Occupy the mortgage lenders

Simon Johnson
0 Comment(s)Print E-mail China Daily, October 25, 2011
Adjust font size:

The key to this proposal is that banks must agree; it is a voluntary debt restructuring, compelled by no legal authority. In principle, banks should be attracted to the proposal, because restructured loans are less likely to default. In practice, the banks have consistently dragged their feet on mortgage restructuring – and are laying off staff, rather than hiring people who could help them deal with an initiative of the required scale.

Feldstein calculates that the one-time cost of principal reduction would be around $350 billion. Of course, in our current fiscal environment, it will be hard to find additional resources from the budget.

But $350 billion is roughly what the financial sector as a whole earned in an average quarter during the credit boom – and profit levels in recent quarters have reached or exceeded those levels. So, if the entire write-down cost were covered by banks, most of them would lose the equivalent of no more than one year's profits – spread over several years.

Those boom-time profits were in any case overstated, because they were not adjusted for risk. And when the downside risks materialized, the losses were largely socialized – the primary reason why US public debt has soared in recent years. Asking shareholders and management to pay a relatively small amount is entirely fair and appropriate under these circumstances.

Some in the financial sector would, of course, threaten dire consequences. In fact, bank stock prices might drop, and it is entirely possible that compensation and bonuses would be curtailed, at least in the short term. On the other hand, a large-scale settlement that legitimately and finally removed the threat of future legal action would lift an enormous cloud that hangs over some of the largest lenders, including Bank of America, and creates significant risks for the rest of the financial system.

If the banks were ever really held accountable for the social costs of their behavior, the bill would far exceed $300-400 billion. Realistically assessed, the full downside legal risks to financial institutions are in excess of $1 trillion – particularly if it can be demonstrated that the "mortgage-backed securities" sold to investors were not backed by mortgages at all, because the proper legal paperwork was never done.

Any settlement should also include the banks' explicit agreement that they will support modifying America's bankruptcy law to enable inclusion of mortgages in the usual court-run processes. If the Occupy Wall Street movement tells us anything, it is that the last thing the US economy needs is more households overwhelmed by debt.

Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is co-founder of a leading economics blog, http://BaselineScenario.com, a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-author, with James Kwak, of 13 Bankers.

 

   Previous   1   2  


Print E-mail Bookmark and Share

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)

No comments.

Add your comments...

  • User Name Required
  • Your Comment
  • Racist, abusive and off-topic comments may be removed by the moderator.
Send your storiesGet more from China.org.cnMobileRSSNewsletter
主站蜘蛛池模板: 亚洲av第一网站久章草| 男人j进入女人j内部免费网站| 欧美国产小视频| 国产乱理伦片在线观看播放| 久久中文网中文字幕| 资源在线www天堂| 天堂а√在线官网| 久久伊人精品一区二区三区| 狠狠色狠狠色综合伊人| 国产午夜精品久久久久免费视| 99精品国产在热久久| 日本强不卡在线观看| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久蜜芽| 象人族女人能吃得消吗| 国产精品91在线播放| 一级一级人与动毛片| 最近中文字幕免费mv在线视频| 免费观看理论片毛片| 91影院在线观看| 在线观看麻豆精品国产不卡| 久久久久久久久久国产精品免费| 柳岩aa一一级毛片| 免费传媒网站免费| 马浩宁高考考了多少分| 在线观看视频国产| 一个人看的www免费高清| 日韩免费小视频| 亚洲精品午夜久久久伊人| 老王666天堂网站| 国产精品VIDEOSSEX久久发布| xxxx日本性| 日本人六九视频jⅰzzz| 亚洲成a人片77777群色| 精品午夜福利1000在线观看| 国产成人在线免费观看| 91精品国产91久久久久久青草| 性色av无码不卡中文字幕| 久草视频在线网| 欲惑美妇老师泛滥春情在线播放| 四虎影视在线影院在线观看| 人人澡人人澡人人澡|