Paddy Hirsch is a Senior Editor at Marketplace. He is the author of the book Man vs Markets, Economics Explained, Pure and Simple, and he is the creator and host of Marketplace Whiteboard, a video explainer of financial and economic terms.
Hirsch joined Marketplace in 2007, just as the credit crunch that preceded the 2008 financial crisis began to take hold. As editor of the New York Bureau and the entrepreneurship desk, he spearheaded Marketplace’s financial markets coverage throughout the crisis and as the economy fell into recession. He was awarded a Knight Fellowship at Stanford University in 2010, and he returned to Marketplace in July of 2011, when he was appointed Senior Producer of Marketplace Money. He published his first book, Man vs Markets, in August 2012.
Hirsch got his start in journalism with an internship at the BBC in Glasgow, Scotland. He became a field producer for CNBC in Hong Kong and later was a consultant to the Open Broadcast Network in Bosnia. He has been an editor for Direct Capital Markets, Institutional Investor Newsletters, Standard & Poor’s, and the Vietnam Economic Times. Prior to becoming a journalist, he served as an officer in the Royal Marines.
Hirsch attended Campbell College in Belfast and received a bachelor’s degree in French and International Studies from the University of Warwick. He is a Knight Fellow and was a Webby honoree in 2009.
Features by Paddy Hirsch
If you've ever taken out a loan, whether to buy a car or a house or a new PlayStation, you've probably heard the term lien. "I'm putting a lien on your house," for instance.
That’s pretty standard: The bank who lends you the money puts a lien on your property. Fail to make those payments, and the bank gets the house or the car, or whatever.
But what about a second lien? It's pretty apparent, right? A second loan on the same property.
The rules for a second lien are similar to the first, and the net effect is the same: Fail to make a payment on the loan, and the lender can legally force the sale of the house, to get their money back. The only difference is that the second-lien lender has to wait in line: The main mortgage lender gets paid in full first, and only then will the second-lien lender get refunded.
In the U.S., second-lien loans on homes usually come in the form of a home equity line of credit, or HELOCs. If you recall, the HELOC was a key player in the financial crisis.
As home prices kept increasing, many Americans borrowed against their homes. But when the value of the property fell, they found themselves underwater on their mortgages: Owing more than the house was worth.
Small wonder that HELOCs fell out of favor over the last five years: Homeowners were scared of them, and lenders didn’t like that they risked not getting the full amount of their loans back as property values fell.
But now, it seems, the HELOC is back. Bloomberg News reports that HELOC originations could rise 16 percent this year and reach another five-year high in 2014.
Home prices are rising, and real estate watchers like Zillow reckon the number of underwater homeowners is falling sharply. Americans are once again taking advantage of rising real estate prices to pull money out of their homes.
We can hope that this time they’re doing it to renovate (as opposed to buying a jet ski), but the risks remain the same.
That HELOC may not seem like a lot of money compared the main mortgage, but fall behind on payments, and you’re in danger of losing the whole enchilada.
Time Warner Cable looks like the tastiest cake on the plate in cable land right now. Both Comcast and Charter Communications are salivating at the prospect of gobbling up their rival, and investors reckon a merger could happen sooner rather than later.
This wouldn’t be a problem for Comcast. The company is valued at roughly $130 billion, while Time Warner is valued at just $37 billion. So Time Warner will look like a petit four in a fat man’s fist if Comcast picks it up.
From Charter Communication’s point of view, however, Time Warner looks like a four-tier wedding cake. Charter is valued at just $14 billion. How is it going to swallow a company double its size? And how is it going to pay for it?
Using private equity, that’s how.
Private equity used to be known as the leveraged buyout business. That is, using huge amounts of leverage, or borrowed money, to buy companies far bigger than you. And Charter is no stranger to leverage or private equity. In 2009 the company went bankrupt with $20 billion in debt, after using borrowed money to finance a stream of acquisitions.
So you could argue that Charter knows exactly what it’s doing, and that it fully understands the risks of borrowing billions to chase down a much bigger competitor. And that just might make its bid to swallow Time Warner a success.
Three numbers out today are fodder for fiscal doves to argue that the economy is giving a green light to the Fed to keep buying bonds and pumping money into the economy:
Retail sales: Rose more than forecast in October. Translation: Low borrowing costs and rising home and stock values are juicing the economy. Keep pumping!
Existing home sales: Fell in October to the lowest level in four months as rising interest rates and limited supply crimped the market. Translation: The Fed needs to keep hammering at interest rates, to keep them low so that Americans can afford to buy homes. Keep pumping!
And the kicker, inflation: The Consumer Price Index fell for the first time in six months. Translation: The cost of living is falling, and inflation is still barely moving the needle. Keep pumping!
Add that to Ben Bernanke’s statement last night that the Fed will likely hold down its target interest rate after it stops its quantitative easing program, and possibly after unemployment falls below 6.5 percent, and you have a low interest rate environment that could last until next summer, at least.
You see those beads of sweat on the brow of your financial adviser? She’s rushing to get you to sign on the dotted line before the SEC creates a uniform fiduciary rule for brokers and advisers.
This could be a very big deal for the personal finance industry, but when I mentioned it to Kai Ryssdal, he said, “Sorry man, you lost me at uniform fiduciary rule.”
So if you’re confused about anything involving the word fiduciary consider yourself in good company. And consider yourself in need of this here explainer video:
So why is it a big deal? Because if the rule is written right, brokers and financial advisers will have to act as a fiduciary, which means they’ll have to act in the client’s best interest. That’s your best interest, not theirs. That means they won’t be allowed to sell you some dodgy mutual fund or insurance product that pays them a fat commission.
Hats off to the Consumer Federation of America, which drafted the proposal. The SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee is expected to vote on it Friday.
Here’s the nub, according to the subcommittee: That any fiduciary duty imposed by the SEC should provide "an enforceable, principles-based obligation to act in the best interest of the customer.”
The Federal Reserve said today that it wants to “strengthen the liquidity positions of large financial institutions.” In everyday language, the Fed wants banks to have a lot more cash on hand than they do right now, in case of an emergency. Like an emergency fund. Or the air bag in a car.
Banks don’t usually have much cash lying around in their vaults, since they prefer to lend it out to people and earn interest on it. The only thing that cash in a vault accumulates is dust. But just like any other business, banks need cash to run their businesses. They need to make payroll, make bond payments, settle lawsuits.
But rather than have cash on hand to do those things, banks prefer to borrow the money … from other banks.
In order for one bank to lend to another, the lending bank has to trust that the borrower bank will be able to pay it back. And if the lender doesn’t trust the borrower, he won’t lend. And that leaves the wanna-be borrower with a liquidity crisis.
Trust can break down between banks for any number of reasons. Maybe the lender bank’s been tipped off that the wannabe borrower has bought too many toxic assets. Or maybe there’s a rumor that a big fund owned by the wannabe borrower is about to go bust.
There may be some truth to this ... or there may be none. But all it takes is the whiff of a problem for the money to dry up. And without money coming in the door, a bank can’t send money out the door. And if it doesn’t send money out the door, the bank goes bust.
The Fed doesn’t want banks to go bust.
So it’s come up with an idea.
Banks will have to estimate how much cash is going to go out the door during a short-term period of stress, and based on that, it will have to hold a certain amount of cash on hand. That will essentially allow a bank to operate on its own, without borrowing from other banks, for a certain period of time.
Does this mean that bank robbers are now feverishly working out plans to tunnel into the Bank of New York from the crypt of Trinity Church? Hardly. By cash, the Fed doesn’t mean bank notes necessarily, it means stuff that can be converted into cash very easily and quickly. Like Treasury debt, commercial paper, shares of blue chip companies and the like.