Death by Debt Strangulation
Edward J. Dodson
[A transcript of a Powerpoint presentation made at the annual
conference of the Council of Georgist Organizations, held in Kansas
City, Missouri, 10 July, 2008. Reprinted from
GroundSwell, Vol. 21, No.5, September-October, 2008. This
presentation has evolved over the last few years to convey current
trends. An electronic copy of the current version is available upon
email request.]
PRELIMINARIES
(Someone in the room asked about the role of the Federal Housing
Administration in the housing crisis. I offered the following
comments)
There is a point of view that FHA was created to help lower income
households to obtain houses at affordable prices. However, as housing
prices have increased and as household incomes have increased, FHA
argued that to diversify the government's risk, FHA needed to insure
borrowers with higher incomes and better credit profiles. FHA got the
desired authority to provide insurance on higher loan amounts to
higher income households. That diversified the risk. On the other
hand, it is also true that the greatest volatility in housing (that
is, in property) values is probably on the higher side.
If you are in a neighborhood with property values of $60,000 the
housing prices might not go down at all. But with housing prices of
$250,000, when housing prices start to come down, they might come down
considerably. Thus, making or insuring loans at the higher end of the
market exposes them to greater loss per incidence.
There are 115 million households in the United States, roughly 65% of
whom are home owners. Thus, 75 million households live in the houses
they have the deed to. So long as they have employment and income,
they will make their payments even if housing prices fall and keep
falling. Most people view housing as shelter and not an investment,
and most people want to stay in their home and their community. Even
though they might live in a house for which they paid $300,000 that
would now sell for $260,000, they will keep making payments on it.
This is getting to the heart of the problem.
SLIDE 1: DEATH BY DEBT STRANGULATION
The Consequences of Becoming a Society Perpetually in Debt
For the first time since the Great Depression of the 1930s, an
overwhelming majority of households in the United States have no
liquid savings. We are drowning in debt, with foreclosures and
bankruptcies at record levels. This presentation discusses some of the
key reasons - the "triggers" - that have brought us to this
precarious position.
Many households live perpetually in debt. This is a problem
exacerbated by the aggressive marketing strategies employed by
mortgage lenders, which caused the mortgage meltdown and our housing
debacle.
SLIDE 2: TRIGGER - CREATION OF THE MONEY
MARKET FUNDS
[No discussion]
SLIDE 3: TRIGGER - CREATION OF THE MONEY
MARKET FUNDS (continued)
The first money market mutual fund was created in the early 1970s.
From assets of $300,000 in 1972 this fund grew to $390 million in just
three years.
By 1981 the assets of all money market mutual funds had grown to
approximately $80 billion.
At the same time, interest rate ceilings on their lending prevented
Thrifts (the savings and loan associations and savings banks) from
paying competitive interest rates on deposits. Every time market
interest rates increased, more and more deposits were withdrawn by
consumers for placement in instruments with higher rates of return.
Within a few short years many of the nation's Thrifts faced
insolvency.
Finally, in 1980, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and
Monetary Control Act removed many of the distinctions between
different types of depository institutions and ultimately removed
interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts.
An additional "reform" was an increase in the deposit
insurance limit to $100,000 from $40,000.
SLIDE 4: TRIGGER - CENTRAL BANK POLICY
SHIFTS
[No discussion]
SLIDE 5: TRIGGER - CENTRAL BANK POLICY
SHIFTS (continued)
With his Presidency plagued by rising inflation and recession, Jimmy
Carter (reluctantly) appointed Paul Volcker chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board in 1979.
Volcker's challenge was to use the Fed's powers to bring down
inflation, even as the economy continued to experience an
unprecedented drift into stagflation (that is, rising inflation and
high unemployment occurring simultaneously)
The Fed shifted its focus from stabilizing interest rates to managing
the money supply.
The Fed's board was convinced by economist Milton Friedman that
steady, predicable growth in the money supply would be the key to
stable and minimally-inflationary economic growth.
The Fed allowed interest rates to rise, which dramatically curtailed
access to credit but gradually brought inflation under control.
SLIDE 6: TRIGGER - INTEREST RATES CLIMBED
WHILE THE ECONOMY WAS PULLED INTO A RECESSION
[No discussion]
SLIDE 7: TRIGGER - INTEREST RATES CLIMBED
WHILE THE ECONOMY WAS PULLED INTO A RECESSION (continued)
Tight credit and inflationary expectations drove up interest rates as
the Carter Presidency came to a close.
During 1979 and 1980 the Federal Open Market Committee, under
Volcker's leadership, abandoned efforts to control interest rates and
tried to meet strict money supply growth targets, an objective that
proved impossible given the global nature of currency markets, the
amount of U.S. dollars in foreign hands, as well as other technology
and policy limitations.
By December 1980 the prime rate of interest hit 21.5 percent.
SLIDE 8: TRIGGER - REAGANOMICS:
SUPPLY-SIDE RHETORIC AND UPWARD WEALTH CONCENTRATION
Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 ushered in the removal of many
regulations on business, a significant lowering of tax rates on
capital gains and on high marginal incomes.
Price controls on fossil fuels, which hampered the delivery of
supply, were also eliminated.
Jack Kemp had become friends with a Wall Street Journal reporter
named Jude Wanniski, who had met Art Laffer, an economics professor at
UCLA who thought it would be possible for the government to gain more
revenue by lowering marginal tax rates. This, he argued, would
encourage people to invest in capital goods creation and jobs
creation. Kemp sold the idea to Reagan. The people at the Treasury
bought into the theory. Some columnists bought into the theory. And,
Reagan basically accepted the idea -- for a while.
Supply-side economic theory as promoted by economist Arthur Laffer
was partially adopted, on the prediction that lower tax rates would
stimulate economic growth and thereby yield increased revenue to the
Federal government.
Reagan's tax policies ignored any distinction between earned and
unearned income flows, allowing investors to choose options where the
highest rates of return could be obtained regardless of the true
economic implications.
To achieve the expected supply-side results, the Reagan
administration pushed thru a reduction in marginal tax rates on high
incomes. Unfortunately, Reagan was also a committed anti-communist.
So, he went about spending on the military at a level the Soviet Union
could not match without self-destructing.
Some years after this Art Laffer said Reagan did not realize there
were two sides to the supply-side ideas. Government spending, he said,
had to be brought under control to keep pace with economic growth.
Instead, under Reagan government spending went way up. When revenue
needs were not being met, more traditional economists in the
administration pressed for an increase in tax rates.
SLIDE 9: TRIGGER - REAGANOMICS:
SUPPLY-SIDE RHETORIC AND UPWARD WEALTH CONCENTRATION
(continued)
Reagan, a committed anti-Communist, spearheaded huge increases in
defense spending even as the lower tax rates took effect.
The result of these policies was a $41 billion Federal deficit in
1981, rising to $64 billion in 1982.
The U.S. economy slid deeper into recession, with official
unemployment climbing to 10.7 percent in 1982 (but real unemployment
certainly much higher).
The top marginal tax rate on individual incomes was reduced from 70
percent to 28 percent. The corporate income tax rate was reduced from
48 percent to 34 percent. Individual tax brackets were indexed for
inflation.
SLIDE 10: TRIGGER - REAGANOMICS:
SUPPLY-SIDE RHETORIC AND UPWARD WEALTH CONCENTRATION
(continued)
Most of the poor were exempted from the individual income tax. The
federal poverty level would not be enough to really provide a
subsistence living. I don't know what it was in 1985, somewhere around
$15,000.
AUDIENCE COMMENT (Pia): PIA: It was less than that. In
1980 it was about $10,500. And it was about $15,000 in mid-1980s,
and that was median poverty for a family of four.
The experts had no sense of what it really cost to live. Tax benefits
and tax subsidies were ended for specific investments that actually
produced capital goods and created jobs. The Reagan administration did
away with investment tax credits from 1981 to 1985; their idea was
that by lowering tax rates the people would have income to invest and
they would invest it in job creation. What happened, of course, is
that those with the disposable income invested in speculation, mostly
in the stock market and real estate and land markets as opposed to
investment in job development.
At the same time, specific investment incentives approved in 1981
were gradually reduced in each subsequent year through 1985.
The unforeseen result was that a high percentage of increased
after-tax income was channeled into speculative investment in the
stock market and in real estate rather than direct investment in
employment-creating production of capital goods.
SLIDE 11: TRIGGER - REAGANOMICS:
SUPPLY-SIDE RHETORIC AND UPWARD WEALTH CONCENTRATION
(continued)
By November 1982 well over nine million people were unemployed, the
highest number since the Great Depression.
17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933.
Countless farmers defaulted on mortgage loans, went into bankruptcy
and lost their land.
Homelessness escalated, estimated in a 1984 study by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Affairs to be between 250,000-350,000
persons.
Low-income families began to experience homelessness because of
declines in the availability of publicly-subsidizes and other low-rent
housing units.
Take away investment tax credits and you don't get housing for lower
end households. Money moves into where profits are, and profits are
only generated in low income housing because of tax credits and other
types of subsidies.
SLIDE 12: TRIGGER - THOUSANDS OF
MAINSTREAM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FAILED
[No discussion]
SLIDE 13: TRIGGER - THOUSANDS OF
MAINSTREAM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FAILED (continued)
Negative spreads resulted in losses of $4.6 billion in 1981 and $4.1
billion in 1982.
From 1980 thru 1983, 118 S&Ls with $43 billion in assets closed
their doors, costing the FSLIC* an estimated $3.5 billion to make
depositors whole.
Banks were facing portfolios of fixed rate assets on their books,
while their cost of funds went up. Then, many of the thrifts suffered
by mismanagement. If they were to sell your assets in the secondary
market, they would have to do so at steep discounts reflecting the
difference between current market yields and the interest borrowers
were paying. The banks were not yet subject to regulatory requirements
to mark assets to market value on an ongoing basis. What they were
permitted to do was to sell their loans but amortize the losses over
the remaining life of those loans. Without this accounting trick, many
more thrifts would have had to close their doors.
The thrifts were hampered also because they were still restricted to
making fixed rate mortgage loans subject to limits on the interest
rates they could charge. It was about 1983, three years after they
were in the red, and many had already failed, before they had the
chance to issue Certificates of Deposit and usury laws were removed.
SLIDE 14: TRIGGER - THOUSANDS OF
MAINSTREAM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FAILED (continued)
Before the end of the financial crisis, more than 1,000 Thrifts
failed.
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith described the situation as "the
largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and
larceny of all time."
It was serious. I was temporarily moved from my job responsibilities
at Fannie Mae into a new department that evaluated the portfolios of
failed thrifts. We would review the borrower creditworthiness and the
property appraisals, then repackage these loans and try to sell them
to investors on behalf of the Resolution Trust Corporation, the
Federal entity that was established to dispose of the assets of failed
thrifts. Speculators made a bundle on a lot of this stuff because the
RTC was not funded or staffed to handle the volume of assets that came
pouring in. This included half-finished construction projects on
condominiums and office buildings.
It is worth stating that the did a pretty good job of making good
residential mortgage loans. The problem was they had these loans on
the books that were overvalued and then went out and made new business
loans to small businesses or mortgage loans on income producing
properties; and, here, they made a lot of bad decisions in order to
get paper profits. When you book loans with an interest rate of 20-21%
and the loans perform, you are pulling your company out of the red.
However, too many of these loans were poorly underwritten, many did
not perform, and the thrifts ended up becoming insolvent.
SLIDE 15: TRIGGER - THOUSANDS OF
MAINSTREAM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FAILED (continued)
Deregulation permitted mergers and acquisitions, creating mega-bank
holding companies.
European and Asian banks entered the U.S. market as major players.
AUDIENCE: Who was the largest mortgage lender in the
United States?
When I left Fannie Mae in 2005, Countrywide Funding was our number
one seller. They sold us more mortgage loans than anyone else in the
country. Behind Countrywide were J.P. Morgan/Chase, Wachovia Bank,
HSBC, and the U.S. subsidiaries of the Bank of Australia and Bank of
Scotland. Our real estate market was being financed by banks all
around the world.
SLIDE 16: TRIGGER - PROLONGED HIGH
INTEREST RATES BROUGHT DOWN LAND PRICES BY CREATING A HUGE INVENTORY
OF UNSOLD HOUSING UNITS
[No discussion]
SLIDE 17: TRIGGER - PROLONGED HIGH
INTEREST RATES BROUGHT DOWN LAND PRICES BY CREATING A HUGE INVENTORY
OF UNSOLD HOUSING UNITS (continued)
As rates came down after 1983, a "window of affordability"
opened.
The housing market recovered and resumed an upward climb.
The window of affordability did not remain open for very long, of
course, because market forces capitalized the lower interest rates
into higher land prices. Another aspect of the housing market is, as
economists say, housing prices are "sticky downward." Do you
think this is the case?
AUDIENCE: No. People who have to must sell at a loss.
If you have a job and steady income, you can test the market by
putting your house up for sale. If you do not get an acceptable offer,
you just pull your house off the market and wait for prices to climb
back up. This strategy does not always work, of course. A lot depends
on the strength of the local economy and the stability of your
neighborhood. A builder cannot do this because the housing unit is
inventory, and the builder generally finances the construction. So,
when a builder breaks ground without a sales contract in hand with a
buyer approved for mortgage financing, the builder is taking on an
enormous risk.
Builders burned in the past by downturns in market conditions may not
even construct model units. Today, they can create virtual sample
units on the computer.
One of the largest home builders in the Northeastern United States is
Hovnanian, which consistently undersells the market. The reason
Hovnanian is able to do this is that they have been a shrewd land
investor. For decades they obtained options on land from farmers and
other land owners in suburban New York and New Jersey. They let the
farmers keep farming until they see a strong market for residential
use. As long as the farmer is farming, the assessor will continue to
assesses the land as agricultural.
When they finally construct housing units, their cost base is much
lower than most other builders. So, they can offer the same product at
a lower price and still make higher profits. People line up on
weekends waiting to get in to get in to fill out an application.
SLIDE 18: TRIGGER - PROLONGED HIGH
INTEREST RATES BROUGHT DOWN LAND PRICES BY CREATING A HUGE INVENTORY
OF UNSOLD HOUSING UNITS (continued)
Housing affordability was not uniform across the U.S., and many
markets remained soft.
Key factors were employment and household incomes, household savings
and the cost of land available for new housing development.
SLIDE 19: TRIGGER - PROLONGED HIGH
INTEREST RATES BROUGHT DOWN LAND PRICES BY CREATING A HUGE INVENTORY
OF UNSOLD HOUSING UNITS (continued)
Demographic trends contributing to modest improvements in household
income included increasing educational attainment and a dramatic
increase in the number of women employed full-time in higher earning
positions.
These trends were countered by an ongoing decline in higher-paying
manufacturing employment of unionized workers.
SLIDE 20: TRIGGER - THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE
MARKET RESPONDED TO THE NEED FOR LIQUIDITY AND UNIFORMITY
[No discussion]
SLIDE 21: TRIGGER - THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE
MARKET RESPONDED TO THE NEED FOR LIQUIDITY AND UNIFORMITY
(continued)
The rising cost of funds for financial institutions affected the two
GSEs as well, who held large portfolios of low-yielding, fixed rate
mortgage loans.
New options were needed to generate fee income, offset low-yielding
assets and raise capital.
SLIDE 22: TRIGGER - THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE
MARKET RESPONDED TO THE NEED FOR LIQUIDITY AND UNIFORMITY
(continued)
The first major innovations were mortgage loans that allowed for
periodic adjustment in the rate of interest, tied to U.S. Treasury
debt and other indices.
For consumers, the benefits depended on how and when rates could
adjust and whether they had the income to handle increases in monthly
payments.
The vehicle that allowed the secondary market to dramatically expand
was the issuance of collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), first
introduced in 1983 by Fannie Mae.
CMOs countered prepayment risk for investors that occurred when
interest rates were falling and borrowers refinanced to lower rate
mortgage loans.
CMOs created classes of securities that offered principal repayment
at varying speeds, so that investors were able to acquire an interest
in cash flows with advantageous accounting tax implications.
The secondary market - primarily Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- was
created to provide liquidity to savings banks and commercial bank.
However, when interest rates were relatively low and stable, the
volume of loans sold into the secondary market was steady at a low
level. So long a depositors were putting their savings into the
thrifts and commercial banks, they did not need to worry about
matching the duration of long-term assets with short-term (deposit)
liabilities.
Then, in the 1980s, the volatility in the housing and mortgage
markets brought on several innovations occurred that made the
secondary market take off. One was the adjustable rate mortgage loan,
with rates that periodically changed based on some index (e.g., 1-year
Treasuries). Banks could make the loans without taking on the interest
rate risk. And, ARMs became a big part of the market while interest
rates were high.
When interest rates came back down, millions of borrowers came in to
refinance their mortgage loans into a 15- or 30-year fixed rate
mortgage. Although this reduced the interest income to investors, the
mortgage originators made profits from fees charged and for servicing
of the loans for the investors.
The second big change in the mortgage market was securitization.
Loans were pooled together as collateral for bonds (i.e., the
mortgage-backed securities), offered for sale to banks, insurance
companies and other investors. Wall Street firms took on the job of
marketing MBS to their institutional and individual clients.
People trusted the strength of the MBS because either Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac documents and guidelines were adhered to. A percentage of
loan files were pulled to examine the loan documentation, the credit
decision and the property appraisal.
So, because of securitization banks got back into the mortgage
lending business in a major way. They now saw the mortgage banking
business as a great opportunity for revenue with minimum risk. They
would pay Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac a "guarantee fee" for
its services, and the MBS would be rated as a AAA bond by the rating
agencies.
SLIDE 23: TRIGGER - AN EXPLOSION OF
SPECULATION ERUPTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 1980s
In September of 1985 representatives of the major industrial nations
of the world met and agreed to coordinate economic policy.
Tariffs and other restrictions on international trade were gradually
lowered.
The Japanese agreed to reduce taxes on imports and to stimulate
domestic demand.
The signatories also pledged to intervene in foreign exchange markets
in an effort to drive down a U.S. dollar widely perceived as
overvalued.
For the Japanese, they were experiencing a major shift from a
production oriented economy to one that acknowledged domestic consumer
needs, and that workers were demanding better housing, automobiles and
a higher living standard. For more than three decades after the end of
the Second World War, the Japanese people devoted themselves to
rebuilding their nation.
As markets have opened around the world, those who are able to invest
have increasingly shifted financial resources wherever investment
promised high rates of return. And, in the process, we experienced
dramatic increases in speculation.
SLIDE 24: TRIGGER - AN EXPLOSION OF
SPECULATION ERUPTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 1980s (continued)
On the 19th of October, 1987, the stock market experienced its
largest one day decline in history.
The Dow lost 22.6% of its nominal value, or $500 billion.
Investors pulled billions of dollars out of the stock market and
shifted to real estate.
The total investment in real estate had declined because of high
interest rates. High income earners who had wealth shifted their money
to the stock market. Prices were driven up even though not supported
by corporate profits and the overall economy. This was also when
economists were beginning to come up with computer models for
directing investment decisions.
AUDENCE COMMENT: Wasn't there also a big divergence
between returns on stocks and returns on bonds? You said there were
high interest rates. People started running for bonds then.
Looking for a safe harbor. In today's market, for example, because
the stock market is so volatile, a significant shift has occurred in
favor of bonds, even though the yields may be low. At least you are
preserving principal (if inflation is running lower than the interest
rate being earned).
SLIDE 25: TRIGGER - AN EXPLOSION OF
SPECULATION ERUPTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 1980s (continued)
In 1988 the Japanese stock market reached new heights, and by the
beginning of 1989 accounted for over 40 percent of the nominal value
of all markets worldwide (up from 15 percent in 1980).
Land prices, particularly in and around Tokyo, doubled between 1986
and 1990.
Residential property prices in Tokyo rose by roughly 70 percent in
1988 alone. Commercial property rose by 80 percent in the same year.
Now, how does any company acquire land, produce goods and services,
and grow their profits with those land prices? Today if you look at
the Japanese companies that were struggling to maintain profit
margins, they are moving offshore. Moving facilities to Korea and
Singapore and Indonesia and Mexico and even the United States was
their survival strategy. The Japanese economy had reached the end of
its period of rapid growth and was now faced with the destructive
character of its land markets.
SLIDE 26: TRIGGER - AN EXPLOSION OF
SPECULATION ERUPTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 1980s (continued)
Speculation in Japanese land markets, fueled by bank credit, drove
prices to the point where economic use of land became impossibly
expensive. Land prices in major Japanese cities, especially Tokyo,
began to fall during 1990, and were down by 20 percent by the end of
1991.
Japanese companies began to relocate production offshore to rebuild
deteriorating profit margins. Japan's economy entered a deep recession
and its financial services sector faced insolvency.
The Bank of Japan responded throughout 1989 by tightening credit
standards and raising the discount rate. The Japanese Ministry of
Finance issued new regulations reducing the amount of credit banks
could provide for land purchases.
The spill-over effects around the globe were significant, as Japanese
companies began a world-wide sell-off our assets in order to raise
cash.
Sales of Japanese-owned U.S. real estate -- mostly hotels, resorts
and office buildings - returned only about 60 percent of what the
Japanese companies had paid for them.
Japan had this advantage in the market; it didn't have any defense
budget. It didn't have to worry about the Evil Empire and defeating
the Soviet Union and so it had the capacity to bail out its financial
sector without really crashing the economy, although parts of Japan
have not fully recovered from recession even today. There is a lot
going on here to indicate that the global economy is under stress and
that Japan is not an unusual case.
SLIDE 27: TRIGGER - AN EXPLOSION OF
SPECULATION ERUPTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 1980s (continued)
As the Japanese currency increased in value against the U.S. dollar,
exports suffered and profits in the manufacturing sector fell -- 24.5
percent in 1991 and 32.1 percent in 1992.
Bankruptcies began to rise starting in the latter half of 1990 and
continued to escalate.
Countless real estate firms active in fund management constituted
more than half the corporate bankruptcies in 1991 and 1992.
Bond ratings for the ten largest Japanese financial institutions fell
rapidly beginning in 1990 and also continued to fall through the first
half of the 1990s.
SLIDE 28: TRIGGER - AN EXPLOSION OF
SPECULATION ERUPTED AT THE CLOSE OF THE 1980s (continued)
Beginning in late 1988, the downturn in rents (i.e., leasing fees)
generated by income-producing properties began to fall all around the
globe.
Property values fell in many regions of the United States, in some
cases by as much as one-third.
By 1989, the number of new homes constructed dropped to 1 million,
the lowest number since the Second World War.
SLIDE 29: TRIGGER - THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION'S THIRD WAY
Delinquencies on consumer debt reached 2.5 percent of outstanding
loans in 1992.
Campaigning for the Presidency, Bill Clinton told an audience at the
Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania that the economy
hadn't really been working since the early 1970s, that the recession
had simply aggravated problems that existed long before George H. W.
Bush took office. "Even when the Bush recession ends," Mr.
Clinton said, "most Americans will find themselves worse off."
Campaign promises aside, Bill Clinton immediately adopted the
economic policies of a fiscal conservative.
Not long after the election, Clinton declared: "We're Eisenhower
Republicans here. We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the
bond market."
SLIDE 30: TRIGGER - THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION'S THIRD WAY (continued)
Between 1993-2000, the unemployment rate fell steadily from 7.5 --
4.0 percent, as measured by government agencies (yet, many workers
were, in fact, underemployed and experiencing declining incomes and
benefit packages).
The official inflation rate, reported to be 1.6 percent for 1998,
ignored what was happening to land prices and the effect on property
prices.
Many economists attributed improving economic signals to the
maturation of structural changes in the global economic system
(changes that on the surface seemed to favor the United States).
Production of goods of high quality now came out of countries with
lower wage and lower land costs, establishing global prices U.S.-based
firms had to meet or lose market share.
SLIDE 31: TRIGGER - THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION'S THIRD WAY (continued)
The U.S. was absorbing large numbers of unskilled immigrant labor who
could not command high wages for their services, allowing businesses
to increase or at least maintain profit margins.
Global competition also weakened the negotiating strength of labor
unions, as heavy industry and manufacturing firms faced with high
labor costs and high land costs threatened to move to other regions or
other countries unless concessions were made.
Things got better - at least for some -- during the Clinton years.
So, since they got better he took credit for it. Being at the right
place at the right time has a lot to do with what happens in an
economy. Between 1993 and 2000 we fell steadily from 7-1/2 to 4%
unemployment as measured by government. Yet many households had two
adults working multiple jobs. A lot of doubling up occurred, young
adults continued living with parents.
AUDIENCE COMMENT (Wayne Luney): The statistics of
government economists argue that structural unemployment is
meaningless. In 1948 it was listed at 2%. Everyone said 5% is really
full employment. The official inflation rate was reported to be 1.6%
in 1998. What about land prices and property prices? We know the
consumer price index is very flawed in terms of how it treats land
price increases. One of the dynamics here is that the production of
goods of high quality is not hinged to lower wage and lower land
costs. So we have a global price for what U.S. firms had to compete
with.
We see many firms relocating employment off shore in order to protect
their profit margins. That, to my mind, is a key ingredient of how
decisions are made as to where to locate production. I have profit
margins to achieve and so I will move to wherever I can get those
profit margins. And relative land costs affect those profit margins
more than anything else.
SLIDE 32: TRIGGER - HOME EQUITY DRIVES A
RESURGENCE IN CONSUMER SPENDING
[No discussion]
SLIDE 33: TRIGGER - HOME EQUITY DRIVES A
RESURGENCE IN CONSUMER SPENDING (continued)
A sustained period of low interest rates triggered an explosion in
the volume of home equity mortgage loans
SLIDE 34: TRIGGER - EMERGING DEMOGRAPHIC
PATTERNS
[No discussion]
SLIDE 35: TRIGGER - EMERGING DEMOGRAPHIC
PATTERNS (continued)
In 2006, as the first boomers turned 60, personal savings was
reported to be negative for the first time since the great depression.
Most vulnerable to even minor financial setbacks are an estimated 35
million people categorized as poor by the U.S. government. Yet,
controversy exists in how poverty is measured.
A Heritage Foundation report in 2004 highlighted the facts that 46%
of households labeled as poor are homeowners, 76% have
air-conditioning in their homes or apartments and more living space
than the average enjoyed by residents of many cities throughout
Europe. The majority of the poor in the U.S. also own other assets,
including one or more automobiles.
The primary reasons why some children are poor is that they are part
of families where the adults are not employed full-time or not
regularly employed or reside in single-parent homes; some 1.3 million
children are born out of wedlock each year.
TIME DID NOT PERMIT COMPLETION OF THE
PRESENTATION. THE FOLLOWING CONCLUDING COMMENTS WERE MADE TO SUMMARIZE
THE OVERALL SITUATION.
We have just a few minutes left to get to the bottom line of all
this. We are not saving and people are highly leveraged with credit.
Household income is stagnant or declining for a large portion of our
population. Land prices are down, so homeowners are losing net worth
even though it was unearned.
Low interest rates benefited millions of households who needed to
borrow; but savers did not benefit and seniors have been hit hard
because of the loss in interest income. Alan Greenspan has been given
a lot of blame for the recession, and he deserves some, for sure. As
land prices (and, therefore, housing prices) skyrocketed, people were
able to borrow to remove equity from their property. However, because
of deregulation of the financial services industry, many unscrupulous
lenders engaged in predatory practices. If you pay somebody
commissions based on loan volume, they will make loans -- regardless
of whether the borrowers have the capacity to repay the loans or not.
A whole lot of mortgage brokers made a lot of money on the basis of
fraudulent lending.
It is a very complex system we have developed over the last century
and since the Great Depression. Deregulation has its benefits and its
consequences. The trend has been upwards towards greater and greater
household debt. The financial sector has come up with reasons to allow
people to take on more debt than historically we would have allowed in
the past.
Focus groups of women and minorities explored the reasons why these
consumers made use of mortgage brokers and nontraditional lenders
rather than going to the banks. People who have had bad experiences
with banks and expect the banks to decline their applications are easy
targets for predatory lenders. They are more inclined to use check
cashing places to cash Social Security checks or get a payday loan.
All sorts of circumstances cause people to borrow under conditions
that are to their own disadvantage.
The delinquency rates on subprime loans have been 10 times higher
than what one would expect because the subprime lenders often looked
at real estate loans as a profit center. If the homeowner cannot pay
the loan back, the lender would foreclose, resell the property and
recycle the profit.
The bottom line is I don't know how much worse it is going to get
before it starts to get better. We are due for another round of
banking regulatory reform. Whether or not any of those measures will
have the desired effect of cleansing this beast I don't know. But
there are still a lot of people who are suffering from the worst
predatory lending. A lot of seniors are being victimized by the
practice.
|