The catastrophe of our economy for the young American worker.  Average college debt higher than typical new automobile cost, annihilation of pensions, and younger Americans moving back home because of financial necessity.

The economy for young Americans might as well be in a parallel universe to the stock market run since early 2009.  Talks of recovery must fall on confused ears as many young college graduates compete for fewer jobs with higher amounts of student debt.  In the last decade college graduates have encountered the highest tuition increases ever while getting a lower return on their investment once they enter into the workforce.  The economy is still a mess if we dig into the data and look outside of the stock market gains.  Many of the S&P 500 companies added jobs globally but outsourced many domestic jobs to foreign markets to save money.  So profits increase but how does this help the domestic job market?  It doesn’t and that is why this recovery is one of low wage capitalism and banking handouts.  For the millions of young Americans that are entering the workforce with tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, what can they expect from the current economic structure?

The old and the new

The cost of living has soared across many sectors with food, healthcare, college tuition, and energy all outpacing the growth in the typical paycheck.  For these reasons including fewer jobs, young Americans are facing harder times when it comes to saving money:

Source:  CNN Money

“Ultimately we are pumping out hundreds of thousands of graduates each year that are starting with a negative net worth.”

Contrary to what is being spouted on the media, the employment market is still very weak:

Source:  Census

You have nearly two million job openings less than we did before the recession gained full steam.  Yet our population is expanding and recent graduates are entering the workforce in higher numbers.  The recent job growth is positive but the underlying data shows that many of the jobs are coming from low wage fields.  Many companies, like those in the S&P 500, are exporting jobs to other countries where they can push for lower labor costs.  The question remains, how does this benefit domestic workers?  To the point, this is more momentum when it comes to squeezing out the middle class.

Read the rest at: My Budget 360

Is college worth the money and debt?  The cost of college has increased by 11x since 1980 while inflation overall has increased by 3x.  Diluting education with for-profits. and saddling millions with debt.

Is a college degree worth it?  Since the debt bubble burst spectacularly in 2007 many more prospective students are questioning the worth of a college degree.  For so many decades it was simply taken at face value that getting a college degree, any college degree would be worth it.  Slowly this perception has morphed when annual tuition is running at $20,000 or more at for-profit institutions and $50,000 for private institutions.  More to the point, most of the recent educational growth has been financed with large wallet crushing student loans.  This financing of the college dream is turning out story after gut-wrenching story of college education nightmares.  When a college education becomes this expensive it is important that potential students become savvy consumers.  The financial sector certainly isn’t going to offer any advice on navigating the minefield of higher education since they largely have their greedy hands on this sector of the economy as well.

The soaring cost of college

In hindsight everyone seems to now agree that the housing bubble was rather obvious to spot since it far outstripped every measure of inflation and even rose while incomes fell.  You would think this lesson would be learned but the cost of a college education is much deeper into bubble territory even beyond the metrics of the housing market at its peak:

Source:  Cluster Stock

While housing at the peak rose by a factor of 4 (400 on the chart) college tuition has soared by a factor of 10 (it hasn’t stopped going up so it is now likely up in the 11x or 12x range).  It is a downright startling figure especially when the incomes of recent college graduates has gone in the complete opposite  direction:

Source:  BusinessWeek

Since 2000 real earnings for college graduates has fallen while tuition costs continue to soar and put students into further student loan debt.  I was hearing a few stories about states with record applicants to public universities yet with state budgets hurting, these schools are unable to meet the demand.  So students are left with the option of $50,000 a year for private institutions or going to for-profits that are a step above paper mills.  For this reason we have seen a giant increase in for-profit enrollments:

Read the rest at My Budget 360

For a moment, imagine that there is a privately-owned organization in the United States that can create U.S. dollars out of thin air whenever it wants and can loan that money to whoever it wants to.  Imagine that this organization is able to act with the full power of the U.S. government behind it, but that nobody in the organization is ever elected by the American people, and that for all practical purposes the organization is not accountable to the president or to Congress.  Imagine that the organization is able to make trillions of dollars of secret loans to banks, to foreign governments and even to their close friends without ever having to face a comprehensive audit.  Does that sound preposterous?  Well, such an organization actually exists.  It is called the Federal Reserve, and today we found out that once again the Fed is going to be taking huge piles of your money and loaning it to commercial banks in Europe.  The Congress cannot overrule this decision.  Neither can Barack Obama.  Because it has so much power, many refer to the Federal Reserve as “the fourth branch of government”, but unlike the other three branches of government, there are basically no significant “checks and balances” on the Federal Reserve.  If you don’t like the fact that the Federal Reserve is racing in to help big foreign banks survive the European debt crisis that is just too bad.  The Federal Reserve pretty much gets to do whatever it wants to do, and the folks over at the Fed simply do not care whether you like that or not.

So what in the world just happened today?  The following is how an article on CNBC explained it….

Just ahead of the Wall Street open Thursday, the European Central Bank, along with the U.S. Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Japan and Swiss National Bank announced they would offer three-month dollar loans to Europe’s commercial banks, easing dollar funding constraints.

It must be nice to do whatever you want without having to get the approval of anyone else.

What do you think Barack Obama would give for such power right about now?

The Federal Reserve and other major central banks around the world decided that lending big European banks gigantic piles of dollars would be a good idea, so they are just doing it.

No debate, no votes and no democracy – they just tell us how things are going to be and that is that.

It is a bit ironic that all of this happened on the third anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers.  It is almost as if the central bankers of the world are trying to send some sort of a message.

So how much money is going to be loaned out?

Well, according to an article in The Daily Mail, big European banks are going to be able to borrow an “unlimited” amount of money….

The deal announced yesterday means banks will be able to borrow ‘any amount’ of money in three separate auctions in October, November and December.  Banks will have to put up collateral, or security, to tap the emergency funds.

Wow – I wish someone would offer to lend me an “unlimited” amount of money.

But of course this really is not going to solve anything in the long run.  You can’t solve a raging debt problem with more debt.

Yes, it will help the big European banks with their short-term liquidity problems, but it will do nothing to fix the long-term structural problems that are tearing Europe to pieces.

Win Thin, a senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman, said essentially the same thing to CNBC today….

“They’re taking care of the symptoms, but the underlying illness is still out there. On the margin, it’s positive. Until Greece defaults and we clear this whole thing up, they’re still treading water”

So, no, the financial problems of Europe have not been solved.

Just think of this latest move as a temporary band-aid.

So why get upset about it?

Well, what all of this shows is just how arrogant the Federal Reserve is.

The Federal Reserve gets to throw around trillions of dollars without any accountability to the American people.

As I have written about previously, the Federal Reserve made $16.1 trillion in secret loans to their friends during the last financial crisis.

This was revealed in a GAO report, and members of Congress such as Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders tried to get people to pay attention to this.  The following is a statement about this report that was taken from the official website of Senator Sanders….

“As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world”

So how much of that money went overseas?  Well, it turns out that approximately $3.08 trillion of that money was loaned to big banks and major financial institutions in Europe and Asia.

Barack Obama can’t lend trillions of dollars to foreign banks.

So why does the Federal Reserve get to do it?

Sadly, most Americans know very little about the Federal Reserve.  In the United States today, most Americans graduate from high school without ever learning much of anything about the Fed.

But if you really want to understand what is going on with our economy, it is absolutely critical that you understand the Federal Reserve.

The following are some more reasons why you should be upset about what the Federal Reserve has been doing….

*The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine.  Today, the U.S. national debt is 4700 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.

*The Federal Reserve has recently been actually paying banks not to make loans.  Right now banks can park money at the Federal Reserve and make risk-free income without having to make loans to the American people.

*Current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has a track record of failure that is legendary, and yet George W. Bush and Barack Obama both backed him 100%.

*The Federal Reserve system is designed to create inflation.  The truth is that the United States has only had a persistent, ongoing problem with inflation since the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.

*Since 2008, what the Federal Reserve has been doing to our money supply has been absolutely insane.  Eventually this is going to have very serious consequences for us.

*The U.S. government has handed over the task of “centrally planning” our economy to the Federal Reserve.  The Fed decides what the target rate of inflation should be, what the target rate of unemployment should be, what interest rates are going to be and what the size of the money supply is going to be.  This is quite similar to the “central planning” that goes on in communist nations, but very few people in our government seem upset by this.

*The Federal Reserve picks “winners” and “losers” in the financial system.  For example, when the last financial crisis hit, the Fed bent over backwards to help out the big Wall Street banks, but hordes of small banks were left out in the cold.

*As mentioned above, the Federal Reserve has become way, way too powerful.  The Fed is able to do a lot of things that the three branches of government are simply not able to do.  Fortunately, there are a few of our leaders that are alarmed by this.  For example, Ron Paul once told MSNBC that he believes that the Federal Reserve is now more powerful than Congress…..

“The regulations should be on the Federal Reserve. We should have transparency of the Federal Reserve. They can create trillions of dollars to bail out their friends, and we don’t even have any transparency of this. They’re more powerful than the Congress.”

As long as we continue to use a debt-based currency that is controlled by a privately-owned central bank, we are going to continue to have permanent inflation and government debt that expands at an exponential pace.

The “central planning” done by the Federal Reserve has created bubble after bubble after bubble.  Our dollars is on the verge of dying and our financial system is about to collapse.

The Federal Reserve system simply does not work.

Hopefully we can start sending more politicians to Washington D.C. that will be willing to stand up to the Federal Reserve.

But for now, the Federal Reserve is going to keep running around doing whatever it wants to do whether we like it or not.

The Economic Collapse

We here at FedUpUSA just love Mr. Black.  If we have any hope of our economy recovering, those responsible for the massive fraud and the looting of Americans must be prosecuted.  It really is that simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUyutryL_SY

The idiocy of the day comes from Finnish Finance Minister Jutta Urpilainen regarding loan guarantees for the bailout of Greece.

Please consider Finland and Greece agree on loan guarantees

Finance Minister Jutta Urpilainen said in a Tuesday press conference that Finland and Greece have reached common ground on loan guarantees demanded by Finland for its participation in the Greek bailout package. The agreement still requires approval from other eurozone states.

The Finnish and Greek Finance Ministries have agreed that the Greek state will transfer a sum to the Finnish state, which, together with interest on that sum, will serve to guarantee Finland’s share in the bailout loan to the troubled southern state.

The guarantee sum would, however, be only a fraction of the money that Finland is contributing to the rescue package.

Urpilainen has not divulged a concrete sum, because that is still being negotiated.

Got That?

If not, let me explain by an two-point analogy.

• You agree to give a homeless drug addict on skid row $10.
• In return, he immediately hands back to you $1 as a “guarantee” he will pay back the other $9, with interest, at an agreed upon rate.

Clearly there is no guarantee of anything. Rather the initial effective loan amount is reduced by the amount of the alleged guarantee.

Urpilainen is looking for approval of her nonsensical proposal from the rest of Eurozone states. I hope they have enough sense to laugh in her face. However, the proposal is so stupid, EU officials just might seriously debate it

Mike  “Mish”  Shedlock

Global Economic Analysis

The theory behind the higher education bubble says that while the cost of an education increases, the ability to pay back student loans decreases.

The theory has its roots in the late 1980s when Secretary of Education William Bennett, Jr. suggested student loans could be leading to drastic tuition increases and a coming education bubble.

The following chart offers some perspective on the rate of tuition increases compared to the consumer price index and home prices.

Business Insider

Litigation may be slowly doing the job missed or only partially completed by various governmental investigations into the financial crisis. The Valukas report on the Lehman bankruptcy was revealing, and numerous foreclosure defense attorneys have opened cans of worms that the powers that be would rather pretend simply don’t exist.

The New York Times reports tonight that a case filed last year was unsealed last week. It plumbs a continuing sore point with the public, namely the generous terms of the AIG bailout, both to the company (which defied the government and insisted on remaining largely intact when the plan had been to sell its various units to repay the government funding) and to its credit default swap counterparties. The litigation has the potential to be revealing, particularly if it goes into discovery (various depositions are likely to become public in pre-trial jousting, um, motions). The Times gives an overview:

The lawsuit, filed by a pair of veteran political activists from the La Jolla area of San Diego, asserts that A.I.G. and two large banks engaged in a variety of fraudulent and speculative transactions, running up losses well into the billions of dollars. Then the three institutions persuaded the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to bail them out by giving A.I.G. two rescue loans, which were used to unwind hundreds of failed trades.

The loans were improper, the lawsuit says, because the Fed made them without getting a pledge of high-quality collateral from A.I.G., as required by law.

“To cover losses of those engaged in fraudulent financial transactions is an authority not yet given to the Fed board,” said the plaintiffs, Derek and Nancy Casady, in their complaint, filed in Federal District Court for the Southern District of California.

The lawsuit names A.I.G., Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank as defendants, but not the Fed.

The lawsuit itself names other defendants, including Merrill and its successor Bank of America, SocGen, and “Does 1 through 100.”

White shoe types will likely look down their noses at the filing. It makes rather eccentric use of graphics (for instance, including company logos) and includes charts, some of which are very helpful (tables with tabulations and timelines), while others are visual representations of arguments made in the text and hence would be deemed by style snobs to be redundant. It also is somewhat sensationalistic, even heated at points in tone (which does make for more lively reading) and does not unpack its arguments as much as appears to be typical in court filings.

Nevertheless, despite the rough style, there’s some intriguing reading, and the case does a clever job of juxtaposing e-mails and Congressional testimony by AIG executives with various disclosures of the AIG bailout process and the terms of the loan facilities.

To my non-expert eye, the case appears to hinge on the argument that begins on p. 43, that the Fed loans were in violation of the Fed’s authority under the widely-cited “unusual and exigent circumstances” clause. I had taken the reading of former central banker, now Citigroup economist Willem Buiter on this, that it gave the Fed the authority to lend against a dead dog if it chose to.

That appears to be inaccurate, and I wonder if the focus upon this section will embolden the Audit the Fed crowd to have another go at the central bank.

Specifically, the “unusual and exigent” language includes other restrictions, which I read as all being operative:

1. The central bank can lend against “notes, bills, and other drafts of exchange when such notes, drafts, and bills of exchange are indorsed or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Federal reserve bank

2. The “notes, bills, and other drafts of exchange” must be discounted

3. The Federal reserve bank making the loan must obtain evidence that the non-bank party seeking the loan can’t get credit from other banks

4. “….five or more members of the Board of Governors must affirmatively vote to authorize the discount prior to the extension of credit.”

The case focuses on allegedly fraudulent representations made by AIG and the various major dealers in the course of obtaining the financing. But the part I find interesting is the Fed’s evident non-compliance with the requirements of this section, particularly the fact that the central bank lent 100% against the face value of the AIG CDOs, between taking out the CDS and then lending the bailout vehicle Maiden Lane III the funds to buy the CDOs. Interestingly, the SIGTARP investigation missed this issue. If this was at all considered, the argument may have been that the AIG equity in MLIII was tantamount to a discount, but the lawsuit argues that notion is bogus. Since AIG was broke, any money for the AIG equity came from the outside (in fairness, it’s a bit more complex, thanks to reserves set aside over the collateral dispute).

The suit argues that the initial loan was made under false premises, since the loan was secured by all assets of AIG, when the assets were already pledged (all the regulated subs have prior claims on them, both to creditors and policy-holders). The understanding, as depicted in various less-than-official accounts, like the Andrew Ross Sorkin Too Big Too Fail, is that the loans were secured by the equity of the subs. Fine in theory, but in practice, that isn’t what the loan document says, and as important (although not argued in the case) is the amount of the loan was based on what AIG needed to stay afloat, not on any effort to find a market value of the assets pledged and discount that.

In addition, the notion that it was acceptable to lend against stock appears to be based on the discount schedule that the Fed posts and revises from time to time as to the types of collateral that are accepted for lending and the various discount rates established for them. But note that schedule is for depositary institutions. The Fed acted as if it could simply lend against the same assets held by non-depositaries, but the language of the germane section does not appear to support that idea.

The various disclosures of how the Fed lent against pretty much anything the banks could round up, including defaulted securities, is troubling. Defenders of the central bank argue no harm was done since the securities have recovered from crisis lows (well save the ones that went to zero). The problem is that the logic is circular. In many cases, the value of the securities now depends on the fact that the Fed is willing to lend at super low interest rates. So the “market” values are fictive and dependent upon Fed intervention, which is coming at the expense of savers. The interdependence between the Fed’s rescue facilities and its continued interventions is given a free pass, but those of us who are not at the top of the food chain are continuing to pay the cost.

Naked Capitalism

In response to $30 Billion Offer No One Wants – Small Businesses Hit by Deflation I received this email from a director of a small bank.

Hello Mish,

I sit on the board of a small community bank and I can attest to the fact that our loan portfolio is in excellent shape even when taking into consideration today’s dismal economy. That is not to say a loan is good when made can go bad but if that happens, our bank has sufficient collateral pledged against the loan to cover such short falls. We also review our loan loss reserve and increase as needed based on criteria established under current banking regulations.

Sure there are numerous troubled banks identified by the FDIC but I feel many of these banks will survive.

All banks should be making reasonable earnings with today’s low interest rate environment. For community banks, loans are vital and banks are interested in making loans to individuals or businesses that meet our underwriting standards but loan demand is down. A big majority of our loans are just loans leaving another financial institution. Why would someone leave one bank for another?

Of course loan interest rates play a part in the decision but I think a big part is the relationship a customer develops with the loan officer. Dealing directly with a local loan officer who understands your business and is genuinely interested in your business is vital.

Today many larger banks only use local loan officers to bring in the loan request but the decision to make the loan and the terms rest in some committee located in a town far away. Most small business persons will leave such a bank for a local bank with more personalized service.

It’s ridiculous that Congress passed and our president signed a bill to provide funds to smaller banks for more loans. As a bank director, there is no way this plan can work. If a bank needs more deposits for loans, assuming the bank has sufficient capital, a banker can easily get more deposits from the public at a much lower cost than the bill passed by congress.

Our government is totally out of touch with the real world and passed this legislation strictly as a political move to make the public think they are trying to help small businesses.

This bull, I mean bill, should be labeled TARP II or some similar acronym.

Bazooka Lending Theory and Practice

Unlike October 2008, when Paulson forced the CEOs of the 9 largest banks to accept funds (See Compelling Banks To Lend At Bazooka Point) no one is forcing small community banks to do anything.

This is what I wrote in 2008 …

For now, you can force banks to take money, but you can’t force them to lend it.

Bazooka Theory

There seems to be a fine line between …

1) Illegally forcing supposedly well capitalized banks at bazooka point to take money on questionable terms

2) And illegally forcing those same banks at bazooka point to lend it

Self Preservation

Thus the best thing banks can do with that money is sit on it. Yet the penalty for sitting on it is the difference between what the Fed will pay on bank reserves and the 5% interest banks have to pay at bazooka point for borrowing money they did not want in the first place. If banks do start lending like Paulson wants, defaults are guaranteed to increase dramatically.

Someone needs to tell Paulson to go to hell but no one at the table had enough courage to do it.

Here We Go Again

Banks paid back those “forced loans” as soon as they could. Small business lending did not go up, nor should it have. Credit worthy customers were (and still are) few and far between.

Nonetheless, here we go again, except this time it’s voluntary.

Hells bells, if a program that forced banks to take money at bazooka did not compel banks to lend, how is a small voluntary program supposed to do it?

Supposedly, this plan will create another 4 million jobs according to president Obama. Hmm. It seems we spent a trillion dollars yet created no jobs, so offering $30 billion (little if any will be taken) to create 4 million jobs would be a feat indeed.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

By Stephane Fitch, Forbes.com

Did you think the housing collapse killed off “liar loans”–those infamous bubble-era mortgages for which people were allowed to get creative in portraying their ability to make the payments? Well, they’re back, and that may be a good thing.

All the rage during the peak of the housing boom, these mortgages went by names like “no-doc” (meaning no documentation of income required), “low-doc” or “stated-income” mortgages. In all cases, banks set aside their underwriting standards based on what borrowers could prove they were earning with pay stubs, tax returns and the like. Instead, lenders started trusting borrowers to “forecast” future income and underwrote loans based on those projections (using as a fallback the house itself as collateral).

In the height of the housing boom in 2006 and 2007, low-doc loans accounted for roughly 40% of newly issued mortgages in the U.S., according to mortgage-data firm FirstAmerican CoreLogic. University of Chicago assistant professor Amit Seru says that for subprime loans, the portion exceeded 50%.

Then came the housing collapse, with subprime loan defaults playing a leading role, particularly the low-doc “liar” variety. The delinquency rate for subprime loans reached 39% in early 2009, seven times the rate in 2005, according to LPS Applied Analytics.

Ashlyn Aiko Nelson, a public policy lecturer at Indiana University, studied the low-doc loan craze. She and two of her colleagues concluded that low-doc borrowers exaggerated their incomes by 15% to 19%. “Our sense was that investors knew that people were lying, but figured it was OK because house prices would keep going up and the homeowners could refinance,” says Nelson.

The most outrageous types of no-doc lending disappeared entirely in 2009. Many mortgage pros say they’re unaware of banks making any low-doc loans in recent months. (A Forbes editor was, however, approached by a leading bank recently with an offer to refinance his home without documenting his income.)

In fact, the financial reform package passed by the House of Representatives recently, and under consideration by the Senate, discourages them. It requires lenders who offer mortgages to borrowers without full documentation to post a reserve equal to 5% of the loan’s value before they are securitized. That rule, they say, will make low-doc loans even less appealing for banks going forward.

“There’s no large-scale bank that’s a real player in them,” says Tom Meyer, chief executive of Kislak Mortgage, a Florida-based residential mortgage lender.

Forbes has learned that banks are quietly reestablishing the no-doc and low-doc mortgage market. In fact, low-doc loans accounted for 8% of newly originated loan pools as of this February, FirstAmerican Corelogic reports.

Wall Street Funding of America, a mortgage lender based in Santa Ana, Calif ., was recently circulating offers to make low-doc loans to borrowers with credit scores as low as 660 on the Fair Isaac Corp. (FICO) scale, as long as the borrower was self-employed, seeking no more than 60% of the value of a home and had six months of mortgage payments in reserve. The lender was offering interest rates 1.5 to 2 percentage points over the going rate on conventional mortgages. A borrower with a credit score over 720 might get a slightly better rate, perhaps just 1.25 percentage points over.

On June 23 Wall Street Funding’s fliers caught the attention of Zillow.com blogger Justin McHood. Forbes’ calls to Wall Street Funding were not returned. (We’ll update you if they are.)

In New York City mortgage broker GuardHill Financial tells Forbes that it is making no-doc loans on behalf of four of the 50 lending mortgage lenders it represents (whose names GuardHill declines to disclose). Perhaps $100 million of the $2 billion in loans GuardHill handles this year will be low-doc, says Dave Dessner, its sales director. The banks extending these loans are small community and regional outfits attracted to their relatively high interest rates (anything from 25 basis to 200 basis points over a conventional loan’s interest rate). The lenders intend to keep the loans in their portfolios rather than securitize them.

Dessner insists it would be a mistake to associate the loans GuardHill and its bank network are originating with the doomed liar loans that lenders stuffed into mortgage pools between 2004 and 2007. “I’d be on my soapbox railing against those loans,” says Dessner. “The people in government who are now screaming about liar loans aren’t looking at the quality of the loans we’re making.”

GuardHill serves all kinds of borrowers, including a goodly number of self-employed folk, successful artists and financiers who tend to garner wealth in windfalls but don’t have a sheaf of pay stubs to staple to a conventional loan application. Case in point: One of Dessner’s people is toiling now on a loan application from a hedge fund manager wishing to borrow $800,000 against a $4 million home purchase. The hedge’s fund did poorly last year, so as a sign of good faith for his investors he’s drawing no salary. Good for his business, perhaps, but rotten for a conventional mortgage application.

“This guy made $5 million in 2007 and 2008. He’s liquid for $10 million, and he’s borrowing 20% LTV (loan-to-value),” says Dessner. A no-doc loan to that kind of borrower shouldn’t be political dynamite, especially at a time when the Federal Housing Administration is making 95% LTV loans to low-income borrowers with poor credit and little savings, he argues.

Indiana University’s Nelson says the return of a sensible level of low-doc lending may be a good sign. “The market may have overcorrected a bit by shutting these down entirely,” she says. “If the lenders are hewing to the original idea, where they could get a better spread making loans to insanely wealthy people who don’t mind paying a little higher rate, that may be a good thing for everybody.”

ABC News