Home

Advertisement

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Notes from Boston

  • Nov. 22nd, 2008 at 1:05 AM
crocodile
Well, I went to Crisis meeting in Boston Fed. Just a few pointers.

1. Nobody has a clue. Feldstein put forward plausible proposal that is based on simple assumptions that mortgages are non-recourse loans. But then Paul Willen said that it is true for only 8 states. And in CA it is true only for FIRST mortgage. So, actually changing recourse feature is kind of pointless. What seem to be needed instead is to get rid of fresh start in individual bankruptcies.  But what are chances of that happening?
2. Regulators are completely worked out. They are in firefighting mode. No idea about incentives or how they are going to restart markets after (if) feds are going to get out Freddie and friends. The simple idea of insuring MM funds without limits cause flight of large deposits from banks into MM funds.
3. The biggest risk in banking (and the reasons why banks are hoarding money) are unused credit lines that banks extended in good times. In many cases they do not have covenants written in.  Kind of modern bank run is associated with such behavior.
4. CP paper market is still dead, especially for maturities >30 days. See #3.
5. Banks are still able to raise capital, but they are slow.
6. all talks about debt for equity swaps are just talk. No scope there.

Depressing...

Tags:

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]yozhig wrote:
Nov. 22nd, 2008 07:55 pm (UTC)
Sorry, was it Feldstein's, not Feldman's proposal on non-recourse loans?

Even if his basing on non-recoursiveness is pointless, the idea of governmental financing of some part of repayments on mortgages appeals to me: this could be a firestarter for the illiquidity of the related markets.
As to the credit lines - that's strange, because I've never seen a loan without a right to change the limit unilaterally by the bank.
[info]andysim wrote:
Nov. 22nd, 2008 09:46 pm (UTC)
Thanks... Well, that is what it is like to type smth at 2am...

I do not disagree with the idea that goverment should find ways of dealing with housing market. But as a matter of principle, the help should come with strings attached. More importantly, unintended consequences shall be thought through.

Credit lines: According to Ivashina, a lot of those credit lines are covenant-light.
[info]yozhig wrote:
Nov. 23rd, 2008 02:28 am (UTC)
Well, surely, the one who's thinking on such structured govenment financing should be very smart on the design to avoid the information asymmetry problems. And I believe any effective design will require strenghtening of reporting policies..

Hmm, I've read the paper; did they use those SEC filings and Reuters DealScan as a sole source of data, without trying to get any real legal documents? I'm asking this just because I'm kinda on the other side of this dataflow :)) - I've just sent some filings to NYSB and SEC.. I should note that although the corresponding rules and questioneers are more "substance over form" than their analogues in CBR, it's not a big deal not to lie or misstate, but just to re-arrange true info in such way that it would bring a reviewer to a very different perception. In internal control terms, these mandatory reports lack reserve of non-deliberate or independent data to perform a good authomatic cross-check of statements.. I wouldn't use such reporting for internal purposes in bank - it rather reminds a press-release by marketing department..
[info]andysim wrote:
Nov. 23rd, 2008 04:03 am (UTC)
Well, what can I say? I doubt that they have this extra stuff. Do U know central depositary of such stuff or how can anyone get it en mass?
[info]yozhig wrote:
Nov. 23rd, 2008 04:00 pm (UTC)
I'm sure there is no such centralized thing, otherwise everybody would use it for due-dilligence performed when some joint business is planned. To my experience, in each such case parties have no other choice than to do this DD on their own or to assign a trusted auditor.

I remember that DealScan usually includes names of lawyers that helped to conclude the deals. Of course, asking them for comments can hardly be used for full coverage, but at least for some sample statistics..
[info]andysim wrote:
Nov. 23rd, 2008 08:14 pm (UTC)
can those lawyers actually tell anything? I mean, not intellectually, but legally?
[info]yozhig wrote:
Nov. 23rd, 2008 09:51 pm (UTC)
I don't think they could provide the needed info on a per deal basis - they've got their NDAs. But what they surely could consider is to calculate some aggregated statistics on their respective "portfolio" of deals.
[info]andysim wrote:
Nov. 23rd, 2008 11:18 pm (UTC)
if they cannot give info on one deal, I guess they cannot do it on the bunch. unless of course their client is out of business or they are desperately looking for other clients.

Let me just ask U if U ever got any useful infor from those guys?
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )