Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
34. Fannie and Freddie started buying mortgages in the 1980's. Securitization of mortgages was going
Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:51 PM
Jun 2014

along okay until Morgan Stanley invented the Credit Default Swap in 1997. Then, Phil Gramm, at the behest (not unremunerated) of Wall Street banks, made trading in CDS by banks unregulated (he slipped the Commodities Futures Modernization Act in as a rider to the Omnibus Spending Bill 2000 in the waning days of the last Clinton administration. Nobody even knew they were voting for the CFMA as they voted to fund the Government for the next year.). The CFMA made trading in CDSs legal AND UNREGULATED. CDSs made CDO tranches of high risk/return much more marketable as the CDSs would insure the investing fund that if his tranche went south the CDS he was holding would pay off and he would not lose his money! (that's the way it was supposed to work).

This made the securitization of high return (subprime) mortgages a hot market to be in (higher return with 'no' risk of loss of your investment, oh boy!). Wall street wanted all the subprime mortgages predatory lenders could flip. Wall Street banks leaned on credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody's) to give their CDOs ridiculous ratings to make them an easier sell (at better prices) to investors. Investors saw a chance to make higher returns without any additional risk - because they also bought a CDS to cover their investment in the high risk CDO. It was great fun. The party really got going about 2004 or so. It lasted about 4 more yrs and then it all blew up.


... but mortgages were written before securitization came along. But securitization is not a bad thing in itself. When the mortgage originator is able to off-load all the risk of a given mortgage, that incentivizes bad behavior. CDSs also makes selling high risk CDOs more marketable and this all needs to be regulated but especially the mortgage originator should not be allowed to off-load all the risk of a given mortgage.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That would be wonderful wonderful wonderful. truedelphi Jun 2014 #1
you've got that right. The blizzard of such commercials shows there's money to be made and Bill USA Jun 2014 #2
And such commercials at the other end ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #26
A thinking person can only imagine the "help" truedelphi Jun 2014 #43
does the dodd-frank 5% risk retention rule address your concern? unblock Jun 2014 #3
5% is a joke. My idea would end th predatory lender scam of writing bad mortgages only to flip them Bill USA Jun 2014 #4
No practice but the total cessation of mortgage lending will do that. Chan790 Jun 2014 #5
banks wrote mortgages and kept them on their books - for decades before securitization came along Bill USA Jun 2014 #8
That's what caused the depression. FBaggins Jun 2014 #12
securitization of mortgages didn't exist before 1970 - Bill USA Jun 2014 #16
That's not relevant to your claim. FBaggins Jun 2014 #20
Fannie and Freddie started buying mortgages in the 1980's. Securitization of mortgages was going Bill USA Jun 2014 #34
I don't know where you got that idea... it's simply wrong. FBaggins Jun 2014 #39
I was thinking of "mortgage securitization" which began in the 1970's by Fannie Mae Bill USA Jun 2014 #46
all banks hold only a fraction of their total loaned $s in liquid assets. Any bank suffering a "run" Bill USA Jun 2014 #17
Also irrelevant... There are degrees of liquidity. FBaggins Jun 2014 #21
of course now the Federal Reserve provides liquidity to banks needing it. The fact remains banks Bill USA Jun 2014 #29
Why change the subject? FBaggins Jun 2014 #30
the point is the large banks aren't interested in CDSs used properly as hedges of risk. What really Bill USA Jun 2014 #31
Sorry... you remain confused in this whole thing FBaggins Jun 2014 #42
Please note this quote from the OP...... Bill USA Jun 2014 #49
"change the subject"? CDSs were originally created as hedges to risk.. Bill USA Jun 2014 #36
And that's not the subject on this piece of the debate. FBaggins Jun 2014 #40
I am focussed on the securitization of mortgages - and in particular with CDSs used to sell subprime Bill USA Jun 2014 #48
what relevance does your recitation of various term loans have to your cmnt 12 where you said: Bill USA Jun 2014 #35
There are TWO primary reasons they don't want to hold mortgages. FBaggins Jun 2014 #41
the most important factor in banks not getting into trouble is to write mortgages that do not Bill USA Jun 2014 #44
Close enough. FBaggins Jun 2014 #45
well, except that in the 2004-2008 timeframe the CDS did make it a lot easier to sell subprime CDOs Bill USA Jun 2014 #47
Right...and now they're no longer willing to. Chan790 Jun 2014 #13
Mortgage debt outstanding - Federal Reserve - Board of Governors report Bill USA Jun 2014 #18
I'm not sure I see your point. Chan790 Jun 2014 #19
not trying to stop them from securitizing. I just want to make sure that at the beginning - Bill USA Jun 2014 #32
LOL. you said (13) "and now they're no longer willing to." and .... Bill USA Jun 2014 #37
oh, dodd-frank is a joke but your idea of paying the homeowner to default isn't? unblock Jun 2014 #7
CDS would be paid only tothe extent of the equity the homeowner has in the home. see link: Bill USA Jun 2014 #10
Could you clarify? FBaggins Jun 2014 #6
I knew someone would ask this. First of all he has to pay for the CDS - which costs money.. Bill USA Jun 2014 #9
You're kidding... right? FBaggins Jun 2014 #11
please note the quote from the comment 9. Bill USA Jun 2014 #14
That still doesn't leave you with a workable solution. FBaggins Jun 2014 #22
"make a profit on the deal"? .. how much after paying more for his insurance on a riskier loan. NOt Bill USA Jun 2014 #24
"pretty effectively stopped."?? LOL! It won't happen again?: Subprime Lending is Back -- link Bill USA Jun 2014 #15
Sorry... you're still confused. FBaggins Jun 2014 #23
thanks for the little history lesson on the Financial crisis. I'm 'not without' knowledge of the Bill USA Jun 2014 #25
How would this help? MFrohike Jun 2014 #27
if you take away the opportunity to make a fast buck (by flipping a bad mortgage) - this has a way Bill USA Jun 2014 #33
I'm a bit confused MFrohike Jun 2014 #38
Better idea: national usury rate jmowreader Jun 2014 #28
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»If Banks MUST keep their ...»Reply #34