Thoughts & Comments
Arrrgh: Sheila Bair Stays At FDIC
What does the media see in this woman?

Thomas Brown  ( about me )
Posted 01/09/2009

So Sheila Bair will hang around as head of the FDIC in the Obama administration. Ugh. I know, I know, Bair is hugely popular in certain circles in Washington, and never fails to get adoring press (most recently, as it happens, in the New Republic). But her let’s-stick-up-for-the-little-guy schtick doesn’t figure to do much to bolster the banking system she’s supposed to be protecting. Nor will it likely speed the healing of the financial system. More broadly, Bair isn’t exactly the profile in courage she’s often made out to be.

So I am not a fan. Why? Let me count the ways:

  1. What’s with her obsession with loan modifications? From what I can tell, Sheila Bair’s plan to revive the housing and financial markets begins and ends with easing the loan terms of every delinquent subprime mortgage borrower she can find. Forget about the rights of the bondholders that actually own the loans Bair is seeking to modify. And forget, too, about the signal that borrowers still current on their mortgages will get when they see delinquent borrowers’ loans modified en masse. Bair seems to believe that loan modifications are a good thing in and of themselves, regardless of their broader economic ramifications.

    That’s nuts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: a lender should agree to modify a loan only if it expects that the net present value of the modified loan would be higher than it would be if it were not modified. If the lender agrees to modify the loan under any other circumstance, it is simply engaging in a free giveaway to the borrower. That is something one would think a guardian of the soundness of the banking system would disapprove of. Not Bair. She seems to believe that if banks sprinkle their capital on delinquent subprime borrowers, the housing crunch will go away. She’s kidding herself.

    Don’t forget, a lot of delinquent borrowers Bair wants to “help” are speculators who don’t even live in the properties (despite what they might have said on their loan applications). They are deeply underwater and just want out. Those people won’t accept a loan mod, no matter what the terms. As for the borrowers who do live in the properties—and I’m going to sound hard-hearted here, but am not—what’s so bad about renting rather than owning? It’s not the unnatural state of affairs that Bair and her prevent-foreclosures-at-all-costs pals seem to think: according to the census bureau, fully 32% of American homes are occupied by people who don’t own them.

  1. Bair hasn’t exactly been a picture of independent judgment on other issues either. A judicious regulator? Please. Remember, for instance, what happened in 2006 when Wal-Mart wanted to start an industrial loan company? It was an instance of pure cravenness on Bair’s part--and was a good indication of her basic M.O. Naturally, a broad range of Wal-Mart’s traditional foes, from labor unions to community banks, loudly opposed the company’s move. But the guidelines for approving ILC applications are straightforward, and Wal-Mart met all of them. This was clearly a moment when a disinterested regulator (which is what Bair is supposed to be) should ignore the political winds and follow the rules. What did Bair do? She dithered, imposing one moratorium on ILC applications after another, for no reason other than to duck the heat she was feeling. In the end, Wal-Mart withdrew its application after it saw it wasn’t getting anywhere in the face of Bair’s stonewalling. This was not the fearless independent-mindedness that has the press so gushing.

  1. Bair’s agency hasn’t done such a great job preventing what’s shaping up to be the next lending train wreck. That would be commercial real estate. The FDIC was basically asleep while the banks it regulates pumped up commercial loan volumes after the housing market cracked. Now—surprise!—delinquencies on those loans are starting to surge, and kick off a second leg to the credit crackup that threatens to prolong the recession. What did FDIC do to restrain the excesses in the CRE market? From what I can tell, nothing. Nobody expects the woman to be clairvoyant, but I don’t know of anything Bair’s agency did to rein in crazy CRE lending.

  1. Bair doesn’t seem to play well with others.  The financial markets are currently in the midst of their greatest crisis in memory. I for one would appreciate it if the government’s key financial regulators were singing from the same hymnal, and would cut out the sniping, as they tried to fix the problem. But no one seems to snipe more (and try to undercut stated policies more) than Sheila Bair does. I don’t see how that helps anything. 

Nobody says the head of the FDIC has the easiest job in the world. But with her pseudo-populism and her eye for the camera, Sheila Bair has perfected the art of getting great headlines, not of making great policy. By the end, the Bush people seemed to regret Bair was on their team. I suspect in not very long, the Obama people will feel the same way. In the meantime, with Bair still at the FDIC, the government will likely be all the more hamstrung as it tries to sort out the mess.

What do you think? Let me know!

  Add your comment



Vegasjoe57 Posted On 1/9/2009 9:08:42 PM

Then tell Obama! He seems to be listening to everyone! Barney Frank seems to like her, which means she must be in his back pocket!
Ad for inter-arch
Ad for Bankstocks is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.