Pages

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Microfinance: A Solution For Poverty

Orcun Kahyaoglu


In a world that is covered by huge corporations and financial institutions many of which have scales that are larger than some countries, the need for a campaign that supports poor is a rising issue. Like every people, poor ones may also be in need for financial services. There is a program, which is showing its positive outcomes more clear in recent years called microfinance. Microfinance is a program that fights against poverty, aims to help the poor and women to reach financial services that they cannot reach without any support.

Three parts that are microcredit, microsavings, and microinsurance form microfinance. The widest part is microcredit, which is in use by the ones who cannot find a capital to open a business but are poor entrepreneurs. It is a very important opportunity for breaking the poverty chain.  It helps the poor to open small-scale businesses, to improve their pre-existing small-scale businesses, or to afford their emergency needs like health or education. Although it is not cheaper to use, the users of microcredit are not able to have services from the financial institutions. The second part, microsavings, is a way to keep the savings of the poor regardless of the amount in a safer place, and protect them against inflation and give the opportunity to gain interest on these savings. In addition to these two parts, microinsurance is an umbrella over the poor’s houses protecting from open-risks like catastrophes, deaths, illnesses and accidents. For example, deaths of head of families or unsatisfied harvests may cause the poor become meld, homeless and defenseless. By periodic principal payments, the poor can reduce the risks and guarantee to survive with microinsurance. 

The Grameen Bank, which is a great example and the start point of a microfinance organization, and a community development bank started in Bangladesh that makes microcredit to the poor without collateral. The bank was founded by Muhammed Yunus in 1976 with some core objectives, which are extend banking facilities to poor men and women, eliminate the taking advantage of the poor by money lenders, create opportunities for self-employment for the vast multitude of unemployed people in rural Bangladesh, bring the disadvantaged mostly the women from the poorest households within the fold of an organizational format which they can understand and manage by themselves, and reverse the age-old vicious circle of "low income, low saving and low investment", into virtuous circle of "low income, injection of credit, investment, more income, more savings, more investment, more income" (Grameen Bank, para. 2). Yunus started with the idea that the poor can be good lending risks even without collateral. With solidarity lending a group of 5 women would form a lending pool. The other four could not get a loan until the first was paid off. So instead of collateral there is a peer pressure as an incentive to repay. This system has been turning the poor into entrepreneurs and survives them from poverty. Hence, its founder Muhammed Yunus was deemed to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.


By the evolution of microfinance, it becomes a major role player in community development. The system creates many entrepreneurs through years and today they are the owners of small businesses. Although it is less popular in the US because many businesses can be started through credit cards, the Bank of Grameen US that has started recently is a good example to realize the spread of microfinance. There are also groups such as Accion and the Small Business Administration. They bring the spirit to the community and now they account for 18% of new employment in the U.S. It brings self-employment, living wage, and local spending; in other words, it brings a stronger community. Many of these poor opportunity seeking potential entrepreneurs cannot get loans from banks and they have to borrow from family or friends or the worst they use credit cards that brings out high costs of capital. Accion, which is operating in microfinance industry in U.S. has loaned out about $210 million to over 20,000 entrepreneurs. They have created an average of 2.4 jobs in each business. They called microfinance as a chance instead of charity (Accion). As another institution, Alternatives Federal Credit Union in Ithaca has classes to teach people how to run a business. They have Individual Development Accounts. After they take a class, they can open a savings account to encourage savings. After one year, the savings are matched 3 to 1. So if a low-income person saves $500 over the year, they end up with $2000 to start a business or buy their first home. It definitely helps the poor to gain assets. 

The New York Times profiled some microlenders experimenting in the USA. They note that in 2003 that there were 246 known microlenders most of which were non-profits (Zipkin, 2005). These microlenders have the capability to move quicker and provide more flexible products that are critical for businesses. Microlenders all over the U.S. are connecting the credit gap that is widespread within income levels from low to moderate among communities.  By creating lending programs such as start-up loans or established business credits in order to meet the needs of the poor entrepreneurs located in the U.S., microlenders pride of repayment rates that are in competition with those of traditional lenders. 

In U.S. there are non-profit organizations that help the idea owners with lacks of support and training. According to Chalupa, microfinance phenomenon has been slowly growing in U.S. for the past 30 years and is picking up steam as a result of the credit freeze. The stimulus bill that President Obama signs gave $6 million to fund microloans in 2009 and $24 million to market and manage microlending programs (2009, para. 3). Obama's mother was also involved in microfinance through the Ford Foundation in Indonesia. Another president, Bush, used microfinance as a cost-efficient and effective tool to fight against poverty in Afghanistan. He provided very small business loans to the poorest people with a majority of women by microfinance (Houchberg, 2002, para. 1). Marida Otero, who was the CEO of Accion and coordinator of the Council of Microfinance Equity Funds, was nominated by President Bush to be a member of the United States Institute for Peace (MicroCapital, 2007). These events indicate the supports of both President Bush and President Obama’s Administrations on microfinance.

To sum up, small loans can help the poor to gain the assets they need to get themselves out of poverty. Lending cooperatives and credit unions have been serving for many years but fortunately, innovation in microfinance is continuing and providing financial services to the poor by giving them fair stakes to survive from poverty. Today, the World Bank estimates that microfinance is serving about 160 million people in developing countries but this is not enough for a perfect survival (Kiva, para. 2). There are 1.4 billion people who are in need of financing against poverty and seeking an access to microfinance. 




Chalupa, A. (2009). Microfinance In The USA About To Explode?. Retrieved from: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/02/17/microfinance-in-the-u-s-a-about-to-explode/

Grameen Bank. (n.d.). A Short History of Grameen Bank. Retrieved from: http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=114

Houchberg, F. P. (2002). The New York Times. Practical Help for Afghans. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/05/opinion/practical-help-for-afghans.html?src=pm

Kiva. (n.d.). About Microfinance. The History of Modern Microfinance. Retrieved from: http://www.kiva.org/about/microfinance

MicroCapital. (2007). Who’s Who in Microfinance: ACCION President and CEO Marida Otero. Retrieved from: http://www.microcapital.org/microcapital-story-whos-who-in-microfinance-accion-president-and-ceo-mariða-otero/

Zipkin, A. (2005). The New York Times. For Some, a Little Loan Goes a Long Way. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/business/22sbiz.html

Saturday, October 6, 2012

The Role of JP Morgan Chase In Revolving Door and Political Economy


Orcun Kahyaoglu


JPMorgan Chase is one of the oldest, largest and best-known financial institutions in the world. The firm was chartered in New York City in 1799, and it was built on the foundation of more than 1200 predecessor institutions. Its major heritage firms are J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Chemical, Manufacturers Hanover and Bank One, First Chicago, and National Bank of Detroit. They were tied closely for innovations in finance and the growth of the United States and global economies. These firms also made significant contributions to their local communities. JP Morgan Chase was formed in 2000 with the merger of Chase Manhattan Corporation and J.P. Morgan & Co. In 2008, JPMorgan Chase & Co. acquired The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. and the deposits, assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual's banking operations. These acquisitions not only strengthened the firm’s capabilities across a broad range of businesses, including prime brokerage, cash clearing and energy trading globally, but also expanded its consumer branch network into California, Florida and Washington State and created the nation's second-largest branch network with locations reaching 42% of the U.S. population (JPMorgan Chase & Co.).

There are some facts that brought JP Morgan Chase into trouble. Issuing huge amounts of credit derivatives is one of the facts. Tett states in her book that JP Morgan did not invent credit derivatives, it was the first to “industrialize” them; mass-producing derivative deals which could cover large numbers of loans at once (2009, p.46). JP Morgan aimed to block regulatory capital requirements by issuing those credit derivatives. The company successfully convinced regulators that it could use credit derivatives to shift risk associated with the loans it made. Hence, it did not need to divide capital to cover losses in the event that borrowers defaulted. With credit derivatives, JP Morgan not only succeeded in shifting risks off its own books, but also created a rapidly expanding market, which raked in billions in fees for financial institutions (Tett, 2009). As a second fact, when Jamie Dimon became CEO of JP Morgan in 2006, he set the goal of diversifying its trading department into mortgage-backed securities, an area where his competitors were getting huge profits. By mid-2006, JP Morgan hired bankers to expand its CDO team and got to work. McLaughlin reported that in 2007 the number of subprime mortgages that JP Morgan Chase had originated jumped by 11% in first quarter of the year (2007). Eisinger & Bernstein argue that Magnetar which is a hedge fund that specialized in betting against the US mortgage market, JPMorgan Chase, and other financial institutions enabled the housing crisis to grow into a critical financial crisis by finding markets for risky assets, in spite of indications that there were problems in the housing market (2010).

In 2004, the bank agreed to buy Bank One, creating a $1.1 trillion bank holding company. JP Morgan Chase acquired Bear Stearns on March 18, 2008, for $10 per share. On September 25, 2008, the FDIC closed Washington Mutual, and the bank was sold to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion (Cho & Irwin, 2008). JP Morgan's growing strategy, lead them to become a "too big to fail" bank, requiring government support during the financial crisis. On October 28, 2008 the Treasury Department started the Capital Purchase program; therefore, JP Morgan was among the eight large U.S. banks to receive the Treasury Department's initial round of capital investments and received $25 billion of TARP funds (ProPublica, 2012).

JP Morgan is always using its contacts to obtain government contracts. For example, the most recent one is that the bank has hired former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement chief William McLucas to help respond to SEC’s investigations, enforcement actions, and regulatory probes of the firm’s $2 billion trading loss in May 2012. Stephen Cutler who is JPMorgan’s general counsel and most senior lawyer, also previously served as the head of enforcement at the SEC and worked with McLucas (Gallu & Kopecki, 2012). The Senate Banking Committee respond to JP Morgan’s loss in customer money because of a risky trading strategy. However the bank has already been ready for any action because the staff director for the Senate Banking Committee was Dwight Fettig who is a former J.P. Morgan lobbyist. He was hired to work on financial services regulatory reform and the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009. He oversaw the hearings on J.P. Morgan’s risky proprietary trading and moving through the revolving door. K Street is the center of lobbying firms in Washington, DC. K Street lobbyists occupy some of the most important positions in Congress. In 2010 these lobbyists were hired by some Republicans in Congress as their chiefs of staff. Chairman Rep. Spencer Bachus commented about the recent trading loss of JP Morgan to the press and defended the bank’s decision. In addition, Senator Mark Warner is one the JP Morgan’s defenders in Capitol Hill invested the bank’s hedge fund, which was clashed by Dodd-Frank reforms on proprietary trading (Fang, 2012).
JP Morgan sends former government officials to lobby the regulators who are working on the rules for Dodd-Frank. The bank used its team that is included a former assistant secretary of the Treasury and a former official of the Fed for the discussions with Treasury officials and Fed officials. It is stated that the bank has at least 36 contacts with federal regulators since August 2010 (Khimm, 2012). 

There is also a revolving door between JP Morgan and House Finance Committee. The bank has three lobbyists who are serving in-house. Rick Lazio is the chief government relations of the bank served as a congressman from New York from 1993 to 2000, Tom Koonce is a lobbyist who was the legislative director for Brad Miller, and Bart Gordon who was a former Democratic congressman from Tennessee. In 2012 election period, JP Morgan has given $168,000 to members of the committee (Currier, 2012).

JP Morgan Chase predicted in 2010 that the newly Republican-controlled U.S. House will create conflict with the still-Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate to the point where progress on large legislation is completely failed, according to a confidential memorandum dated Nov. 3 and obtained by Open Secrets Blog (Wilson, 2010). In the memo it is speculated that the tax cuts signed into law by President George W. Bush will be extended for at least one year, questioning whether the administration can find support for extending only the tax breaks for middle-class filers. The memo generally does not provide deep detail of the JP Morgan Chase’s lobbying strategies, but it maintains the company will have “newfound opportunities to play a constructive role in the development of important public policies” (Wilson, 2010, para. 8). JPMorgan Chase has spent $5.8 million in 2009 to lobby the federal government. In 2010, the firm has spent $6.1 million, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of lobbying reports.  Wilson also states that the JPMorgan Chase memo offers President Barack Obama some clear criticism, noting Obama will be under pressure to reach beyond the Congress and appeal directly to the American people for support. Going forward with the new 112th Congress, JPMorgan Chase concludes that the Obama administration will pursue less aggressive legislative goals at the same time it uses its regulatory powers to continue pushing its agenda.

JP Morgan gives money to the campaigns of the people on Senate Banking Committee. Moreover, the bank has been the second largest contributor to Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat, and the chairman of the committee. JP Morgan was also one of the biggest donors of both President Obama’s and John McCain’s campaign in 2008. Bill Moyers also stated that one of Senator Johnson's former staffers is now one of JPMorgan's chief lobbyists and the chairman's present top assistant used to be a lobbyist for a law firm that worked for JPMorgan. Based on the Federal Election Commission data released on September 2011, JP Morgan has contributed $808,799 to the Obama’s election campaign.

The CEO of JP Morgan, Dimon, had a few problems with new regulations in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, including the so-called Durbin amendment, which prevents banks from charging fees on debit card use. Until the recent trading loss of $2 billion, Dimon had been one of the most effective critics of the Dodd-Frank Act, but now he accepts the case for why limits on risky trades by big banks are needed (Schroeder, 2012).

To sum up, JP Morgan Chase is deeply integrated to the revolving door and the political economy of financial regulation issues. Its lobbying team, and in-committee and in-company lobbyists are always in contact with the federal regulators. By this way, it can receive funds from federal government in case of any need and control the contracts of regulators. Being the largest bank of the U.S., it has total assets of $2.2 trillion and such a huge amount requires huge connections. Although these kinds of relationships seem unethical, large-scale financial institutions have to have such connections in order to survive in the market.



Cho, D., & Irwin, N. (2008). The Washington Post. J.P. Morgan Raises Its Offer for Bear Stearns. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032400265.html

Currier, C. (2012). The revolving door between JPMorgan Chase and the House Finance Committee. Retrieved from: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/revolving-door-between-jpmorgan-chase-and-house-finance-committee

Eisinger, J. & Bernstein, J. (2010). The Magnetar Trade: How One Hedge Fund Helped Keep the Bubble Going. Retrieved from: http://www.propublica.org/article/the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble-going


Gallu, J., & Kopecki, D. (2012). Bloomberg. JPMorgan Hires Ex-Sec Enforcement Chief McLucas In Probes. Retrieved from: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-22/jpmorgan-said-to-hire-ex-sec-enforcement-chief-mclucas.html

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (n.d.). History of Our Firm. Retrieved from: http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/About-JPMC/jpmorgan-history.htm

Khimm, S. (2012). The Washington Post. How JPMorgan Exploits Washington’s Revolving Door. Retrieved form: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/21/how-jpmorgan-exploits-washingtons-revolving-door/

McLaughlin, T. (2007). Reuters. JPMorgan Quietly Climbs Subprime Ladder. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/01/idUSN3041717020070601

ProPublica. (2012). Capital Purchase Program. The ‘Healthy Bank’ Program. Retrieved from: http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/programs/1-capital-purchase-program

Schroeder, P. (2012). JPMorgan mess could strengthen Democrat efforts with Dodd-Frank. Retrieved from: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/226983-jp-morgan-mess-boosts-dems-efforts-with-dodd-frank
 
Tett, G. (2009). Fool's Gold: How the Bold Dream of a Small Tribe at J.P. Morgan Was Corrupted by Wall Street Greed and Unleashed a Catastrophe. New York: Free Press

Wilson, M. R. (2010). EXCLUSIVE: Confidential JPMorgan Chase Memo Predicts Congressional                  

             'Gridlock'. Retrieved from: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/confidential-jpmorgan-    
             chase.html

Sunday, September 9, 2012

2008 Financial Crisis: Collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers

Orcun Kahyaoglu


The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. based in New York City, was a global investment bank and securities trading and brokerage firm, until its sale to JPMorgan Chase in 2008 during the global financial crisis and recession. Its main business areas, based on 2006 net revenue distributions, were capital markets (equities, fixed income, investment banking; just under 80%), wealth management (under 10%), and global clearing services (12%).

Lowenstein states in his book that Bear Stearns was involved in securitization and issued large amounts of asset-backed securities, which in the case of mortgages were pioneered by Lewis Ranieri, "the father of mortgage securities" (2010).

There are some major causes that made the Bear Stearns collapse. The rumors about running out of cash made people loosing confidence. Then, they want their money out which could cause the rumor to become true. But the securitization of subprime mortgages, which are called toxic assets, was the main cause of Bear Stearns to collapse. Bear borrowed too much to invest in these toxic assets and it should have found more lenders to loan money to Bear.

The moral hazard issue is again on its work in the financial markets. It is a term that is the encouragement to take risky or reckless action that arises when your losses are insured by someone else (Quiggin, 2008). If a company is bailed out, it may make the same mistakes again and if the company was allowed to fail, this may create a great systematic risk.

Tim Geithner learned that Bear had made credit default swap deals worth trillions of dollars all over Wall Street and around the world. Because Bear Stearns was so indebted to so many other people, their failure to repay their debts, or pay their debts, would cause a cascade of other failures, and it was frighteningly interconnected with other banks in Wall Street. Geithner saw that central bankers most fear from systemic risk. Bear Stearns, Geithner concluded, was “too big to fail.” A bankruptcy could undermine confidence in every major Wall Street firm.
 
Because of the issue of moral hazard, Lehman Brothers allowed to fail. Moral hazard concern of federal government surpassed systematic risk and they decided to not bailout. But the decision seemed to be wrong in the following days. Systematic risk become real and none of the banks lend to each other even if they know well the inter-bank lending is the bedrock of the banking system.

Mortgage crisis became a general credit crisis with frozen credit markets after the banks had stopped lending. Investors were shaken by Lehman’s bankruptcy. Commerce in America was grinding to a halt. The world’s largest insurance company AIG was down 70%. Geithner realized that if AIG went down, the consequences would be even worse than Lehman, so he argued for another bailout. He punished the banks that were parties in AIG’s toxic deals by making them take a financial hit. He made the parties have to take a discount on their insurance policy with AIG. As a result, government initiated a full-scale bailout of the U.S.’s financial system by taking stakes in the largest banks in U.S.



Lowenstein, R. (2010). The End Of Wall Street, Penguin, pp.xvii,22

Quiggin, J. (2008). Moral Hazard, Meet Adverse Selection. Retrieved from: http://crookedtimber.org/2008/09/19/moral-hazard-meet-adverse-selection/

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

2008 Financial Crisis: The Story of IndyMac

Orcun Kahyaoglu

IndyMac was born in 1985 and originally called Countrywide Mortgage Investment by David Loeb and Angelo Mozilo. It began as an Investment Bank. It was built to collateralize Countrywide Financial loans that were too large to be sold to Freddie Mac. In 1997, Countrywide Mortgage Investment became IndyMac. The Mac in IndyMac is short for Mortgage Corporation. In 1999, IndyMac Bank was the ninth largest bank at the time and was also the 28th biggest lender in the country. In 2004, IndyMac bought Financial Freedom, which was creating and servicing reverse mortgage loans. In 2007, IndyMac made two more acquisitions, which were New York Mortgage Company and Barrington Capital Corporation (Devcic, 2009).

There are two main reasons that led the downfall of IndyMac. One of the biggest reasons it came crashing down is the questionable loans and the other one that helped IndyMac get there is the reverse mortgage businesses.

IndyMac specialized in what are known as Alt-A loans. Alt-A loans are less risky than subprime loans but they are riskier than prime loans. In 2001, 2% of the overall U.S. mortgage market was accounted by Alt-A loans with $55 billion in loan productions. Through five years, in 2006, these loans reached to 13% of the overall U.S. mortgage market with a staggering $400 billion in loan production. These loans formed the 80% of IndyMac’s business that made it the number one lender in Alt-A mortgages (Devcic, 2009).

Reverse mortgages is a type of loan that a homeowner can allocate a part of the house asset into cash while keep staying at home. Leviton states that reverse mortgages have been suggested as a promising financial tool to help low-income older homeowners who want to remain in their houses. However, actual use of this option has been much below early estimates of potential demand (2002). The collapse in the housing market made the investors stay away from the loan pools. Therefore, IndyMac could not find the money to pay the cash. The peak in the stock prices of IndyMac in 2007 was the start of the falling point of the bank. Devcic described the situation that “In April of 2008, both Moody's and Standard and Poor's downgraded the ratings of IndyMac's mortgage-backed security bonds. By that summer, the credit crisis was all over the news, housing prices were collapsing and IndyMac was in big trouble” (2009).

So the summary of the situation is that suppose the bank has $1,000,000 and by being a bank it has the right to spend $9,000,000 on mortgages with its $1,000,000. But the point here is it has only the right, it is not certain whether can afford it or not. Moreover, it is not easy to afford the $9,000,000 value mortgages when they worth $5,000,000 after a while, and it is nearly impossible to afford when the main source of $1,000,000 is coming from real estate.  

The difficulty for finding funds causes IndyMac searching more on deposits to fund its mortgage originations. But the mortgages that could not be securitized created losses. The net loss in the first quarter of 2008 is $184,200,000 (Barr, 2008). These mortgages, which could not be securitized majorly formed from sub-prime securities. These securities blocked the liquidity and cause the demise to become closer for IndyMac.

During the period, investment banks bought mortgages from originated institutions. The rating agencies rates the Investment banks’ CDOs higher than they deserve, the financial engineers make the values of these CDOs higher with impractical inputs. Then, the CDOs were sold to investors. These kind of unethical and criminal activities involved in and cause the crisis later on.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 is an extremely important piece of legislation in that it removes many longstanding restrictions against affiliations among banks, securities firms, and insurance companies and thus sets the stage for dramatic changes within the financial industry. The act also establishes a regulatory framework under which bank, securities, and insurance regulators supervise their respective activities within a financial holding company, while the Federal Reserve serves as “umbrella supervisor” over the entire organization (Spong, 2000, p. 33). This act creates an additional difficulty for IndyMac to cope with the demise.

It is stated in Los Angeles Times that “Federal authorities estimated that the takeover of IndyMac, which had $32 billion in assets, would cost the FDIC $4 billion to $8 billion. Regulators said deposits of up to $100,000 were safe and insured by the FDIC. The agency's insurance fund has assets of about $52 billion” (Kristof & Chang, 2008). It was a very controversial issue whether a government bailout for the bank would create a moral hazard or not and if the government did not touch the bank, would there be any systematic risks. The government and IndyMac agreed on a new business plan that if the bank could not access a new capital, it had to stop making new mortgages to shrink its balance sheet and meet the goal of improving its capital ratios.

After a while, OTS did an audit and decided that IndyMac was not stable enough to continue serving as a viable bank. As a result, OTS made a recommendation to the FDIC to take over IndyMac and move it out into bankruptcy (McGlasson, 2009). FDIC split the bank into two and moved all the good assets in one part and sold that part to OneWest Bank.

To conclude, the high-risk loans, unrealistic rates, securitization problems and falling home prices were the main reasons of the demise of IndyMac. If the necessary precautions were taken on time, there would not be any frustrating results. This is the evident that even such huge institutions like IndyMac may come to an end. 



Barr, A. (2008). IndyMac Deemed Under-capitalized by Regulators. Retrieved from: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2008-07-08/news/30771107_1_indymac-shares-indymac-bancorp-chief-executive-mike-perry

Devcic, J. (2009). Too Good To Be True: The Fall Of IndyMac. Retrieved from: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/fall-of-indymac.asp#axzz1wanE6IHi

Leviton, R. (2002). Reverse Mortgage Decision-Making. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 13(4).

Kristof, K. M., & Chang, A. (2008). Los Angeles Times. Federal Regulators Seize Crippled IndyMac Bank. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/12/business/fi-indymac12

McGlasson, L. (2009). IndyMac: The Inside Story of a Bank Failure and Rebirth. Retrieved from: http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/indymac-inside-story-bank-failure-rebirth-a-1432/op-1

Spong, K. (2000). Banking Regulation: Its Purposes, Implementation, and Effects (5 ed.). Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City 

Sunday, August 12, 2012

2008 Financial Crisis: First Signals

Orcun Kahyaoglu


The main reasons of the financial crisis are the overrated securities and the borrowers’ incapability of paying. There were no verification of income or assets of the borrowers. Moreover, the securities were rated as they were not that much risky. Securitization of these high-risk sup-prime mortgage loans would bring the end of U.S. financial system unless the government helped the institutions. No one predicted that a recession could have destroyed $11 trillion of Americans’ net worth.

The Wall Street Side



Wall Street stands for big businesses, financial institutions and corporations while Main Street refers to small businesses, locally owned businesses and banks. In the movie it says Wall Street is greedier than Main Street. Skousen states “Wall Street is not Main Street. In other words, the business of investing is not the same as investing in a business.” (2007). Americans also think that government rescued Wall Street and had more concentration on Wall Street than Main Street. 


In 2008, the Wall Street risks started to take actions. The ones who realized that credit derivatives could be used to trade loan risks is the J.P. Morgan team. That idea was thought to make the financial system safer. This will create big problems later. The collateralized debt obligations (CDO), synthetic CDO's, credit default swap, and predatory lending were the major tools of the financial institutions in those years. Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs states that a CDO is a pool of assets that can be sliced and in a synthetic, you pool reference securities that are indexed to specific more pools of mortgage. On the other hand, by credit default swap, many investors were able to invest in some entities that they had not had access to before. This was a new creation, which brought a broad change in the entire marketplace. People tried to create something that has a high rating and a high yield. Moreover, the mortgage lobby opposed the legislations about predatory lending. The chance of avoiding the drawbacks of these predatory mortgages has passed in the early 2000s. 



Everything started to go wrong and a government reform on the problems was needed at that time. That’s why the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. 



Skousen, M. (2007). Forbes. Wall Street vs. Main Street. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/31/book-­‐excerpt-­‐investing-­‐oped-­‐ cx_ms_1101skousen.html