Tag: Zywicki

  • What’s Eating Todd Zywicki?

    Posted by

    Adam Levitin

    It's no secret that there's no love lost between Todd Zywicki and Elizabeth Warren.   But Todd's latest salvo in this feud is simply filled with inaccuracies.

    Todd goes after Elizabeth for (1) her medical bankruptcy research, (2) the Two-Income Trap, and (3) the treatment of strategic defaults in Congressional Oversight Panel reports.  Todd's charges in (1) and (2) are just rewarmings of his past critiques of Elizabeth's work and of Meghan McArdle's botched hatchet job of Elizabeth in the Atlantic for which she was taken to the woodshed by numerous observers (see also here and here, for example).

    But what about the Congressional Oversight Panel's treatment of strategic defaults? Here, Todd's claim is demonstrably false.

    (more…)

  • Interchange Theory: Simultaneous Rent-Extraction from Both Merchants and Consumers

    Posted by

    Adam Levitin

    Todd Zywicki and I have been having a back and forth on interchange in several forums.  Todd and Joshua Wright had an op-ed in the Washington Times, I responded with a letter to the editor, and then Todd came back with a blog post. I posted a detailed response to Todd in the comments to his post, but I will repost the core of the response here.  

    In his blog post, Todd says that he can't understand my argument that in the credit card world there are economic rents (supracompetitive prices) being extracted from both merchants and consumers.  Todd thinks the only possible economic rents story is one of merchants being charged too much and consumers too little.  (Todd does not endorse this story, but he at least gives it theoretical credence.)  Therefore, Todd believes that any reduction in interchange income must be offset by an increase in consumer charges.

    What follows is a brief outline of my argument that the current credit (and debit) card system simultaneously extracts economic rents from both merchants and consumers.  The corollary to my argument is that interchange regulation actually produces reductions in the economic rents paid by both merchants and consumers; it does not result in costs being shifted form merchant to consumer, but instead results in reduce profits for card issuers and card networks.  To this end, I present a rough sketch of the net impact of interchange reform in Australia; as surprising as it is, I do not believe this has been done before.  

    (more…)

  • Interchange Irony: George Mason University Edition

    Posted by

    Adam Levitin

    George Mason University law professors Todd Zywicki and Joshua Wright have been the leading (and almost sole) academic defenders of the current interchange fee system.

    So how's this for irony:  Zywicki and Wright's own employer announced that it will no longer accept Visa for tuition payments because interchange fees are too high.  (You'll have to watch a 15-second BP propaganda bit before the video on GMU).  The school doesn't want other students or taxpayers footing the bill for rewards programs.  Antiregulatory ideology runs deep at GMU, but clearly it won't get in the way of a real world business decision.  

    Note, btw, that GMU was able to opt-out of taking a particular card network (somehow the other networks are permitting a convenience fee to be tacked onto the tuition bill to cover interchange).  Universities are in a rather unique position of being able to refuse to take cards altogether.  For most merchants, taking payment cards is just part of operating in the modern commercial economy.  

  • Zywicki on Interchange

    Posted by

    Adam Levitin

    Todd Zywicki has a new paper out on interchange regulation, just in time to support the banks' push against the Durbin interchange amendment in conference committee. The paper doesn't present any new arguments or evidence.  Instead, it presents a highly polemical form of antiregulatory claims. 

    There's an awful lot to criticize about this paper, starting with its complete unwillingness to engage with pro-regulatory arguments and evidence on anything beyond a strawman basis.  The omission of the findings of the Reserve Bank of Australia (and reliance on a MasterCard funded study instead) on the impact of Australian regulation is remarkable.  

    But don't take my word for it.  Zywicki gets spanked around pretty soundly by the Australian economist Joshua Gans, who objects to the way his work is used by Zywicki in a "very selective and misconstrued way" in a paper whose "broad conclusions" are "flawed." 

    Let me add my own broad objection (I'll probably blog on more of the details later).  Zywicki's general assumption about bank regulation is that if fee type A is regulated, then fee types B and C will increase to offset the regulation.  That might be the result; indeed, it is a variation on the whak-a-mole bank fee thesis (also here), that if fee A is banned, new fees B and C will sprout up. 

    But there is another possible regulatory outcome that Zywicki never considers:  banks might simply have to endure lower profit margins.  If the consumer side of credit card pricing markets is competitive as Zywicki believes (I've got my doubts, which is the point of the whak-a-mole thesis), then the result should be smaller profit margins, instead of shifted fees.  Zywicki seems to take it as a given that banks must maintain profitability levels.  But they don't.  That's the nature of capitalism:  bank have a right to make a profit, but only through fair and legal competition. If a bank can't operate profitably under those conditions, should it really be in business? 

  • Pro-Consumer Innovations in Payments

    Posted by

    Adam Levitin

    Todd Zywicki wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday that "The most important
    pro-consumer innovation in payment systems of the past two decades has been the
    general disappearance of annual fees on most credit cards." 

    Todd is right that consumers are happy to see annual fees go away, but the disappearance of annual fees wasn't a freebie for consumers.  It came about as part of a shift in the credit card business model whereby upfront fees were replaced with backend fees that have lesser salience to consumers when the consumers decide which cards to carry and use.  This was a move that was made to increase revenue for card issuers (or put another way, to siphon off more consumer surplus); it was not a charitable act.  The disappearance of annual fees is an important innovation, but I think it is a stretch to call it a pro-consumer innovation, when it is viewed contextually.  

    The disappearance of annual fees was a step in the democratization of credit (or put another way, the decline in underwriting standards).  Whether this was a good thing is unclear.  It certainly increased consumer's borrowing ability and choices, and might have led to a substitution from secured installment credit to unsecured revolving credit.  But greater ability to borrow and more borrowing choices are not necessarily good.  They are only good to the extent that a consumer is capable of repaying the increased credit line and making informed choices among credit options.  Both of those are questionable for many consumers.  

    In Todd's defense, though, I am hard pressed to think of another widespread innovation that would qualify unabashedly as pro-consumer, so maybe the disappearance of annual fees wins by default.  I would have placed the card associations' waiver of all consumer liability for unauthorized transactions (going beyond TILA) as the clear winner, but I don't know how far back this policy goes.  (Please pipe in if you do.)  

    The difficulty in naming pro-consumer innovations is a sorry indictment of the payments industry, and one that says something about the nature of innovation and competition in payments.  Maybe others have thoughts about pro-consumer innovations.  Comments are open.  

  • BS Bankruptcy Numbers

    Posted by

    Adam Levitin

    We've already seen a lot of bs numbers in the cramdown debate. The Mortgage Bankers Association keeps pushing its ridiculous figures. And now Todd Zywicki has joined the fray with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago.

    Professor Zywicki that claimed that "A recent staff report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated a 265 basis-point reduction on average in auto loan terms as a result of the reform."

    One little problem. That's not what the Fed staff report found. Professor Zywicki was off by 250 basis points (a doozy of a mistake!), as well inserting a causal link not supported (and arguably contradicted) by the Fed staff's study. The study states that "The decline in the average auto loan spread was 15 basis points lower after BAR for unlimited exemption states, a 5.7 percent decline relative to the mean over all states (265 basis points)." In other words, the average rate spread is 265 bp. The decline in rates, to which Zywicki was referring was only 15bp, and that was only in states with an unlimited homestead exemption.  That it was not 265 bp was abundantly clear from the regression tables.

    But that's not all. It's not as if Professor Zywicki simply mistook a 15 bp drop for a 265 bp drop.  That 15 bp isn't what it appears to be.  The study used two statistical specifications and looked at states with limited and states with unlimited homestead exemption to see what impact there was on auto loan rates post-BAPCPA, which enacted an anti-auto cramdown provision (the infamous "hanging paragraph" that says that there's no bifurcation of claims for cars purchased primarily for personal use in the previous 910 days).

    In one specification it found nothing with statistical significance regardless of the homestead exemption level, which means that it couldn't rule out the possibility that the change in rates was random.

    In the other specification, post-BAPCPA there was a marginally statistically significant 15 bp drop in five-year auto loan rates in states with unlimited homestead exemptions. There was no statistical significance in the drop in other states. What's funny about this is that homestead exemptions have no bearing in Chapter 13–exemptions are only available in Chapter 7. So if the study had aggregated all states for its regression, it seems unlikely that it would have gotten stronger statistical significance.

    So we have at best very weak evidence of a 15bp drop in rates. But it doesn't follow that the drop was due to the anti-auto-cramdown provision. The study also found a significant decline in auto-loan delinquencies in the short period after BAPCPA. The most plausible story, I think, is that surge in bankruptcy filings before BAPCPA's effective date cleared out the pipeline of troubled loans so that post-BAPCPA auto loan default rates were lower. My guess is that they've climbed right back up.  Notice that this has nothing to do with cramdown. This has to do with moving forward some filings that would have happened later. So we have a 15bp drop that might not even be statistically significant and only in some specifications and only for states with unlimited homestead exemptions, and it probably isn't attributable (or at least most of it) to the anti-cramdown provision, but instead to BAPCPA causing a filing pile-up. So where did Professor Zywicki get this 265 basis point number from? That's the spread that exists between five year auto loans and five year Treasuries. It has nothing to do with bankruptcy.

    Sometimes a little common sense is needed when looking at numbers, too. In December 2005, auto loan rates were at around 6.63% (663 bp). If 265 bp was right, it would have been a 40% decrease in auto loan rates! Whatever impact bankruptcy has on credit costs, I don't think there's anyone who could honestly argue that 40% of the cost of auto loans is due to the ability to cram down loans on cars purchased primarily for personal use within the previous 910-days with a purchase money security interest. There just aren't that many folks filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, much less who fit into this particular set of circumstances, to have this kind of impact on pricing, regardless of the loss severities.

    Yet another case of baloney numbers shaping the bankruptcy debate. I hope the WSJ runs a correction on this.  Now there's some fact-checking for you. 

    [Update 3.6.09:
    Based on correspondence with Don Morgan, one of the NY Fed study's authors and Professor Zywicki, a few new points emerge:

    First, I misread the study too.  The 15bp finding is in a regression that measure the "difference-in-differences" in the spread between auto loans and Treasuries pre- and post-BAPCPA for states with and without unlimited homestead exemptions.  The study does not report the post-BAPCPA rate drop in auto loan rates.  The author, however, tells me that it turns out to be 46-56 bps, and to have strong statistical significance. So let the record stand corrected on this.  

    Second, regardless of whether the number is 15, 46, 56, or 265bps, the finding of a correlation does not mean there's causation.  But that's precisely what Professor Zywicki was pushing in the WSJ.   Unfortunately, it's just not a tenable claim.  

    It's possible that BAPCPA resulted in lower auto loan rates.  But in order to make a reasonable causation argument, one must first explain the similar or larger rate drops in 2000-2001 and in 2003 and in 2007 that have nothing to do with BAPCPA.  Otherwise, the causal argument is reduced to the fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc variety.  

    The chart below, taken from the NY Fed study shows with the solid and dotted lines the spread between auto loan rates and Treasury's for states with and states without unlimited homestead exemptions.  They move in sync, and they clearly fall after BAPCPA.  But they also fall equally sharply before and after BAPCPA.  Auto loan rate spreads over Treasury jump around a lot, and the mere fact that they fell after BAPCPA doesn't prove anything.    

    (fwiw, Chart 5 appears to be incorrectly labelled in the study.  The study says that the "Left axis measures interest rate on new automobile loan (5 year) minus rate on government bond (5 year)."  If so, then 15bps would appear to be roughly the right measure.  Instead, the rate spread must be the right axis in bps, and the left axis must be measuring the difference in the auto-loan-treasury spread between limited and unlimited homestead exemption states.)  

    The problems with Professor Zywicki's causality argument don't end there.  Any causality argument must also distinguish between general impacts of BAPCPA (e.g, delinquency pipeline cleared out) and the auto-cramdown provision.  This type of event study cannot provide support for that.  The rate drop could be due to the hanging paragraph, but there's no responsible way to make that claim without addressing these other factors, and the NY Fed study doesn't attempt to do that. The fact that Professor Zywicki was off by 209-219 bps, rather than by a full 250 bps (something he couldn't have known from the study) doesn't absolve him of making an untenable causal claim. 

    The  bankruptcy policy debate should happen on the basis of the best possible evidence.  If more restrictive bankruptcy laws result in cheaper credit, that's a very important policy consideration, and for the integrity of the policy debate, we need to be working off the best numbers available. I've updated this post to make sure that the correct numbers are clear.  I'm still hopeful that Professor Zywicki will make clear that he doesn't stand by either his 265 bp claim or his untenable claim of causality.]

    [Updated 3.7.09

    Professor Zywicki has corrected on the 265 bp claim.  He still seems to be making causal assertions, however, such as that the study finds "the impact of eliminating cramdown was a reduction in
    interest rates of 56 or 46 basis points."  That's not quite right.  The study can't test the elimination of cramdown; it can only test the impact of BAPCPA as a whole.  In fairness, Zywicki later refers to the study finding the impact of BAPCPA, rather than the specific cramdown provision.  Regardless, Professor Zywicki still has no response to all of the equally large jumps up and down in the auto loan rate to Treasuries before and after BAPCPA, which casts serious doubt on any causal story.]