porca misèria

Mervyn King Is Our Best Hope

Recommended Posts

gadget   

-1

It was the raising of rates in 2006-2007 that made the system go pop. If it had been done earlier, the scale of the problem would have been considerably smaller. The two cuts from 4% to 3.5% should have gone in the other direction and continued upwards.

As for the argument that the Bank of England were powerless due to the global situation, what an indictment of the BoE's influence. As the governor of the BoE, Mervyn King didn't have to rely merely on his ability to persuade. He also had the power to materially affect the global situation in a way that would force others to take notice.

Absolute BS. It was the discovery of massive fraud in the 2006 vintage subprime CDO's that popped the credit bubble. The idea that central banks raising interest rates by 0.5% here or there is the real cause of it is just bankers smoke and mirrors.

Central banks were liable only in the sense that they didn't regulate the banks enough. More importantly the criminal justice system is at fault because it's effectively decriminalised fraud as long as you're a big bank.... (in the US at least)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OnlyMe   

Absolute BS. It was the discovery of massive fraud in the 2006 vintage subprime CDO's that popped the credit bubble. The idea that central banks raising interest rates by 0.5% here or there is the real cause of it is just bankers smoke and mirrors.

Central banks were liable only in the sense that they didn't regulate the banks enough. More importantly the criminal justice system is at fault because it's effectively decriminalised fraud as long as you're a big bank.... (in the US at least)

Also late 2000's all inflation that had been pumped into property bubble started leaking out all over the place. The consumer cannot handle >$100 oil, they do not have the income to cover it and all the follow on inflation in basics. When the consumer stopped taking on even more debt because their budgets were already being eaten alive by these prices the debt bubble imploded as they simply ran out of the ability / desire to keep the ponzi scheme going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to disagree with you as it is my impression that you know rather more about rate changes and their effects than I do, however I would raise the related matter that it was events in the US which revealed that all was not well in the mortgage securitisation chain and it was this change in market perception rather that any rate change that led to the evaporation the of large volume of cheap mortgages that was sustaining the boom.

As the system is so complex and interrelated it's more like a disclosure of my innate storytelling bias than an argument, but it seems to me that it was the rise and fall of the high-LTV interest only self-cert mortgage that was the final chapter in the saga. When, because of the cessation of the securitisation chain, the supply of these toxic mortgages dried up demand for houses and hence prices suddenly ran off the edge of the cliff.

Absolute BS. It was the discovery of massive fraud in the 2006 vintage subprime CDO's that popped the credit bubble. The idea that central banks raising interest rates by 0.5% here or there is the real cause of it is just bankers smoke and mirrors.

The road from subprime lending to outright fraud is paved with low interest rates. Subprime has two necessary conditions - mortgage introductions from naive borrowers, and excess demand for apparently low risk high yielding assets. Low base rates are essential to facilitate both.

The idea that the whole saga of subprime mortgage securitisation was a phenomenon independent of interest rates is fanciful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OnlyMe   

The road from subprime lending to outright fraud is paved with low interest rates. Subprime has two necessary conditions - mortgage introductions from naive borrowers, and excess demand for apparently low risk high yielding assets. Low base rates are essential to facilitate both.

The idea that the whole saga of subprime mortgage securitisation was a phenomenon independent of interest rates is fanciful.

Exactly, that was the purpose of low interst rates, riggind the gilt/treasury yields, and that of QE.

TO HERD INVESTMENT INTO RISKIER ASSSETS.

Even if they didn;t pass the smeell test insurance comapnies, pensions, investmonet co's bought CDO's, MBS and the other trash because they had no other choice to have any chance of funds keeping up with inflation or providing an actul investment return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute BS. It was the discovery of massive fraud in the 2006 vintage subprime CDO's that popped the credit bubble. The idea that central banks raising interest rates by 0.5% here or there is the real cause of it is just bankers smoke and mirrors.

Central banks were liable only in the sense that they didn't regulate the banks enough. More importantly the criminal justice system is at fault because it's effectively decriminalised fraud as long as you're a big bank.... (in the US at least)

Apart from the fact the 0.50bp cut in '05 sent all the wrong signals, the cut from there down to the half percent we're at now for three years says it all, no matter which direction you approach it from - bank insolvency risk/savers'plight/inflation. Any apologists for King could be said to belong in a bag marked KP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gadget   

The road from subprime lending to outright fraud is paved with low interest rates. Subprime has two necessary conditions - mortgage introductions from naive borrowers, and excess demand for apparently low risk high yielding assets. Low base rates are essential to facilitate both.

The idea that the whole saga of subprime mortgage securitisation was a phenomenon independent of interest rates is fanciful.

Yeah i'll agree with some of that... the search for yield was a big driver of the fraud.

But the thing that the pile-on on King is trying to achieve is "don't regulate and split up the banks, the only reason we stuffed our pockets with loot was because the evil Bank of England dropped rates 0.5%"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gf3   

It was the fact he stated "there was no chance of foreseeing a bust because there was no discernible boom" has really destroyed his reputation as far as I am concerned.

In fact he still can't see it....which is why he has to go with his reputation in complete tatters.

EDIT: He has plainly over estimated the productive capacity of the economy both in managing growth but also by the fact he always foresees well above target inflation falling back below target 2 years out because of the "output gap".

So if you had been the governor you would have said houses are in a bubble and need to drop by 20% and undone all the work the low rates have achieved over the last three years?

I wonder how many people read his lecture and amended it before it went out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King's words of June 2007 were truly extraordinary. What more could a Bank of England Governor have said, without being accused of spreading panic? And when it comes to his "lack of market knowledge", King didn't have detailed break-downs of each banks' balance sheet because the bank supervision had been transferred to the (Treasury-controlled) Financial Services Authority back in 1997.

I find that difficult to understand (along with quite a few other things in the article).

According to the Bank Act 1998

[2A Financial Stability Objective

(1) An objective of the Bank shall be to contribute to protecting and enhancing the

stability of the financial systems of the United Kingdom (the “Financial Stability Objective”).

(2) In pursuing the Financial Stability Objective the Bank shall aim to work with other

relevant bodies (including the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority).

(3) The court of directors shall, consulting the Treasury, determine and review the Bank's

strategy in relation to the Financial Stability Objective.

So they're supposed to work together so I'm sure they could have had any information they needed or wanted. If the FSA had refused the information the BoE could have insisted on it or insisted on a change in the rules. The BoE could have gone to banks directly to get the information.

The 1998 Bank Act gives the BoE authority to obtain relevant information.

The BoE has responsibility for protecting the UK's financial stability and can't get hold of a detailed break-down of each banks' balance sheet??? - oh do come off it.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.