More specifically, I would point out that the simple way the issue is framed speaks to just how fucked up the political discourse in America really is, and how utterly top-weighted (ie, like a Democratic bailout of Citi now that Rubin is at the helm) all possibly apparent policy prescriptions are likely to be because of this framing.
For instance, Jerome is speaking about second mortgages and securitizations thereof, which are in all likelihood more unsecured than secured as a practical matter. Now, the back story to this is that the reason many people go into second mortages with loan to val figures approaching 100% is because they got into serious financial distress.
The top reasons for this distress are medical expenses, job loss or a spousal (usually a husband) abandonment. These three factors represent more than 3/4 of all bankruptcies in the US until bankruptcy "reform," medical expenses more than half to it alone. Does the foreclosure crisis start people to talk about proper healthcare reform, unemployment insurance, income support for working poor single parents or childcare? I think you know the answer to this, which goes straight to the heart of the framing of the issue.
But back to the history here. Enter bankruptcy reform. The Democrats got together with the Republicans to make it harder for folks to discharge debt. Again, no counterparty, no healthcare reform with equitable, bankruptcy-free access to health services, no real unemployment insurance, no family or child or housing allocations, no substantive access to affordable or state-provided childcare for single mothers. Democrats don't do those things anymore, Republicans (mostly) never did. What you do get is just good-old fashioned debtor's prison style legistlation, bipartisan over here.
So what's a middle-class person, down on their luck and on the way down the SES ladder. to do? Liar loans, 100% loan to val loans, get the cash to pay the doctor for the last round of chemo so you can get the next one. So I'm not convinced we're really looking at a massive increase in defaults driven by disadvantaged folks, and I'm guessing we're looking more at the formerly middle-classed no longer having the bankruptcy option, which while sad and in dire need of remedying, is sort of ironic, since the two parties they overwhelmingly vote for got together and made this all possible for them. So they voted overwhelmingly for "more and better" Democrats to get things fixed, and we'll all be damned if not a god-damned substantive thing has even come close to being even started as regards nearly every aspect of the problems I have just enumerated. With the execption of healthcare for children, no progress, not even a start, and certainly no linkages.
Second, the pratical. I'm not so sure everyone is convinced these instruments are worthless. I recall doing ABS consulting work 6-7 years back, some asset-backed securities that were having very similar issues as what many MBS issues are having now, doing it for the manufactured-housing equivalent of Countrywide, Conseco Finance, who couldn't sell their paper anymore due to both prepay and default issues, some existing tranches trading at 20 cents on the dollar, then not trading at all, company stuck with paper it couldn't sell anymore and running out of cash, accounting irregularities, SEC investigations, the whole nine lot.
Were the assets worthless? Warren Buffett didn't think so, nor Lehman Bros., nor GE Capital who eventually bought up all the paper and the servicing rights.
Beyond that, I think Linca covered the valuation issue.I would only add that a 2 trillion dollar problem would represent fully 20% of the entire value of all mortages in the US, the majority of which are standard fare, 15- to 30-year fixed affairs with very low default rates. This is not to say the value-at-risk couldn't get that high, but if it did, we're talking a cascade of events, probably involving a severe, '30's style contraction, not out of the question but not in my book likely until these fools have invaded a few more countries. But by then, we'll have more to worry about than whether Ward and June Cleaver were able to hang on to their house.
Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
i.e. some patient long-term thinkers with liquid capital in hand may be acquiring a LOT of real estate thanks to this kerfuffle. and when the dust settles, I will betcha more than a quarter that the consolidation of asset ownership -- in the US at least -- will have ratcheted upwards another notch. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Does the foreclosure crisis start people to talk about proper healthcare reform, unemployment insurance, income support for working poor single parents or childcare?
I agree, but the underlying problem is that politics is reactive rather than pro-active. I'm not sure if people on the average simply lack the cognitive skills to links effects to causes, or if they're not trained to think in those terms, or if the noise machine makes it impossible for them to think like that.
But whatever the reasons, the effects are clear - crises like these aren't noticed ahead of time, and are dealt with reactively.
It's one of the problems faced by progressives. We'll say 'Yes, but this is caused by that and if we change that the problem will go away.' And they say 'WTF are you talking about?' Because it makes no sense to them.
So pushing core social issues to solve core social problems is always an uphill struggle. I think Edwards seems to be doing some of that, so it's not all bad news. But it's always easier for the noise machine to make a lot of noise than for it to start being honest about causes, effects and means.
redstar:
I'm sure this could be done again - in fact it's an obvious first step for everyone to sit down and work out what his paper might be worth in real terms. Rather than playing with bailout funds, it would be smarter to get everyone to go through an honest valuation process and then start looking for some interested firesale buyers.
But it's not going to happen for a while, because it's going to mean making a full public accounting statement of loss. And anyone who breaks ranks to do that before they're forced to by auditors (can auditors still be trusted?) is going to see their share price go into freefall.
As for the auditors, they probably have failed to exercise due diligence in the previous yearly audits, but this year I think they'll use the opportunity to make up for the PR disaster that the Enron crisis was. But still, when the auditors force them to recognize their losses the share price is going to fall anyway. I would be monitoring insider trading carefully. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo