|
Funny how some rituals persist long after their original point is forgotten.
Take the federal debt limit, that relic of a time when lawmakers were actually
embarrassed about piling debt onto our kids. Nothing embarrasses these guys
any more, of course, and the annual process of raising the limit has devolved
from tragedy to farce, with Treasury threatening to bounce Social Security
checks (secure in the knowledge that it will never have to) and legislators
pontificating on fiscal responsibility (certain that their pork won't be touched),
followed by a quiet vote to raise the bar by another half-trillion.
That was last week. Now comes the usual round of media hand-wringing, to which
the don't-worry-be-happy crowd will respond as it always does, with the observation
that America's "national debt" is no higher -- and in some cases a lot lower
-- than that of other countries. Get ready to see variations of the following
chart in the Wall Street Journal and on CNBC:

Viewed this way, Washington's obligations actually do look pretty manageable.
If we're doing as well as Germany and better than Japan, how bad can it really
be? Well, it can be very bad indeed, because the "national debt" in the above
chart refers only to direct obligations of the federal government, and government
doesn't have to borrow to finance itself with debt. Consider: If the Fed
lowers interest rates and liberalizes lending rules enough to convince me to
build my dream house, I go out and borrow, say, $500,000, which generates taxable
income for my mortgage banker and her support staff. Then I hire a contractor
and crew, who spend six months earning good money and paying taxes. Then I
furnish the house and landscape the yard, generating taxable income for furniture
makers and gardeners. Government, by encouraging me to borrow, has pocketed
tens of thousands of dollars that it doesn't have to borrow for itself.
Now, at this point an astute reader might say, "Ah, but there's a difference
between a mortgage held by a bank and a bond issued by the Treasury. If you
default on your mortgage, only the bank and its shareholders have a problem.
This is private, not 'national' debt."
Not so long ago, this would have been true. But no more. To understand why,
let's contrast yesterday's banking practices with today's New Age securitization
machine. Back in, say, 1986 a bank that wrote a mortgage generally held onto
it, collecting the monthly payments and netting them against the borrowing
necessary to fund the loan, earning a profit on the difference. If a borrower
defaulted, the problem was indeed strictly private-sector, impacting the bank
and its owners but not the general public.
But that quaint arrangement is history, thanks to the emergence of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. These "government-sponsored enterprises," or GSEs, were
created decades ago by Washington to buy mortgages from banks, thus giving
banks a little extra cash to lend to would-be homeowners. And for a long time,
they stuck pretty much to their original charter, buying modest numbers of
mortgages and helping banks fund modestly greater numbers of home purchases.
But in the 1990s they had an epiphany: What they could do on a small scale,
they could also do on a vast scale, making easy fortunes for their execs and
shareholders in the process. They started buying literally trillions of dollars
of mortgages from banks. Then they packaged them into bonds, slapped a guarantee
on them (giving the bonds AAA ratings) and sold them to global investors for
a nice profit. Then they started borrowing at really low rates (possible since
everyone thinks they're part of the government) to buy back portfolios of these
same bonds, earning the spread between the bond yields and the GSEs' borrowing
costs.
Fannie and Freddie between them now own and/or insure about $4 trillion of
mortgage debt, which means trouble at either would cause a financial earthquake.
Picture a scenario in which a derivatives accounting problem costs a GSE its
AAA rating, which causes all the bonds it has insured to fall, which lowers
the value of its bond portfolio, which cuts its credit rating even further,
and so on, in a death spiral that takes the whole global financial system along
for the ride. No government that wants to stay in power will allow this to
happen, which means that Fannie and Freddie are officially too big to fail,
and taxpayers are on the hook for their liabilities.
We've seen this movie before, by the way. Back in the 1980s, easy money and
lax regulations (the Feds actually encouraged S&Ls to buy junk bonds) allowed
the junk bond market to inflate into a full-scale bubble. When it burst, those
supposedly private sector bonds bankrupted thousands of S&Ls, which the
government bailed out to the tune of several hundred billion dollars.
This time around the amount of money directly at stake is maybe twenty times
as large. But that's just the beginning. Because the value of the bonds Fannie
and Freddie own and insure depends on the behavior of mortgages in general,
you can make the case that taxpayers are now on the hook for the whole $10
trillion mortgage market. Viewed this way, the "national debt" doesn't look
nearly so benign.

|
John
Rubino
DollarCollapse.com
John Rubino is co-author, with GoldMoneys James Turk,
of The Coming Collapse of the Dollar and How to Profit From It (Doubleday,
December 2004), and author of How to Profit from the Coming Real Estate
Bust (Rodale, 2003) and Main Street, Not Wall Street (Morrow, 1998).
After earning a Finance MBA from New York University, he spent the 1980s on
Wall Street, as a Eurodollar trader, equity analyst and junk bond analyst.
During the 1990s he was a featured columnist with TheStreet.com and a frequent
contributor to Individual Investor, Online Investor, and Consumers Digest,
among many other publications. He now writes for Fidelity Magazine, CFA, and
Proto.
Copyright © 2006-2008 John Rubino
Image rendition and html coding Copyright © 2000-2008
SafeHaven.com
« BullionVault.com
-- Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices »
« Honest Money:
A History of U.S. Gold & Silver Currency -- by Douglas V. Gnazzo »
« Opinions expressed at SafeHaven are those of the
individual authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of SafeHaven
or its management. Articles are available via RSS/XML. Please
visit RSSHelp for instructions. »
|