Daily Digest - November 25: Wall Street's Deals Hit Every Taxpayer

Nov 25, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Wall Street’s Taxpayer Scam: How Local Governments Get Fleeced — and So Do You (Salon)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Wall Street’s Taxpayer Scam: How Local Governments Get Fleeced — and So Do You (Salon)

Elias Isquith interviews Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti about his new report on how governments can push back against Wall Street's predatory deals.

Food Pantries Stretched to Breaking Point by Food Stamp Cuts (AJAM)

Ned Resnikoff reports on the crisis facing food pantries in NYC, where one-third of food banks and soup kitchens had to turn people away in September.

Corporate America Is Using the Sharing Economy to Turn Us Into Temps (TNR)

Noam Scheiber says the sharing economy's expansion into temp work is part of a trend of workforce restructuring from hiring staff for peak loads to hiring the absolute minimum.

This Is the Next Big Fight Between Progressives and the Wall Street Dems (The Nation)

Senator Warren and others are protesting the nomination of Antonio Weiss to a major role in Treasury, citing his work on tax-avoiding practices like corporate inversions, writes Zoë Carpenter.

Let Old Labor Die (In These Times)

Jeremy Gantz reviews Tom Geoghegan's new book, which prescribes new models of labor organizing that are more democratic, outside of the bounds of the National Labor Relations Board.

New on Next New Deal

Artisanal Millennials and the Resurrection of Free Labor Ideology

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellow for Economic Development Brit Byrd says growing preferences for artisanal products cannot be allowed to erase the importance of wage labor in our economy.

Share This

A Dem Who Can Explain that Fairness is Prosperity Will Sweep in 2016

Nov 19, 2014Richard Kirsch

The policies that will deliver economic growth also center fairness, and that's what Democrats need to emphasize to keep the presidency in 2016.

The policies that will deliver economic growth also center fairness, and that's what Democrats need to emphasize to keep the presidency in 2016.

The familiar debate within the Democratic Party – move left or right – is on. In a memo to a “limited number of Democratic leaders,” Third Way, the leading organization for corporate Democrats, lays down the gauntlet: “Democrats are offering economic fairness, but voters want economic growth and prosperity.” And for good measure, Third Way declares, “And it has to be meaningful; Democrats can’t simply stick a 'growth' label on the old bottle of 'fairness' policies.”

The folks at Third Way are right about one thing; voters do want economic growth and prosperity. Where they are wrong is in their assumption that fairness can't be a part of that growth. The policies that do the most to bolster fairness are in fact the most powerful policies to move the economy forward and create broadly shared prosperity.

Progressives and Democrats don’t always make that clear. Most of the time they talk about fairness as separate from broadly-shared prosperity. The Democrat who bases his or her campaign on that crucial link will sweep into the presidency in 2016.

Policies that increase fairness are key to driving the economy forward.

Raising the minimum wage is not just about basic fairness for low-wage workers. Raising wages is about creating economy boosting jobs, not economy busting jobs. When wages are raised, workers have more money to spend, essential when 70 percent of the economy is made up of consumer spending.

An economy boosting job pays enough to cover the basics, which is why the fight for a $15 per hour minimum wage mobilizes people to action. It is about working at that wage for enough hours, with predictable schedules, so that the wages add up to a decent paycheck. It is about getting paid when you are out sick and having paid family leave, so you can care for and support your family. It is about women getting paid as much as men. It is about being able to afford your health care, so you have money to spend on other essentials and don’t end up bankrupt because of a high-cost illness. It is about increasing Social Security benefits and bolstering retirement savings, so you can keep supporting yourself and keep the economy moving well into your retirement.

These measures reward people fairly for work and are essential to rebuilding the middle class engine of the economy, as shown by the evidence collected in the Center for American Progress’s middle-out economics project.

The flip side of creating economy boosting jobs is reversing the soaring concentration of wealth. It’s not just unfair that the rich are grabbing more and more of the wealth we all create, it’s a big reason that the economy remains sluggish. When the top 1 percent capture virtually all of the economic progress, it's impossible for them to spend much of it. When corporations sit on trillions of dollars of cash because there aren’t markets for their goods, that money doesn’t go to higher wages or investment in creating jobs or other things that would boost productivity throughout the economy.

Even Wall Street is beginning to get it. In a report that is stunning only for its source, Standard & Poor's found this summer that “Our review of the data, as well as a wealth of research on this matter, leads us to conclude that the current level of income inequality in the U.S. is dampening GDP growth, at a time when the world's biggest economy is struggling to recover from the Great Recession and the government is in need of funds to support an aging population.”

A big goal of Third Way’s memo is to justify policies that they admit “may not be the most politically popular.” While some of the Third Way proposals are worthwhile, like millions of teachers for pre-K, much of their agenda is that of corporate America and in some cases would actually be bad for the economic growth they claim to seek.

Using coded language in an attempt to dilute the political poison, Third Way pushes for cutting Social Security benefits, lowering corporate tax rates rather than stopping corporate tax evasion, and agreeing to new trade deals which would drive the race to the bottom and allow corporations to challenge environmental and health and safety laws, instead of bolstering American workers' already hard-pressed incomes.

Instead, what the country needs and what Democrats should push are bold policies which drive the economy forward and create broadly shared prosperity: fairness.

We can start by putting Americans to work with a massive investment in core productive infrastructure in three areas: transportation, from roads and bridges to high speed rail; clean, renewable energy, which will simultaneously tackle climate disruption; and high-speed Internet for every home and business in America. Everyone who does this work should be paid enough, with good benefits, to support and care for their families, and be given the flexibility needed to care for those families.  In doing so, we doubly boost the economy: through the investment in infrastructure and through the good jobs.

It is both fair and essential for our economic future to ensure that every child has a quality education and the opportunity to succeed in school, career, and life. We need to modernize and replace dilapidated schools and assure that every child has a well-prepared and supported teacher in a small enough class to learn. We need to transform schools, particularly those that teach children in low-income neighborhoods, into community centers. We should make high-quality child care and pre-K universal, employing millions more providers and teachers.

We need to provide career training for the high-skilled jobs that don’t require traditional college. We need to make college affordable, by dramatically lowering the cost of public colleges and universities, providing much more tuition assistance, and tying the payment of student loans to earnings.

And as in infrastructure, all these jobs – from day-care providers to teachers to college professors (no more adjuncts) – should be good jobs, with good pay, benefits, and the flexibility to care and support families.

The only reason that Democrats would consider an agenda that Third Way admits is politically unpopular is to please corporate campaign donors and elites. But with President Obama pushing for new trade deals, advocating revenue-neutral corporate tax reform and having supported cuts in Social Security benefits, that agenda is as alive as the billions in campaign contributions that pour into both political parties.

Americans are right about two things. One, the system is rigged to favor the wealthy and powerful. Two, unless we change course, the future will not be better for our children. Those are the core reasons we saw historically low voter turn out this month and why minimum wage hikes passed at the same time voters decided to give Republicans their turn in the continuing roller-coaster of Congressional control over the past decade.

The Democrat who champions bold policies to build an America that works for all of us, not just the wealthy, and policies that create broadly shared, sustainable prosperity, will triumph in 2016.

The key, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did (and as great organizers do), is to tap into anger and lift up hope. FDR railed against the “economic royalists” and experimented with bold policies that reigned in financial speculation and put Americans to work building the foundations for the 20th Century economy. 

The next FDR will name the villains who are rigging the system: Wall Street speculators and corporations that cut wages and benefits and ship jobs overseas. The next FDR will reveal the truth that “we all do better when we all do better.” That when we all earn enough to care and support our families, when we can shop in our neighborhoods, give our kids a great education, afford our health care, retire with security, we drive the economy forward.

Mamby-pamby won’t cut it. Americans are crying for bold leadership, a way out of a narrowing world towards a better world for our children.

The Democrat who leads a political party that stands up against the rich and powerful and stands up for working families and the middle class, who declares that Americans have done this before and that together we can do it again, will triumph in 2016. A Democratic party that relentlessly presses that agenda into action will meet the great challenge of our time. 

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 19: Why Do So Few Workers Get Overtime Pay Today?

Nov 19, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Whatever Happened to Overtime? (Politico Magazine)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Whatever Happened to Overtime? (Politico Magazine)

Nick Hanauer says that raising the earnings threshold for mandatory overtime pay would kickstart the economy by either ensuring workers have more money or forcing companies to hire more workers.

Can Republicans Shut Down the Government Without Actually Shutting Down the Government? (WaPo)

Paul Waldman explains the GOP plan to stop any executive action on immigration without shutting down the government. The strategy: to pass spending bills that exclude the offices that would work on that issue.

Over Bentley's Objections, Golden Dragon Plant Votes for Union (Montgomery Advisor)

The Republican governor of Alabama urged workers at a copper plant to vote against unionizing with a letter distributed directly to the plant workers shortly before they voted in favor of their union.

Republicans Sure Love to Hate Unions (NYT)

Thomas Edsall points out that while Republicans demonize unions, and public sector unions in particular, the Democrats aren't doing much of anything to push back on labor's behalf.

When Mega Corporations Get Mega Tax Breaks, We All Pay (The Nation)

Katrina vanden Heuvel, a member of the Roosevelt Institute's board of directors, says that closing corporate income tax loopholes could fund incredible projects, like national universal pre-K.

Here's Why Conservatives Will Never Give Up Their War on Obamacare (TNR)

The "partisan incomprehension" that follows the Affordable Care Act around in the news is primarily based in the fact that Republicans lost a highly partisan fight, writes Brian Beutler.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 18: Rotten Bank Deals in the Windy City and Beyond

Nov 18, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How the Banks Bamboozled Chicago (Chicago Sun Times)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How the Banks Bamboozled Chicago (Chicago Sun Times)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti explains how banks broke their contracts with the city of Chicago, and how Mayor Emanuel should respond to get that money back.

  • Roosevelt Take: Today, Bhatti releases a new report, "Dirty Deals: How Wall Street’s Predatory Deals Hurt Taxpayers and What We Can Do About It," which examines this issue on a broader scale.

Good Data Make Better Cities (Boston Globe)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford and Stephen Goldsmith argue in favor of a revamping of data-sharing laws within government, so they protect without limiting collaboration.

Long-Term Unemployment a Sign of Slack, NY Fed Economists Say (WSJ)

The New York Federal Reserve is calling on policymakers to account for the long-term unemployed in their assessment of the economy, writes Pedro da Costa.

That Silence You Hear Is the Sound of Healthcare.gov Working Just Fine (TNR)

Jonathan Cohn says the disparate headlines about how Obamacare is working are all correct: in general, premiums are increasing slowly, but what that means for individual plans will vary.

Number of Homeless Children in America Surges to All-Time High: Report (HuffPo)

A new report calculates that nearly 2.5 million children were homeless at some point in 2013. Lack of affordable housing plays a major role, report David Crary and Lisa Leff.

How Badly Do Republicans Want Tax Reform? (Maybe Not That Badly) (TAP)

Paul Waldman says that if Republicans – or their campaign funders – really wanted tax reform, they'd start writing a proposal regardless of the president's actions on other issues.

And Now the Richest .01 Percent (Robert Reich)

The richest .01 percent of the U.S. now hold a higher percentage of the country's wealth than in 1929, and Robert Reich says they've used it to buy off American democracy.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 17: Getting Married Won't Solve Inequality

Nov 17, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Why You Shouldn’t Marry for Money (The Nation)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert explain why the conservative idea of reducing poverty and inequality by promoting marriage won't actually work.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Why You Shouldn’t Marry for Money (The Nation)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert explain why the conservative idea of reducing poverty and inequality by promoting marriage won't actually work.

Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Reveals Why Robots Really Are Coming For Your Job (Business Insider)

Tomas Hirst reports on a new paper by Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz, which argues that left unchecked, innovation can create market failures that increase inequality.

Why Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class (MoJo)

Kevin Drum argues that the Democrats' split from organized labor in the 1960s and labor's subsequent loss of power helped to create the pro-business political climate we have today.

Kansas Revenues Will Fall $1 Billion Short of 2015 and 2016 Expenses, Fiscal Experts Say (Kansas City Star)

Following massive income tax cuts, Kansas faces severe shortages, and critics of the tax cuts worry the results will be cuts for schools, roads, and social services, writes Brad Cooper.

Inequality, Unbelievably, Gets Worse (NYT)

Steven Rattner points to new data from the Federal Reserve showing increased inequality. He emphasizes government transfer programs as a way to ease the problem.

Arkansas’s Blue Collar Social Conservatives Don’t Know What’s Coming (Daily Beast)

200,000 Akansans gained health insurance through a hybrid "private option," but Monica Potts writes that with newly elected officials focused on money over people, that could disappear.

The Real Winner of the Midterms: Wall Street (In These Times)

David Sirota ties Wall Street's funding of gubernatorial campaigns to its profits: many of these candidates support "pension reform" that will increase Wall Street's fees.

Share This

On Public and Profits at Boston Review

Nov 12, 2014Mike Konczal

Did you know that prosecutors were paid based on how many cases they tried in the 19th century? Or that Adam Smith argued for judges running on the profit motive in the Wealth of Nations? I have a new piece discussion the rise and fall of disinterested public service as a response to the abuses of the profit motive in government service, or how we got away from that system and how we are now going back to it, at Boston Review. It's called Selling Fast: Public Goods, Profits, and State Legitimacy.

It's a review of Against the Profit Motive: The Salary Revolution in American Government, 1780–1940 by Yale legal historian Nicholas R. Parrillo, The Teacher Wars by Dana Goldstein, and Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko. There's a lot of interesting threads through all three, and I really enjoyed working on this review. I hope you check it out.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Did you know that prosecutors were paid based on how many cases they tried in the 19th century? Or that Adam Smith argued for judges running on the profit motive in the Wealth of Nations? I have a new piece discussion the rise and fall of disinterested public service as a response to the abuses of the profit motive in government service, or how we got away from that system and how we are now going back to it, at Boston Review. It's called Selling Fast: Public Goods, Profits, and State Legitimacy.

It's a review of Against the Profit Motive: The Salary Revolution in American Government, 1780–1940 by Yale legal historian Nicholas R. Parrillo, The Teacher Wars by Dana Goldstein, and Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko. There's a lot of interesting threads through all three, and I really enjoyed working on this review. I hope you check it out.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

In Blowout Aftermath, Remember GDP Growth Was Slower in 2013 Than in 2012

Nov 5, 2014Mike Konczal

In the aftermath of the electoral blowout, a reminder: the Great Recession isn't over. In fact, GDP growth was slower in 2013 than in 2012. Let's go to the FRED data:

There's dotted lines added at the end of 2012 to give you a sense that throughout 2013 the economy didn't speed up. Even though we were another year into the "recovery" GDP growth slowed down a bit.

There's a lot of reasons people haven't discussed it this way. I saw a lot of people using year-over-year GDP growth for 2013, proclaiming it a major success. A problem with using that method for a single point is that it's very sensitive to what is happening around the end points, and indeed the quarter before and after that data point featured negative or near zero growth. Averaging it out (or even doing year-over-year on a longer scale) shows a much worse story. Also much of the celebrated convergence between the two years was really the BEA finding more austerity in 2012. (I added a line going back to 2011 to show that the overall growth rate has been lower since then. According to David Beckworth, this is the point when fiscal tightening began.)

Other people were hoping that the Evans Rule and open-ended purchases could stabilize "expectations" of inflation regardless of underlying changes in economic activity (I was one of them), a process that didn't happen. And yet others knew the sequestration was put into place and was unlikely to be moved, so might as well make lemonade out of the austerity.

And that's overall growth. Wages are even uglier. (Note in an election meant to repudiate liberalism, minimum wage hikes passed with flying colors.) The Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances is not a bomb-throwing document, but it's hard not to read class war into their latest one. From 2010 to 2013, a year after the Recession ended until last year, median incomes fell:

When 45 percent of the electorate puts the economy as the top issue in exit polls, and the economy performs like it does here, it's no wonder we're having wave election after wave election of discontentment.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

In the aftermath of the electoral blowout, a reminder: the Great Recession isn't over. In fact, GDP growth was slower in 2013 than in 2012. Let's go to the FRED data:

There's dotted lines added at the end of 2012 to give you a sense that throughout 2013 the economy didn't speed up. Even though we were another year into the "recovery" GDP growth slowed down a bit.

There's a lot of reasons people haven't discussed it this way. I saw a lot of people using year-over-year GDP growth for 2013, proclaiming it a major success. A problem with using that method for a single point is that it's very sensitive to what is happening around the end points, and indeed the quarter before and after that data point featured negative or near zero growth. Averaging it out (or even doing year-over-year on a longer scale) shows a much worse story. Also much of the celebrated convergence between the two years was really the BEA finding more austerity in 2012. (I added a line going back to 2011 to show that the overall growth rate has been lower since then. According to David Beckworth, this is the point when fiscal tightening began.)

Other people were hoping that the Evans Rule and open-ended purchases could stabilize "expectations" of inflation regardless of underlying changes in economic activity (I was one of them), a process that didn't happen. And yet others knew the sequestration was put into place and was unlikely to be moved, so might as well make lemonade out of the austerity.

And that's overall growth. Wages are even uglier. (Note in an election meant to repudiate liberalism, minimum wage hikes passed with flying colors.) The Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances is not a bomb-throwing document, but it's hard not to read class war into their latest one. From 2010 to 2013, a year after the Recession ended until last year, median incomes fell:

When 45 percent of the electorate puts the economy as the top issue in exit polls, and the economy performs like it does here, it's no wonder we're having wave election after wave election of discontentment.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Finance 101 Problems in National Affairs' Case For Fair-Value Accounting

Nov 4, 2014Mike Konczal

In the latest National Affairs, Jason Delisle and Jason Richwine make what they call ”The Case for Fair-Value Accounting.” This is the process of using the price of, say, student loans in the capital markets to budget and discount government student loans. (The issue also has articles walking back support for previously acceptable moderate-right ideas like Common Core and the EITC, showing the way conservative wonks are starting to line up for 2016.)

In the piece Delisle and Richwine make two basic mistakes in financial theory, mistakes that undermine their ultimate argument. Let’s dig into them, because it’s a wonderful opportunity to get some finance back into this blog (like it used to have back when it was cool).

Error 1: Their Definition of FVA Is Wrong

What is fair-value accounting (FVA)? According to the authors, FVA “factors in the cost of market risk,” meaning “the risk of a general downturn in the economy.” This market risk reflects the potential for defaults; it’s “the cost of the uncertainty surrounding future loan payments.”

These statements are false. There is a consensus that FVA incorporates significantly more than this definition of market risk.

Here’s the Financial Economists Roundtable, endorsing FVA: "Use of Treasury rates as discount factors, however, fails to account for the costs of the risks associated with government credit assistance -- namely, market risk, prepayment risk, and liquidity risk."

And the CBO specifically incorporates all these additional risks when it evaluates FVA: "Student loans also entail prepayment risk… investors… also assign a price to other types of risk, such as liquidity risk… CBO takes into account all of those risks in its fair-value estimates."

This is a much broader set of concerns than what Delisle and Richwine bring up. For instance, FVA requires taxpayers to be subject to the same liquidity and prepayment risks as the capital markets. Remember when the federal government stepped in to provide liquidity to the capital markets when they failed in late 2008, because the markets couldn’t? That gives us a clue that there might be some differences between public and private risks.

Crucially, it’s not clear to me that taxpayers have the same prepayment risk as the capital markets. Private holders of student loans are terrified that their loans might be paid back too quickly, because they are likely to get paid back when interest rates are low and it will be tough to reinvest at the same rate. This is a particularly big risk with the negative convexity of student loan payments, which can be prepaid without penalty. Private actors need to be compensated generously for this risk.

Do taxpayers face the same risk? If student loans owed to the government were paid down faster than anyone expected, would taxpayers be furious? I wouldn’t. I certainly wouldn’t say “how are we going to continue to make the profit we were making?” as a citizen, though it would be an essential question as a private bondholder. Either way, it’s as much a political question as an economic one. (I make the full argument for this in a blog post here.)

Error 2: Their Definition of Market Risk Is Wrong

The authors like FVA because it accounts for market risk. But what is market risk? According to Delisle and Richwine, market risk is “associated with expecting future loan repayments,” as “[s]tudents might pay back the expected principal and interest” but they also may not. It is also “the risk of a general downturn in the economy… market risk cannot be diversified away.”

So the first part is wrong: market risk is not credit risk, or the risk of default or missing payments. The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS7), for instance, requires reporting market risk separate from credit risk, because they are obviously two different things. I’ve generally only heard market risk used in the context of bond portfolios to mean interest rate risk, which they also don’t mention. So if market risk isn’t credit risk or interest rate risk, what is it?

I’m not sure. What I think is going on is they are confusing the concept with the market risk of a stock, specifically its beta. A stock’s beta is its sensitivity to overall equity prices. (Pull up a random stock page and you’ll see the beta somewhere.) It’s very common phrasing to say this risk can’t be diversified away and is a proxy for the risk of general downturns in the economy, which is the same language used in this piece.

Market risk for stocks is the question of how much your portfolio will go down if the market as a whole goes down. But this has nothing to do with student loans, because students (aside from an enterprising few) don’t sell equity; they take out loans. If students paid for school with equity, in theory an economic downturn would lead to less revenue, since students would make less money overall. But even then it’s a shaky concept.

This isn’t just academic. There’s a reason people don’t speak of a one-to-one relationship between a market downturn and the value of a bond portfolio, as the authors’ “market risk” definition does. If the economy tanks, credit risk increases, so bonds are worth less, but interest rates fall, meaning the same bonds are worth more. How this all balances is complicated, and strongly driven by the distribution of bond maturities. This is why financial risk management distinguishes between credit, liquidity, and interest rate risks, and doesn’t conflate those concepts as the authors do.

(Though they are writing as experts, I think they are just copying and pasting from the CBO’s confusing and erroneous definition of “market risk.” If they are sourcing any kind of common financial industry practices or definitions, I don’t see it. I guess Jason Richwine didn’t get a chance to study finance while publishing his dissertation.)

Here again I’d want to understand more how the value of student loans to taxpayers moves with interest rates. Repayments are mentioned above. And for private lenders, higher interest rates mean that they can sell bonds for less and that they’re worth less as collateral. They need to be compensated for this risk. Do taxpayers have this problem to the same extent? If interest rates rise, do we worry we can’t sell the student loan portfolio for the same amount to another government, or that we can’t use it as collateral to fund another war? If not, why would we use this market rate?

Is This Just About Credit Risk?

Besides all the theoretical problems mentioned above, there’s also the practical problem that the CBO uses the already existing private market for student loans (“relied mainly on data about the interest rates charged to borrowers in the private student loan market”), even though there’s obviously a massive adverse selection problem there. Though not an error, it's a third major problem for the argument. The authors don’t even touch this.

But for all the talk about FVA, the only real concern the authors bring up is credit risk. “What if taxpayers don’t get paid?” is the question raised over and over again in the piece. The authors don’t articulate any direct concerns about, say, a move in interest rates changing the value of a bond portfolio, aside from the possibility that it might mean more credit losses.

So dramatically scaling back consumer protections like bankruptcy and statute of limitations for student debtors wasn’t enough for the authors. Fair enough. But there’s an easy fix: the government could buy some credit protection for losses in excess of those expected on, say, $10 billion of its portfolio, and use that price as a supplemental discount. This would be quite low-cost and provide useful information. But it’s a far cry from FVA, even if FVA’s proponents don’t quite understand that.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

In the latest National Affairs, Jason Delisle and Jason Richwine make what they call ”The Case for Fair-Value Accounting.” This is the process of using the price of, say, student loans in the capital markets to budget and discount government student loans. (The issue also has articles walking back support for previously acceptable moderate-right ideas like Common Core and the EITC, showing the way conservative wonks are starting to line up for 2016.)

In the piece Delisle and Richwine make two basic mistakes in financial theory, mistakes that undermine their ultimate argument. Let’s dig into them, because it’s a wonderful opportunity to get some finance back into this blog (like it used to have back when it was cool).

Error 1: Their Definition of FVA Is Wrong

What is fair-value accounting (FVA)? According to the authors, FVA “factors in the cost of market risk,” meaning “the risk of a general downturn in the economy.” This market risk reflects the potential for defaults; it’s “the cost of the uncertainty surrounding future loan payments.”

These statements are false. There is a consensus that FVA incorporates significantly more than this definition of market risk.

Here’s the Financial Economists Roundtable, endorsing FVA: "Use of Treasury rates as discount factors, however, fails to account for the costs of the risks associated with government credit assistance -- namely, market risk, prepayment risk, and liquidity risk."

And the CBO specifically incorporates all these additional risks when it evaluates FVA: "Student loans also entail prepayment risk… investors… also assign a price to other types of risk, such as liquidity risk… CBO takes into account all of those risks in its fair-value estimates."

This is a much broader set of concerns than what Delisle and Richwine bring up. For instance, FVA requires taxpayers to be subject to the same liquidity and prepayment risks as the capital markets. Remember when the federal government stepped in to provide liquidity to the capital markets when they failed in late 2008, because the markets couldn’t? That gives us a clue that there might be some differences between public and private risks.

Crucially, it’s not clear to me that taxpayers have the same prepayment risk as the capital markets. Private holders of student loans are terrified that their loans might be paid back too quickly, because they are likely to get paid back when interest rates are low and it will be tough to reinvest at the same rate. This is a particularly big risk with the negative convexity of student loan payments, which can be prepaid without penalty. Private actors need to be compensated generously for this risk.

Do taxpayers face the same risk? If student loans owed to the government were paid down faster than anyone expected, would taxpayers be furious? I wouldn’t. I certainly wouldn’t say “how are we going to continue to make the profit we were making?” as a citizen, though it would be an essential question as a private bondholder. Either way, it’s as much a political question as an economic one. (I make the full argument for this in a blog post here.)

Error 2: Their Definition of Market Risk Is Wrong

The authors like FVA because it accounts for market risk. But what is market risk? According to Delisle and Richwine, market risk is “associated with expecting future loan repayments,” as “[s]tudents might pay back the expected principal and interest” but they also may not. It is also “the risk of a general downturn in the economy… market risk cannot be diversified away.”

So the first part is wrong: market risk is not credit risk, or the risk of default or missing payments. The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS7), for instance, requires reporting market risk separate from credit risk, because they are obviously two different things. I’ve generally only heard market risk used in the context of bond portfolios to mean interest rate risk, which they also don’t mention. So if market risk isn’t credit risk or interest rate risk, what is it?

I’m not sure. What I think is going on is they are confusing the concept with the market risk of a stock, specifically its beta. A stock’s beta is its sensitivity to overall equity prices. (Pull up a random stock page and you’ll see the beta somewhere.) It’s very common phrasing to say this risk can’t be diversified away and is a proxy for the risk of general downturns in the economy, which is the same language used in this piece.

Market risk for stocks is the question of how much your portfolio will go down if the market as a whole goes down. But this has nothing to do with student loans, because students (aside from an enterprising few) don’t sell equity; they take out loans. If students paid for school with equity, in theory an economic downturn would lead to less revenue, since students would make less money overall. But even then it’s a shaky concept.

This isn’t just academic. There’s a reason people don’t speak of a one-to-one relationship between a market downturn and the value of a bond portfolio, as the authors’ “market risk” definition does. If the economy tanks, credit risk increases, so bonds are worth less, but interest rates fall, meaning the same bonds are worth more. How this all balances is complicated, and strongly driven by the distribution of bond maturities. This is why financial risk management distinguishes between credit, liquidity, and interest rate risks, and doesn’t conflate those concepts as the authors do.

(Though they are writing as experts, I think they are just copying and pasting from the CBO’s confusing and erroneous definition of “market risk.” If they are sourcing any kind of common financial industry practices or definitions, I don’t see it. I guess Jason Richwine didn’t get a chance to study finance while publishing his dissertation.)

Here again I’d want to understand more how the value of student loans to taxpayers moves with interest rates. Repayments are mentioned above. And for private lenders, higher interest rates mean that they can sell bonds for less and that they’re worth less as collateral. They need to be compensated for this risk. Do taxpayers have this problem to the same extent? If interest rates rise, do we worry we can’t sell the student loan portfolio for the same amount to another government, or that we can’t use it as collateral to fund another war? If not, why would we use this market rate?

Is This Just About Credit Risk?

Besides all the theoretical problems mentioned above, there’s also the practical problem that the CBO uses the already existing private market for student loans (“relied mainly on data about the interest rates charged to borrowers in the private student loan market”), even though there’s obviously a massive adverse selection problem there. Though not an error, it's a third major problem for the argument. The authors don’t even touch this.

But for all the talk about FVA, the only real concern the authors bring up is credit risk. “What if taxpayers don’t get paid?” is the question raised over and over again in the piece. The authors don’t articulate any direct concerns about, say, a move in interest rates changing the value of a bond portfolio, aside from the possibility that it might mean more credit losses.

So dramatically scaling back consumer protections like bankruptcy and statute of limitations for student debtors wasn’t enough for the authors. Fair enough. But there’s an easy fix: the government could buy some credit protection for losses in excess of those expected on, say, $10 billion of its portfolio, and use that price as a supplemental discount. This would be quite low-cost and provide useful information. But it’s a far cry from FVA, even if FVA’s proponents don’t quite understand that.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Daily Digest - November 3: Taxes Aren't Just for Revenue

Nov 3, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Latest Debate Over Taxing the Rich Misses One Crucial Fact (The Nation)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

The Latest Debate Over Taxing the Rich Misses One Crucial Fact (The Nation)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal and Bryce Covert point out that taxes don't just bring in revenue: they alter the very structure of the economy, including incentives for high pay.

Governing the Smart, Connected City (HBR)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford looks at some of the civic innovations that will become possible when citizens have ubiquitous access to cheap, unlimited data.

Why Picking Tom Perez for Attorney General Would Be a Smart Move for Obama (Mother Jones)

The Secretary of Labor is popular with progressives, and while he would probably inspire a nomination battle, David Corn says the fight could strengthen the Democrats.

The New Women’s Issues (MSNBC)

Alex Seitz-Ward says Democrats have shifted the lens of the "war on women" to focus on economic security, with issues like pay equity taking center stage in the midterms.

Who Would Have Health Insurance if Medicaid Expansion Weren't Optional (NYT)

A new data set shows that more than 3 million, many across the South, could still be insured under Medicaid expansion, write Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz.

The Little Union That Could (The Atlantic)

Alana Semuels profiles National Nurses United and its executive director, RoseAnn DeMoro. The breakaway nurses' union is using aggressive tactics – and they're paying off in growth.

New on Next New Deal

Election 2014: Women's Rights in the Balance

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn's series on the close-call races that will impact women's lives, co-authored with local Campus Network students, continues with Georgia and North Carolina.

Share This

Daily Digest - October 29: We Need Better Internet Access to Reduce Inequality

Oct 29, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Digital Divide Exacerbates U.S. Inequality (Financial Times)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Digital Divide Exacerbates U.S. Inequality (Financial Times)

David Crow quotes Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford on how the digital divide contributes to inequality in light of new data on broadband access throughout the country.

High-income Households Pay a Large Share of US Taxes—But This Doesn’t Make Our Tax System Progressive (Working Economics)

Joshua Smith draws on a recent blog post by Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal to consider what we call a progressive tax system, and whether it lives up to its billing.

Lobbyists, Bearing Gifts, Pursue Attorneys General (NYT)

Eric Lipton investigates corporations' extensive lobbying of attorneys general throughout the country. In many cases, the lobbyists represent corporations under investigation.

Fed Set to End QE3, But Not the QE Concept (WSJ)

Pedro da Costa says that the Federal Reserve is almost certain to end the current bond-buying program, but this last resort option will remain in the policy tool kit.

Students Pressure Harvard Over Safety at a University-Owned Hotel (Bloomberg Businessweek)

Student protests at Harvard support workers' attempts to unionize, reports Natalie Kitroeff. The hotel reported 75 percent more on-the-job injuries than the statewide average last year.

New on Next New Deal

It's Essential the Federal Reserve Discusses Inequality

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal responds to right-wing critics who say Janet Yellen shouldn't talk about inequality, offering five reasons why it's actually integral to the monetary policy debate.

California Community Colleges Building the Workforce of Tomorrow

Rachel Kanakaole, head of the San Bernadino Valley Community College chapter of the Campus Network, examines a new program offering career-focused bachelor's degrees at campuses like hers.

Share This

Pages