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: 99热在线精品播放| 久久久精品午夜免费不卡| 男插女青青影院| 国产xxxx做受欧美88xx00tube| 亚洲性图第一页| 国产视频二区在线观看| caopon国产在线视频| 成人国产精品一区二区视频| 久久亚洲国产成人精品无码区| 机机对机机的30分钟免费软件| 亚洲日本一区二区一本一道| 牛牛在线精品免费视频观看| 冠希与阿娇实干13分钟视频| 色噜噜在线视频| 国产乱子精品免费视观看片| 高清波多野结衣一区二区三区| 国产福利vr专区精品| 2018天天爽天天玩天天拍| 国精产品wnw2544a| zooslook欧美另类最新| 很污的视频网站| 一级片在哪里看| 成年午夜无码av片在线观看| 久久久国产精品| 日本娇小xxxⅹhd成人用品| 久久精品无码免费不卡| 最近免费中文字幕大全高清10| 亚洲伊人久久大香线蕉| 欧美成人午夜免费完成| 亚洲欧美另类一区| 欧美黑人乱大交ⅹxxxxx| 亚洲色av性色在线观无码| 狠狠入ady亚洲精品| 伊人中文字幕在线观看| 男女爽爽无遮挡午夜动态图 | 亚洲av永久青草无码精品| 欧美性猛交XXXX富婆| 亚洲国产成人久久精品影视| 欧美成人18性| 亚洲人成电影在线观看网| 欧美亚洲另类在线|