Why is the Financial Meltdown Happening?

Every news program has some half-wit finance expert with their own theory of how this all happened (CNBC being one of the most egregious offenders). Most of these theories are only vaguely based in fact and look for someone outside of the financial industry to blame.  Well, I plan on providing a simple explanation of the major factors behind this crisis.

First, I will start with the favorite excuse of the financial pundits…short selling.  This is a very poor reason for the current financial crisis.  Short selling has been around forever and if done legally, a short seller has to find someone who already owns the shares to lend them the shares for the short sale.  The mechanics of this process makes it almost impossible for someone to sink a company with a solid balance sheet.

The one exception is naked short selling, which has been occurring.  This essentially means the short seller is shorting shares he/she has not borrowed from a current owner.  This allows a short seller to build up a short position that is much larger than normal, over a shorter period of time, which can put extra pressure on the company’s stock price.  This pressure by itself is still not enough to sink a quality company, but it might be enough to push a bad company over the edge.

The second and more important reason for this financial calamity is the quality of the financial products owned by these institutions.  This has been covered ad nauseam, so I will just say they (Wall Street) had a lot of really bad loans on their books.

Now we come to the final and most important reason by far, which is excessive leverage (poor management).  All banks/financial institutions are required to have a certain ratio of debt-to-net capital.  This keeps risk in check and prevents a major economic catastrophe, like bad mortgages, from destroying our financial institutions. 

Here is an excerpt from the Big Picture (Barry Ritholtz), who is also quoting Julie Satow from the NY Sun:

As we learn this morning from Julie Satow of the NY Sun, special exemptions from the SEC are in large part responsible for the huge build up in financial sector leverage — and the current massive unwind.

Satow interviews the above quoted former SEC director, and he spits out the blunt truth: The current excess leverage now unwinding was the result of a purposeful SEC exemption given to five firms. The SEC allowed these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that require broker dealers limit their debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1.

Instead, they levered up 30 and even 40 to 1.

Almost 3 times more leverage than what is considered safe.  This is not surprising at all given the extreme profitability of these firms over the past few years.  They used this extra leverage to make enormous sums of money, but in the end it appears to have been too risky. 

Now let’s take a look at who was given this special exemption (quoted from the Big Picture):

  1. Bear Stearns (failed and bought) - Big surprise here.  Who would have thought the first major financial house to go under was doing something foolish.
  2. Merrill Lynch (failed and bought) - Wow!  Another surprise.
  3. Lehman Brothers (bankrupt) - This is just the most unlucky industry on the face of the planet!
  4. Morgan Stanley - How shaky is Morgan?
  5. Goldman Sachs - Is it possible the New England Patriots of Wall Street have a flaw?

Ignore most of the talking heads and all the fools from congress, and focus on what actually happened, which was the DESTRUCTION of REASON on Wall Street by the financial firms and the SEC/Fed/Treasury.  However, they cannot shoulder all the blame, as this DESTRUCTION of REASON was carried over from Main Street.  We have to carry some of the blame as we allowed reason to be destroyed in the public sphere way before it was destroyed on Wall Street. 

Platoon

Chris Taylor: Somebody once wrote: “Hell is the impossibility of reason.” That’s what this place feels like. Hell.

5 Comment(s)

  1. Thanks for that excellent post! That’s a great explanation of how this all works. Another thing I’m curious about is about regular banks. As banks were increasingly lending mortgage money in riskier and riskier loans, could there have been a call by regulators to make banks INCREASE their capital ratios if they had X number of sub-prime loans? Would that have been the call of regulators like FDIC or OCC or would that mandate have had to come from the Fed or Congress? Who was asleep at this wheel here?

    Retired Syd | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply

  2. Your welcome. I’m glad I could help.

    Concerning your question, yes, the regulators could call for an increase in reserves at almost any time. It would be the Fed who would make the call to raise or lower reserve requirements. However, this only applies to traditional banks, it does not apply to investment banks like Bear, Lehman, Goldman, etc. The SEC would handle the investment banks, which are not as regulated as traditional banks. Needless to say, this will probably change.

    Also, raising reserves right now would not be a good idea, nor would it help. The banks would not be able to raise the additional capital, as no one trusts them at this point in time. If they could raise the capital, this crisis would not be nearly as bad.

    Chad | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply

  3. Thanks. I was thinking actually back a couple years when the alarm bells were starting to go off about sub-prime mortgages. Perhaps if the regulators said, for banks that have significant exposure to sub-prime investments (either directly through loans of through investments in products that held them), they will be required to slowly, over a period of a few years, increase their reserves.

    This would have had a dampening effect on lending and also the housing market–however, perhaps that slow effect on the credit markets would have been preferable to the extreme result we are encountering now, both through banks and investment banking products. (In other words, if that call had been made in conjunction with the call by the SEC NOT to have excepted those 5 investment banking institutions from those capital requirements, perhaps we would have experienced a softer landing here.)

    Retired Syd | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply

  4. Slowly raising the reserves over the last four to five years would have really helped prevent the enormous downward swing we are seeing right now. However, everyone was making too much money from all the new debt instruments, so the government would have been afraid to kill the golden goose at the time.

    Our government and Wall Street are too intertwined to function in a preventive mode.

    The easiest solution would be to pass a law requiring the originator of the loan to keep the loan. You could bet your retirement savings if they had to keep the loans they would have done the appropriate due diligence. Instead the created an entirely new debt system that was outside much of the current laws and regs.

    Chad | Sep 19, 2008 | Reply

  5. Check out this RAP music video about the financial meltdown. Pretty educational, and funny.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrBuPsvbHB8

    Michael Bird | Oct 11, 2008 | Reply

1 Trackback(s)

  1. Sep 21, 2008: from Your Spouse Has Debt and A Spending Addiction: Avoid A Bailout

Post a Comment