In terms of sequence of events, seems so!
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, dates July 21, 2010
To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘‘too big to fail’’, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION REPORT dates January 2011
(Adopted by 6/10 Members)
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION
“The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has been called upon to examine the financial
and economic crisis that has gripped our country and explain its causes to the
American people. We are keenly aware of the significance of our charge, given the
economic damage that America has suffered in the wake of the greatest financial crisis
since the Great Depression.
Our task was first to determine what happened and how it happened so that we
could understand why it happened. Here we present our conclusions. We encourage
the American people to join us in making their own assessments based on the evidence
gathered in our inquiry. If we do not learn from history, we are unlikely to fully
recover from it. Some on Wall Street and in Washington with a stake in the status quo
may be tempted to wipe from memory the events of this crisis, or to suggest that no
one could have foreseen or prevented them. This report endeavors to expose the
facts, identify responsibility, unravel myths, and help us understand how the crisis
could have been avoided. It is an attempt to record history, not to rewrite it, nor allow
it to be rewritten.
To help our fellow citizens better understand this crisis and its causes, we also present
specific conclusions at the end of chapters in Parts III, IV, and V of this report.
The subject of this report is of no small consequence to this nation. The profound
events of and were neither bumps in the road nor an accentuated dip in
the financial and business cycles we have come to expect in a free market economic
system. This was a fundamental disruption—a financial upheaval, if you will—that
wreaked havoc in communities and neighborhoods across this country.
As this report goes to print, there are more than million Americans who are
out of work, cannot find full-time work, or have given up looking for work. About
four million families have lost their homes to foreclosure and another four and a half
million have slipped into the foreclosure process or are seriously behind on their
mortgage payments. Nearly trillion in household wealth has vanished, with retirement
accounts and life savings swept away. Businesses, large and small, have felt
the sting of a deep recession. There is much anger about what has transpired, and justifiably
so. Many people who abided by all the rules now find themselves out of work
and uncertain about their future prospects. The collateral damage of this crisis has
been real people and real communities. The impacts of this crisis are likely to be felt
for a generation. And the nation faces no easy path to renewed economic strength.
Like so many Americans, we began our exploration with our own views and some
preliminary knowledge about how the world’s strongest financial system came to the
brink of collapse. Even at the time of our appointment to this independent panel,
much had already been written and said about the crisis. Yet all of us have been
deeply affected by what we have learned in the course of our inquiry. We have been at
various times fascinated, surprised, and even shocked by what we saw, heard, and
read. Ours has been a journey of revelation.
Much attention over the past two years has been focused on the decisions by the
federal government to provide massive financial assistance to stabilize the financial
system and rescue large financial institutions that were deemed too systemically important
to fail. Those decisions—and the deep emotions surrounding them—will be
debated long into the future. But our mission was to ask and answer this central question:
how did it come to pass that in our nation was forced to choose between two
stark and painful alternatives—either risk the total collapse of our financial system
and economy or inject trillions of taxpayer dollars into the financial system and an
array of companies, as millions of Americans still lost their jobs, their savings, and
their homes?
In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see
it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis
were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages—
that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in
the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded
throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged,
repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds
of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities
shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to
those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in
the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives
such as synthetic securities.
The crisis reached seismic proportions in September with the failure of
Lehman Brothers and the impending collapse of the insurance giant American International
Group (AIG). Panic fanned by a lack of transparency of the balance sheets of major
financial institutions, coupled with a tangle of interconnections among institutions
perceived to be “too big to fail,” caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground
to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession.
The financial system we examined bears little resemblance to that of our parents’
generation. The changes in the past three decades alone have been remarkable. The
financial markets have become increasingly globalized. Technology has transformed
the efficiency, speed, and complexity of financial instruments and transactions. There
is broader access to and lower costs of financing than ever before. And the financial
sector itself has become a much more dominant force in our economy.
From to , the amount of debt held by the financial sector soared from
trillion to trillion, more than doubling as a share of gross domestic product.
The very nature of many Wall Street firms changed—from relatively staid private
partnerships to publicly traded corporations taking greater and more diverse kinds of
risks. By , the largest U.S. commercial banks held of the industry’s assets,
more than double the level held in . On the eve of the crisis in , financial
sector profits constituted of all corporate profits in the United States, up from
in . Understanding this transformation has been critical to the Commission’s
analysis.
Now to our major findings and conclusions, which are based on the facts contained
in this report: they are offered with the hope that lessons may be learned to
help avoid future catastrophe.
• We conclude this financial crisis was avoidable. The crisis was the result of human
action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. The
captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings
and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks within a system essential
to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.
While the business cycle cannot be repealed, a crisis of this magnitude need not have
occurred. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault lies not in the stars, but in us.
Despite the expressed view of many on Wall Street and in Washington that the
crisis could not have been foreseen or avoided, there were warning signs. The tragedy
was that they were ignored or discounted. There was an explosion in risky subprime
lending and securitization, an unsustainable rise in housing prices, widespread reports
of egregious and predatory lending practices, dramatic increases in household
mortgage debt, and exponential growth in financial firms’ trading activities, unregulated
derivatives, and short-term “repo” lending markets, among many other red
flags. Yet there was pervasive permissiveness; little meaningful action was taken to
quell the threats in a timely manner.
The prime example is the Federal Reserve’s pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic
mortgages, which it could have done by setting prudent mortgage-lending standards.
The Federal Reserve was the one entity empowered to do so and it did not. The
record of our examination is replete with evidence of other failures: financial institutions
made, bought, and sold mortgage securities they never examined, did not care
to examine, or knew to be defective; firms depended on tens of billions of dollars of
borrowing that had to be renewed each and every night, secured by subprime mortgage
securities; and major firms and investors blindly relied on credit rating agencies
as their arbiters of risk. What else could one expect on a highway where there were
neither speed limits nor neatly painted lines?
• We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision
proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries
were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the selfcorrecting
nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively
police themselves. More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation
by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and
actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away
key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had
opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as
the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition,
the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what
became a race to the weakest supervisor.
Yet we do not accept the view that regulators lacked the power to protect the financial
system. They had ample power in many arenas and they chose not to use it.
To give just three examples: the Securities and Exchange Commission could have required
more capital and halted risky practices at the big investment banks. It did not.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and other regulators could have clamped
down on Citigroup’s excesses in the run-up to the crisis. They did not. Policy makers
and regulators could have stopped the runaway mortgage securitization train. They
did not. In case after case after case, regulators continued to rate the institutions they
oversaw as safe and sound even in the face of mounting troubles, often downgrading
them just before their collapse. And where regulators lacked authority, they could
have sought it. Too often, they lacked the political will—in a political and ideological
environment that constrained it—as well as the fortitude to critically challenge the
institutions and the entire system they were entrusted to oversee.
Changes in the regulatory system occurred in many instances as financial markets
evolved. But as the report will show, the financial industry itself played a key
role in weakening regulatory constraints on institutions, markets, and products. It
did not surprise the Commission that an industry of such wealth and power would
exert pressure on policy makers and regulators. From to , the financial
sector expended . billion in reported federal lobbying expenses; individuals and
political action committees in the sector made more than billion in campaign
contributions. What troubled us was the extent to which the nation was deprived of
the necessary strength and independence of the oversight necessary to safeguard
financial stability.
• We conclude dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management
at many systemically important financial institutions were a key cause of this crisis.
There was a view that instincts for self-preservation inside major financial firms
would shield them from fatal risk-taking without the need for a steady regulatory
hand, which, the firms argued, would stifle innovation. Too many of these institutions
acted recklessly, taking on too much risk, with too little capital, and with too
much dependence on short-term funding. In many respects, this reflected a funda
mental change in these institutions, particularly the large investment banks and bank
holding companies, which focused their activities increasingly on risky trading activities
that produced hefty profits. They took on enormous exposures in acquiring and
supporting subprime lenders and creating, packaging, repackaging, and selling trillions
of dollars in mortgage-related securities, including synthetic financial products.
Like Icarus, they never feared flying ever closer to the sun.
Many of these institutions grew aggressively through poorly executed acquisition
and integration strategies that made effective management more challenging. The
CEO of Citigroup told the Commission that a billion position in highly rated
mortgage securities would “not in any way have excited my attention,” and the cohead
of Citigroup’s investment bank said he spent “a small fraction of ” of his time
on those securities. In this instance, too big to fail meant too big to manage.
Financial institutions and credit rating agencies embraced mathematical models
as reliable predictors of risks, replacing judgment in too many instances. Too often,
risk management became risk justification.
Compensation systems—designed in an environment of cheap money, intense
competition, and light regulation—too often rewarded the quick deal, the short-term
gain—without proper consideration of long-term consequences. Often, those systems
encouraged the big bet—where the payoff on the upside could be huge and the downside
limited. This was the case up and down the line—from the corporate boardroom
to the mortgage broker on the street.
Our examination revealed stunning instances of governance breakdowns and irresponsibility.
You will read, among other things, about AIG senior management’s ignorance
of the terms and risks of the company’s billion derivatives exposure to
mortgage-related securities; Fannie Mae’s quest for bigger market share, profits, and
bonuses, which led it to ramp up its exposure to risky loans and securities as the housing
market was peaking; and the costly surprise when Merrill Lynch’s top management
realized that the company held billion in “super-senior” and supposedly
“super-safe” mortgage-related securities that resulted in billions of dollars in losses.
• We conclude a combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack
of transparency put the financial system on a collision course with crisis. Clearly,
this vulnerability was related to failures of corporate governance and regulation, but
it is significant enough by itself to warrant our attention here.
In the years leading up to the crisis, too many financial institutions, as well as too
many households, borrowed to the hilt, leaving them vulnerable to financial distress
or ruin if the value of their investments declined even modestly. For example, as of
, the five major investment banks—Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman
Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley—were operating with extraordinarily
thin capital. By one measure, their leverage ratios were as high as to , meaning for
every in assets, there was only in capital to cover losses. Less than a drop in
asset values could wipe out a firm. To make matters worse, much of their borrowing
was short-term, in the overnight market—meaning the borrowing had to be renewed
each and every day. For example, at the end of , Bear Stearns had . billion in
equity and . billion in liabilities and was borrowing as much as billion in
the overnight market. It was the equivalent of a small business with , in equity
borrowing . million, with , of that due each and every day. One can’t
really ask “What were they thinking?” when it seems that too many of them were
thinking alike.
And the leverage was often hidden—in derivatives positions, in off-balance-sheet
entities, and through “window dressing” of financial reports available to the investing
public.
The kings of leverage were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two behemoth government-
sponsored enterprises (GSEs). For example, by the end of , Fannie’s
and Freddie’s combined leverage ratio, including loans they owned and guaranteed,
stood at to .
But financial firms were not alone in the borrowing spree: from to , national
mortgage debt almost doubled, and the amount of mortgage debt per household
rose more than from , to ,, even while wages were
essentially stagnant. When the housing downturn hit, heavily indebted financial
firms and families alike were walloped.
The heavy debt taken on by some financial institutions was exacerbated by the
risky assets they were acquiring with that debt. As the mortgage and real estate markets
churned out riskier and riskier loans and securities, many financial institutions
loaded up on them. By the end of , Lehman had amassed billion in commercial
and residential real estate holdings and securities, which was almost twice
what it held just two years before, and more than four times its total equity. And
again, the risk wasn’t being taken on just by the big financial firms, but by families,
too. Nearly one in mortgage borrowers in and took out “option ARM”
loans, which meant they could choose to make payments so low that their mortgage
balances rose every month.
Within the financial system, the dangers of this debt were magnified because
transparency was not required or desired. Massive, short-term borrowing, combined
with obligations unseen by others in the market, heightened the chances the system
could rapidly unravel. In the early part of the th century, we erected a series of protections—
the Federal Reserve as a lender of last resort, federal deposit insurance, ample
regulations—to provide a bulwark against the panics that had regularly plagued
America’s banking system in the th century. Yet, over the past -plus years, we
permitted the growth of a shadow banking system—opaque and laden with shortterm
debt—that rivaled the size of the traditional banking system. Key components
of the market—for example, the multitrillion-dollar repo lending market, off-balance-
sheet entities, and the use of over-the-counter derivatives—were hidden from
view, without the protections we had constructed to prevent financial meltdowns. We
had a st-century financial system with th-century safeguards.
When the housing and mortgage markets cratered, the lack of transparency, the
extraordinary debt loads, the short-term loans, and the risky assets all came home to
roost. What resulted was panic. We had reaped what we had sown.
• We conclude the government was ill prepared for the crisis, and its inconsistent
response added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets. As part of
our charge, it was appropriate to review government actions taken in response to the
developing crisis, not just those policies or actions that preceded it, to determine if
any of those responses contributed to or exacerbated the crisis.
As our report shows, key policy makers—the Treasury Department, the Federal
Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—who were best positioned
to watch over our markets were ill prepared for the events of and .
Other agencies were also behind the curve. They were hampered because they did
not have a clear grasp of the financial system they were charged with overseeing, particularly
as it had evolved in the years leading up to the crisis. This was in no small
measure due to the lack of transparency in key markets. They thought risk had been
diversified when, in fact, it had been concentrated. Time and again, from the spring
of on, policy makers and regulators were caught off guard as the contagion
spread, responding on an ad hoc basis with specific programs to put fingers in the
dike. There was no comprehensive and strategic plan for containment, because they
lacked a full understanding of the risks and interconnections in the financial markets.
Some regulators have conceded this error. We had allowed the system to race
ahead of our ability to protect it.
While there was some awareness of, or at least a debate about, the housing bubble,
the record reflects that senior public officials did not recognize that a bursting of the
bubble could threaten the entire financial system. Throughout the summer of ,
both Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
offered public assurances that the turmoil in the subprime mortgage markets
would be contained. When Bear Stearns’s hedge funds, which were heavily invested
in mortgage-related securities, imploded in June , the Federal Reserve discussed
the implications of the collapse. Despite the fact that so many other funds were exposed
to the same risks as those hedge funds, the Bear Stearns funds were thought to
be “relatively unique.” Days before the collapse of Bear Stearns in March , SEC
Chairman Christopher Cox expressed “comfort about the capital cushions” at the big
investment banks. It was not until August , just weeks before the government
takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that the Treasury Department understood
the full measure of the dire financial conditions of those two institutions. And just a
month before Lehman’s collapse, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was still
seeking information on the exposures created by Lehman’s more than , derivatives
contracts.
In addition, the government’s inconsistent handling of major financial institutions
during the crisis—the decision to rescue Bear Stearns and then to place Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, followed by its decision not to save Lehman
Brothers and then to save AIG—increased uncertainty and panic in the market.
In making these observations, we deeply respect and appreciate the efforts made
by Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, formerly president
of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now treasury secretary, and so
many others who labored to stabilize our financial system and our economy in the
most chaotic and challenging of circumstances.
• We conclude there was a systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics. The
integrity of our financial markets and the public’s trust in those markets are essential
to the economic well-being of our nation. The soundness and the sustained prosperity
of the financial system and our economy rely on the notions of fair dealing, responsibility,
and transparency. In our economy, we expect businesses and individuals
to pursue profits, at the same time that they produce products and services of quality
and conduct themselves well.
Unfortunately—as has been the case in past speculative booms and busts—we
witnessed an erosion of standards of responsibility and ethics that exacerbated the financial
crisis. This was not universal, but these breaches stretched from the ground
level to the corporate suites. They resulted not only in significant financial consequences
but also in damage to the trust of investors, businesses, and the public in the
financial system.
For example, our examination found, according to one measure, that the percentage
of borrowers who defaulted on their mortgages within just a matter of months
after taking a loan nearly doubled from the summer of to late . This data
indicates they likely took out mortgages that they never had the capacity or intention
to pay. You will read about mortgage brokers who were paid “yield spread premiums”
by lenders to put borrowers into higher-cost loans so they would get bigger fees, often
never disclosed to borrowers. The report catalogues the rising incidence of mortgage
fraud, which flourished in an environment of collapsing lending standards and
lax regulation. The number of suspicious activity reports—reports of possible financial
crimes filed by depository banks and their affiliates—related to mortgage fraud
grew -fold between and and then more than doubled again between
and . One study places the losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans
made between and at billion.
Lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford and that could
cause massive losses to investors in mortgage securities. As early as September ,
Countrywide executives recognized that many of the loans they were originating
could result in “catastrophic consequences.” Less than a year later, they noted that
certain high-risk loans they were making could result not only in foreclosures but
also in “financial and reputational catastrophe” for the firm. But they did not stop.
And the report documents that major financial institutions ineffectively sampled
loans they were purchasing to package and sell to investors. They knew a significant
percentage of the sampled loans did not meet their own underwriting standards or
those of the originators. Nonetheless, they sold those securities to investors. The
Commission’s review of many prospectuses provided to investors found that this critical
information was not disclosed.
THESE CONCLUSIONS must be viewed in the context of human nature and individual
and societal responsibility. First, to pin this crisis on mortal flaws like greed and
hubris would be simplistic. It was the failure to account for human weakness that is
relevant to this crisis.
Second, we clearly believe the crisis was a result of human mistakes, misjudgments,
and misdeeds that resulted in systemic failures for which our nation has paid
dearly. As you read this report, you will see that specific firms and individuals acted
irresponsibly. Yet a crisis of this magnitude cannot be the work of a few bad actors,
and such was not the case here. At the same time, the breadth of this crisis does not
mean that “everyone is at fault”; many firms and individuals did not participate in the
excesses that spawned disaster.
We do place special responsibility with the public leaders charged with protecting
our financial system, those entrusted to run our regulatory agencies, and the chief executives
of companies whose failures drove us to crisis. These individuals sought and
accepted positions of significant responsibility and obligation. Tone at the top does
matter and, in this instance, we were let down. No one said “no.”
But as a nation, we must also accept responsibility for what we permitted to occur.
Collectively, but certainly not unanimously, we acquiesced to or embraced a system,
a set of policies and actions, that gave rise to our present predicament.
* * *
THIS REPORT DESCRIBES THE EVENTS and the system that propelled our nation toward
crisis. The complex machinery of our financial markets has many essential
gears—some of which played a critical role as the crisis developed and deepened.
Here we render our conclusions about specific components of the system that we believe
contributed significantly to the financial meltdown.
• We conclude collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization
pipeline lit and spread the flame of contagion and crisis. When housing
prices fell and mortgage borrowers defaulted, the lights began to dim on Wall Street.
This report catalogues the corrosion of mortgage-lending standards and the securitization
pipeline that transported toxic mortgages from neighborhoods across America
to investors around the globe.
Many mortgage lenders set the bar so low that lenders simply took eager borrowers’
qualifications on faith, often with a willful disregard for a borrower’s ability to
pay. Nearly one-quarter of all mortgages made in the first half of were interestonly
loans. During the same year, of “option ARM” loans originated by Countrywide
and Washington Mutual had low- or no-documentation requirements.
These trends were not secret. As irresponsible lending, including predatory and
fraudulent practices, became more prevalent, the Federal Reserve and other regulators
and authorities heard warnings from many quarters. Yet the Federal Reserve
neglected its mission “to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and
financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.” It failed to build the
retaining wall before it was too late. And the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
and the Office of Thrift Supervision, caught up in turf wars, preempted state
regulators from reining in abuses.
While many of these mortgages were kept on banks’ books, the bigger money came
from global investors who clamored to put their cash into newly created mortgage-related
securities. It appeared to financial institutions, investors, and regulators alike that
risk had been conquered: the investors held highly rated securities they thought were
sure to perform; the banks thought they had taken the riskiest loans off their books;
and regulators saw firms making profits and borrowing costs reduced. But each step in
the mortgage securitization pipeline depended on the next step to keep demand going.
From the speculators who flipped houses to the mortgage brokers who scouted
the loans, to the lenders who issued the mortgages, to the financial firms that created
the mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), CDOs
squared, and synthetic CDOs: no one in this pipeline of toxic mortgages had enough
skin in the game. They all believed they could off-load their risks on a moment’s notice
to the next person in line. They were wrong. When borrowers stopped making
mortgage payments, the losses—amplified by derivatives—rushed through the
pipeline. As it turned out, these losses were concentrated in a set of systemically important
financial institutions.
In the end, the system that created millions of mortgages so efficiently has proven
to be difficult to unwind. Its complexity has erected barriers to modifying mortgages
so families can stay in their homes and has created further uncertainty about the
health of the housing market and financial institutions.
• We conclude over-the-counter derivatives contributed significantly to this
crisis. The enactment of legislation in 2000 to ban the regulation by both the federal
and state governments of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives was a key turning
point in the march toward the financial crisis.
From financial firms to corporations, to farmers, and to investors, derivatives
have been used to hedge against, or speculate on, changes in prices, rates, or indices
or even on events such as the potential defaults on debts. Yet, without any oversight,
OTC derivatives rapidly spiraled out of control and out of sight, growing to trillion
in notional amount. This report explains the uncontrolled leverage; lack of
transparency, capital, and collateral requirements; speculation; interconnections
among firms; and concentrations of risk in this market.
OTC derivatives contributed to the crisis in three significant ways. First, one type
of derivative—credit default swaps (CDS)—fueled the mortgage securitization
pipeline. CDS were sold to investors to protect against the default or decline in value
of mortgage-related securities backed by risky loans. Companies sold protection—to
the tune of billion, in AIG’s case—to investors in these newfangled mortgage securities,
helping to launch and expand the market and, in turn, to further fuel the
housing bubble.
Second, CDS were essential to the creation of synthetic CDOs. These synthetic
CDOs were merely bets on the performance of real mortgage-related securities. They
amplified the losses from the collapse of the housing bubble by allowing multiple bets
on the same securities and helped spread them throughout the financial system.
Goldman Sachs alone packaged and sold billion in synthetic CDOs from July ,
, to May , . Synthetic CDOs created by Goldman referenced more than
, mortgage securities, and of them were referenced at least twice. This is
apart from how many times these securities may have been referenced in synthetic
CDOs created by other firms.
Finally, when the housing bubble popped and crisis followed, derivatives were in
the center of the storm. AIG, which had not been required to put aside capital reserves
as a cushion for the protection it was selling, was bailed out when it could not
meet its obligations. The government ultimately committed more than billion
because of concerns that AIG’s collapse would trigger cascading losses throughout
the global financial system. In addition, the existence of millions of derivatives contracts
of all types between systemically important financial institutions—unseen and
unknown in this unregulated market—added to uncertainty and escalated panic,
helping to precipitate government assistance to those institutions.
• We conclude the failures of credit rating agencies were essential cogs in the
wheel of financial destruction. The three credit rating agencies were key enablers of
the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis
could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval. Investors relied
on them, often blindly. In some cases, they were obligated to use them, or regulatory
capital standards were hinged on them. This crisis could not have happened
without the rating agencies. Their ratings helped the market soar and their downgrades
through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms.
In our report, you will read about the breakdowns at Moody’s, examined by the
Commission as a case study. From to , Moody’s rated nearly ,
mortgage-related securities as triple-A. This compares with six private-sector companies
in the United States that carried this coveted rating in early . In
alone, Moody’s put its triple-A stamp of approval on mortgage-related securities
every working day. The results were disastrous: of the mortgage securities rated
triple-A that year ultimately were downgraded.
You will also read about the forces at work behind the breakdowns at Moody’s, including
the flawed computer models, the pressure from financial firms that paid for
the ratings, the relentless drive for market share, the lack of resources to do the job
despite record profits, and the absence of meaningful public oversight. And you will
see that without the active participation of the rating agencies, the market for mortgage-
related securities could not have been what it became.
* * *
THERE ARE MANY COMPETING VIEWS as to the causes of this crisis. In this regard, the
Commission has endeavored to address key questions posed to us. Here we discuss
three: capital availability and excess liquidity, the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
(the GSEs), and government housing policy.
First, as to the matter of excess liquidity: in our report, we outline monetary policies
and capital flows during the years leading up to the crisis. Low interest rates,
widely available capital, and international investors seeking to put their money in real
estate assets in the United States were prerequisites for the creation of a credit bubble.
Those conditions created increased risks, which should have been recognized by
market participants, policy makers, and regulators. However, it is the Commission’s
conclusion that excess liquidity did not need to cause a crisis. It was the failures outlined
above—including the failure to effectively rein in excesses in the mortgage and
financial markets—that were the principal causes of this crisis. Indeed, the availability
of well-priced capital—both foreign and domestic—is an opportunity for economic
expansion and growth if encouraged to flow in productive directions.
Second, we examined the role of the GSEs, with Fannie Mae serving as the Commission’s
case study in this area. These government-sponsored enterprises had a
deeply flawed business model as publicly traded corporations with the implicit backing
of and subsidies from the federal government and with a public mission. Their
trillion mortgage exposure and market position were significant. In and
, they decided to ramp up their purchase and guarantee of risky mortgages, just
as the housing market was peaking. They used their political power for decades to
ward off effective regulation and oversight—spending million on lobbying from
to . They suffered from many of the same failures of corporate governance
and risk management as the Commission discovered in other financial firms.
Through the third quarter of , the Treasury Department had provided billion
in financial support to keep them afloat.
We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary
cause. Importantly, GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value
throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses
that were central to the financial crisis.
The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages,
but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders in the rush for fool’s
gold. They purchased the highest rated non-GSE mortgage-backed securities and
their participation in this market added helium to the housing balloon, but their purchases
never represented a majority of the market. Those purchases represented .
of non-GSE subprime mortgage-backed securities in , with the share rising to
in , and falling back to by . They relaxed their underwriting standards
to purchase or guarantee riskier loans and related securities in order to meet
stock market analysts’ and investors’ expectations for growth, to regain market share,
and to ensure generous compensation for their executives and employees—justifying
their activities on the broad and sustained public policy support for homeownership.
The Commission also probed the performance of the loans purchased or guaranteed
by Fannie and Freddie. While they generated substantial losses, delinquency
rates for GSE loans were substantially lower than loans securitized by other financial
firms. For example, data compiled by the Commission for a subset of borrowers with
similar credit scores—scores below —show that by the end of , GSE mortgages
were far less likely to be seriously delinquent than were non-GSE securitized
mortgages: . versus ..
We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
(HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in
risky mortgages. Based on the evidence and interviews with dozens of individuals involved
in this subject area, we determined these goals only contributed marginally to
Fannie’s and Freddie’s participation in those mortgages.
Finally, as to the matter of whether government housing policies were a primary
cause of the crisis: for decades, government policy has encouraged homeownership
through a set of incentives, assistance programs, and mandates. These policies were
put in place and promoted by several administrations and Congresses—indeed, both
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush set aggressive goals to increase homeownership.
In conducting our inquiry, we took a careful look at HUD’s affordable housing
goals, as noted above, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was
enacted in to combat “redlining” by banks—the practice of denying credit to individuals
and businesses in certain neighborhoods without regard to their creditworthiness.
The CRA requires banks and savings and loans to lend, invest, and provide
services to the communities from which they take deposits, consistent with bank
safety and soundness.
The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending
or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates
only of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to
the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they
were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same
neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.
Nonetheless, we make the following observation about government housing policies—
they failed in this respect: As a nation, we set aggressive homeownership goals
with the desire to extend credit to families previously denied access to the financial
markets. Yet the government failed to ensure that the philosophy of opportunity was
being matched by the practical realities on the ground. Witness again the failure of
the Federal Reserve and other regulators to rein in irresponsible lending. Homeownership
peaked in the spring of and then began to decline. From that point on,
the talk of opportunity was tragically at odds with the reality of a financial disaster in
the making.
* * *
WHEN THIS COMMISSION began its work months ago, some imagined that the
events of and their consequences would be well behind us by the time we issued
this report. Yet more than two years after the federal government intervened in an
unprecedented manner in our financial markets, our country finds itself still grappling
with the aftereffects of the calamity. Our financial system is, in many respects,
still unchanged from what existed on the eve of the crisis. Indeed, in the wake of the
crisis, the U.S. financial sector is now more concentrated than ever in the hands of a
few large, systemically significant institutions.
While we have not been charged with making policy recommendations, the very
purpose of our report has been to take stock of what happened so we can plot a new
course. In our inquiry, we found dramatic breakdowns of corporate governance,
profound lapses in regulatory oversight, and near fatal flaws in our financial system.
We also found that a series of choices and actions led us toward a catastrophe for
which we were ill prepared. These are serious matters that must be addressed and
resolved to restore faith in our financial markets, to avoid the next crisis, and to rebuild
a system of capital that provides the foundation for a new era of broadly
shared prosperity.
The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen
this coming and thus nothing could have been done. If we accept this notion, it will
happen again.
This report should not be viewed as the end of the nation’s examination of this
crisis. There is still much to learn, much to investigate, and much to fix.
This is our collective responsibility. It falls to us to make different choices if we
want different results.”
Then came,
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, May 24, 2018
To promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, and enhance consumer protections, and for other purposes.
Center for Safe and Sound Banking 