Upon passage of the bill deregulating the S&L industry, criminals moved in immediately to take advantage of the one regulation left: federal deposit insurance of up to $100,000 per account. Money began to flow from New York investment firms into local thrifts that could pay high interest rates.
With hundreds of millions of dollars in deposits being poured into Savings & Loan institutions, thrifts padded their balance sheets with reserves that could be loaned out. No loan was too big, no real estate project too overvalued, no excuse for personal profit at the expense of the business too egregious.
But just as with the subprime mortgage industry, no one had an interest in the success or failure of a particular loan. Banks gave mortgages, personal loans, and lines of credit to cronies who would never be able to pay them back, and the amount of money stolen from thrifts threatened the whole industry.
Relatively little was ever recovered from the gangsters and criminals who looted the thrifts for over half a decade, as most presidents and recipients of loans had moved the money offshore. Even when government agencies attempted to go after stolen assets, the thieves usually just declared bankruptcy and made off with their fraudulent gains.
Upon the inauguration of President George H. W. Bush in 1989, the S&L crisis had to be addressed. Hundreds of thrifts had failed with thousands more at risk of failure, and politicians, businessmen, and regulators were implicated in the covering up of the scandal.
The bill that was passed and signed into law was the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, which re-regulated much of the S&L industry. But most importantly, and most relevant to the subprime mortgage meltdown, the Act created a huge new bureaucracy to sell the assets of insolvent thrifts.
Part of this bureaucracy was the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), similar in many aspects to the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), designed to invest taxpayer money in insolvent mortgage securities. The RTC was expected to handle nearly 300,000 properties (many of which had been overvalued to begin with) and $400 billion in failed S&L assets (including loans which were taken out never intending to be paid back).
While the RTC took over nearly half a trillion dollars in toxic loans, bad mortgages, junk bonds, unfinished condo and development projects, and undeveloped land, the program became another excuse for the same people who had looted the industry to begin with to launder their money back into these same devalued assets.
Criminals who had received huge loans from S&Ls on overvalued properties pocketed the difference, usually with offshore bank accounts that were never confiscated by the government. When the RTC took over the assets of these failed S&Ls, the government wanted to liquidate the assets for whatever it could get.
The looters of the thrifts, then, were able to use the dirty money they had obtained by defaulting on S&L loans to purchase insolvent S&L assets. In fact, the Resolution Trust Corporation did not even ask questions about buyers if cash was offered.
Thus, as Stephen Pizzo, Mary Fricker, and Paul Muolo conclude in their 1991 book Inside Job: The Looting of America's Saving & Loans, "Clearly, the RTC was offering a way not only to repatriate their offshore money but to parlay it into further gain as they bought government-owned assets at bargain basement prices."
The RTC used taxpayer money to clean up failed thrifts and then, instead of prosecuting the people responsible for bankrupting the industry, rewarded them by allowing the criminals to use their stolen money to buy back assets they had helped inflate at depressed prices. Also with the RTC throwing hundreds of thousands of properties on the market at once, real estate prices could not help but drop, making the deals even better.
And now, with the TARP beginning to ramp up its activities, the government will be doing essentially the same thing: using taxpayer money to buy inflated securities at higher prices and then sell them later on. Officials state that the government may actually make money from the program, but it is difficult to see how currently troubled assets will be more valuable than future worthless assets as the economy continues to deteriorate.
The parallels between the current housing market bust and the Savings & Loan crisis of the late 1980s are almost too numerous to count: small lending institutions flooded with federally-insured Wall Street money, rampant overvaluations and looting, a Bush in the White House, and the government finally taking over the failed assets of a bankrupted industry.
The Wall Street Transcript
In a year where Wall Street should be getting coal rather than sweet meats they are poised to award themselves 10% more in 2007 regardless of the mortgage mess they invested in. Most U.S. businesses – 66 percent – give no bonuses at all. Those employees lucky enough to receive a cash gift will get an average of $837. Compare that to the bonuses Goldman Sachs gives out, a jackpot so big they could give every employee more than $600,000."
Last year in 2006, Goldman Sachs gave $16.5 billion in bonuses to dozens of its bankers and traders. The top “rainmakers," as they are called, each took home as much as $20 to $25 million just in bonuses. Where did all that money come from? I don’t remember any stocks or funds making any investors millionaires. The total estimate for 2006 was around $100 Billion, the GNP of a small country was handed out as a bonus whether investors made money or not and I can assure investors were bamboozled as usual.
Yes, a record was made on Wall Street in 2006 but not for investor returns. The biggest bonus ever paid to a Wall Street chief executive didn’t last even a week. It was smashed by the $53.4 million that Goldman Sachs gave its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein who was only in office a short time…I need one of these gigs.
The average bonus on Wall Street was $125,500 in the beginning of 2006 and will seem like chump change at the start of 2007 when bonuses averaging $650,000 are expected to have a major impact on first quarter sales numbers, despite the fact that many wire-houses have done terrible by investing in securities backed by risky home loans in the subprime debacle.
Did you ever wonder where all this money comes from? Is the market really up that much that these traders and managers deserve these bonuses? In my book, “The 3 Secret Pillars of Wealth" I disclose one of the places the bonuses are coming from…your pocket.
When you invest in the typical mutual fund (assuming outside of a qualified retirement plan), you face costs that erode your benefit. Chances are you’re not aware of them, they’re not in your prospectus and your broker isn’t going to sit down and tell you about them. The five costs of mutual fund investing are:
1. Tax costs – excessive capital gains from active trading.
2. Transaction costs – the cost of the trades themselves.
3. Opportunity costs – dollars taken out of portfolios for a fund’s safekeeping.
4. Sales charges – both seen and hidden.
5. Expense ratio, or “management fees" – no end to increases in site. This is a calculation based on the operating costs of the fund divided by the average amount of assets under management.
How radically do fund expenses affect you? Well, with the expense ratio, which averages 1.6% per year, sales charges of 0.5%, turnover generated portfolio transactions costs of 0.7% and opportunity costs of 0.3%—when funds hold cash rather than remain fully invested in stocks— the average mutual fund investor loses 3.1% of their investment returns every year just on fees. While this might not seem like much on the surface, costs and fees alone could consume 31% of a 10% market return.
Think about that. You could be losing almost a third of your return before it’s even taxed. You’re losing a third of your return just for the cost of maintaining your investment. Add in the 1.5% capital gains tax bill that the average fund investor pays each year and that figure shoots up to 46% of your return being lost to fees and expenses, nearly half of a potential 10% return.
The breakdown of expenses for the average mutual fund, which by the way, there are now more mutual funds than stocks on the stock exchange, looks like this:
•12.3% – average market earnings for the past twenty-five years.
•10% – the return on the average mutual fund
•7.5% – the average dollar weighted return to the individual investor
-(2.5%) – reduction from market to fund return is about the 2.5% expense ratio
-(2.3%) – reduction for inflation
- (1.8%) – for taxable investors (no state applied)
Equals = 0.9% + or actual investor return (AIR) from the average mutual fund.
If these numbers appear harsh to you, run your own numbers based on any mutual funds you have outside of an index fund and see if you’re getting terrific gains. The Christmas bonuses have to come from somewhere as they are not created out of thin air.
“It’s fun to play around…it’s human nature to try to select the right horse…(But) for the average person, I’m more of an indexer…The predictability is so high…For 10, 15, 20 years you’ll be in the 85th percentile of performance. Why would you screw it up?" - Charles Schwab
Taken from – “The 3 Secret Pillars of Wealth" by James Burns, Esq.
Both Nick Adama & James Burns, Esq are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Nick Adama has sinced written about articles on various topics from Foreclosure Help, Bankruptcy Law and Foreclosure Help. Nick writes articles to provide to homeowners. Visit his site to more about how to avoid a sheriff sale and more:. Nick Adama's top article generates over 90500 views. to your Favourites.
James Burns, Esq has sinced written about articles on various topics from The Wall Street. James Burns: J.D., LL.M., J.S.D. (pending); James Burns is a tax attorney who served honorably in the United States Marine Corps’ Force Reconnaissance (akin to Navy SEAL program).. James Burns, Esq's top article generates over 480 views. to your Favourites.