• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

1 Trillion dollar bailout

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I am not an economist, so please fill me in on how this business loan banking is necessary. I don't see businesses not being able to create jobs unless they already have a cash flow problem. Again, if they are "living beyond their means" they have overextended themselves. However, if they have the cash flow to take on new projects they can create jobs. Wouldn't it only be the corporations that rely on credit that will be unable to create jobs? And in that case, they just need to change their business model because they have so little liquidity they cannot even expand. I'm sure I am missing something here, but I just don't see how credit is necessary for operations. I know it's a great way to finance purchases of other companies, expand into new markets, or just expand in your existing market...but are those things necessary?
 
Close to the industry, I can tell you these instances are few and far between.

Most "real people" finding that their ARM mortgage increased are being counseled and worked with by their mortgage company to stay in their homes and work out a plan. Mortgage companies are not in the real estate business (by choice).

The majority of distressed real estate assets come from "investors". People who had enough equity in their first home, to buy up a second property, spend some (borrowed) money to fix it up...in the hopes of reselling within 12 months and making a profit. (Anyone remember the popularity of “Flip That House”?).

I'm not talking about dilapidated properties in need of major renovation...these are properties that are move-in ready and simply need some fresh paint. In some cases people were buying brand new spec homes and sitting on them… counting on a continued 10% annual increase in property values as a reliable investment.

What these "investors" failed to realize is that a lot of the increase in home values was due to the excess buying power created by the subprime customer. Mortgage companies had a slew of subprime customers who wanted to "keep up with the Joneses". Investors in Wall Street were eager to buy up these subprime mortgages as investment tools because they were yielding huge returns. GSE’s like Freddie and Fannie wrote new criteria to accept hybrid style loans like SISA (State Income, Stated Assets), SIVA (Stated Income, Verified Assets), No-Doc Loans and worst of all…pick-a-payment mortgage products. These products made it easier to buy homes. More buying power pushed prices up…creating the need for even more aggressive loan products… so on and so on. People were even tapping into their (artificial) home equity to fund personal businesses.

One flaw. All of these risky products were built under the premise that the excess buying power of the subprime customer would be sustained. What they failed to remember is that subprime customers are subprime for a reason. They have crappy credit. A history of not paying their bills. Little to no assets. Little to no equity.

Well…you can’t change the spots on a leopard and subprime homeowners did what they always did…or didn’t do. They failed to make mortgage payments. Payments were delinquent. Foreclosures ensued. Homes went up for sale…and the value of that “investment” was now dropping as fast as “Price Reduced” signs were going up in neighborhoods.

No…this is not about Joe six-pack who should have signed up for a fixed rate mortgage when 30-year rates were below 6%.

This is about people who saw the rising tide of real estate values as a reliable…high yield investment and banked all of there equity on a good, short term return. Now…as for the people out there who signed on a dotted line of an Option ARM (pick a payment) mortgage…they made the choice.

Good post BM!

Is it standard practice for the average person to sign on for 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

Over in the UK were short term mortgages are the norm (nobody does 30 yrs etc) a lot of hard working average joes who had to buy their house at the inflated price are caught between a rock and a hard place.

House prices are now falling fast because of the economic fallout the average joe who bought in the last few years is looking for a new deal. But the rates of the deals available are v. v. uncompetitive and whats more the healthy deposit that he saved long and hard for to put down on the house has been swallowed up by the falls and then some. He is forced into negative equatity meaning he gets seen as a bad risk and gets forced into a deal with even more punitive rates. And this in a country were they wasn't really any such thing as sub-prime lending at least not anything like what was happening over in the USA.
 
Good post BM!

Is it standard practice for the average person to sign on for 30 year fixed rate mortgages.

Thanks. Unfortunately the recent trend has been for the "average" citizen to sign on for as much house as they could afford, regardless of the risk associated with that arrangement (ie - rates going up and housing bubble bursting).

It's true that well intended folks who signed up for a 15-year fixed loan on a home purchased in 2006, now find themselves in a home worth substantially less than what they paid. For them the options are to stay put and ride this out, or attempt to sell (because they need to relocate for a job), understand that they will take a loss, and hope that they can mitigate this loss buy purchasing a new home at equally distressed prices.

On the upside for these folks, since they purchased a new home in 2006, it's likely that they sold an existing home at the same time, under the same inflated environment, making a lot of money and carrying a lot of equity into their current home. If they didn't cash in on that equity (by buying boats, sports cars or taking vacations) then they "should" be okay.

One thing is for certain, those well intended folks who did the right thing are going to find themselves in a much more dire situation if financial institutions are forced to hold on to these “toxic” assets, hoard their cash and cease all personal and business lending.

It’s a vicious circle: Credit dries up…buying power shrinks…fewer buyers…more inventory…more losses…credit dries up more…buying power…..well, you get the point.

Ironically, this is the opposite cycle that we experienced from 2000 to 2006: Credit freed up…buying power increased…more buyers…prices increased…credit freed up even more (subprime)…more buying power…etc…etc…
 
The thing that makes all of this so nasty (and critically different) is the current stress on the economy from things like US auto maker trouble and skyrocketing fuel costs. It's a very sickly brew.
 
Go talk to any small to mid sized business owner and ask them how necessary working capital is in starting, maintaining and growing their business.

Positive cash flow does not equate to working capital.

+1

I recently secured a pretty good chunk of business with a large retail drug store chain.

I, along with a third party, developed a snack product that will be hitting the store shelves in October.

The initial order is for 40,000 lbs of product with an expected monthly volume of 12-16,000 lbs.

Once I recieved a firm PO, I went to the bank to get capital to purchase raw materials and to cover labor expenses. I will be able to operate without a bank loan at some point but for startup purposes, It was crucial to help me get this new venture off the ground.
 
+1

I recently secured a pretty good chunk of business with a large retail drug store chain.

I, along with a third party, developed a snack product that will be hitting the store shelves in October.

The initial order is for 40,000 lbs of product with an expected monthly volume of 12-16,000 lbs.

Once I recieved a firm PO, I went to the bank to get capital to purchase raw materials and to cover labor expenses. I will be able to operate without a bank loan at some point but for startup purposes, It was crucial to help me get this new venture off the ground.

Congratulations and good luck.
 
Interesting how there was no response yet to Edwort's video.

Flipping heck i never realised just how biased TV channels in the states could be, reminds me very much of the the british tabloid papers and there peddling of the political beliefs of their owners!!

Ahhh just noticed that is fox, owned by murdoch, that explains all ;)
 
You think the cash in your pocket is worth less because of this?

Think about what that $1.00 bill in your pocket is right now.

That $1.00 came from your employer who:
  • Uses a line of credit to buy supplies, pay overhead and make payroll.
  • Relies on his suppliers who also use a line of credit to buy raw materials, pay overhead and make payroll so they can deliver goods to your business.
  • Counts on customers (who maybe work for one of your suppliers) to come in on weekends and spend their payroll.
  • Turns around and redistributes his earnings by spending in the local economy and paying employees who also spend in the local economy...a local economy that is driven daily by lines of credit.
  • Has a vision that new innovations from young, educated talent who got through school using a line of credit might make his business more robust and adaptable for the future.
You close all of those lines of credit that drive these activities, (which trust me as someone who is in the industry…is a very real possibility right now), and your $1.00 is now worth about 20 cents.

Now…try to take that 20 cents and do something with it.
  • Your favorite restaurant…closed.
  • Your local pub…closed.
  • The car dealership…closed. (How many people do you know pay cash for a new car?)
  • The partially constructed mall…deserted.

Is this starting to sound familiar?

No…if you think that the Feds buying up distressed real estate is going to be an inconvenience, just consider the alternative when banks say:
  • We’re out of the student loan business.
  • We no longer offer auto loans.
  • Your business line of credit is temporarily suspended.
  • You will need 50% down for a new home.

The banks have already stopped lending to each other and are precariously close to pulling the trigger on all lending in order to protect their cash assets.

Do try and remember one thing. This is not a junk bond bail out. This is real property, bought at distressed prices, that will appreciate over time.

I'd like to hear BM's response to the following:

If Banks Disappear, It Doesn't Mean Lenders Will

What's clear is that a bunch of financial institutions have made mistakes and lost money. What's unclear is why anyone (other than the owners and managers) should care. People make mistakes and lose money all the time. Restaurants fail, grocery stores fail, gas stations fail. People pick the wrong stocks, they buy the wrong cars, and they marry the wrong spouses without turning to the Treasury for bailouts.

So what's special about banks? According to what I keep reading, it's that without banks, nobody can borrow, and the economy grinds to a halt.

Well, let's think about that. Banks don't lend their own money; they lend other people's (their depositors' and their stockholders'). Just because the banks disappear doesn't mean the lenders will. Borrowers will still want to borrow and lenders will still want to lend. The only question is whether they'll be able to find each other.

That's one reason I feel squeamish about the official pronouncements we've been getting. They tell us bank failures will make it hard to borrow but never that bank failures will make it hard to lend. But every borrower is paired with a lender, so it's odd to state the problem so asymmetrically. This makes me suspect that the official pronouncers have not entirely thought this thing through.

In the 1930s, a wave of bank failures did make it hard for borrowers and lenders to find each other, and the consequences were drastic. But times have changed in at least two relevant ways. First, the disaster of the 1930s was caused not just by bank failures, but by a 30% contraction of the money supply, which is something today's Fed can easily prevent. Second, as any user of match.com can tell you, the technology for finding partners has improved since then. When a firm wants to raise capital, why can't it just sell bonds over the web? Or issue new stock? Or approach one of the hedge funds that seem to be swimming in cash? Or borrow abroad?

In other words, I'm not sure these big Wall Street banks are really necessary, and I'm not sure we'd miss them much if they were gone. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but if so, I think it should be incumbent on Messrs. Bernanke, Paulson and above all Bush to explain what it is.

~Steven E. Landsburg "Not Buying It" in The Atlantic
 
I guess this is bad for everyone who uses debt to finance their life. I'm happy that I am employed by someone who has zero debt, and is an almost 100% owner of the company. I guess all those people who said "Debt is a tool", are realizing that debt is more like a lead weight if you didn't bet on the right horse. The businesses that depend on debt and loans to operate are really hurting right now, but businesses that operate on a cash basis are doing fine. Their cash flow >= expenses, and they can keep operating like that in perpetuity. Now, nobody is going to get rich just barely making it, but nobody is going to lose their house either. I wouldn't be surprised if most of these businesses that "need" a loan to expand, just have cash-flow problems.
 
I guess this is bad for everyone who uses debt to finance their life. I'm happy that I am employed by someone who has zero debt, and is an almost 100% owner of the company. I guess all those people who said "Debt is a tool", are realizing that debt is more like a lead weight if you didn't bet on the right horse. The businesses that depend on debt and loans to operate are really hurting right now, but businesses that operate on a cash basis are doing fine. Their cash flow >= expenses, and they can keep operating like that in perpetuity. Now, nobody is going to get rich just barely making it, but nobody is going to lose their house either. I wouldn't be surprised if most of these businesses that "need" a loan to expand, just have cash-flow problems.

Companies that use debt properly as a tool can be far more competitive than those that operate on cash only.
 
I'd like to hear BM's response to the following:

If Banks Disappear, It Doesn't Mean Lenders Will

...Just because the banks disappear doesn't mean the lenders will. Borrowers will still want to borrow and lenders will still want to lend. The only question is whether they'll be able to find each other.
...

There is a big difference between a local hometown bank that will extend you $50,000 in credit to start a doughnut shop, and a major financial institution that can (or could at one time) lend $2.5 Billion to fund the construction and 5 year budget of an auto plant in Atlanta.


And as for
Restaurants fail, grocery stores fail, gas stations fail. People pick the wrong stocks, they buy the wrong cars, and they marry the wrong spouses without turning to the Treasury for bailouts.
Restaurants = Prepared food
Grocery stores = Canned goods
Gas Stations = Gas and cherry slurpies
Banks = The American dollar.

If any of these businesses elect not to "serve you", you can go many other places instead. Banks failing...? All at the same time...? There is no replacement for cash or credit.
 
But the current market does seem to favor SOME banks...BofA has done well, and has got a screaming deal on Merrill Lynch. JPMorgan Chase has also acquired Washington Mutual for a bargain price due to the depressed banking market. This is GOOD for those banks. Even Warren Buffet has acquired $5 billion of Goldman Sachs. Talk about "buy low, sell high", the companies with good business practices have the money to buy when the market is at it's lowest. In a few years the economy will improve and their investments will be worth much more than the current bargain basement price.

We do not need government involvement, that is what caused the situation in the first place. This problem can be fixed by letting the failing banks fail and be bought up by the successful ones. Nothing to see here...just the free market doin' its thing!
 
...JPMorgan Chase has also acquired Washington Mutual for a bargain price due to the depressed banking market. ...

I was closer to this situation than you might think.

WAMU has the largest share (roughly $180B) of these non-performing toxic assets on their books. They are the single largest holder of pick-a-payment option ARM loans...which have not even begun to enter into their mandatory minimum pay-back period. Chase is banking heavily on the fact that these assets will be offloaded via whatever plan emerges from DC.

And as for this:
In a few years the economy will improve and their investments will be worth much more than the current bargain basement price.
Replace "their investments" with "the tax payers investments" and you have just described the core of the plan they're discussing in Washington right now.
 
I was closer to this situation than you might think.

WAMU has the largest share (roughly $180B) of these non-performing toxic assets on their books. They are the single largest holder of pick-a-payment option ARM loans...which have not even begun to enter into their mandatory minimum pay-back period. Chase is banking heavily on the fact that these assets will be offloaded via whatever plan emerges from DC.

And as for this:

Replace "their investments" with "the tax payers investments" and you have just described the core of the plan they're discussing in Washington right now.

Well, I hope Chase can weather the storm for a while...I bank at WaMu! But if they too have made a gamble on whether I am going to give them tax money for a bailout, they should be prepared for a disappointment. Hopefully they have a plan for that taxpayer money NOT coming through, even the Republicans can't agree on the specifics. Bipartisan, bischmartisan...not even one party can agree with itself.

I read a response to this whole mess by Ron Paul...pretty good read. My favorite quote is this:
The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you’re supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

Right on the front page of ronpaul.com
 
So, question about the WaMu situation: did they fail or get bought by JPM Chase? WSJ says their assets were seized by regulators in the fed, and they orchestrated a deal with JPM Chase. So I guess the questions is, which came first? Did they file for bankruptcy? Did they get acquired?
 
So, question about the WaMu situation: did they fail or get bought by JPM Chase? WSJ says their assets were seized by regulators in the fed, and they orchestrated a deal with JPM Chase. So I guess the questions is, which came first? Did they file for bankruptcy? Did they get acquired?

Regulators step in when complete failure is imminent. Bank failure is much bigger than a business going bankrupt. A bankrupt business simply can't pay bills or fund employee payroll.

A bank failure means the bank cannot cover customer deposits...this means any cash you have deposited in the bank in excess of the FDIC insured limit of $100K is gone.

The Feds basically took the keys away from WaMu and handed them over to Chase and said...you're in charge now.

Here's an interesting read off of CNN Money:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Just when it looked like relief was on its way, credit markets seized up again Friday.

With the Treasury's $700 billion financial industry bailout proposal in jeopardy, and with Thursday night's collapse of an agreement and subsequent JPMorgan Chase takeover of Washington Mutual - the largest bank failure in the nation's history - bank lending has again stalled.

"Things have frozen over again," said Steve Van Order, chief fixed income strategist with Calvert Funds. "Banks are nervous about lending to each other, and the commercial paper market has come to a standstill."

Market gauges of lending risk showed cramped markets and flights to safety Friday.

For instance, the difference between the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, and the Overnight Index Swamps rose to an all-time high of 0.208%. The decade-old Libor-OIS spread measures cash availability among banks, with higher spreads signaling fewer available funds.

The TED spread - the difference between Libor, what banks pay to borrow money for three months, and the three month Treasury borrowing rates - rose to 0.31%, the widest margin for that measure since 1982. A wide spread is considered to show high risk of loan defaults, sending investors to safer havens. The Ted spread was at 0.111% just a month ago.

With loads of troubled assets on their balance sheets, banks are hesitant to take on more loans if the risk of default is high. Furthermore, when banks need to write down those assets, they have less cash on hand to issue loans. That stops the financial system's gears from turning, hurting customers who need a loan to finance a home, a car or tuition.

"The interbank lending markets are clogged up, because there is a freeze-up in the pipes that normally carry funding from central banks to banks to customers," Van Order explained.

How WaMu makes it worse:
The announcement that JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) acquired the banking assets of Washington Mutual (WM, Fortune 500) late Thursday after the beleaguered thrift was seized by federal regulators sent yet another shock to already skittish lenders.

"JPMorgan is going to have to take a writedown and ultimately raise capital," Van Order said. "The bank's lines of credit are being drawn on, and they can't hit the commercial paper market, so the acquisition puts another strain on lending."

As JPMorgan tries to finance its purchase, if there are no lenders available, they will have to turn to a backup line of credit, further seizing up the flow from bank to bank to customers.

Something needs to happen very quickly or a vast number of companies that rely on these open lines of credit to maintain business operations and make payrolls are going to come up dry.
 
I know I mentioned "Step 1". This is where we see baby steps moving towards "Step 2".

Subtle...but predictable. The lever has been pulled and the gears are beginning to turn:

Consumer credit limit crackdown
As banks put the brakes on borrowing, credit cardholders are finding their lines of credit getting dramatically reduced as well.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- After a weekend getaway in New York City, Joseph Lanza logged onto his Bank of America Visa account and was shocked to see that his line of available credit had been reduced to $1,000 from $3,800.

Because of the recent charges from his trip, his balance was $970, dangerously close to his credit limit. "I had been trying to pay my debt down to improve my FICO score and also my debt-to-credit ratio," said Lanza, 26, who works at an investment firm in New Hampshire.

But despite making timely payments and keeping careful track of each charge, he said, "It feels like I'm running up against a bunch of walls."

Betty Riess, a spokeswoman for Bank of America, said she was unable to address the specifics of Lanza's account, but she did say the bank is "taking a more aggressive look at accounts to control risk, given the current environment."

Banks cut back credit
Credit card issuers have been reining in credit limits lately "to minimize their risk because the economic climate has changed so dramatically," explained Bill Hardekopf, chief executive of the card rating site LowCards.com.

In the midst of a financial crisis, banks have less money to lend. On top of that, the percentage of people who are delinquent on their credit card payments rose 12% in the second quarter from the same period a year ago, according to credit reporting agency TransUnion LLC.

So to mitigate rising risk and compensate for less credit overall, issuers are scaling back consumer credit lines - sometimes by more than 50%, according to the American Bankers Association (ABA), a bank industry trade group.

In fact, 62% of credit card issuers have cut back the lines of credit they make available to consumers, according to a recent report by Javelin Strategy & Research, which advises the financial services industry.

That means that consumers across the board are suddenly finding out the hard way that their limit is not what it used to be.

Consumers with better credit histories and high credit scores are less likely to get hit with a sudden restriction on their credit limits, but it can happen to anyone, according to Carol Kaplan, a spokeswoman from the ABA.

"Credit lending standards are tightening across the board, it doesn't matter how great your credit score is," Kaplan said. "This is happening everywhere, to everyone."

The consequences of a lower limit
In the past, banks have used unsolicited credit-limit increases as a marketing tool to keep their customers happy, according to Ben Woolsey, director of marketing and consumer research at CreditCards.com, a card comparison Web site. But that tool "appears to have dried up along with the 0% APR introductory periods," he said.

Customers like Lanza, who have their limit lowered, now have less available credit. That means their buying power is slashed and they are more at risk of exceeding their limit and getting hit with a hefty fee in addition to a higher annual percentage rate (APR). Over-the-limit fees usually range between $25-$35 a pop and some default APRs are as high as 30%-32%, according to Hardekopf.

With a lower limit, consumers are also more likely to use up a greater percentage of their available credit each month (or debt-to-limit ratio), which has negative effects on their credit score and ability to get loans.

The debt-to-limit ratio is calculated by dividing what consumers spend each month by their credit limit, and it's a key component of credit scores. If your limit drops to $1,000 from $2,000 and you continue spending $500 a month, your debt-to-limit ratio immediately jumps from a favorable 25% to an unfavorable 50%.

As a result, lenders may increase your APR or deny you a loan, even if you continue to pay your balance off every month and never exceed your limit.

It is amazing the number of small-mid size businesses that utilize credit cards to fund their businesses from month to month…paying off the balance in full to avoid finance charges. It’s a simple, no brainer way to manage cash. I do it with my personal credit card and monthly expenses. If these credit lines (which can be in excess of $25,000) are cut, these businesses are going to be in a precarious situation.
 
Back
Top