The short sellers put up collateral, agreed to pay dividends, and paid a small amount of interest. These middle-men companies took a big slice of the earnings.  The 401k funds got only a little,  but did not complain because they thought it was essentially a risk free source of extra money.

Unfortunately, the middle-man companies overseeing the transactions got greedy, and started investing the collateral in commercial paper, instead of safer T-bills.  When the financial crisis hit, and Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, there was a panic in the commercial paper market, and some of the invested collateral suffered losses.

These Wall Street firms then passed the losses onto the funds.  Ultimately, it was the “little guy retirees” who are paying the price.  Effected S&P 500 funds, for example, lagged their benchmark index by 11 basis points (0.11%) before fees.  Mortgage-backed funds lagged by up to 53 basis points (0.53%).

Even though these losses caused by poorly invested collateral are insignificant compared to the overall loss in the mutual funds (e.g. the S&P 500 index lost 36% in 2008), they still angered some investors – who have filed class action law suits.

Overall, this situation seems to be limited to mutual funds.  People with brokerage accounts who buy individual stocks do not have to worry.  All the major brokerages keep 100% of any fees from lending securities to short sellers.  In return, they cover any losses.

Today stock loans are very popular.   Since the financial markets have been turned up-side down and banks are not lending, one method of financing has gained a lot of attention – securities based lending.

Click here for information about Non-Purpose, Non-Recourse Lending

Securities Lending is a long-established process.  In fact, hundreds of successful stock-lending transactions have been executed involving the American Stock Exchange (AMEX), National Stock Market and Small Cap Stock Market (NASDAQ), New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), and certain foreign exchanges.

For those with money invested in marketable securities, there is a safe way to leverage their assets and take advantage of the golden opportunities now available to cash-in on terrific RE investment opportunities which are available today.

If you are a forward-thinking investor who wants to retain the future ownership of your assets as well as leverage the present value of your securities for immediate cash needs, securities lending (also known as stock loans) can be a terrific program.

Securities base loans are –

·         Simple & Quick – NO Credit Check / NO Income Verification / NO Upfront Fees / NO Closing Costs / NO Personal Guarantee

·         Loans are “Non-Purpose” – loan can be used for virtually anything borrower wants to accomplish (personal or business)

·         Loans are “Non-Recourse” – giving the borrower the opportunity to simply “walk away” if the collateral falls below a set floor amount

·         High Loan-to-Values – up to 80% LTV (depending upon security); which is much higher than banks and brokerage companies can offer

·         Loans are Interest Only – principal payment at maturity; otherwise loans can be refinanced or extended

·         Low Fixed Interest Rates – usually between 2% to 4%

·         Loan Term – minimum of 3 yrs; also 5 yr / 7 yr / 10 yrs

·         Quick Funded – usually within 5 to 7 business days

Click here for information about Securities Based Lending

Stock brokers made their money whether or not the advice they gave you was any good and the information available to the average person was not usually enough to qualify them to make good decisions, so only the rich could afford the kind of information that would make them richer.

Today, things have radically changed – we are in the “information age”.  Everyone has access to a lot of top quality stock advice online.  You don’t have to be an elite member of society to have a real chance of making your fortune on the stock market.  Rather than blindly trusting a broker’s advice, doesn’t it make more sense to educate yourself with good stock advice online so you can make a qualified decision?

Today there is just so much information available online today that it would be entirely foolish not to take the time to educate yourself so that you can recognize the shifts and trends in the market that can make you rich.  There is a wealth of information available for anyone willing to look for it.

Finding good stock advice online isn’t as difficult as you might think, either.  You should look for information that teaches you how to read and analyze stock charts because these are instrumental in helping you to recognize a trend that indicates that you should buy or sell a particular stock.  Once you are armed with this type of knowledge you will be much better prepared to make a healthy profit through buying and selling stocks on the stock market.

The internet is the “great equalizer” of today because so much quality information is available to everyone regardless of their race, religion or economic standing.  The best stock advice online is there for the taking to anyone who will reach out their hands and grab it.  Especially during these tough economic times when people need to increase their incomes more than ever, stock advice online is there to help lead the way.  Of course a person still has to use that information wisely, but nonetheless, it is available for any person to study and use to make good stock purchasing decisions.

Why should you look for good stock advice online?

1. 1. For starters, to help you achieve “financial independence”, and
2. 2. Give you a chance to save for retirement and maybe even retire early so you won’t have to rely on your employer or the government to have any money left to give you when the time comes.
3. Wealth building should be your number one reason for seeking online stock advice. 

Since the financial markets have been turned up-side down and banks are not lending, one method of financing has gained a lot of attention – Securities Based Lending.

Click here for information about Non-Purpose, Non-Recourse Loans

For those with money invested in marketable securities, there is a golden opportunity to cash-in on the tremendous RE investment opportunities now available.  Today, there are multiple commercial & residential RE properties available for about 30% to 50% of what they were only two years ago.

For example, CEOs, CFOs or COOs, with large publically traded companies, who have large blocks of corporate stock can leverage those assets to take advantage of investment opportunities.

If you are a forward-thinking investor who wants to retain the future ownership of your assets as well as leverage the present value of your securities for immediate cash needs, this can be a terrific program.

These loans are –

·         Simple & Quick – NO Credit Check / NO Income Verification / NO Upfront Fees / NO Closing Costs / NO Personal Guarantee

·         Loans are “Non-Purpose” – loan can be used for virtually anything borrower wants to accomplish (personal or business)

·         Loans are “Non-Recourse” – giving the borrower the opportunity to simply “walk away” if the collateral falls below a set floor amount

·         High Loan-to-Values – up to 80% LTV (depending upon security); which is much higher than banks and brokerage companies can offer

·         Loans are Interest Only – principal payment at maturity; otherwise loans can be refinanced or extended

·         Low Fixed Interest Rates – usually between 2% to 4%

·         Loan Term – minimum of 3 yrs; also 5 yr / 7 yr / 10 yrs

·         Quick Funded – usually within 5 to 7 business days

Click here for information about Securities  Based Lending / Stock Loans

How do we understand the best use of these signals with reference to a Moving Average System?

One of the main problems with using moving average crossovers as actionable signals is that stocks may move or “whipsaw” back and forth across their moving average.  It is therefore an advantage to wait for a good “setup” before acting in order to avoid being whipsawed in and out of the stock (and to avoid excessive trading commissions).

Whipsawing occurs primarily when the stock is not trending. Traders use other tools to identify non-trending situations early so they can switch to strategies that work better in non-trending environments.

Most traders who use moving average crossover systems consider any extra trades they might make to be the price one must pay to be positioned correctly when the stock finally stops whipsawing and begins to trend.

In general, traders consider the benefit of the strategy to be that it enables a trader to enter a position close to the beginning of a trend and to leave near the end of the trend.  Some traders reduce the number of “false signals” by using the move of a short-term moving average across a longer-term moving average as the signal mechanism rather than the crossover by a stock’s price.

A 5-day moving average is less likely to whipsaw back and forth over a 50-day moving average than is the closing price of the stock.  Traders use combinations of moving averages (like 5 and 30, 5 and 50, 20 and 200, 10 and 100 and many others) based on how active they want to be as traders. The longer the moving average, the better established the trend it represents and the less likely it is to be generating a false signal.

On the other hand, longer moving averages give up more of the profit potential of a trade because they are slower in generating their signals.

There are tradeoffs here that only the individual trader can resolve through experience.   Remember that the rising trend of an undervalued stock is more likely to be sustained (less likely to break down) than the trend of an overpriced stock.

Price relative to earnings (PE or PE-ratio), sales (PSR or Price per Sales Ratio), and earnings rate-of-growth (PEG or PEG ratio) are among the factors that give fuel to the momentum of a trend.  Sometimes investor psychology does too, but trends based on psychology alone are more apt to undergo unexpected reversals.

The following rules pertain to moving average resistances, supports, and crossovers.

• Traders have tested both exponential and simple moving averages and have found that a simple moving average is preferable to an exponential moving average.  This is information you are not likely to find in the media where the common perception is that the faster exponential moving average is to be preferred.

• The longer the moving average, the more reliable these rules tend to be.  Many investors strictly adhere to the following moving average rules. However, we make no recommendations to buy or sell any specific stock.1. If the moving average line flattens out after a significant decline, or has begun to rise, and the price of the stock passes upward through the moving average line, it is considered to be a buy signal. The same holds true if the moving average flattens out or rises after the stock has passed upward through the moving average line.2. If the moving average is still rising aggressively and the price of the stock falls below the moving average, this is considered to be a buying opportunity.

  3. If the stock price is above the moving average, declines to the moving average but fails to go through it and starts to turn up again, this is a buy signal.

  4. If the moving average is declining and the stock price falls under it too fast, it is likely to return to the moving average. The stock can be bought to profit from this short-term snap-back. It is generally best to wait for some sign that the downward momentum is abating or that it has actually reversed before the purchase.

  5. If the moving average has been rising and then it flattens out, or if it is declining, and the price of the stock passes down through the moving average, it is considered to be a sell signal. The same thing holds true if the flattening out of the moving average or its decline occurs after the stock has passed downward through the moving average.

  6. If, while the moving average is falling, the price of the stock rises above the moving average, this is also an opportunity to sell at a good price before the stock resumes its decline.

  7. If the stock price rises toward a moving average from below, but fails to go through it and starts to turn down again, the resistance offered by the moving average is too strong for the stock and it is a sell signal.

8. If the stock price moves rapidly above the rising moving average line too fast, it is likely to have a reaction move back toward the moving average and the stock can be sold for a short-term technical reaction. It is generally best to wait for some sign that the upward momentum is abating or that it has actually reversed before the sale.

It is wise to use more than a moving average to define buy and sell points.  Shrewd investors learn to use a variety of indicators in concert.   It is also helpful if the stock’s fundamentals are in alignment with the signal generated.

For example, if the stock has given a buy signal, it is a big advantage if the stock is also undervalued. Following a discipline adds clarity and purpose to an individual’s trading.  It also enhances a person’s resolve when emotions run amok and the circumstances create confusion and indecision.

Since the financial markets have been turned up-side down and banks are not lending, one method of financing has gained a lot of attention – securities based lending.

Click here for information about Non-Purpose, Non-Recourse Loans

For those with money invested in marketable securities, there is a safe way to leverage your assets to cash-in on the tremendous RE investment opportunities currently available.

If you are a forward-thinking investor who wants to retain the future ownership of your assets as well as leverage the present value of your securities for immediate cash needs, this can be a terrific program.

These loans are –

• Simple & Quick – NO Credit Check / NO Income Verification / NO Upfront Fees / NO Closing Costs / NO Personal Guarantee
• Loans are “Non-Purpose” – loan can be used for virtually anything borrower wants to accomplish (personal or business)
• Loans are “Non-Recourse” – giving the borrower the opportunity to simply “walk away” if the collateral falls below a set floor amount
• High Loan-to-Values – up to 80% LTV (depending upon security); which is much higher than banks and brokerage companies can offer
• Loans are Interest Only – principal payment at maturity; otherwise loans can be refinanced or extended
• Low Fixed Interest Rates – usually between 2% to 4%
• Loan Term – minimum of 3 yrs; also 5 yr / 7 yr / 10 yrs
• Quick Funded – usually within 5 to 7 business days

Click here for information about Securities Based Lending / Stock Loans

Short Sales

A short sale occurs when you sell stock you don’t actually hold. The logic of a short sale is that rather than buying low and later selling high, you first buy high and then sell low. (To make the transaction, you actually borrow the stock from your broker.)

To record a short sale transaction in Quicken, you just sell a stock you don’t own. Select the Enter Transaction command button, choose the Short Sale option, and fill in the appropriate categories in the Short Sale dialog box.

To show that these are shares you actually owe your broker, Quicken displays the number of shares and the current market value as negative amounts in the Portfolio View window.

To record the transaction in which you close out your short position by buying the stock you’ve previously sold, you record a stock purchase in the usual way.

Margin Loans and Margin Interest

If you purchase a security and the total purchase cost exceeds the cash balance in a brokerage account, Quicken assumes that you’ve borrowed the needed cash on margin from your broker. To show the margin loan, it displays the cash balance as a negative value.

To record margin loan interest in cases where you have a linked cash account, you record the margin loan interest as an expense when you record the withdrawal from the linked cash account that pays the margin interest.

To record margin loan interest in cases where you don’t have a linked cash account, choose the Enter Transaction command button and choose the Margin Interest Expense option. When Quicken displays the Margin Interest Expense dialog box, use it to describe the margin interest.

Calls and Puts

A call is an option to buy a share of stock. A put is an option to sell a share of stock. You may write, buy, or exercise calls and puts.

Writing Calls and Puts

When you write a call or put, what you really do is collect money from someone in return for promising the person the option, or chance, to buy or sell a share of stock at a specified, or strike, price by some future date.

When a call or put expires without being exercised, and this is the usual case, recording the transaction is simple. If you’re the one writing the call or put, just record the transaction as miscellaneous income.

Buying Calls and Puts

If you’re the one buying the call or put, you just record the option purchase the way you do any other stock purchase. If the call or put expires and becomes worthless, just record the sale as a stock purchase with the amount set to zero. (This is the most common case.)

If, on the other hand, you sell the call or put before the expiration date because the call or put can be profitably exercised, you record the sale as a stock sale with the amount set to whatever you sell the option for.

Exercising Calls and Puts

You probably won’t actually exercise a call or put. You’ll probably sell it, as described above. If you do exercise a call or buy option, however, you need to record two transactions.

To record the exercise of a call option, first record a transaction that sells the call option for zero. Then record a transaction that purchases the optioned number of shares at the option price.

To record the exercise of a put option, first record a transaction that sells the put option for zero. Then record a transaction that sells the optioned number of shares at the option price.

TIP

For income tax purposes, what you pay for a call needs to be counted as part of the purchase price if you exercise the call option and purchase shares. What you receive for a put needs to be counted as part of the sales price if you exercise the put and sell shares. This can get complicated, so you may want to consult your tax advisor.

Employee Stock Options

You can track the value of employee stock options in the same way that you track shares of stock. (The purchase price in this case is zero if you don’t pay anything for the option.) The value of the option, of course, is the difference between the exercise price and the fair market value of the vested shares.

The income tax accounting for stock options can get a little tricky, depending on whether the options are part of a qualified incentive stock-option plan or a nonqualified stock-option plan. You may have a taxable gain when you are granted or when you exercise the option, or you may have a taxable gain only later when you sell the shares. If you have questions about the income tax treatment, consult your tax advisor.

For those with money invested in marketable securities, there is a golden opportunity to cash-in on the tremendous RE investment opportunities now available.  Today, there are multiple commercial & residential RE properties available for about 30% to 50% of what they were only two years ago.

For example, CEOs, CFOs or COOs, with large publicly traded companies, who have large blocks of Corporate can leverage those assets to take advantage of investment opportunities.  If you are a forward-thinking investor who wants to retain the future ownership of your assets as well as leverage the present value of your securities for immediate cash needs, this can be a terrific program.

These loans are –

·         Simple & Quick – NO Credit Check / NO Income Verification

NO Upfront Fees / NO Closing Costs / NO Personal Guarantee

·         Loans are “Non-Purpose” – loan can be used for virtually anything borrower wants to accomplish (personal or business)

·         Loans are “Non-Recourse” – giving the borrower the opportunity to simply “walk away” if the collateral falls below a set floor amount

·         High Loan-to-Values – up to 80% LTV (depending upon security); which is much higher than banks and brokerage companies can offer

·         Loans are Interest Only – principal payment at maturity; otherwise loans can be refinanced or extended

·         Low Fixed Interest Rates – usually between 2% to 4%

·         Loan Term – minimum of 3 yrs; also 5 yr / 7 yr / 10 yrs

·         Quick Funded – usually within 5 to 7 business days

Click here for information about Non-Purpose, Non-Recourse Securities Loans

Preferred shares of these GSEs (“government-sponsored enterprises”) were considered so safe that banking regulators let banks count them in the capital required as a cushion against loan losses. The shares were safe until last years, when both the common and preferred shares of the distressed duo suddenly plunged. Between May 15 and August 25, Fannie’s common shares lost 77% of their value, and its preferred shares lost 58.8% in that short time. Freddie Mac’s preferred shares plunged even more, down 65.5%.

In July 2008, the U.S. Treasury sought and was granted a rescue package involving an unlimited credit line for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the authority to buy their stock, partially nationalizing them.

Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, said the package was just insurance. “If you have a bazooka in your pocket and people know it,” he said, “you probably won’t have to use it.” But bazookas can spook the very people they were supposed to reassure. After the plan was approved, foreign central banks slashed their Fannie and Freddie bond purchases by more than 25%, and shareholders rushed to dump their stock. On August 22, Moody’s downgraded Fannie and Freddie’s outstanding preferred stock by a full five notches, from A1 to Baa3 (or slightly above “junk”).

On September 7, Secretary Paulson pulled out his bazooka and fired, announcing that Fannie and Freddie would be taken under a conservatorship (similar to a bankruptcy). The Treasury would underwrite the GSEs’ debt and would re-capitalize the corporations, in return for a new issue of preferred stock.

On Monday, September 8, Fannie and Freddie share values were virtually wiped out, dropping 99% from their 52-week highs. That could be a disaster for many banks, which are loaded to the gills with these preferred shares. Banks already reeling from losses on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities are now being hit at the core, shrinking their capital base.

Loss of bank capital works as leverage in reverse: at a capital requirement of 10%, $1 lost in capital wipes out $10 in loans. Millions of ordinary investors have also been hit hard, through mutual funds, 401K plans, pension funds and annuities that have large holdings in Fannie and Freddie.

There are other aspects of Paulson’s bailout plan that could be giving policymakers Maalox moments. As noted in a July 17 Economist article:

“[N]ationalisation . . . would bring the whole of Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt onto the federal government’s balance sheet. In terms of book-keeping this would almost double the public debt, but that is rather misleading. It would hardly be like issuing $5.2 trillion of new Treasury bonds, because Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt is backed by real assets. Nevertheless, the fear [is] that the taxpayer may have to absorb the GSEs’ debt . . . . That suggests yet another irony; the debt of the GSEs has been trading as if it were guaranteed by the American government, but the debt of the government was not trading as if Uncle Sam had guaranteed that of the GSEs.

The U.S. federal debt is already up to nearly $10 trillion, putting the country’s own triple-A credit rating in jeopardy. If the government assumes the GSEs’ weighty liabilities as well, the government could lose its own triple-A rating, prompting foreign lenders to withdraw their massive infusion of funds.

But if the U.S. does not back the GSEs’ debt, the result could be the same. China’s $376 billion of long-term U.S. agency debt is mostly in Fannie and Freddie assets. Yu Yonding, a former adviser to China’s central bank, warned on August 21:

“If the U.S. government allows Fannie and Freddie to fail and international investors are not compensated adequately, the consequences will be catastrophic. If it is not the end of the world, it is the end of the current international financial system.

Click here for information about Non-Purpose, Non-Recourse Loans

THE ENDGAME NEARS

It could be the end of the international financial system either way, but let’s think about that. Would the end of the current financial system really be so bad? The international financial system is now controlled by a network of private central banks that print national currencies and trade them with sovereign governments for government bonds (or debt). The bonds then become the basis for creating many times their value in loans by commercial banks.

At a 10% reserve requirement, banks are allowed to fan $1 worth of reserves into $10 in loans, effectively delivering the power to create money into private hands. The price exacted by this private money-creating machine is compound interest perpetually drawn off the top, in a Ponzi scheme that has now reached its mathematical limits.

The chief role of Fannie and Freddie has been to keep the Ponzi scheme alive by adding “liquidity” to markets, something they do by buying mortgages and bundling them together as securities that are then sold to investors. Old loans are moved off the banks’ books, making room for new loans, further expanding the money supply and driving up home prices. As economist Michael Hudson noted in Counterpunch in July:

“Altruistic political talk aside, the reason why the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sectors have lobbied so hard for Fannie and Freddie is that their financial function has been to make housing increasingly unaffordable. They have inflated asset prices with credit that has indebted homeowners to a degree unprecedented in history. This is why the real estate bubble has burst, after all. Yet Congress now acts as if the only way to resolve the debt problem is to create yet more debt, to inflate real estate prices all the more by arranging yet more credit to bid up the prices that homebuyers must pay.

“. . . The economy has reached its debt limit and is entering its insolvency phase. We are not in a cycle but the end of an era. The old world of debt pyramiding to a fraudulent degree cannot be restored

“. . . . The class war is back in business, with a vengeance. Instead of it being the familiar old class war between industrial employers and their work force, this one reverts to the old pre-industrial class war of creditors versus debtors. Its guiding principle is ‘Big Fish Eat Little Fish,’ mainly by the debt dynamic that crowds out the promised economy of free choice.”

“. . . No economy in history ever has been able to pay off its debts. That is the essence of the ‘magic of compound interest.’ Debts grow inexorably, making creditors rich but impoverishing the economy in the process, thereby destroying its ability to pay.”

Recognizing this financial dynamic most societies have chosen the logical response. From Sumer in the third millennium BC and Babylonia in the second millennium through Greece and Rome in the first millennium BC, and then from feudal Europe to the Inter-Ally war debts and reparations tangle that wrecked international finance after World War I, the response has been to bring debts back within the ability to pay.

“This can be done only by wiping out debts that cannot be paid. The alternative is debt peonage. Throughout most of history, countries have found again and again that bankruptcy – wiping out the debts – is the way to free economies. The idea is to free them from a situation where the economic surplus is diverted away from new tangible investment to pay bankers. The classical idea of free markets is to avoid privatizing monopolies, such as the unique privilege of commercial bankers to create bank-credit and charge interest on it.”

Under current law, if the GSEs’ capital falls too far below required levels, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (their regulator) is authorized to take control of the firms and impose a form of bankruptcy called a conservatorship. What happens in a conservatorship was explained by former Federal Reserve consultant Walker F. Todd in a July 23 article:

“Traditionally, conservatorship freezes existing bank accounts and then allows limited withdrawals until authorities determine how much of those frozen accounts may be distributed pro rata to the claimants. After the appointment of a conservator, new deposits and other funds received as well as new investments would be fully protected.”

Claims of creditors are not imposed on the taxpayers but are satisfied from the corporation’s existing assets. Claimants take according to seniority, with lenders being senior to shareholders, and the proceeds from any new business being kept separate. Fannie and Freddie investors would take some losses under this scenario, but the available pot for settling claims is quite large.

Most of the GSEs’ mortgages are not junk but are genuine and are being paid. Nouriel Roubini, who is Professor of Economics at New York University and has a popular website called Global EconoMonitor, estimates that the “haircut” for securities holders would be a modest 5% ($250 billion on $5 trillion). He notes that securities holders are getting a subsidy of $50 billion a year over what they would earn if they had invested in U.S. Treasuries, specifically because Fannie and Freddie carry more risk; and risk means the occasional haircut. Roubini concludes:

“It is . . . time to put a stop to the coming ‘mother of all bailouts’ starting with a firm stop to the fiscal rescue of Fannie and Freddie, institutions that have behaved for the last few years like the ‘mother of all leveraged hedge funds’ with their reckless leverage and reckless financial activities.”

“. . . [L]et’s call a spade a bloody shovel: nationalise Freddie Mac and Fannie May. They should never have been privatised in the first place. . . . Increase taxes or cut other public spending to finance the exercise. But stop pretending. Stop lying about the financial viability of institutions designed to hand out subsidies to favoured constituencies.”

NATIONALIZATION WITHOUT TAXATION:

SUCCESSFUL HISTORICAL MODELS

Roubini suggests that full nationalization of Fannie and Freddie would require an increase in taxes or cuts in other public spending, but there are other possible funding solutions, ones with quite successful historical precedents. If the multiple layers of profiteers, speculators, derivatives, commissions, bonuses, fees and general fraud were eliminated from the mix, a nationalized Fannie/Freddie could finance itself.

This was proven in the 1930s with the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), a government-owned agency set up to reverse a disastrous wave of home foreclosures. The HOLC was funded by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), another wholly government-owned agency that performed the functions of a public bank. The RFC successfully funded not only the New Deal but America’s participation in World War II. In a February 2008 article in The New York Times, Alan Binder recommended a return to the HOLC model as a way out of the current mortgage crisis. He wrote:

“The HOLC was established in June 1933 to help distressed families avert foreclosures by replacing mortgages that were in or near default with new ones that homeowners could afford. It did so by buying old mortgages from banks . . . and then issuing new loans to homeowners. The HOLC financed itself by borrowing from capital markets and the Treasury.”

“The scale of the operation was impressive. Within two years, the HOLC granted over a million new mortgages. (Adjusting only for population growth, the corresponding mortgage figure today would be almost 2.5 million.) Nearly one of every five mortgages in America became owned by the HOLC. Its total lending amounted to $3.5 billion. . . .” (The corresponding figure today would be about $750 billion.)

“As a public corporation chartered for a public purpose, the HOLC was a patient and even lenient lender. . . . But times were tough in the 1930s, and nearly 20 percent of the HOLC’s borrowers defaulted anyway. So the corporation eventually acquired ownership of about 200,000 houses, nearly all of which were sold by 1944. The HOLC closed its books in 1951, or 15 years after its last 1936 mortgage was paid off, with a small profit. It was a heavy lift, but the incredible HOLC lifted it.”

“Today’s lift would be far lighter. . . . Given current low interest rates, a new HOLC could borrow cheaply and should find it easy to earn a two-percentage-point spread between borrowing and lending rates, for a gross profit of maybe $4 billion to $8 billion a year.”

The RFC initially capitalized the HOLC by buying all of its stock for $200 million. The HOLC was then authorized by statute to issue ten times that sum (or $2 billion) in tax exempt bonds. In the same way, in 1937-38 the RFC created and funded Fannie Mae as a wholly government-owned agency, for the purpose of injecting money into the banking system so that banks could increase the volume of home mortgages. The RFC and its agencies funded their operations by selling bonds at a modest interest to the Treasury and the public, then relending the acquired funds at a slightly higher interest. The “spread” was sufficient to cover operating costs and losses from default and still turn a modest profit.

How did the HOLC manage to reverse a far worse foreclosure crisis than we have today and still turn a profit, when Fannie and Freddie – which also raise their loan money by selling securities to investors – have become hopelessly bankrupt in that pursuit? The difference seems to be that the HOLC was a public institution operated as a public service.

Fannie and Freddie are private, profit-making ventures designed to make money for their investors and political exploiters. As Professor Roubini observes, “These GSEs were designed to make losses. They are expected to make losses. If they don’t make losses they are not serving their political purpose.” When the profiteering is taken out and the business is run as a public service, the math works.

There is another American model that is even older than the HOLC, which presents even more exciting possibilities. In the first half of the 18th century, the province of Pennsylvania completely funded its government without taxes or debt, through a publicly-owned bank that issued paper currency and lent it to farmers. The bank did not have to borrow capital before it made loans; it just created the currency on a printing press. The money was lent rather than spent into the economy, so it came back to the government in a circular flow, avoiding inflation; and interest on the loans was sufficient to fund the government’s operations without taxation.

Such a public bank today could solve not only the housing crisis but a number of other pressing problems, including the infrastructure crisis and the energy crisis. (See E. Brown, “Sustainable Energy Development: How Costs Can Be Cut in Half,” webofdebt.com/articles, November 5, 2007).

Once bankrupt businesses have been restored to solvency, the usual practice is to return them to private hands; but a better plan for Fannie and Freddie might be to simply keep them as public institutions. In the August 8 London Tribune, British MP Michael Meacher proposed this alternative for Northern Rock, a major British bank that was recently nationalized after becoming insolvent. He wrote:

“[W]hen the banks have failed the public interest so badly and still even now continue to pursue so single-mindedly their commitment to privatize their gains whilst socializing their losses, would not a publicly owned bank be the most effective way of changing the current corrosive financial culture of short-termism, lower investment, house price inflation, and insider enrichment at the expense of systemic fragility for everyone else? Perhaps we should not return Northern Rock to the private sector after all.”

Perhaps we should not return Fannie and Freddie either.

Click here for information about Non-Purpose, Non-Recourse Loans

Click here for information about Non-Purpose, Non-Recourse Loans

Who are these Securities Lenders?

There are hundreds of companies around the world who are security lenders. Often called sec lenders, these corporations range from banks such as the Bank of New York and CitiBank to specific security lender companies such as eSecLending and Wachovia. Financial corporations such as Pension Financial Services and Jefferies and Company also provide sec lenders. Furthermore, these companies are based globally, big name lenders in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Germany, Netherlands, Canada and all around America.

Why do People use Securities Lenders?

Securities lenders will increase the overall performance of the borrowed stock. By borrowing securities, traders can take place in strategies such as pairs trading and risk arbitrage thus making a higher income. They are able to take place is higher risk trading with the cover of shorts and the prevention of fails. Securities lenders also help to manage balance sheets and finance inventory. Furthermore, security lenders act as a middle man, helping the traders along the way.

How Does Securities Lending Actually Work?

Security Lending is often used in short selling on the stock market. A trader will deliver the borrowed stock to another party in order to satisfy the order they agreed on. The sec lender will charge an annual fee for the lending of the stock. The trader will return the borrowed stock at a later time, hopefully when the stock price is down. That way they can re-sell the borrowed stock at a lower price than they initially borrowed it at and pocket the extra money.

Unfortunately, short selling has been taken to a whole new level called naked short selling. It has already had a horrible impact on our market in recent weeks and now the SEC has had to ban short selling altogether for a short while. However, the media speaks of the short selling ban because of corruption in security lending, but they do not mention naked short selling. Why is this?

This is probably due in part to the fact that the first words that come to mind when naked short selling is mentioned is “terrorist attack.” Naked short selling is an attack on the market because it is intentional. Those who initiate the attack know what they are doing and what effect it is going to have on the market. The market is going to tumble, which is exactly what has happened in recent weeks.

There is a very interesting report that explains security lending in detail and how naked short selling has a horrible impact on the securities market. This report is called Wall Street Under Attack: Naked Short Selling and the Illegal Hacking of the U.S. Securities Market.

The U.S. has an incredible financial system, but there are individuals trying to ruin it by taking advantages of loopholes and hurting individuals and companies. America must become educated on this and how it ties into our existing financial crisis so that a stop can be put to it.

Click here for information about Securities Based Lending / Stock Loans