Dear Occupy Wall Street: Are You Sure You’re in the Right Place?

I get it – people are angry. Very, very angry. I’m angry too. And Wall Street sure makes a great scapegoat, hence the Occupy Wall Street protest. Wall Street is a symbol of the “greed and corruption” that took over America and caused this whole mess.

But let’s take a minute to examine the facts and see if we can’t find some better scapegoats:

  • In 1997 Andrew Cuomo, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Bill Clinton, allowed Fannie Mae to reduce the standards by which they would secure loans. This helped create the entire subprime category. Was this a bad thing? Of course not – it allowed more people to leave the ghetto, move to the suburbs, and achieve the American Dream of owning a home. Who knew that “Dream” would turn into a nightmare in a mere decade. Cuomo is not Nostradamus. We can blame him of course, but he had good intentions despite the negative results.
  • We can blame the Federal Reserve of course. They lowered interest rates after the dot-com bust so much that there was no way for anybody to achieve safe, steady returns using conservative investments like bonds. Everyone — you, me, retirees — wanted higher returns for their 401(k) and pension plan. So we went to the banks and said, What can we do? And the banks said, Well, you’re the ones asking for higher yields, so here it is. And they bundled together all the newly made subprime mortgages into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) so that the average guy could finally get some yield since the Federal Reserve was blocking all other alternatives. So if you want to occupy the Federal Reserve, go to Washington, D.C. Of course, they had good intentions too. They wanted people to stop buying bonds and start buying stocks. And it worked! Until it didn’t.
  • And what about the banks who bundled together these mortgage-backed securities? I don’t know, you and I asked for those securities through our 401(k) plans. So they were just responding to demand, right?
    Fine, so what about the hedge funds. Suddenly they saw these mortgage-backed securities yielding 10% and immediately bought them up. They were greedy! But weren’t they just trying to find safe returns for their investors? Either way, the hedge funds aren’t on Wall Street. Go occupy Greenwich, or Park Avenue — but not Wall Street.
    But then investment banks like Lehman saw what the hedge funds were doing, and they started doing it too: scooping up as much yield as they could, risk be damned! Greed! Again though, this was a handful of CEOs, many of whom have been fired from their jobs. I’m not trying to apologize for them. But let’s make sure our anger is pointed in the right direction.
  • Which now brings me to the biggest culprits yet: the accountants! Right in the middle of all of this mess, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) changed GAAP accounting rules so that you could no longer mark a mortgage-backed security according to your own statistical analysis. You had to start marking it down as soon as there were the slightest defaults and the paper started trading at lower values (this is called mark-to-market). Which meant that hedge funds trading in these illiquid securities could make just a few trades involving a hundred thousand dollars or so, and suddenly trillions of dollars would be wiped out of the value of the banks. Hedge funds gleefully took advantage of this accounting rule change, and tons of bank equity was wiped out. Once FASB changed the rule back (April, 2009) the banks (and all stocks) went straight up.

But how about this: You’re to blame too. That’s right, you. Why? Because you’re not investing in America! You’re irrationally scared. Why have there been 25 months in a row of redemptions from mutual funds? Why are P/E ratios relative to yields at their lowest levels ever? The stock market right now is irrationally low. Bond yields are at 1% (give or take) and the S&P 500 is yielding 2.3%. That wide a spread has never happened before. So please, get your money out from under the mattress, and stop un-investing in America.

And finally, people are saying the problem in the euro zone is a “repeat” of Lehman. On CNBC this week, I had to explain that Greece is a country, and that Lehman Brothers was a bank. You can’t liquidate a country, not very easily at least. The euro zone has problems but let’s put them in perspective:

  1. In 1981-2 a huge portion of South America defaulted. Our 8 largest banks were 263% exposed to South America. What happened? A big bailout. Then the biggest stock market boom in history that lasted almost 20 years.
  2. Today, our 8 largest banks are about 8% exposed to the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain). They can all default and pay zero cents on the dollar. Our total exposure (in the 5 largest banks) is $54 billion. That’s not chump change, but that’s not Lehman and AIG either.

So, I’m confused, whose fault is it? And where do I go “occupy” if I want to vent my anger? The choices: FASB, Governor Cuomo’s office, the Federal Reserve, hedge funds, and mortgage lenders (who were thrilled with the new Fannie Mae lending standards so they loaned out as much as possible).

What about Germany? What about Greece? What about the White House? President Obama has so confused the healthcare system, and created such confusion around mandatory payments from corporations that everyone is now afraid to hire. Two trillion dollars in stimulus and we’ve lost millions of jobs. How can that be? Guess what: there’s also $2 trillion in cash sitting in reserves at the banks. It never hit the money supply!

There are millions of private businesses out there that aren’t hiring because banks aren’t lending. Why aren’t they lending? Because they’re afraid of political uncertainty. If a bank is going to be politically targeted it needs all the money it can get. Plus, the Federal Reserve is paying banks to hold money. Why? Because we asked for it! We wanted the banks to stop being so greedy so we decided to encourage them to hold onto more money and not lose it all. The Fed does that by paying them.

Deep breath. There’s no scapegoat here. We’re all in this together, and we’re all (somewhat) at fault. So rather than planning an occupation, let’s focus on solutions:

  1. The Federal Reserve should stay out of it: stop paying the banks to hold our money instead of lending it out. Heck, let’s even charge the banks, and unleash that $2 trillion that never escaped Quantitative Easing.
  2. Let’s bring back the uptick rule, and make it harder to short the market. What does this do? It makes stocks go up so companies can raise more money to hire people.
  3. None of the stimulus from Obama or the Fed has helped the franchise business. There are about one million franchises in the U.S. employing over 10 million people. How about we give those franchises a tax break so they can hire more people. Or set up a lending program to lend directly to them so they can start more franchises and hire more people. This would definitely help unemployment.

Meanwhile, please stop being so angry. Stop “occupying” places. Let’s be friendly and focus on solutions. Let’s be creative and focus on how we can use that energy for invention, innovation, and ultimately jobs.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 206

View All Comments »
  1. Patrick Daly says:

    In 1999 clinton signed the repeal of glass stegal,did this play a role?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 10
    • Mike B says:

      Passed by a Republican controlled congress.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 17
      • Alex says:

        does it matter whether it was a republican or democrat that passed the bill. They both are in charge they both get the blame.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 75 Thumb down 1
      • CanUDig says:

        If you want to blame a party, look who has held the largest amount of power for the longest amount of time. The amount of time the White House and Congress has been held simultaneously by Republicans since 1945 is three years.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 15
    • James Altucher says:

      I think i should make EXTRA CLEAR: I support the protesters. I want them to be even MORE effective. I just want them to protest in the right place, against the correct culprits, where they will be truly be heard. I describe this more in a recent post on my blog:

      http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/10/ask-james-morality-atheism-occupy-wall-street-entrepeneurship-and-more/

      Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 32
      • Mike B says:

        You can’t say you support the protesters if the next thing out of your mouth is implies that they should do a complete 180 on the very concepts they are protesting about. That’s like suggesting that students protesting cuts in education funding would do better by advocating the elimination of all public schools.

        Oh, and stop shilling for your blog! You’re like that villain from Contagion who’ll say anything as long as it gets him more hits. Come on, show a little integrity.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 26
    • Brandon says:

      The banks that were in the most trouble were almost purely investment banks that did not take advantage of the repeal of Glass-Steagal. When the price collapse happened they did not have checking or savings accounts to draw from to cushion the blow. Traditional banks, your Wellsfargo, BofA, and so forth, did not fare as badly as the Lehmans and Goldman Sachs.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
  2. Jesse says:

    Go idea. Blame poor people. Best of all they don’t have the internet, so they don’t know it’s their fault.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 76 Thumb down 78
    • James Altucher says:

      Thanks for the comment but I just want to make sure: did you read my article? Does Andrew Cuomo, the Federal Reserve, hedge funds, and banks qualify as poor people. Those were among the people I think are involved and none of those parties live or work anywhere near Wall Street.

      My goal in this article is to identify the real culprits and where they actually are. And also to point out the actual demographic of who really works on the actual Wall Street, NY

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 9
  3. Ryan says:

    We’re not all at fault. Some of us are just wage slaves too poor to put any money into the market at all. If by all you mean, everyone middle class and up, sure, but I’d be hard pressed to find a way to blame society’s problems on the working poor.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 87 Thumb down 36
  4. Franz says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 69
  5. jesusfchrist says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 33
    • James Altucher says:

      Thanks for the comment. In terms of my private finances I invest in angel investments and not public companies so as to avoid any conflict of interest with my writings. I believe in the highest ethical standards when writing about these issues.

      Second, not sure what your comment has to do with article. Please read my above comment. (Or re-read article.) I don’tbelieve I discuss the market at all in this article.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5
    • pawnman says:

      Obviously you didn’t read the chapter of Freakonomics where they show that money has very little effect on elections.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Soctrap says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 43
  7. jonathan says:

    There is no point in yelling at this side of the argument. The problem is on the other side. Whatever the totality of the causes of the financial crisis, the solution is not less regulation, “trusting the markets” and then claiming the way to handle future problems is to let firms fail. Firms too big to fail won’t be allowed to fail because the costs will be too great, so that argument is either stupid or a cynical strategy designed to excuse lack of regulation.

    The arguments being made now, being pushed by the WSJ and constantly argued by Paul Ryan, for example, are that regulation distorts market processes and that regulation creates “crony capitalism” by favoring outcomes. This overturns the traditional idea of “cronyism” but so what? That’s the argument. This is a religious belief in markets for some and it’s also what I call Murdochism: what’s good for me is good for me and therefore it is what is good. We can see Murdochism in the hilarious dichotomy of their news operation and their entertainment operation: one pushes a gay acceptance, family subversive agenda while the other sells the exact opposite. Why? Because both approaches are good for the Murdoch interests.

    It’s easy to poke at people in the street. But didn’t we just see regimes of countries overturned because people gathered in streets? Didn’t the kids I remember well push the end of the Vietnam War? Sometimes what happens on the streets becomes something. Like the Tea Party.

    I also note your odd statement: banks “were just responding to demand, right?” That in a nutshell is a big part of the problem in economics: which is, demand makes supply or supply makes demand. It seems that when the story is right, it’s time to blame demand – those lazy borrowers who took too much money from those wonderful banking folks. When the story shifts, it’s time to point at suppliers: we’re not suffering from a shortage of demand but of supply and the suppliers are unwilling to produce because they lack confidence. You can’t keep your stories straight. Which is why economics is a joke.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 84 Thumb down 40
  8. rehajm says:

    ’2.Let’s bring back the uptick rule, and make it harder to short the market. What does this do? It makes stocks go up…”

    Yikes! Short sales are the new witches! Where’s the evidence removing short sellers from a market makes for more efficient pricing? What about the evidence short sellers created more volatility? And in a world of automated, split second trading, simultaneous trading on multiple exchanges with multiple paths to market, and decimalization pricing just how would you intend to implement such a rule?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 5
    • James Altucher says:

      Since there’s actually quite a bit of statistical evidence I’ll be happy to write a new post on this topic.

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
      • Cameron says:

        I would actually love to see that. After reading your article, this was the only point that stood out to me as incorrect. The studies that I have read about the efficacy of the uptick rule suggest that is has no real impact on the pricing of equities.

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
      • rehajm says:

        Thanks, James- I’s like to see your conclusions as well. Data, please.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
      • mikeh says:

        I too would like to see your evidence. The problem with statistical analysis is that correlation does not imply causation. Given that these rules are often enacted right large crashes, it is hardly surprising to see bounces. Blaming short sellers for inefficiently priced markets is akin to a witch hunt w/o any hard evidence, and my own research has not dug up any. But perhaps the goal is not efficiently priced markets.

        ~mikeh

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0