Contagious Complexity and Breathtaking Insolvency
EVERY ONCE IN a while, a report comes out from a government agency that’s so unassumingly candid you’re forced to admit a mistake has been made and that the document was mistakenly leaked, or that its author will soon be fired.
I couldn’t help thinking something like that when I read the remarks of Emil W. Henry Jr., assistant secretary for financial institutions at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. You can find his entire speech here. But for the purposes of brevity, I’ve excerpted the key passages below.
And if you want the even briefer version, here it is: The large size of GSE mortgage portfolios (about US$1.5 trillion), coupled with the lack of market discipline at correctly pricing the risk of GSE debt, multiplied by the interconnectivity of the world’s financial institutions has led to a possibility “without precedent.” Henry adds that “Financial markets across the board would likely become very illiquid and volatile as firms with significant losses attempted to unwind their positions.”
Notice he said “attempted.” Here are more excerpts. Emphasis added is mine, with some sideline commentary interspersed:
· “At the outset, let me be clear on the meaning of systemic risk: It is the potential for the financial distress of a particular firm or group of firms to trigger broad spillover effects in financial markets, further triggering wrenching dislocations that affect broad economic performance. Perhaps a useful analogy is to think about system risk as an illness that can become highly contagious…
· “The hard lessons from LTCM include: i) the danger of investment decisions which rely upon the presumption of liquidity, ii) the importance of transparency and disclosure, iii) the extent of the interdependencies of our global markets, financial firms, investors, and businesses, iv) the fact that complexity is sometimes the enemy of stability, v) the danger of complacency and false confidence in hedging strategies which, by definition, can never hedge out all risk and which can produce the opposite of the desired effect in the absence of liquidity.”
Complexity is sometimes the enemy of stability, but not always. For example, an arrangement in which interest rate risk is not “aggregated” to the balance of the GSEs would be more “complex.” But it would also be more stable because the stability of the financial markets and the guarantee of liquidity would not depend on the solvency of two poorly run companies that are engaged in the kind of risk management that’s far too complex for one single firm.
In other words, a division of labor in interest-rate risk management, though more complex, would be more stable and more efficient. Centralization loses again. But just what kind of risk are we talking about here?:
“There are numerous levels of risk presented by the mortgage investment portfolios, but at a basic level, the risk is created as follows: GSE portfolios are comprised primarily of fixed-rate mortgages, either held as whole loans, mortgage-backed securities (MBS), or other mortgage-related assets. While mortgages in the U.S. typically allow borrowers the option to prepay at will, the aggregation of fixed-rate mortgages requires that the investor develop strategies to mitigate risks presented by these uncertain cash flows — both prepayments and extensions. Unless the portfolios are hedged properly, in a period of significant interest rate movement, there is the risk to the GSEs that their assets and liabilities will quickly become broadly mismatched, which can lead to insolvency — much like the dynamics of the S&L crisis.”
It’s both refreshing and astonishing for a public official to state what has been plainly obvious for three years now: The GSEs could be come insolvent, and take a lot of people with them. It is not just the idle musings of congenital doom-mongering pessimists like myself. But how might it happen? Henry continues:
“There are three primary ways that the GSEs uniquely impose systemic risk on our financial system. Taken individually, each reason might not be a cause for dramatic action. However, aggregating each of these attributes under a single entity that also carries with it the broad misperception of a government backstop or a guarantee creates a perfect storm scenario.
The first element is the size of the GSEs’ investment portfolio… Today’s combined GSEs’ mortgage investment portfolios still total almost $1.5 trillion…
“Secondly, the GSEs are not subject to the same degree of market discipline as other large mortgage investors. That lack of market discipline is reflected in preferential funding rates that result directly from the market’s long-standing false belief that the U.S. government guarantees or stands behind GSE debt…
“The third element is the level of interconnectivity between the GSEs’ mortgage investment activities and the other key players in our nation’s financial system… In comparison to bank tier-1 capital, GSE debt obligations exceeded 50% of capital for 54% of these commercial banks, and GSE debt obligations exceeded 100% of capital for 34% of these commercial banks. In addition, the GSEs’ interest rate positions are highly concentrated and pose significant risks to a number of large financial institutions.”
Three risks, then. Large size, lack of market discipline, and “high degree of connections throughout our financial system.” What could it lead to?:
“Systemic events can unfold by direct and/or indirect spillovers. Direct spillovers arise when the failure of a particular firm creates substantial losses for those who carry direct exposure with such firm, such as its creditors. Indirect spillovers typically develop, not from direct exposures to the firm at the epicenter of the crisis, but when this firm causes a lack of confidence leading to a sense of panic and turbulence that results in action that generates substantial losses for firms that were not directly related to impaired firm. Such spillovers — not the initial event — typically take the greatest toll on economic activity, and in the case of the GSEs, the potential for both direct and indirect spillover effects is nothing short of breathtaking.”
Interest rate shocks DO happen. Henry points out that:
“If such an interest rate shock occurred in a way that was not captured by the models [currently in use by market forecasters], the results could be without precedent. The immediate implication would be actual and mark-to-market losses.”
What is without precedent is the magnitude of the losses should such an interest rate shock hit the GSEs today. It’s not like this hasn’t happened before:
“Has it been so long that we have forgotten Fannie Mae’s significant financial troubles in the late 1970s and early 1980s? During this time period, Fannie Mae’s balance sheet looked a lot like a savings and loan. As interest rates rose, Fannie Mae’s cost of funds rose above the interest rate it was earning on its long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. Like many S&Ls, Fannie Mae became insolvent on a mark-to-market basis. It lost hundreds of millions of dollars.”
If the same thing happens today, you can replace “hundreds of millions” with “trillions.”
June 29, 2006
The case of the NatWest three is causing a remarkable amount of concern in London. A letter has been signed by Sir Digby Jones, the outgoing General Director of the C.B.I., Miles Templeman, the Director General of the Institute of Directors and Shami Chakrabarti, the Director of Liberty – the freedom movement. They are protesting at the one-sided nature of Anglo-American extradition law.
It is generally agreed that the present law is lop-sided, or, as the letter states, “unequal and invidious.” The old law was similar for the two countries. Each side had to establish a prima facie case before an alleged criminal could be extradited. After 9/11 a new agreement was reached, which was itself more favourable to the U.S. than to the British authorities. The purpose of the change was to make it easier to extradite terrorists. In the British courts, the U.S. only had to show that a charge was being made. There was no requirement that the charge should be supported by evidence. The United States gave up the rule that political crimes, such as the terror campaign of the I.R.A. should be exempt from extradition.
Two things then went wrong. The U.S. authorities, lawfully but unequally, used their new extradition rights to pursue alleged crimes which had nothing to do with terror. The U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Treaty.
British businessmen, like the NatWest three, found themselves in the worst possible position. They have no protection against a U.S. extradition application. The three are in fact being sent back to face trial.
Their crime, if there was a crime, was committed in Britain. The witnesses are in Britain. The evidence is in Britain. The British authorities have refused to prosecute. When the three get to the U.S. there is no guarantee they will be granted bail. They may have to make their defence from inside an American jail, locked up with murderers and rapists. They will be under the greatest possible pressure to admit their guilt on a plea bargain. If found guilty, even on a single count, they could face a fifteen year sentence.
This is very damaging for the NatWest three, and for the thirteen similar cases of British businessmen. U.S. prosecutors are tough, reflecting a tougher society, probably with more serious white collar crime. U.S. laws include the infamous Rico, introduced to deal with organised crime, but frequently used against business associations. It is quite difficult to do business from the far side of the Atlantic and be sure that there is no practice which an American prosecutor might deem illegal.
This is alarming for British businessmen, who are anxious, on the one hand, to maximise their U.S. trade, and, on the other, to avoid the possibility of U.S. criminal charges, perhaps incurred because of the misdemeanours of an associate. The British Institute of Directors have warned that the new extradition laws are of “real concern to their members and could make U.K. companies increasingly reluctant to do business with U.S.”
In the meantime, the British House of Lords is showing the same independence as the U.S. Senate. The Government, which has a poor record on legal issues of liberty, still maintains that the Anglo-U.S. Treaty is fair, but the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent peers may well support an amendment to the law, to provide new safeguards. This would protect British businessmen from a one-sided arrangement. It would also protect the U.S. from damage to its reputation as a good place to do business.