Advertise here: Contact FM.


Where's my parachute?
March 16, 2008 7:51 PM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

Fasten your seatbelts. Late Sunday Evening, JPMorgan announced it would be buying Bear Stearns for $2 per share, less than 1/10th the traded value on Friday. The move was backed by the Fed, which assumed most of the risk, and simultaneously cut the rate for borrowing by a quarter percent. According to Alan Greenspan, the US now faces the worst financial crisis since WWII. Monday looks like a wild ride.
posted by unSane (321 comments total) 34 users marked this as a favorite

Good thing he's recognizing it, because it's primarily his fault.
posted by Malor at 7:55 PM on March 16 [5 favorites]


I was about to say page Malor to get his take on this, but he must have had is finger on the button.
posted by bystander at 7:59 PM on March 16


So. I'm paying taxes to kill people with bombs and to save the asses of rich white bankers who, through their greed and predation have created the largest financial mess since world war 2?

There is no movie at 11.
posted by localhuman at 7:59 PM on March 16 [34 favorites]


And since we have Malor, can Mutant also give his analysis?
posted by bystander at 7:59 PM on March 16


In addition to the financing the Federal Reserve ordinarily provides through its Discount Window, the Fed will provide special financing in connection with this transaction. The Fed has agreed to fund up to $30 billion of Bear Stearns’ less liquid assets.
posted by localhuman at 8:01 PM on March 16


My own take is Bear Sterns were exposed to the CDO fallout then taken down by effectively a run on the bank by its investors. Presumably JPM sees value in the remaining illiquid BS investments or it wouldn't even be offering $2 a share, and JPM believe their name will cool the redemptions.
posted by bystander at 8:03 PM on March 16


It's 1907 again.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:05 PM on March 16


I think that I'm going to have to lock the office door tomorrow morning, and just sit and watch this play out ... Dow/S+P/Nasdaq futures all off 2-3% already. $1 = 96Y?
posted by carter at 8:06 PM on March 16


USD is at 70.815, gold hit $1030, and silver is at $21. The rumor mill is tossing around Lehman as the next bank to get hit. Hold on to your hats.
posted by ryoshu at 8:07 PM on March 16


Yeah, I'm paging Malor too, but I think he'll have his hands full.
posted by unSane at 8:08 PM on March 16


Huh.

If anyone needs me I'll be out back, gassing up my dune buggy and shaving my hair into a mohawk.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:08 PM on March 16 [26 favorites]


You left out the best part:
In a potentially even bigger move, the Federal Reserve also announced its biggest commitment yet to lend money to struggling investment banks. The central bank said its new lending program would make money available to the 20 large investment banks that serve as “primary dealers” and trade Treasury securities directly with the Fed.

Much like a $200 billion loan program the Fed announced last Tuesday, this program will essentially allow the government to hold as collateral a wide variety of investments that include hard-to-sell securities backed by mortgages. But Fed officials told reporters on Sunday night that the new program would have no limit on the amount of money that can be borrowed.
"Hard-to-sell" has a bit of a ring to it as risible euphemisms go, don't you think?
posted by enn at 8:10 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


.
posted by Spacelegoman at 8:11 PM on March 16 [9 favorites]


JPMorgan is buying Bear Stearns for a third of the price at which the troubled firm went public in 1985.

Yikes!

It's been swell guys, maybe I'll catch some of you at a "best tree bark to boil into soup" seminar...
posted by jalexei at 8:12 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


Andy Kessler thought it would be Bear of America.
posted by b1tr0t at 8:12 PM on March 16


So. I'm paying taxes to kill people with bombs and to save the asses of rich white bankers who, through their greed and predation have created the largest financial mess since world war 2?

There is no movie at 11.


Sure there is. Hope ya like Zeitgeist.
posted by fleetmouse at 8:12 PM on March 16


"Hard-to-sell" has a bit of a ring to it as risible euphemisms go, don't you think?

I've got a lot of hard to sell securities from '01-'04 or so. Too bad I never thought to back them with mortgages.


makes a note to get mortgage backed stock options next time
posted by b1tr0t at 8:14 PM on March 16


no, enn, YOU missed the best part:
Bear Stearns's profit exceeded $2 billion in 2006, yet the price JPMorgan is paying is about one quarter the value of the securities firm's headquarters building in midtown Manhattan. The 1.2 million-square-foot, 45-story structure built in 2001 is worth about $1.2 billion, based on the average $1,000 per- square-foot that comparable office space in the city is currently fetching.

posted by Mach5 at 8:15 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


"Hard-to-sell" has a bit of a ring to it as risible euphemisms go, don't you think?

Wasn't that a Steven Seagal movie? The one where a streetwise used car dealer bought a bunch of cars at an auction but they all turned out to be lemons, so now he has to fix the cars using martial arts before the bank comes to take his Buddhist temple. And ninjas.
posted by ryoshu at 8:15 PM on March 16 [5 favorites]


Presumably JPM sees value in the remaining illiquid BS investments or it wouldn't even be offering $2 a share, and JPM believe their name will cool the redemptions.

Well, the post says "The move was backed by the Fed, which assumed most of the risk," so.. It sounds just as likely that the Fed went begging at JP Morgan's door, and after getting enough concessions JPM resigned themselves to it.
posted by Chuckles at 8:20 PM on March 16


NIKKEI is down 515... Any guesses on the Dow tomorrow?
posted by mr_roboto at 8:21 PM on March 16


JP Morgan paid $250 million for the company, and they're getting a $1.2 billion dollar office building as part of the deal. And the Fed is taking most of the risk.

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
posted by delmoi at 8:21 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]


In one of the linked blogs there is the statement:
"...but there’s only so much the Fed — whose resources are limited, and whose mandate doesn’t extend to rescuing the whole financial system — can do..."
How true is this? Surely with control over the money supply they can act with basically unlimited resources, assuming they are not concerned about inflation. That is, assuming they wish to see the system keep functioning even if it leads to higher inflation as the lesser evil.
posted by bystander at 8:24 PM on March 16


Anyone know where I can check the Chinese stock markets online?
posted by delmoi at 8:24 PM on March 16


Goldman Sachs to unveil $3bn write down. Can someone pass the popcorn?
posted by ryoshu at 8:26 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


A bit of googling brings up the following:

Shanghai

Hong Kong

I don't trade or follow in either
posted by b1tr0t at 8:27 PM on March 16


delmoi: Hong Kong index at yahoo
posted by bystander at 8:28 PM on March 16


here ya go, delmoi. Nikkei 225 Index
posted by Mach5 at 8:29 PM on March 16


Nikkei is the major Japanese index, btw.
posted by b1tr0t at 8:30 PM on March 16


(well, I found this which indicates that the Shanghai Stock Exchange is off about 3% depending on the index on Monday)
posted by delmoi at 8:31 PM on March 16


I keep checking the Yahoo front page, hoping I won't see:

WORLD BANKING SYSTEM COLLAPSES

CRAZED MOBS LOOT, BURN WALL STREET

WHO WAS OUT ON LAST NIGHT'S IDOL?
posted by yhbc at 8:31 PM on March 16 [15 favorites]


PEAK OIL BABY!!!!
posted by vrakatar at 8:32 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


Before I let this freak me out too much, how exactly is this going to affect me? I hope that doesn't sound callous -- I just need to know if I should watch out for people throwing themselves out of high rises or not.
posted by sugarfish at 8:44 PM on March 16


JP got stuck with Bear Stearns just like BofA got stuck with Countryside. It's just the big banks absorbing the over-leveraged hedge-funds-in-all-but-name and doing their part to keep things stable. They get indirectly backed by the Fed in exchange. Systemic risk is the name of the game here; these are attempts to keep down volatility and avoid a bottom-falls-out meltdown. Of course, there's only so many big players left to go 'round and things will get very bad if the Fed has to jump in directly.

The Goldman Sachs writedown is especially worrisome to me, since they've been one of the, well, least-retarded players in this whole mess. That could be just them getting out ahead of the game, though.

And please. This isn't about peak oil. It's about a systemic mis-valuation of a whole litany of securities and financial instruments that consequently can't be hedged nor their risk evaluated in any meaningful way, and the likelihood of a credit/liquidity crunch as a result. It's also about the incompetent reaction of the Fed and the government in general by not doing anything to slow the over-issuance of credit, and then by responding with a bunch of ill-advised measures like stimulus packages that did/will do precisely jack besides wasting a bunch of money that could actually be put to some productive use at this point. (Seriously, how much was the "stimulus package" for? And how much did Bear Stearns just get bought for? Uh huh.)
posted by spiderwire at 8:45 PM on March 16 [6 favorites]


Before I let this freak me out too much, how exactly is this going to affect me? I hope that doesn't sound callous -- I just need to know if I should watch out for people throwing themselves out of high rises or not.

Invest in canned foods and ammunition futures.
posted by spiderwire at 8:46 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]


cue the Plunge Protection Team
posted by slickvaguely at 8:47 PM on March 16


It's about a systemic mis-valuation of a whole litany of securities and financial instruments that consequently can't be hedged nor their risk evaluated in any meaningful way, and the likelihood of a credit/liquidity crunch as a result.

PEAK MIS-VALUATION, BABY!!!!!!
posted by vrakatar at 8:49 PM on March 16 [4 favorites]


Before I let this freak me out too much, how exactly is this going to affect me? I hope that doesn't sound callous -- I just need to know if I should watch out for people throwing themselves out of high rises or not.

The interesting thing about this crisis is that it is happening in extreme slow-motion. Don't do anything rash. Stay calm.
posted by b1tr0t at 8:50 PM on March 16


Thank you.
posted by cashman at 8:52 PM on March 16


TOKYO (Reuters) - Oil jumped to a record above $111 a barrel on Monday, as a surprise weekend cut in the Federal Reserve discount rate and the fire sale of stricken U.S. investment bank Bear Stearns sent the dollar to all-time lows.

THIS IS GOING TO BE FRACKING AWESOME.
posted by vrakatar at 8:53 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


By the way, just as an aside... I have no idea what happens next. Four or five years ago, it was pretty obvious what to do... get out of debt, store wealth in things that aren't dollars, and stay the hell out of real estate. When seeing the storm on the horizon, the basics of lashing down and getting ready are pretty obvious.

But now that the storm is actually breaking, and big waves are starting to hit the boat... I have no freaking clue what's going to happen. This is part of why I'm so resistant to giving financial advice anymore. 'Buy gold' was very smart five years ago, but I just don't know if it still is. It could possibly be the very worst thing to do. As the financial system fights to save itself, the collateral damage is likely to be vast and very, very unpredictable.

What I'm personally betting on is that the Fed, if sufficiently determined, can destroy the dollar if it wants, and it's showing remarkable ingenuity in doing so. It's bailing out its banking buddies by stealing money from YOUR pockets. I suspect commodities will become very dear, and millions of people will starve so that the bankers don't lose their mansions, but my overall certainty level is low.

Being able to see a storm and being able to ride waves are very different skills, and I haven't developed any of the latter.

bitrot's right: this is happening quite slowly. It'll continue to unfold for years yet.
posted by Malor at 8:57 PM on March 16 [11 favorites]


> Any guesses on the Dow tomorrow?

I wouldn't know, but I'll bet anyone a shiny Canadian loonie that CNN, MSNBC, Drudge, etc. will be running a lot of photos like this on their front pages.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:57 PM on March 16


Its interesting, and barely reassuring, that Bernake's actions since last December have been so aggressive, in stark contrast to the claims of Bush and Paulson that the situation isn't that bad, and there's nothing they can do anyway ("The market now is in the process of correcting itself, and delaying that correction would only prolong the problem"). If there's a formal recession, it won't be because the Fed was too timid. Its also slightly risky, in that Bernake is really putting his own skin in the game, or at least the government's, in regards to avoiding/alleviating the credit crisis. Between this assumption of Bear Stern's risk and the trading of Treasury notes for bad debt under the TAF and now the Term Securities Lending Facility, taxpayers may be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars if a serious recession does break out and people start defaulting on their mortgages. If he's successful, he'll be seen as a genius, and if not, there will likely be massive political pressure for greater regulation of the financial industry in a few years.
posted by gsteff at 8:59 PM on March 16


Oh, someone beat me to the link. Thanks :)

I actually own some FXI which is a Chinese ETF. I put in a stop order for $123, and it already dropped 6% Friday (to $128), and I wouldn't be surprised to see it hit my stop tomorrow. It tends to swing pretty wildly.

I just bought into the market like last week (march 10th) and I got DXD (UltraShort Dow30 ProShares) and FXI together, thinking the two would ballance eachother out, but because I purchased FXI in the morning and DXD in the afternoon I lost some money. I was actually doing OK until Friday when FXI tanked but the Dow didn't. I also made some money off gold and silver.

I'm not too worried about it personally since I figured I was losing money holding cash anyway.
posted by delmoi at 8:59 PM on March 16


I sure picked the right time to quit my job as a developer in Bear's IT department.
posted by teferi at 9:04 PM on March 16 [8 favorites]


Bill Fleckenstein, over at Fleckenstein Capital (pay service), had this to say about the news on Friday:

Amnesty As Travesty
And, it appears that the Fed's new TSLF was set up solely to provide Bear Stearns with liquidity, as Bear cannot avail itself of the TAF. Obviously, JP Morgan can use both. Nevertheless, even the TSLF hasn't been enough, as Bear today needed help from JPM and the NY Fed. So, this is the Fed's way of attempting to bail out Bear Stearns. And that illuminates something I have railed against for some time: We have become a bailout nation.

You would think that if ever there was an example to be made of a brokerage firm that took risk-taking to its extreme, it would be Bear Stearns. Given that the company put itself in harm's way, why shouldn't it be allowed to fail? But the sad fact of the matter is that the Fed and the regulators think they can and should prevent anyone from failing. Which is how we got to this point in time -- where, notwithstanding efforts by the powers that be -- the problems are too big to bail out.

Meanwhile, the consequences of their attempts are a collapsing dollar and a higher gold price. And, at some point, it will matter to the Treasury market, though it certainly hasn't yet. The repercussions to the policies pursued by Greenspan and the Fed are now manifesting themselves. Over the course of the coming months, it will finally be clear to everyone just what an abomination and what a dangerous entity the Fed has become. Perhaps the good that will arise from the crackup ahead is a new regime at the Fed, though I am not holding my breath for when that becomes reality.

posted by Malor at 9:09 PM on March 16


Okay, correct me if I am wrong, but the Bear Sterns thing is a de facto bank failure, right?
posted by vrakatar at 9:11 PM on March 16


Fleckenstein also points out that Bernanke is going to get blamed for all of this, when it's all about Greenspan.
posted by Malor at 9:13 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


Could anyone break down what this means in Financial Disaster for Dummies style? If society as we know it is going to collapse, I'd love to understand what's happening.
posted by the jam at 9:15 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


Okay, correct me if I am wrong, but the Bear Sterns thing is a de facto bank failure, right?

I don't think so, because in theory people invested with the knowledge that they could lose all their money. But doesn't countrywide count as a bank failure already?
posted by delmoi at 9:15 PM on March 16


A lot of hyper-capitalist types are big Ayn Rand fans, no? I can't help but wonder if currently ongoing events aren't part of an Atlas Shrugged-style plot to fuck society up to the point where it has to be completely broken down in order to start over...
posted by you just lost the game at 9:16 PM on March 16


Okay, correct me if I am wrong, but the Bear Sterns thing is a de facto bank failure, right?

Not exactly. It would be a failure if Bear refused to enter negotiations with Morgan and really fell apart. Instead, they worked out a deal that looks pretty good for Morgan, and should be fairly seamless to Bear's customers.
posted by b1tr0t at 9:16 PM on March 16


vrakatar -- easy on the all caps there, buddy. Things haven't collapsed yet.
posted by spiderskull at 9:16 PM on March 16


I think the Bear Stearns fiasco is simply an old adage writ large: when you owe the bank $!000, it's your problem. When you owe the bank $1,000,000, it's the bank's problem. Now multiply up, and replace 'the bank' by 'the financial markets' and you see the problem.

The Fed can intervene but it can't work miracles.

If it keeps lowering interest rates, the currency dives. This makes oil rich countries want to deal in not-dollars. Ever wonder why Iraq is on the hitlist?

If it dumps in dollars, inflation soars. It already has, when measured in terms of oil and food. Ever wonder why these are excluded from conventional inflation estimates?

And so on.

No matter how hard you shake it, the last drop always runs down your leg.

The real question for me is whether the rest of the world financial system can survive this. I think there's a fighting chance they can. If so what you are certainly seeing is the demise of the dollar as the world currency, and with it the end of US hegemony over world markets.
posted by unSane at 9:17 PM on March 16 [4 favorites]


Hooray! No more annoying paychecks and trips to the bank for us .... from now on we're gonna get paid in wheelbarrows of worthless greenbacks. "How much for that loaf of day old bread?" "Two barrows and a bucket."

Awesome.
posted by Avenger at 9:18 PM on March 16


We are the cats strapped to our masters chest, and we have no parachute.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:21 PM on March 16 [10 favorites]


Yeah spiderskull, I got carried away there. I enjoy the idea of a worldwide collapse.
posted by vrakatar at 9:22 PM on March 16


If only more people had Googled Ron Paul, we could've pulled ourselves out of this mess.
posted by punishinglemur at 9:22 PM on March 16 [12 favorites]


Could anyone break down what this means in Financial Disaster for Dummies style? If society as we know it is going to collapse, I'd love to understand what's happening.

The WaPo had this cartoon. Greg Mankiw's slideshow also looks informative for people interested in getting up to speed. Malor, of course, will tell you that this has been 100 years in the making ever since we got off the gold standard.
posted by delmoi at 9:22 PM on March 16 [11 favorites]


The more people say to stay calm, the more dire the situation clearly is: The entire financial system depends upon public confidence. "Your deposits insured up to $100,000 by the FDIC". The only way the FDIC can back that up is if only a small percentage of banks fail. If there is a widespread run on banks, the whole system collapses.

Slow motion fall becomes fast motion collapse when a critical mass of people lose confidence.
posted by spock at 9:25 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


for those wanting to follow along here's a list of some finance/econ (we)blogs, in no particular order :Pput 'em in your favorite feed reader for real time viewing pleasure schadenfreude links and analysis!
posted by kliuless at 9:25 PM on March 16 [99 favorites]


When Bush says the dollar devaluation, mortgage crisis, and credit crunch are not that big a deal. He means it. It's not that big a deal. For him. And most of his Friends.

You see they own STUFF. Like oil. Hard assets. While you own? What do you own?

Paper. Which on Monday will be worth less.

Meanwhile their stuff just goes up in value the worse inflation gets.

Suckers.
posted by tkchrist at 9:25 PM on March 16 [3 favorites]


If you are a Bear Sterns shareholder I'm sure it feels as if the bank has collapsed. These equity holders have seen 93% of their value gone, taking the punishment for the risks BS has taken. Allowing the bank to collapse hurts them very little more, but burns all the counter parties to BS transactions. The counter parties probably don't deserve to be toasted, assuming they took the opposite position to BS.
Holders of BS managed investments are already bailing c.f. "the run on the bank" so allowing it to collapse will just punish to late leavers.
posted by bystander at 9:28 PM on March 16


If there is a widespread run on banks, the whole system collapses.

No. It's way worse than that. People don't have money in banks. People don't HAVE savings. They have 401k (mostly in dollar based funds... which are already losing big), they have Mortgages and debt.

The banks are the ones that are going to run... on each other. And, then as a result, on YOUR investment accounts.
posted by tkchrist at 9:29 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


From the post on interfluidity.
Suppose that Monday morning, Ben Bernanke is presented with a deal, under which a buyer gets Bear assets on the cheap, Bear stockholders get paid out, and the Fed (implicitly or explicitly) bears residual risk. If the Fed doesn't approve, executives say, Bear will file for bankruptcy. Dr. Bernanke will then have an unappetizing choice. He can say yes, and hope that there aren't any more rumors out there about any other firms. Or he can say no, and make it very clear that if Bear Stearns files for bankruptcy despite the Fed's continuing provision of liquidity, he will do everything in his power to hold Bear executives personally responsible for the crisis that results.

A man who by all accounts is a very nice guy may be forced to play some very hard ball.

Turns out it was Sunday night, not Monday morning.
posted by mullacc at 9:31 PM on March 16


I can't help but wonder if currently ongoing events aren't part of an Atlas Shrugged-style plot to fuck society up to the point where it has to be completely broken down in order to start over...

In the 60s, Greenspan was a big Ayn Rand follower and talked about the evils of fiat money and how a gold backed currency is the best way to go. I used to joke that after the US completely divested itself from metals backing, Greenspan worked to become the Fed chair so he could prove that gold is better than fiat.

I'm not sure if it's still a joke.
posted by ryoshu at 9:31 PM on March 16 [8 favorites]


what you are certainly seeing is the demise of the dollar as the world currency, and with it the end of US hegemony over world markets.

That is, I think, an absolutely safe prediction. I'd take it further: I believe we're watching the early death throes of the American Empire. The world is changing, and our time as the dominant central player is coming to a close. As England gave way to the US as the world's center of gravity, now we're giving way to China and, probably, Russia.

As the Onion so eloquently put it, our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.
posted by Malor at 9:32 PM on March 16 [7 favorites]


tomorrow, my (US) employer will have to start paying (canadian) me in CDN$, or i'm outie.

it's been a trip, guys!
posted by klanawa at 9:33 PM on March 16


What is winding up? What is Guernsey Law?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Investment company Carlyle Capital Corp said on Sunday its shareholders have voted unanimously in favor of a compulsory winding up.
The company said it will now start winding up and sell its remaining assets under Guernsey law.

Peak winding up, baby?
posted by vrakatar at 9:34 PM on March 16


"winding up" means they are liquidating Carlyle's holdings. Guernsey is a tax haven where Carlyle Capital is probably incorporated.
posted by b1tr0t at 9:38 PM on March 16


The company said it will now start winding up and sell its remaining assets under Guernsey law.

Its incorporated in the tax shelter of Guernsey, a little British island in the English Channel.
posted by blahblahblah at 9:38 PM on March 16


Could anyone break down what this means in Financial Disaster for Dummies style? If society as we know it is going to collapse, I'd love to understand what's happening.

The article I linked a few days ago is a pretty good primer for the situation.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:40 PM on March 16


So, I hope the internet stays up during this great collapse, at least for the lulz.

The world is changing, and our time as the dominant central player is coming to a close. As England gave way to the US as the world's center of gravity, now we're giving way to China and, probably, Russia.

I'm seeing EU vs. China (vs. India?). Russia and the US can join the EU, maybe. The interesting bit is what happens with the US military - collapse all the finances you want, the aircraft carriers, the B2 bombers, and the ICBMs still exist.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:40 PM on March 16


That Greenspan article just about makes me want to scream.

1. "I hope that one of the casualties will not be reliance on counterparty surveillance, and more generally financial self-regulation, as the fundamental balance mechanism for global finance."

Oh, good lord. The potential for this exact collapse scenario in the credit markets was painfully apparent when LTCM went down. (Unsurprisingly, Bear Stearns was all over that one, too.) That should have made it obvious that self-policing wasn't going to work as a means for regulating the financial industry, because -- surprise! -- there's no internal transparency and in fact a high disincentive against it (which is, after all, sort of the fucking point). Hmm, now who was on watch then? Someone remind me.

2. Even if that fiasco didn't drive the point home, the Enron debacle made it even more clear that "self-policing" couldn't possibly be an effective solution, because the financial industry (thanks in no small part to the credit-rating institutions, naturally) wasn't even capable of regulating itself and pricing appropriately even when the numbers were there for years and there should have been every possible incentive in the world to not do exactly what everyone did do by pumping Enron, and everyone got caught with their pants down. Yes, I am confident in counterparty surveillance now.

And thank god we have Sarbanes-Oxley and now all the executives have to sign a piece of paper saying that their disclosures are accurate. What an effective solution to price volatility. Or something.

3. "The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the second world war. It will end eventually when home prices stabilise and with them the value of equity in homes supporting troubled mortgage securities."

Astounding. Greenspan's comforting notion here, of course, rests on the assumption that home prices are intrinsically stable, because the value of the underlying asset doesn't really change, which is precisely the mistake that got us into this mess in the first place. Few reasons why that's still really worrisome:

First, in order for home prices to provide the market anchor they're hoped to, their valuation has to systemically accurate in the first place to a certain degree, which there's actually no guarantee that they are or were -- and even if so, the assumptions that generally undergirded those valuations are now even less useful because of all the current crisis, e.g. all the foreclosures, etc. More on that in a moment.

Second, in order for this revaluation to occur and re-stabilize the economy, that systemic valuation would actually have to be more accurate than it would need to be in an otherwise stable market. Home equity has traditionally been a counterweight to volatility elsewhere in the market, but in the face of a huge liquidity crunch, even returning to that previous level of safety wouldn't fully counteract the systemic volatility that's now spread across the entire economy.

Third -- and to me, this is most important -- this notion that home prices just need to stabilize and we'll all be fine is also based on the assumption that the underlying equity itself will maintain its value, which is now clearly not the case. For example, see the Atlantic Monthly article last month discussing how many recently-built suburban developments have been abandoned in the wave of foreclosures and are turning into the functional equivalent of inner-city neighborhoods; drug wars, graffiti, vandalism, and general deterioration of the homes. Many of these homes were built cheaply, so without someone to live in them, the drywall crumbles and they simply fall apart.

Without anyone to maintain them, all the equity in those new homes is vanishing. As in, the value of the underlying assets, not their market valuations. There's actually less and less value to reclaim, sometimes because they're not even livable residences anymore. There's going to be nothing left to do but demolish them in many cases. Greenspan's talking about a "price stabilization" as if all we need is a market correction in order to re-peg the actual value of those homes, but that assumes that the actual value is going to maintained in the interim, which actually doesn't appear to be very likely.

And there's other potential negative feedback here -- for example, if gas prices go up and cars become too expensive, then the value of all those suburban McMansions becomes even lower. Suburbs also need positive growth -- the whole reason people move there in the first place is for better schools, healthy environment, etc., and if a suburbs turns into a ghetto, there's zero reason for new residents to move in and the values of those homes will only plummet further.

The bottom line is that we're not looking at a mere market correction, but at the possibility that the credit crunch is actually destroying equity, which in turn will increase the underlying valuation problem, and so forth. We're actually facing the prospect of a "Market for Lemons" situation in the housing market, and that is, frankly, utterly horrifying.
posted by spiderwire at 9:41 PM on March 16 [19 favorites]


Note that Carlyle Capital is a sub-entity of the Carlyle Group. Despite tkchrist's comments to the contrary, that is the kind of place the Bushes stuff their money. Fun times.
posted by b1tr0t at 9:42 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


I'm seeing EU vs. China (vs. India?). Russia and the US can join the EU, maybe. The interesting bit is what happens with the US military - collapse all the finances you want, the aircraft carriers, the B2 bombers, and the ICBMs still exist.

Russia still has all their cold war equipment as well, and didn't cause too many problems even when their economy was totally hosed.
posted by delmoi at 9:45 PM on March 16


Actually, Malor, it seems to me that a credit collapse doesn't bode very well for China or India, either. Nor does a dollar collapse or a decrease in U.S. consumer spending. Both countries are in the middle of expansions right now and as I understand it pretty heavily leveraged, so a liquidity crunch potentially hits them very, very hard. Really bad timing for them.

Europe and Russia, on the other hand -- yeah, I think they're clearly in much better shape right now. Lots more hard equity, lower populations, much less import/export/debt interdependence.
posted by spiderwire at 9:49 PM on March 16


So, uh... last one to the bank is a rotten egg ...
posted by garlic at 9:50 PM on March 16


I think there is a bit of an overreaction here on the Blue. Economies can and do survive this sort of thing without turning into Mad Max zone. It is just really, really expensive. According to Krugman,

"The U.S. savings and loan crisis of the 1980s ended up costing taxpayers 3.2 percent of G.D.P., the equivalent of $450 billion today. Some estimates put the fiscal cost of Japan’s post-bubble cleanup at more than 20 percent of G.D.P. — the equivalent of $3 trillion for the United States."

That's a lot of potential money (though the bailout hasn't been started yet), but even with some degradation of underlying assets (as spiderwire stated), what happens to the banks is not the same as the underlying asset base of the US.
posted by blahblahblah at 9:50 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]


The bottom line is that we're not looking at a mere market correction, but at the possibility that the credit crunch is actually destroying equity, which in turn will increase the underlying valuation problem, and so forth. We're actually facing the prospect of a "Market for Lemons" situation in the housing market, and that is, frankly, utterly horrifying.

spiderwire: One positive result of all that might be increasing housing density, which reduces carbon use. So that will be good for global warming.

Another big problem is the fact that the so many of those houses are poorly made and a lot of times the builders have arbitrage contracts making them impossible to sue, and even if you do win the builders will probably be bankrupt.
posted by delmoi at 9:51 PM on March 16


According to Alan Greenspan, the US now faces the worst financial crisis since WWII.


Sure. And while Helicopter Ben will take the blame, Greenspan is the only one who should take the blame since he created this incredible money bubbles.
posted by yoyo_nyc at 9:54 PM on March 16


delmoi: The problem isn't global warming, carbon use, or bankruptcy; those are all ancillary or transient effects here. It's that an economic collapse could lead to a value-restructuring that makes those homes objectively worth less, either because they deteriorate physically or simply because population shifts make them less accessible and less desirable.

But Greenspan and others are hanging their hats on the assumption that the markets are independent and simply mispriced -- on the notion that no matter what happens, the underlying value of the asset is still there and all we need to do is accurately reprice it to tamp down volatility.

But if the intervening crunch destroys the value of the asset, then we're really and truly screwed, both because that keeps volatility high and because the equity we're hoping to reclaim is actually being physically lost in the process.
posted by spiderwire at 9:59 PM on March 16


Russia still has all their cold war equipment as well, and didn't cause too many problems even when their economy was totally hosed.

Kursk, anyone? Russia was (and perhaps still is) having significant problems maintaining a standing army, fighting a war in Chechnya, and maintaining a standing navy. The sinking of the Kursk, and the completely inept rescue attempt by the Russians, and this where the submarine had an admiral's son on board?

I'm sure there are many other problems that beset Russia's military in the past two decades, and I suspect many are tied to Russia's economic woes. The military has high operating costs - you've got to procure and manufacture spare parts, fuel, and pay salaries to a great number of men. When you stop being able to do these things, your military becomes much less effective.
posted by zippy at 10:12 PM on March 16


So, for those of us with virtually no debt (I own my car, don't have a mortgage, and am about to pay off the last of my CC debt), some savings, and some retirement funds that seem about ready to implode, what now? Seriously, do I cash out the retirement fund (taking the hit, presuming that the penalty is worse than not only the short-term losses in the market but the long-term losses as well), grab the savings, and buy gold? I earn more than I spend; where do I put the surplus? I'm seriously at a loss here.
posted by scody at 10:12 PM on March 16 [6 favorites]


oh and if you had to read one thing "in Financial Disaster for Dummies style" i'd recommend james hamilton's "Asking too much of monetary policy" and if you want a prequel of sorts i'd try brad delong's "Three cures for three crises" as for the sequel, it's being written... but i think this is the worst for credibly bearish endgames (without invoking too much conspiracy -- don't attribute to malice and all ;) that i think even outdoes faber/roubini, for example -- essentially if "bretton woods II" collapses the whole global monetary 'architecture' will have to be reconstituted [viz?], presumably one in which a 'reserve' currency is not so easily (unilaterally) abused, cf. "The end of national currency" [emph multinational currencies as yet unborn].

cheers!
posted by kliuless at 10:13 PM on March 16 [8 favorites]


blahblahblah: I don't think that anyone is saying we're totally fucked (ok, chicken littles always exist)... But, I think we are saying this is probably the worst we've seen in a loooong time (certainly since I've been alive, or at least old enough to remember -- I'm only 31, so some of you have seen some pretty bad times compared to me, I think).

I mean, look, we made it through the Great Depression. I don't think that's an argument for "let's not worry".

I have to admit I've been reading a lot of different places, and since, probably 2005 (I think Krugman was the first place I read about the housing bubble, all the official denials notwithstanding), I've seen a lot of hand-wringing, and I usually tend to dismiss it. But it just seems to be compounding (hence the "slow crash" statements from a few people here). So lately, I'm letting myself be a bit concerned. I don't really have investments to worry about, living check to check, so I have concerns on how things'll shake out, but so much of this is abstract.

Speaking of the 2005 Krugman Housing Bubble Articles: How the fuck could Carlyle form their Mortgage unit in 2006, when it was pretty damn clear there was a bubble? Fucking irresponsible!

The Market may be rational, but the people playing it are fucking retards. (sorry for the un-PC term there).

Am I the only one who, upon learning more of how this all works, sees it as a sickening shell game of bubble-jumping, and games designed to shift money around between entities in ever more bizarre schemes? If I don't trust Amway, why the fuck should I trust any of these con artists?
posted by symbioid at 10:15 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]


Well, on the bright side, all the annoying hedgefunders who drive up the cost of living in NYC and act like they own the place will be committing suicide over final toasts with Cristal.

On the brighter side, I'm looking to buy in New York in the next year.

I can't say I'm too bothered. As the Eskimos say, eventually everyone will need to know how to hunt to survive again.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:19 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]


... where the submarine had an admiral Naval Academy Instructor's son on board?

Carry on.
posted by zippy at 10:19 PM on March 16


Seatbelt not included
posted by hortense at 10:19 PM on March 16


Malor : The sky is falling!
Mutant : Well, the clouds certainly are dark. And it most definitely is going to rain. But don't you think that it's a bit premature to say that the sky will actually fall down?
posted by Afroblanco at 10:21 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]


...what now? Seriously, do I cash out the retirement fund (taking the hit, presuming that the penalty is worse than not only the short-term losses in the market but the long-term losses as well), grab the savings, and buy gold? I earn more than I spend; where do I put the surplus? I'm seriously at a loss here.

The fact that this question is asked and never answered in these threads should provide some indication that the entire thread is not much more than worthless speculation.

I'm sure someone else will come along and tell you about their monetary theories in excruciating detail but without concluding with any of that, you know, prescriptivist nonsense.

I mean, a year ago, you could have asked the head of Bear Stearns himself for advice but its clear that that advice is now worth about a penny on the dollar.
posted by vacapinta at 10:29 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


scody: Some employer-sponsored retirement funds have less options than others, but you should be able to re-allocate your money into different investments without actually withdrawing them from the account. At the very least, you should be able to hold 100% cash or US Treasuries. In any case, figure out your options within the retirement account before paying a big tax penalty.
posted by mullacc at 10:30 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


I mean, a year ago, you could have asked the head of Bear Stearns himself for advice but its clear that that advice is now worth about a penny on the dollar.

Now if it were a nickel in front of a steamroller -- well, then you're talkin'.
posted by spiderwire at 10:32 PM on March 16


Hooray! No more annoying paychecks and trips to the bank for us .... from now on we're gonna get paid in wheelbarrows of worthless greenbacks. "How much for that loaf of day old bread?" "Two barrows and a bucket."

Just remember, prices like that, and $4 gas, does wonderful things to the GDP. The next thing you know, the US will have a GDP of over 10 trillion dollars annually.
And since that's the yardstick everyone uses to show how great the economy is doing, there will be lots of hurrays all around.
posted by Balisong at 10:32 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]


Afro: it would be more accurate to say:

Malor: Oh my god, there's an enormous hurricane coming!

Mutant: Oh, well, we get tornadoes all the time, and we survive those fine. Hurricanes aren't that big a deal.
posted by Malor at 10:33 PM on March 16


Seriously, do I cash out the retirement fund (taking the hit, presuming that the penalty is worse than not only the short-term losses in the market but the long-term losses as well), grab the savings, and buy gold?

As mullacc said, you should be able to roll over your IRA (or whatever you have) and put it in something less risky then stocks (if that's what you have now). Gold and silver at are at a 20 year peak so who knows if they'll keep rising the way they have in the past few months.

Does your company have someone you can talk to about this? You might be able to move your money to savings bonds or cash just by filling out some paperwork, rather then actually transferring your funds somewhere else.
posted by delmoi at 10:35 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


The only way the FDIC can back that up is if only a small percentage of banks fail. If there is a widespread run on banks, the whole system collapses.

This is an interesting question. Can the FDIC conceivably fail? If so, are some banks safer than others, or are they all equally fucked? Is there any safe place for my money?
posted by Afroblanco at 10:37 PM on March 16


It's bailing out its banking buddies by stealing money from YOUR pockets.

It's damned-if-you-damned-if-you-don't. If they bail them out, the taxpayer is the one doing the bailing. If they don't bail them out, the financial system fails, and taxpayers lose their savings.

In other words, we're all going to pay regardless.

My brother works for a large insurance firm. Their economists in NYC have been painting a relatively rosy picture -- 3.8% inflation, 4 quarter recession and we're in quarter 3 right now, housing market should stabilize by end of summer. He was telling me all of this today before the Bear Stearns news hit the wire. "People are panicking and they shouldn't be," he kept saying. "You lose money when you panic!"

He's so young and naive. Not a clue about behavioral economics.

And yet, even with all that... I still don't see "the end of civilization" with all of this. This is what, the seventh "OMG MARKET EPIC FAIL!" MeFi post since the crunch started in earnest seven months ago? And no one is starving because of it. The US economy is sick, but it isn't dying.
posted by dw at 10:38 PM on March 16


The next thing you know, the US will have a GDP of over 10 trillion dollars annually.

WTF? 2007 GDP was about $13.7 trillion.
posted by gsteff at 10:44 PM on March 16


Am I the only one who, upon learning more of how this all works, sees it as a sickening shell game of bubble-jumping, and games designed to shift money around between entities in ever more bizarre schemes?

When it comes to how I invest my savings, I regret that I have to play the game from the point of view of a wall street investor because it runs counter to how I think and desire to live.

and while I'm not a big gambler type, the casino mentality of the market does bring its own rush.
posted by MillMan at 10:45 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


If they're willing to bail out private players, Afro, there's no way they would let the FDIC fail.

Yes, there are definitely banks that are safer than others. I read a book a couple of years ago that rated a number of them explicitly for their ability to survive the kind of crisis we're seeing now. I'll see if I can find it... I think maybe I lent it out. Hopefully I can remember the name.

It's damned-if-you-damned-if-you-don't. If they bail them out, the taxpayer is the one doing the bailing. If they don't bail them out, the financial system fails, and taxpayers lose their savings.

In other words, we're all going to pay regardless.


But in the first scenario, the bad players stay in business, and the risky business models prosper, so we pay again and again and again. If we let them fail, we pay only once.
posted by Malor at 10:47 PM on March 16


This is what, the seventh "OMG MARKET EPIC FAIL!" MeFi post since the crunch started in earnest seven months ago? And no one is starving because of it.

This has been building for a long time, and it's happening in slow, but punctuated, motion. Folks like me who've been watching with some interest have been doing it for years, and as far as my own personal guesses about the timetable: well, it's playing out at more or less the rate I thought it would. For what it's worth, I reckon at least a couple more years before the nadir. How long that nadir lasts, I couldn't say.

It's not the end of civilization, by any means, but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that it's going to get a great deal worse before it gets better.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:48 PM on March 16


Malor : Yeah, I'd definitely be interested in putting my money in the safest place possible.

I've been bearish all along - to the extreme. All my money is in an FDIC-protected savings account. I've been under the impression that this was the safest thing to do. If the FDIC fails, it's game over for me.

And as much as I'm against bailing out the bad players, they simply cannot let the FDIC fail. This would hurt the most powerless people in our economic system, and plunge the country into ruin. If the FDIC fails, god help us all. And I'm not even a believer. But then again, if such a thing happened, maybe I'd want to find a god just so I'd have someone to pray to.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:55 PM on March 16


FDIC protected accounts will be secure, even if the government had to shell out a major portion of GDP to cover it. Unless things get so bad that "where should I put my money" is irrelevant.

If you want to play the market, commodity ETFs are a good bet, unlikely to plunge anytime soon, and you aren't investing in a single commodity.
posted by blahblahblah at 10:59 PM on March 16 [7 favorites]


But in the first scenario, the bad players stay in business, and the risky business models prosper, so we pay again and again and again. If we let them fail, we pay only once.

The first scenario, in one way or another, is how the American economy has operated for over 100 years. We just move from bubble to bubble.

The second scenario, honestly, would destroy consumer interest in the markets for a generation. And after that, what happens? The bad players re-emerge with the latest bubble.

The problem with capitalism is that it requires greed to operate, and greed draws risky models and bad players. Government regulation and business ethics can keep the bad players and risky models in line, but at the end of the day, everyone wants more.
posted by dw at 11:00 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]


We have $2.12 in our bank account until next payday, so on the bright side, if the bank fails we're only out $2.12. But, on the not-bright side, are we going to have to start wondering if there will be another payday? This is scary stuff for those of us on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Our car is paid off, our house is almost paid off, and I know how to make nutritious meals on a budget, but it pisses me off that our financial stability is largely in the hands of people who seem to always come out smelling like a rose while the rest of the country deals with shitty economic policy.
posted by amyms at 11:02 PM on March 16 [14 favorites]


But in the first scenario, the bad players stay in business, and the risky business models prosper, so we pay again and again and again. If we let them fail, we pay only once.

Would were it that simple, though. The risky business models mean that if we don't bail them out we risk total meltdown. It is ridiculous that Bear Stearns (who refused to join in the LTCM bailout even though they were up to their eyeballs in it) is the one getting the golden rope today, but you only need to get bailed out once. They're already rich.

And they'll be back. Lots of guys do it multiple times -- John Meriwether was a pariah for years after Solomon Brothers, but all he had to do was scoop up some Nobel Prize winners and he was in business at LTCM! ...Doing the exact same arbitrage shell game he used to do, but now -- with computers!

I really am starting to come around to the notion of a very temporary freeze. In that brief pause, a national crash program for very carefully reevaluating home equity, household debts, equities, assets, savings, ongoing costs, expected costs etc, to at least come up with an accurate data baseline to work with. Right now we're simply flying blind. If we're going to force the government to get involved in anything, I don't see why we don't take direct steps toward reducing volatility in home prices.
posted by spiderwire at 11:05 PM on March 16


The FDIC appears to hold investments of $52b, so it could not offer meaningful insurance in a general run on all banks. I think the assumption is the Gov would stand behind it.
Which, I guess, means they could print more money to pay you off, albeit at the pre-inflation figure, before their printing operation devalued to buying power of the dollar.
posted by bystander at 11:11 PM on March 16


And personally, I don't see why anyone would want to be president right now.

Makes me want to vote for McCain just to see the GOP crushed forever by 2012.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:12 PM on March 16 [3 favorites]


If we're going to force the government to get involved in anything, I don't see why we don't take direct steps toward reducing volatility in home prices.

Well, in order to do that, you need capital to rewrite all the mortgages, or you need to force the banks at gunpoint to do cramdowns. And right now, there's not enough capital to go around, and there's no political will to make the banks do anything.

And the other problem is that there are bad players on every level. The guy in the backroom of Bear Stearns is just as culpable as the mortgage writer who sold the jumbo ARM to Cletus, while Cletus borrowed against his credit cards to flip an exurb mansion despite working as a convenience store clerk.

Every way out of this is just punishment for our personal and community greed.
posted by dw at 11:19 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]


If they're willing to bail out private players, Afro, there's no way they would let the FDIC fail.

Yes, I'm sure those of us with piddling retail bank accounts will be treated with just as much concern as all those i-bankers from Greenwich who play racquetball with Henry Paulson. Oh, Malor, you are a card!

I can't find references right now, but it's my understanding that, historically, in localized, minor bank failures the FDIC tends to take months or years to pay out. In the case of national bank runs, I'm thinking it's a pretty good bet that people are going to be losing their jobs and needing access to their savings sooner than that. If this takes place during a high-inflation period, a great many people are going to be fucked because the FDIC doesn't pay interest during those months or years. And, of course, if the FDIC has that much trouble with the failures of local banks, do you really trust them to pay out at all when a major national bank fails?

The FDIC was always intended as a placebo — it was supposed to prevent bank runs by making people believe that bank runs wouldn't hurt them. It wasn't supposed to ever be used, not on a national scale. Its existence was supposed to render its use unnecessary.

Oops. Maybe we ought to have kept Glass-Steagal around after all.
posted by enn at 11:26 PM on March 16 [3 favorites]


I can't find references right now, but it's my understanding that, historically, in localized, minor bank failures the FDIC tends to take months or years to pay out.

For what it's worth, the KDIC, the local equivalent in Korea, took upwards of a year to totally pay out the 40K or so to reimburse us when a local bank/credit union where we had some money failed a few years back.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:42 PM on March 16


The risky business models mean that if we don't bail them out we risk total meltdown.

That's the argument of, "the surgery is too painful, Doctor. Let's leave the tumor in and hope for the best."

If the failure of any one player could take down the whole system, that means the system is broken and needs to be rebuilt anyway. It's really that simple. If we want the benefits of free market capitalism, then we need to accept the risks. Companies need to be able to fail. Creative destruction is the linchpin of capitalism, and by removing it, we've decoupled the financial system from the economy, and ruined both.

What we have now is socialized risk but privatized profit. It's the worst of both worlds, a giant system of serfdom. If Wall Street does famously, they keep the money. If Wall Street fails dismally, WE pay their salaries and make their losses good. So, rain or shine, they make out like bandits, while we get robbed. We never win in this situation. Never. They hold the 'system will crash!' threat over our heads, but why do we want a rigged system in the first place?

The system needs to be resilient to failure, and the only way it will learn is if we let them happen.

enn: I really don't think they'll let the FDIC fail. There's just no way that could happen in this political climate. Now, as you say, the actual payouts probably will be slow and worth less by the time you get them, but outright failure? No WAY that's gonna happen.

Afro: I think I did lend that book out, but I'm still looking for it.
posted by Malor at 11:46 PM on March 16 [35 favorites]


If the U.S. collapses into a Mad Max style violent anarchy after this, do you guys want to join up and be in my gang? We'll have spiffy MeFi-blue paintjobs on our deathcars.
posted by Justinian at 11:57 PM on March 16 [9 favorites]


If the failure of any one player could take down the whole system, that means the system is broken and needs to be rebuilt anyway. It's really that simple. If we want the benefits of free market capitalism, then we need to accept the risks. Companies need to be able to fail. Creative destruction is the linchpin of capitalism, and by removing it, we've decoupled the financial system from the economy, and ruined both.

Who's to say that free market capitalism is the way to go? Who's to say that the 'managed market capitalism' like we have now isn't a better alternative, given the very real world suffering that can be caused by the 'failure' of financial institutions? If anything, I would argue that the current failure indicates the need for even more invasive management of the economy.

Because really the entire premise of that statement is that 'free market = good' Well, I disagree. In fact, an on-the-ball congress could have prevented this entire thing by regulating sub prime mortgages more carefully.
posted by delmoi at 12:00 AM on March 17 [3 favorites]


If the U.S. collapses into a Mad Max style violent anarchy after this, do you guys want to join up and be in my gang?

Armageddon Schadenfreude (self-link, from like 8 months ago).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:04 AM on March 17


Everyone was calling doom and gloom back in August... yet life purrs along. Everything is hunky dory, my home business is doing fine, I'm seeing more Hummers and Escalades on the road compared to 6 months ago, and in my town housing inventory on realtor.com has shrunk from 160 to 124 properties and people are still asking for the same old inflated figures. I'm not really seeing this collapse thing around here, unless it's just an overheated SoCal market thing.
posted by mr. creosote at 12:25 AM on March 17


(clarification: I'm not in SoCal but that's where I hear the trouble is)
posted by mr. creosote at 12:28 AM on March 17


mr. creosote: it's not just SoCal.

(that's a picture, the Map of Misery that was on Digg a few days ago.)

It's obviously not everywhere, but widespread real estate price drops of 25-30% since August seems pretty damn doom-and-gloomy to me. Means a recently purchased, rather average San Jose million-dollar house is 300K underwater....
posted by Malor at 12:42 AM on March 17


Because really the entire premise of that statement is that 'free market = good' Well, I disagree. In fact, an on-the-ball congress could have prevented this entire thing by regulating sub prime mortgages more carefully.

Subprime was a symptom, not a cause. You're expecting Congress to get it right when even you aren't really hip to what caused the problem. The real problem was too much money sloshing around, too much credit creation through all these fancy new financial instruments. If it hadn't come out in subprime, it would have come out somewhere else.

Further, the Fed has been loudly insisting that there was no bubble... and, in fact, "All Housing Markets Are Local" Greenspan himself was pushing ARMs quite recently, I think in 2005. How the hell do you expect Congress to figure this out when "The Maestro" is cheerleading for subprime?

What really caused this was the Fed's easy money policy, combined with globalization, derivatives, and the fact that every big player knew they had a backstop if things went really south. Congress would have been almost entirely impotent, because if Wall Street didn't speculate in subprime, it would have found something else instead.

Central planning of an economy is never a good idea. The more managed an economy is, the more poorly it does. There are too many things to know, and all forces on an economy exert pressures in strange directions and in unexpected ways. It's better to get 300 million brains working on the problem instead of 535. The role of government is to provide transparency of and accountability for financial transactions. It's not to provide a safety net for corporations. If we want the benefits of growth and prosperity, we have to embrace and accept creative destruction as well. Without the removal of bad businesses, new, better ones have much less room to grow and prosper.

I know how bad unfettered capitalism can get, and I'm not arguing to go back to the 1920s. But we've tried to do away with the second most important part of capitalism, the chance of failure. Without that destructive cycle, things get hopelessly screwed up.
posted by Malor at 1:02 AM on March 17 [6 favorites]


I'm not really seeing this collapse thing around here, unless it's just an overheated SoCal market thing.

I have no idea where you're located, but pretty much no one thinks this is "just" a SoCal thing anymore (though SoCal is certainly one of the locations where the situation is amplified). Go to patrick.net for a daily sampling of articles and blog entries detailing the national and international scope of the meltdown that's underway. Here's one from CNN -- titled Foreclosures Up 60% in February -- which mentions in part:
Nevada, California and Florida had the highest foreclosure filing rates in the nation. One in every 165 households in Nevada received a filing in February, up 68% from a year ago and more than three times the national average. [...] Outside of the sun belt, Michigan and Ohio each reported more than 10,000 properties with foreclosure filings in February. These "Rust Belt" states with struggling economies were originally at the epicenter of the housing crisis that began last year with the collapse of the subprime mortgage market.

Or here's something from USAToday: Home Debt Greater than Equity for First Time Since '45.

These are just a tiny smattering of articles in reference to the housing bubble, which is just one component of a much bigger bubble that's unraveling -- namely, the credit bubble. Which, in a way, is manifested in all those Hummers you're still seeing on the road -- most of them aren't owned outright; they were acquired either with auto loans or, more damaging, home equity lines of credit (which becomes a double-disaster when housing values fall, as they are currently -- at which point, mortgage-holders owe more than the home is worth, a growing situation known as being upside-down or under water).

Look, the fact that you haven't taken a hit in your business for the past six months is great. I happen to know other people whose businesses are doing well, too. Most people haven't lost their jobs in the past six months, either. But by themselves, such anecdotes are no meaningful indicator of which way the nation's economic wind is blowing at a macro level -- and reading the news with any diligence shows that right now, it's a pretty cold, harsh wind that's coming in.
posted by scody at 1:06 AM on March 17 [2 favorites]


It's obviously not everywhere, but widespread real estate price drops of 25-30% since August seems pretty damn doom-and-gloomy to me.

Widespread drops of 25-30%? What are you talking about? Median prices have fallen something like 6% in the last quarter of 2007. Of course they do have a ways to go before they stabilize.
posted by euphorb at 1:11 AM on March 17


Argh. You know what? That map I posted isn't prices, it's "percentages of new and refinanced mortgages into loans with payment options". I don't even know what that means. I just took the title of "Housing Bubble Map of Misery" to mean "prices" without reading the fine print. Bad me. I'm sorry.

That said, 6% median in three months, in housing, which is generally a very slow market... that's a big deal. And I know it's still dropping. In Las Vegas, there are many $500k houses now selling at $300k, and a lot of the drop has been over the last couple months.
posted by Malor at 1:28 AM on March 17


Why did Cheny go off to the middle east in the middle of all this. Apparently he's not too worried or is he?
posted by Xurando at 1:39 AM on March 17


Xurando: Probably to try and convince the oil producing countries to keep on selling oil in USD.
posted by PenDevil at 1:44 AM on March 17


I assume the price JPM is paying is basically a token as they will be assuming all of Bear Stearns liabilities. Is there any indication yet of how much those liabilities are?
posted by PenDevil at 1:47 AM on March 17


But on the long term, wouldnt a devaluation of the dollar in fact be a good thing for the US ? Because for example China has so many US$, it makes sense to devalue the US badly, with job losses and so on, so that you can restart after some years with better "starting positions" (wages down, export attractive enough) and so on. The Chinese will be pissed off of course (lesson nr.1 in capitalism: numquam est fidelis cum potente societas).
Something like the boom in the 50/60's, but without bombing out half of the world beforehand.
In some way I still think that the Fed is doing the right thing - they know that they need to go back to the basics (lots of penniless population with frugal standard of living eager to get up to the mcMansions, exports instead of imports) so maybe burning the current generation to the altar of capitalism is the answer.
I mean it will be tough and so on, no more expensive holidays, new car every 3 years or so, but look at what happened in WWII, it sure beats being bombed or sent to fight the Germans.
A crash of the primary food market will not happen, maybe you cannot afford to buy "mini-vegetables packed in Honduras and flow in" at 6.50 for a small package, but basic (and more to basics) items will be there.
posted by elcapitano at 2:21 AM on March 17


It seems the Bear Stearns homepage hasn't been updated recently.

"Never an unprofitable year—Bear Stearns' primary emphasis is on creating long-term value for shareholders."

Famous last words...
posted by iviken at 2:23 AM on March 17 [1 favorite]


At this moment, none of the top ten most popular stories on CNN are this one. In fact, the top story is still the Charles Manson compound.

I wish there were a nice Brittney Spears acting crazy story there to completely distract me from the fact that I'll likely be eating out of a trash can lid by Election Day.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:54 AM on March 17


I am by no means financewhiz kid, but the Indian markets here today fell more than 5%. They have broken some important support levels (technicaly analyst's words, not mine)..and most analysts and brokers (including mine) are betting that indices will plunge another 5-10% from here.
As for me I am a freshie investor. I entered the market at the worst possible time, right at the peak of bubble late-Dec, early Jan. Thankfully I didn't had much invested in stocks..lost a couple of thousand rupees in Jan. Since then I am short on the markets and it's paying out quite well. I have almost recouped my earlier losses, from gains in short-selling and if everything goes south from here as expected...I might end up making some profit as well.
posted by forwebsites at 3:25 AM on March 17


Ugh... the South African Rand also suffers when the Dollar drops because people move their money into Euros or Pounds. So even though the Dollar gets hit, 'volatile' currencies like the Rand get hit as well. My US trip in June is getting more expensive by the day.
posted by PenDevil at 3:53 AM on March 17


It is all jujst as JK Gaibraith said years ago: socialism for the very wealthy and capitalism for the rest of us.
posted by Postroad at 3:56 AM on March 17 [4 favorites]


I've been watching CNBC all morning - I'm hoping to see some stern bears on tv, but all I see are the talking heads.
posted by blahblah at 4:12 AM on March 17


Dow Jones futures are about 200 points down, which I think is surprisingly mild considering the news and yet another hail mary rate cut. If the Fed keeps cutting rates they will run out of room to move, a la Japan in the nineties.
posted by bystander at 4:13 AM on March 17


socialism for the very wealthy and capitalism for the rest of us.

From each, in inverse proportion to his ability; to each, in inverse proportion to his needs.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:26 AM on March 17 [12 favorites]


Yeah, I want to know why the hell the US government is taking money from my pocket to give to the insanely wealthy? I mean, I don't recall getting any checks from Bears. I didn't share in their profits, why should I share in their loss?

It seems to me that they want private profits, but socalized risk.

At the time of the last big financial shakeup I was in the "well, it sucks that we have to bail out these assholes, but if we don't it might destabalize the economy" camp. Now I say fuck it, and fuck them. The economy is looking like its going to go through very hard times regardless of whether we bail out the insanely wealthy parasites or not, so I say let's spend the money on stuff other than bailing them out. Let their investment company fall, or let some private group save it, but include the taxpayers out.

Because, as it stands, it looks like we're going to get more of the same that we got with Enron and all the other "financial crisis" stuff: golden paracutes for the thieves who caused the problem in the first place and a big middle finger for everyone else.
posted by sotonohito at 4:54 AM on March 17 [2 favorites]


What I'm personally betting on is that the Fed, if sufficiently determined, can destroy the dollar if it wants, and it's showing remarkable ingenuity in doing so.

It does that, and you're going to see foreign ownership of our tasty T-bills come to an abrupt halt, followed by a rapid reversal as the world starts dumping our sorry-ass currency. You think it's bad now? Wait until none of your friends will loan you money. THAT'S when the hurting starts hurting.

What I'd like to know is this: so Bear Stearns holds a shitload of mortgage backed-securities, right? And we all know a lot of that paper is never going to get paid back. So the Fed comes in and offers ten cents on the dollar for all the worthless crummy paper it can get its hands on, right? Now please tell me, why not offer to sell off the mortgages for... say... twenty cents on the dollar? Shit, why are we rewarding a bunch of financial bastards for playing it hard and loose when they should be crashing and burning right now?

If a fisherman suddenly finds out he couldn't sell his three hundred boxes of fish, he doesn't have the Fed come in and say, "Oh, how sad, clearly you deserve to get the full amount you think these fish are worth, so until you can sell them all for the price you think they should cost, we'll give you a huge loan you can coast on." No, how about, you have to sell your fucking fish at a fucking loss and them's the fucking breaks?

The housing bubble needs an enormous escape valve to let some of the air out: dumping homes to their pre-1990 price would be just the thing. Instead we're letting them keep their fucked-in-the-head system intact, it's just going to cost all of us a little more sleep each night. FUCK THAT.

This country deserves the fucking storm.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:20 AM on March 17 [3 favorites]


But on the long term, wouldnt a devaluation of the dollar in fact be a good thing for the US ?

Well, if you're hoping for U.S. manufacturing salaries to be competitive with, say, Brazil or Indonesia, then sure.
posted by gimonca at 5:20 AM on March 17


I don't think paying Bear Sterns pennies on the dollar is going to help any of the big wigs at Bear Sterns, and most of Bear Sterns investors have already lost most everything they had with theim. Seems like what it does is keep unpricable investments still supported by a bank till at some future point they become pricable again.
posted by garlic at 5:27 AM on March 17


blahblah: It's news outlets like CNBC that have been so far behind the curve on this that it is laughable.

If you want funny - and I wish I could find it - Neil Cavuto was interviewing Peter Schiff, who has been on top of this for over a year now, and told Schiff to "stop it, you're boring me, you're boring America" when Schiff tried to explain why the government CPI (inflation) numbers are useless when trying to measure true inflation.

God forbid we have some intelligent discussion or something...
posted by tgrundke at 5:34 AM on March 17


It's a darn good thing I converted all my assets to Ron Paul dollars.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:45 AM on March 17 [2 favorites]


Median prices have fallen something like 6% in the last quarter of 2007.

6% per quarter = 22% p.a. In Philly I've seen a lot of prices go off by about 20% since last summer, and this is supposed to be a stable market. It's roughly gone from high 200s > mid 200s; high 300s > mid/low 300s. An established realtor here invited us to make a 5% underbid on a place, just to get things moving. Stuff on our block has been for sale for 9 months.
posted by carter at 5:48 AM on March 17


In a new interview with Krugman, worth reading, he says this recession is likely to last well into 2010 or 2011.
posted by beagle at 5:57 AM on March 17


And, by the way Krugman says "My preferred metric is the ratio of home prices to rental rates. By that measure, average home prices nationally got way too high. We'll probably basically retrace all that. So that's about a 25% decline in overall home prices. Only a fraction of that's happened so far. Of course, it varies a lot. In places like Houston or Atlanta, where home prices have not risen much