The subprime crisis

I found a very comprehensive and simplfied view of the subprime crisis...it deserves to be in a blog.

What is a sub-prime loan?

In the US, borrowers are rated either as 'prime' - indicating that they have a good credit rating based on their track record - or as 'sub-prime', meaning their track record in repaying loans has been below par. Loans given to sub-prime borrowers, something banks would normally be reluctant to do, are categorised as sub-prime loans. Typically, it is the poor and the young who form the bulk of sub-prime borrowers.

Why loans were given?

In roughly five years leading up to 2007, many banks started giving loans to sub-prime borrowers, typically through subsidiaries. They did so because they believed that the real estate boom, which had more than doubled home prices in the US since 1997, would allow even people with dodgy credit backgrounds to repay on the loans they were taking to buy or build homes. Government also encouraged lenders to lend to sub-prime borrowers, arguing that this would help even the poor and young to buy houses.

With stock markets booming and the system flush with liquidity, many big fund investors like hedge funds and mutual funds saw sub-prime loan portfolios as attractive investment opportunities. Hence, they bought such portfolios from the original lenders. This in turn meant the lenders had fresh funds to lend. The subprime loan market thus became a fast growing segment.

What was the interest rate on sub-prime loans?

Since the risk of default on such loans was higher, the interest rate charged on sub-prime loans was typically about two percentage points higher than the interest on prime loans. This, of course, only added to the risk of sub-prime borrowers defaulting. The repayment capacity of sub-prime borrowers was in any case doubtful. The higher interest rate additionally meant substantially higher EMIs than for prime borrowers, further raising the risk of default.

Further, lenders devised new instruments to reach out to more sub-prime borrowers. Being flush with funds they were willing to compromise on prudential norms. In one of the instruments they devised , they asked the borrowers to pay only the interest portion to begin with. The repayment of the principal portion was to start after two years.

How did this turn into a crisis?

The housing boom in the US started petering out in 2007. One major reason was that the boom had led to a massive increase in the supply of housing. Thus house prices started falling. This increased the default rate among subprime borrowers, many of whom were no longer able or willing to pay through their nose to buy a house that was declining in value.

Since in home loans in the US, the collateral is typically the home being bought, this increased the supply of houses for sale while lowering the demand, thereby lowering prices even further and setting off a vicious cycle. That this coincided with a slowdown in the US economy only made matters worse. Estimates are that US housing prices have dropped by almost 50% from their peak in 2006 in some cases. The declining value of the collateral means that lenders are left with less than the value of their loans and hence have to book losses.

How did this become a systemic crisis?

One major reason is that the original lenders had further sold their portfolios to other players in the market. There were also complex derivatives developed based on the loan portfolios, which were also sold to other players, some of whom then sold it on further and so on.

As a result, nobody is absolutely sure what the size of the losses will be when the dust ultimately settles down. Nobody is also very sure exactly who will take how much of a hit. It is also important to realise that the crisis has not affected only reckless lenders. For instance, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which owned or guaranteed more than half of the roughly $12 trillion outstanding in home mortgages in the US, were widely perceived as being more prudent than most in their lending practices. However, the housing bust meant that they too had to suffer losses — $14 billion combined in the last four quarters - because of declining prices for their collateral and increased default rates.

The forced retreat of these two mortgage giants from the market, of course, only adds to every other player's woes.

What has been the impact of the crisis?

Global banks and brokerages have had to write off an estimated $512 billion in sub-prime losses so far, with the largest hits taken by Citigroup ($55.1 bn) and Merrill Lynch ($52.2 bn). A little more than half of these losses, or $260 bn, have been suffered by US-based firms, $227 billion by European firms and a relatively modest $24 bn by Asian ones. Despite efforts by the US Federal Reserve to offer some financial assistance to the beleaguered financial sector, it has led to the collapse of Bear Sterns, one of the world's largest investment banks and securities trading firm. Bear Sterns was bought out by JP Morgan Chase with some help from the Fed.

The crisis has also seen Lehman Brothers - the fourth largest investment bank in the US - file for bankruptcy. Merrill Lynch has been bought out by Bank of America. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have effectively been nationalised to prevent them from going under.

Reports suggest that insurance major AIG (American Insurance Group) is also under severe pressure and has asked for a $40 bn bridge loan to tide over the crisis. If AIG also collapses, that would really test the entire financial sector.

How is the rest of the world affected?

Apart from the fact that banks based in other parts of the world also suffered losses from the subprime market, there are two major ways in which the effect is felt across the globe. First, the US is the biggest borrower in the world since most countries hold their foreign exchange reserves in dollars and invest them in US securities.

Thus, any crisis in the US has a direct bearing on other countries, particularly those with large reserves like Japan, China and - to a lesser extent - India. Also, since global equity markets are closely interlinked through institutional investors, any crisis affecting these investors sees a contagion effect throughout the world.

Credit default swaps

It is a derivative instrument whereby the holder of a bond buys the instrument to cover the risk of credit default by the bond issuer. As per investopedia, speculation has grown to be the most common function for a CDS contract. CDS provide a very efficient way to take a view on the credit of a reference entity. An investor with a positive view on the credit quality of a company can sell protection and collect the payments that go along with it rather than spend a lot of money to load up on the company's bonds. An investor with a negative view of the company's credit can buy protection for a relatively small periodic fee and receive a big payoff if the company defaults on its bonds or has some other credit event. A CDS can also serve as a way to access maturity exposures that would otherwise be unavailable, access credit risk when the supply of bonds is limited, or invest in foreign credits without currency risk.

Now this means that with the CDS acting as speculative instruments, things can go really bad…and that’s what caused the failure of Lehman brothers.

More research on this in some time..

links: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/08/cds.asp

 

US government to buy out AIG

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122156561931242905.html

Thought leadership

I was reading Kumaramangalam Birla’s Viewpoint on Thought leadership in the Economic times this morning, and have come up with my viewpoints on the same. 

Thought leadership comes from those who endeavor to think. It is not just one of the numerous management jargons that echo the class rooms of a B school. We have seen so many concepts coming into foray, but how many of them have come from India? We Indians are busy trying to survive or making money as if there is no tomorrow. Forty years since the IIMs opened their doors, we have come a long way. There is a rising demand for B schools with the prime objective to live a better life, because our government cannot take care of our basic necessities. In our quest for more money, we use management degree as a passport to a better life, not to hone our skills. Undoubtedly this education teaches a lot that can be potentially used in all aspects of life; but how many of us use it? I have seen B school grads doing menial tasks, which even a barely literate person can do. Thoughts (and the capability to think) go down the drain.

Parental and societal pressures have a huge impact on the young minds that are ready to do whatever pays. Why this attitude? That’s because we live in a country sans opportunities. 

I was reading an article that mentioned that a passing out IIM graduate makes more than the director himself. Where can one find serious academicians? There are many capable individuals in this country, but it has to be seen what inspires them! There is hardly anything except prestige, which takes a backseat in this era of double digit inflation. 

That does not mean to convey that only academicians can have fruitful thoughts. Anyone with the right frame of mind can have it. Things will change, but it needs time. What is important for the professionals is to think about what they do and how better it can be done, rather than working like a robot day in and day out.