Many economists wisely point to Republican-led market deregulation, notably the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999...
Um, Gramm-Leach was supported by a majority of both Dems and Reps. Clinton signed it.
The only major dispute between the parties was over whether to make CRA compliance a precursor for banking mergers. (I.e., banks can't merge or acquire if they don't lend to enough minorities.)
As far as I know, Bush's main forays into finance were Sarbox (increasing regulation), his ill-fated attempts to more strictly regulate Fannie and Freddie, and various laws pushing more people into homeownership (again, increasing regulation). Could you point out any acts of Republican-led market deregulation, ideally from the past 10 or so years?
> Um, Gramm-Leach was supported by a majority of both Dems and Reps. Clinton signed it.
While this is true, of those who opposed it, the vast majority were Democrats. 58 Democrats opposed it, only 6 Republicans did. The Republicans also controlled both houses and wrote the legislation so they certainly deserve more blame.
Repealing Glass-Stegal set the fuse by allowing banks to flip loans into the market offloading their risk, but it was the change in the net capital rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_capital_rule#The_net_capita...) in 2004 under the Bush administration that lit the match and kicked off the crisis by creating a massive amount of potential credit that led to the banks handing out loans like candy to anyone who'd take em knowing they could immediately flip the loan and pocket the profit with little risk.
Repealing Glass-Stegal set the fuse by allowing banks to flip loans into the market offloading their risk...
Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with the secondary market for mortgages. Banks were flipping loans in the early 80's. This is how Salomon Brothers became famous.
...the change in the net capital rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_capital_rule#The_net_capita...) in 2004 under the Bush administration that lit the match and kicked off the crisis by creating a massive amount of potential credit that led to the banks handing out loans like candy to anyone who'd take em knowing they could immediately flip the loan and pocket the profit with little risk.
I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Flipping is always low risk, regardless of whether you mark to market or mark to model.
All the modified NCR rule would have done is allowed banks to hand out loans like candy and not flip them.
> Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with the secondary market for mortgages.
The repeal of Glass-Stegall let them flip loans to the market while their funding was FDIC insured since they were gambling with depositors money, something they didn't have access to before that. That makes flipping more attractive because you're insured by the FEDS.
The net capital rule change amplified this ability making handing them out like candy attractive; what good is a ton of credit if you don't leverage the shit out of for all you can.
> All the modified NCR rule would have done is allowed banks to hand out loans like candy and not flip them.
Which is what I said; I wasn't implying that the flipping was related to the net capital rule.
Whoa... tell that to the folks who worked at Bear Sterns and Lehman during 2007/2008. This is precisely why all of the major banks needed a bail-out. The risk models all automatically assumed that these instruments would maintain their liquidity, but when that capital dries up, it turns into a game of musical chairs.
When your business model fundamentally relies upon a liquid market for short-term credit[1], you typically end up in bankruptcy court when/if the music stops (unless of course you threaten the entire financial system and get a government bail-out).
When the institutions you rely upon for credit lose faith that you can repay your debts, you're sunk. Mark to whatever, that only matters with long-term debt.
Whoa... tell that to the folks who worked at Bear Sterns and Lehman during 2007/2008.
Bear collapsed because they held huge long bets on housing with high duration. In contrast, companies like Goldman (mostly short term strategies) survived just fine.
Um, Gramm-Leach was supported by a majority of both Dems and Reps. Clinton signed it.
The only major dispute between the parties was over whether to make CRA compliance a precursor for banking mergers. (I.e., banks can't merge or acquire if they don't lend to enough minorities.)
As far as I know, Bush's main forays into finance were Sarbox (increasing regulation), his ill-fated attempts to more strictly regulate Fannie and Freddie, and various laws pushing more people into homeownership (again, increasing regulation). Could you point out any acts of Republican-led market deregulation, ideally from the past 10 or so years?