The blog that connects you with boomers!
Previous Post: It’s 3 Am do you know where your 401k is?  
Next Post: To Spend or Not to Spend, That is the Question

Incentive Systems: The Mortgage Industry

Incentive Systems: The Mortgage Industrydollarbill

BLOGGER: BEN PIERSON

 

“People respond to incentives in predictable ways.”

 

This is the first rule I was ever taught during my high school economics class and remains one of the most powerful I’ve ever learned.  I’m reminded of this rule often, in all contexts.  And, this applies to the mortgage industry.

In some sense, a cornerstone of our society is that we are all role players.  In the industrial revolution we discovered the value of specialization.  Instead of one person making each whole shoe by themselves, one person would cut the leather, another would hit the same nail in each time, and yet another would sew the same spot each time…  We rely on predictability; we rely on people fulfilling their role.  It’s up to us to understand what each person’s role is and how each person is predictable.   

So what does this have to do with mortgages, you ask?

Mortgages provide a good example of how the incentive system got screwy. People acted rationally, oversight was negligible and consequences became severe.  Mortgage brokers were paid based off how many mortgages they originated (‘sold’).  It made zero difference to their payout if any – or all – of the mortgages end up defaulting in two or three years.  The future risk would be the bank’s problem since the mortgage broker has already gotten paid and the mortgage now belonged to the bank.  Banks didn’t want this risk either (they were conscious to some extent of the risk in the mortgages they were selling), so would take all of these mortgages and resell them to, say, an Investment Bank (eg Lehman, Merrill, etc), who would then package the mortgages up and resell them again (eg. Mortgage Backed Securities and CDOs).  The individuals working at the mortgage broker, bank, and investment bank all get paid off revenue.  They all get paid at the point of sale, with little exposure to the future risks.

So to sum this up, you have a system where the people working at almost every layer are exposed to vast reward with finite risk.  And we now have terms such as the NINJA Loan (No Income, No Job, No Assets… no problem!) with the corresponding mortgage malpractice that has now come to light. 

To give an example to better explain this, like many others, if I am driving at 4am, the only car on the road, I will likely drive fast.  What keeps me from going very fast was the risk of getting caught.  The mortgage system and those working in the field aren’t any different.

The calls for tighter restrictions and regulations on banks and hedge funds are, for the most part, erroneous as fairly comprehensive restrictions and regulations already exist.  The problem is there’s little to no enforcement and the enforcement which exists is painfully inadequate.  I’ve only been on Wall Street for 8 years, but since the beginning I remember people making fun of how woefully inadequate the S.E.C. is.  In addition to the S.E.C., the Ratings Agencies (Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, Fitch, etc…) were supposed to help regulate companies as well.  So, you’d think there was an adequate system in place to keep problems like we are in right now from happening.  Right?  Wrong.

Most people who played a part in all this mess – Mortgage Brokers, Banks, Investment Banks, and Ratings Agencies - were really acting as we should anticipate the would given the incentive structure involved with them.  Failings must be placed in a large part on then regulatory bodies like the SEC and Ratings Agencies who were set up explicitly to be outside of the ‘incentive system’.  One must also then throw blame on the government – and rely on them to fix this – for it would seem the problem grew from the innate nature of the structure.

Should you want to read more on the rating agencies’ role, here are two comprehensive (very detailed) articles:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ajs7BqG4_X8I

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=ah839IWTLP9s

Certainly this is a very complicated issue which has touched us all in some way.

What do you think?

 Leave a comment…

To find out about Ben, click here to read his bio.

ben-iv1

 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON BLOG POSTS, PLEASE ENTER YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN WHERE IT SAYS “SUBSCRIBE”. 

ia_logo_button3

Share/Save/Bookmark

For constant site updates, make sure to subscribe to our RSS feed!

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Wealthy 11 months, 3 weeks ago at 12:08.

6 comments

6 Replies

  1. working in finance sure you would like to blame other people. I skimmed the link and see how raitings agencies get some blame. No evidence presented for the SEC and you make aggressive claims.

  2. Ben Pierson Feb 23rd 2009

    Hi Ralph, thanks for the comment. I certainly don’t abscond my ‘colleagues’ in finance from blame and i’m sorry if you got that impression. Heck, I think just about everyone shoulders some blame here. My point is more let’s look how this situation was created through rational - not irrational - actions on the part of most people and unfortunately this is the same for the regulatory bodies (like the SEC, which is specifically designed to prevent this). To speak to your comment on the SEC, Michael Lewis (author of Liar’s Poker & Moneyball) & David Einhorn (Greenlight Capital) wrote two interesting op-eds for the NY Times, which are worth a skim as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhorn.html
    Among items, they note how many people use the SEC to procure a position in the private industry (where they can make 5-10 times what they earn at the SEC), creating an inherent - and huge - conflict of interest. Because of this they have incentives to not find any violations in a sense. Cases in point:
    • The S.E.C.’s recent Director of Enforcement is now the general counsel at JPMorgan Chase
    • The Director of Enforcement before him became general counsel at Deutsche Bank
    • A Director of Enforcement before these two was hired away from the S.E.C. by Credit Suisse and made a Managing Director

    Thanks again for the comment and feedback,

    Ben

  3. Jacqueline Mar 20th 2009

    You make very good points. Human nature dictates that the low level players would act as they did. It’s a shame we need regulatory bodies but we do.

  4. I found lots of interesting information on blog.imagineage.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. blog.imagineage.com keep it that way.

  5. Ben Pierson Jun 7th 2009

    Hi Jacqueline,
    Thanks for the comment. Yes, as Debbie and the psychologists here can tell you better than I could, people do need rules and regulations. Not just in finance, but everywhere. Let’s just hope we use the last several years’ failures to improve - but not go overboard - on the regulations in place… one key part of this situation is that we DID have regulations in place, they just were often poorly enforced and poorly constructed.

  6. Ben Pierson Jun 7th 2009

    Hi Payday,
    Thanks for the nice words. I enjoyed your site as well.


Leave a Reply


ImagineAge on Facebook
  • Categories

  • Recent Comments