Don't know, Michael. Enron presumably would have also involved the auditors
and, possibly, the banks could have used them as a shield.  

Maybe it would be interesting to elaborate a little on the element of
residual risk that I mentioned. From what I've read the practice of
overvaluing collateral real estate and the creditworthiness of borrowers was
fairly widespread (whatever that means as a percentage of loans, I'm
unsure). Anyway, after underwriting these arguably fraudulent loans, they
were securitized and sold off by the investment banks much like stocks or
bonds. Typically, the IBs had a "fixed Income research" department which
specialized in the financial engineering and design of these mortgage-backed
securities. Anyway, a key point it seems is that once these instruments were
sold off, there was an assumption that neither the originator nor
underwriter bore any further financial risk. From a regulatory viewpoint,
these assets had been sold and were no longer on the banks' balance sheets.
They no longer required any capital support. All of this is predicated on
the assumption that the banks had truly performed "due diligence" and they
therefore had no contingent liabilities, something that might subsequently
be refuted if fraud were shown.

Now, I don't know about the actual quantities, but the way the process
worked causes me some concern. Consider that these institutions inherently
have high rates of asset turnover: e.g., a mortgage might be originated and
within weeks be incorporated into a security along with many other mortgages
and sold off. As a result, an originator/underwriter might well sell several
times its total assets worth of MBS in a single year. Moreover, we had
sustained low interest rates and there was a flood of mortgage underwritings
over several years. As a result, the ratio of total
originations/underwritings over the time period to capital would be very
large. Thus, it would not seem to take a large percentage of fraudulent
loans in the total outstanding to wipe out the banks' capital.

Peter Hollings

-----Original Message-----
From: Perelman, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Progressive Economics
Subject: RE: [Pen-l] Is this true

Didn't the recent case in which the University of California unsuccessfully
tried to sue the banks regarding Enron put the bar for such liability pretty
high?


Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Hollings
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:06 AM
To: 'Progressive Economics'
Subject: RE: [Pen-l] Is this true

Banks may also have a liability to mortgage holders other than themselves if
it can be shown that there was fraud in the underwriting process, such as
excessively high appraisals of the collateral, the creditworthiness of
borrowers, etc.

Peter Hollings 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laurent GUERBY
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 9:53 AM
To: Progressive Economics
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Is this true

On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 09:14 -0400, Shane Mage wrote:

> Of that $11 trillion most is not "subprime."  So the question is how 
> much equity underlies that $11 trillion, certainly not as little as 
> 100%!  And so the potential writedown has to be much less than that
> $1.375 trillion.

The question for this crisis is "subprime or not" but "equity or not".

Even prime borrowers don't like to pay debt which is more than the value of
their house and no hope having the value go back fast enough. Some of them
will keep paying, some will likely try hard not to pay which means huge
legal fees for bank and big stress on the justice system given the number of
households with negative equity. I read 8 millions households somewhere and
the number is going up when house prices go down.

Laurent
http://guerby.org/blog/


_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to