Q.3
Financialization is a complex process that labels global finance as the dominant force that drives all economic and political bearings. In order to understand this concept and the process of how financialization works, this essay will evaluate and assess how the collapse of the housing market led to the fiancial crisis in 2008. According to Economic Geography a contemporary introduction, financialization “is when all sorts of things are transformed into financial instruments for trading among individuals and firms in the international capital markets. Through financialization, fixed properties such as housing are financialized into structured investment vehicles such as mortgages—back securities that can be easily traded among global investors through a variety of financial institutions” (Coe, Kelly, and Yeung, 2013). Trading mortgages, or shares at the global level proved to be a financial disaster for many involved. Ultimately the collateralized debt obligation market collapsed and thus dragged down the entire global financial market.
In order to understand the concept of financialization and the housing market on the global and local level, one must know that there is a global pool of money that is simply the worlds savings bank. In 2000 the pool had $36 trillion and has since doubled in size (Blumberg 2008). Its most recent profit increase was a result of developing countries and cities such as India, Abu Dhabi, and China making money. This doubled the cash pool available for investments, but left fewer solid investments for the taking. The solution was residential mortgages and the US housing market. The investment managers thought the low-risk high-return investment in the housing market was a good, stable idea. The glo...
... middle of paper ...
...tized global distribution is what caused the market crash (Coe, Kelly, and Yeung, 2013).
The housing market crash was a response to a chain of businesses and people who believed that the old laws of banking were no longer important. Banks were no longer required to hold on to mortgages for 30 years which gave them the ability to sell off to other companies, without concern for the mortgage holders. David Harvey, a renowned geographer, warned us of this problem, stating that “labor markets and consumption function more as an outcome of search for financial solutions to the crisis-tendencies of capitalism, rather than the other way around. This would imply that the financial system has achieved a degree of autonomy from real production unprecedented in capitalism’s history, carrying capitalism into an era of equally unprecedented dangers” (Coe, Kelly, and Yeung, 2013)
The housing market is very unique as unlike other goods and services, houses have permanence, it is a fixed location good causing the rules of supply and demand to be taken to new extremes. In the case of the Toronto housing market we can view in almost real time the role supply and demand play on he ever increasing house prices, additionally the fundamental economic issue of scarcity is made extremely apparent by the limited size of the city of Toronto.
The reality of the worst financial crisis in the last 80 years has led to wide speculation of its causes. While a plethora of theories have been offered, none have been as persistent and as patently false as the assertion that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 played a significant role in the housing bubble collapse. Critics of the Community Investment Act (CRA) argue that by pushing banks to meet the credit needs of low-income borrowers, the law forced lending institutions to take on riskier loans that proved to be fiscally irresponsible. The securitization and speculation of these low quality loans led to the housing bubble collapse and the wider financial crisis. This argument is subject to a number of problems, namely: the CRA never mandated lower lending standards, the CRA was enacted over a quarter of a century before the housing crash took place, none of the hundreds of banks that collapsed were subject to CRA legislation, CRA loans had a historically low level of default, and CRA loans comprised an extremely low amount of subprime loans during the relevant period of the crisis. While the CRA may have played some small part in the collapse of the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis, it is clear that its effect was negligible. There are simply too many mitigating factors that limit the extent to which the CRA could have adversely affected the housing market for the theory to be plausible.
After a generation of portfolio managers and investors profiting from decades of favorable returns on stocks, they believed the modern economy was impervious to major calamities (“Rethinking” 20). As inflation rates fell from record highs in the late 1970s and early 1980s to the record lows that they are today, interest rates followed, enabling Americans to borrow more money from lenders which, in turn, increased housing prices to all-time highs (“Rethinking” 21).
The housing crisis in America is a major problem plaguing the United States economy. Before a solution is formulated, one must consider the history of the market and the causes of the problem. And after a solution is formulated, one must present an idea for prevention of the problem for the future. Many people see similarities between the Great Depression in the late 1920s to the late 1930s. The Great Depression was caused by the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
“The housing market will get worse before it gets better” –James Wilson. The collapse of the United States housing market in in 2008 was one of the most devastating moments for the world economy. The United Sates being arguably the most important and powerful nation in the world really brought everyone down with this event. Canada was very lucky, thanks to good planning and proper preventatives to avoid what happened to the United States. There were many precursor events that occurred that showed a distinct path that led to the collapse of the housing market. People were buying house way out of their range because of low interest rates, the banks seemingly easily giving out massive loans and banks betting against the housing market. There were
Although the crisis came to head in 2008, there were people who had realized that trouble was coming for years. The largest warning sign was the amount of credit in the market place. Many of the big companies and banks had very little capital, and the lack of capital was brought on by the housing bubble. Companies were lending too much money to people who could not pay them back. And even before people started to default on their mortgages, people could see that this was a problem. During a meeting with the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in January 2007 the staff of the Federal Reserve admitted “that they were aware of [the] problem in the housing issue three years earlier” (Dodd). And they were not the only ones. As far back as 2001 there were people who saw the danger that sub-prime mortgages were and who were trying to have bills passed to stop the bad lending that was going on, but no one wanted to list...
In “The Big Short”, this movie about the economic collapse of 2008 in America highlights how Americans of all racial backgrounds were hit hard when the housing market collapsed. The film provides a very compelling argument and describes how the market crashed because banks began to give out more unstable loans out to people in order to sell more properties, which eventually led to the housing market to be built upon millions of risky loans. This practice grew until the housing market became too unstable because of all the risky loans and resulted in an economic crash. The housing market collapse led to millions of Americans to lose their homes because of foreclosures and led to massive amount of homelessness and unemployment since the Great
It can be argued that the economic hardships of the great recession began when interest rates were lowered by the Federal Reserve. This caused a bubble in the housing market. Housing prices plummeted, home prices plummeted, then thousands of borrowers could no longer afford to pay on their loans (Koba, 2011). The bubble forced banks to give out homes loans with unreasonably high risk rates. The response of the banks caused a decline in the amount of houses purchased and “a crisis involving mortgage loans and the financial securities built on them” (McConnell, 2012 p.479). The effect on the economy was catastrophic and caused a “pandemic” of foreclosures that effected tens of thousands home owners across the U.S. (Scaliger, 2013). The debt burden eventually became unsustainable and the U.S. crisis deepened as the long-term effect on bank loans would affect not only the housing market, but also the job market.
America is seen as the land of opportunity in that there are endless possibilities for an individual. In this land of opportunity, Americans strive to obtain the ideal known as the American dream. The American Dream is seen as the accomplishment of an ambition achieved while challenged by adversity.1 Americans often associate this success with the ownership of a home. The home is not simply a place of basic protection; there is a much deeper connection to the individual. Ownership of a home grants freedom and security that establishes a sense permanency for the individual. In contrast, renting a living space possesses a semblance of instability and dependence.2 The desire to improve ones’ position in life inspires one to obtain the American dream.
Affordable housing in the United States describes sheltering units with well-adjusted housing costs for those living on an average, median income. The phrase usually implies to applied rental or purchaser housing within the financial means of lower-income ranges specific to the demographics of any given area. However, affordable housing does not include those living in social housing owned by government and non-profit organizations. More specifically, the targeted range for housing affordability sets below 30 percent of a household's annual income, including all applicable taxes, utility costs and home owners insurance rates. If the mean income per household breaches the 30 percent mark, then the agreed status becomes labeled as "unaffordable" by most recognizable financial institutions.
This was the first global financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s; it spread at an un-parallel rate across the world (Claessens et al, 2013). In the aftermath of the Great Depression it was universally believed by economists that the unregulated financial markets were to blame as they were fundamentally unstable, subject to manipulation by bankers, and capable of triggering deep economic crises and political and social unrest (Crotty, 2009). These are the same issues that occurred following the aftermath of the financial crisis 2007. It can be argued that the current crisis is the latest stage in a series of financial boom and bust cycles, in which there is a shift from light to tight financial market regulations. The global financial crisis (GFC) is seen as the deepest post-World War II recession (Blankenburg & Palma, 2009) with the United States being the epicenter of the crisis due to the housing bubble burst and sub-prime mortgages (McKibbin & Stoeckel, 2010). This essay will be focusing on the housing bubble, sub-prime mortgages, and the interconnectedness of the global banking system, the lack of transparency and regulation within the finance industry as the main causes for the GFC.
The "subprime crises" was one of the most significant financial events since the Great Depression and definitely left a mark upon the country as we remain upon a steady path towards recovering fully. The financial crisis of 2008, became a defining moment within the infrastructure of the US financial system and its need for restructuring. One of the main moments that alerted the global economy of our declining state was the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on Sunday, September 14, 2008 and after this the economy began spreading as companies and individuals were struggling to find a way around this crisis. (Murphy, 2008) The US banking sector was first hit with a crisis amongst liquidity and declining world stock markets as well. The subprime mortgage crisis was characterized by a decrease within the housing market due to excessive individuals and corporate debt along with risky lending and borrowing practices. Over time, the market apparently began displaying more weaknesses as the global financial system was being affected. With this being said, this brings into question about who is actually to assume blame for this financial fiasco. It is extremely hard to just assign blame to one individual party as there were many different factors at work here. This paper will analyze how the stakeholders created a financial disaster and did nothing to prevent it as the credit rating agencies created an amount of turmoil due to their unethical decisions and costly mistakes.
“One out of every two hundred homes will be foreclosed every month, making 205,000 new families enter into foreclosure,” Mortgage Bankers Association. The housing industry in the United States is undergoing an unfortunate crisis. There are way too many homes being foreclosed, which cause a ripple of problems.
The financial crisis of 2008 was the worst economic downturn in history since the Great Depression of 1929. There were, not only domestic implications, but there were massive international implications as well. Unfortunately, the crisis didn’t overnight, but had been in the workings since the late 1990’s when the financial system started to deregulate. The common denominator connecting the reasons the market crashed in 2008 had to do with sub-prime mortgages. Sub-prime mortgages affected institutional banks, borrowers and eventually lead to monetary changes in the U.S Government.
Following the sudden increase of the dot-com bubble and the possibility of decline threatening the US management started dropping the interest rates to improve the economy. The interest-rate turned as low as 1.5% in June 2003 which was at its least possible point since 1958 (Gerding, 2009). This low interest-rate found its users in the shape of homebuyers and borrowers with the housing market at last expressing some development after period of declining movement. Indeed the rate of a thirty year unchanging mortgage in the year 2003 was the lowest in 40 years and thus the dream of owning a residence in US was becoming an incredibly simple reality for Americans (Ely, 2009). With increasing housing charges borrowers assumed th...