How the Smart Money Lost $1 Trillion, So Far
by
Gary North
by Gary North
DIGG THIS
"It does
not matter how sharp you sharpen a buzz saw that is set at the
wrong angle. It will not cut straight."
~
Cornelius Van Til.
When the best
and the brightest investors in the world lose $500 billion in one
year in one market segment mortgages this raises a
question: What can the rest of us do to keep from losing our shirts?
Add to this
another $500 billion in losses to non-bank firms as a result of
the credit crunch. This total a trillion dollars is
the estimate of the International Monetary Fund.
Are the losses
winding down? Hardly.
"It
just keeps spreading from one asset to another, so it's hard to
know when these writedowns will stop," said Makeem Asif, an analyst
at KBC Financial Products in London. "The U.S. economy needs to
stabilize first. But even then, Europe could lag and recover later.
There's still a lot more downside."
The extent of
the losses in some of the largest banks and financial institutions
is only now coming to light. When you think that Citicorp, America's
largest bank, has lost over $55 billion in the last year as a result
of subprime mortgage losses, you begin to get a sense that all is
not well. Merrill Lynch lost $52 billion. UBS, the Swiss bank, lost
$44 billion. On and on the list goes. For a list of which organizations
have lost how much money, click
here.
Recently,
I read a book by Charles R. Morris. It is titled, The
Trillion Dollar Meltdown. It was published a few months
ago. He had foreseen the breakdown of the capital markets in early
2007, and he had begun writing a book about this. The problem was,
the credit crisis of August 2007 speeded up the timetable. He was
trying to get the book out, and events were unfolding so fast that
he was having trouble completing the manuscript. The book is a good
summary of the basics of the capital markets crisis. It explains
how the expansion of fiat money under Greenspan led to a series
of extremely bad investment decisions. These highly leveraged investments
now threaten to unwind erratically and unpredictably.
On pages 130
and 131, he provides a breakdown of the problem areas. He is way
too conservative. For residential mortgages, he projects a loss
of $450 billion. That loss is already at $500 billion, and from
the looks of it, there is at least another $500 billion to go. I
believe another trillion dollars of losses will be generated over
the next three years. Then there is corporate debt. The estimated
loss here he puts at $345 billion. For other forms of collateralized
debt, which is heavily leveraged, he estimates $215 billion of losses.
His total
of $1 trillion today now seems extremely conservative. We are already
there, according to the IMF. I think that in any updated edition
of the book, he is going to have to increase this estimate by at
least 50%, and that is because he is a fairly conventional, fairly
conservative fellow. I think he should increase the estimate by
at least 100%. I may be too conservative.
THE
BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST
The American
stock market has taken the news of these losses and has shrugged
it off. The market is down only about 20% or less since October
2007.
Investors
seem to think that a trillion dollars of losses imposed on the economy
by decisions made by the best and the brightest can be shrugged
off.
The best and
the brightest who still make the decisions on the allocation of
American capital don't think the errors of their intellectual and
career peers amount to all that much. They are incorrect. The extent
to which they are incorrect will be played out over the next three
or four years.
The estimated
loss in the mortgage market is $500 billion. The losses are not
yet finished. The subprime losses seem to be slowing, but no one
has suggested that all of the losses are behind us. They say the
worst of the losses are behind us, but not all of them. So, month
by month, we can be sure that the financial press will report that
another bank or another financial institution has lost another billion
dollars or $2 billion or $5 billion. We will be assured, once again,
that the worst is behind us.
Next on the
daisy chain of disaster are the Alt-A mortgage loans. These loans
are the loans that are considered one notch above the subprime loans.
There are at least $500 billion of Alt-A loans. The total is probably
even larger.
Also beginning
to disintegrate is what are known as pay-option ARMs. I have discussed
this before. These are what used to be called backward-walking mortgages.
The borrower is not required to make a monthly payment that covers
the repayment of principal, interest, and insurance. It may cover
only a third of the payment on the principal. Then, without warning,
the borrower is notified by the lender that the loan has re-set,
and his new monthly payment is three times higher than his previous
monthly payment. At this point, he begins to fall behind on his
monthly payments. At present, 48% of all those notified that their
payments have increased are behind on their mortgage payments. But
this is only the early stage of the re-sets. The re-sets will be
going on for the next five years. They will escalate sharply through
2009 all the way through 2011. This market is in the range of $600
billion. About 60% of these loans were made in California. So, you
think that California real estate is a disaster zone this year.
Come back in three years and see what is going on.
The unraveling
of all of these mortgage loans caught the lenders by surprise. Despite
numerous warnings in the contrarian newsletter field, the best and
the brightest in the richest and most successful financial institutions
and banks in the United States encouraged these loans in 2004 and
2005. Alan Greenspan publicly encouraged these loans.
The smart
money was unbelievably stupid money. They stuck their own investors
into disasters. They sucked large European banks into disasters.
The man who
saw this most clearly and wrote about it constantly for seven years
was Dr. Kurt Richebächer. He wrote from 2001 to 2007 that Greenspan's
easy money policies would produce the worst recession since the
Great Depression. He was convinced that fiat money was leading the
best and the brightest of American financial experts into making
loans that would inevitably blow up in their faces. Of course, that
means that the loans will blow up in our faces. Every month, his
newsletter warned that this mania for debt could not be sustained
for much longer. The problem is, he kept saying this, but nothing
happened. People dismissed him as someone who was old-fashioned.
He died in August of 2007, the month that his predictions began
to come true. That was the month that the credit markets of the
West froze up.
WHAT
WENT WRONG?
I do not call
these people the best and the brightest out of a sense of skepticism.
I am not skeptical about their intelligence. I am skeptical about
the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve System, which led the
best and the brightest into a series of investments that have collapsed.
The reason
why these people made such catastrophic errors is because they were
lured into believing that fiat money issued by the Federal Reserve
System, which produced below-market rates of interest, in fact pointed
to a new era. This new era would bring endless capital appreciation
and endless economic growth without a major recession and without
major financial losses to the institutions that invested in terms
of the false economic signals that the Federal Reserve System was
issuing.
The problem
was not the lack of intelligence of these renowned experts in finance.
Their problem was that they had never heard of Austrian School economics.
They did not believe, as Austrian School economists have believed
for 90 years, that central bank policies of monetary inflation produce
a boom, and that this boom will always be followed by a bust. They
believed, as textbook writers in the field of economics and finance
have universally preached, that the decision-makers at the Federal
Reserve System are the best and the brightest people in the history
of finance.
The textbooks
are completely favorable to the Federal Reserve System. So, Maestro
Greenspan had no critics in Congress other than Ron Paul, a physician,
and Jim Bunning, a former baseball pitcher. They were right. Greenspan
was wrong.
So far, the
economy has lost a trillion dollars in capital just from the subprime
loan fallout. The media have begun to speak about the losses that
are going to take place on the other mortgage instruments collapse.
They are not yet talking about the economic setback from the recession
which is also a product of Greenspan's policies of monetary expansion.
The best and
the brightest are like very sharp buzz saws. It doesn't matter how
sharp they are; they cut crooked.
EXTREME
COMPLEXITY
One of the
most important insights of Austrian School economics is the fact
that the free market is extraordinarily complex. It is so complex
that no single individual, no committee, and no computer program
can account for more than a tiny fraction of the factors that drive
a modern economy.
The Nobel
Prize-winning economist, Friedrich Hayek, made this the central
point of his writings from 1948 until 1985. He died in 1992. In
his Nobel Prize speech, he focused on this aspect of the market.
The market has enormous quantities of relevant knowledge, but it
is only through the private property social order and the free interplay
of pricing that society can become the beneficiary of the knowledge
of the masses of individuals.
Hayek's outlook,
like Austrian School economics generally, was hostile to the concept
of central economic planning. There is no possible way that a committee
of salaried bureaucrats can plan an entire economy. The best and
the brightest, no matter how good and no matter how bright, cannot
possibly match the knowledge that is produced by all participants
in the society who are deciding day by day what to buy, what to
hold, and what to sell.
Think of the
famous lyric of the great country western song, "The Gambler."
You've
got to know when to hold 'em; know when to fold 'em; know when to
walk away; know when to run.
This is exactly
what we've got to know. This is exactly what the central planning
agency has to know. But it cannot possibly know this. There are too
many decision-makers, who own too much property, who face too many
different local situations, for any central planner to come close
to understanding what drives the economy, moment by moment, let alone
far into the future.
The best and
the brightest in the investment world do their best to figure out
when to buy, hold, and sell. If they are deliberately misinformed
by the rate of interest, because the Federal Reserve is tampering
with the rate of interest, the best and the brightest will drive
the economy off the road. This is what has happened.
What about
the rest of us? We are not graduates of the best business schools.
We did not get recruited by large New York banks at the age of 25.
We have not spent 30 years monitoring specific markets. We do not
share information with other people who are equally well-trained,
and equally experienced, who work in the same large multinational
bank. How are we expected to allocate our capital when the best
and the brightest lose $500 billion by investing in subprime loans
that no one in his right mind should have invested a dollar in?
It is only
the best and the brightest who can be suckered by the Federal Reserve
so completely as to invest in anything as stupid as subprime loans.
It took extremely smart people, using extremely detailed computer
programs, designed by brilliant experts in mathematics, to make
investment decisions as utterly wrongheaded as these people made
in the mortgage industry. We have barely begun to see the extent
of the stupidity of these loans.
Decisions
made by the salaried bureaucrats employed by the Federal Reserve
System, because these decisions affect the decisions made by the
best and the brightest, have a leverage effect. I don't just mean
leverage in terms of debt, although that is extremely significant.
I mean leverage in terms of concentrating bad information in one
location: the federal funds rate. Then the misinformation spreads
rapidly through the financial sector, which is a good old boys network,
run by people who graduated from the same expensive graduate schools,
who spend time talking with people just like themselves. This is
true leverage. It compounds ignorance. It spreads ignorance rapidly
through the entire financial section because nobody stands at the
information gateway and says: "Stop!"
There is not
much leverage of this kind in a free market. Decision-making is
decentralized. It is also highly competitive. People with different
views put their money where their mouths are. Also, in a society
without fractional reserve banking and central banking, there is
no pyramiding of money on top of a small base of government debt.
In a society in which everyone is allowed to buy and sell with gold
coins, and everyone can go down to his bank and trade his passbook
savings account entries for gold coins, there is not much financial
leverage. Debt is limited, and the sources of money are decentralized.
So, a mistake made by one lender will not be made by competing lenders.
There are always mistakes, but the mistakes are offset by profits
generated by lenders who accurately forecasted the state of the
market.
We do not
live in such a world. That world has been systematically taken away
from us since the creation of the Bank of England in 1694. A steady
movement of politics and education away from decentralization and
personal responsibility has destroyed the levers of power that used
to be held by consumers and depositors in banks. Everything has
moved in the direction of the centralization of power, the centralization
of decision-making, the centralization of credit. The great winners
have been the best and the brightest in the largest financial institutions.
But these winners are now being publicly exposed as incomparable
losers. The trouble is, we lose with them.
A WAY
OUT?
Everyone is
looking for a way out of the unraveling of the mortgage market.
This unraveling is now spreading to other segments of the credit
markets. There is a crisis in municipal bonds. Banks are tightening
credit requirements for business loans, consumer loans, and even
credit card loans. This is much needed, but it is like locking the
barn door after the horses have escaped. Bernanke drones on endlessly
in his testimony before Congress about how the Federal Reserve is
now overseeing new systems to monitor credit. Too late. His predecessor,
Mr. Greenspan, should have imposed these new, supposedly stringent
controls in 1987. He didn't. Instead, he inflated. The economy recovered,
and the world cheered for the Maestro.
Now the economy
is going over a cliff. The Maestro is retired. Bernanke is in charge.
He will take the blame. There is going to be plenty of blame.
The general
public knows nothing of this. The general public simply trusts the
people who are in charge. The general public thinks that The best
and the brightest really are running the show.The best and the brightest
are running the show. That is the problem.
A tiny handful
of investors have figured out that something is radically wrong
with the capital markets of the United States, and maybe the entire
world. This was what Dr. Richebächer said for at least seven years.
These little people, who read the obscure e-mail letters, and who
visit obscure blog sites, have a better sense of the nature of the
looming crisis than the best than the brightest have. The best and
the brightest keep telling us that the worst is behind us. People
who read the newsletters snicker. Month after month, the people
who read the newsletters turn out to be correct.
CONCLUSION
We are told
by the best and the brightest economists that deficits don't matter.
We have been told by the best and the brightest political scientists
who write the textbooks that, with respect to national debt, "we
owe it to ourselves." I loan you $500, but we owe it to ourselves.
Americans are taxed 15% of their wages to fund Social Security's
so-called trust fund, which is filled with non-marketable IOUs from
the U.S. Treasury. Voters shrug it off. "Who cares? We owe it to
ourselves."
On
Thursday, August 21, 400 theaters in the United States are going
to show a movie produced by Bill Bonner's Agora organization. It
is called "I.O.U.S.A." After the showing of the movie, there is
going to be a live discussion with Warren Buffett and other experts
in finances.
What this
movie shows is that deficits do matter. Deficits across the board
matter. We live in an economy that is entirely founded on debt,
and we now face a national debt is growing so rapidly that there
is going to be a default.
For a list
of theaters nationally that will be showing this movie, click
here.
August
16, 2008
Gary
North [send him mail] is the
author of Mises
on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.
He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An
Economic Commentary on the Bible.
Copyright ©
2008 LewRockwell.com
Gary
North Archives
|