Collapse of Economic Systems e.g. banks?

Question by dont worry bout it: Collapse of Financial Systems e.g. banks?
Somebody inform me result in I truly got to know. I saw an article about Bank of America getting a two.two Billion dollar loss. I dont care who you are or which organization you belong to, you happen to be gonna feel a 2.2 Billion dollar loss.

A lot of items have been mentioned via out the ages, from Nostradamus, to ancient civilizations..They say the truth will drive you crazy, it would quit our way of life so THEY maintain it away from ‘commoners’.

Is this and the turmoil in the Middle East, Iran’s quest for superpower most recently the beginning of a new order, in which systems and societies will be forced to adjust?

Do you feel there is any truth in this?

Best answer:

Answer by Stella
The current financial crisis was precipitated by a bubble in home rates and its subsequent burst, which led to a wave of foreclosures, the seizure by the Federal government of the principal automobile for securitization (the Government Sponsored Enterprises [GSEs] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the obliteration of the “private label” securitization industry, the failure of 92 banks so far this year, and bailout costs for the remainder of the banking program. No 1 has come out smelling like a rose. The question we address is what should happen to the historically most essential players in the mortgage market place: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the banks.

Broadly speaking there are two models for funding mortgages (and other loans): the portfolio lender model, which entails economic institutions (e.g., banks) originating and holding loans in their portfolio and funding them with debt (e.g., deposits), and thesecuritization model, which entails getting loans and placing them into pools and selling (perhaps structured [1]) shares in the pools to capital marketplace investors. Numerous of the present monetary arrangements are combinations of the two. The easiest way of hunting at the two models is to believe of them as applying to institutions called “banks” and “securitizers” and to view the rules and positive aspects that apply to them as their “charters.”

What do you feel? Answer beneath!

can you inform me if i have understood this paragraph on banks and credit and mortgages right ?

Query by oops: can you tell me if i have understood this paragraph on banks and credit and mortgages right ?
PLEASE Study THE PARA Very first

SIVs utilized brief-term industrial paper, sold at low interest prices, to buy longer-term mortgage-backed securities and other instruments with higher prices of return. With the seizure of the credit markets, many SIVs had trouble selling new commercial paper to replace upcoming obligations on older paper. The collapse in sub-prime mortgages and in the commercial paper that supported them has basically adjusted the value of the principal to make up for the outsized returns that these investors got more than the past five years.

The money that banks owe on their commercial paper didn’t modify. These banks are going to supply more industrial paper to purchase mortgage assets in other words, they are going to borrow more quick-term income in order to purchase lengthy-term assets from themselves! That is, if they can borrow the funds in the 1st spot. One particular of the casualties in the rout was the industrial paper marketplace investors are realizing that it backs a lot of lousy mortgage debt, so they are backing away from investing in the industrial paper that backs the mortgages.

NOW – IS MY UNDERSTANDING Appropriate ?

Borrowed cash – The SIVs sold brief-term commercial paper at low prices of interest – so they borrowed cash for a ST at a low IR. They did this routinely to maintain receiving funds.

Lent money – The banks told the folks that we will give you income – mortgage your house at 12 % IR. ( Or the banks purchased mortgage investments from investors.) The banks took the less expensive loans from CP and invested it in longer term mortgage-backed securities and other instruments with greater prices of return.

But when the market collapsed, the value of the home collapsed, borrowers could not pay loans and higher IR, and the bank was left with a property which was not worth 25% of the loan they had provided. Oversized interest prices frequently imply that the investment is in reality sucking money out of principal. Occasionally investors can get away with the gambit for awhile, but sooner or later somebody pays the bill.

Secondly, with the seizure of the credit markets, a lot of SIVs had difficulty selling new commercial paper to replace upcoming obligations on older paper.

Thirdly, The income that banks owe on their commercial paper didn’t modify. Sounds like problems.

Now the banks have paid Rs 100 to the borrower, in return they have a house which is worth Rs 20. How do the banks cover the balance Rs 70 ? These banks are going to offer you far more commercial paper ( and take ST loans at low IR ) to buy mortgage assets in other words, they are going to borrow much more short-term cash at low IR in order to purchase extended-term assets from themselves!

That is, if they can borrow the money in the initial place. A single of the casualties in the rout was the industrial paper market place investors are realizing that it backs a lot of lousy mortgage debt, so they are backing away from investing in the commercial paper that backs the mortgages.

Greatest answer:

Answer by BobWang
An important aspect is the total lack of faith in SIVs, CDOs, and the agencies that purport to price them.

[Quote]
Most of these are mortgage-primarily based securitizations, such as CDOs. The cause for the common gun-shyness is since no-one particular knows what’s in them. This point was produced final Thursday evening on CNBC, where Thomas Patrick presented a strategy to take the performing mortgages out of CDOs and SIVs at par. It was shot down by CNBC reporter Charlie Gasparino on the grounds that performing mortgages might not execute at all in the future. Due to the fact no-one knows what’s in these securitizations, they’re not actually buyable. This impression explains why mortgage-rooted CDOs and SIVs are promoting way under what their present money flow indicates, a disparity that Mr. Patrick’s program depends on.
[/Quote]

Add your own answer in the comments!

Economic Question commercial banks?

Question by steve: Financial Query industrial banks?
When industrial banks have excess reserves, they can generate funds and increse the Nation’s funds supply. List two transaction carried out by commercial banks, when they create money, (i.e. list two items they do with the cash they produce).
a. Commercial Banks will
b. Industrial Banks will

Ideal answer:

Answer by simplicitus
http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/moneybasics.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

In reality, banks never start off with the reserves they make the loans and then cover the reserve requirement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_cash

And most loans that produce money are not made by banks with reserve requirements at all but by the shadow banking method, which isn’t regulated by the Fed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
http://www.npr.org/blogs/cash/2010/07/14/128511585/shadow-banking-is-nevertheless-larger-than-classic-banking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset-backed_safety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_securities

Add your own answer in the comments!

Why do not banks restructure loans to quit foreclosure crisis?

Question by frickadella: Why never banks restructure loans to cease foreclosure crisis?
Properly, I hear a lot about how unamerican it is and uncapitalist as effectively – and by the way, its the home owners fault for purchasing a residence they could not afford. Place aside that OLD worn out notion of fiduciary duty, bah, that the bank may have had when giving out loans in the 1st spot and assist me recognize this: Who wins when so numerous are foreclosing? The banks lose money, the owner loses the house, and the investors that fund the mortgage marketplace are losing too correct… and the communites, the countys and on and on? I wouldn’t anticipate the bank or investors to restructure solely for the advantage of homeowners, but can not they just defer partially the payments or locate some answer that allows the owner to hold the property and nevertheless honor their obligation, just perhaps further out?

So I guess my query is, what is stopping banks from performing something when it appears everyone is losing out?

Ideal answer:

Answer by Rex
Absolutely everyone is not loosing it. Much less then 1% of homes are facing foreclosure, the media just talks about it a lot.

You look to be missing the truth that these men and women had been provided large sums of cash, which they spent and it needs to be paid back.

No 1 need to get a free ride, especially not based on them being greedy in the first location.

Give your answer to this question under!

Did the GrammLeache bill in 1999 really ‘deregulate’ banks? Is that why Ron Paul voted against it? Loves regs?

Question by DAR: Did the GrammLeache bill in 1999 really ‘deregulate’ banks? Is that why Ron Paul voted against it? Loves regs?
http://reason.com/blog/show/129593.html\

That followed bailing out hedge funds, if you recall. Ron Paul, rather than seeing it as deregulating saw it as a set up for further bailouts and taxpayer liability for failing entities. He thought the deregulation parts could be written in a one page bill and the rest was new REGULATION which would end up creating bubbles and shifting liability for business ventures to taxpayers.

Sound familiar?

And if he was so prescient then, why is the government now only turning for solutions to those who drove us off a cliff, to begin with?

From 1999:

“today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits….

The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation–keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.
Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $ 1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $ 15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average–and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.
The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.
This increased indication of the government’s eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn’t even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!
…My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.
Should they be listening to Ron Paul – who is telling them to let the market handle this mess rather than extending the pain with bailouts?

Best answer:

Answer by Greg
It merely dissolved the “firewall” between investment banks and consumer banks. After the Great Depression, the FDR Administration in effect said to the investment banks, “If you want to gamble, fine, but you aren’t going to do it with peoples’ life savings”, so they prohibited consumer banks from investing in stocks and other such instruments.

What it did not do is deregulate OTC commodities (default swaps are a huge problem right now). That was done in the 1999 Commodities Modernization Act (again introduced by Phil Gramm), and what it did not do is place capital reserve requirements on investment banks (and the root of the problem was just how highly leveraged these firms were).

As for the setup for future bailouts, that’s baked in to the mergers that are underway. We saw from the Lehman bankruptcy (Lehman was leveraged at about 50-1) that the fallout was severe, so the Fed and the Treasury were forced to act to keep the investment banks from folding, but amid all of this there is further consolidation through mergers and acquisitions of both consumer and investment banks, so if they were too big to fail before, well the ones that are left are bigger.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Why did the Federal Government sue the Wall Street banks that sold Fannie and Freddie bad mortgages?

Question by ideogenetic: Why did the Federal Government sue the Wall Street banks that sold Fannie and Freddie bad mortgages?
Shouldn’t the “buyer beware”* or is there a role for regulation to prevent criminal economic activity in the debt securitization markets that lead to catastrophic financial collapses?

* Since S&P had ‘AAA’ ratings on the junk paper, how would the buyer know?
For those who missed it:
“Federal Regulators Sue Big Banks Over Mortgages”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/business/bank-suits-over-mortgages-are-filed.html

Best answer:

Answer by TheOnlyBeldin
Because Barney won’t let them go after the true culprit: Fannie and Freddie themselves.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Why do banks package loans into securities?

Question by BeachBabe: Why do banks package loans into securities?
a. To spread the risk of default and increase liquidity.
b. To take advantage of tax breaks passed by the Federal Government as part of stimulus packages.
c. Because banking regulations require them to do so.
d. In order to get around adhering to current banking regulations.

Best answer:

Answer by Richard B
mainly because a law called “Glass -Stiegal” that required banks and financial institutions to be separate was repealed only a few decades ago

it allowed them to make bets and sell stuff that no one understood they claimed it was like buying insurance but it was really a scheme
read some robert Reiche and Richard Wolff about the resent history

“frontline had an excellent two hour show about what happened

in short a few people made huge fortunes and everybody else paid for it

Add your own answer in the comments!

What loans should the banks have made to avoid the real estate crash?

Question by julio_slsc: What loans should the banks have made to avoid the real estate crash?

It is not wise to provide a non-answer with little detail.

Best answer:

Answer by Wisdom
They should’ve given out loans to people that could actually afford to pay them back.

That’s actually all the answer there is.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Securitization: Why do banks make losses then?

Question by kehoejck: Securitization: Why do banks make losses then?
“As unemployment rose during the Depression, many homeowners could not make their balloon payments, causing a wave of sales and foreclosures. The federal government stepped in, creating the Federal Housing Administration (Fannie Mae) to insure long-term mortgages, and the Home Owners Loan Corporation to sell government-guaranteed bonds to purchase non-performing mortgages. This was the beginning of the securitization that is a central feature of today’s mortgage market; lending risk is passed on to investors in mortgage-backed bonds rather than being held in the institution that originates the loans.”

So how much exactly as a rough % do banks sell as Mortgage Backed Securities and if the risk is being passed on to investors why exactly are the banks racking up such huge losses? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Best answer:

Answer by Thinker
It varies. You’d have to look at the financial statements from a given bank to determine how much they sell and how much they keep.

For example, Washington Mutual, which is in BIG trouble financially, had a habit of making loans that other lenders would be afraid to make. As a result, they were able to charge a somewhat higher rate of interest than if they were making better quality loans. But when the loans went bad, they got hurt.

Best of success.

What do you think? Answer below!

Why do people continue to think the banks were forced to create bad mortgages?

Question by Change Now: Why do people continue to think the banks were forced to create bad mortgages?
This is the most ignorant statement I hear people make on this post.

The banks were not forced to make bad loans. They did it on their own free will because of the creative financing technique called securitization.

If they are talking about CRA, that was a very minor part of the overall picture.

Best answer:

Answer by DAR
THe CRA was a key part of the picture, actually. And as for the rest, it is the federal reserve fixing interest rates so low the resulting free money to wall street had to find a bubble to build. The CRA and Fannie Freddie guarantees just guaranteed that that bubble would be in housing.

What do you think? Answer below!