1
âToo Clubby to Failâ: Wall Street Banks Win, Thrifts and Community Banks Lose
2008
There are days that are uneventful and flow together endlessly. So many days, you canât remember the details. But then there are days that will stay with you forever, days you can never forget, days that will change your life forever. September 25 was always a special day for Linda, because it was the birthday of her only child. She had just given him a brief call. He was busy working as a paralegal, saving money for law school. After the call, Linda and Kerry turned on the TV to watch the news and heard the announcement that was impossible to believe. The sixth-largest bank in the country, Washington Mutual, with over $300 billion in assets, had been seized and sold to JPMorgan Chase for the bargain price of $1.9 billion. The seizure had occurred during the 119th anniversary year of the incorporation of the bank.
This improbable seizure did not fit the facts we knew. Kerry had just retired from the bank three weeks earlier. When he retired, Washington Mutual had over $50 billion of excess liquidity, and over $11 billion of capital had been raised in the last 10 months, so capital was significantly above regulatory requirements. Loan portfolios were performing better than the industry, and the bank didnât have any formal regulatory directives or enforcement actions. The bankâs holding company had over $30 billion of assets, some of which could have been down-streamed to the bank. With all those assets and liquidity, there should have been no reason for the seizure of the bank or the bankruptcy of the holding company. The bankâs residential mortgage lending had been dramatically decreased in the last few years, and the growing retail banking operation, credit cards, and multifamily lending were highly profitable and the bulk of the bankâs business.
There are not many CEOs of a Fortune 50 company who have seen a crisis coming and within a couple of years, dropped the core product (home lending) by 74 percent, replaced the revenues with a diversified portfolio of new products, hired a new management team, and continued to achieve record revenue and profits. Kerry felt confident these actions positioned the bank to face the coming crisis.
However, when the regulators let Lehman fail, most banks, including Washington Mutual, suffered deposit losses. But those losses had stabilized at Washington Mutual, and the Federal Home Loan Banks of San Francisco and Seattle offered billions of additional liquidity in case it was required. The executives at the bank had submitted a plan to Treasury that would add billions of liquidity and assets to the bank. They had until Sunday, September 28, to get approval of the plan. It was only Thursday. We couldnât think of an example when the regulators had seized a 3-rated bank and they had rarely seized a bank on a Thursdayâit was always Friday. What was the rush?
Well-established regulatory protocols appeared to be ignored in an effort to get a sale completed before additional capital or liquidity could be brought into the bank. Kerry understood why the board had asked him to retire earlier that month. Nearly all the large-bank CEOs in the country had been retired or terminated after all banks experienced record increases in loan losses, record losses in earnings, and deep plunges in stock prices. After retiring from Washington Mutual, Kerry had continued on with life, fielding numerous calls from employees keeping him posted on the activities of the bank and also fielding calls from executives with offers to join their firms or boards.
Hearing that Washington Mutual was seized stunned and scared Kerry. He knew it meant the entire financial system was about to collapse. Over the past four years, Kerry had repeatedly warned investors, regulators, and the Federal Reserve that the housing collapse could have a substantial effect on the economy. He pleaded with the Federal Reserve to inject liquidity into the system and was astounded when regulators made the fatal mistake of letting Lehman Brothers fail. Kerry was angry at the continual incompetence of the government officials.
The financial crisis could have been avoided. The seizure of Washington Mutual, the failure of thousands of thrifts and community banks, the loss of millions of jobs and homes should not have happened. Kerry went through his mental trap lineâwas there anything he could have done differently?
Should he have cut residential mortgage loans even further? Maybe, but he made deeper cuts than any of the large banks and laid off fifteen thousand mortgage employees. Should he have originated any subprime loans at all? Maybe not, but regulated banks were pressured to have substantial portfolios of LMI loans to earn âoutstandingâ CRA ratings. Washington Mutualâs subprime loans averaged about 5 percent of the loan portfolio with loan losses much lower than the industry. Should he have eliminated adjustable-rate loans and only offered fixed-rate residential loans? Maybe, but customers wanted a full range of products and adjustable-rate loans like option ARMs were given to prime customers and had very low default rates similar to fixed-rate loans. Fixed-rate loans made up 70 to 80 percent of Washington Mutualâs residential loan originations during the 2000s.
Should he have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying Congress, like Wall Street did? Maybe, but he felt if you followed the rules and exhibited strong ethics, you didnât need to bribe Congress. That strategy worked for decades because the bank never had any formal regulatory actions, fines, or penalties. Did he always have the right people in the job? Sometimes not, but when that happened, he quickly made changes. Early in the decade, he recruited some of the best and most experienced people in the industry. Should he have converted to a commercial banking charter earlier? Maybe, but large commercial banks were having even more problems.
Should he have raised more capital? He did and in July 2008, Washington Mutual was the most highly capitalized large bank in the country, the first large bank to be Basel II compliant and regulators and experts agreed its $50 billion-plus in liquidity would carry the bank through any serious downturn.
We started getting phone calls and emails from former employees. Nearly all the executives had just heard about the seizure on the news and were shell-shocked. We were very concerned what the seizure meant for the tens of thousands of employees who would lose their jobs and their savings. Between phone calls, Kerry paced the room and carefully reviewed the events of the last nine months, trying to process if there was anything he could have done differently. He looked back to the beginning of the year.
The January 2008 investor conferences in New York City were grim. Nearly all the banks were suffering record losses from their deteriorating loan portfolios, and bank stock values were plummeting and banks were desperately seeking more capital and liquidity. Kerry had been warning the Federal Reserve (Fed) for four years about a downturn and the need for liquidity in the system and was once again using the conferences to warn investors and regulators of the deepening financial crisis. He continued to be frustrated the Fed was so slow to act. He told investors:
Housing prices were correcting in a fairly orderly manner until the middle of 2007, when the capital markets suddenly froze. In a very brief period, the consumerâs ability to obtain financing was severely curtailed. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve and the [federal] government were very slow to acknowledge deteriorating market conditions, because their economists were forecasting only a brief slowdown in housing followed by a quick recovery.
Kerry continued to be frustrated by the inaction of Fed chair Bernanke. Bernanke was scholarly in an ivory tower way, but he didnât have practical capital market or business experience. As a result, early on, when there were discussions about the housing market, he did not understand what made the mortgage markets work and how sophisticated capital market products would react when liquidity dried up in the system. Bernanke would always respond that he âwas more concerned about the potential of inflation than about the decline of the economy.â
Fed chair Bernanke and others even ignored warnings by Nobel Laureate economist Dr. Robert Shiller. In Shillerâs 2008 book The Subprime Solution, he detailed his own efforts to warn Bernanke, the OCC, and the FDIC about the speculative housing bubble. Shiller felt he was viewed as âan extremist who deserved a skeptical response.â Shiller, like Kerry, believed if Bernanke had injected liquidity into the system in the fall of 2007, the depths of the crisis could have...