Author: James Kwak

The Two Sides of the Balance Sheet

Noam Scheiber at The New Republic has the inside scoop (hat tip Ezra Klein) on why Treasury is letting the Public-Private Investment Program die a quiet death (although at this point the legacy securities component may still go ahead). In short, the argument is that the point of PPIP was to help banks raise capital by cleaning up their balance sheets; since they have been able to raise capital themselves, there is no need for PPIP. According to one person Scheiber spoke to: “If you had asked–I don’t want to speak for the secretary–what’s problem number one? I think he’d say capital. Problem two? Capital. Problem three? Capital.”

This represents the latest swing of the pendulum between the two sides of the balance sheet. As anyone still reading about the financial crisis is probably aware, a balance sheet has two sides. On the left there are assets; on the right there are liabilities and equity; equity = assets minus liabilities. (There are different definitions of capital, depending on what subset of equity you use.)

Continue reading “The Two Sides of the Balance Sheet” →

Benefits of Size?

Felix Salmon points out that Bank of America can now charge customers overdraft fees ten times a day (up from five). (Read the original Washington Post article if you want to be aggravated.) Well, I can do one better.

I recently had to track down some past bank records. Local banks? No problem, no fee. At Bank of America, however, they insisted on charging me $5 per page – even though they were breaking a state law forbidding them from charging a fee. (All I’ll say is that they weren’t allowed to charge a fee because of the characteristics of the person I was getting the records for and the purpose for which he needed the records.) I pointed out to the drone at the bank that she was breaking the law, but she insisted she couldn’t do anything about it and we would have to sue them to get the money back. And I believe her; the problem is almost certainly that requests go from the local branch to some central processing center, and there is no way for the local branch to tell the central processing center not to deduct the fee from your account.

Now perhaps this central processing center setup reduces costs for Bank of America. But do they charge lower mortgage rates? No. Do they offer higher savings rates? No. Are they too big to fail? Absolutely. Do things have to be this way?

Update: Some people have pointed out that you don’t actually have to sue B of A to get your money back. That is correct. In my state you can send them a demand letter and they should pay you. However, the problem is that because you are dealing with your bank, they can just deduct the money from your account and force you to fight them to get it back. And most people don’t want to deal with that.

By James Kwak

The Cost of Life

Mark Thoma links to a medical paper that brings up the issue that few people want to talk about: at what point is the cost of medical care to extend life not justified? Like Thoma, I don’t have a great answer, except to point out that in a world of scarce resources, the answer cannot be that any effort to extend life by any small amount is always a good idea. (And as David Leonhardt explained, our health care system is certainly constrained by scarce resources, whether we like it or not.)

I just have one observation and one recommendation.

The observation is that our political and legal systems already put price tags on life routinely. If you die on the job, the workers’ compensation system calculates how much your life was worth; if you are killed as a result of someone else’s negligence, the tort system does the same. In either case, the calculation is primarily based on your expected earnings for the rest of the life; in other words, young high-earners are worth more than old poor people. And for virtually everyone, the number you end up with is much less than the value implied by the cancer treatment discussed in the paper Thoma cites.

I’m no fan of that system. I’m just surprised that as a society we can be so brutal and inegalitarian in one sphere and so touchy in another (health care, where the thought that any life-extending treatment might be too expensive is probably considered morally abhorrent by most people).

The recommendation is that if you are interested in this issue, you should listen to Dr. Robert Martensen on Fresh Air. Martensen is not only a doctor and a bioethicist, but at the time of the interview I believe (my memory might be failing me) he was dealing with the imminent death of one of his parents, and the medical choices involved.

By James Kwak

Debating the Public Plan

Greg Mankiw weighs in directly (as opposed to beating around the bush) on the public plan. Here’s the summary:

Recall a basic lesson of economics: A market participant with a dominant position can influence prices in a way that a small, competitive player cannot. . . .

If the government has a dominant role in buying the services of doctors and other health care providers, it can force prices down. Once the government is virtually the only game in town, health care providers will have little choice but to take whatever they can get. . . .

To be sure, squeezing suppliers would have unpleasant side effects. Over time, society would end up with fewer doctors and other health care workers. The reduced quantity of services would somehow need to be rationed among competing demands. Such rationing is unlikely to work well. . . .

A competitive system of private insurers, lightly regulated to ensure that the market works well, would offer Americans the best health care at the best prices.

Whenever someone uses the phrase “basic lesson of economics” when discussing the U.S. health care system, you should be suspicious. As Paul Krugman says, “the standard competitive market model just doesn’t work for health care: adverse selection and moral hazard are so central to the enterprise that nobody, nobody expects free-market principles to be enough.”

Continue reading “Debating the Public Plan” →

The Paradox of Strategic Defaults

Real Time Economics and Calculated Risk both discuss new research by Paola Sapienza, Luigi Zingales, and Luigi Guiso on homeowners defaulting on mortgages even though they have the money to pay them. According to their research, 17% of households would default when their negative equity reaches 50% of the house’s value. The argument is that public policy has not sufficiently addressed this problem, focusing instead on homeowners who cannot afford their mortgages.

Let’s make this a little more concrete. Let’s say you bought a house with zero money down for $300,000 in early 2006. A few years later, the house is now worth $200,000, so your negative equity is 50% of the market value. Yet only 17% of people in your situation would walk away from the house. The other 83% would continue to pay the mortgage,  essentially throwing money away. Apparently people value the transaction costs of moving and the damage to their credit ratings at $100,000 (I think my numbers are approximately on the right scale – if anything they are probably low) – even after the fact that you can live in a house for free for several months before being evicted.

Or people are not as rational as economists would assume.

By James Kwak

The Danger of Discretion

Justin Fox says that financial regulation should be simpler and should give less discretion to regulators.

The argument goes like this: the biggest flaw in current financial regulation is not that there is too little of it or too much, but that it relies on regulators knowing best. We regulate because financial systems are fragile, prone to booms and busts that can have harmful effects on the real economy. But regulators aren’t immune to the boom-bust cycle. They have an understandable habit of easing up when times are good and cracking down when they’re not.

As I’ve said before, the Obama Administration’s plan is likely to give us more sophisticated regulation, but if it doesn’t give us more powerful regulators with more incentive to stand up to the industry, all the sophistication in the world won’t matter. Regulators didn’t use the tools they had – the Fed could have policed risky mortgages (and raised interest rates), the bank regulators could have insisted on higher capital requirements, etc. – because they lacked the motivation to use them in the face of overwhelming opposition from the banking industry and, probably, the power to resist Congress and the administration, whichever party controlled them.

As Ezra Klein puts it: “When evaluating a particular financial regulation proposal, ask yourself this question: Would these regulations have worked if Alan Greenspan hadn’t wanted to implement them?” That’s a good question, although it’s a bit unfair: if you posit a regulator who doesn’t believe in regulation, then virtually any regulatory scheme is bound to fail. This is why Fox and Klein argue for ironclad rules that don’t leave room for discretion. In addition, though, I think we also need to think about how to make sure we get regulators who are not cheerleaders for or captives of the financial services industry.

By James Kwak

Questions about Doctors

Greg Mankiw posts data showing that doctors in the U.S. make much more than doctors elsewhere. From a 1999 paper by Uwe Reinhardt, among others:

As a dollar amount, U.S. per capita spending for physician services was the highest in the OECD in 1999: $988, compared with an OECD median of $342. . . .

In 1996, the most recent year for which data are available for multiple countries, the average U.S. physician income was $199,000. The comparable OECD median physician income was $70,324.* The ratio of the average income of U.S. physicians to average employee compensation for the United States as a whole was about 5.5. Germany’s was the next highest, at only 3.4; Canada, 3.2; Australia, 2.2; Switzerland, 2.1; France, 1.9; Sweden, 1.5; and the United Kingdom, 1.4.

Continue reading “Questions about Doctors” →

Conventional Wisdom About Credit Default Swaps

I originally published this post over at The Hearing on Monday, but it feels more like a Baseline Scenario kind of post.

One part of the Obama Administration’s financial reform plan is tighter regulation of credit default swaps – those previously unregulated derivatives that brought down AIG and nearly the entire financial sector with it. One of the problems with AIG was that its regulators were apparently unaware that it had amassed a huge, one-sided portfolio of credit default swaps that amounted to a massive bet the economy would do just fine; another problem was that, because credit default swaps were “over the counter,” custom transactions between individual private parties, they created a large amount of counterparty risk – the risk that the party you were trading with might not be there to honor the trade.

In response, the administration proposes to “require clearing of all standardized OTC derivatives through regulated central counterparties (CCPs).” In addition, “regulated financial institutions should be encouraged to make greater use of regulated exchange-traded derivatives.” Major players in the market will also be subject to conservative capital requirements (making sure they have enough money in case their trades go badly) and reporting requirements. These provisions aim to increase regulatory oversight and minimize the chances that a derivatives dealer will fail and take its counterparties down with it, and as far as they go they are a good thing.

However, there is one potential loophole that, according to UCLA law professor Lynn Stout (on Friday’s Morning Edition), is “potentially big enough to put the state of Texas into.” The loophole is that “customized bilateral OTC derivatives transactions” would remain out of the reach of both exchanges and CCPs.

Continue reading “Conventional Wisdom About Credit Default Swaps” →

Goldman’s Best Year Ever?

A reader pointed me to this story in The Guardian citing Goldman insiders saying this could be the investment bank’s most profitable year ever.

Staff in London were briefed last week on the banking and securities company’s prospects and told they could look forward to bumper bonuses if, as predicted, it completed its most profitable year ever. Figures next month detailing the firm’s second-quarter earnings are expected to show a further jump in profits.

A couple months back I said that it would be unlikely for the banks to repeat their spectacular first-quarter results in the second quarter, because it depended on fixed-income revenues being even higher than during the peak of the boom. It looks like I was wrong.

Like most things, there are two ways to interpret this. For the optimists, if some of the big banks are making big profits, that gets us back to a normally functioning financial sector sooner and reduces the chance that they will face a panic in the short term. As many people have pointed out, including us, this is basically the Obama Administration’s strategy.

For the pessimists, the phoenix-rising-from-the-ashes profitability of the big banks is a direct result of massive government aid in the form of cheap money, liquidity programs, and let’s not forget the bailout of AIG; it’s also the result of reduced competition resulting from the consolidation of Bear Stearns into JPMorgan, the failure of Lehman, and the weakened state of Citigroup and Bank of America/Merrill. So the government bought a partially healthy banking sector (the big question is what Citi and B of A will report) with public funds, the few winners (Goldman, JPMorgan) are more powerful than ever, and the government is hoping to get an anemic regulatory reform package through Congress in exchange.

By James Kwak

Modeling Everything, Public Plan Edition

Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman are both highlighting Nate Silver’s analysis of campaign contributions and the public health plan option. The quick summary? Campaign contributions matter – in this case, by about nine senators. Mainly I’m impressed and encouraged that people can use publicly-available data to quickly whip together plausible models answering questions that otherwise we would all just pontificate about.

Coincidentally, I was getting my car inspected this morning and picked up an October 2008 copy of New York Magazine in the waiting room, which had an article about . . . Nate Silver. The article includes a picture of the presidential electoral map as Silver predicted on October 8, in which he called every state correctly except Missouri (which, remember, took a few weeks to figure out whom it had voted for). Most of the article is about how the empirical approach to baseball turns out to be useful in other areas, like politics and public policy.

Update: Mark Thoma points out this counterargument by Brendan Nyhan (who long ago wrote a blog with the brother of one of the best developers at my company). Nyhan says “studies have typically found minimal effects of campaign contributions on roll call votes in Congress,” and cites a Journal of Economic Perspectives paper as backup.

OK, Nyhan may be right. But he may not be.

Continue reading “Modeling Everything, Public Plan Edition” →

Efficient Markets and Innovation

Our little Internet debate about reverse convertibles (my contribution here) prompted this post by Mike at Rortybomb. To simplify a little, some commentators defended reverse convertibles by saying, “it’s basically the same as writing a put option” – or, looking at it from the other side of the trade, “there are valid reasons to want insurance against a stock price falling.” To which Mike says, “just sell (or buy) the put option.”

But this is just a specific case of an important point that Mike has made before, but that is more clear when seen in the context of a specific security. Mike’s basic point is that efficient markets imply that financial innovation does not create value. The efficient markets hypothesis says that the prices of financial assets already reflect all available information; in other words, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Continue reading “Efficient Markets and Innovation” →

The McAllen Problem

What is the lesson of McAllen, Texas, the focus of Atul Gawande’s celebrated article (discussed here and here)? This is my attempt at an answer:

Currently, our health care system has high-cost and low-cost areas; the high-cost areas have no better outcomes than the low-cost areas. So theoretically we can solve our health care cost problem by making the high-cost areas behave like the low-cost areas.

However, the market incentives go in the other direction; the economically rational thing for providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) to do is to run up procedures and thereby costs. It would be better if providers focused more on patient outcomes or organized themselves into accountable care organizations, as Gawande prefers; but there is no economic reason for them to do so. People are not magically going to become more altruistic overnight. Even shame has only a temporary effect on behavior. Here’s Gail Wilensky from a Health Affairs roundtable:

It’s only by being able to offer compelling evidence that it’s the physician that is the outlier relative to his or her peers, that the patients really aren’t different, and in fact they are not having better outcomes, that you are able to pull back physician behavior — although there seems to be a high recidivism rate.

(Emphasis added.)

In some ways McAllen isn’t the aberration; according to the old Chicago economics department, everywhere should be like McAllen.

Remember all the people who said that you can’t blame mortgage brokers and investment bankers for being greedy, because that’s how a capitalist economy works? Well, you could make the same defense for the McAllen doctors. We long ago stopped expecting lawyers and accountants to behave contrary to their economic interests; now we simply expect them to conform to the law and to certain professional codes of conduct, and otherwise make as much money as possible. Why should we expect anything different from doctors?

In a capitalist economy, the thing that is supposed to keep prices in check is the buyers. If someone offers me a product that costs more than it is worth to me, then I won’t buy it. But we can’t count on patients to play this role in health care, because there is no way to make patients internalize all of the costs of their care; they simply don’t have the money. Furthermore, most people don’t understand the health production function (the relationship between treatments and outcomes), so they don’t have the ability to select treatments that provide benefits that are worth their costs. (And, in many cases, it’s not obvious even to professionals that a treatment isn’t worth the cost; it’s only obvious when you look at the data in aggregate.)

What about payers (health insurers?) A “market” solution would be to change the reimbursement rates for different procedures – increase payment for things that doctors should do more of and reduce payment for things that doctors should do less of. Theoretically, payers should be doing this already. However, in the current situation, a private payer who tried to reduce the rates for popular, expensive procedures would find itself unable to attract providers. The only payer with any real negotiating power is Medicare. The private payers have little ability to control costs. Or, if they have the ability, they aren’t exercising it.

In short, prices will only go up. As a result, the cost of health insurance goes up, and the market finally kicks in in the crudest possible form: people who can’t afford it become uninsured. At some point, if we have enough uninsured people, the health care industry will hit a point where it cannot increase revenues anymore, because it has fewer and fewer paying customers.

The proposed public health insurance plan would have the power to negotiate lower rates with providers. That’s why some providers don’t like it. That’s also why private payers don’t like it; they would be at a cost disadvantage to the public plan. (They can live with Medicare because Medicare leaves them the entire under-65 market.) Maybe that’s unfair. But the current situation isn’t working.

By James Kwak

Shadow Banking for Beginners

Last Friday, Mark Thoma wrote a guest post for The Hearing arguing that the “shadow banking system” was a significant contributor to the financial crisis and needed to be regulated. This prompted a series of posts either attacking or defending his position; for a rundown, see today’s Hearing post.

For now, I just want to highlight the analysis by Mike at Rortybomb (hat tip Mark Thoma). (Those who have read Gary Gorton’s new paper can probably skip this post.)  Mike points out that people mean at least three different things by “shadow banking system:”

1) Subprime lenders, who were not subject to the same regulatory burden as depository institutions.

2) A market that trades “informationally insensitive” debt as the result of the repo market and securitized debt as collateral. Where depositors are corporations and money market funds and where lenders are financial firms.

3) Traditional firms who took big bets in the investment markets while their regulators were not present or asleep at the wheel.

For Mike, #2 is the the one that matters. Here’s his explanation:

A bank is, in abstract, an institution that borrowers short and lends long.

Your local bank borrows short deposits and lends long investments. If it needs liquidity it can always go to the central bank’s discount window. The central bank’s discount window is the market maker of last resort for this banking system. [Regulated banks can always borrow money from the Fed at a pre-set interest rate, so they always have access to cash.] This prevents bank runs. In exchange it is regulated by the government.

Your local shadow bank took in money in the repo market as deposits, and used senior tranches of debt as the collateral. Now what happens when it needs liquidity? There is no market maker of last resort who the system as a whole could turn to. Repeat that again. It exists in the shadows, there is nowhere to turn to for emergency liquidity. There is no regulation/liquidity tradeoff here. This is what is meant by being unregulated – not that there weren’t any government agents in sight.

I’ll take that last paragraph a little slower. A repo, or repurchase agreement, is a transaction where one party (the “shadow bank”) sells some securities to another party (the “depositor”) in exchange for cash and simultaneously agrees to buy those securities back at a predetermined (higher) price at some date in the (near) future (like tomorrow). In effect, the depositor is lending cash to the shadow bank, and holding the securities as collateral; the difference in the two prices is the interest. It wants the collateral because nothing else is guaranteeing its loan to the shadow bank (as opposed to ordinary FDIC-insured deposits). The collateral is generally worth at least as much as the amount of the loan, to minimize the risk to the depositor; but the remaining risk is that the shadow bank won’t make good on the repo and the collateral will fall in value.

Why would this happen? The depositors do it because they get higher interest rates than they can get in an ordinary deposit account at a commercial bank. Why would the shadow bank offer higher interest rates? It wants to attract the cash so it can lend it out at a yet higher interest rate (“lend” here could mean buying up subprime mortgages to package into securities that are then used as the collateral for more repurchase agreements to start the cycle again); it doesn’t want to become a commercial bank because commercial banks were traditionally more highly regulated. For example, the major commercial banks were significantly less leveraged than the investment banks during the boom.

The problem that Mike highlights is that there was no liquidity backstop for the shadow banking system. So when the “depositors” got nervous about investment banks like Bear Stearns, they refused to roll over their repo agreements (that is, when the shadow bank closed a repo by buying back the securities, the depositor refused to lend new cash via a new repo), or they imposed a larger “haircut” – they lent less cash for the same amount of collateral. The result is a bank run – only this time the run is on the shadow bank. (Gorton focuses on a slightly different problem, which is that when the same collateral doesn’t bring in as much cash, you have to shrink your balance sheet by dumping assets.)

Mike’s analysis draws heavily on Gorton’s paper, which is helpfully summarized by Ezra Klein. The basic conclusion of both Mike and Gorton is that banking systems need to be reliable, the shadow banking system is a banking system, and hence the shadow banking system must be regulated to some degree. Robert Lucas, quoted in Mike’s post, puts it well:

The regulatory problem that needs to be solved is roughly this: The public needs a conveniently provided medium of exchange that is free of default risk or “bank runs.” The best way to achieve this would be to have a competitive banking system with government-insured deposits.

But this can only work if the assets held by these banks are tightly regulated. If such an equilibrium could be reached, it would still be possible for an institution outside this regulated system to offer deposits that are only slightly more risky but that also pay a higher return than deposits at the regulated banks. Some consumers and firms will find this attractive and switch their deposits. But if everyone does, the regulations will no longer protect anyone. The regulatory structure designed in the 1930s seemed to solve this problem for 60 years, but something else will be needed for the next 60.

By James Kwak

TARP for Rating Agencies

I would have thought that the credit rating agencies would be at least one group that everyone could agree to throw under the bus. We know that the powerful chieftains of Wall Street are trying to pin the credit crisis on rating agencies – see page 3 of JPMorgan’s blame-shifting attempt, for example. Yet the new Financial Regulatory Reform plan has almost nothing on the subject. Apparently the rating agencies, too, are Too Big to Fail.

Reuters catalogs the provisions relating to the rating agencies. Here’s the summary:

The plan urges Moody’s Corp’s Moody’s Investors Service, McGraw-Hill Cos Inc’ Standard & Poor’s and Fimalac SA’s Fitch Ratings and others to bolster the integrity of their ratings, especially in structured finance.

It also calls for reduced conflicts of interest and for regulators worldwide to tighten oversight.

But the blueprint does nothing to address what critics call the industry’s key shortcoming: That the biggest agencies are paid by issuers whose securities they rate, creating an incentive to win more business by assigning high ratings. . . .

“The overall impact of existing and proposed regulatory changes on rating agencies is extraordinarily easy to summarize: They reward abject failure,” said Jonathan Macey, deputy dean of Yale Law School.

Also see the Huffington Post, which has this understated but damning criticism: “Today, the agencies welcome the government proposals, saying that they favored improved ratings quality and transparency.”

Perhaps this is one area where Congress can improve on the administration’s plan.

Update: Krugman:

The plan says very little of substance about reforming the rating agencies, whose willingness to give a seal of approval to dubious securities played an important role in creating the mess we’re in.

By James Kwak

TARP for Regulators!

We’ve had TARP for banks, TARP for auto companies, and now, with the Obama Administration’s plan for financial regulatory reform, we have TARP for regulators. After AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and General Motors, the administration has decided that all the existing regulators are Too Big to Fail – except for the Office of Thrift Supervision, which must play the role of poor Lehman Brothers in this saga. (Actually, they are more like Merrill Lynch, since they are getting merged into the new National Bank Supervisor, so most of them will probably keep their jobs.)

There is actually a serious issue here, and one with no obvious solution. One question that has gotten a lot of ink, both before and after the unveiling of the plan yesterday, has been the identity of the systemic risk regulator: new agency? council of agencies? the Fed? What this really shows is that it’s easier for the media, the administration, and Congress to focus on the how the agency acronyms will be reshuffled, which is a bit like covering a sporting event, than on the underlying issues, like how to make those agencies more effective.

Continue reading “TARP for Regulators!” →