« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
When Unbridled Capitalism Crosses the Line - Blaming Borrowers for the Meltdown
I have been a commercial real estate lawyer in the DC area for 26+ years. I find it remarkable to hear conservatives repeat over and over how the American people are in some sense responsible for this meltdownm because they made all of these crazy loans that were beyond their means. And on a very superficial level, that argument has some appeal. But it is more propaganda by the forces that gave us this mess, and are now being baliled out of it at our -- the Amercian people's -- expense.
In the last great commercial real estate meltdown (1989-1991), what struck me more than anything was that banks had become so oblivious to risk in their zeal to place large loans with the (so-called) best borrowers of that era. Banks were always stuffy, conservative places when I was growing up. The post-depression era mandated strict banking regulation. By the 1980’s, the real estate developers I worked for after law school were risk-taking entrepreneurial capitalists. They were in the business of putting deals together and leveraging their own capital with money loaned to them to try and turn a relatively modest cash investment into a large profit. Well intentioned (and more than a few evil and dishonest) developers made mistakes (or worse, committed fraudulent acts) during that time period, which led to losses on a massive scale -- but what developers did was at least within the bandwidth of risk that one would expect from an entrepreneurial capitalist. By contrast, banks are and have always been fiduciaries to their accountholders – they are not risk-takers, they are supposed to act cautiously, make loans conservatively, based on sound underwriting and careful due diligence. In the late 80’s, the banks got caught up in a frenzy of short term profit making and rising bank stock prices – a premium was placed by management on churning loan placement fees, increased volume, increased year-to-year “sales”, etc. There was, of course, record high compensation and bonuses, and risk-taking took place on a scale that was, at that time, far outside what banking regulations ever allowed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Reagan had changed things forever, by beginning a movement towards broad deregulation of financial markets, often deregulation for the sake of deregulation. It was if the depression had never happened.
The GOP initiated deregulation effort of the late 90’s allowed banks to engage in high risk/high leverage investment businesses. And with the advent of the Bush era, we witnessed complete GOP abdication of executive branch and congressional oversight. John McCain was a willing participant in both parts of that equation, by the way. But putting that aside, this new hands off approach by those who were supposed to perform oversight greatly magnified “banking industry” risk-taking, taking it to levels far beyond any scale previously imagined. The fact that the most well known companies being bailed out this week range across several discreet industry types is a reflection of just how blurred the lines have become. But make no mistake about it, corporate giants pushed these loans out there, created the derivatives which made them possible, guarantied them, insured them and made short term profits off of them – let’s face it, they sold the crap out of them.
So the notion that middle class borrowers were doing something venal or un-American by making these loans – by seeking to get their share of the “low investment, high leverage” real estate boom of the 90’s and 00’s -- is a complete double standard. The borrowers were doing exactly what the lenders were doing, but the lenders were doing it on a much larger scale. Now many of these borrowers did not appreciate that their jobs might be at risk to a Bush economy, or that real estate values as a whole might be at risk, or that interest rate increases on ARMs would likely outstrip their ability to make the payments. Many were told that the rising real estate values would enable them to sell at a profit “long before” those loan rate increases kicked in. I’m sure there were more than a few who knew better and did it anyway. But in a society where people are encouraged to spend beyond their means by maxing out on high interest rate credit cards, the notion that they should have avoided easy loans being sold to them to buy new houses at seemingly very low interest rates is crazy. People want to improve their lives – this was not only predictable, it is why an industry was created for it.
Lenders are the ones who traditionally put the brakes on this, but they didn’t . . . because it was thousands of mortgage brokers placing loans funded from overseas or from large mortgage pools, where the borrowers all fit into some nameless, faceless “box.” It was easy money for all concerned. And it fueled a residential real estate boom that created income at all levels of the economy and made it seem like it all made sense. And once again, short term greed in the form of fees, bonuses, faceless funding sources, check the box underwriting, and a system that did not punish the failure to perform due diligence properly in the interests of short term corporate profits, conspired to make the people who are supposed to be fiduciaries for other people’s money into promoters and speculators. So the notion that the middle class people who got caught up in this whirlwind of the Bush-GOP economy and GOP economic theory in practice, are as or more culpable than the people being bailed out here, or the legislators and “regulators” who not only did nothing to stop it, but actually made it possible and facilitated it, when all of them they should have known better, is so wrong on so many different levels that it is nothing less than infuriating – a grievous insult to the intelligence. And the sad reality is that almost nobody is letting average people onto this big secret – that another generation of billionaires have been created out of what will likely turn out to be largest taxpayer funded bail-out in history, yet another GOP transfer of wealth and capital from the masses to the ruling class. And here comes John McCain advocating more tax cuts for the rich. Does anybody wonder why it so often feels like our heads are going to explode?








Comments (9)
Thank you. You said it better, and a lot more nicely than I am capable of doing.
September 21, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you.
We never should have allowed sub par loans for any reason and now shouldn't bail out wall street.
September 22, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you are wrong on a significant point. Banks didn't just make these risky loans because they wanted to, they were forced into it by the CRA rules and threats of red line suits by Reno and Gorelick. Coupled with Fannie and Freddie's appetite for buying up sub prime mortgages ( under Obama advisor Raines and protected from regulation by democrats Frank and Dodd) this lead to a huge increase in risky debt. And the individual borrower is responsible for defaulting, that is the cause of the problem. Without democrats pushing for more sub prime loans though the problem would never have gotten this big.
September 22, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! The dems twisted the repubs arm? Isn't that special. All this time I thought the gop was in control of the government, but in reality it was dems dressed up in repub clothes. You can't trust anyone these days, can you?
September 22, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clever, but your explanation consists of pure GOP/McCain talking points (and a classic diversionary political attack on Obama -- who had absolutely nothing to do with the current meltdown and whose relationship with Raines and Johnson was truly minimal compared to the considerable access they bought (with $2 Million plus paid to Rick Davis' lobbying firm) to gain access to McCain, who was an influential member of the Senate majority, and a philosophical supporter of deregulation in any form.
Aside from banking deregulation (which a GOP Congress led by Phil Gramm forced on a weakened and marginally empathetic Clinton presidency at the height of the impeachment debacle), which allowed historically conservative financial institutions to spread out into much riskier investment banking functions with minimal or no federal banking oversight, the single most important factor in the "push for sub-prime lending" over the past 5 years took place in 2002, when the Bush administration initiated deregulatory actions that changed rules that had applied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for decades prior to 2002, and which opened what was once a very conservative guarantied mortgage pool into a vehicle for providing quasi-public guaranties for a much riskier subprime mortgage market. The GOP argument that banks were effectively forced to make these loans to undeserving minorities (even though the underwriting did not justify them) is nothing short of ridiculous (and highly offensive) -- it is a transparent attempt to shift the blame to the victim or the dupe, as it were, and it confuses "cause" (i.e., pure greed and taking short term profits through highly leveraged investments that banks should never make) and "effect" (the easiest targets to dupe into buying these risky new loan products were minorities and working class people who needed them to achieve any semblence of home ownership in the real estate boom of the last 5-10 years). The Bush administration fueled this, and touted the increase in "new home ownership" as one of several economic gains initiated by his administration that justified re-electing Bush in 2004. He (and McCain and the rest of the GOP) touted in 2004 how much easier their deregulation had made homw ownership for minorities and the working class.
Sorry, this is a crisis that falls squarely on the backs of the GOP, and saying that the Democrats are responsible (or suggesting that the Dems were as culpable as the GOP) is pure, unmitigated bullshit. The fact that you call Raines an advisor of Obama -- when both he and the Obama campaign have shown that not to be the case -- tells me you are stretching big time in order to deflect blame away from the GOP, But saying it does not make it so. And there were almoost certainly democrats in Congress who could have done more to stop this, but didn't, and who need to answer to that at some point. But there is a broad difference between not preventing something from happening, and actually inititing it and facilitating it at every possible opportunity.
Ironically, Obama warned about this very potentiality in two major economic addresses he gave late last year and earlier this year. He has not been in DC long enough to have had any part in this. By contrast, McCain was a leading supporter of deregulation in 1998 and 2002, and was touting the benefits of banking industry deregulation out of one side of his mouth as recently as 2-3 weeks ago. Now he is the world's leading reformer, and America's biggest friend of government regulation. Uh huh.
Last point: Over the weekend, lobbyists were successful in getting the Feds to add into the bailout plan a provision which would allow the Secretary of Treasury to buy back bad loans made by foreign banks in the US (which was not provided in the legislation as initially introduced on Friday by Paulson). This happened as a result of efforts undertaken by lobbyists for UBS and Barclays. And the chief lobbyist for UBS is . . . . (drum roll) . . . John McCain's top financial advisor, and likely choice for Secretary of Treasury, Phil Gramm. So it looks like lobbyists still have better access to GOP power brokers in the administration than 99% of the voting public. Yet the GOP still argues that McCain can be trusted to reform Washington. If you think that's true, there's a bridge in Alaska that I would like to sell to you.
September 22, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks MT! I consider that a complete destruction of the GOP/McCain talking points. Please keep up the great posts and info. A round of applause for you.
September 22, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reaganomics and Laissez-faire economics are totally discredited, lets go back to mixed markets, altruism, philanthropy and governments with a social conscience.
September 22, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Who is deserving of more blame? The guy who wanted to buy a house and was told that maybe, maybe it would be within his reach, or the lender of the money who went on to leverage his mortgage 50 times, got stinking rich, and left nothing but an economic wasteland behind him?
Let's lay the "This is all the fault of poor people! If only they knew how to be happy being poor!" crap to rest once and for all. Apparently the only people who are allowed to strive to improve their standard of living are the top 1 percent.
People who make that argument either have no shame, or no soul.
September 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I agree totally. The financial corporations lent the money. Willingly! With impunity!
There must be accountability for those who perpetrated these criminal deeds! The borrowers can't be blamed. That would be like blaming me if I buy an item and it's defective!
September 22, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment