RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

The Wall Street Model is Officially Dead

Dear friends, family, countrymen,

We are gathered here today to lay to rest a business model which revolutionized our financial industry. I have fond memories and knew the legendary “originate to distribute” well. In fact, I welcomed the opportunity to share the background and development of this model last November 12th, in writing “The Wall Street Model Is Broken….and Won’t Soon be Fixed.”

Regrettably, those charged with nurturing and protecting this model, in turn, cannibalized it. As such, today we officially gather to bury it. Tomorrow, President Obama will announce new guidelines and oversight for a new securitization model on Wall Street. The Financial Times provides a uniquely balanced perspective on this new model, Treasury Plans Strict Rules for Securitization:

The US Treasury is planning a sweeping overhaul of securitisation markets with tough new rules designed to restore confidence by reducing the incentive for lenders to originate bad loans and flip them on to investors.

The authorities plan to force lenders to retain part of the credit risk of the loans that are bundled into securities and to end the gain-on-sale accounting rules that helped spur the boom of the markets at the heart of the financial crisis.

Sounds like a very good idea. Clearly the model needed to be ‘reborn’ given the massive abuses and fraud which were promulgated under the prior model. Recall that the prior model, also designated as the “shadow banking system,” embodied 40-45% of the total credit injected into our economy. Can we raise a strong, disciplined, and well behaved “model” to replace that void? I have serious questions.

As we assess the potential for the “new securitization model,” we need to understand how the “prior model” grew so large. Well, not unlike the abusive practices employed by professional athletes with steroids, our “old model” also cut a number of corners. In so doing, the “old model” mispriced the true risks of a wide array of loans originated over a period of years.

The “new model” will look to address the proper pricing of risks in loans. How will it accomplish this proper pricing?

1. The “new model” will require banks/originators to maintain an equity stake in the loan. What does that mean? It means that the bank/originator must maintain a degree of exposure to the performance of the loan. As such, the originator will have to set aside capital reserves against that exposure. Please remember this point as I will return to the cost of this capital reserve.

2. The “new model” will require rating agencies reviewing the credit quality of the loans to be much more diligent in the process. The rating agencies will have to allow investors an opportunity to review their credit review process. The rating agencies will also be required to develop a new means of generating revenue than the inherent conflict embedded in the system in which issuers paid for credit ratings.

What does all this mean? The rating agencies will be under a microscope and much more culpable. Revenues will not be generated purely based on volume. As liabilities for rating agencies increase, their due diligence will need to increase as well. This increased dilgence will be passed along to borrowers. I will return to this point as well.

3. The “new model” will also require the banks/originators to change the accounting methodology for the sale of these loans. The banks/originators will no longer be allowed to book all of the income up front. That accounting practice, known as “gain on sale,” will change to an “accrual” based accounting method in which the banks/originators book income as the loan is paid off over time. This change will also impact banks/originators by forcing them to maintain greater capital reserves while not recognizing income as quickly.

In summary, I embrace the principles embodied in each of these points. That said, each change will increase the costs associated with the origination of loans. Who will absorb those costs? Originators? No way. Investors? No way. Rating agencies? No way. Borrowers? Way!!

Interest rates will move higher on the underlying loans under this model. They may very well move so high that the banks will not even want to sell the loans, but rather retain them for their own portfolio.

LD

  • Seattle Moss

    Hey Larry,

    I’m willing to announce today that we are officially in the era of inflation.
    Of course Obama doesn’t care about the ability to make money or the fact that oil is on the rise do to the United States perceived weakness in the middle east. Obama welcomes the destruction of the existing economy and hopes he can have his socialist revolution on the backs of us employers of the existing economy.

    So why does inflation start today.
    As the manufacturer of essential packaging supplies for the food industry we as a company have been hit with three price increases this year for the plastic resins that make our industrial bags.
    Up till now we have absorbed the increases and even took a hit early on so that we can continue to be the most competitive in the market.
    Deflation is over!

    We have now received two increases in just the past week.
    We have no choice now but to increase prices which will be passed on to the processors who will in turn will pass that on to the consumer.

    Say goodbye to cheap prices on anything!

  • whoisjohngalt

    Larry, from my sources it is already too late–the system is broken & we are already in a depression that will last for years. The banks are underwater already with bad loans. They changed the mark to market accounting rules so banks could show phoney 1st quarter profits.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=alC3LxSjomZ8

    The government is using $ from TARP to prop up the banks. The government is not printing TARP $, but borrowing it from big T-bill auctions. Since the stock market sucks along with corporate bonds, there are plenty of people/institutions that will buy short term T-bills that pay almost 0% interest because at least the $ is safe there. The banks are using $ from TARP to prop up their required minimum 8% reserves, so what do they do? They do not lend it to consumers to buy cars or houses like they normally would do, but turn around and buy T-bills.

    I could go on & spell out how this effects the economy buy I am not going to unless there is interest. May be someone wants to use logic and share what will happen next. Come on, put on your thinking caps.

  • http://www.senseoncents.com Larry Doyle

    Wow. Very interesting color. Thanks for passing it along!!

  • oowawa

    Interest rates will move higher on the underlying loans under this model. They may very well move so high that the banks will not even want to sell the loans, but rather retain them for their own portfolio.

    But but but, wasn’t the Fed trying to keep interest rates low in order to stimulate the economy? I don’t think realtors, home builders, and home owners want to see higher mortgage rates right now. Or am I missing something? I’m soooo confused!

    (Thanks very much for another informative post, LD.)

  • A-Rod

    OBAMA PLAN TO CALL FOR SUPERVISION OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL FIRMS THROUGH SUPERVISORY COLLEGES–OFFICIAL

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WEQ001111.htm

    Also, Senate health overhaul costs top $1.6T.

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090616/D98S05IO1.html

    Finally, there’s this bit of good news -

    Barack Obama, and the criminal class on Wall Street, aided by a corporate media that continues to peddle fatuous gossip and trash talk as news while we endure the greatest economic crisis in our history, may have fooled us, but the rest of the world knows we are bankrupt. And these nations are damned if they are going to continue to prop up an inflated dollar and sustain the massive federal budget deficits, swollen to over $2 trillion, which fund America’s imperial expansion in Eurasia and our system of casino capitalism. They have us by the throat. They are about to squeeze.

    There are meetings being held Monday and Tuesday in Yekaterinburg, Russia, (formerly Sverdlovsk) among Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and other top officials of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The United States, which asked to attend, was denied admittance. Watch what happens there carefully. The gathering is, in the words of economist Michael Hudson, “the most important meeting of the 21st century so far.”

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090614_the_american_empire_is_bankrupt/

  • Susan B. Athena

    Weimar??????

  • whoisjohngalt

    Weimar and hyperinflation would occur if the government printed $ with nothing behind it. This is not the case now. Here is the result from the June 16 auction for 28 day T-bills:
    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2009/R_20090616_1.pdf

    There were over $96 billion tendered with only $24 billion accepted. So, there were 4 times the offers than those accepted.

    While it is true the government is borrowing incredible amounts of $, they are not printing it to cause hyperinflation like Weimar did.

    Thus, in the short-term I think the posibility of hyperinflation in a myth. Any other guesses what may happen?

  • oowawa

    LD, thank you very much for elaborating upon these proposed changes.

    So these procedures are going to result in an increase in interest rates, including higher mortgage rates. The Fed has been striving to keep these rates as low as possible in order to stimulate the economy. Aren’t these considerations at odds with each other?

  • OMG

    new rules designed to restore confidence by reducing the incentive for lenders to originate bad loans and flip them on to investors

    This sounds like HB 1728 where fudiciary duty with a 5% mandatory stake in the loan for originators for the life of the loan no matter what investor buys it. This sounds like a good idea but this is not only unproven, but can kill more jobs and businesses. The cash on hand required to have a 5% financial stake in every loan originated is too high to maintain for small Biz.

  • HARP

    We can`t believe anything they say. Just take a look at what Paul Krugman said on August 2, 2002:

    To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

  • Ellen D

    Hey Seattle. Good to get an update on your business. In our area the trend for Supermarkets is bulk open bins. Hope that doesn’t affect your business.

    We just laid off 2 people today. Our subsidiary laid off 30. Stagflation anyone?

  • Hot librarian

    Yekaterinberg….symbolic no?

    Iirc this was where the last Czar & family were shot dead . However it was an extremely very bloody affair because all had concealed bejewelled vests on & it took many bullets to do them in.

  • oowawa

    whoisjohngalt, in this morning’s article, market analyst Karl Denninger explains how we could be in for a crushing deflationary spiral:

    http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1127-Ssssshhh….-Its-D-D-D-D-…..html

  • Seattle Moss

    Hello Ellen,
    There is a big difference between the industrial bags that I produce locally and the grocery style bags produced in China.
    My bags are part of the food chain and any changes in the manufacturing process through higher carbon taxes,high oil prices or draconian regulations mean higher food and other costs to the consumer.
    As for the grocery bags made in China…I say go ahead and limit them if you can since they are produced with chemicals that are harmful to the environment and have been banned in production here in the US.

  • IndianaDem

    I think inflationary trends have already been with us for a while. Has anybody compared their current average grocery bill with that of one year ago? There’s the subtle downsizing of packages. What was previously a 24 oz container has been quietly dropped to 22 oz–often with clever changes of box, bottle, or jar configuration to disguise the content shrinkage.

    While clothing might seem cheaper with all of the sales, that’s more than offset by the general downward trend in quality and durability–a variant on the package downsizing theme. There’s less and cheaper fabric content. Have you tried to find a basic, well-made, heavy-weight, 100% cotten sweat shirt lately? Or noticed how thin the cloth of a new pair of jeans has become?

  • whoisjohngalt

    oowawa, we have been in a deflationary period since last summer. This time a year ago crude was $140/B. Housing & cars are going down in price. So what is out there to cause inflation? Nothing really. Was there inflation during the depression? No

    Can people get a loan to buy a house or car? Not like they use to. That killed GM & Chrysler & housing.

    What about jobs, unemployment 9.4% and rising? People who lost their jobs don’t buy stuff–they sell stuff. Is that going to cause inflation? no

    Government borrowing at near 0%, lending to banks to replace their minimum reserves & then the banks buying tbills (not lending it), will that cause inflation? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! IT TAKES $ OUT OF CIRCULATION & THIS IS THE BIGGEST DEFLATIONARY THING GOING.

    Comments?

  • http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

    Hi Seattle, This is OT, but I found an excellent website called shadowstats.com It’s a person who takes government data and adjusts it by adding/subtracting critical elements that the government leaves out/adds. He gives detailed explanations of how he creates each new chart.

    Current info is by subscription but anything over 6 months old is free to download so you can check out the type of work he does.

    Apparently it’s used by many economists. His data currently shows a higher rate of unemployment, inflation, and CPI than the government does (as I’ve gleaned from commenters on other sites).

    I thought it may be interesting to you.

  • http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

    ..and to LD, too!

  • oowawa

    I guess this needs to be said, although it really should not be necessary: economic bubbles are not a good idea, because they will cause major economic distress when they deflate or pop. We should avoid economic “bubbles” of all kinds.

  • Jim N

    There were over $96 billion tendered with only $24 billion accepted. So, there were 4 times the offers than those accepted.

    Clarification of the above:

    There were 4 bids for every Tbill sold.

    Crazy as it may seem to us sometimes, America remains the safest monetary refuge on Earth.

  • http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

    Sorry for the disjointed posting, but here is an article on how and why he calculates the CPI differently from the government:

    http://www.shadowstats.com/article/consumer_price_index

blog comments powered by Disqus