
• Supervision by the Fed for all "too big to fail" firms
• Establishing a council of regulators for better coordination
• New National Supervisor to supervise all federally chartered banks
• Registration of hedge funds with the SEC
• Enhanced oversight of insurers

• Enhanced regulation of securitization markets
• Stronger regulation of credit-rating agencies
• Regulation of all OTC derivatives
• Payment & Settlement systems to be overseen by the Fed

• Establishing a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency

• Resolution mechanism for the orderly resolution of "too big to fail" financial companies
• Improving  accountability of Fed's emergency lending powers

The plan greatly extends the supervisory powers of the Federal Reserve as it would become a consolidated supervisor over all large financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs (GS), JP Morgan Chase (JPM), AIG (AIG), etc., whose problems pose potential risks to the economic system. However, the Fed would be required to receive approval from the Treasury for emergency lending under "unusual and exigent" circumstances.

The proposal will most likely be debated strongly as many critics of the Fed argue that its loose monetary policy and failure to exercise the existing powers over banks ultimately led to the current crisis.

In order to fill in regulatory gaps and coordinate with the various agencies, the plan would create a council of regulators headed by the Treasury Secretary.

The plan also requires all hedge funds and private equity funds to register with the SEC and open their books to regulators.

Some of the existing regulatory agencies' powers to oversee mortgages, credit cards and other kinds of consumer debt are proposed to be given to a new regulator, called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The Office of Thrift Supervision will be merged into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, to create a single agency to supervise all banks with national charters.

The plan would impose tighter rules for securitization. It would also require the companies that issue mortgages to retain at least 5% of them on their books to discourage companies from marketing unsuitable loans.

The proposal also mentions that Treasury will work with other agencies to determine the future role of GSEs, Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) and a report will be presented at the time of 2011 budget release.

From David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall, "Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis":

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

From David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall, "Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis," McClatchy Papers (October 12, 2008).

The article continues:

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

One point the article does not touch on is why the states did not regulate more rigorously the banks most involved in subprime lending. The answer is, in part, explained by this item (which I've cited in the past) from the NYT:

The Fed was hardly alone in not pressing to clean up the mortgage industry. When states like Georgia and North Carolina started to pass tougher laws against abusive lending practices, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency successfully prohibited them from investigating local subsidiaries of nationally chartered banks.

What about the charge that Fannie and Freddie "made" the market so that all these subprime loans could be securitized? There's a grain of truth in there, but I think keeping in mind which loans are going bad is useful, when reading this excerpt.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks -- not Fannie and Freddie -- dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data. [Emphasis added -- mdc]

Now, again, consider which subprime loans, in the graph below, went bad...

Notice that the delinquency rate is highest in the years after Fannie and Freddie are constrained in terms of their subprime holdings. So, more regulation of F&F was a good thing, I'll say, with the benefit of hindsight.

Now, there are more sophisticated, game-theoretic based arguments. In particular, Jim has observed that the mere existence of GSEs with substantial portfolios of MBS's meant that the government -- by insuring Fannie and Freddie -- would implicitly insure the private firms as they expanded their operations, supplanting F&F's market share:

what forces caused the explosion of private participation in a much more reckless replication of the GSE game? A year ago, I suggested one possible answer-- private institutions reasoned that, because the GSEs had developed such a huge stake in real estate prices, and because they were surely too big to fail, the Federal Reserve would be forced to adopt a sufficiently inflationary policy so as to keep the GSEs solvent, which would ensure that the historical assumptions about real estate prices and default rates on which the models used to price these instruments were based would not prove to be too far off.

This is by far the most intelligent and plausible interpretations of how F&F could have contributed in a significant way to the current housing crisis (as separate from the overall crisis, which would have been triggered by some other market given the mixture of securitization, credit default swaps and high leverage [2]). In fact, Mike Dooley and I have made similar arguments about the expansion of contingent liabilities, in the run-up to the East Asian crises [3]. The challenge here is how to test this hypothesis against others; we need to measure the implicit insurance that these private firms felt they had directlyfrom the Fed's intent keep the monetary policy sufficiently expansionary to keep housing prices going up, separate from the insurance committed directly by the Treasury to prevent individual banks from going under. (By the way, this is a separate issue from whether F&F made sense economically in their circa 2006 form; see the analysis by Frame and White. I tend to think the answer is no.)

Interestingly, one of the corollaries of this argument is that it would be hard to disentangle the balance of blame of F&F and the "Greenspan put".

One question I do (or will) have is the following: if the credit card or auto loan securitized markets blow up [4], who are the equivalents to the GSE's?

I think all of this leads to a more nuanced view of the role of CRA and the two GSE's in the crisis. If I had to identify the central factors, I wouldn't point to F&F alone, or CRA alone (if at all). Rather, I'd look to (i) monetary policy (including whether it was lax, and the implications of the "Greenspan put"), (ii) what drove down the returns at the long end of the maturity spectrum ("the conundrum") thus inducing the desperate search for yield, (iii) securitization in the absence of countervailing regulation and (iv) the development of a completely non-transparent and unregulated over-the-counter credit default swap market.

Mortgage lending standards eased in many countries in recent years, but the limited available cross-country evidence does suggest that the process went further in the United States. Standards are difficult to measure because different aspects need not all move together (Gorton 2008), but the observed increase in early payment defaults in the United States (but not elsewhere) provides direct evidence that it occurred (Kiff and Mills 2007); Gerardi, Lehnert, Sherlund and Willen (2008) provide additional detail on the easing in lending standards.

Two developments seem to have spurred the easing in US standards. First, a range of legislative and policy changes had been made to encourage the development of a non-conforming (Alt-A and subprime) lending sector, lying outside the model defined by the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Part of the motivation for this was a desire to ensure that home ownership was accessible to households who had historically been underserved by mortgage lenders (Gramlich 2007). In addition, the administration had wanted to reduce the GSEs' domination of the mortgage market. Following problems with accounting and governance at both institutions, the GSEs' capacity to expand lending was capped by new regulatory limits on their activities (Kiff and Mills 2007, Blundell-Wignall and Atkinson 2008). [emphasis added -- mdc]

Second, origination volumes had fallen following the end of the the refinancing wave of 2003. Lenders therefore faced a substantial reduction in fee income, with implications for the size of the entire industry. The low rates on long-term fixed-rate mortgages available in 2003 had allowed borrowers to cut their interest rate significantly, by one-fifth on average for loans refinanced with Freddie Mac, for example. Total originations peaked at around $4 trillion, with mortgage backed securities (MBS) issuance not much less than that (Figure 3, left-hand panel). As a result, around half the outstanding mortgage stock turned over through moving or refinancing in that year. According to the Federal Reserve's 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, 45% of households with a first mortgage had refinanced within the previous three years (Bucks, Kennickell and Moore 2006).

Lenders seem to have responded to these developments by easing underwriting standards across several dimensions. The first of these was that non-conforming mortgages did indeed gain market share. Subprime loan origination grew particularly strongly, but the Alt-A category did as well (Figure 3). Although some full-service lenders branched into these market segments, much of the expansion occurred in lending originated by specialist lenders. This shift included entry into the market by major investment banks via newly acquired mortgage lending subsidiaries. Even if lenders within each category had not eased standards, the result would have been that more of the US mortgage book contained features that raised arrears and default rates. As documented by Quercia, Stegman and Davis (2007), even in the late 1990s, loans originated by designated subprime lenders were much more likely than prime lending to include features that boost default rates, such as prepayment penalties and balloon payments.

The easing in US mortgage lending standards went beyond a shift amongst lenders with different business models. An array of statistical evidence and legal findings shows that underwriting standards of individual lenders eased as well. First, and perhaps most importantly, requirements for documentation of income and assets became progressively laxer. Instead of assessing borrowers' abilities to service their loans, lenders ended up focusing on collateral values, in effect betting on rising housing prices (Gorton (2008) makes a similar point).

The analysis also indicates that it wasn't just subprime that exhibited deterioration, although it was by far the one hit hardest. Rather the key distrinction was...

The real distinction is between loans that were in the FHA pool or the conforming market -- those insurable by the GSEs -- and those that were not in either of those groups. Although there was some easing of standards in the conforming market, especially in the GSE's extended programs and the FHA seller-financed downpayment program, it was minor compared with the one that occurred in the rest of the market. Arrears rates on the GSEs' single-family home portfolio have risen a great deal recently, but this only started in the second half of 2007 (Figure 7, right-hand panel). Likewise, the increase in arrears rates on FHA mortgages has been fairly mild.

The report identifies several factor for the fact that the US housing market deteriorated even before the macro economy deteriorated -- unlike in Canada and UK.

(I think if one observes closely the the fact that the scale of the vertical axes are very different, one may very well have an altered perspective on the role of the GSE's in the mortgage crisis.)

• Supply of new housing is relatively flexible
• Tax system encourages higher leverage and flipping
• Legal system is swift but generous to defaulters
• Lenders could rely on external credit scores
• Cash-out refinancing is inexpensive in the United States
• Structured finance enabled subprime and other non-conforming lending
• Financial regulation did not prevent riskier lending

I excerpt the section on this last point below:

...

The US mortgage market is subject to an array of laws and different regulators. The regulated GSEs enforced quality control in the conforming market, but the rest of the mortgage market was more lightly regulated. Mortgage lenders that were not also depositories were the lightest regulated of all. As one example of the relatively light regulation of many mortgage lenders, consider the new regulations announced by the Federal Reserve in December 2007 and approved in July 2008, as part of its role of enforcer of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act. Among the practices newly banned by these regulations were "coercing a real estate appraiser to misstate a home's value" and "making a loan without regard to borrowers' ability to repay the loan from income and assets other than the home's value" (Federal Reserve Board 2008). The implication is that these practices were permitted in the absence of the new regulation, and were common enough to merit an explicit ban. Had all US mortgage originators been bound by a requirement to consider the affordability of the repayment explicitly -- as is the case under Australia's Uniform Consumer Credit Code or the requirements of UK legislation, for example -- it seems unlikely that no-documentation (stated-income) mortgages or "exploding ARMs" would have become so prevalent.

In addition, following intervention in 2004 by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), federally regulated lenders were exempted from state legislation which was in many cases stricter than that at the federal level. Some of the practices banned under some states' law included the prepayment penalties and balloon payments that have been shown to raise default rates, independent of the borrower's credit score (Quercia, Stegman and Davis 2007).

...

A paper well worth reading, for those who want numbers and analytics.

Technorati Tags: GSEs, subprime, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and deregulation, Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and mortgage markets.

First, what is the source of the crisis? Is it as is asserted here in this statement from John McCain today?

....

There are certainly plenty of places to point fingers, and it may be hard to pinpoint the original event that set it all in motion. But let me give you an educated guess. The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn't afford them, while turning around and selling those bad mortgages to the banks that are now going bankrupt. Using money and influence, they prevented reforms that would have curbed their power and limited their ability to damage our economy. And now, as ever, the American taxpayers are left to pay the price for Washington's failure.

...

I certainly concur with the first sentence. But I do wonder about the assertion that the problem started with and is fundamentally driven by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After all, neither of these two institutions were at the heart of the massive surge in subprime mortgages that are the most toxic component of these asset backed securities. Smarter people than me (Justin Fox, Tanta at CR h/t Mark Thoma) have been similarly dubious.

Moreover, the originating entities for these subprime mortgages were not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by large, but rather the banks that the Federal government refused to let state agencies regulate. Or the ones the Treasury's OTS itself failed to regulate. To refresh memories, consider this article from December 18, 2007 NYT:

WASHINGTON-- Until the boom in subprime mortgages turned into a national nightmare this summer, the few people who tried to warn federal banking officials might as well have been talking to themselves.

Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford.

But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.

In 2001, a senior Treasury official, Sheila C. Bair, tried to persuade subprime lenders to adopt a code of "best practices" and to let outside monitors verify their compliance. None of the lenders would agree to the monitors, and many rejected the code itself. Even those who did adopt those practices, Ms. Bair recalled recently, soon let them slip.

And leaders of a housing advocacy group in California, meeting with Mr. Greenspan in 2004, warned that deception was increasing and unscrupulous practices were spreading.

John C. Gamboa and Robert L. Gnaizda of the Greenlining Institute implored Mr. Greenspan to use his bully pulpit and press for a voluntary code of conduct.

"He never gave us a good reason, but he didn't want to do it," Mr. Gnaizda said last week. "He just wasn't interested."

Today, as the mortgage crisis of 2007 worsens and threatens to tip the economy into a recession, many are asking: where was Washington?

An examination of regulatory decisions shows that the Federal Reserve and other agencies waited until it was too late before trying to tame the industry's excesses. Both the Fed and the Bush administration placed a higher priority on promoting "financial innovation" and what President Bush has called the "ownership society."

...

On Tuesday, under a new chairman, the Federal Reserve will try to make up for lost ground by proposing new restrictions on subprime mortgages, invoking its authority under the 13-year-old Home Ownership Equity and Protection Act. Fed officials are expected to demand that lenders document a person’s income and ability to repay the loan, and they may well restrict practices that make it hard for borrowers to see hidden fees or refinance with cheaper mortgages.

It is an action that people like Mr. Gramlich and Ms. Bair advocated for years with little success. But it will have little impact on many existing subprime lenders, because most have either gone out of business or stopped making subprime loans months ago.

...

The Fed was hardly alone in not pressing to clean up the mortgage industry. When states like Georgia and North Carolina started to pass tougher laws against abusive lending practices, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency successfully prohibited them from investigating local subsidiaries of nationally chartered banks.

Virtually every federal bank regulator was loathe to impose speed limits on a booming industry. But the regulators were also fragmented among an alphabet soup of agencies with splintered and confusing jurisdictions. Perhaps the biggest complication was that many mortgage lenders did not fall under any agency's authority at all.

...

And for some more concrete examples of how deregulatory zeal had an effect, consider this account from the WSJ (March 22, 2007):

Regulators appointed by President Bush often have been more sympathetic to industry concerns about red tape than their Clinton administration predecessors. When James Gilleran, a former California banker and bank supervisor, took over the OTS in December 2001, he became known for his deregulatory zeal. At one press event in 2003, several bank regulators held gardening shears to represent their commitment to cut red tape for the industry. Mr. Gilleran brought a chain saw.

He also early on announced plans to slash expenses to resolve the agency's deficit; 20% of its work force eventually left. When he left in 2005, Mr. Gilleran declared that the OTS had "exercised increased diligence in its review of abusive consumer practices" while reducing thrifts' regulatory burden. But his successor, Mr. Reich, a former community banker, has reversed many of Mr. Gilleran's cuts. Citing "understaffing," he hired 80 examiners last year and plans to add 40 more this year. A spokeswoman for Mr. Gilleran, now chief executive of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, said he wasn't available to comment.

So, from my perspective, locating the source of the current crisis in corruption/influence peddling surrounding Fannie and Freddie exhibits a misreading of recent history. (More important might have been lax monetary policy and the saving glut, and exemptions from capital requirements for certain investment banks... [see Ritholtz])

Second, how hard will the rescue be given the reckless decisions of the past? It seems that whatever entity is established to purchase these bad assets will require some fiscal outlay. Estimates are all over the place, given that there is so much uncertainty over how much the assets will be bought for and eventually sold; here is one account:

U.S. Debt May Grow $1 Trillion on Rescue, Barclays' Pond Says

By Sandra Hernandez

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. may have to borrow an extra $700 billion to $1 trillion to fund the biggest rescue of the financial system since the Great Depression, according to Barclays Capital Inc.'s Michael Pond.

Federal takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and American International Group Inc.; the central bank's expansion of lending to financial firms; and a slowing economy will add $455 billion to the Treasury's borrowing needs, the New York-based interest-rate strategist estimated. Pond said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan to rid banks of "hundreds of billions" of troubled assets would bring the amount to $700 billion assuming the plan costs $200 billion.

"We could easily add up to an additional trillion to the outstanding Treasury debt just from the initiatives announced over the past couple of weeks," said Pond, ranked the best Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities analyst in 2008 by Institutional Investor magazine.

The government's liabilities swelled in past weeks as policy makers sought to arrest a growing financial crisis by taking over financial institutions threatened by a shortage of capital.

The Treasury on Sept. 7 took over mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said it would buy mortgage-backed debt in the open market. The Fed this week boosted its Treasury auctions to bond dealers by $25 billion, loaned $85 billion to the insurer AIG, and quadrupled the amount of dollars foreign central banks can auction to $247 billion. Paulson today said the government will buy illiquid assets from banks' balance sheets and insure money-market mutual fund holdings.

Deficit Widens

"The odds of the deficit becoming enormous are certainly there," said Nils Overdahl, a bond fund manager in Bethesda, Maryland, at New Century Advisors, which oversees $500 million. "I suspect you will see issuance at a variety of maturities."

The deficit will likely widen to $650 billion in fiscal 2009 because of the U.S. rescue of Fannie and Freddie, analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. wrote in a Sept. 12 report.

Over the next decade, the gap between spending and receipts will swell to $5.3 trillion, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts wrote Sept. 10, revising a previous forecast of $3.6 trillion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office forecast a record $438 billion deficit for 2009 on Sept. 9.

"The deficit will soar to enormous proportions,'' said Lou Crandall, the chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. ``Even before this week's events, estimates based on visible factors were pointing to a deficit above $500 billion next year, with the prospect of billions of mortgage- backed securities on top of that."

See also this Bloomberg article.

Here, I want to return the issue I've brought up countless times before. We cut taxes, and we embarked upon a war of choice, and in addition to the opportunity and fiscal costs, this constrained our range of actions for the future. Even if you thought the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "benefitted" the US economy on net, we know that the war in Iraq has cost on the order of $653 billion nominal dollars from FY03-FY0-09 [2] -- in current dollars that's even more given inflation. Those dollars could have been spent fixing the financial system. Now, we'll have to either borrow or tax to to finance the operation.

So, if you wanted the McCain extension of the Bush tax cuts, and the additional $1.3 trillion tax cuts, then you might wonder about the impact on US borrowing rates. If you were hoping for more domestic initiatives, perhaps to give tax relief to the lower and middle income households, or to invest in infrastructure, the borrowing constraints will be more binding than they otherwise would have been.

Perhaps that's obvious, but sometimes in the midst of crisis, the obvious bears repeating. Here's a picture to illustrate the budget balance outlook pre-intervention....

The purple square is just for illustrative purposes. If you think the Treasury will only have to borrow $350 billion in FY2009, then the orange square is relevant. Further, if we're lucky (and Brad Delong is right), in future years we will recoup all and more of these outlays, so the deficit will be smaller than otherwise. But, in the short run, we'll have to take a hit (of unknown magnitude) now and hope for the best.

Technorati Tags: , subprime, Fannie Mae, Freddie+Mac, and deregulation, Office of Thrift Supervision, and tax cuts.

First, what is the source of the crisis? Is it as is asserted here in this statement from John McCain today?

....

There are certainly plenty of places to point fingers, and it may be hard to pinpoint the original event that set it all in motion. But let me give you an educated guess. The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn't afford them, while turning around and selling those bad mortgages to the banks that are now going bankrupt. Using money and influence, they prevented reforms that would have curbed their power and limited their ability to damage our economy. And now, as ever, the American taxpayers are left to pay the price for Washington's failure.

...

I certainly concur with the first sentence. But I do wonder about the assertion that the problem started with and is fundamentally driven by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After all, neither of these two institutions were at the heart of the massive surge in subprime mortgages that are the most toxic component of these asset backed securities. Smarter people than me (Justin Fox, Tanta at CR h/t Mark Thoma) have been similarly dubious.

Moreover, the originating entities for these subprime mortgages were not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by large, but rather the banks that the Federal government refused to let state agencies regulate. Or the ones the Treasury's OTS itself failed to regulate. To refresh memories, consider this article from December 18, 2007 NYT:

WASHINGTON-- Until the boom in subprime mortgages turned into a national nightmare this summer, the few people who tried to warn federal banking officials might as well have been talking to themselves.

Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford.

But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.

In 2001, a senior Treasury official, Sheila C. Bair, tried to persuade subprime lenders to adopt a code of "best practices" and to let outside monitors verify their compliance. None of the lenders would agree to the monitors, and many rejected the code itself. Even those who did adopt those practices, Ms. Bair recalled recently, soon let them slip.

And leaders of a housing advocacy group in California, meeting with Mr. Greenspan in 2004, warned that deception was increasing and unscrupulous practices were spreading.

John C. Gamboa and Robert L. Gnaizda of the Greenlining Institute implored Mr. Greenspan to use his bully pulpit and press for a voluntary code of conduct.

"He never gave us a good reason, but he didn't want to do it," Mr. Gnaizda said last week. "He just wasn't interested."

Today, as the mortgage crisis of 2007 worsens and threatens to tip the economy into a recession, many are asking: where was Washington?

An examination of regulatory decisions shows that the Federal Reserve and other agencies waited until it was too late before trying to tame the industry's excesses. Both the Fed and the Bush administration placed a higher priority on promoting "financial innovation" and what President Bush has called the "ownership society."

...

On Tuesday, under a new chairman, the Federal Reserve will try to make up for lost ground by proposing new restrictions on subprime mortgages, invoking its authority under the 13-year-old Home Ownership Equity and Protection Act. Fed officials are expected to demand that lenders document a person’s income and ability to repay the loan, and they may well restrict practices that make it hard for borrowers to see hidden fees or refinance with cheaper mortgages.

It is an action that people like Mr. Gramlich and Ms. Bair advocated for years with little success. But it will have little impact on many existing subprime lenders, because most have either gone out of business or stopped making subprime loans months ago.

...

The Fed was hardly alone in not pressing to clean up the mortgage industry. When states like Georgia and North Carolina started to pass tougher laws against abusive lending practices, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency successfully prohibited them from investigating local subsidiaries of nationally chartered banks.

Virtually every federal bank regulator was loathe to impose speed limits on a booming industry. But the regulators were also fragmented among an alphabet soup of agencies with splintered and confusing jurisdictions. Perhaps the biggest complication was that many mortgage lenders did not fall under any agency's authority at all.

...

And for some more concrete examples of how deregulatory zeal had an effect, consider this account from the WSJ (March 22, 2007):

Regulators appointed by President Bush often have been more sympathetic to industry concerns about red tape than their Clinton administration predecessors. When James Gilleran, a former California banker and bank supervisor, took over the OTS in December 2001, he became known for his deregulatory zeal. At one press event in 2003, several bank regulators held gardening shears to represent their commitment to cut red tape for the industry. Mr. Gilleran brought a chain saw.

He also early on announced plans to slash expenses to resolve the agency's deficit; 20% of its work force eventually left. When he left in 2005, Mr. Gilleran declared that the OTS had "exercised increased diligence in its review of abusive consumer practices" while reducing thrifts' regulatory burden. But his successor, Mr. Reich, a former community banker, has reversed many of Mr. Gilleran's cuts. Citing "understaffing," he hired 80 examiners last year and plans to add 40 more this year. A spokeswoman for Mr. Gilleran, now chief executive of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, said he wasn't available to comment.

So, from my perspective, locating the source of the current crisis in corruption/influence peddling surrounding Fannie and Freddie exhibits a misreading of recent history. (More important might have been lax monetary policy and the saving glut, and exemptions from capital requirements for certain investment banks... [see Ritholtz])

Second, how hard will the rescue be given the reckless decisions of the past? It seems that whatever entity is established to purchase these bad assets will require some fiscal outlay. Estimates are all over the place, given that there is so much uncertainty over how much the assets will be bought for and eventually sold; here is one account:

U.S. Debt May Grow $1 Trillion on Rescue, Barclays' Pond Says

By Sandra Hernandez

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. may have to borrow an extra $700 billion to $1 trillion to fund the biggest rescue of the financial system since the Great Depression, according to Barclays Capital Inc.'s Michael Pond.

Federal takeovers of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and American International Group Inc.; the central bank's expansion of lending to financial firms; and a slowing economy will add $455 billion to the Treasury's borrowing needs, the New York-based interest-rate strategist estimated. Pond said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan to rid banks of "hundreds of billions" of troubled assets would bring the amount to $700 billion assuming the plan costs $200 billion.

"We could easily add up to an additional trillion to the outstanding Treasury debt just from the initiatives announced over the past couple of weeks," said Pond, ranked the best Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities analyst in 2008 by Institutional Investor magazine.

The government's liabilities swelled in past weeks as policy makers sought to arrest a growing financial crisis by taking over financial institutions threatened by a shortage of capital.

The Treasury on Sept. 7 took over mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said it would buy mortgage-backed debt in the open market. The Fed this week boosted its Treasury auctions to bond dealers by $25 billion, loaned $85 billion to the insurer AIG, and quadrupled the amount of dollars foreign central banks can auction to $247 billion. Paulson today said the government will buy illiquid assets from banks' balance sheets and insure money-market mutual fund holdings.

Deficit Widens

"The odds of the deficit becoming enormous are certainly there," said Nils Overdahl, a bond fund manager in Bethesda, Maryland, at New Century Advisors, which oversees $500 million. "I suspect you will see issuance at a variety of maturities."

The deficit will likely widen to $650 billion in fiscal 2009 because of the U.S. rescue of Fannie and Freddie, analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. wrote in a Sept. 12 report.

Over the next decade, the gap between spending and receipts will swell to $5.3 trillion, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts wrote Sept. 10, revising a previous forecast of $3.6 trillion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office forecast a record $438 billion deficit for 2009 on Sept. 9.

"The deficit will soar to enormous proportions,'' said Lou Crandall, the chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. ``Even before this week's events, estimates based on visible factors were pointing to a deficit above $500 billion next year, with the prospect of billions of mortgage- backed securities on top of that."

See also this Bloomberg article.

Here, I want to return the issue I've brought up countless times before. We cut taxes, and we embarked upon a war of choice, and in addition to the opportunity and fiscal costs, this constrained our range of actions for the future. Even if you thought the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 "benefitted" the US economy on net, we know that the war in Iraq has cost on the order of $653 billion nominal dollars from FY03-FY0-09 [2] -- in current dollars that's even more given inflation. Those dollars could have been spent fixing the financial system. Now, we'll have to either borrow or tax to to finance the operation.

So, if you wanted the McCain extension of the Bush tax cuts, and the additional $1.3 trillion tax cuts, then you might wonder about the impact on US borrowing rates. If you were hoping for more domestic initiatives, perhaps to give tax relief to the lower and middle income households, or to invest in infrastructure, the borrowing constraints will be more binding than they otherwise would have been.

Perhaps that's obvious, but sometimes in the midst of crisis, the obvious bears repeating. Here's a picture to illustrate the budget balance outlook pre-intervention....

The purple square is just for illustrative purposes. If you think the Treasury will only have to borrow $350 billion in FY2009, then the orange square is relevant. Further, if we're lucky (and Brad Delong is right), in future years we will recoup all and more of these outlays, so the deficit will be smaller than otherwise. But, in the short run, we'll have to take a hit (of unknown magnitude) now and hope for the best.

Technorati Tags: , subprime, Fannie Mae, Freddie+Mac, and deregulation, Office of Thrift Supervision, and tax cuts.