IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
|
As far as punditry goes, I think it is exaggerated.
As far as I know, there's about $10 trillion of US mortgages in total, of which
nearly 14% subprime. Of those 14% a third is subject to variable interest rates,
which is just under 5% of the total mortgages. There were a lot of
foreclosures already in previous years, as Bernanke pointed out, but now the
number of foreclosures is roughly doubling, that's the first problem.
In 2007 about 40% of the mortgagers reached their
higher interest rate, and in 2008 another 40% or so faces the same. The Dutch
Reserve Bank estimates the aggregate losses in the US at $200 billion max,
Deutsche Bank $400 billion max, and the Royal Bank of Scotland $500 billion max,
presumably spread over several years. Meantime, something like $60
billion has actually been written off. Obviously
the mortgagers may have some equity in the foreclosed property, and the
homes themselves have a market value, but for all the financial claims
additionally staked on the original loans there is no collateral, because they
hinge on a future earning power which has disappeared.
Neighbourhoods with the highest rates of subprime
lending have black and Hispanic workingclass majorities, while the areas with
the lowest rates are mainly white middleclass, and it's mainly the black
and Hispanic areas in which the defaults are occurring. When the Federal
Reserve from 2004 required lenders to provide specific data on subprime
loans, the finance industry fought successfully to keep the risk profile of
borrowers, including credit scores, secret. Many subprime loans were in
fact not even intended to be affordable over the long term, but
rather, to be refinanced, before their initial "teaser" rates rose, on the basis
that the market value of the houses would have increased by then. The
lenders had no particular stake in extending loans which they knew would be
defaulted on. But if market prices for houses drop, and
credit facilities tighten, the borrowers are stuck with loans they
cannot repay.
The real problem is (1) that for roughly half
the "bad" loans it is not even clear who owns the contracts staked on them, and
because nobody wants to be associated with bad lending practice, reliable
information is hard to get and (2) the problem triggers all sorts of financial
fears, which leads to a credit squeeze and to investors withdrawing funds all
over the place, because of loss of confidence in the markets. (3)
it combines with a number of other circumstances, such as the declining
exchange rate of the US dollar, rising oil prices, reduced inflow of foreign
capital, inflationary pressures, and a fall-off in consumer spending.
Credit is a marvellously flexible instrument which
allows one to displace the costs of current activity constantly in space
and time. But all depends on the capacity of borrowers to repay, and the
compulsion for them to repay. If they cannot repay, and they are not
compelled to repay, the credit system starts to squeeze. Lenders become more
conservative, at the very least. When they talk about "healthy economic
fundamentals" they just mean that people can continue to pay
sufficiently.
Although there is a lot of "slack" in the
capitalist system (idle funds), the overall effect of a more conservative
stance must be declining output growth, on this all are agreed. By
itself, I think the financial magnitudes involved in the subprimes are not
sufficient to cause a recession by themselves, but in combination with other,
more important factors, it must produce another downturn. EU real GDP
growth next year is likely to be around 2.1% or so, and it would not surprise me
if US GDP growth fell below 3%. But as Fred Moseley commented, nobody really
knows the total effects of the events.
A philosopher said to me once, "America likes to
gamble with the future of the world, inviting all to take some
more risk". Well, let's see how well America can gamble. PS - gambling
is not a democratic sport.
Jurriaan
|
- Re: [OPE-L] 2007 Deutscher Prize Winner, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] 2007 Deutscher Prize Winner, christopher arthur Tue 20 Nov 2007, 12:13 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] 2007 Deutscher Prize Winner, glevy Tue 20 Nov 2007, 15:17 GMT
- [OPE-L] Hungry in the world's richest country, Jurriaan Bendien Sun 18 Nov 2007, 00:38 GMT
- [OPE-L] Subprime mortgages, subprime currency, glevy Sat 17 Nov 2007, 11:54 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [OPE-L] Subprime mortgages, subprime currency, Jurriaan Bendien Sun 18 Nov 2007, 16:00 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Subprime mortgages, subprime currency, glevy Sun 18 Nov 2007, 17:33 GMT
- [OPE-L] Subprime mortgages, subprime currency, Jurriaan Bendien Mon 19 Nov 2007, 21:45 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Not A Reply to Michael S, GERALD LEVY Sat 17 Nov 2007, 11:36 GMT
- [OPE-L] What Would Jesus Buy?, GERALD LEVY Sat 17 Nov 2007, 00:53 GMT