Saturday, September 20, 2008

Taking Revenge on the Rich Will Not Bring Recovery

WSJ SEPTEMBER 20, 2008

By AMITY SHLAES

Police short sales and block them, says Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox. Fire the SEC chairman, says John McCain. Investigate those short sellers, say state attorneys general. Hold hearings to grill Wall Streeters says Nancy Pelosi. "Fire the whole Trickle-Down, On-Your-Own, Look-the-Other-Way crowd" says Barack Obama, and "get rid of this whole do-nothing approach to our economic problems." The Democratic presidential candidate wants public affirmation of his argument that the whole free-market philosophy of economics has been wrong.

Some of this talk carries an implicit suggestion: Do what I say or we will have another Great Depression. And no wonder: This September feels a lot like autumn 1929.

But there's an important fallacy here. The stock market crash of October 1929 and the Great Depression were not the same thing. What made the depression great was not magnitude but duration -- the fact that unemployment was still 20% 10 years later. In the 1930s, policies like the ones described above did not speed recovery; they impeded it.

Not long after the market crashed to 199 from its 381 high at the end of the summer of 1929, President Herbert Hoover turned on short sellers. Like our SEC, he demanded a curb on short sales. "Bear raids" or "bear parties" were to be stopped; the blame for the crash all belonged to "certain gentlemen."

Then, as now, there was a lengthy discourse on the difference between "normal" short sales and "naked" ones. New York Stock Exchange President Richard Whitney argued that curtailing such sales postponed unavoidable pain -- or even made it greater.

It was wrong, he said, to vilify shorts. "Such a contract to deliver something in the future which a person does not own is common to many types of business," Whitney carefully spelled out in layman's language. "When a builder contracts to build a skyscraper he is literally short of every bit of material." Yet the anti-short and anti-Street mood grew. In a spirit every bit as zealous as Sen. McCain, lawmakers assigned attorney Ferdinand Pecora to lead a commission hunting for wrongdoing on Wall Street.

Most observers have concentrated on the corruption that was indeed uncovered by investigators. Whitney, for example, discredited his own argument when he emerged later as a trickster and embezzler.

But the most important fact about this early period is the Dow's movement. Clean-up pronouncements cheered voters, and momentarily, the Dow Jones Index rose a bit later in 1929. But the hostility whipped up by politicians scared a market already well spooked by monetary, banking and international challenges. By summer 1932 the Dow plummeted to the 50s range. This was the year Hoover created the Reconstruction Finance Corp., after which Washington's rescue entity of today is supposedly modeled.

In 1933 there was a moment when the U.S. really did seem poised for recovery -- the moment of Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration. Confronting the banking crisis, President Roosevelt did what President Bush, Congress and the Treasury are likely to do in coming days: create a mechanism to sort out banks and their holdings, to separate good assets from bad.

Such an office can shorten a crisis -- the Resolution Trust Corporation, created to deal with the 1980s Savings and Loan debacle did. There was nothing necessarily partisan about the process. Hoover's Treasury secretary, Ogden Mills, and Roosevelt's new Treasury secretary, William Woodin, sat together at the task, just as Republicans and Democrats presumably will now. The establishment of the SEC in 1934 likewise set the country up for recovery.

But like today's politicians, Roosevelt also used the downturn as a weapon to trash markets generally. The New Dealers even used the same mocking phrases Mr. Obama does today. The rich might think that wealth trickled down, Roosevelt's speechwriter Sam Rosenman would later note, but "Roosevelt believed that prosperity did not 'trickle' that way."

In 1933 and 1934, Roosevelt went on the attack. The Sergey Brin of the 1920s was Samuel Insull, the Chicago utilities magnate who created the format for the modern electrical grid, taught housewives about refrigerators, employed thousands and proved it was possible for the private sector to raise the prodigious amounts of cash necessary for utilities, the most capital-hungry of industries. But the credit crunch killed off Insull's leveraged companies, rendering shareholder portfolios worthless.

Insull was extradited from Greece and hauled back to Chicago. A jury refused to convict him of fraud. But federal or state prosecutors continued to harry him until he died of a heart attack or stroke in 1938.

The deity of the markets, the Alan Greenspan of the 1929s, was Andrew Mellon. He served as Treasury secretary to Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. In 1932, while Mellon was still in office, a young Democratic Congressman from Texas -- Wright Patman -- launched a campaign to impeach him.

The Roosevelt administration was more systematic. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau instructed a staff lawyer, Robert Jackson, to prosecute Mellon for tax evasion. Jackson hesitated. Morgenthau, anticipating New York's Eliot Spitzer, insisted, saying, "You can't be too tough in this trial to suit me." Jackson then jumped up, exclaiming, "Thank God I have that kind of boss," as Morgenthau recounted in his memoirs.

A grand jury declined to indict Mellon. The government then began multiple actions against him. Exoneration came, but only after Mellon's death. Roosevelt put Jackson on the Supreme Court.

In these years, the market was trying to recover, but prosecutors and tax collectors kept getting in the way. Mrs. Pelosi might note that even after the Pecora Commission finally completed its hearings, unemployment was still 20% rather than 10%.

Roosevelt's first effort at raising wages to revive the economy, the National Recovery Administration, was declared unconstitutional. Next came the Wagner Act, which led to massive unionization. Wages increased and unemployment even dipped a bit, but productivity did not rise in commensurate fashion. This contributed to companies' struggles, as Lee Ohanian of UCLA has shown. Industrial production plunged. In 1938, John L. Lewis of the CIO attained the apogee of his power, but unemployment was again at that appalling two in 10.

The signal Washington emitted in these years was clear: Not Open for Business. A poignant moment came in August, 1937, when Mellon died in Southampton, N.Y. When this star of their old firmament winked out, investors felt themselves in uncharted waters. Other negatives -- rising labor costs, regulatory tightening, a doubling of reserve requirements for banks -- suddenly seemed insurmountable. The market dropped from 189 in August to 120 by the next February, well below the lowest ebb in 1929.

A desperate Treasury Secretary Morgenthau traveled to New York to placate a crowd of 1,000 economists and businessmen at the Hotel Astor in November, 1937. The audience laughed at him for daring to try. By the next year the New Dealers were quietly telling themselves their anti-wealth experiment was over -- and turning to the impending war in Europe.

The point for us in our own fragile moment is clear. To be sure, clean up is necessary. It can even help the market -- some. But in the long run what works politically is different from what works economically. Revenge, however sweet, cannot bring recovery.

Ms. Shlaes, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" (HarperCollins, 2007).

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Maybe the Banks Are Just Counting Wrong

WSJ SEPTEMBER 20, 2008

Maybe the Banks Are Just Counting Wrong

By JOHN BERLAU

In the year since the credit crunch began, reading the financial pages has become a bit like perusing a medical journal. Market epidemiologists speculate where the financial "contagion" will strike next.

First it hit subprime mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Then asset-backed commercial paper and auction-rate securities. Then the epidemic spread to whole financial firms like Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie and Lehman Brothers. This week the insurance giant American International Group got the inoculation of a $85 billion federal loan, and now there is talk of creating a giant government agency to buy billions of dollars of illiquid debt from various financial firms.

The method of disease transmission is still somewhat of a mystery. The latest mortgage delinquency rate is just 6.4% -- historically high, but not anywhere close to the mortgage default rate of over 40% in the depths of the Great Depression.

Helping to spread the contagion is a relatively new accounting method called "mark to market." For decades, lenders used historical cost accounting, meaning that a loan would be booked at its cost at the time it was made. Payments would be recorded as they came in, and the book value of the loan would only change if it was sold or became impaired, perhaps because of default.

The pressure to change this method came after the collapse of U.S. savings and loans in the 1980s, and the Japanese banking crisis of the '90s. Regulators and accounting bodies argued that traditional accounting allowed banks to "hide" bad assets on their books, and that financial instruments needed to be valued based on what they would trade for in a market today.

So over the past decade, various mark-to-market accounting rules became part of the official U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and began to be required by the Securities and Exchange Commission, bank regulatory agencies, credit rating agencies and in the Basel II international framework for measuring bank solvency.

This supposed "reform" is exacerbating the current crisis. Markets for individual loans are still much thinner than for stocks and bonds. The market for securitized loans with unique features is even thinner, and a disruptive event can cause these markets to virtually disappear. As a result, if a highly leveraged bank sells a mortgage-backed security at a steep discount, this becomes the "market price."

Financial Accounting Standard 157, which U.S. regulatory agencies put into effect last November, requires accountants to look at market "inputs" from sales of similar financial assets even if there isn't an active trading market. That means that less-leveraged banks holding mortgages that haven't been impaired often have to adjust their books based on another bank's sale -- even if they plan to hold their loans to maturity. Yale finance Prof. Gary Gorton wrote in a paper presented last month at the Federal Reserve's summer symposium: "With no liquidity and no market prices, the accounting practice of 'marking-to-market' became highly problematic and resulted in massive write-downs based on fire-sale prices and estimates."

These write-downs, based on accounting standards, can jeopardize balance sheets and solvency -- much like a spreading contagion. In effect, a single bank's fire sale can decrease the "regulatory capital" (or the total dollar value of assets that government regulations require banks and other financial institutions to keep as a reserve to immediately make good on their obligations to depositors and other creditors) of others. So "partly as a result of GAAP capital declines, banks are selling . . . billions of dollars of assets -- to 'clean up their balance sheets,'" notes Mr. Gorton, creating a "downward spiral of prices, marking down -- selling -- marking down again."

These rules also affect credit insurance of the type that AIG was providing. As Barron's reported earlier this year, because of the ongoing fire sales of mortgage instruments, "accountants were forcing AIG to boost its fourth-quarter write-down of the value of its credit insurance on a large mortgage security portfolio from $1.6 billion to $5.2 billion." Barron's also noted that AIG was "likely looking at even bigger mark-to-market hits" later on.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has pushed through many creative measures attempting to shore up the financial system. But he won't budge on mark-to-market accounting. "I think it's hard to run a financial institution if you don't have the discipline which requires you to mark securities to market," he declared in a speech at the New York Public Library in July. Financial firms, he said, shouldn't expect much relief.

But relatively simple changes to mark-to-market rules, like suspending the rules for illiquid but performing loans if a firm meets other solvency requirements, would lead to more accurate information and could quell demands for more "emergency" bailouts such as that of AIG. This kind of reform should be a top priority of any new administration promising "change."

Mr. Berlau is director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI associate Al Canata contributed to this article.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Want to understand what a bank run is?

The crisis we're experiencing in the financial markets is, in many ways, the 21st century version of a bank run or panic. It'll be a few weeks before we're ready to cover banking in class, but you can learn a lot about bank runs by watching this 7 minute clip from the 1940s movie "It's a Wonderful Life."

Friday, September 19, 2008

Investors Flee Money Funds, Moving Cash to Safer Spots

WSJ SEPTEMBER 19, 2008

Investors pulled more cash out of money-market funds, prompting a second large fund to close to investors, amid concern that these onetime safe harbors are now too risky.

In an effort to stem such withdrawals, the U.S. government Thursday night was working toward taking the unprecedented step of covering money-market funds with a variation of the federal deposit insurance provided to banks.

Until now, the $3.4 trillion money-market-fund industry largely hasn't offered the same type of insurance provided for bank deposits. The plan being discussed likely would cap the amount insured, just as bank accounts are insured up to a certain sum, usually $100,000.

The moves highlight how concerned regulators have become about the rapid outflows from money funds in recent days. Money funds serve as buyers for so-called commercial paper, which companies use to help finance daily operations.

As credit markets locked up world-wide, investors have started moving their cash from money funds to safer locales, such as U.S. Treasurys and bank certificates of deposit. A run on money funds would have implications for corporations that depend on short-term funding such as commercial paper. If the funds don't buy this paper, it could cause a cash crunch, rippling through the wider economy. (See related Credit Markets story.)

Some $78.7 billion was withdrawn from large money funds Wednesday, following a $13 billion outflow Monday and $33.7 billion Tuesday, according to Crane Data LLC. Investors continued to pull money out of some funds Thursday.

Putnam Prime Money Market Fund (Institutional) announced it had closed Wednesday and would distribute assets to customers because of "market-wide liquidity issues." That apparently meant it was having trouble trading the short-term debt instruments in its portfolio due to the credit crunch. The $12.3 billion fund, available only to clients with a $10 million minimum investment, said it held no paper from such problem issuers as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Washington Mutual Inc. or American International Group Inc.

The run on money funds was touched off earlier this week with the closing of Reserve Primary Fund, thanks to its soured Lehman securities. Two-thirds of the Reserve fund's assets were cashed out Monday and Tuesday.

The Reserve offering jolted the investment world when it "broke the buck" -- that is, losses pushed its net asset value below the $1-per-share standard for these funds. In a statement Thursday evening, The Reserve said that investors who want to redeem from its nearly 20 remaining money funds wouldn't get their money back for as many as seven days. It wasn't clear whether investors would be paid $1 per share.

Breaking the buck remains rare. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.'s $22 billion BNY Institutional Cash Reserve Fund, which isn't registered as a money fund, said its net asset value slipped to 99 cents Tuesday, though it says it since has isolated Lehman assets that helped drag it down. Putnam Prime, though, didn't break the buck.

Putnam's board of trustees was to meet to come up with a plan for distribution to customers, mostly corporations and other institutions. Although the plan hasn't been finalized, said Robert Reynolds, the president and chief executive officer of the Boston firm, customers likely will be offered a choice. One choice would be to allow Putnam to sell debt securities in the portfolio over time, in a methodical way, and eventually cash out investors with the proceeds. Or they could get stable debt securities from the portfolio, such as from Bank of America Corp.

Mr. Reynolds, the former Fidelity Investments chief operating officer who joined Putnam 10 weeks ago, said the company became concerned Wednesday when corporate customers began pulling cash from the fund. He said he believed the pressure would get worse.

Departing holders of Reserve Primary Fund could get out Monday at the full $1 per share, Tuesday at 97 cents and after that would have to wait, and may receive much less. A representative for The Reserve said the net asset value hasn't been calculated since Tuesday.

Some of the money in the Reserve fund and others is tied to mutual funds' securities lending. Another source of fund money comes from "sweep accounts," through which brokerage customers' spare cash is automatically deposited in a money fund.

That was the case for Rob Hotchkiss, 47 years old, a founding member of the Grammy-winning band Train. He has about $52,000 stuck in Reserve Primary, because of his sweep account with broker TD Ameritrade Inc. "How much money can I end up losing here?" he asked. A spokeswoman for TD Ameritrade said it is working with The Reserve to redeem client assets.

Unlike Reserve, larger financial companies, like Putnam, are able to bolster their money funds by pumping in capital to maintain the $1 net asset value.

Because of this size advantage, some of the bigger money-fund managers say investors aren't panicking. Vanguard Group and JPMorgan Funds are seeing inflows in their large money-market funds, representatives said.

Commercial-Paper Market Seizes Up

Commercial-Paper Market Seizes Up

By ANUSHA SHRIVASTAVA

The commercial-paper market, where companies go for short-term funding, broke down Thursday as credit fears paralyzed investors.

These investors include money-market funds, which face redemptions from customers concerned that their money is no longer safe.

"We are not functioning in the short-term credit market," said Howard Simons, a strategist with Bianco Research in Chicago. "We have issuers who can't issue and buyers who won't buy. How can this market function?"

[Chart]

Earlier this week, troubles at American International Group Inc. caused many investors to concentrate their buying in extremely short-term paper that carried a one-day maturity. By Thursday, however, even that buying dried up.

There is a "buyers' strike," one trader at a primary dealer said. "There is a snowballing effect when people get nervous and want to get their money out of money-market funds," he said, noting that these funds then can no longer invest in the commercial-paper market.

Tuesday's announcement that the Reserve Primary Fund "broke the buck" -- its net asset value fell below $1 -- sent a shudder through the money-market community. Thursday, Putnam Funds said it has closed its institutional Putnam Prime Money Market Fund following a surge of redemption requests.

"With money-market funds having redemption issues and big dealers disappearing, this market cannot work," Mr. Simons said, adding that some of the big dealers on Wall Street, such as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., are gone, too.

"It's symptomatic of the chaos that's going on," he said. "We are taking institutions apart."

Investors have demanded higher premiums for investing in commercial paper, and even then, mainly bought paper that matured in just one day. Rates shot up to between 5% and 8% on overnight paper, from a little more than 2% the week before.

Even triple-A-rated companies, such as International Business Machines Corp., had to pay 6% in the overnight commercial-paper market, said Thomas Corona, a senior vice president at Tradition Asiel Securities Inc.

The commercial-paper market shrank by $52.1 billion in the week ended Wednesday, according to data from the Federal Reserve. This is the largest weekly decline since December.

Alan Greenspan on Treasury's rescue plan

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=861295870

Overview of the week's events - David Faber (CNBC)

Overview of the week's events - David Faber (CNBC)