It is a common misconception that the stock market crash of October 1929 was the cause of the Great Depression. The two events were closely related, but both were the results of deep problems in the modern economy that were building up through the “prosperity decade” of the 1920s.
As is typical of post-war periods, Americans in the Roaring Twenties turned inward, away from international issues and social concerns and toward greater individualism. The emphasis was on getting rich and enjoying new fads, new inventions, and new ideas. The traditional values of rural America were being challenged by the city-oriented Jazz Age, symbolized by what many considered the shocking behavior of young women who wore short skirts and makeup, smoked, and drank.
The self-centered attitudes of the 1920s seemed to fit nicely with the needs of the economy. Modern industry had the capacity to produce vast quantities of consumer goods, but this created a fundamental problem: Prosperity could continue only if demand was made to grow as rapidly as supply. Accordingly, people had to be persuaded to abandon such traditional values as saving, postponing pleasures and purchases, and buying only what they needed. “The key to economic prosperity,” a General Motors executive declared in 1929, “is the organized creation of dissatisfaction.” Advertising methods that had been developed to build support for World War I were used to persuade people to buy such relatively new products as automobiles and such completely new ones as radios and household appliances. The resulting mass consumption kept the economy going through most of the 1920s.
But there was an underlying economic problem. Income was distributed very unevenly, and the portion going to the wealthiest Americans grew larger as the decade proceeded. This was due largely to two factors: While businesses showed remarkable gains in productivity during the 1920s, workers got a relatively small share of the wealth this produced. At the same time, huge cuts were made in the top income-tax rates. Between 1923 and 1929, manufacturing output per person-hour increased by 32 percent, but workers’ wages grew by only 8 percent. Corporate profits shot up by 65 percent in the same period, and the government let the wealthy keep more of those profits. The Revenue Act of 1926 cut the taxes of those making $1 million or more by more than two-thirds.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761584403
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Dow Jumps 936 as Government Pledges Bank Aid
By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer
NEW YORK - Wall Street stormed back from last week's devastating losses Monday, sending the Dow Jones industrials soaring a nearly inconceivable 936 points after major governments' plans to support the global banking system reassured distraught investors. All the major indexes rose more than 11 percent.
The market was likely to rebound after eight days of precipitous losses that took the Dow down nearly 2,400 points, but no one expected this kind of advance, which saw the Dow by far outstrip its previous record for a one-day point gain, 499.19, set during the waning days of the dot-com boom.
Still, while the magnitude of Monday's gains stunned investors and analysts, no one was ready to say Wall Street had reached a bottom. The market is likely to have back-and-forth trading in the coming days and weeks — and may well see a pullback when trading resumes Tuesday — as investors work through their concerns about the banking sector, the stagnant credit markets and the overall economy.
John Lynch, chief market analyst for Evergreen Investments in Charlotte, N.C., said Monday's rally was encouraging but he doubted it signaled the worst has passed.
"My screen in completely green and I love that, but I'm not doing any backflips yet. We still have many challenges up ahead," Lynch said, noting the ongoing strains in credit markets and forecasts for poor corporate earnings for 2009.
Denis Amato, chief investment officer at Ancora Advisors, said it's too soon to say whether the market has started to carve out a bottom and that the credit markets where many companies turn for day-to-day loans will need to loosen for stocks to hold their gains. With the U.S. bond markets and banks closed Monday for Columbus Day, it was difficult for investors to gauge the reaction of the credit markets to actions by major governments.
He said the severity of the selling last week was one possible signal that the market might be nearing a bottom and that the stepped up intervention of the government is a welcome sign for the markets.
"I think we had enough negatives last week that if the government steps in we could have a pretty nice run. Is it off to the races? No, I don't think so. We have a lot of stuff to work through."
The market did appear to take heart when the Bush administration said it is moving quickly to implement its $700 billion rescue program, including consulting with law firms about the mechanics of buying ownership shares in a broad number of banks to help revive the stagnant credit markets and in turn get the economy moving again.
Neel Kashkari, the assistant Treasury secretary who is interim head of the program, said in a speech Monday officials were also developing guidelines to govern the purchase of soured mortgage-related assets. However, he gave few details about how the program will actually buy bad assets and bank stock.
A relatively tame finish to Friday's session and a weekend off gave analysts and investors some time to reassess last week's tumultuous trading. And stock prices that were decimated by frenetic selling are now looking attractive.
Jim King, chief investment officer at National Penn Investors Trust Co., said the fear that took hold of the markets last week was overwrought and could signal that a bottom is near. When selling turns so frenetic that it hits a broad swath of stocks indiscriminately, as it did last week, many market watchers say a market low is at hand. That creates opporunity, King noted.
"We have exceptional companies at fire sale prices," he said.
Still, King cautioned that any market rebound likely will be choppy.
"Even if this is the beginning of a recovery we're not just going to have up markets from here on in," he said. "We're not through the woods. We think there is collateral damage from this debacle." King pointed to an increase in unemployment and nervousness among consumers that could, for example, hurt retailers and in turn, take stocks lower.
According to preliminary calculations, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 936.42, or 11.08 percent, to 9,387.61. It was the Dow's largest-ever point gain during a session, surpassing the jump of 503.45 points seen on Sept. 30.
The Dow's previous record for a point increase by the time the closing bell sounded occurred March 16, 2000, when the blue chips closed up 499.19, or 4.93 percent.
Broader stock indicators also jumped Monday. The Standard & Poor's 500 index advanced 104.13, or 11.58 percent, to 1,003.35, and the Nasdaq composite index rose 194.74, or 11.81 percent, to 1,844.25.
NEW YORK - Wall Street stormed back from last week's devastating losses Monday, sending the Dow Jones industrials soaring a nearly inconceivable 936 points after major governments' plans to support the global banking system reassured distraught investors. All the major indexes rose more than 11 percent.
The market was likely to rebound after eight days of precipitous losses that took the Dow down nearly 2,400 points, but no one expected this kind of advance, which saw the Dow by far outstrip its previous record for a one-day point gain, 499.19, set during the waning days of the dot-com boom.
Still, while the magnitude of Monday's gains stunned investors and analysts, no one was ready to say Wall Street had reached a bottom. The market is likely to have back-and-forth trading in the coming days and weeks — and may well see a pullback when trading resumes Tuesday — as investors work through their concerns about the banking sector, the stagnant credit markets and the overall economy.
John Lynch, chief market analyst for Evergreen Investments in Charlotte, N.C., said Monday's rally was encouraging but he doubted it signaled the worst has passed.
"My screen in completely green and I love that, but I'm not doing any backflips yet. We still have many challenges up ahead," Lynch said, noting the ongoing strains in credit markets and forecasts for poor corporate earnings for 2009.
Denis Amato, chief investment officer at Ancora Advisors, said it's too soon to say whether the market has started to carve out a bottom and that the credit markets where many companies turn for day-to-day loans will need to loosen for stocks to hold their gains. With the U.S. bond markets and banks closed Monday for Columbus Day, it was difficult for investors to gauge the reaction of the credit markets to actions by major governments.
He said the severity of the selling last week was one possible signal that the market might be nearing a bottom and that the stepped up intervention of the government is a welcome sign for the markets.
"I think we had enough negatives last week that if the government steps in we could have a pretty nice run. Is it off to the races? No, I don't think so. We have a lot of stuff to work through."
The market did appear to take heart when the Bush administration said it is moving quickly to implement its $700 billion rescue program, including consulting with law firms about the mechanics of buying ownership shares in a broad number of banks to help revive the stagnant credit markets and in turn get the economy moving again.
Neel Kashkari, the assistant Treasury secretary who is interim head of the program, said in a speech Monday officials were also developing guidelines to govern the purchase of soured mortgage-related assets. However, he gave few details about how the program will actually buy bad assets and bank stock.
A relatively tame finish to Friday's session and a weekend off gave analysts and investors some time to reassess last week's tumultuous trading. And stock prices that were decimated by frenetic selling are now looking attractive.
Jim King, chief investment officer at National Penn Investors Trust Co., said the fear that took hold of the markets last week was overwrought and could signal that a bottom is near. When selling turns so frenetic that it hits a broad swath of stocks indiscriminately, as it did last week, many market watchers say a market low is at hand. That creates opporunity, King noted.
"We have exceptional companies at fire sale prices," he said.
Still, King cautioned that any market rebound likely will be choppy.
"Even if this is the beginning of a recovery we're not just going to have up markets from here on in," he said. "We're not through the woods. We think there is collateral damage from this debacle." King pointed to an increase in unemployment and nervousness among consumers that could, for example, hurt retailers and in turn, take stocks lower.
According to preliminary calculations, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 936.42, or 11.08 percent, to 9,387.61. It was the Dow's largest-ever point gain during a session, surpassing the jump of 503.45 points seen on Sept. 30.
The Dow's previous record for a point increase by the time the closing bell sounded occurred March 16, 2000, when the blue chips closed up 499.19, or 4.93 percent.
Broader stock indicators also jumped Monday. The Standard & Poor's 500 index advanced 104.13, or 11.58 percent, to 1,003.35, and the Nasdaq composite index rose 194.74, or 11.81 percent, to 1,844.25.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Summary of The "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008"
I. Stabilizing the Economy
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses, and other companies to access credit, which is vital to a strong and stable economy. EESA also establishes a program that would allow companies to insure their troubled assets.
II. Homeownership Preservation
EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans – many the result of predatory lending practices – wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes.
III. Taxpayer Protection
Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for Wall Street’s mistakes. The legislation requires companies that sell some of their bad assets to the government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth these companies may experience as a result of participation in this program. The legislation also requires the President to submit legislation that would cover any losses to taxpayers resulting from this program by charging a small, broad-based fee on all financial institutions.
IV. No Windfalls for Executives
Executives who made bad decisions should not be allowed to dump their bad assets on the government, and then walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses. In order to participate in this program, companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits “golden parachutes” and requires that unearned bonuses be returned.
V. Strong Oversight
Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed ($100 billion, then $350 billion subject to Congressional disapproval). The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and the progress in addressing the crisis. EESA also establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. It also establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses, and other companies to access credit, which is vital to a strong and stable economy. EESA also establishes a program that would allow companies to insure their troubled assets.
II. Homeownership Preservation
EESA requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans – many the result of predatory lending practices – wherever possible to help American families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control. Finally, it improves the HOPE for Homeowners program by expanding eligibility and increasing the tools available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help more families keep their homes.
III. Taxpayer Protection
Taxpayers should not be expected to pay for Wall Street’s mistakes. The legislation requires companies that sell some of their bad assets to the government to provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from any future growth these companies may experience as a result of participation in this program. The legislation also requires the President to submit legislation that would cover any losses to taxpayers resulting from this program by charging a small, broad-based fee on all financial institutions.
IV. No Windfalls for Executives
Executives who made bad decisions should not be allowed to dump their bad assets on the government, and then walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses. In order to participate in this program, companies will lose certain tax benefits and, in some cases, must limit executive pay. In addition, the bill limits “golden parachutes” and requires that unearned bonuses be returned.
V. Strong Oversight
Rather than giving the Treasury all the funds at once, the legislation gives the Treasury $250 billion immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed ($100 billion, then $350 billion subject to Congressional disapproval). The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and the progress in addressing the crisis. EESA also establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner. It also establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse
Monday, September 29, 2008
Who's Afraid of a Big, Bad Bailout?
"A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies.
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
(It's time I had some time alone.)"
- Lyrics from R.E.M., 1987
Flying last Tuesday, overnight from Cape Town in South Africa to London, I read in the Financial Times that Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas was quoted as saying (this is from memory, so it is not exact) that he had difficulty voting for a bailout plan when none of his constituents could understand the need to bail out Wall Street, didn't understand the problem, and were against spending $700 billion of taxpayer money to solve a crisis for a bunch of (rich) people who took a lot of risk and created the crisis. That is a sentiment that many of the Republican members of the House share.
As it happens, I know Joe. My office is in his congressional district. I sat on the Executive Committee for the Texas Republican Party representing much of the same district for eight years. This week, Thoughts from the Frontline will be an open letter to Joe, and through him to Congress, telling him what the real financial problem is and how it affects his district, helping explain the problem to his constituents , and explaining why he has to hold his nose with one hand and vote for a bailout with the other. Click here for more: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/gateway.asp?ref=reprint
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
(It's time I had some time alone.)"
- Lyrics from R.E.M., 1987
Flying last Tuesday, overnight from Cape Town in South Africa to London, I read in the Financial Times that Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas was quoted as saying (this is from memory, so it is not exact) that he had difficulty voting for a bailout plan when none of his constituents could understand the need to bail out Wall Street, didn't understand the problem, and were against spending $700 billion of taxpayer money to solve a crisis for a bunch of (rich) people who took a lot of risk and created the crisis. That is a sentiment that many of the Republican members of the House share.
As it happens, I know Joe. My office is in his congressional district. I sat on the Executive Committee for the Texas Republican Party representing much of the same district for eight years. This week, Thoughts from the Frontline will be an open letter to Joe, and through him to Congress, telling him what the real financial problem is and how it affects his district, helping explain the problem to his constituents , and explaining why he has to hold his nose with one hand and vote for a bailout with the other. Click here for more: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/gateway.asp?ref=reprint
Monday, September 22, 2008
Should the Government Intervene?
At the end of the day, government intervention is going to be a necessity here. Why?
Too much at stake. With the size of the financial institutions that are failing keeping them afloat may be worth the investment of taxpayer dollars.
Media coverage. With so much coverage of this financial turmoil politicians and regulators will be under tremendous pressure to do something about it.
Mortgage lending still makes sense. So much of today’s problems have been caused by a lack of good judgment shown by both lenders and borrowers over the last few years. At the end of the day American homeownership will survive and credit worthy, responsible borrowers will be able to obtain credit.
The possibility of a recession is still out there and regulators will do everything they can to avoid letting that happen on their watch.
Looking for Advice on Your Mortgage Situation?
With all of the turmoil we recommend making a thorough financial check up including:
Talk to your banker: check the rates on checking and savings accounts to ensure you get the best pricing.
Talk to your financial advisor: Make sure your investment strategy doesn’t need to change based on current events.
Talk to your insurance agent: It never hurts to ask if you can save money on home, auto or health insurance.
Talk to Trusted Mortgage Advice: Don’t let a mortgage company convince you to take a deal that doesn’t feel right. We will help you evaluate your loan and make sure you are getting the best deal possible.
Too much at stake. With the size of the financial institutions that are failing keeping them afloat may be worth the investment of taxpayer dollars.
Media coverage. With so much coverage of this financial turmoil politicians and regulators will be under tremendous pressure to do something about it.
Mortgage lending still makes sense. So much of today’s problems have been caused by a lack of good judgment shown by both lenders and borrowers over the last few years. At the end of the day American homeownership will survive and credit worthy, responsible borrowers will be able to obtain credit.
The possibility of a recession is still out there and regulators will do everything they can to avoid letting that happen on their watch.
Looking for Advice on Your Mortgage Situation?
With all of the turmoil we recommend making a thorough financial check up including:
Talk to your banker: check the rates on checking and savings accounts to ensure you get the best pricing.
Talk to your financial advisor: Make sure your investment strategy doesn’t need to change based on current events.
Talk to your insurance agent: It never hurts to ask if you can save money on home, auto or health insurance.
Talk to Trusted Mortgage Advice: Don’t let a mortgage company convince you to take a deal that doesn’t feel right. We will help you evaluate your loan and make sure you are getting the best deal possible.
Monday, September 15, 2008
History on Lehman Brothers
Henry Lehman, an immigrant from Germany, opened his small shop in the city of Montgomery, Alabama in 1844. Six years later, he was joined by brothers Emanuel and Mayer, and they named the business Lehman Brothers.
Lehman Brothers, an innovator in global finance, serves the financial needs of corporations, governments and municipalities, institutional clients, and high net worth individuals worldwide. Lehman Brothers maintains leadership positions in equity and fixed income sales, trading and research, investment banking, private investment management, asset management and private equity. The Firm is headquartered in New York, with regional headquarters in London and Tokyo, and operates in a network of offices around the world. In a nutshell they provide cash liquidity to our state and local governments, large corporations that now will have difficulty getting funded for projects.
Lehman Brothers started in the 1840’s and survived the:
• railroad crash of the 1890’s,
• the tock market crash of 1929,
• World War I of 1917,
• World War II of 1939,
• the 1980s real estate crash
• the tech bubble of the 1990’s during the Clinton administration
• 911.
We can all agree that these events listed and many more crises not listed were significant events in history. This might put in perspective at really how bad our current credit crunch. A company with a proud history that has been brought down by poor leadership and greed.
For more details go to: http://www.lehman.com/who/
Lehman Brothers, an innovator in global finance, serves the financial needs of corporations, governments and municipalities, institutional clients, and high net worth individuals worldwide. Lehman Brothers maintains leadership positions in equity and fixed income sales, trading and research, investment banking, private investment management, asset management and private equity. The Firm is headquartered in New York, with regional headquarters in London and Tokyo, and operates in a network of offices around the world. In a nutshell they provide cash liquidity to our state and local governments, large corporations that now will have difficulty getting funded for projects.
Lehman Brothers started in the 1840’s and survived the:
• railroad crash of the 1890’s,
• the tock market crash of 1929,
• World War I of 1917,
• World War II of 1939,
• the 1980s real estate crash
• the tech bubble of the 1990’s during the Clinton administration
• 911.
We can all agree that these events listed and many more crises not listed were significant events in history. This might put in perspective at really how bad our current credit crunch. A company with a proud history that has been brought down by poor leadership and greed.
For more details go to: http://www.lehman.com/who/
Sunday, September 7, 2008
U.S. Rescue Seen at Hand for 2 Mortgage Giants
By STEPHEN LABATON and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
WASHINGTON — Senior officials from the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve on Friday called in top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, and told them that the government was preparing to place the two companies under federal control, officials and company executives briefed on the discussions said.
The plan, which would place the companies into a conservatorship, was outlined in separate meetings with the chief executives at the office of the companies’ new regulator. The executives were told that, under the plan, they and their boards would be replaced and shareholders would be virtually wiped out, but that the companies would be able to continue functioning with the government generally standing behind their debt, people briefed on the discussions said.
It is not possible to calculate the cost of any government bailout, but the huge potential liabilities of the companies could cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and make any rescue among the largest in the nation’s history.
The drastic effort follows the bailout this year of Bear Stearns, the investment bank, as government officials continue to grapple with how to stem the credit crisis and housing crisis that have hobbled the economy. With Bear Stearns, the government provided guarantees, and the bulk of its assets were transferred to JPMorgan Chase, leaving shareholders with a nominal amount.
Under a conservatorship, the common and preferred shares of Fannie and Freddie would be reduced to little or nothing, and any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee could be paid by taxpayers. Shareholders have already lost billions of dollars as the stocks have plunged more than 80 percent this year.
A conservatorship would operate much like a pre-packaged bankruptcy, similar to what smaller companies use to clean up their books and then emerge with stronger balance sheets. It would allow for uninterrupted operation of the companies, crucial players in the diminished mortgage market, where they are now responsible for nearly 70 percent of new loans.
The executives were told that the government had been planning to announce the decision as early as Sunday, before the Asian markets reopen, the officials said.
For months, administration officials have grappled with the steady erosion of the books of the two mortgage finance giants. A fierce behind-the-scenes debate among policy makers has been waged over whether to seize the companies or let them work out their problems. Even after the companies are put under government control, debates will continue over whether they should be independent and how they should operate over the long term.
The declines in the housing and financial markets apparently forced the administration’s hand. With foreign governments increasingly skittish about holding billions of dollars in securities issued by the companies, no sign that their losses will abate any time soon, and the inability of the companies to raise new capital, the administration apparently decided it would be better to act now rather than closer to the presidential election in two months.
Just five weeks ago, President Bush signed a law to give the administration the authority to inject billions of dollars into the companies through investments or loans. In proposing the legislation, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said that he had no plan to provide loans or investments, and that merely giving the government the authority to backstop the companies would provide a strong shot of confidence to the markets. But the thin capital reserves that have kept the two companies afloat have continued to erode as the housing market has steadily declined and the number of foreclosures has soared.
As their problems have deepened — and the marketplace has come to expect some sort of government rescue — both companies have found it difficult to raise new capital to absorb future losses. In recent weeks, Mr. Paulson has been reaching out to foreign governments that hold billions of dollars of Fannie and Freddie securities to reassure them that the United States stands behind the companies.
In issuing their quarterly financial statements last month, the two companies reported huge losses and predicted that home prices would fall more than previously projected.
The debt securities the companies issue to finance their operations are widely owned by mutual funds, pension funds, foreign governments and big companies.
Officials said the participants at the meetings included Mr. Paulson, Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, and James Lockhart, the head of both the old and new agency that regulates the companies. The companies were represented by Daniel H. Mudd, the chief executive of Fannie Mae, and Richard F. Syron, chief executive of Freddie Mac. Also participating was H. Rodgin Cohen, the chairman of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, who was representing Fannie.
Officials and executives briefed on the meetings said that Mr. Mudd and Mr. Syron were told that they would have to leave the companies.
Spokesmen at the two companies did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
The meetings reflected the reality that senior administration officials did not believe they could wait for some kind of financial tipping point, as happened with Bear Stearns, which was saved from insolvency in March by government intervention after its stock plummeted and lenders withheld their capital.
Instead, Mr. Paulson has struggled to navigate through potentially conflicting goals — stabilizing the financial markets, making mortgages more widely available in a tightening credit environment, and protecting taxpayers from possibly enormous losses.
Publicly, administration officials have tried to bolster the companies because the nation’s mortgage system relies on their continued ability to purchase mortgages from commercial lenders and pull the housing markets out of their slump.
But privately, senior officials have been critical of top executives at the companies, particularly Freddie Mac. They have raised concerns about major risks to taxpayers of a bailout of companies whose executives have received huge compensation packages. Mr. Syron, for instance, collected more than $38 million in compensation since he joined the company in 2003.
Although Mr. Syron promised regulators earlier this year that he would raise $5.5 billion from investors, he has failed to make good on that promise — even as Fannie Mae raised more than $7 billion. Mr. Syron was slated to step down from the chief executive position last year, but that was delayed when his appointed successor, Eugene McQuade, chose to leave the company.
With the possible removal of the top management and the board, it is no longer clear who would appoint new management.
Mr. Paulson had hoped that merely having the authority to bail out the two companies, which Congress provided in its recent housing bill, would be enough to calm the markets, but if anything anxiety has been increasing. The clearest measure of that anxiety has been the gradually widening spread between interest rates on Fannie- or Freddie-backed mortgage securities and rates for Treasury securities, making home mortgages more expensive. The stock prices of the companies have also plunged.
After stock markets closed on Friday, the shares of Fannie and Freddie plummeted. Fannie was trading around $5.50, down from $70 a year ago. Freddie was trading at about $4, down from about $65 a year ago.
With Fannie and Freddie guaranteeing $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, and a big share of those held by central banks and investors around the world, Mr. Paulson appears to have decided that the stakes are too high to take chances.
The Treasury Department is required by the new law to obtain agreement from the boards of Fannie and Freddie for a capital infusion. The exception is if the companies’ regulator, Mr. Lockhart, determines that the companies are insolvent or deeply undercapitalized it could take the companies over anyway.
Charles Calomiris, a professor of economics at Columbia Business School, said delaying a rescue would only increase the risks and costs.
“The last thing you want to do is give a distressed borrower more time, because when people are in distress they tend to take a lot of risks,” he said. “You don’t want zombie institutions floating around with time on their hands.”
WASHINGTON — Senior officials from the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve on Friday called in top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, and told them that the government was preparing to place the two companies under federal control, officials and company executives briefed on the discussions said.
The plan, which would place the companies into a conservatorship, was outlined in separate meetings with the chief executives at the office of the companies’ new regulator. The executives were told that, under the plan, they and their boards would be replaced and shareholders would be virtually wiped out, but that the companies would be able to continue functioning with the government generally standing behind their debt, people briefed on the discussions said.
It is not possible to calculate the cost of any government bailout, but the huge potential liabilities of the companies could cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and make any rescue among the largest in the nation’s history.
The drastic effort follows the bailout this year of Bear Stearns, the investment bank, as government officials continue to grapple with how to stem the credit crisis and housing crisis that have hobbled the economy. With Bear Stearns, the government provided guarantees, and the bulk of its assets were transferred to JPMorgan Chase, leaving shareholders with a nominal amount.
Under a conservatorship, the common and preferred shares of Fannie and Freddie would be reduced to little or nothing, and any losses on mortgages they own or guarantee could be paid by taxpayers. Shareholders have already lost billions of dollars as the stocks have plunged more than 80 percent this year.
A conservatorship would operate much like a pre-packaged bankruptcy, similar to what smaller companies use to clean up their books and then emerge with stronger balance sheets. It would allow for uninterrupted operation of the companies, crucial players in the diminished mortgage market, where they are now responsible for nearly 70 percent of new loans.
The executives were told that the government had been planning to announce the decision as early as Sunday, before the Asian markets reopen, the officials said.
For months, administration officials have grappled with the steady erosion of the books of the two mortgage finance giants. A fierce behind-the-scenes debate among policy makers has been waged over whether to seize the companies or let them work out their problems. Even after the companies are put under government control, debates will continue over whether they should be independent and how they should operate over the long term.
The declines in the housing and financial markets apparently forced the administration’s hand. With foreign governments increasingly skittish about holding billions of dollars in securities issued by the companies, no sign that their losses will abate any time soon, and the inability of the companies to raise new capital, the administration apparently decided it would be better to act now rather than closer to the presidential election in two months.
Just five weeks ago, President Bush signed a law to give the administration the authority to inject billions of dollars into the companies through investments or loans. In proposing the legislation, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said that he had no plan to provide loans or investments, and that merely giving the government the authority to backstop the companies would provide a strong shot of confidence to the markets. But the thin capital reserves that have kept the two companies afloat have continued to erode as the housing market has steadily declined and the number of foreclosures has soared.
As their problems have deepened — and the marketplace has come to expect some sort of government rescue — both companies have found it difficult to raise new capital to absorb future losses. In recent weeks, Mr. Paulson has been reaching out to foreign governments that hold billions of dollars of Fannie and Freddie securities to reassure them that the United States stands behind the companies.
In issuing their quarterly financial statements last month, the two companies reported huge losses and predicted that home prices would fall more than previously projected.
The debt securities the companies issue to finance their operations are widely owned by mutual funds, pension funds, foreign governments and big companies.
Officials said the participants at the meetings included Mr. Paulson, Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, and James Lockhart, the head of both the old and new agency that regulates the companies. The companies were represented by Daniel H. Mudd, the chief executive of Fannie Mae, and Richard F. Syron, chief executive of Freddie Mac. Also participating was H. Rodgin Cohen, the chairman of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, who was representing Fannie.
Officials and executives briefed on the meetings said that Mr. Mudd and Mr. Syron were told that they would have to leave the companies.
Spokesmen at the two companies did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
The meetings reflected the reality that senior administration officials did not believe they could wait for some kind of financial tipping point, as happened with Bear Stearns, which was saved from insolvency in March by government intervention after its stock plummeted and lenders withheld their capital.
Instead, Mr. Paulson has struggled to navigate through potentially conflicting goals — stabilizing the financial markets, making mortgages more widely available in a tightening credit environment, and protecting taxpayers from possibly enormous losses.
Publicly, administration officials have tried to bolster the companies because the nation’s mortgage system relies on their continued ability to purchase mortgages from commercial lenders and pull the housing markets out of their slump.
But privately, senior officials have been critical of top executives at the companies, particularly Freddie Mac. They have raised concerns about major risks to taxpayers of a bailout of companies whose executives have received huge compensation packages. Mr. Syron, for instance, collected more than $38 million in compensation since he joined the company in 2003.
Although Mr. Syron promised regulators earlier this year that he would raise $5.5 billion from investors, he has failed to make good on that promise — even as Fannie Mae raised more than $7 billion. Mr. Syron was slated to step down from the chief executive position last year, but that was delayed when his appointed successor, Eugene McQuade, chose to leave the company.
With the possible removal of the top management and the board, it is no longer clear who would appoint new management.
Mr. Paulson had hoped that merely having the authority to bail out the two companies, which Congress provided in its recent housing bill, would be enough to calm the markets, but if anything anxiety has been increasing. The clearest measure of that anxiety has been the gradually widening spread between interest rates on Fannie- or Freddie-backed mortgage securities and rates for Treasury securities, making home mortgages more expensive. The stock prices of the companies have also plunged.
After stock markets closed on Friday, the shares of Fannie and Freddie plummeted. Fannie was trading around $5.50, down from $70 a year ago. Freddie was trading at about $4, down from about $65 a year ago.
With Fannie and Freddie guaranteeing $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, and a big share of those held by central banks and investors around the world, Mr. Paulson appears to have decided that the stakes are too high to take chances.
The Treasury Department is required by the new law to obtain agreement from the boards of Fannie and Freddie for a capital infusion. The exception is if the companies’ regulator, Mr. Lockhart, determines that the companies are insolvent or deeply undercapitalized it could take the companies over anyway.
Charles Calomiris, a professor of economics at Columbia Business School, said delaying a rescue would only increase the risks and costs.
“The last thing you want to do is give a distressed borrower more time, because when people are in distress they tend to take a lot of risks,” he said. “You don’t want zombie institutions floating around with time on their hands.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
