Today, we're fortunate to have Simon van Norden, Professor of Finance at HEC Montréal (École des Hautes Études Commerciales), as a guest blogger.

"Once you've seen one financial market crisis...you've seen one financial market crisis."

-- Attributed to Federal Reserve Board Governor Kevin Warsh by former US Treasury Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Phillip Swagel in The Financial Crisis: an Inside View, March 2009, p. 4.

The financial crisis has set a lot of records so far; it's certainly the worst US banking crisis of my lifetime. Some, as suggested by the above quote, see such crises as unique events; each one is singular and there's not much to be learned about how to handle one from looking at past crises. For example, there's no precedent that I know of for a banking crisis involves the failure of the biggest counterparties for credit default swaps.

I think a much smaller number of people see the crisis differently; they think of it as another potato, a big one. No two potatoes are exactly alike in size and shape, but they all taste pretty much the same and you can use the same recipe for most of them. For that reason, it's interesting to see to what extent the current crisis behaves like other crises, even if it has some unique features.

I think there's some interesting parallels between the current crisis, the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of the 80s and 90s, and the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) Crisis of 1998. But before I talk about that, let me talk about what a "typical" banking crisis looks like.

The Basel View of "Typical" Banking Crises

If we set the way-back machine to 2004, a time long before terms like ARM, CDS, and AIG entered common conversation, we can see what people thought a typical bank crisis looked like. That's the year the guys in Basel who worry about such things published "Bank Failures in Mature Economies." They looked at the main banking crises in developed countries from 1980 to 2000 and asked themselves what they saw. To be sure, they saw some differences, but they also saw some patterns. Here's part of their main conclusions (note that "credit risk" is Banker for "bad loans").

Most of the widespread [banking] failures required some amount of public support, sometimes in very large amounts. All of the episodes that involved large amounts of public support were caused by credit risk problems. ...The widespread banking crises that involved credit risk were remarkably similar. A period of financial deregulation resulted in rapid growth in lending, particularly in real estate related lending. Rapidly rising real estate prices encouraged more lending, abetted by lax regulatory systems in many cases. When economic recessions occurred, inflated real estate prices collapsed, leading directly to the failures. (BIS, 2004, p.66)

That sounds a lot like what the US (and some other countries) experienced immediately afterwards. There had been some financial deregulation, which was followed by a period of very rapid growth in real-estate-related lending. Rapidly rising real estate values encouraged more lending. The biggest difference seems to be the last point; the recession did not cause real estate prices to collapse; they had peaked by 2006 and fell before the recession started. We could probably also argue about whether it was financial deregulation or "financial innovation that avoided regulations" that helped fuel the increase in real-estate lending. However, in this view the boom and bust cycle in real estate, the subsequent fallout for the banking sector, and the need for a major publicly-funded bailout is not remarkable; we've seen this kind of story before. In fact, Reinhart and Rogoff have gone so far as to tabulate what happens to government debt in the aftermath of a banking crisis. They find that real government debt increases by an average of 86% in the three years after the start of a crisis. So regardless of how you feel about the US government's spending during the crisis, it seems less remarkable when compared to what typically happens in a banking crisis.

Three American Financial Market Crises

More support for the view that banking crises follow similar patterns can be found by comparing the last three US banking crises; the S&L crisis of the late 80s and early 90s, the collapse of LTCM and the most recent crisis. The S&L crisis closely followed the pattern described by the BIS report quoted above; financial deregulation, followed by a rapid growth in real estate lending, creation of local speculative bubbles in real estate prices, and the failure of institutions as bubbles burst (For descriptions of the S&L crisis, see BIS (2004) or the GAO 1996 report). The General Accounting Office put the cost of the S&L bailout to US taxpayers at $132.1 billion, or a bit under 2% of GDP (United States General Accounting Office (1996) "Financial Audit: Resolution Trust Corporation's 1994 and 1995 Financial Statements," Table 3 and author's calculations). That may seem small compared to the size of TARP or this year's projected federal deficit, but it was shocking at the time.

At first glance, the LTCM crisis appears quite different; no bank failed (LTCM was a hedge fund), its failure was unrelated to real estate investment or credit risk, and the crisis was resolved at no cost to the taxpayer. However, the LTCM crisis showed that, as a result of deregulation, a systemic crisis could start outside the regulated banking system. Another GAO study noted:

The LTCM case illustrated that market discipline can break down and showed that potential systemic risk can be posed not only by a cascade of major firm failures, but also by leveraged trading positions. LTCM was able to establish leveraged trading positions of a size that posed potential systemic risk primarily because the banks and securities and futures firms that were its creditors and counterparties failed to enforce their own risk management standards. (US GAO (1999) p. 29)

The same report noted:

• Gaps in [US Government agencies'] regulatory authority limits their ability to identify and mitigate systemic risk (US GAO (1999) p. 24)
• Regulators did not identify weaknesses in firms' risk management practices until after the crisis (US GAO (1999) p. 16)
• Monitoring did not reveal the potential systemic threat posed by LTCM (US GAO (1999) p. 17)

and provided a variety of proposals (some of which are mentioned below) to reform the financial system by reducing systemic risks.

The success of those reforms can be judged by role of similar factors in the most recent US banking crisis. An important factor in the latter has been the role of trading in derivative securities, primarily mortgage-based securities and credit default swaps (CDS). Again, government oversight of this market was limited due to faith in the market's ability to manage its exposure to risk, and was further weakened by divided responsibilities between multiple agencies. Regulators and private lenders alike were again unaware of major firms' exposure to losses on derivative securities; this time even the heads of major financial institutions were not aware of the extent of their own exposures. Again, this was in part due to the lack of transparency, lack of clearing and high leverage afforded by trade in Over-the-Counter (OTC) derivatives (particularly those traded at Bear Stearns.) Again, weaknesses in firms' risk management practices became apparent only in hindsight. Again, major financial firms that were not regulated as traditional deposit-taking banks took on highly-leveraged positions and posed major systemic threats to the banking system. These included several investment banks (such as Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and CitiGroup) and the insurance company AIG.

Conclusion

Looking at recent events from this perspective, I still see the size of the losses as breathtaking, but the causes and dynamics seem much more familiar. What bothers me is that some of the suggested solutions sound pretty familiar too; make derivative trading more transparent, improve coordination among the regulators, give regulators more power to control systemic risk in new places, and so on. Despite that, not only was there another crisis, but it was much larger than the two previous crises combined.

This post written by Simon van Norden.

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.

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

The $700 billion dollar figure may have been plucked from nowhere but, according the The Wall Street Journal, it may be the "greatest trade ever". Here's why:

It's not without risk, but the Feds, with lots of levers, can and will pump capital into the U.S. economy to get it moving again. Future heads of Treasury and the Federal Reserve will be growth advocates - in effect, "talking their book." While normally this creates a threat of inflation and a run on the dollar, and we may see dollar exchange rates turn south near term, don't expect it to last.

First, with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley now operating as low-leverage bank holding companies, a dollar injected into the economy will most likely turn into $10 in capital (instead of $30 when they were investment banks). This is a huge change. Plus, a stronger U.S. economy, with its financial players having clean balance sheets, will become a safe haven for capital.

Europe is threatened by an angry Russian bear. The Far East, especially China, has its own post-Olympic banking house of cards of non-performing loans to deal with. Interest rates will tick up as the economy expands -- a plus for the dollar. Finally, a stronger economy driven by industry instead of financials means more jobs, less foreclosures and higher held-to-maturity payouts on this Fed loan portfolio.

You can slice the numbers a lot of different ways. My calculations, which assume 50% impairment on subprime loans, suggest it is possible, all in, for this portfolio to generate between $1 trillion and $2.2 trillion - the greatest trade ever.

Note that first sentence: "It's not without risk, but the Feds, with lots of levers, can and will pump capital into the U.S. economy to get it moving again." It should send shivers down the spine of investors holding dollar assets.

According to Rude Awakening editor Eric Fry - and we think he's bang on the money with this one - investors should "Sell the dollar, sell the dollar, sell the dollar"...

The U.S. Treasury will absolutely, positively increase the money supply to rescue the financial system…Which means investors must try to protect themselves against an almost certain inflation.

So what’s an investor to do?

Sell American stocks, bonds and currencies; buy foreign stocks, bonds and currencies. And, of course, buy commodities.