PDA

View Full Version : What about the Primes?



Nbadan
12-10-2007, 02:55 AM
The sky is falling...The sky is falling....

Mortgage Industry Insider Says the Mortgage Mess is Far Far Worse than You Suppose
(who would have guessed :rolleyes )


...The Government and the market are trying to boil this down to a ’sub-prime’ thing, especially with all constant talk of ‘resets’. But sub-prime loans were only a small piece of the mortgage mess. And sub-prime loans are not the only ones with resets. What we are experiencing should be called ‘The Mortgage Meltdown’ because many different exotic loan types are imploding currently belonging to what lenders considered ‘qualified’ or ‘prime’ borrowers. This will continue to worsen over the next few of years. When ‘prime’ loans begin to explode to a degree large enough to catch national attention, the ratings agencies will jump on board and we will have ‘Round 2′. It is not that far away.

Since 2003, when lending first started becoming extremely lax, a small percentage of the loans were true sub-prime fixed or arms. But sub-prime is what is being focused upon to draw attention away from the fact the lenders and Wall Street banks made all loans too easy to attain for everyone. They can explain away the reason sub-prime loans are imploding due to the weakness of the borrower.

How will they explain foreclosures in wealthy cities across the nation involving borrowers with 750 scores when their loan adjusts higher or terms change overnight because they reached their maximum negative potential on a neg-am Pay Option ARM for instance?

Sub-prime aren’t the only kind of loans imploding. Second mortgages, hybrid intermediate-term ARMS, and the soon-to-be infamous Pay Option ARM are also feeling substantial pressure.

The latter three loan types mostly were considered ‘prime’ so they are being overlooked, but will haunt the financial markets for years to come. Versions of these loans were made available to sub-prime borrowers of course, but the vast majority were considered ‘prime’ or Alt-A. The caveat is that the differentiation between Prime and ALT-A got smaller and smaller over the years until finally in late 2005/2006 there was virtually no difference in program type or rate.

The bailout we are hearing about for sub-prime borrowers will be the first of many. Sub-prime only represents about 25% of the problem loans out there. What about the second mortgages sitting behind the sub-prime first, for instance? Most have seconds. Why aren’t they bailing those out too? Those rates have risen dramatically over the past few years as the Prime jumped from 4% to 8.25% recently. Seconds are primarily based upon the prime rate. One can argue that many sub-prime first mortgages on their own were not a problem for the borrowers but the added burden of the second put on the property many times after-the-fact was too much for the borrower.

Most sub-prime loans in existence are refinances not purchase-money loans. This means that more than likely they pulled cash out of their home, bought things and are now going under. Perhaps the loan they hold now is their third or forth in the past couple years. Why are bad borrowers, who cannot stop going to the home-ATM getting bailed out?

The Government says they are going to use the credit score as one of the determining factors. But we have learned over the past year that credit scores are not a good predictor of future ability to repay.

This is because over the past five years you could refi your way into a great score. Every time you were going broke and did not have money to pay bills, you pulled cash out of your home by refinancing your first mortgage or upping your second. You pay all your bills, buy some new clothes, take a vacation and your score goes up!

The ’second mortgage implosion’, ‘Pay-Option implosion’ and ‘Hybrid Intermediate-term ARM implosion’ are all happening simultaneously and about to heat up drastically. Second mortgage liens were done by nearly every large bank in the nation and really heated up in 2005, as first mortgage rates started rising and nobody could benefit from refinancing. This was a way to keep the mortgage money flowing. Second mortgages to 100% of the homes value with no income or asset documentation were among the best sellers at CITI, Wells, WAMU, Chase, National City and Countrywide. We now know these are worthless especially since values have indeed dropped and those who maxed out their liens with a 100% purchase or refi of a second now owe much more than their property is worth.

How are the banks going to get this junk second mortgage paper off their books? Moody’s is expecting a 15% default rate among ‘prime’ second mortgages. Just think the default rate in lower quality such as sub-prime. These assets will need to be sold for pennies on the dollar to free up capacity for new vintage paper or borrowers allowed to pay 50 cents on the dollar, for instance, to buy back their note.

The latter is probably where the ’second mortgage implosion’ will end up going. Why sell the loan for 10 cents on the dollar when you can get 25 to 50 cents from the borrower and lower their total outstanding liens on the property at the same time, getting them ‘right’ in the home again? Wells Fargo recently said they owned $84 billion of this worthless paper. That is a lot of seconds at an average of $100,000 a piece. Already, many lenders are locking up the second lines of credit and not allowing borrowers to pull the remaining open available credit to stop the bleeding. Second mortgages are defaulting at an amazing pace and it is picking up every month.

The ‘Pay-Option ARM implosion’ will carry on for a couple of years. In my opinion, this implosion will dwarf the ’sub-prime implosion’ because it cuts across all borrower types and all home values. Some of the most affluent areas in California contain the most Option ARMs due to the ability to buy a $1 million home with payments of a few thousand dollars per month. Wamu, Countrywide, Wachovia, IndyMac, Downey and Bear Stearns were/are among the largest Option ARM lenders. Option ARMs are literally worthless with no bids found for many months for these assets. These assets are almost guaranteed to blow up. 75% of Option ARM borrowers make the minimum monthly payment. Eighty percent-plus are stated income/asset. Average combined loan-to-value are at or above 90%. The majority done in the past few years have second mortgages behind them.

The clue to who will blow up first is each lenders ‘max neg potential’ allowance, which differs. The higher the allowance, the longer until the borrower gets the letter saying ‘you have reached your 110%, 115%, 125% etc maximum negative of your original loans balance so you cannot accrue any more negative and must pay a minimum of the interest only (or fully indexed payment in some cases). This payment rate could be as much as three times greater. They cannot refinance, of course, because the programs do not exist any longer to any great degree, the borrowers cannot qualify for other more conventional financing or values have dropped too much.

Also, the vast majority have second mortgages behind them putting them in a seriously upside down position in their home. If the first mortgage is at 115%, the second mortgage in many cases is at 100% at the time of origination — and values have dropped 10%-15% in states like California — many home owners could be upside down 20% minimum. This is a prime example of why these loans remain ‘no bid’ and will never have a bid. These also will require a workout. The big difference between these and sub-prime loans is at least with sub-prime loans, outstanding principal balances do not grow at a rate of up to 7% per year. Not considering every Option ARM a sub-prime loan is a mistake.

The 3/1, 5/1, 7/1 and 10/1 hybrid interest-only ARMS will reset in droves beginning now. These are loans that are fixed at a low introductory interest only rate for three, five, seven or 10 years — then turn into a fully indexed payment rate that adjusts annually thereafter. They first got really popular in 2003. Wells Fargo led the pack in these but many people have them. The resets first began with the 3/1 last year.

The 5/1 was the most popular by far, so those start to reset heavily in 2008. These were considered ‘prime’ but Wells and many others would do 95%-100% to $1 million at a 620 score with nearly as low of a rate as if you had a 750 score. No income or asset versions of this loan were available at a negligible bump in fee. This does not sound too ‘prime’ to me. These loans were mostly Jumbo in higher priced states such as California.

Values are down and these are interest only loans, therefore, many are severely underwater even without negative-amortization on this loan type. They were qualified at a 50% debt-to-income ratio, leaving only 50% of a borrower’s income to pay taxes, all other bills and live their lives. These loans put the borrower in the grave the day they signed their loan docs especially without major appreciation. These loans will not perform as poorly overall as sub-prime, seconds or Option ARMs but they are a perfect example of what is still considered ‘prime’ that is at risk. Eighty-eight percent of Thornburg’s portfolio is this very loan type for example.

One final thought. How can any of this get repaired unless home values stabilize? And how will that happen? In Northern California, a household income of $90,000 per year could legitimately pay the minimum monthly payment on an Option ARM on a million home for the past several years. Most Option ARMs allowed zero to 5% down. Therefore, given the average income of the Bay Area, most families could buy that million dollar home. A home seller had a vast pool of available buyers.

Now, with all the exotic programs gone, a household income of $175,000 is needed to buy that same home, which is about 10% of the Bay Area households. And, inventories are up 500%. So, in a nutshell we have 90% fewer qualified buyers for five-times the number of homes. To get housing moving again in Northern California, either all the exotic programs must come back, everyone must get a 100% raise or home prices have to fall 50%. None, except the last sound remotely possible.

What I am telling you is not speculation. I sold MILLIONs of these very loans over the past five years. I saw the borrowers we considered ‘prime’. I always wondered ‘what WILL happen when these things adjust and values don’t go up 10% per year’.

Oped News (http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_richard__071208_mortgage_industry_in.htm)

There's just no bottom to the number of homes, the amount of money, and the number of divorces this is gonna cost...

Extra Stout
12-10-2007, 09:20 AM
The sky is falling...The sky is falling....

Mortgage Industry Insider Says the Mortgage Mess is Far Far Worse than You Suppose
(who would have guessed :rolleyes )



Oped News (http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_richard__071208_mortgage_industry_in.htm)

There's just no bottom to the number of homes, the amount of money, and the number of divorces this is gonna cost...
From that article you just posted, it sounds like the banks may end up forgiving billions upon billions of dollars in debt in order to keep people in their homes at 25 to 50 cents on the dollar, since if they foreclose, there is nobody to resell the homes to, and they may only get 10 cents on the dollar.

JoeChalupa
12-10-2007, 09:22 AM
Too be honest. I am not that worried about it. I feel the US economy is strong and it will weather the storm.

JoeChalupa
12-10-2007, 09:23 AM
From that article you just posted, it sounds like the banks may end up forgiving billions upon billions of dollars in debt in order to keep people in their homes at 25 to 50 cents on the dollar, since if they foreclose, there is nobody to resell the homes to, and they may only get 10 cents on the dollar.

I concur.

boutons_
12-10-2007, 10:04 AM
There's a table here that summarizes which investment banks have written down how much:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7135872.stm

It's amazing how these banks can write down so much and still survive. The UBS write down is only one normal year of profits. Fucking amazing.

Will the countries injecting capital actually influence these banks' operations? We may never know, all is boardroom secrecy.

Of course the lenders have made their 10s of $Bs in profits already from the US housing bubble, esp the punished, scape-goated top execs who leave with 10s of $Ms in departure pay, so they really don't give a fuck if the borrowers lose their homes.

xrayzebra
12-10-2007, 11:06 AM
There's a table here that summarizes which investment banks have written down how much:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7135872.stm

It's amazing how these banks can write down so much and still survive. The UBS write down is only one normal year of profits. Fucking amazing.

Will the countries injecting capital actually influence these banks' operations? We may never know, all is boardroom secrecy.

Of course the lenders have made their 10s of $Bs in profits already from the US housing bubble, esp the punished, scape-goated top execs who leave with 10s of $Ms in departure pay, so they really don't give a fuck if the borrowers lose their homes.

Damn mean old Capitalist. They should just give me
the money they earned and I will decide how to spend
it.

boutons_
12-10-2007, 11:46 AM
WSJ gives its perspective:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119724657737318810.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

Sportcamper
12-10-2007, 02:12 PM
Seriously...How are this affecting San Antonio real estate & the surrounding areas? Some areas in LA are just as expensive as ever...

xrayzebra
12-10-2007, 04:05 PM
Sport, the prices here are leveling off and maybe down a little
bit. I haven't really looked at "time on the market" figures.
But I am sure they have increased some. Building is still going
on at a pretty good pace, but you see ads that are offering
some pretty good deals.

What is going to be interesting is that the politicians will more
than likely use the excuse about evaluations. They have gone
down so we have to increase taxes to offset the revenue loss.

Like you know, government cant take the hit, but you can...

JoeChalupa
12-10-2007, 04:21 PM
In all my years I've never felt "the hit" of higher taxes.

boutons_
12-10-2007, 04:28 PM
23 million are going to "hit" the AMT in a couple weeks, thanks to the Repugs.

xrayzebra
12-10-2007, 04:45 PM
In all my years I've never felt "the hit" of higher taxes.


I have. But then maybe some haven't. But everyone
will somewhere down the line.

Sportcamper
12-10-2007, 06:23 PM
Higher Taxes can put people out of their homes...
San Antonio is a growing city that is attracting business...It seems like the housing issues are mostly affecting people that got into bidding wars & overpaid for their homes...

BradLohaus
12-10-2007, 07:15 PM
The sky may fall - by as much as half in some cities.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20070902/NEWS/709020429/1002/BUSINESS

Homes may lose as much as half their value in some U.S. cities as the housing bust deepens, according to Yale University professor Robert Shiller.

“The examples we have of past cycles indicate that major declines in real home prices — even 50 percent declines in some places — are entirely possible going forward from today or from the not too distant future,” Shiller wrote in a paper presented Friday at an economic symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo....

Shiller noted that 50 percent declines in the worth of some cities’ homes wouldn’t be unprecedented. Prices in London and Los Angeles fell by almost that amount from the late 1980s to mid-1990s.

U.S. home values, adjusted for inflation, rose 86 percent from the end of 1996 to early 2006, the peak of the most recent housing boom, Shiller said. Economic factors such as rents and construction costs don’t appear to explain the jump in prices, suggesting “speculative thinking” and a “boom psychology” was at work. “Extravagant” expectations for future price increases since the late 1990s fueled the bubble, Shiller said.

boutons_
12-10-2007, 07:54 PM
The hurt spreads far and wide

Germany: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7137036.stm

France: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7136308.stm

xrayzebra
12-10-2007, 08:07 PM
Current headlines and link to articles:

Realtors' Forecast Bucks Common Wisdom
Click-click (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jMhs-V2UlTeeryN6MYMrzt-W1LcQD8TENII00)

Pending home sales index rises 0.6% in October
click again (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/pending-home-sales-index-rises/story.aspx?guid=%7BF169379B-F26A-45FA-BC8D-EE2125E78898%7D)

boutons_
12-11-2007, 12:42 AM
One guy's take on how DC and Wall Street will above all protect themselves, everybody else be damned.

================

http://www.sfgate.com/templates/types/article/graphics/sfgate_printable.gif (http://www.sfgate.com/)

MORTGAGE MELTDOWN
Interest rate 'freeze' - the real story is fraud

Bankers pay lip service to families while scurrying to avert suits, prison

Sean Olender

Sunday, December 9, 2007

New proposals to ease our great mortgage meltdown keep rolling in. First the Treasury Department urged the creation of a new fund that would buy risky mortgage bonds as a tactic to hide what those bonds were really worth. (Not much.) Then the idea was to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the risky loans, even if it was clear that U.S. taxpayers would eventually be stuck with the bill. But that plan went south after Fannie suffered a new accounting scandal, and Freddie's existing loan losses shot up more than expected.

Now, just unveiled Thursday, comes the "freeze," the brainchild of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. It sounds good: For five years, mortgage lenders will freeze interest rates on a limited number of "teaser" subprime loans. Other homeowners facing foreclosure will be offered assistance from the Federal Housing Administration.

But unfortunately, the "freeze" is just another fraud - and like the other bailout proposals, it has nothing to do with U.S. house prices, with "working families," keeping people in their homes or any of that nonsense.

The sole goal of the freeze is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value - right now almost 10 times their market worth.

The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

And, to be sure, fraud is everywhere. It's in the loan application documents, and it's in the appraisals. There are e-mails and memos floating around showing that many people in banks, investment banks and appraisal companies - all the way up to senior management - knew about it.

I can hear the hum of shredders working overtime, and maybe that is the new "hot" industry to invest in. There are lots of people who would like to muzzle subpoena-happy New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to buy time and make this all go away. Cuomo is just inches from getting what he needs to start putting a lot of people in prison. I bet some people are trying right now to make him an offer "he can't refuse."

Despite Thursday's ballyhooed new deal with mortgage lenders, does anyone really think that it can ultimately stop fraud lawsuits by mortgage bond investors, many of them spread out across the globe?

The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC.

The problem isn't just subprime loans. It is the entire mortgage market. As home prices fall, defaults will rise sharply - period. And so will the patience of mortgage bondholders. Different classes of mortgage bonds from various risk pools are owned by different central banks, funds, pensions and investors all over the world. Even your pension or 401(k) might have some of these bonds in it.

Perhaps some U.S. government department can make veiled threats to foreign countries to suggest they will suffer unpleasant consequences if their largest holders (central banks and investment funds) don't go along with the plan, but how could it be possible to strong-arm everyone?

What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back. The time to look into this is before the shredders have worked their magic - not five years from now.

Those selling the "freeze" have suggested that mortgage-backed securities investors will benefit because they lose more with rising foreclosures. But with fast-depreciating collateral, the last thing investors in mortgage bonds ought to do is put off foreclosures. Rate freezes are at best a tool for delaying the inevitable foreclosures when even the most optimistic forecasters expect home prices to fall. In October, Goldman Sachs issued a report forecasting an incredible 35 to 40 percent drop in California home prices in the coming few years. To minimize losses, a mortgage bondholder would obviously be better off foreclosing on a home before prices plunge.

The goal of the freeze may be to delay bond investors from suing by putting off the big foreclosure wave for several years. But it may also be to stop bond investors from suing. If the investors agreed to loan modifications with the "real" wage and asset information from refinancing borrowers, mortgage originators and bundlers would have an excuse once the foreclosure occurred. They could say, "Fraud? What fraud?! You knew the borrower's real income and asset information later when he refinanced!"

The key is to refinance borrowers whose current loans involved fraud in the origination process. And I assure you it was a minority of borrowers whose loans didn't involve fraud.

The government is trying to accomplish wide-scale refinancing by tricking bond investors, or by tricking U.S. taxpayers. Guess who will foot the bill now that the FHA is entering the fray?

Ultimately, the people in these secret Paulson meetings were probably less worried about saving the mortgage market than with saving themselves. Some might be looking at prison time.

As chief of Goldman Sachs, Paulson was involved, to degrees as yet unrevealed, in the mortgage securitization process during the halcyon days of mortgage fraud from 2004 to 2006.

Paulson became the U.S. Treasury secretary on July 10, 2006, after the extent of the debacle was coming into focus for those in the know. Goldman Sachs achieved recent accolades in the markets for having bet heavily against the housing market, while Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch and others got hammered for failing to time the end of the credit bubble.

Goldman Sachs is the only major investment bank in the United States that has emerged as yet unscathed from this debacle. The success of its strategy must have resulted from fairly substantial bets against housing, mortgage banking and related industries, which also means that Goldman Sachs saw this coming at the same time they were bundling and selling these loans.

If a mortgage bond investor sues Goldman Sachs to force the institution to buy back loans, could Paulson be forced to testify as to whether Goldman Sachs knew or had reason to know about fraud in the origination process of the loans it was bundling?

It is truly amazing that right now everyone in the country is deferring to Paulson and the heads of Countrywide, JPMorgan, Bank of America and others as the best group to work out a solution to this problem. No one is talking about the fact that these people created the problem and profited to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars from it.

I suspect that such a group first sat down and tried to figure out how to protect their financial interests and avoid criminal liability. And then when they agreed on the plan, they decided to sell it as "helping working families stay in their homes." That's why these meetings were secret, and reporters and the public weren't invited.

The next time that Paulson is before the Senate Finance Committee, instead of asking, "How much money do you think we should give your banking buddies?" I'd like to see New York Sen. Chuck Schumer ask him what he knew about this staggering fraud at the time he was chief of Goldman Sachs.

The Goldman report in October suggests that rampant investor demand is to blame for origination fraud - even though these investors were misled by high credit ratings from bond rating agencies being paid billions by the U.S. investment banks, like Goldman, that were selling the bundled mortgages.

This logic is like saying shoppers seeking bargain-priced soup encourage the grocery store owner to steal it. I mean, we're talking about criminal fraud here. We are on the cusp of a mammoth financial crisis, and the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury are trying to limit the liability of their banking friends under the guise of trying to help borrowers. At stake is nothing short of the continued existence of the U.S. banking system.

Sean Olender is a San Mateo attorney. Contact us at [email protected].


================

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/09/IN5BTNJ2V.DTL

Damn, it sure will be interesting to see how this plays out. I bet no super-mega-rich executive Master of the Universe goes to jail or even pays fines? They each have the 10s of $Ms to buy off the legalsystem.

And on whose watch was this and 9/11 happening? dubya and dickhead, busy grabbing Iraq oil.

xrayzebra
12-11-2007, 10:06 AM
of course it's the renters who are getting fucked by the banks foreclosing on the landlords

banks don't honor leases none


I read the other day that it is now cheaper to rent than
buy a home. Go figure.

JoeChalupa
12-11-2007, 10:07 AM
I read the other day that it is now cheaper to rent than
buy a home. Go figure.

I've read the same thing. The days of "starter" homes are coming to an end.

xrayzebra
12-11-2007, 10:14 AM
I've read the same thing. The days of "starter" homes are coming to an end.

You know Joe it doesn't make sense though. You certainly
don't build a equity when you rent. And I don't really
care what they say about all this sub-prime junk going
on now, most homes are still worth more than originally
purchased for if bought some years back.

I am no speaking of homes bought within the past couple
of years.

One other thing that always was a real motivator for
me, I can do what I want with my house without
anyone's permission. Try that when renting.

Extra Stout
12-11-2007, 11:11 AM
You know Joe it doesn't make sense though. You certainly
don't build a equity when you rent. And I don't really
care what they say about all this sub-prime junk going
on now, most homes are still worth more than originally
purchased for if bought some years back.

I am no speaking of homes bought within the past couple
of years.

One other thing that always was a real motivator for
me, I can do what I want with my house without
anyone's permission. Try that when renting.
If it costs $1500 to rent a home, but the mortgage payment on the same home would be $2500, and you're losing equity because your home's value is declining, then it makes sense to rent.

BonnerDynasty
12-11-2007, 11:20 AM
I wish it would wait to plummet for 10 more years. I'd love to pick up a house on the bay during the housing "crisis".

boutons_
12-11-2007, 11:39 AM
"now cheaper to rent than buy a home."

I've seen an analysis where TCO of a home (interest + property taxes + maintenance) is not such a good deal vs renting or leasing where there is no interest + taxes + maintenance.

The demand for renting/leasing has been low for 10 years as the housing bubble grew. Now that credit is nearly non-existent AND 100s of 1000s of families will be foreclosed, the DEMAND for rent/lease property will go up, pushing up the rent/lease price.

Nbadan
12-17-2007, 10:20 AM
Paul Krugman touches on why any government bail-out of bad borrowers is ill-conceived...

After The Money's Gone
By Paul Krugman


12/15/06 "IHT" -- -- On Wednesday, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced plans to lend $40 billion to banks. By my count, it's the fourth high-profile attempt to rescue the financial system since things started falling apart about five months ago. Maybe this one will do the trick, but I wouldn't count on it

In past financial crises - the stock market crash of 1987, the aftermath of Russia's default in 1998 - the Fed has been able to wave its magic wand and make market turmoil disappear. But this time the magic isn't working.

Why not? Because the problem with the markets isn't just a lack of liquidity - there's also a fundamental problem of solvency.

Let me explain the difference with a hypothetical example.

Suppose that there's a nasty rumor about the First Bank of Pottersville: People say that the bank made a huge loan to the president's brother-in-law, who squandered the money on a failed business venture.

Even if the rumor is false, it can break the bank. If everyone, believing that the bank is about to go bust, demands their money out at the same time, the bank would have to raise cash by selling off assets at fire-sale prices - and it may indeed go bust even though it didn't really make that bum loan.

And because loss of confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, even depositors who don't believe the rumor would join in the bank run, trying to get their money out while they can.

But the Fed can come to the rescue. If the rumor is false, the bank has enough assets to cover its debts; all it lacks is liquidity - the ability to raise cash on short notice. And the Fed can solve that problem by giving the bank a temporary loan, tiding it over until things calm down.

Matters are very different, however, if the rumor is true: The bank really did make a big bad loan. Then the problem isn't how to restore confidence; it's how to deal with the fact that the bank is really, truly insolvent, that is, busted.

My story about a basically sound bank beset by a crisis of confidence, which can be rescued with a temporary loan from the Fed, is more or less what happened to the financial system as a whole in 1998. Russia's default led to the collapse of the giant hedge fund Long Term Capital Management, and for a few weeks there was panic in the markets.

But when all was said and done, not that much money had been lost; a temporary expansion of credit by the Fed gave everyone time to regain their nerve, and the crisis soon passed.

In August, the Fed tried again to do what it did in 1998, and at first it seemed to work. But then the crisis of confidence came back, worse than ever. And the reason is that this time the financial system - both banks and, probably even more important, nonbank financial institutions - made a lot of loans that are likely to go very, very bad.

It's easy to get lost in the details of subprime mortgages, resets, collateralized debt obligations, and so on. But there are two important facts that may give you a sense of just how big the problem is.

First, the United States had an enormous housing bubble in the middle of this decade. To restore a historically normal ratio of housing prices to rents or incomes, average home prices would have to fall about 30 percent from their current levels.

Second, there was a tremendous amount of borrowing into the bubble, as new home buyers purchased houses with little or no money down, and as people who already owned houses refinanced their mortgages as a way of converting rising home prices into cash.

As home prices come back down to earth, many of these borrowers will find themselves with negative equity - owing more than their houses are worth. Negative equity, in turn, often leads to foreclosures and big losses for lenders.

And the numbers are huge. The financial blog Calculated Risk, using data from First American CoreLogic, estimates that if home prices fall 20 percent there will be 13.7 million homeowners with negative equity.

If prices fall 30 percent, that number would rise to more than 20 million.

That translates into a lot of losses, and explains why liquidity has dried up. What's going on in the markets isn't an irrational panic. It's a wholly rational panic, because there's a lot of bad debt out there, and you don't know how much of that bad debt is held by the guy who wants to borrow your money.

How will it all end? Markets won't start functioning normally until investors are reasonably sure that they know where the bodies - I mean, the bad debts - are buried. And that probably won't happen until house prices have finished falling and financial institutions have come clean about all their losses. All of this will probably take years.

Meanwhile, anyone who expects the Fed or anyone else to come up with a plan that makes this financial crisis just go away will be sorely disappointed.

Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18894.htm)