You are here: Home » General » William Isaacs: another dope

William Isaacs: another dope

by Dennis Howlett on November 7, 2008

CFO.com has had some cracking material the last few weeks. This one: Former FDIC Chief: Fair Value Caused the Crisis goes down as one of the best for exposing yet another accounting dope. This time William Isaac, one time chairman of FDIC and now – wait for it – consultant to banks:

The devastation that followed stemmed largely from the tendency of accounting standards-setters and regulators to force banks, by means of their litigation-shy auditors, to mark their illiquid assets down to “unrealistic fire-sale prices,” the former FDIC chief asserted. The fair-value rules “have destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars of capital in our financial system, causing lending capacity to be diminished by ten times that amount,” he said in his prepared remarks.

It takes a very special kind of idiot to make these kind of assertions and think they’ll get away with it. It takes one that is intellectually dishonest. Check out the comments to the post. There’s some sparkling material for later historians. I particularly liked this from shann giv:

This is the story I will be telling my children one day.
Once upon a time in American history…
There were a million losers who borrowed money for a mortgage and couldn’t make their payments.
The banks who lent the money knew that these people were losers and wouldn’t ever be able to pay it back.
And the Clinton Administration set the whole thing in motion by proposing that more people- losers who couldn’t afford them- own their own homes. The dead-beats didn’t make their payments. Banks went bankrupt and my tax dollars (which should be funding new schools and better health care) helped bail out these self-centered morons.
To top it all off- for some crazy reason, certain people blamed the profession of Accounting- instead of blaming the people involved for the big mess.
And that, my friends, is how it all went down.

  • Share/Bookmark
  • Dennis. while I'm sure accounting and other things were factors, your main point is absolutely correct and is the one that is far to often missing from most of the public discourse. INDIVIDUALS dropped all measures of personal accountability to buy something they had no right to buy. And the banks were equally complicit by helping this happen. I was annoyed that both candidates were so willing to lay blame with the banks (justified) but not with the consumers. Consumers were half of this problem. Heck, they were even more of this problem...

    personal accountability is sadly a thing of the past.
  • alastair
    You could blame the politicians for their blinkered approach to policy, you could blame the banks for blindly obeying orders, you could blame the banks for the way on which they then tried to manage away the problems, you could blame the regulators for not seeing and stopping it all, you could blame the financial markets for all sorts of stuff that no one really understands (and you could include IAS within this), you could blame people for their panic, you could blame the media for the way they reported it all, "fanning the flames", you could blame governments for both their knee jerk reactions, and for the way in which they "roll with it" to further their policitical aims.

    None of this will make a blind bit of difference, and you still won't understand it.
  • Ben
    We can all point the finger at whomever we want in this mess. The fact is, that the crisis is the result of a long chain of people trying to win what amounts to a zero-sum game.

    Borrowers shouldn't have tried to buy houses that they could not afford. They did anyway hoping that the real estate would appreciate and they could sell it for more to some other buyer later.

    Lenders should not have lent to people who couldn't pay. They did anyway because they could make money on the loan and sell it to a bank to securitize it without much long-run risk.

    The government should not have allowed so much securitization and low-documentation lending. They did anyway because the political optics of helping low-income citizens own their own homes would help politicians get re-elected.

    Businesses - primarily banks - should not have bought so much of these securitized debt products. They did anyway because they found that they could make a lot of money and did not understand the underlying risk.

    The FASB should not have made it mandatory that businesses mark their holdings to market. They did anyway because it made sense to provide more balance-sheet transparency to businesses without consideration of the fact that it wouldn't work in times of stress. Once this policy forced selling of assets, other holders of those assets would have to mark those assets down and probably also be forced to sell them and start a downward spiral in asset prices.

    It is naive to say that there was one cause or causer. There were plenty of parties involved who could have prevented the crisis but had their own reasons not to. Unfortunately, in order to make sure that the crisis doesn't shut down the entire economy, some of these parties will end up being better off through this process. Given that politicians are now primarily responsible for resolution, it will most likely be the borrowers and the some businesses who end up better off and the taxpayers and some other businesses will be worse off.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: