Obama and sophisticated financial instruments

Wall Street Journal:

President Barack Obama said for the first time that the government might assess new fees against financial companies engaging in what he labeled "far-out transactions," in order to protect taxpayers from future bailouts.

Mr. Obama on Wednesday compared the possible fees to the assessments that more than 8,000 banks pay the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to guarantee deposits. He didn't describe what sorts of transactions might trigger the fees, though the way he described it suggests the proposal could cover exotic instruments such as credit derivatives that some believe played a key role in escalating the financial crisis. He also indicated that the fees might be levied against transactions the government wants to discourage.

"So if you guys want to do them, then you got to put something into the kitty to make sure that if you screw up, it's not taxpayer dollars that have to pay for it," Mr. Obama said in response to a question at a press conference. "It's dollars coming out of your profits."

Administration officials declined to elaborate on Mr. Obama's remarks regarding the fees. It is unclear if there is a concrete proposal pending, or what the details would be.

...

It is worth noting that the institutions doing these transactions are already putting their money at risk. If fees are added to the transaction they will not come out of the financial underwriter's pocket. They will be added as a cost of the transaction that will be paid by the issuer.

The statement by the President suggest he still does not understand the underlying dynamic that caused the financial meltdown. The government forced lenders to take risks on mortgages in order to get people otherwise not qualified into homes they could not afford. In order to deal with those risks the underwriters attempted to quantify the risks using formulas devised by mathematicians, that unbeknown to them had invalid assumptions about the risks of foreclosures and the effect they would have on a pool of mortgages.

They failed to see not only the number of foreclosures, but the cascading effect it would have on other loans that would become questionable as more and more borrowers found themselves upside down on their loans. Another invalid assumption that botht he government and the institutions made was that the collateralized mortgage instruments would add liquidity to the mortgage market. But as the problems mounted they actually froze the market.

If I were advising a company in this business now, I would tell them they need to do individual due diligence on each pool of loans they package and not rely on some formula to predict which loans may go into default.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more