10 Things That Will Change

What will U.S. regulatory and financial climate will look like in a few months from now? It may look remarkably like the climate of five or 10 years ago.

By Jerome Idaszak, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

Renuka Rayasam, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

September 26, 2008
Text Size T T

Advertisement

When the smoke clears on the current financial and legislative turmoil -- the economic landscape will look considerably different than it did just a few months ago. Here's what we see ahead:

  1. A much less leveraged economy. Cash will be king. In practical terms, that means: Little financing of speculative building and higher pre-leasing hurdles for commercial real estate. More money up front on merger and acquisition deals. Bigger mortgage down payments. Lower limits on credit cards. And higher capital reserves for banks.

    And less risk-taking in other ways as well. Borrowers will need squeaky-clean track records. Financial deals at publicly traded firms will be more transparent. Buyers will demand a much clearer understanding of exactly what they're getting.

  2. More modest rewards -- the natural consequence of less risk taking. Fewer stocks racking up double-digit gains. Slower appreciation of property values. Smaller returns on endowments for universities and nonprofits. For consumers: Fewer second homes, boats, new cars and so on. More households will live within their means.

  3. A feast for bottom fishers. Investors with cash, the patience to wait out a gradual recovery and a heart stout enough to withstand periodic wild swings, will be in the catbird seat. They're positioned to make a bundle, snapping up undervalued assets -- businesses, real estate, securities, etc. Even out-of-work talent will go cheap to employers savvy enough to nab it.

  4. Fewer financial firms, as big universal banks swallow up midsize regionals.

  5. More government oversight of financial markets. Better communication and coordination among regulatory agencies. Increased disclosure requirements. A tighter rein on short-selling. Closer supervision of credit rating agencies. And more.

  6. But a revival of private financial firms -- investment banking partnerships and boutique merger and acquisition houses, for example. Their allure: minimizing regulatory burdens and filling a need for investors willing and able to take larger risks for larger returns.

  7. Simpler forms of securitizing debt -- plain vanilla ways to spread risk. Secondary markets for mortgages and other assets won't vanish. But the instruments bought and sold will be less exotic.

  8. Greater scrutiny of executive compensation, whether mandated by Congress or not. Shareholders are sure to take on the issue more aggressively in the near term.

  9. Higher taxes and/or a bigger federal deficit as Uncle Sam shoulders the load of Wall Street's toxic debt. Although eventually the government may make money on the deal, in the short term, the Treasury -- and therefore, the taxpayers -- will pony up billions.

  10. Higher long-term interest rates. Treasury yields must rise to lure capital -- foreign or domestic -- driving up mortgage and corporate bond rates. Short-term rates will slide, though, as the Federal Reserve tries to keep the economy afloat and put banks back on solid ground.

In reality, the change isn't to a new environment. It's a return to traditional norms of the past, before cheap money inflated asset values, undermined lending standards and encouraged excess risk. It's bitter medicine, but it's necessary.

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.

Discuss

Reader Comments (41)

Posted by: Vee at 09/26/2008 07:11:04 PM

The market started to go sour when The Modernization Act was signed into law. Prior times, the Commununity Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) provided protection for bank related abuses. Afterwards, CRA was watered down. Provisions to include lenders who purchased the paper from brokers fell under the radar. We always needed the investment firms and mortgage brokers to have regulatory compliance such as CRA.

Posted by: monkeyforball at 09/26/2008 11:19:14 PM

Well said. Back to the old way of doing things when I grew up. Love it.

Posted by: Citizen Walt at 09/28/2008 02:14:26 PM

I agree that "Cash will be King" but my major concern is that way too much Cash will be invested abroad where tremendous opportunities abound. The U.S.of A. can't tolerate that practice and therefore the U.S. tax code must put very severe penalties (90 percent taxes) on investment gains from all types of non-U.S.A. financial vehicles and instruments and signifignatly limit U.S. Conglomerates like GE, HP, IBM, MS and all the others from further future foreign investments that can be detrimental to US interests. The next most important step the U.S. can take is to rebuild the electric power system inorder to rid ourselves of foreign oil with it's 700 billion yearly price tag.This Country's greatest asset is it's citizens.We must put them to work building the electric vehicles and the infrastrucure to power them.The U.S. Government must repond now and combine it's efforts with those in the private sector to start thinking and performing "outside of the box" they crawled into many decades before. That would provide tremendous return on investments in the new better U.S.A. Good fortune to us all!

Posted by: Bob Ravenstein at 09/28/2008 09:10:59 PM

i think you will need to add a number 11. As the easiest way the federal government has to pay off this massive debt burden is to create inflation either by devaluing the dollar or printing large amounts of of paper. your first 10 rules apply to the taxpayers/consumers.

Posted by: Juxtapos at 09/29/2008 12:37:32 PM

I dont mean to be bold but this article makes me go "Duurh" Yes of course Cash will be king! Yes there will be more regulation, actually there will just be utilization of what exists also. Less modest reward HAS to return, actually its a recent phenom to see double digit returns anyways! This double digit crap is why we are shifting to the Far East anyways. You can only achieve this using near slave labor...its really un-American... to top it all off this market was a return on someways to the pre-depression era garbage that really destroyed things. In truth we forgot our past now we are here to repeat it...and suffer through it...oh well!!

Posted by: mary lou at 09/29/2008 01:32:50 PM

Stop trying to cure the world of aids and malaria. Lets keep and use our tax dollars here for us, it's our MONEY.

Posted by: LS at 09/29/2008 03:16:15 PM

Wow! Citizen Walt proposes an almost perfect recipe for another great depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs worked great the last time, but Citizen Walt proposes a slightly different method to destroy international trade. He also ignores that his ideas would put US companies at a disadvantage to foreign enterprises, leaving them unable to seek higher returns abroad. In his second point, he misses the simple fact that if the return on investment were higher for electric cars than for the next best alternative the government would not have to take any action to encourage such investment. It is precisely because the expected ROI is too low, that the government has to force it on the market.

Posted by: Benjamin Howard Tobi at 09/29/2008 06:10:00 PM

Citizen Walt. I could not have said it any better myself.

Posted by: Dwight at 09/29/2008 07:59:36 PM

A great top-ten and it'll last for a few months, maybe a year. We have very short-term memories, otherwise this wouldn't have happened to begin with.

Posted by: Hobbie at 09/29/2008 09:27:42 PM

I think Citizen Walt ought to wait until Obama is elected before introducing Socialism. Capital has to be free to seek the greatest return. The Wealthy can flee attitudes like yours easier than the common citizen who will suffer from your dogmatism, comrade walt.

Posted by: Joe at 09/30/2008 09:58:07 AM

President Bush kept us safe from terrorists, but not from Democrats who forced banks to make marginal loans to low income citizens who neither had the means or the will to pay back their loans. But,as usual, the Dems will skate by with the aid of the media.

Posted by: Karl Knutson at 09/30/2008 10:51:42 AM

Sounds good to me! I am sick of living around morons driving BMWs they can't afford, seeing their kids with every gadget made, and a wife dolled up to the nines...and I have to stare with jealousy wondering why I can't have that...I'll tell you why, because I live within my means and pay cash and my wife stays home with our kids to properly nurture them...All the time I felt sad that I couldn't provide more...Now that we are here and I feel confident that I have saved enough and have no debt...It was worth the pain. I look forward to getting to authentically know my neighbors and Get REAL!

Posted by: Jim at 09/30/2008 12:17:21 PM

It seems to me that socialism has been introduced prior to the election. If the bailout passes, the government will have socialized a huge chunk of the mortgage business, an insurer, and investment banks. Maybe Joe McCarthy should be looking into the current administration for "Reds."

Posted by: yup at 09/30/2008 02:38:31 PM

"...my wife stays home with our kids to properly nurture them..." You scarin' me, Mr. Knutson.

Posted by: fishindill at 09/30/2008 02:45:29 PM

My major concern is that the middle class american is now going to be put in a situation that restricts their means of putting food on their table. We have been overconsumed by the underbelly of our society. In these times it is better to be poor than middle class because you can actually get the loans...the same loans that put us here. If we split up this $700,000,000,000 and gave it to every working american I think it was like $465,000. I don't know about anybody else but I would rather a crazy plan like that than a plan to help out the bottom feeders who have destroyed themselves by screwing over normal working class americans. I want to see what else Bush can do to make us a dictatorship country before he leaves office next january. all hail the mighty Bush...I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit!!!

Posted by: Neal at 09/30/2008 05:24:15 PM

Fish; check your math. 465k for every working American, even if you take out all the illegals, US citizens under age 18 and those not on welfare, you may have a bit over 1000 per worker.

Posted by: John A. Ellis at 09/30/2008 06:55:54 PM

fishindill - don't you realize that Congress is democrat controlled right now? This is NOT Bush's fault.

Posted by: lcole at 09/30/2008 07:40:17 PM

Another victim of that we each get 300-500k if we just gave it back to 'the people' Sounds great until you do the math correctly 700000000000/230110706 (number of 18+ Americans living in the USA)= ~3042.00 per person. To be fair, though, someone corrected me earlier saying it was more like 30.42 per person, so it's possible math math was way off by a couple places... If this 400k payment to each adult did occur, can you imagine what you'd be paying for a gallon of gas... in an economy prices are not only determined by supply and demand but also 'ability to pay. After WW11, germany pumped enough marks into its economy that the mark was cheaper then wood if you wanted to fuel a stove. Extreme inflation dude.

Posted by: Chris at 09/30/2008 08:36:00 PM

Just a sanity check. 700 Billion Dollars would be 465 Thousand Dollars per working American if there was only 1.5 Million working Americans. As the actual number of working Americans is about 100 times that (roughly 150 Million, your mileage with this statistic may vary) the number you're looking for is about 4.65 Thousand Dollars per working American. At 700 Billion Dollars, if you assume 100 Million working Americans, that is $7000 each if you assume 200 Million working Americans, that is $3500 each. Since the actual number of working Americans is somewhere between those two, it gives a reasonable range. Seven Thousand dollars is a good chunk of change, but far from devastating. Please do not take this to be support for the brute stupidity that has lead us to this point, but this $465K is roughly the number I've heard thrown around a lot. It is for inciting outrage and panic through ignorance. You might note that 465K is perfectly reasonable in pennies. I'm actually very disappointed (but not terribly surprised) by how often I've heard it. This isn't a subtle manipulation of statistical data, hidden behind layers of lies and misinterpretations. This is basic math.

Posted by: Okey-dokey at 10/01/2008 12:40:23 AM

In Fish's world only 1,500,000 people work in America, a country with more than 300,000,000 people. If, however, you say that 120,000,000, a little over 1/3rd of the population, has gainful employment, then the bill would be less than $5833.33. Fish, don't complain a bit about the POOR getting loans when you can't do simple math worthy of an eligible voter in this country.

Posted by: GettingBy at 10/01/2008 08:40:34 AM

Fishindill - I suppose you got that e-mail about dividing up the $700 billion by the approximately 200 million Americans over age 18? Do the math, it isn't $425,000 each, it is $425 each. Accuracy counts when you're talking money. More now than ever.

Posted by: Johannes Thinkle at 10/01/2008 09:37:12 AM

Please don't tell me this article passes as insight... I think a highschooler could have told you this.

Posted by: Y. Mazurkis at 10/01/2008 09:53:28 AM

All you people who listened to the swift boat ads, who panicked at the thought of gays kissing each other, who rousted Eliot Spitzer from office simply for cheating on his wife - I point the finger and say, YOU made all this happen!

Posted by: Phom Ergill at 10/01/2008 02:10:15 PM

@GettingBy - Correct me if I'm wrong, but $700 billion split up among 200 million americans would be $3,500 each. =)

Posted by: Dave at 10/02/2008 02:19:09 AM

This article is on track as it is a important reminder At least half of the country are easily swayed by the people that got us into this mess. Let us be very watchful as returning to sound principals will be fought by those who have used us as their personal piggy bank and even now seek to destroy the producers in this country. Remember economic attonamy is a threat to these communist pigs

Posted by: Bo Wagner at 10/02/2008 08:46:54 AM

As far as it relates to higher long-term interest rates, won't that be the final nail in the coffin for the real estate turnaround? Likewise, I have mixed feelings about larger down-payments as I know that it will be tougher for 1st-time homebuyers, even with good credit, etc. Guess we'll see, eh?

Posted by: Thomas at 10/02/2008 08:48:47 AM

GettingBy needs a new calculator! While not disagreeing with your point, the actual number is $3,500, not 425.

Posted by: ninochka at 10/02/2008 08:54:40 AM

Mazurkis, then how come most of the people involved in the scandal are Democrats? The only thing the Republicans did wrong was let the Democrats get away with this. They controlled the House and Senate! Why didn't they investigate Frank and Dodd? They are the Whimpublicans!

Posted by: Berm at 10/02/2008 09:15:49 AM

For those that really want to do the numbers of $700B and who is going to pay for it let's take a more detailed look. There are not 230M people paying for this. I am being generous by counting everyone making over $30K per year. That would be 79M people. That is $8,860 per person. But in reality, it would be closer to only 5M, because they will not tax the middle class for this bail out. so for those making over $150K it will cost $140K per person. OUCH!!!!

Posted by: Nancy at 10/02/2008 09:15:58 AM

... a highschooler could have told you this ... unfortunately,the general public is CLUELESS about savings and 40% of them spend more than their take home

Posted by: Kayman Dewar at 10/02/2008 09:38:39 AM

Obama, Kerry, Dodd, Frank and their buddies on the far left have caused this financial meltdown. We will now have the fox guarding the hen house.

Posted by: Finian at 10/02/2008 09:44:51 AM

700 billion distributed to all taxpayers works out to about $400 each. I'll take it. I don't like idea #4. There should be more, smaller financial firms so that we don't get into the position where a financial firm is too big to be allowed to fail. No taxpayer bailouts of commercial interests. It'd also be nice if the federal government got out of the business of legislating what kind of light bulbs I'm allowed to use: in 2014, I'll have to use "compact fluorescent" made nowhere in the USA, containing a hazardous substance (mercury) requiring special disposal procedures. I resent the "carbon offset" idea - I am a carbon-based life form, I exhale carbon dioxide, why do I have to pay some bureaucrat for permission to breathe?

Posted by: Black Prince at 10/02/2008 10:42:16 AM

POSTED BY: Y. Mazurkis (October 01, 2008 09:53 AM) All you people who listened to the swift boat ads, who panicked at the thought of gays kissing each other, who rousted Eliot Spitzer from office simply for cheating on his wife - I point the finger and say, YOU made all this happen! YES!! We did. And it's about time. We who have liver by the protestant work ethic of work hard, be a good neighbor, and save your money for a rainy day and now have CASH are about to buy up what all of you who borrowed to get. All of you snarkly little weesels driving your leased black Beemers while making fun of us driving the 12 year old pick up trucks get ready because your day has FINALLY ARRIVED.

Posted by: wANNAbET? at 10/02/2008 11:26:28 AM

In response to Y. Mazurkis, I would bet you $100 that I would have a more persuasive argument about WHO is to blame for this mess than your misguided politically based response to this article. The items listed are by definition CONSERVATIVE. You seem to believe that if we have liberal social attitudes, that we will end up with sound fiscal policies. I think this is a "phallus-c"y. Neither party has a lock on virtue and for every Republican upset about Spitzer and his prostitutes (he did a lot more than just 'cheated on his wife', there are equal numbers of Democrats beating their drums over Larry Craig playing footsy in a public toilet. You minimize the actions of the left and maximize the behavior of the right; a partisan who obviously has little to contribute to an intelligent discussion of the situation. Let's have an investigation and hearings, not a media trial, where we see what good stewarts both parties have been of our trust. I will not be surprised if there is more than a little blame to go around for all. I think we will find some with their hands deep in the cookie jarWhy don't you contribute to the Daily Kos instead.

Posted by: Jared A. Chambers at 10/02/2008 12:02:23 PM

GettingBy and Fishindill are both wrong. $700B (700,000,000,000) divided by $200M (200,000,000) is $3500. Doesn't anybody own a calculator?

Posted by: PaysAttention at 10/02/2008 12:03:21 PM

Re: GettingBy. Accuracy does count when you're talking money. 700B divided by 200M = $3,500. Minus 33% tax equals $2,310 each. - The larger point is that the money is still better spent by the people earning than government (which produces nothing).

Posted by: Vinny at 10/02/2008 12:56:16 PM

Mazurkis, No, it was caused by the Democrat party

Posted by: Pays attention at 10/02/2008 01:12:35 PM

Mazurkis - You obviously aren't in touch with the real world of financial history. Blocking attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie "made all this happen."

Posted by: tkrop at 10/02/2008 01:49:45 PM

If we are to avoid alot of the doom and gloom, we had better get behind the movement to get the FairTax passed. Check it out at www.fairtax.org. A modern day Boston Tea Party is what this country needs.

Posted by: Layla at 10/02/2008 04:10:35 PM

Uh, actually Y. Mazurkis, you're wrong. Please don't vote. Instead, spend this time reading up on FACTS and history so that you don't add to the problem by voting for the very people that did, in fact, cause this problem. Finger pointing, unwaveringly, at the democrats. Read something, please.

Posted by: JeffB at 10/03/2008 02:23:14 AM

Gettingby: You said, "Do the math". Do it again. 700 billion divided by 200 million is $3,500, not $425. Of course, most of the money will be paid by those who earn the most, so the per-person figure isn't very relevant.

Today's Video More Videos >>

Turning Allowances Into Savings

E-mail Alerts: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox:

Advertisement