Financial Crisis
Financial Crisis
Financial Crisis
In the years leading up to the crisis, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002-2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[5] [6] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in MBS reported
Subprime mortgage crisis significant losses. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[7] While the housing and credit bubbles were growing, a series of factors caused the financial system to become increasingly fragile. Policymakers did not recognize the increasingly important role played by financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, also known as the shadow banking system. Some experts believe these institutions had become as important as commercial (depository) banks in providing credit to the U.S. economy, but they were not subject to the same regulations.[8] These institutions as well as certain regulated banks had also assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or MBS losses.[9] These losses impacted the ability of financial institutions to lend, slowing economic activity. Concerns regarding the stability of key financial institutions drove central banks to take action to provide funds to encourage lending and to restore faith in the commercial paper markets, which are integral to funding business operations. Governments also bailed out key financial institutions, assuming significant additional financial commitments. The risks to the broader economy created by the housing market downturn and subsequent financial market crisis were primary factors in several decisions by central banks around the world to cut interest rates and governments to implement economic stimulus packages. Effects on global stock markets due to the crisis have been dramatic. Between 1 January and 11 October 2008, owners of stocks in U.S. corporations had suffered about $8 trillion in losses, as their holdings declined in value from $20 trillion to $12 trillion. Losses in other countries have averaged about 40%.[10] Losses in the stock markets and housing value declines place further downward pressure on consumer spending, a key economic engine.[11] Leaders of the larger developed and emerging nations met in November 2008 and March 2009 to formulate strategies for addressing the crisis.[12] A variety of solutions have been proposed by government officials, central bankers, economists, and business executives.[13] [14] [15] In the U.S., the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law in July 2010 to address some of the causes of the crisis.
Mortgage market
Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories and reduced repayment capacity. Subprime loans have a higher risk of default than loans to prime borrowers.[16] If a borrower is delinquent in making timely mortgage payments to the loan servicer (a bank or other financial firm), the lender may take possession of the property, in a process called foreclosure. The value of American subprime mortgages was estimated at $1.3 trillion as of March 2007, [17] with over 7.5 million first-lien subprime mortgages outstanding.[18] Between 2004-2006 the share of subprime Number of U.S. residential properties subject to mortgages relative to total originations ranged from 18%-21%, versus foreclosure actions by quarter (2007-2010). less than 10% in 2001-2003 and during 2007.[19] [20] In the third quarter of 2007, subprime ARMs making up only 6.8% of USA mortgages outstanding also accounted for 43% of the foreclosures which began during that quarter.[21] By October 2007, approximately 16% of subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) were either 90-days delinquent or the lender had begun foreclosure proceedings, roughly triple the rate of 2005.[22] By January 2008, the delinquency rate had risen to 21%[23] and by May 2008 it was 25%.[24] The value of all outstanding residential mortgages, owed by U.S. households to purchase residences housing at most four families, was US$9.9 trillion as of year-end 2006, and US$10.6 trillion as of midyear 2008.[25] During 2007, lenders had begun foreclosure proceedings on nearly 1.3 million properties, a 79% increase over 2006.[26] This increased to 2.3 million in 2008, an 81% increase vs. 2007,[27] and again to 2.8 million in 2009, a 21% increase vs.
Subprime mortgage crisis 2008.[28] By August 2008, 9.2% of all U.S. mortgages outstanding were either delinquent or in foreclosure.[29] By September 2009, this had risen to 14.4%.[30] Between August 2007 and October 2008, 936,439 USA residences completed foreclosure.[31] Foreclosures are concentrated in particular states both in terms of the number and rate of foreclosure filings.[32] Ten states accounted for 74% of the foreclosure filings during 2008; the top two (California and Florida) represented 41%. Nine states were above the national foreclosure rate average of 1.84% of households.[33]
Causes
The crisis can be attributed to a number of factors pervasive in both housing and credit markets, factors which emerged over a number of years. Causes proposed include the inability of homeowners to make their mortgage payments (due primarily to adjustable-rate mortgages resetting, borrowers overextending, predatory lending, and speculation), overbuilding during the boom period, risky mortgage products, high personal and corporate debt levels, financial products that distributed and perhaps concealed the risk of mortgage default, bad monetary and housing policies, international trade imbalances, and inappropriate government regulation.[34] [35] [36] [37] Three important catalysts of the subprime crisis were the influx of moneys from the private sector, the banks entering into the mortgage bond market and the predatory lending practices of the mortgage lenders, specifically the adjustable-rate mortgage, 2-28 loan, that mortgage lenders sold directly or indirectly via mortgage brokers.[1] [38] On Wall Street and in the financial industry, moral hazard lay at the core of many of the causes.[39] In its "Declaration of the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy," dated 15 November 2008, leaders of the Group of 20 cited the following causes: During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.[40] During May 2010, Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker separately described questionable assumptions or judgments underlying the U.S. financial and economic system that contributed to the crisis. These assumptions included: 1) Housing prices would not fall dramatically;[41] 2) Free and open financial markets supported by sophisticated financial engineering would most effectively support market efficiency and stability, directing funds to the most profitable and productive uses; 3) Concepts embedded in mathematics and physics could be directly adapted to markets, in the form of various financial models used to evaluate credit risk; 4) Economic imbalances, such as large trade deficits and low savings rates indicative of over-consumption, were sustainable; and 5) Stronger regulation of the shadow banking system and derivatives markets was not needed.[42] The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserves failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.[43]
While housing prices were increasing, consumers were saving less[49] and both borrowing and spending more. Household debt grew from $705 billion at yearend 1974, 60% of disposable personal income, to Vicious Cycles in the Housing & Financial $7.4 trillion at yearend 2000, and finally to $14.5 trillion in midyear Markets 2008, 134% of disposable personal income.[50] During 2008, the typical USA household owned 13 credit cards, with 40% of households carrying a balance, up from 6% in 1970.[51] Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion dollars over the period.[52] [53] [54] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[55] From 2001 to 2007, U.S. mortgage debt almost doubled, and the amount of mortgage debt per household rose more than 63%, from $91,500 to $149,500, with essentially stagnant wages.[56] This credit and house price explosion led to a building boom and eventually to a surplus of unsold homes, which caused U.S. housing prices to peak and begin declining in mid-2006.[57] Easy credit, and a belief that house prices would continue to appreciate, had encouraged many subprime borrowers to obtain adjustable-rate mortgages. These mortgages enticed borrowers with a below market interest rate for some predetermined period, followed by market interest rates for the remainder of the mortgage's term. Borrowers who would not be able to make the higher payments once the initial grace period ended, were planning to refinance their mortgages after a year or two of appreciation. But refinancing became more difficult, once house prices began to decline in many parts of the USA. Borrowers who found themselves unable to escape higher monthly payments by refinancing began to default. As more borrowers stop paying their mortgage payments (this is an on-going crisis), foreclosures and the supply of homes for sale increases. This places downward pressure on housing prices, which further lowers homeowners' equity. The decline in mortgage payments also reduces the value of mortgage-backed securities, which erodes the net worth and financial health of banks. This vicious cycle is at the heart of the crisis.[58] By September 2008, average U.S. housing prices had declined by over 20% from their mid-2006 peak.[59] [60] This major and unexpected decline in house prices means that many borrowers have zero or negative equity in their homes, meaning their homes were worth less than their mortgages. As of March 2008, an estimated 8.8 million
Subprime mortgage crisis borrowers 10.8% of all homeowners had negative equity in their homes, a number that is believed to have risen to 12 million by November 2008. By September 2010, 23% of all U.S. homes were worth less than the mortgage loan.[4] Borrowers in this situation have an incentive to default on their mortgages as a mortgage is typically nonrecourse debt secured against the property.[61] Economist Stan Leibowitz argued in the Wall Street Journal that although only 12% of homes had negative equity, they comprised 47% of foreclosures during the second half of 2008. He concluded that the extent of equity in the home was the key factor in foreclosure, rather than the type of loan, credit worthiness of the borrower, or ability to pay.[62] Increasing foreclosure rates increases the inventory of houses offered for sale. The number of new homes sold in 2007 was 26.4% less than in the preceding year. By January 2008, the inventory of unsold new homes was 9.8 times the December 2007 sales volume, the highest value of this ratio since 1981.[63] Furthermore, nearly four million existing homes were for sale,[64] of which almost 2.9 million were vacant.[65] This overhang of unsold homes lowered house prices. As prices declined, more homeowners were at risk of default or foreclosure. House prices are expected to continue declining until this inventory of unsold homes (an instance of excess supply) declines to normal levels.[66] A report in January 2011 stated that U.S. home values dropped by 26 percent from their peak in June 2006 to November 2010, more than the 25.9 percent drop between 1928 to 1933 when the Great Depression occurred.[67]
Homeowner speculation
Speculative borrowing in residential real estate has been cited as a contributing factor to the subprime mortgage crisis.[68] During 2006, 22% of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes. During 2005, these figures were 28% and 12%, respectively. In other words, a record level of nearly 40% of homes purchases were not intended as primary residences. David Lereah, NAR's chief economist at the time, stated that the 2006 decline in investment buying was expected: "Speculators left the market in 2006, which caused investment sales to fall much faster than the primary market."[69] Housing prices nearly doubled between 2000 and 2006, a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation. While homes had not traditionally been treated as investments subject to speculation, this behavior changed during the housing boom. Media widely reported condominiums being purchased while under construction, then being "flipped" (sold) for a profit without the seller ever having lived in them.[70] Some mortgage companies identified risks inherent in this activity as early as 2005, after identifying investors assuming highly leveraged positions in multiple properties.[71] Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute described the negative consequences of not adjusting tax and mortgage policies to the shifting treatment of a home from conservative inflation hedge to speculative investment.[72] Economist Robert Shiller argued that speculative bubbles are fueled by "contagious optimism, seemingly impervious to facts, that often takes hold when prices are rising. Bubbles are primarily social phenomena; until we understand and address the psychology that fuels them, they're going to keep forming."[73] Keynesian economist Hyman Minsky described how speculative borrowing contributed to rising debt and an eventual collapse of asset values.[74] [75] New York State prosecutors are examining whether eight banks hoodwinked credit ratings agencies, to inflate the grades of subprime-linked investments. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Justice Department, the United States attorneys office and more are examining how banks created, rated, sold and traded mortgage securities that turned out to be some of the worst investments ever devised. In 2010, virtually all of the investigations, criminal as well as civil, are in their early stages.[76] Warren Buffett testified to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: "There was the greatest bubble I've ever seen in my life...The entire American public eventually was caught up in a belief that housing prices could not fall dramatically."[41]
Subprime mortgage crisis than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with financial innovation such as the mortgage-backed security (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable. NPR described it this way:[94] The problem was that even though housing prices were going through the roof, people weren't making any more money. From 2000 to 2007, the median household income stayed flat. And so the more prices rose, the more tenuous the whole thing became. No matter how lax lending standards got, no matter how many exotic mortgage products were created to shoehorn people into homes they couldn't possibly afford, no matter what the mortgage machine tried, the people just couldn't swing it. By late 2006, the average home cost nearly four times what the average family made. Historically it was between two and three times. And mortgage lenders noticed something that they'd almost never seen before. People would close on a house, sign all the mortgage papers, and then default on their very first payment. No loss of a job, no medical emergency, they were underwater before they even started. And although no one could really hear it, that was probably the moment when one of the biggest speculative bubbles in American history popped.
Mortgage fraud
In 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation warned of an "epidemic" in mortgage fraud, an important credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending, which, they said, could lead to "a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis".[95] [96] [97] [98] The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: "...mortgage fraud...flourished in an environment of collapsing lending standards and lax regulation. The number of suspicious activity reportsreports of possible financial crimes filed by depository banks and their affiliatesrelated to mortgage fraud grew 20-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then more than doubled again between 2005 and 2009. One study places the losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007 at $112 billion. Lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford and that could cause massive losses to investors in mortgage securities."[93]
Securitization practices
The traditional mortgage model involved a bank originating a loan to the borrower/homeowner and retaining the credit (default) risk. With the advent of securitization, the traditional model has given way to the "originate to distribute" model, in which banks essentially sell the mortgages and distribute credit risk to investors through mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations (CDO). Securitization meant that those issuing mortgages were no longer required to hold them to maturity. By selling the mortgages to investors, the originating banks replenished their funds, enabling them to issue more loans and generating transaction fees. This created a moral hazard in which an increased focus on processing mortgage transactions was incentivized but ensuring their credit quality was not.[99] [100]
Securitization accelerated in the mid-1990s. The total amount of mortgage-backed securities issued almost tripled between 1996 and 2007, to $7.3 trillion. The securitized share of subprime mortgages (i.e., those passed to third-party investors via MBS) increased from 54% in 2001, to 75% in 2006.[83] A sample of 735 CDO deals originated between 1999 and 2007 showed that subprime and other less-than-prime mortgages represented an increasing percentage of CDO assets, rising IMF Diagram of CDO and RMBS from 5% in 2000 to 36% in 2007.[101] American homeowners, consumers, and corporations owed roughly $25 trillion during 2008. American banks retained about $8 trillion of that total directly as traditional mortgage loans. Bondholders and other traditional lenders provided another $7 trillion. The remaining $10 trillion came from the securitization markets. The securitization markets started to close down in the spring of 2007 and nearly shut-down in the fall of 2008. More than a third of the private credit markets thus became unavailable as a source of funds.[102] [103] In February 2009, Ben Bernanke stated that securitization markets remained effectively shut, with the exception of conforming mortgages, which could be sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[104] A more direct connection between securitization and the subprime crisis relates to a fundamental fault in the way that underwriters, rating agencies and investors modeled the correlation of risks among loans in securitization pools. Correlation modelingdetermining how the default risk of one loan in a pool is statistically related to the default
Subprime mortgage crisis risk for other loanswas based on a "Gaussian copula" technique developed by statistician David X. Li. This technique, widely adopted as a means of evaluating the risk associated with securitization transactions, used what turned out to be an overly simplistic approach to correlation. Unfortunately, the flaws in this technique did not become apparent to market participants until after many hundreds of billions of dollars of ABSs and CDOs backed by subprime loans had been rated and sold. By the time investors stopped buying subprime-backed securitieswhich halted the ability of mortgage originators to extend subprime loansthe effects of the crisis were already beginning to emerge.[105] Nobel laureate Dr. A. Michael Spence wrote: "Financial innovation, intended to redistribute and reduce risk, appears mainly to have hidden it from view. An important challenge going forward is to better understand these dynamics as the analytical underpinning of an early warning system with respect to financial instability." [106]
10
Government policies
Both government failed regulation and deregulation contributed to the crisis. In testimony before Congress both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks.[113] [114] Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and G.W.Bush.[115] In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types U.S. Subprime lending expanded dramatically created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were 2004-2006 adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[1] [38] [116] Approximately 80% of subprime mortgages are adjustable-rate mortgages.[1] In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[117] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[118] From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[119] The GSE have always been highly leveraged, their net worth as of 30 June 2008 being a mere US$114 billion.[120] When concerns arose in September 2008 regarding the ability of the GSE to make good on their guarantees, the Federal government was forced to place the companies into a conservatorship, effectively nationalizing them at the taxpayers' expense.[121] [122] The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause." GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.[93] The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted after the Great Depression. It separated commercial banks and investment banks, in part to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the lending activities of the former and rating activities of the latter. Economist Joseph Stiglitz criticized the repeal of the Act. He called its repeal the "culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial services industries...spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm." He believes it contributed to this crisis because the risk-taking culture of investment banking dominated the more conservative commercial banking culture, leading to increased levels of risk-taking and leverage during the boom period.[123] The Federal government bailout of thrifts during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s may have encouraged other lenders to make risky loans, and thus given rise to moral hazard.[39] [124]
Subprime mortgage crisis Conservatives and Libertarians have also debated the possible effects of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), with detractors claiming that the Act encouraged lending to uncreditworthy borrowers,[125] [126] [127] [128] and defenders claiming a thirty year history of lending without increased risk.[129] [130] [131] [132] Detractors also claim that amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s, raised the amount of mortgages issued to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers, and allowed the securitization of CRA-regulated mortgages, even though a fair number of them were subprime.[133] [134] Both Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair have stated their belief that the CRA was not to blame for the crisis.[135] [136] Economist Paul Krugman argued in January 2010 that the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by those who argue that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CRA or predatory lending were primary causes of the crisis. In other words, bubbles in both markets developed even though only the residential market was affected by these potential causes.[137] The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loansa proxy for subprime loanshad any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."[93]
11
Some market observers have been concerned that Federal Reserve actions could give rise to moral hazard.[39] A Government Accountability Office critic said that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's rescue of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 would encourage large financial institutions to believe that the Federal Reserve would intervene on their behalf if risky loans went sour because they were too big to fail.[140] A contributing factor to the rise in house prices was the Federal Reserve's lowering of interest rates early in the decade. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[141] This was done to soften the effects of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, and to combat the perceived risk of deflation.[138] The Fed believed that interest rates could be lowered safely primarily because the rate of inflation was low; it disregarded other important factors. Richard W. Fisher, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said that the Fed's interest rate policy during the early 2000s was misguided, because measured inflation in those years was below true inflation, which led to a monetary policy that contributed to the housing bubble.[142] According to Ben Bernanke, now chairman of the Federal Reserve, it was capital or savings pushing into the United States, due to a world wide "saving glut", which kept long term interest rates low independently of Central Bank action.[143] The Fed then raised the Fed funds rate significantly between July 2004 and July 2006.[144] This contributed to an increase in 1-year and 5-year ARM rates, making ARM interest rate resets more expensive for homeowners.[145]
Subprime mortgage crisis This may have also contributed to the deflating of the housing bubble, as asset prices generally move inversely to interest rates and it became riskier to speculate in housing.[146] [147]
12
Many financial institutions, investment banks in particular, issued large amounts of debt during 20042007, and invested the proceeds in mortgage-backed securities (MBS), essentially betting that house prices would continue to rise, and that households would continue to make their mortgage payments. Borrowing at a lower interest rate and investing the proceeds at a higher interest rate is a form of financial leverage. This is analogous to an individual taking out a second mortgage on his residence to invest in the stock market. This strategy proved profitable during the housing boom, but resulted in large losses when house prices began to decline and mortgages began to default. Beginning in 2007, financial institutions and individual investors holding MBS also suffered significant losses from mortgage payment defaults and the resulting decline in the value of MBS.[149] A 2004 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision related to the net capital rule allowed USA investment banks to issue substantially more debt, which was then used to purchase MBS. Over 2004-07, the top five US investment banks each significantly increased their financial leverage (see diagram), which increased their vulnerability to the declining value of MBSs. These five institutions reported over $4.1 trillion in debt for fiscal year 2007, about 30% of USA nominal GDP for 2007. Further, the percentage of subprime mortgages originated to total originations increased from below 10% in 2001-2003 to between 18-20% from 20042006, due in-part to financing from investment banks.[19] [20] During 2008, three of the largest U.S. investment banks either went bankrupt (Lehman Brothers) or were sold at fire sale prices to other banks (Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch). These failures augmented the instability in the global financial system. The remaining two investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, opted to become commercial banks, thereby subjecting themselves to more stringent regulation.[150] [151] In the years leading up to the crisis, the top four U.S. depository banks moved an estimated $5.2 trillion in assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into special purpose vehicles or other entities in the shadow banking system. This enabled them to essentially bypass existing regulations regarding minimum capital ratios, thereby increasing leverage and profits during the boom but increasing losses during the crisis. New accounting guidance will require them to put some of these assets back onto their books during 2009, which will significantly reduce their capital ratios. One news agency estimated this amount to be between $500 billion and $1 trillion. This effect was considered as part of the stress tests performed by the government during 2009.[152] Martin Wolf wrote in June 2009: "...an enormous part of what banks did in the early part of this decade the off-balance-sheet vehicles, the derivatives and the 'shadow banking system' itself was to find a way round regulation."[153]
Subprime mortgage crisis The New York State Comptroller's Office has said that in 2006, Wall Street executives took home bonuses totaling $23.9 billion. "Wall Street traders were thinking of the bonus at the end of the year, not the long-term health of their firm. The whole systemfrom mortgage brokers to Wall Street risk managersseemed tilted toward taking short-term risks while ignoring long-term obligations. The most damning evidence is that most of the people at the top of the banks didn't really understand how those [investments] worked."[47] [154] Investment banker incentive compensation was focused on fees generated from assembling financial products, rather than the performance of those products and profits generated over time. Their bonuses were heavily skewed towards cash rather than stock and not subject to "claw-back" (recovery of the bonus from the employee by the firm) in the event the MBS or CDO created did not perform. In addition, the increased risk (in the form of financial leverage) taken by the major investment banks was not adequately factored into the compensation of senior executives.[155]
13
Subprime mortgage crisis The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that CDS contributed significantly to the crisis. Companies were able to sell protection to investors against the default of mortgage-backed securities, helping to launch and expand the market for new, complex instruments such as CDO's. This further fueled the housing bubble. They also amplified the losses from the collapse of the housing bubble by allowing multiple bets on the same securities and helped spread these bets throughout the financial system. Companies selling protection, such as AIG, were not required to set aside sufficient capital to cover their obligations when significant defaults occurred. Because many CDS were not traded on exchanges, the obligations of key financial institutions became hard to measure, creating uncertainty in the financial system.[56]
14
US Balance of Payments
In 2005, Ben Bernanke addressed the implications of the USA's high and rising current account deficit, resulting from USA investment exceeding its savings, or imports exceeding exports.[167] Between 1996 and 2004, the USA current account deficit increased by $650 billion, from 1.5% to 5.8% of GDP. The US attracted a great deal of foreign investment, mainly from the emerging economies in Asia and oil-exporting nations. The balance of payments identity requires that a country (such as the USA) running a current account deficit also have a capital account (investment) surplus of the same amount. Foreign U.S. Current Account or Trade Deficit investors had these funds to lend, either because they had very high personal savings rates (as high as 40% in China), or because of high oil prices. Bernanke referred to this as a "saving glut"[143] that may have pushed capital into the USA, a view differing from that of some other economists, who view such capital as having been pulled into the USA by its high consumption levels. In other words, a nation cannot consume more than its income unless it sells assets to foreigners, or foreigners are willing to lend to it. Alternatively, if a nation wishes to increase domestic investment in plant and equipment, it will also increase its level of imports to maintain balance if it has a floating exchange rate. Regardless of the push or pull view, a "flood" of funds (capital or liquidity) reached the USA financial markets. Foreign governments supplied funds by purchasing USA Treasury bonds and thus avoided much of the direct impact of the crisis. USA households, on the other hand, used funds borrowed from foreigners to finance consumption or to bid up the prices of housing and financial assets. Financial institutions invested foreign funds in mortgage-backed securities. USA housing and financial assets dramatically declined in value after the housing bubble burst.[168] [169]
15
Subprime mortgage crisis Reserve's TALF program to aid credit card, auto and small-business lenders. Issuance of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities and CDOs remains dormant."[172] The Economist reported in March 2010: "Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were non-banks that were crippled by a silent run among panicky overnight "repo" lenders, many of them money market funds uncertain about the quality of securitized collateral they were holding. Mass redemptions from these funds after Lehman's failure froze short-term funding for big firms."[173] The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011: "In the early part of the 20th century, we erected a series of protectionsthe Federal Reserve as a lender of last resort, federal deposit insurance, ample regulationsto provide a bulwark against the panics that had regularly plagued Americas banking system in the 20th century. Yet, over the past 30-plus years, we permitted the growth of a shadow banking systemopaque and laden with short term debtthat rivaled the size of the traditional banking system. Key components of the marketfor example, the multitrillion-dollar repo lending market, off-balance-sheet entities, and the use of over-the-counter derivativeswere hidden from view, without the protections we had constructed to prevent financial meltdowns. We had a 21st-century financial system with 19th-century safeguards."[56]
16
Impacts
Impact in the U.S.
Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost more than a quarter of their net worth. By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index, the S&P 500, was down 45 percent from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22 percent, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in Impacts from the Crisis on Key Wealth Measures mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[174] Members of USA minority groups received a disproportionate number of subprime mortgages, and so have experienced a disproportionate level of the resulting foreclosures.[175] [176] [177] The crisis had a devastating effect on the U.S. auto industry. New vehicle sales, which peaked at 17 million in 2005, recovered to only 12 million by 2010.[178]
17
During 2007, the crisis caused panic in financial markets and encouraged investors to take their money out of risky mortgage bonds and shaky equities and put it into commodities as "stores of value".[183] Financial speculation in commodity futures following the collapse of the financial derivatives markets has contributed to the world food price crisis and oil price increases due to a "commodities super-cycle."[184] [185] Financial speculators seeking quick returns have removed trillions of dollars from equities and mortgage bonds, some of which has been invested into food and raw materials.[186] Mortgage defaults and provisions for future defaults caused profits at the 8533 USA depository institutions insured by the FDIC to decline from $35.2 billion in 2006 Q4 to $646 million in the same quarter a year later, a decline of 98%. 2007 Q4 saw the worst bank and thrift quarterly performance since 1990. In all of 2007, insured depository institutions earned approximately $100 billion, down 31% from a record profit of $145 billion in 2006. Profits declined from $35.6 billion in 2007 Q1 to $19.3 billion in 2008 Q1, a decline of 46%.[187] [188]
The TED spread an indicator of credit risk increased dramatically during September 2008.
When Lehman Brothers and other important financial institutions failed in September 2008, the crisis hit a key point.[191] During a two day period in September 2008, $150 billion were withdrawn from USA money funds. The average two day outflow had been $5 billion. In effect, the money market was subject to a bank run. The money market had been a key source of credit for banks (CDs) and nonfinancial firms (commercial paper). The TED spread (see graph above), a measure of the risk of interbank lending, quadrupled shortly after the Lehman failure. This credit freeze brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse. The response of the USA Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and other central banks was immediate and dramatic. During the last quarter of 2008, these central banks purchased US$2.5 trillion of government debt and troubled private assets from banks. This was the largest liquidity injection into the credit market, and the largest monetary policy action, in world history. The governments of European nations and the USA also raised the capital of their national banking systems by $1.5
Subprime mortgage crisis trillion, by purchasing newly issued preferred stock in their major banks. [190] However, some economists state that Third-World economies, such as the Brazilian and Chinese ones, will not suffer as much as those from more developed countries.[192] The International Monetary Fund estimated that large U.S. and European banks lost more than $1 trillion on toxic assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009. These losses are expected to top $2.8 trillion from 2007-10. U.S. banks losses were forecast to hit $1 trillion and European bank losses will reach $1.6 trillion. The IMF estimated that U.S. banks were about 60 percent through their losses, but British and eurozone banks only 40 percent.[193]
18
Responses
Various actions have been taken since the crisis became apparent in August 2007. In September 2008, major instability in world financial markets increased awareness and attention to the crisis. Various agencies and regulators, as well as political officials, began to take additional, more comprehensive steps to handle the crisis. To date, various government agencies have committed or spent trillions of dollars in loans, asset purchases, guarantees, and direct spending. For a summary of U.S. government financial commitments and investments related to the crisis, see CNN - Bailout Scorecard [194].
19
Economic stimulus
On 13 February 2008, President Bush signed into law a $168 billion economic stimulus package, mainly taking the form of income tax rebate checks mailed directly to taxpayers.[203] Checks were mailed starting the week of 28 April 2008. However, this rebate coincided with an unexpected jump in gasoline and food prices. This coincidence led some to wonder whether the stimulus package would have the intended effect, or whether consumers would simply spend their rebates to cover higher food and fuel prices. On 17 February 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, an $787 billion stimulus package with a broad spectrum of spending and tax cuts.[204] Over $75 billion of which was specifically allocated to programs which help struggling homeowners. This program is referred to as the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan.[205]
Another method of recapitalizing banks is for government and private investors to provide cash in exchange for mortgage-related assets (i.e., "toxic" or "legacy" assets), improving the quality of bank capital while reducing uncertainty regarding the financial position of banks. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced a plan during March 2009 to purchase "legacy" or "toxic" assets from banks. The Public-Private Partnership Investment Program involves government loans and guarantees to encourage private investors to provide funds to purchase toxic assets from banks.[208] For a summary of U.S. government financial commitments and investments related to the crisis, see CNN - Bailout Scorecard [194]. For a summary of TARP funds provided to U.S. banks as of December 2008, see Reuters-TARP Funds [209].
20
The five largest U.S. investment banks, with combined liabilities or debts of $4 trillion, either went bankrupt (Lehman Brothers), were taken over by other companies (Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch), or were bailed-out by the U.S. government (Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) during 2008.[211] Government-sponsored enterprises (GSE) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac either directly owed or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgage obligations, with a similarly weak capital base, when they were placed into receivership in September 2008.[212] For scale, this $9 trillion in obligations concentrated in seven highly leveraged institutions can be compared to the $14 trillion size of the U.S. economy (GDP)[213] or to the total national debt of $10 trillion in September 2008.[214] Major depository banks around the world had also used financial innovations such as structured investment vehicles to circumvent capital ratio regulations.[215] Notable global failures included Northern Rock, which was nationalized at an estimated cost of 87 billion ($150 billion).[216] In the U.S., Washington Mutual (WaMu) was seized in September 2008 by the USA Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).[217] Dozens of U.S. banks received funds as part of the TARP or $700 billion bailout.[218] As a result of the financial crisis in 2008, twenty five U.S. banks became insolvent and were taken over by the FDIC.[219] As of August 14, 2009, an additional 77 banks became insolvent.[220] This seven month tally surpasses the 50 banks that were seized in all of 1993, but is still much smaller than the number of failed banking institutions in 1992, 1991, and 1990.[221] The United States has lost over 6 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007.[222] The FDIC deposit insurance fund, supported by fees on insured banks, fell to $13 billion in the first quarter of 2009.[223] That is the lowest total since September, 1993.[223] According to some, the bailouts could be traced directly to Alan Greenspan's efforts to reflate the stock market and the economy after the tech stock bust, and specifically to a February 23, 2004 speech Mr. Greenspan made to the Mortgage Bankers Association where he suggested that the time had come to push average American borrowers into more exotic loans with variable rates, or deferred interest.[224] This argument suggests that Mr. Greenspan sought to enlist banks to expand lending and debt to stimulate asset prices and that the Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department would back any losses that might result. As early as March 2007 some commentators predicted that a bailout of the banks would exceed $1 trillion, at a time when Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and Henry Paulson all claimed that mortgage problems were "contained" to the subprime market and no bailout of the financial sector would be necessary.[224]
People queuing outside a Northern Rock bank branch in Birmingham, United Kingdom on September 15, 2007, to withdraw their savings because of the subprime crisis.
21
Homeowner assistance
Both lenders and borrowers may benefit from avoiding foreclosure, which is a costly and lengthy process. Some lenders have offered troubled borrowers more favorable mortgage terms (i.e., refinancing, loan modification or loss mitigation). Borrowers have also been encouraged to contact their lenders to discuss alternatives.[225] The Economist described the issue this way: "No part of the financial crisis has received so much attention, with so little to show for it, as the tidal wave of home foreclosures sweeping over America. Government programmes have been ineffectual, and private efforts not much better." Up to 9 million homes may enter foreclosure over the 2009-2011 period, versus one million in a typical year.[226] At roughly U.S. $50,000 per foreclosure according to a 2006 study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank, 9 million foreclosures represents $450 billion in losses.[227] A variety of voluntary private and government-administered or supported programs were implemented during 2007-2009 to assist homeowners with case-by-case mortgage assistance, to mitigate the foreclosure crisis engulfing the U.S. One example is the Hope Now Alliance, an ongoing collaborative effort between the US Government and private industry to help certain subprime borrowers.[228] In February 2008, the Alliance reported that during the second half of 2007, it had helped 545,000 subprime borrowers with shaky credit, or 7.7% of 7.1 million subprime loans outstanding as of September 2007. A spokesperson for the Alliance acknowledged that much more must be done.[229] During late 2008, major banks and both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac established moratoriums (delays) on foreclosures, to give homeowners time to work towards refinancing.[230] [231] [232] Critics have argued that the case-by-case loan modification method is ineffective, with too few homeowners assisted relative to the number of foreclosures and with nearly 40% of those assisted homeowners again becoming delinquent within 8 months.[233] [234] [235] In December 2008, the U.S. FDIC reported that more than half of mortgages modified during the first half of 2008 were delinquent again, in many cases because payments were not reduced or mortgage debt was not forgiven. This is further evidence that case-by-case loan modification is not effective as a policy tool.[236] In February 2009, economists Nouriel Roubini and Mark Zandi recommended an "across the board" (systemic) reduction of mortgage principal balances by as much as 20-30%. Lowering the mortgage balance would help lower monthly payments and also address an estimated 20 million homeowners that may have a financial incentive to enter voluntary foreclosure because they are "underwater" (i.e., the mortgage balance is larger than the home value).[237]
[238]
A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston indicated that banks were reluctant to modify loans. Only 3% of seriously delinquent homeowners had their mortgage payments reduced during 2008. In addition, investors who hold MBS and have a say in mortgage modifications have not been a significant impediment; the study found no difference in the rate of assistance whether the loans were controlled by the bank or by investors. Commenting on the study, economists Dean Baker and Paul Willen both advocated providing funds directly to homeowners instead of banks.[239] The L.A. Times reported the results of a study that found homeowners with high credit scores at the time of entering the mortgage are 50% more likely to "strategically default" -- abruptly and intentionally pull the plug and abandon the mortgagecompared with lower-scoring borrowers. Such strategic defaults were heavily concentrated in markets with the highest price declines. An estimated 588,000 strategic defaults occurred nationwide during 2008, more than double the total in 2007. They represented 18% of all serious delinquencies that extended for more than 60 days in the fourth quarter of 2008.[240]
Subprime mortgage crisis Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan On 18 February 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a $73 billion program to help up to nine million homeowners avoid foreclosure, which was supplemented by $200 billion in additional funding for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase and more easily refinance mortgages. The plan is funded mostly from the EESA's $700 billion financial bailout fund. It uses cost sharing and incentives to encourage lenders to reduce homeowner's monthly payments to 31 percent of their monthly income. Under the program, a lender would be responsible for reducing monthly payments to no more than 38 percent of a borrowers income, with government sharing the cost to further cut the rate to 31 percent. The plan also involves forgiving a portion of the borrowers mortgage balance. Companies that service mortgages will get incentives to modify loans and to help the homeowner stay current.[241]
[242] [243]
22
Subprime mortgage crisis Paul McCulley advocated "counter-cyclical regulatory policy to help modulate human nature." He cited the work of economist Hyman Minsky, who believed that human behavior is pro-cyclical, meaning it amplifies the extent of booms and busts. In other words, humans are momentum investors rather than value investors. Counter-cyclical policies would include increasing capital requirements during boom periods and reducing them during busts.[257] U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified before Congress on October 29, 2009. His testimony included five elements he stated as critical to effective reform: 1) Expand the FDIC bank resolution mechanism to include non-bank financial institutions; 2) Ensure that a firm is allowed to fail in an orderly way and not be "rescued"; 3) Ensure taxpayers are not on the hook for any losses, by applying losses to the firm's investors and creating a monetary pool funded by the largest financial institutions; 4) Apply appropriate checks and balances to the FDIC and Federal Reserve in this resolution process; 5) Require stronger capital and liquidity positions for financial firms and related regulatory authority.[258] The U.S. Senate passed a regulatory reform bill in May 2010, following the House which passed a bill in December 2009. These bills must now be reconciled. The New York Times has provided a comparative summary of the features of the two bills, which address to varying extent the principles enumerated by Secretary Geithner.[259]
23
Implications
Estimates of impact have continued to climb. During April 2008, International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that global losses for financial institutions would approach $1 trillion.[266] One year later, the IMF estimated cumulative losses of banks and other financial institutions globally would exceed $4 trillion.[267] This is equal to U.S. $20,000 for each of 200,000,000 people. Francis Fukuyama has argued that the crisis represents the end of Reaganism in the financial sector, which was characterized by lighter regulation, pared-back government, and lower taxes. Significant financial sector regulatory changes are expected as a result of the crisis.[268] Fareed Zakaria believes that the crisis may force Americans and their government to live within their means. Further, some of the best minds may be redeployed from financial engineering to more valuable business activities, or to science and technology.[269] Roger Altman wrote that "the crash of 2008 has inflicted profound damage on [the U.S.] financial system, its economy, and its standing in the world; the crisis is an important geopolitical setback...the crisis has coincided with historical forces that were already shifting the world's focus away from the United States. Over the medium term, the United States will have to operate from a smaller global platform -- while others, especially China, will have a chance to rise faster."[190] GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt has argued that U.S. trade deficits and budget deficits are unsustainable. America must regain its competitiveness through innovative products, training of production workers, and business leadership. He
Subprime mortgage crisis advocates specific national goals related to energy security or independence, specific technologies, expansion of the manufacturing job base, and net exporter status.[270] "The world has been reset. Now we must lead an aggressive American renewal to win in the future." Of critical importance, he said, is the need to focus on technology and manufacturing. Many bought into the idea that America could go from a technology-based, export-oriented powerhouse to a services-led, consumption-based economy and somehow still expect to prosper, Jeff said. That idea was flat wrong.[271] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2009: "The prosperity of a few years ago, such as it wasprofits were terrific, wages not so muchdepended on a huge bubble in housing, which replaced an earlier huge bubble in stocks. And since the housing bubble isnt coming back, the spending that sustained the economy in the pre-crisis years isnt coming back either."[272] Niall Ferguson stated that excluding the effect of home equity extraction, the U.S. economy grew at a 1% rate during the Bush years.[273] Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has argued that this is an economic reset at a lower level, rather than a recession, meaning that no quick recovery to pre-recession levels can be expected.[274] The U.S. Federal government's efforts to support the global financial system have resulted in significant new financial commitments, totaling $7 trillion by November, 2008. These commitments can be characterized as investments, loans, and loan guarantees, rather than direct expenditures. In many cases, the government purchased financial assets such as commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities, or other types of asset-backed paper, to enhance liquidity in frozen markets.[275] As the crisis has progressed, the Fed has expanded the collateral against which it is willing to lend to include higher-risk assets.[276] The Economist wrote in May 2009: "Having spent a fortune bailing out their banks, Western governments will have to pay a price in terms of higher taxes to meet the interest on that debt. In the case of countries (like Britain and America) that have trade as well as budget deficits, those higher taxes will be needed to meet the claims of foreign creditors. Given the political implications of such austerity, the temptation will be to default by stealth, by letting their currencies depreciate. Investors are increasingly alive to this danger..."[277] The crisis has cast doubt on the legacy of Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System from 1986 to January 2006. Senator Chris Dodd claimed that Greenspan created the "perfect storm".[278] When asked to comment on the crisis, Greenspan spoke as follows:[138] The current credit crisis will come to an end when the overhang of inventories of newly built homes is largely liquidated, and home price deflation comes to an end. That will stabilize the now-uncertain value of the home equity that acts as a buffer for all home mortgages, but most importantly for those held as collateral for residential mortgage-backed securities. Very large losses will, no doubt, be taken as a consequence of the crisis. But after a period of protracted adjustment, the U.S. economy, and the world economy more generally, will be able to get back to business.
24
References
[1] "Senator Dodd: Create, Sustain, Preserve, and Protect the American Dream of Home Ownership" (http:/ / dodd. senate. gov/ ?q=node/ 3731). DODD. 2007-02-07. . Retrieved 2009-02-18. [2] "Episode 06292007". Bill Moyers Journal. PBS. 2007-06-29. Transcript (http:/ / www. pbs. org/ moyers/ journal/ 06292007/ transcript5. html). [3] Justin Lahart (2007-12-24). "Egg Cracks Differ In Housing, Finance Shells" (http:/ / online. wsj. com/ article/ SB119845906460548071. html?mod=googlenews_wsj). WSJ.com (Wall Street Journal). . Retrieved 2008-07-13. [4] Wells Fargo Economic Research-Weekly Economic and Financial Commentary-September 17, 2010 (https:/ / www. wellsfargo. com/ downloads/ pdf/ com/ research/ economic_commentary/ efc09172010. pdf) [5] "Bernanke-Four Questions About the Financial Crisis" (http:/ / www. federalreserve. gov/ newsevents/ speech/ bernanke20090414a. htm). Federalreserve.gov. 2009-04-14. . Retrieved 2010-10-03. [6] Krugman-Revenge of the Glut (http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 2009/ 03/ 02/ opinion/ 02krugman. html?_r=1) [7] "IMF Loss Estimates" (http:/ / www. imf. org/ external/ pubs/ ft/ weo/ 2009/ 01/ pdf/ exesum. pdf) (PDF). . Retrieved 2010-10-03. [8] "Geithner-Speech Reducing Systemic Risk in a Dynamic Financial System" (http:/ / www. newyorkfed. org/ newsevents/ speeches/ 2008/ tfg080609. html). Newyorkfed.org. 2008-06-09. . Retrieved 2010-10-03.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Further reading
Fengbo Zhang (2008): 1. Perspective on the United States Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis (http://sites.google.com/ site/fengbozhang/m), 2. Accurately Forecasting Trends of the Financial Crisis (http://sites.google.com/site/ forecastfinancialcrisis/), 3. Stop Arguing about Socialism versus Capitalism (https://sites.google.com/site/ usatoday2008/). Archaya and Richardson. Financial Stability: How to Repair a Failed System NYU Stern Project-Executive Summaries of 18 Crisis-Related Papers (http://media.wiley.com/assets/1706/87/ NYU_Stern_Executive_Summaries.pdf) Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget " Stimulus Watch, (http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/stimulus)" (Updated Regularly). Blackburn, Robin (2008) " The Subprime Mortgage Crisis, (http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2715)" New Left Review 50 (MarchApril). Pezzuto, Ivo (2008). Miraculous Financial Engineering or Toxic Finance? The Genesis of the U.S. Subprime Mortgage Loans Crisis and its Consequences on the Global Financial Markets and Real Economy, ISSN 1662-761X. available on SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1332784 Kolb, Robert (2010). Lessons from the Financial Crisis: Causes, Consequences, and Our Economic Future (Robert W. Kolb Series), Publisher: Wiley ISBN 978-0470561775 Demyanyk, Yuliya (FRB St. Louis), and Otto Van Hemert (NYU Stern School) (2008) " Understanding the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1020396)" Working paper circulated by the Social Science Research Network. DiMartino, D., and Duca, J. V. (2007) " The Rise and Fall of Subprime Mortgages, (http://dallasfed.org/ research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf)" Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Letter 2(11). Dominique Doise, Subprime: Price of infringements/Subprime : le prix des transgressions (http://www. alerionavocats.com/fr/expertise/publications/subprime-le-prix-des-transgressions-price-of-infringements/), Revue de droit des affaires internationales (RDAI) / International Business Law Journal (IBLJ), N 4, 2008 Ely, Bert (2009) Bad Rules Produce Bad Outcomes: Underlying Public-Policy Causes of the U.S. Financial Crisis, (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n1/cj29n1-8.pdf) Cato Journal 29(1). Don Tapscott, 2010. Macrowikinomics, Publisher Atlantic Books Gold, Gerry, and Feldman, Paul (2007) A House of Cards - From fantasy finance to global crash. London, Lupus Books. ISBN 978-0-9523454-3-5 Michael Lewis, " The End, (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/ The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom)" Portfolio Magazine (November 11, 2008). Lewis, Michael (2010). The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. London: Allen Lane. ISBN0393072231. Liebowitz, Stan (2009) " Anatomy of a Train Wreck: Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown (http://www. independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf)" in Randall Holcombe and B. W. Powell, eds.,
Subprime mortgage crisis Housing America: Building out of a Crisis (http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=76). Oakland CA: The Independent Institute. Muolo, Paul, and Padilla, Matthew (2008). Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN978-0-470-29277-8. Woods, Thomas E. (2009) Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse / Washington DC: Regnery Publishing ISBN 1-59698-587-9 Reinhart, Carmen M., and Kenneth Rogoff (2008) " Is the 2007 U.S. Sub-Prime Financial Crisis So Different? An International Historical Comparison, (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/ Is_The_US_Subprime_Crisis_So_Different.pdf)" Harvard University working paper. Stewart, James B., "Eight Days: the battle to save the American financial system", The New Yorker magazine, September 21, 2009.
34
External links
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission - Homepage (http://www.fcic.gov/) Report of Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission-January 2011 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/ pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf) Reuters: Times of Crisis (http://widerimage.reuters.com/timesofcrisis) - multimedia interactive charting the year of global change PBS Frontline - Inside the Meltdown (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/) "Government warned of mortgage meltdown Regulators ignored warnings about risky mortgages, delayed regulations on the industry" (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/ignored_warnings.ap/index.htm). CNN. December 1 2008. Retrieved 2010-05-24. "The US sub-prime crisis in graphics" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7073131.stm). BBC. 21 November 2007. CNN Scorecard of Bailout Funds at CNN Bailout Allocations & Payments (http://money.cnn.com/news/ specials/storysupplement/bailout_scorecard/index.html) Barth, Li, Lu, Phumiwasana and Yago. 2009. The Rise and Fall of the U.S. Mortgage and Credit Markets: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Market Meltdown. Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0470477245) Financial Times - In depth: Subprime fall-out (http://www.ft.com/indepth/subprime) The Crisis of Credit Visualized - Infographic by Jonathan Jarvis (http://vimeo.com/3261363) The Economic Crisis: Its Origins and the Way Forward (http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/ ?id=346) Video of lecture given by Marshall Carter, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, at Boston University, April 15, 2009 The True American Dream (http://72.5.117.181/economica/stories/viewStory?storyid=3667) Home Ownership, the Subprime Lending Crisis, and Financial Instability by Masum Momaya - International Museum of Women The Financial Crisis: What Happened and Why - Lecture 2 (http://www.aynrand.org/site/ PageServer?pagename=arc_financial_crisis) Video of lecture given in July 2009, by Yaron Brook, professor of finance and executive director of The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
35
36
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/