Last week, headlines around the world were screaming out the sad tale of WorldCom and its $4 billion or so misstatement of earnings. But should we really be surprised that another poster child of the boom--especially one whose growth has come through rapid-fire acquisitions led by a rock star CEO--has been revealed to be a hotbed of malpractice?
Insider trading laws, writes Dale Steinreich, have empowered the SEC to undertake a mission in information egalitarianism that favors certain classes of investors and strategies, and not others. Martha Stewart and ImClone have the book thrown at them, while the stock sales of Apple Computer's executives are ignored.
Poor Martha Stewart and Samuel Waksal, snared by arbitrary insider-trading laws that require information to be socialized. If one party knows more than others about a particular firm or industry, the SEC is perfectly able to rule that possessing--and acting upon--that knowledge is a crime.
Popular thinking about economic growth is still strongly influenced by the productivity theory of capital, which presumes that capital engenders a yield like the fruits from a tree, writes Antony P. Mueller. If it were merely aggregate investment that mattered, economic development and continuous wealth creation would be child's play.
Fannie Mae's monopoly privileges have given it an ever-increasing share of the secondary conforming mortgage market, writes Robert Blumen, and it currently is seeking to expand into other parts of the mortgage market. The net result has been a nightmare of resource misallocation and massive systemic risk.
The quirky nature of credit is that it is not necessarily better in abundance, writes Christopher Mayer. It's not like beer, butter, and bananas--where more means cheaper and cheaper is good. Credit is like money; it represents buying power. More credit means more buying power, which means a bidding up of assets and a spark for an unsustainable boom.
What may be the more important factor in manufacturing future Enrons is the role of government in fostering the boom-bust cycle. Enron, then, is just one casualty of many--albeit the largest so far--of massive credit expansion and of manipulation of interest rates by the central bank.
It has been said that the stock market is not an actuarial table. The same can be said of the bond market. Rather than an infallible guide to the future, the bond market embodies the best guesses, hopes, dreams, and fears of many investors. Hence, the bond market can be fallible and, in fact, has been so—in spectacular fashion—in the past.
While it is perfectly clear that an individual capitalist or speculator may make losses on the stock exchange, it is very doubtful whether "society" can make such losses. The question with which we are concerned here is whether an individual's losses from domestic stock exchange transactions represent a loss to the society to which that individual belongs.
The mortgage markets of America are on the verge of nationalization. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank System (all government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs) have become giants in the mortgage markets. The Big Three have grown at such a rapid rate over recent years that at the end of 2000, they collectively held $2.9 trillion of mortgage debt, which was equivalent to nearly 56 percent of all US household mortgage debt. Combined, they account for 90 percent of the total federal agency debt, and federally sponsored agency debt outstanding at the end of 2000. In 2001, the growth of GSEs did not abate.
