Finance Security Analysis and Portfolio Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac

Questions: 1. Financial Innovations leads to financial crisis?2. Adverse selection and moral hazards contribution in crisis?3. Unprecedent level of Government interventions?4. Long term impact of the Government interventions? Answers: 1. Financial Innovations leads to financial crisis Financial innovation has brought very complex structure and obfuscation within the mortgages selling that leads to housing bubble burst in US. Financial innovation in terms of the mortgagees includes the mortgages back securities which is one of the most popular and are back by the US government agencies like Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac are another major financial agencies who are known for their overvaluation of bonds (Abowd and Vilhuber, 2012). Financial innovations in MBS is was one of the most safest way of investing in the money as the rate of interest risk is also lower in term of equity. Financial engineering has help the banks and investment bankers to misrepresent the structured way of exploiting the investors by selling them poor MBS products (Barakova et al. 2014). With decrease the in default in payments of loan banks does not able to cope with decreasing value of mortgagee which led to subprime financial crisis. Most of banking and the securities broking companies are using obfuscation to show the value of mortgage higher that leads to innovation vulnerability (Christopoulos et al. 2008). Financial securities like mutual funds, future and forwards constructs are also been part of the losing the market base. Overvaluation of MBS bonds has been initial pillar of subprime crisis as the most of the mortgage sold by the companies are being overvalued bonds which is US government was not been able to return the investors principal amount along with interest amount (Downing et al. 2008). Innovation in the MBS products of the CDO s (collateral debt obligations) and CDs (credit defaults swaps) are used as the medium of the line of credit expansions which ultimately led to financial turmoil in 2008. The mortgage market construction was very much poor because of the lack of transparency and complex structure of the MBS. 2. Adverse selection and moral hazards contribution in crisis In the early 80s , the rising purchasing of the swaps rate that created credit in 2001 has been one of reason for the adverse selection of recession (Fabozzi and Vink, 2012). During the 2001 and to 2008 there was period of great depression because of the rise in the default in the corporate bonds which most likely faced by the mortgagee back securities in 2008. Adverse selection started from the financial or rather capital markets initially. One of the major information known as the asymmetric inflations are very much important hostility in the capital market. Adverse selection in mortgage market has been one of the major foundations of recent financial catastrophe (Insler and Swope, 2014). With rise in the uncertainty of the asset values reach to systematic risk in the US market because of which entire market collapsed in 2008. Another major reason for the adverse selection is because of the complexity within the instruments which is because of the lack of transparency has made it m ore difficult for investors. Since, the investors selection of the products because of the AAA credit ratings on the MBS is been another reason for poor selections (Sendi, 2010). The default in the payment of the mortgages backed securities because of bankruptcy of the borrower lead to reason for financial crisis at the end. Moral hazards here are about the lack of information enough information about MBS by over-valuation of the asset that leads to rise in the housing bubble. Moral hazards here explain that, one investor takes the risk because of which someone is held for the burden of those risks. Moral hazard here has been taken place where the information irregularity is more of risk taking party knows about the intentions in compare to the payer who has been bearing the risk. Here moral hazard is been occurred because the investors who know more can be behave improperly which is why moral hazard occurs (Barnes and Young, 2010). The information about the mortgagee and MBS knowledge is higher for banks in compare to party who is involves in paying the consequences. For instance, subprime credit because most of the investors felts that, borrowers will not be bal to pay the payments in the longer period of time which is why it reaches to subprime crisis. 3. Unprecedent level of Government interventions Government interventions in is very much one of the reason for the bringing the instability within the private economy. Since, the US government has taken various policy like term action facility (TAF) whose major objective is to reduce the loan interest rates in the money market in order to increase the increase in smooth flow of credit in the market. This ultimate results show that, TAF was not enough as because rise in the counter party risk was higher. Another major policy was Economic Stimulus act of 2008. This act is made with aim of spending more than $100 million to the investors and the families in order to spend more which ultimately kick up the economy (Barnes and Young, 2010). However, it went in reverse investors and families spent little that started the situation more of worse. Lastly, the third major policy results the US government to lose Federal Reserve by more than 5.2% because of sharp reduction in the CRR. This has tended to decrease the rate of dollar in return the price of oil has been increased. After these all mistakes the US government has made worsen the economy in September 2008 (Downing et al. 2008). This led the US economy and world economy to increase in the credit crunch. Most of the researcher has even has suggest that, the US government to save the Lehman brothers from the bankruptcy was made the government to poor choices or decision making (Das, 2012). This led to increase the interest rates rise in the payment defaults from 1% to 5% since 2001 to 2008. The GDP of the US has become almost negative in that year which why the value of dollar is been under scrutiny (Barnes and Young, 2010). 4. Long term impact of the Government interventions These policies have created long term effect within the US economy. The GDP of the US has been decline to negative and the Inflation rate has been rise by the more than 6.7% in 2008. This has led to housing bubble bursts. Most these impacted more on the capital market rather than the homeowners (Downing et al. 2008). The US government national debt in 2008 to 2014 was almost 17.82 trillion. This federal deficit has ballooned to higher debt because of the decreases in MBS valued. Government has not been able to lift up its GDP strength because of the poor transparency in the policies of the mortgage instruments. The budget and policy made by the U.S. government is very much cynical and has made the economy more worsen (Christopoulos et al. 2008). The US debt is ballooning since 2008 as because of the rise in recessions and ratio of debt to GDP has been decreased by the government surplus or due to growth GDP. With rise in the debt every year because of the accounting rules followed by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is very much simple and situation more permanent. US government is been not able to match its balance of receipt and balance payments because of the rise in the public debt. Guaranteed obligations for mandatory payments leads the building the debt which again risen the long term debt is higher (Mitchell, 2008). Apart from that, government is also being getting the negative real interest rates within the US treasury shows that inflation are of the US was higher than the interest paid on the given debt. Reference List Journals Abowd, J. and Vilhuber, L. (2012). Did the Housing Price Bubble Clobber Local Labor Market Job and Worker Flows When It Burst?. American Economic Review, 102(3), pp.589-593. Barakova, I., Calem, P. and Wachter, S. (2014). Borrowing constraints during the housing bubble. Journal of Housing Economics, 24, pp.4-20. Christopoulos, A., Jarrow, R. and Yildirim, Y. (2008). Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS) and Market Efficiency with Respect to Costly Information. Real Estate Economics, 36(3), pp.441-498. Downing, C., Jaffee, D. and Wallace, N. (2008). Is the Market for Mortgage-Backed Securities a Market for Lemons?. Review of Financial Studies, 22(7), pp.2457-2494. Fabozzi, F. and Vink, D. (2012). Determinants of Primary Market Spreads on U.K. Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities and the Implications for Investor Reliance on Credit Ratings. The Journal of Fixed Income, 21(3), pp.7-14. Insler, M. and Swope, K. (2014). School Quality, Residential Choice, and the U.S. Housing Bubble. Housing Policy Debate, pp.1-27. Sendi, R. (2010). Housing bubble burst or credit crunch effect? Slovenias housing market. Urbani izziv, 21(2), pp.96-105. Barnes, S. and Young, G. (2010). The Rise in US Household Debt: Assessing its Causes and Sustainability. SSRN Journal. Das, S. (2012). The Great Sovereign Debt Express Derailment: The US Remains the Problem!. Wilmott, 2012(58), pp.8-15. Mitchell, P. (2008). US credit crunch impacts biotech across the globe. Nat Biotechnol, 26(4), pp.359-360.