Deal reached on financial markets bailout

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
I do feel better about the EESA, since Volker, Greenspan & Helicopter Ben all came out in favor of it.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,415
32,998
136
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: alchemize
Paulson on 60 minutes.

They had an economist who "predicted" this 2 years ago. I guess he pre-dated Dave's January 2007 predictions :shocked:

I predate them.

Me too! Me too! I knew the banks were hosed back in 2003* when they were making 15 and 20 year loans at rates lower than the prevailing rates on 12 month CDs. We knew rates had to go up as there was no room to go down yet banks were entering into stupid loans (can't complain really, we refied). Add to mix that housing appreciation and valuations had already got retarded (case in point: Our okay condition, 3 bd ranch out in the sticks was appreciating at ~10% per year according to the bank's appraiser, the same appraiser that changed the appraised value by 30% in one week to make the refi work) and it was all over but the crying. At the time we figured that the banks were counting on folks moving a lot (once every six years is national average) so the mortgage rates wouldn't linger the full 15/30 years. Then values dropped and folks were upside down and couldn't move.

* My first inkling of the mortgage problem actually came in 2000 when I was asked if I was willing to document my income for my first home purchase/mortgage. That is when I realized it was optional.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
As much as Paulson was contrite, I would have prefered an, "I made a mistake and I am sorry." Not that it and $700 billion would mean much.

 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
4
76
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LOFBenson
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

You still don't get it. No banks, no loans.

Maybe you havn't noticed but these won't be banks anymore if this plan passes. I'm not exactly sure what they will be but they wont be banks. Banks require accounting rules and fractional reserves. This bill allows the Federal Reserve and SEC to suspend both mark to market accounting and fractional reserves.

Seems like removing the theory behind virtually our entire economy and system of banking(fractional reserves) is clearly the best way to save the economy to me.

OMG, no suspend Mark to Market accounting!?! *GASP*, you mean, that shitty rule in FAS157/133 that has done nothing but lead us down a liquidity spiral because it requires repricing during illiquid market drives?

M2M accounting is an abomination, it created a huge amount of unintended consequences that has led us to where we are now.

The problem is that nobody ever envisioned that the market would become this bad.

IFRS and IAS 39 seem to work well for the rest of the world. Does it really matter in 2012 USA GAAP dies for large caps and we go to IFRS. The Federal reserve already uses IFRS.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Craig234
I don't think I'm alone in feeling there has got to be a better way to use a trillion dollars to fix the problems, and that our democratic system is not working too well at who decides.

There's plenty of blame to go around, including all the voters who can't be bothered to pay attention to the many problems for many years.

I can agree with the above- the rest of your post is the same old same old class warfare yapping.
PART of the reason we are in this mess is because Congress didn't act when it should have back in 2004. You know, when there were Fannie May hearings and the regulators sounded the alarm. The D's didn't seem to think anything was wrong and there were more than a few other congress critters who wanted to do something to prevent future crisis... So anyway, now we HAVE to do something we don't want to do because we failed to act to prevent it. It sucks but I don't see another way. Sure, we could try to let things fix themselves but it could mean years and years of turmoil and potential more damaging smaller legislation to fix the smaller issues brought up by the larger failures.

Ideologically, I don't like this situation but realistically we bought it years ago and now have to pay for our stupidity. Hopefully this will be a lesson for the gov't intervention in pushing these horrible lending practices...

CAD is a partisan NeanderCon hack who will never admit any responsibility for the last 8 years of VooDoo Economics, unregulated markets and the corrupt practices of the republican party .... Blaming Freddie and Fannie is typical Con duhversion.

The best his presidential candidate could come up with was ""FIRE the Chairman of the SEC !!"" which, of course, is not possible. But it makes a great sound bite and bumper sticker ....

:laugh:

:laugh:

:laugh:

:laugh: If only you had half a clue...

Psstt... I'm not supporting McCain...

Also, do you not remember the hearings back a couple years ago? I do. You do realize that these institutions could have prevented their own demise? Do you realize that Congress could have prevented their demise if they would have done something back then?

Nah... it's gotta be the left's favorite boogie man - "VooDoo Economics" :roll: You people amaze me with your excess of willful ignorance.
 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LOFBenson
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

You still don't get it. No banks, no loans.

Maybe you havn't noticed but these won't be banks anymore if this plan passes. I'm not exactly sure what they will be but they wont be banks. Banks require accounting rules and fractional reserves. This bill allows the Federal Reserve and SEC to suspend both mark to market accounting and fractional reserves.

Seems like removing the theory behind virtually our entire economy and system of banking(fractional reserves) is clearly the best way to save the economy to me.

OMG, no suspend Mark to Market accounting!?! *GASP*, you mean, that shitty rule in FAS157/133 that has done nothing but lead us down a liquidity spiral because it requires repricing during illiquid market drives?

M2M accounting is an abomination, it created a huge amount of unintended consequences that has led us to where we are now.

The problem is that nobody ever envisioned that the market would become this bad.


I thought the ability to suspend FAS157 was one of the more interesting, and one of the most needed details of the bill. It also includes a study of MTM on the current crisis. Marking to Market when there is no market makes absolutely no sense. One of the better analogies I've heard is it's like trying to put a value on GE based on the fact that I'm willing to sell you one share at $20.

If they'd suspended FAS157 6 months ago, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,621
136
Originally posted by: alchemize
Paulson on 60 minutes.

They had an economist who "predicted" this 2 years ago. I guess he pre-dated Dave's January 2007 predictions :shocked:


I don't remember his name, just remember that he had the greatest oneliner ever:

"The authorities say the subprime crisis is contained. They are right-contained to the planet Earth."
 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
Found this on Bloomberg. It echoes what LK and I said in this thread regarding MTM accounting and the current crisis.

Link


Magic Ring to Save Us May Be Accounting Overhaul: Kevin Hassett

Commentary by Kevin Hassett



Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis is beginning to feel a lot like the ``Lord of the Rings.'' Frodo and his friends wander from the safety of the Shire and confront dangers of ever- increasing severity.

First our heroes face one deadly ``black rider'' and narrowly escape his clutches, just as catastrophe was avoided when Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed. But then another black rider appeared (let's call him Fannie Mae), and another (Freddie Mac) and another (American International Group Inc.). Again, catastrophe is barely averted.

As the story progresses, eventually the struggle against evil seems hopelessly lost. The small contingent of men, dwarves, hobbits and elves stands before the mighty gates of Mordor, the home of the evil Sauron. As the gates open, out rushes an army of unimaginable size. The victory of good over evil seems impossible.

Just at that moment, Sauron's ring of power is destroyed in a volcano. With it goes Sauron and his legions, and evil is defeated.

Over the weekend, congressional leaders seemed to reach an agreement on the outline of an approach they hope will solve this mess. Lawmakers agreed in principle to deliver funding to the Treasury in three installments in order to allow the purchase of troubled mortgage-related assets. The bill also limited excessive executive compensation for companies involved in the plan, allowed the Treasury to take an ownership stake in affected companies and established an oversight board for the program. But hidden in the bill was a small provision -- pressure on the Securities and Exchange Commission to end fair value accounting - - that might be as effective a counter measure as the destruction of the ring of power.

To see the importance of this small measure, one must first understand how widespread the stress has become.

Higher Rates

Risky bonds traditionally have to pay a higher interest rate than rates on safer bonds, such as U.S. Treasuries. That compensates investors for the chance that the bond issuer will default on his obligation to repay. Any difference in interest rates reveals what markets think about the likelihood a risky bond will default.

To get the latest read on these default probabilities, I contacted Jim Reid and his colleagues at Deutsche Bank AG, and asked them to provide an update of the numbers that go into their influential annual credit-market analysis that has been mentioned before in this space.

In the spring, Reid's report revealed that implied default probabilities were far higher than anything in our historical experience. Credit markets back then were factoring in a calamity worse than anything we've seen since at least the 1970s.

Reid's latest analysis reveals that, since then, markets have become even more pessimistic.

Peaceful as the Shire

For the iBoxx Dollar Liquid Investment Grade Index, a leading general indicator of bond-market conditions, Reid and his colleagues estimated last spring that the implied probability of default for five-year bonds was 19 percent. The market expected that about one in five bond issuers would go belly up -- an incredible number. The highest default rate for investment grade bonds in history was only 2.4 percent.
By today's standards, bond markets in the spring were as peaceful as the Shire. Reid estimates that today those same bond prices are consistent with an anticipated default rate of 30 percent.

Digging into the analysis, the numbers are scarier than trolls and goblins. The probability of default for 10-year financial-sector bonds is 66 percent. The probability that AAA- rated bonds will default over the next 10 years is 39 percent.

So the credit crunch is causing problems for everybody. The panic is widespread. There has been a fire sale on everything.

Key Provision

A number of experts, including my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, Peter Wallison, and former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman William Isaac, have discussed a flaw in our accounting rules that might account for the downward price spiral. They pointed out that our practice of so-called fair value accounting is sheer lunacy.

The problem is that when a run on a risky asset occurs, driving its value down, accountants then value the firm that holds that asset's financial position at the latest market price. As the value of risky assets plunges, firms are forced to sell into the declining market to raise cash. Those sales drive the prices down further, necessitating even more sales.


Downward Spiral

The default probabilities for bonds are so high because that downward spiral has occurred, causing firms to try and sell everything. While government can step before that train, which is the headline of the current deal in Washington, it could also stabilize markets with a complementary move: End fair value accounting.

If assets were instead valued on the basis of the cash flows they can expect to deliver, then the firm's net worth wouldn't drop so much in response to market volatility, and there would no longer be so many forced sales.

There is nothing imprudent or deceptive about such an accounting change. After all, nobody really believes that 39 percent of AAA firms are going to default.


Fortunately, the latest proposal took a big step in that direction. First, the bill reiterated to the SEC that it has the right to suspend fair value accounting. It is obscene that the SEC has yet to do so, and the push from Congress could well get the ball rolling. Second, the bill asks the Congressional Budget Office to provide a study of the matter. Should the SEC continue to be stubborn, it will doubtless be embarrassed or even humiliated by the CBO study.

It may be that government can throw enough liquidity into the market to stop this mess without changing the accounting rules, but doing so now would certainly reduce the cost to taxpayers.

Pressure to end fair value accounting may well be the most important part of this bill.
It's time for the SEC to toss the ring into the volcano.