Hypothetical Financial Crisis in a World with Low Leverage

So leverage is always correctly discussed as a major cause of the financial crisis.
Yet by definition, levered securities are only a problem if the underlying is losing money; if the underlying is gaining you would want to be as levered as possible.

We know that there were some terrible inefficiencies in the underlying MBS market that caused the bubble in the mortgage market in the first place, even when we ignore leverage completely. On the investor side, securities were principle protected which made them infinitely more attractive as the investor could pretty much ignore default risks. And on the mortgage-holder side, mortgage terms became too complicated for buyers to actually know what they were getting into with fixed-for-float, balloon, and other structures. Sellers of MBS buying too many mortgages because they don't know how much they'll have to pay in the long run and buyers of MBS buying too much because of the implicit guarantee=disaster.

The hypothetical I want to propose is what the crisis would have been like if banks were then leveraged to the degree they are today. It seems to me that there would still be a bubble in mortgage-space, but the severity of the overvaluation and subsequent crash would have been more manageable. The question is how bad would it have been.

What are all of your thoughts?

 
Best Response
derivstrading:
Presence of leverage can easily spark massive selloffs. Imagine someone levered 10:1, ie has 10 mil of equity for 100 mil of assets. Now lets say he needs to keep a constant 10:1 ratio or less. Now if the asset value falls to 95 mil (only a 5% decrease), he needs to sell 45 million of the asset.

If you take that one step further, you are threatening the livelihood of firms. If your assets fall another 5 million before you can de-leverage (which could be in part caused by the selloff) then all of the sudden you risk going under and that's when the effects become more widespread.

So, I think in a de-leveraged environment there still would have been big losses, but those would have been absorbed by the stockholders of the respective firms, and as long as these firms could stay afloat you don't have all of the same counterparty issues from CDS. It certainly would have inspired some sort of panic, as people are always fearful of the next Great Depression or S&L crisis, but not to the level we saw.

 
derivstrading:
Presence of leverage can easily spark massive selloffs. Imagine someone levered 10:1, ie has 10 mil of equity for 100 mil of assets. Now lets say he needs to keep a constant 10:1 ratio or less. Now if the asset value falls to 95 mil (only a 5% decrease), he needs to sell 45 million of the asset.

Right. I was trying to create the hypothetical that ignores this phenomenon and focuses on the underyling bubble.

Still, this is an interesting point. We have companies that are required to maintain a ratio of Assets/Equity that is constant, but assets and equity are oviously not independant variables. Maybe there are better methods/ratios to enforce that do not have this cyclical effect?

 

speaking of de-leveraging... are there any firms/HF's sticking to 100% equity and using zero leverage? is it seen as more ethical in todays standard to do so?

"Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish"
 
dmcd:
speaking of de-leveraging... are there any firms/HF's sticking to 100% equity and using zero leverage? is it seen as more ethical in todays standard to do so?

Firms, yes. I don't believe Google, for example, has any debt. There are other firms (I feel like I've seen some Cramer articles on CNBC.com highlighting them). As far as HFs, I would doubt it, but I'm not sure. I say I doubt it because it would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage. As far as being more ethical to do so, I wouldn't say that. If you are truly keeping in mind the stockholders' best interest, it often makes sense to use some debt in order to increase returns, as long as you do it in a responsible and manageable way.

The 40x or so that some of the banks were leveraged at going into this crisis does not qualify as repsonsible or managable.

 
dmcd:
speaking of de-leveraging... are there any firms/HF's sticking to 100% equity and using zero leverage? is it seen as more ethical in todays standard to do so?
Many distressed funds, EM growth/PE firms, and other structures that invest in high IRR opportunities can and do operate without any leverage.
 

Sunt omnis quas ex placeat error. Provident recusandae molestiae reiciendis quod. Dicta soluta molestias totam ad deleniti harum debitis. Libero et quae eaque est minima dolorem. Repudiandae facilis in et vitae quia eos rerum.

Sed aut repellat nam qui quasi eaque. Quisquam est dolores quam officiis. Vel et ex quas ullam.

Dignissimos quasi maxime culpa. Dicta dolores a consequatur sunt atque dolorum et. Et incidunt ipsum dolorum est. Alias et possimus asperiores ut sequi.

Nihil id facere illum. Dolorum maiores corrupti dignissimos ipsa fuga est veritatis. Maxime natus magnam libero fugit aut adipisci.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (87) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
numi's picture
numi
98.8
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”