3
Questions The Government Doesn’t Want You To
Ask About the Financial Crisis
(And 3 Shocking Answers!)
October 15,2008
Bob Prechter, President of Elliott Wave
International (EWI), is no stranger to
challenging the status quo. His New York
Times bestseller, Conquer the Crash,
was published in 2002 before anyone
was even talking about the current financial
crisis.
In his recent 10-page market letter,
Prechter shifts his focus to the
government’s role in the latest financial
turmoil.
Elliott Wave International is offering
the full 10-page report free if you’d like
to read all 28 answers.
Visit EWI to download the full report, free.
Here are 3 questions excerpted from the
free report:
1. Didn’t Congress create the Federal
Housing Authority, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
Ginnie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Banks
for the purpose of helping the public buy
homes?
You’re kidding, right? What happened is
that clever businessmen schemed with members
of Congress to create privileged lending
institutions so they could get rich off the
public’s labor. In return, members of
Congress got big campaign contributions from
the privileged corporations and, as a bonus,
even more votes. The public’s welfare had
nothing to do with it.
Who celebrated when Congress passed the
latest housing bill? Answer: “The California
Mortgage Bankers Association applauded
Congress for permanently increasing the size
of loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can
buy….” (USA, 7/28) The legislation exists to
“protect the nation’s two largest mortgage
companies….” (NYT, 7/24) Who took out
full-page ads to encourage Congress to
“enact housing stimulus legislation now”?
Answer: the National Association of Home
Builders. Who celebrated when the
administration “unveiled a new set of best
[sic] practices designed to encourage banks
to issue a debt instrument known as a
covered bond”? Answer: “[Treasury Secretary]
Paulson was joined at the news conference by
officials from the Federal Reserve [and] the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation….
Officials from banking giants Bank of
America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan
Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. issued a
joint statement saying, ‘We look forward to
being leading issuers’” (AP, 7/29) of
covered bonds. And voters still believe that
Congress is there to help the needy.
2. Who cares if a bank goes under? Won’t
the FDIC protect depositors?
The FDIC is not funded well enough to
bail out even a handful of the biggest banks
in America. It has enough money to pay
depositors of about three big banks. After
that, it’s broke. But here is the real
irony: The FDIC, as history will ultimately
demonstrate, causes banks to fail. The FDIC
creates destruction three ways. First, its
very existence encourages banks to take
lending risks that they would never
otherwise contemplate, while it
simultaneously removes depositors’
incentives to keep their bankers prudent.
This double influence produces an unsound
banking system. We have reached that point
today. Second, the FDIC imposes costly rules
on banks. In July, it “implemented a new
rule…requiring the 159 [largest] banks to
keep records that will give quick access to
customer information.” As the American
Bankers Association puts it, the new rule
“will impose a lot of burden on a lot of
banks for no reason.” (AJC, 7/19) Third, the
FDIC gets its money in the form of
“premiums” from—guess whom?—healthy banks!
So as weak banks go under, the FDIC can
wring more money from still-solvent banks.
If it begins calling in money during a
systemic credit implosion, marginal banks
will go under, requiring more money for the
FDIC, which will have to take more money
from banks, breaking more marginal banks,
etc. The FDIC could continue this behavior
until all banks are bust, but it will more
likely give up and renege. Remember, every
government program ultimately brings about
the opposite of the stated goal, and the
FDIC is no exception.
3. Who are the “homeowners”?
Everywhere you turn, news articles are
discussing how Congress, the President and
the Fed are taking action to “help
homeowners.” People’s understanding of this
statement is 100 percent wrong. The
homeowners in question are not the residents
of the houses. The homeowners are banks.
Unlike some states, Georgia made its law
very specific on this point. Our local paper
recently explained that, by recognizing the
reality of ownership, “Georgia employs
primarily a nonjudicial foreclosure” and
therefore “has one of the fastest procedures
in the country.” Specifically, “The property
owner gives the mortgage holder a ‘security
deed’ or a ‘deed to secure debt’.
Technically, until the debt is paid, in
full, the mortgage holder owns the property
and allows the borrower to possess it.” (GT,
8/6) In states where the mortgage holder is
deemed the property owner, the title is
merely a legal technicality. The day he
stops making mortgage payments, he no longer
owns the property; the bank does. After
foreclosure, many of those whom politicians
and the media call homeowners will simply go
from paying interest to a bank to paying
rent to a landlord. For those with little or
no equity, it’s not that big a deal. The
real devastation is happening in banks’
portfolios, and banks, not home-dwellers,
are the ones whom the government is trying
to rescue, at others’ expense.
One might be tempted to charge therefore
that Congress makes its laws for the purpose
of helping banks. This idea, too, is
incorrect. Helping banks is merely a side
effect. The reason that Congress creates
privileges for bankers is to benefit
politicians. They make laws in response to
campaign contributions from lending
institutions, real-estate organizations and
builders’ associations. They also garner
votes from mortgage holders and,
miraculously, from voters who think that
their “representatives” are being
“compassionate.”
The previous 3 questions and answers from
Bob Prechter were excerpted from his recent
10-page market letter, The Elliott Wave
Theorist.
Elliott Wave International is offering
the full 10-page report free if you’d like
to read all 28 answers.
Visit EWI to download the full report, free. |