6

In defense of the toxic asset plan

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

Renita Jablonski: Wall Street ended with losses yesterday after that huge rally Monday, but some analysts say that's to be expected -- there's still a lot of fear out there. But despite that, there is some genuine optimism about the government's plan to buy toxic assets and get them off of bank balance sheets. That is, depending on who you ask.

L.A. Times business columnist David Lazarus joins us now. David, I have a feeling you're not one of those optimists -- at least when it comes to this.

David Lazarus: I've got a couple of quibbles I guess, and my first is virtually every report in the media refers to "toxic assets." And when I hear that, it's almost like we're saying that all these banks and financial institutions bought a pig in a poke. And also, look at the Obama administration, calling them legacy assets -- as if crazy old Uncle Willie sold you a house with termites and now it's a big problem. There's not a legacy here, OK, these assets, they're fine.

Jablonski: Well, they were fine . . .

Lazarus: By fine, what I mean is the assets are still exactly what they were at the beginning, and that is a security -- something that you buy and sell. And the notion that the asset has suddenly turned toxic and is somehow infecting like a cancer all of Wall Street strikes me as a misnomer. Really, what we're talking about here are mortgage companies that did not do their due diligence and gave money to people who had no ability to pay it back. Then we're talking about Wall Street heavyweights that bought the securitized versions of these loans without, again, doing any due diligence. And now they're deep over their heads after making all of these bad decisions -- and we're saying it's the assets that are the problem.

Jablonski: All right, so what would you call the assets?

Lazarus: I'm glad you asked me. I would call them the "Boneheaded Loan Irresponsible Mortgage Package," or "BLIMP!"

Jablonski: I was just trying to figure that out. OK.

Lazarus: Thank you. And the way to deal with a blimp: You let out all the hot air.

Jablonski: Well, tell me this: If you could, for a day, change your name to Tim Geithner, what would you do right now?

Lazarus: I think one thing I would do is to step right up and say all this lip service we've been paying to regulatory changes, here's what we're talking about. And what we're talking about specifically is far greater transparency in the marketplace.

Jablonski: But how do you create that?

Lazarus: How do you create that? It's reporting requirements -- very clear reporting requirements and very regular reporting requirements. And also consequences that come -- severe consequences -- when those reporting requirements are not met. Obviously, I'm simplifying very grossly. But at the same time, this is the culture that needs to come into place -- a culture of disclosure as opposed to a culture of denial.

Jablonski: L.A. Times business columnist David Lazarus. Such a pleasure.

Lazarus: Thank you.

About the author

Patrick O'Neil's picture
Patrick O'Neil - Mar 27, 2009

"Legacy assets" indeed.
I suggest "jackassets".

Philip Latenser's picture
Philip Latenser - Mar 26, 2009

I hope this is considered civil and that it can be seen for its humor.

Immediately upon Lazarus referring to his acronym “BLIMP”; One of my own smacked me right in the forehead as I was listening and driving to work yesterday morning.

May I suggest my acronym? As Mr. Lazarus continued to speak on these capitol investments that were less than well thought out or managed, it occurred to me that they indeed were a -Capitol Revenue Analysis Problem – .

Capitol – Revenue – Analysis - Problem’s are typically dealt with in one of three ways as I understand. They are either hidden from view, written off as a lost item, or deemed unworthy of attention.

So, just what are we doing with our “CRAP”? We are burying it, flushing it, or ignoring it in hopes that time will solve this problem for us?

Jacob Fisher's picture
Jacob Fisher - Mar 25, 2009

Lazarus says we're talking about mortgage companies that didn't do their due diligence passing out loans and then Wall Street heavyweights who didn't do their due diligence buying the derivative securities. Makes it sound like a little innocent neglect. The truth, as anyone who purchased a house in the decade leading up to this crash knows, is that the mortgage companies were in fact doing everything possible to get people into homes way beyond what they could afford and fixing them up with mortgages with a low starter rate, but outrageously beyond what they could afford in the long run, and convincing them it was great. When I bought a home in 2005, I not only had offers of mortgages 3 to 4 times what I was comfortable spending, but mortgage brokers aggressively harassing me for not taking advantage of these huge offers. It was almost as if they wanted to get people into mortgages they COULDN'T pay back.

Of course, once they got people into such mortgages, they quickly sold them off to someone else, who sold them to someone else, who packaged them into securities and sold them again. So, Lazarus is right that it's not a pig in a poke, which implies the buyers didn't look closely before they bought. It's more like a toxic hot potato that they needed to keep passing to avoid getting burned. As long as everyone kept passing and prices kept climbing, everyone was happy. Now, however, everyone got stuck holding these "assets," and they are indeed toxic.

Kenneth Johnson's picture
Kenneth Johnson - Mar 25, 2009

"Pre-Regulated Assets." This strikes me as the most logical and positive moniker.

Mark Pottenger's picture
Mark Pottenger - Mar 25, 2009

Deficient Due Diligence Debt
Lazy Lookup Loans
Malfeasance Marketing Money
Negligence Notes
Bad Borrower Bundles

Lane Jorgensen's picture
Lane Jorgensen - Mar 25, 2009

How about calling them "red carp" assets.

We thought they were cool when we rebranded them as "koi" and built backyard ponds for them, they are everywhere, no one wants to catch one (except the Japanese and some Europeans), and they are in the red.