Dismantling the Business Oppressive Dodd-Frank Act

The new minority leader in the Senate, Democrat Chuck Schumer, has been chortling that he has the votes to prevent the repeal of the anti-business growth Dodd-Frank Act.  Dodd-Frank was passed by Democrats on the heels of the Great Recession as a means of deflecting criticism from the government and its policies on home mortgages to pretend that the causes of the Great Recession were entirely or mostly due to private financial institutions.  Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank had been among the most vociferous advocates of the government policy of easy credit for home loans and had explicitly claimed before the financial crash that there was no looming credit risk.  President-elect Trump has pledged to repeal Dodd-Frank, which is a very good idea.

A very interesting article in the 17 November Wall St. Journal by Peter Wallison discusses both the false pretenses that were used to justify the Dodd-Frank Act and the harm done to recovery from the recession and to economic growth rates by that act.  On the matter of whether the act actually addressed the causes of the recession and a few of its consequences:

Signed into law in 2010, Dodd-Frank was based on the idea that insufficient regulation, particularly of Wall Street, had allowed a buildup of subprime mortgages, a housing bubble and, ultimately, the 2008 financial crisis. The Democrats who controlled the Congress elected in 2008 acted quickly to follow out the implications of this diagnosis by adopting Dodd-Frank, the most restrictive financial legislation since the New Deal. 

Strikingly for such important legislation, there was no significant debate in Congress about whether the cause of the crisis had been correctly identified.

A later study, in 2014 by my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute Edward Pinto, showed that by 2008 more than half of all mortgages in the U.S. were subprime or otherwise risky, and 76% of those were on the books of government agencies. This leaves no doubt that government housing policies—and not a lack of regulation—created the demand for these risky mortgages. But by then it was too late. 

It is not difficult to find connections between Dodd-Frank and the historically slow recovery from the financial crisis. Here’s a sampling. 

The Financial Stability Oversight Council, a Dodd-Frank invention, was empowered to designate large financial firms as systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs, turning them over to the Federal Reserve for “stringent” regulation. One of the council’s earliest actions, in July 2013, designated GE Capital as a SIFI. 

GE soon recognized that its huge financial subsidiary was wilting under the Fed’s control. Seeking an exit, GE wound down GE Capital, eliminating from the market an important source of funding for small and innovative firms. 

The Volcker rule, another Dodd-Frank provision, prohibited banks and their affiliates from trading securities for their own account, although there was no evidence that this activity had any role in the financial crisis. 

Soon, trading desks all over Wall Street were closing down, and traders were complaining that the debt markets were dangerously short of liquidity. The Treasury Department, deeply tied into Dodd-Frank, said it was “studying” the issue. It still is, and spreads are still historically wide. 

Small banks, the credit sources for small businesses and startups, faced new and costly regulation, requiring them to hire compliance officers instead of lending officers. 

One regulation on mortgage lending from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—a Dodd-Frank agency—was over 1,000 pages long. Imagine that landing on your desk in a small bank. 

No wonder, as this newspaper recently reported, banks are no longer the nation’s principal mortgage lenders. Worse still, as reported last week, job gains at startup firms, which are major sources of new employment and technological innovation, are at their lowest level in 20 years.

I added the bold to the sentence in the quoted portion of the article.

A Bank Without Bad Loans Criticized

The Boston Business Journal reports that the East Bridgewater Savings Bank has no bad loans. One might think that this is a good thing, especially at this time. A review by the FDIC, however, criticized the East Bridgewater Savings Bank for not making enough loans in its Community Reinvestment Act area. It was urged to replace its careful loan evaluations and to make more and more risky loans. This really does happen!

The 90% Axis Powers Tax

The Obama - Pelosi - Reid Axis Powers combined and voted a 90% retroactive tax on the bonuses of employees earning more than $250,000 who work for firms receiving more than $5 billion in Federal bailout money. Some of these companies were basically forced by the government to take bailout money, even many which were in no danger of failing. Others were failing companies which should have been allowed to go bankrupt, which would have terminated the contracts that required the failing companies to pay out the bonuses now being paid out. Obama, Geithner, Chris Dodd, Pelosi, and many others in the Democrat administration and Congress were well aware of these bonuses, but pretended they were not. They were caught in this transparent lie. They had foolishly circumvented the system long established for dealing with failing companies whose management had proven that they did not warrent bonuses, benefits, and other remuneration they would have had by contract if they had done their jobs well. Bankruptcy properly terminates such contracts as now have to be honored, though that is clearly unfair to the taxpayers.

The government is clearly incapable of running these companies and should clearly have stayed out of their business. The more healthy companies have learned now just how critical it is to try to get out from under the smothering, oppressive weight of the government. Those that would have squeaked through the banking problems without government help are now likely to fail as they lose all of their best employees. No capable manager will tolerate working under the oppressive, mean-spirited dictatorship of this government.

Legislation applied to prior events is clearly unconstitutional, yet this is not the first time that retroactive laws have been allowed to stand despite that fact. The Supreme Court does not enforce the Constitution's limits on the power of the Federal government and neither the Congress or the President take their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution at all seriously. Our politicians are very rarely men of principle.

A Request for an Overview Discussion of the Financial Meltdown

I have received a request that I provide an overview discussion of what I believe caused the home mortgage and financial crisis we suffered. Robert G. Curry wrote:

I wonder if you have given some thought to the causes of the current financial meltdown. The history leading up to what happened this year, etc.

Have you covered any of this on your blog?

It would be informative to be able to get an overall picture of the actions from the Carter years to the present of who did what, and who's primarily to blame, both through actions or neglect of action, for the meltdown.

How did we get from the so called "Fair Housing Act," through the "No Red Lining," to the "NINJA" loans, to the packaging of junk mortgages as A rated bonds, to the insuring of those bonds by the people at AIG, to the bailouts?

My response to Robert was:

I have discussed it a number of times, but not as comprehensively as you are suggesting I do. Partly, this is because it is a complex history. Partly, because the time period from Sep through Dec is our busy season in my laboratory, though all of 2008 was very busy for me. But, there is also a very critical component to the housing and financial meltdown which is due to problems caused by local and state governments in addition to the unhealthy contributions to the problem made by the Federal government. This really complicates the issue. I have addressed some of the local problems in a few posts as well.

When you look at where the mortgage defaults have occurred, you find that they are very far from an even distribution across the country. Mostly, the problem spiked in those areas where local and state government have such restrictive policies on home-building that home prices have become inaffordable for most people who in other parts of the country could readily buy a home with their income. In California, the average home buyer is paying 8 times his income to buy a home, when paying more than about 2.5 times your annual income for a home makes you a sub-prime borrower. We can argue that the average home buyer in California has no business buying a home, but human nature being what it is, they still badly want a home. In large part, the fact that homes cost so much in California is because of local and state government policies. For the most part, this is the pattern of where mortgage defaults are occurring. In Nevada the problem is that the Federal government owns 84.5% of the state and land around Las Vegas is not available because it is penned in by Federal land. Florida is another area with a spike of failures, where apparently there is a lot of speculation in homes based on quick improvements and rolling over the homes. This may have other explanations, maybe just that a lot of baby boomers are retiring or will soon and home values may have been rising due to their plans to move there upon retirement and it became an easy money fad to buy homes in anticipation of an easy resale at a higher price. Ohio and Michigan have elevated mortgage failures due in part to the very bad business climate in those states, which is causing them to lose jobs badly.

Because of these local issues, many people have put more and more pressure on Congress for affordable housing. In effect, many present home owners in local areas were happy with the rising home values due to government restrictions and maybe did like less traffic on the roads, lower taxes due to having fewer public schools to build, and more parks, but others wanted housing they could afford and some of the home owners are probably feeling guilty for favoring restrictions that they must realize are causing homes to be unaffordable. Congress does nothing to address the local building restrictions, so they have done as much as they can to press the envelope on lowering the costs of home mortgages. Many of the problem programs you named resulted in good part in response to some very vicious local housing affordability issues.

Of course, this then becomes a good lesson in how excessive government meddling in economic matters and in matters of property, causes all sorts of problems, the attempted responses to which cause still more problems.

Robert has a grasp of much of the path taken at the national level to attempt to make housing more affordable. He understands that this process began long ago and has resulted in a major problem for the economy. I was on the verge some time ago of addressing this side of the problem more thoroughly, but upon looking into it, it became clear that it was even more complex even on the federal affordable housing side of the issue than I had thought. It was going to take some real effort to sort it all out. In the process of looking into that, I realized that a good part of the reason pressure was put on the federal government to make home mortgages more available and less expensive was due to problems already caused by local and state governments which made housing in some substantial parts of the country ridiculously expensive.

There is a push-pull problem here of massive proportions. Government creates a bad problem, then government responds to the screams of pain that result by appearing to address the problems at least in part. Only then it is found to have planted many dozen rattlesnakes into our prairie dog colony. We suffer a financial meltdown and Wall Street and the banks become beggars who are put on the dole. Meanwhile, many home buyers are still sub-prime borrowers and they now cannot get loans. The home building and real estate industries then suffer, but mostly in those areas where most homes are very expensive for most potential buyers.

Meanwhile, the local and state governments are still very happy to follow policies that greatly increase the cost of housing in many communities. There is little movement on their part to address the prime reason for the housing and, ultimately, the banking and financial institution problems. Zoning restrictions, green park policies, antiquated and expensive building codes, excessive federal land ownership, disallowing pre-assembled housing so more local tradesmen will be hired, requiring excessively large home lots, high-handed and unavailable county building inspectors, and many more policies that cause home prices to be much higher than they need to be remain very popular in many communities.

So, as incensed as I am about the many bad choices made by the federal government regarding their powers to influence and control the lending institutions and to put pressure on them to follow unwise and risky lending policies, I do not want us to lose focus on the most fundamental of the originating problems. We allow local and state governments, with some assistance from the federal government, to infringe upon our property rights and thereby to deny many of us the much improved housing that we, in our pursuit of happiness, could have otherwise attained.