From Jesse’s Cafe Americain:     http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/
William Seidman on culprits of the financial crisis
By George White
November 10, 2008 at 4:50 PM

L. William Seidman, former chairman of the FDIC and the Resolution Trust Corp., was the lunch speaker at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s Summit on the Troubled Asset Relief Program Monday afternoon. As chair of the FDIC during the last financial crisis, Seidman started off by reassuring the audience that the crisis would pass, but he quickly focused on the seriousness of the situation.

“These things do go by,” he said, “but that’s not to take away from the fact that this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. In one sense it’s worse than the Great Depression, since it’s far more complicated for governments to handle.” (Hey didn’t Greenspan call a bottom last week? LOL – Jesse)

Seidman then went on to list the main reasons (in no particular order) for the crisis:

1. The Securities and Exchange Commission for loosening capital requirements
2. Fannie Mae for entering into subprime lending
3. Rating agencies for rating paper with which they had no experience
4. Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan, who went to bat to prevent the commodities exchange from regulating derivatives (add Phil Gramm and wife here)
5. The Federal Reserve for increasing the money in the system and refusing to regulate mortgage brokers
6. Securitization and himself

The nuclear weapon of this situation has been securitization. This was invented by myself and the RTC, so I add my name to this list as well,” Seidman said. “The exception is that we kept a piece of it ourselves back then; that part was lost when others started doing it.”
Bill is being far too humble and self-effacing by naming himself for merely developing the concept of securitization as part of his work at the Resolution Trust Corporation during the S&L crisis. Taking the blame for what followed at the turn of the century is like blaming the inventor of television for CNBC. Wall Street is capable of perverting almost anything into a vehicle for financial chicanery and fraud.

 

Stanford Law Review has a great interview with Warren Buffett’s longstanding partner, Charlie Munger. Munger offers much less corn pone and more direct opinion than Buffett does.

The entire piece is very much worth reading, but I wanted to hone in on some key topics. One is the neglect of the role of what amounts to accounting fraud in this mess. Much of this is technically not fraud under the current regime but would be if the standards of 20 years ago were still in place. We now live in a world where everyone knows that the authorities simply will not take down any of the Big Four. Four is now deemed to be the minimum number of big accounting firms permissible. So we de facto have accounting firms “too big to fail”, which means “too big to be asked to eat much liability, not matter how indefensible their conduct.” So if they do something bad, they might have to fire a few partners and pay a moderate fine.

So effectively, we live in a world that echoes the Nixon Presidency. If the Big Four does it, it must be legal.

From the Stanford Law Review (hat tip reader Hubert):

As we look at the current situation, how much of the responsibility would you lay at the feet of the accounting profession?

I would argue that a majority of the horrors we face would not have happened if the accounting profession developed and enforced better accounting. They are way too liberal in providing the kind of accounting the financial promoters want. They’ve sold out, and they do not even realize that they’ve sold out.

Would you give an example of a particular accounting practice you find problematic?

Take derivative trading with mark-to-market accounting, which degenerates into mark-to-model. Two firms make a big derivative trade and the accountants on both sides show a large profit from the same trade.

And they can’t both be right. But both of them are following the rules.

Yes, and nobody is even bothered by the folly. It violates the most elemental principles of common sense. And the reasons they do it are: (1) there’s a demand for it from the financial promoters, (2) fixing the system is hard work, and (3) they are afraid that a sensible fix might create new responsibilities that cause new litigation risks for accountants….

Very few people realize how much we’ve screwed up. Even in leading law schools and business schools very few people realize that the mess at Enron never could have happened if accounting customs hadn’t been changed. What we have now is a bigger, more widespread Enron.


Munger also has some interesting observations about the decay in values:

Read the entire article at Naked Capitalism:     http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/05/munger-on-phony-accounting-cultural.html

© 2012 New Jersey CFO Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha