By J.D. Seagraves, on October 27th, 2008
Not so long ago, AIG was the world’s largest insurer. In the year 2000, its value peaked at over $265 billion, and just one year ago, the insurance giant was worth nearly $170 billion. But last month, facing bankruptcy, the once-proud AIG—now worth a mere $2.65 billion—became the largest welfare recipient in U.S. history, receiving a then-unprecedented $85 billion “rescue package” in money created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.
All financial crises are either directly or indirectly caused by the Federal Reserve’s anti-market monetary manipulations. But the government can never blame itself or its central bank—it has to find scapegoats. And who better to blame than people and institutions who deal in private and voluntary financial exchanges outside of the government’s domineering and prosperity-killing regulatory scope?
It was the “speculators” who caused AIG to fail—or at least that’s the official government story. More specifically, it was the roguish brigands who deal in the unregulated market for credit-default swaps (CDS).
The Coming Political Shakedown
Credit-default what? The official story is all the more plausible since 99% of Americans (to be generous) have absolutely no idea what a credit-default swap is. And why would they? Most of them went to government-funded schools that teach statist myths about the cause of the Great Depression and the need for strong anti-trust regulation to thwart potential “robber barons.” The real robber barons, of course, have always been the men behind the curtain writing the very regulations allegedly intended to rein them in!
With this in mind, one has to wonder what financial interests are backing Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who has threatened that his party might not just increase regulation of CDSs but prohibit the market altogether. On October 14, Harkin—who is chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which has authority over derivatives regulation—said that CDSs “increase the risk, the systemic risk, of the whole society.” Global warming, Islamic terrorism, and CDSs: mankind’s greatest threats.
CDSs: Among the Last Vestiges of the Free Market
What anti-capitalist congressmen hate most about credit-default swaps is that they’re completely unregulated. In the wake of the Great Depression, FDR’s New Deal added a backbreaking amount of new market regulations that have served to do nothing but provide investors with a false sense of security and, in some cases, discriminate against the non-affluent by making certain asset classes off limits for them.
Even if you believe we need an SEC and “Blue Skies” regulations to “protect the public,” a similar argument cannot be made for CDSs, which are private transactions between large financial institutions. The public only assumes liability for CDSs when the government steps in to bail out firms that made bad financial decisions. No bailout; no liability.
AIG made some bad bets in the CDS market. As a result, their stockholders were decimated and some of their CDS trading partners were left in the lurch too. That’s the way things work in a capitalist economy: every transaction carries its own risk. And financial markets cannot function when the government steps in to remove the element of risk—or more accurately, to socialize it.
How do Credit-Default Swaps Work?
A credit-default swap is a pseudo-insurance agreement made between two counterbalancing traders. The reason CDSs are considered “pseudo-insurance” instead of actual insurance—something AIG might have actually known something about—is in effort to avoid the onerous regulations the government puts on official insurance products. Regardless, anything that two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business, and the same philosophy should apply to financial institutions.
An example of a typical CDS agreement would involve one firm (Company A) with a lot of money invested in the bonds of a third party (say, GM). Company B would offer to sell Company A insurance protection against GM’s default. Perhaps Company A would agree to pay $265,000 a year to insure its $10 million in GM bonds. The terms of the agreement would spell the circumstances under which Company B would have to pay Company A and how much, but typically, payment is triggered by formal bankruptcy or failure to pay bond interest. In such a case, Company B would buy the bonds from Company A at a premium or pay Company A the difference between the bonds’ current market value and their par value.
That’s not so confusing, is it?
How CDSs Make the Financial Markets Safer
What is so sinister about such an arrangement? Nothing. Credit-default swaps let companies shift risk and efficiently allocate capital. What’s more, they work to keep the credit markets honest and to expose fraud or negligence on the part of bond rating firms like Moody’s.
For example, if a company’s credit-default swaps are trading at a high yield, and yet the firm is still rated as being credit-worthy by Moody’s, there may be a problem. Typically, the market can better assess a company’s financial health than credit-rating firms. Banning the CDS market, as some Democrats would like to do, would be a lot like the recent short-sale ban—it would merely shield unsound companies from having the reality of their situation exposed to the average investor.
Credit-default swaps emerged from the free market to meet a demand. Banning them would, like all financial regulations, only punish the honest and responsible participants in the market. Let the fraudsters go bankrupt and let the responsible parties pick up the pieces. This is the system of capitalism that served us so well for so many years—now is no time to turn our backs on that which made us great.
By Stephan Zimmermann, on October 27th, 2008
Will companies that issued derivatives based on bundled student loans be the next financial dominoes that will require a government “bailout”? The country’s long dedication to education makes it a virtual certainty.
The emphasis of the role of government in education predates the establishment of the United States as a country. As early as 1642, a year before the founding of Harvard, laws of the Massachusetts Bay Colony broke with English tradition of purely private education and introduced a role for the state. The law essentially suggested that the colony’s government would assume the duty of teaching children if parents failed to do so.
A century later, the new Congress of the United States enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. It set forth the role and obligation of the state in education. Article 3 of the Ordinance stated that
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Early in the 19th century, Horace Mann took a leading role in the advancement of public education. Both as a Senator from Massachusetts and later as Secretary of the State Board of Education in 1837, Mann was instrumental in establishing textbooks and libraries, doubling the wages of teachers, and securing state aid for education. He argued that the country’s wealth would increase by educating the public and should be borne by the taxpayer. He was immensely successful in the task. Mann ultimately became president of Antioch College in 1853, six years prior to his death.
The fundamentals for universal public education were established and accepted on both a private and state level. However, it took nearly three quarters of a century, in 1935, for direct federal government loans to be debated. First, government student lending began on the state level when Indiana initiated the waiver of fees to students who successfully competed in statewide tests.
By 1944, the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (commonly known as the G.I. Bill) was passed. It was the first legislation to provide direct aid for students on the federal level. The bill was amended and expanded following the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. Now called the Montgomery G.I. bill, it forms a crucial benefit to men and women voluntarily joining the military services.
The next half century saw a rapid rise in various federal, or federally-guaranteed, student loans and grants. Loans are to be repaid at subsidized low interest rates, while grants are outright gifts, requiring certain criteria and qualifications.
Some examples include:
- National Defense Education Act was launched after Russia orbited Sputnik I in 1958. It was centered on science, mathematics and language. The federal program is now called the Federal Perkins Loan program for low-income students with ten years to repay at five percent interest.
- The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act 1963 for medical and health program students was later broadened to add scholarships in addition to loans.
- The most significant and sizeable is the Federal Stafford Loan Program. It was initially passed by Congress in 1965 as the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. The program used private banks and other lenders, guaranteed by the federal government.
- Outright grants, such as the 1965 Educational Opportunity Grant Program and the 1972 Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, now known as the Pell Grant, consist of outright gifts to students in low income brackets. Eligibility is based strictly on need.
Later yet, government educational funding started to be offered to middle and upper income families such as the 1978 Middle Assistance Act and the 1981 PLUS loans.
Finally, loan consolidations and the William D. Ford Direct Student Loan Program of 1993 expanded loans available directly from participating schools.
As the population increased, and students availed themselves of the increasing variety of grants and loans, so did defaults on student loans.
A report published in October 2007 by Education Sector, an independent non-profit, non-partisan think tank, shows that student loan default rates were approximately five percent. Twenty percent, the largest percentage of those defaulting, owed $15,000 or more after attaining a four-year undergraduate degree.
According to the report,
Black students who graduated in 1992–93 school year had an overall default rate that was over five times higher than white students and over nine times higher than Asian students. … Hispanic students’ overall default rate was over twice that of white students and four times higher than Asian students. (www.educationsector.com)
The current financial crisis offers some serious food for thought.
Most significant is that, unlike mortgages, student loans have no underlying asset value. While defaults on mortgages have the backing of real estate – no matter if it has depreciated in market value – student loans are unsecured. Recourse to recover default payments may exist through attachment of wages and other measures, including tracking of an individual through IRS records, but has no tangible value except the student’s future earning power.
Despite the high-risk exposure, private firms in the student loan industry, such as SML Corporation, generally known as “Sallie Mae,” realized some $18.5 billion in derivatives sales in 2007. According to Bloomberg.com on October 22, Sallie Mae lost $185.5 million for the third quarter, compared to $344 million year-to-date. The company increased contingencies for bad student loans by some 31%. It also had extraordinary legal expenses in connection to a failed sale of the company to a third party. The stock declined from a high of $48.24 to close at $4.50 October 22, year-to-year.
According to Bloomberg, SLM “is partly insulated from the crisis because the company’s loan portfolio is 82 percent government guaranteed. The U.S. Department of Education is offering funding for those loans through July 2010.”
SLM Corporation owns or manages some 10 million student loans in addition to its ancillary businesses of college savings accounts and collection agencies. It was originally formed in 1972 as a “government-sponsored entity” similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It became a totally independent company in 2004.
The question remains: if SLM Corporation’s management underestimates its potential student loan defaults and overestimates its cash and asset positions, will the federal government be in yet another “bailout” mode?
The history of government’s historic and stated position regarding education is clear. It remains for legislators to determine how best to reduce or eliminate student loan defaults. Don’t let the fear of college debt keep you from getting your degree. See the affordable degree options available at Belhaven College.
Stephan is a former department chair for economics and taught at various colleges and universities at both graduate and undergraduate levels. If you would like Stephan to answer your economics-related questions, read his post “Got an Economics Question?” and submit your questions in the comments area there.
By Evelyn Black, on October 27th, 2008
Why, oh why, did the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression have to hit during a presidential election year?
The ‘Fear Index’, also known as the VIX (or, officially, the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index) is a financial tool that measures market swings or volatility. The higher the VIX goes, the scarier the market looks, and the more panicky investors feel. Until very recently, few people had heard of the VIX and even fewer cared about it, but ever since the credit crunch took hold a few weeks back, the VIX has been a staple number on nightly cable news channels. On October 17, it hit 70.3, the highest fear rating ever recorded since the VIX was first introduced in 1993.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t really need a VIX rating to convince me that people are scared. Insiders and investment specialists do have a practical use for an exact day-by-day volatility measurement. People like me, however, who write for economics blogs and read the financial sections of the major newspapers for sport, tend to get a general sense of the mood of the country simply by watching how many people in our own communities are completely melting down at any given moment.
Here’s a basic formula I’ve devised that any nonprofessional can use to measure financial fear:
1) Take the number of personal friends and family members who have lost at least 30% of their 401(k), and 2) divide that by the number of emotional outbursts about the economy that you have personally fallen victim to on the day you are measuring, then 3) multiply that final figure by the chocolate available in your household by 10:00 p.m. on any given weeknight, and 4) eat all the chocolate before someone else in your house gets to it.
Perform that equation and I guarantee you will discover that Americans are pretty scared right now.
Sadly, fear is a big stick that can be useful in political campaigns, especially with only days left until November 4th. Think you might need some help with that adjustable rate mortgage pretty darn quick? Socialist! What, do you think the government is supposed to wipe your chin and put you to bed! On the other hand, do you think you deserve the tax breaks you got under George W. Bush for finally, after 50 plus years, making it to a 50% income bracket? Fat cat! What are you, some kind of AIG executive or something? I’ll bet you eat homeless people for breakfast, you scoundrel!
The rhetoric surrounding the already significant economic mess is off the charts emotionally right now, and I submit it does not help the current situation one bit. What can we make of the term ’socialist’ in an environment in which the U.S. Treasury has just admitted it is considering nationalizing the banks? Which is more ’socialist’: a nationalized banking system, or a universal healthcare system? Don’t taxes by definition always redistribute wealth (unless we’re talking about a flat tax, which we aren’t)?
On a related note, if people who earn over $250,000 are actually about to be financially eviscerated by Barack Obama’s plan to rescind the Bush tax cuts, how is it that Cindy McCain paid just 20% of her 2007 income ($2 million of a total income of $10 million) but my household got stuck paying 27% on a microscopic fraction of that amount? OK, I know that question isn’t entirely logical, but it does beg a related question: Are taxes really the central issue here? Or do we just need access to much, much better accountants?
The economic political waters are about as muddy as they can get right now, and that’s useful because confusion and rhetoric throws people back on their own fears and emotional prejudices instead of their capacity for rational analysis of the issues at hand.
I’ll be frank: I have no clue what is going to happen next.
There, I said it.
You know, there are people in the world who spend years and years in Zen meditation practice just to someday, hopefully, somehow, train their minds to live completely in the present moment. Here in America, we’ve suddenly been given that gift free of charge by means of a financial meltdown. If we want, we can choose to simply admit that we are at a completely unrecognized moment in historical time, that no one is certain how this is all going shake out, and then we can just wing it, as it were.
That’s what will ultimately end up happening anyway.
In Zen meditation, when practitioners get caught up in projecting what might or might not happen and in thinking so fast it starts to make a soft whirring noise inside their own heads, the Zen master will often come up behind that practitioner and whap him or her upside the head with a big stick to snap that person out of it. Right now I see an excess of stick wielding Zen masters and a shortage of humble practitioners. If one more Zen master starts in on my own head, seriously, I’m going to…
Well, I’m going to do exactly what I’m currently doing: baking lots of chocolate things and eating them while I still can.
Here’s the scoop (as I understand it): We are either in for the hardest, longest recession in U.S. history or a mild downturn of one to two years followed by complete recovery. We are either about to become a socialist nation with requisite neo-WPA posters in every heavily-taxed home, or else we’re about to give the obscenely wealthy all the rest of our money and stuff, whatever little we have left, even our cats. These dueling outcomes will destroy us by fire or ice, but the important thing for us to understand is that, either way, we will indeed be destroyed.
No wonder people are scared!
I submit we may soon be looking at C) None of the above.
In the meantime, keep your stick to yourself, would you please?
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
|
|
Most Popular Posts