Where's the toxic waste?

Marketplace Whiteboard

: (Marketplace)

Banks are paying back TARP money and claiming they're the picture of health. So what happened to all those toxic assets that were clogging their arteries a few months back? Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains.

PIIGS

Five little PIIGS. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains why problems with certain European countries' sovereign debt could blow the house down.

How the big banks make the big bucks

We keep hearing the banks aren't lending. The truth is they are lending, and making a lot of money doing it, thanks in large part to one very special borrower. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch reports.

Ratings conflict

Ratings agencies are paid by the sellers of the securities they rate. Critics say there's a conflict of interest there.Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains.

Look out below!

Commercial real estate is giving Ben Bernanke a big headache. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains why it's such a threat to the economy.

Interest rates

Confused about the theory of how interest rates can affect economic growth? Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch is here with a handy analogy.

Hostile takeovers

We all know what a takeover is. That's when one company agrees to be bought by another. But what happens when companies don't agree and the takeover goes hostile? Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains.

Derivatives

Credit default swaps? They're complicated -- and scary! The receipt you get when you pre-order your Thanksgiving turkey? Not so much. But they have a lot in common: They're both derivatives. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains.

Bonds, notes and bills

So much government debt! But what's the difference between the Treasury's bills, notes and bonds? Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains.

Inflation

Most economists agree that inflation of about 2% or 3% annually is a natural function of a growing economy. But people are worried government stimulus measures could spark much higher inflation. Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains

High-frequency trading

High-frequency trading is creating a ruckus on Wall Street. Marketplace Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch explains what high-frequency trading is and why some people are up in arms about it.

More Whiteboard videos »

Comments

Comment | Refresh
By Jeff Hook

From East Orange, NJ, 11/09/2009

Paddy:

I noticed that William Isaacs mentioned a 20% default rate in a denunciation of Mark-to-Market accounting which was published in the WSJ on 9-19-08 (four days after Lehman failed). He commented about the anticipated default rate at that time: "...The dark cloud on the horizon was about $1.2 trillion of subprime mortgage-backed securities, about $200 billion to $300 billion of which was estimated to be held by FDIC-insured banks and thrifts. The rest were spread among investors throughout the world.

The likely losses on these assets were estimated by regulators to be roughly 20%. Losses of this magnitude would have caused pain for institutions that held these assets, but would have been quite manageable..." (See Note 1.)

Subsequently, Kenneth Scott and John Taylor (of Stanford University) discussed a complex "CDO2" derivative contract in the WSJ on 7-21-09. They reported that the rate of delinquency on that contract was about 20%: "...About 1,800 of the 7,000 mortgages still remain in the pool, with a current delinquency rate of about 20%..." (See Note 2).

Are you saying that **100%** of the "fat" on banks' balance sheets is derived from such "minor" percentages of bad assets which "floated to the top of the gravy jug" from *VARIOUS* derivative contracts? Are you saying that "the fat" in your example is *ALL* bad? Would you agree that it might constitute only about 20% of the total content of the "gravy jug," but would you say that, even though non-performing assets may only constitute 20% of any one derivative contract or even though they may only constitute 20% of *ALL* of any one bank's portfolio of such contracts, those twenty per cent are still worth nothing, so they should be marked down?

Does the apparent agreement of Isaacs, Scott, and Taylor about a default rate of about 20% on all of banks' derivatives help to explain why many banks may insist that their derivative instruments are doing well if those securities are "only" 20% in default, because 80% of the underlying contracts are performing as they were expected to perform? Does this explain why those banks believe they should hold those derivatives to maturity, possibly taking 20% losses, rather than try to sell the instruments at extremely low prices in a non-existent "after market" or mark them down to zero simply because no such after market exists? I may have this all wrong, and I admit I have neither training in these topics nor professional experience of them, but I think Isaacs' denunciation of M-t-M accounting is cogent. I've often thought that these complex securities were never intended for resale and were expected to be held by their initial purchasers to maturity. I therefore think it might only be appropriate to evaluate these securities by some type of actuarial "present value of money" calculations based on how well they're performing, not on what type of price they could claim in an after market which doesn't even exist. I notice that the FASB modified the Fair Value accounting rules shortly after the 3-10-09 US equities rally began...

Your presentations are wonderful. Are transcripts available?

Jeff Hook

Sources:

1. William Isaacs' commentary is "How to Save the Financial System," at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178603685354943.html

2. The Scott and Taylor Op-Ed text is "Why Toxic Assets Are So Hard to Clean Up" from:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804469056163533.html

By George Jolicoeur

From Ogden, UT, 08/25/2009

Nice work. A great source of information. Thanks

By Bob Braithwaite

From Columbus, OH, 07/27/2009

Padd

Paddy Old Lad!
Another great presentation!What really great work you do!
Astonished and interested!What a
great education you are providing me.
Cheers to you old bean!
Bob Braithwaite

great education you are providing me!
Cheers to you old bean

By Jose dela

07/16/2009

Forgive me on my memory of current events, but werent the mark to market rules recently changed so the banks can value the 'fat' at their perceived fair value?

Also, doesn't the amount of fat on the books restrict lending, pressuring credit markets?

By paddy hirsch

07/15/2009

Hi Steve
Yes, the truly toxic stuff is indeed non-performing. As such, it should be marked to market. And the market for the truly toxic stuff is probably zero. The problem is twofold. Firstly, some banks would argue that there is no real market for the toxic stuff - because no-one wants to buy it, there is no bid, which means marking it would be guesswork. Secondly, some banks are still kidding themselves that the securities might recover someday and be worth something. So they're saying they're going to hold the paper to maturity, meaning they don't have to mark to market. If they were honest abut it, they would be marked down, but marking them all down at once, to their real levels, well, that could break them.

By Real Lity

07/15/2009

You draw the money as if it's there on the balance sheet "countering"the toxic stuff. But some that poured-out-gravy money was used for bonuses. Some was used to buy other banks. So drawing your picture as if it's all there to balance the toxic (and thus an excuse for banks not lending more) was not quite honest. I'm sure the bankers thank you but, Tsk tsk.

By melinda gottesman

07/15/2009

this was fantastic - thanks so much!

By Richard Smithton

07/15/2009

Paddy,

Your talent for explaining complex concepts is legendary. Any chance you could tackle the potential problems that a proposed Own-to-Rent plan (whereby once-homeowners get to stay in their homes but give up equity and rent from then on) would create for the housing market, securities holders, and banks?

By A McIntosh

From Amherst, MA, 07/13/2009

Fantastic. Very illuminating. Keep up the good work!

By Steve Shaer

From FL, 07/13/2009

Regarding "Where is the toxic waste" aren't these assets in the "fat" section "non-performing"? And as such, aren't they already marked down dramatically?
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.

Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.

Processing...

* indicates required field

First Name *

Last Name *

E-mail *

City

State

Comments *

May we contact you about future stories? *

Yes

No

You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.