The Fault of Everybody
February 3, 2008 in economizing
Tags: credit, economics, fico, finance, mortgage, performativity, rating, reflexivity, sociology, sts, subprime
It’s very relieving that financiers found out that flaws in the prediction of credit default rates were homeowners’ fault. All came from the fact that people cheated, actually:
“In particular, it seems that mathematical models used to predict future default rates, based on past patterns of losses, have gone wrong because they did not adjust to reflect shifts in household behaviour. (…) The issue at stake revolves around so-called delinquency rates, the proportion of people who fall behind on their debt repayments. When American households have faced hard times in previous decades, they tended to default on unsecured loans such as credit cards and car loans first – and stopped paying their mortgage only as a last resort. However, in the last couple of years households have become delinquent on their mortgages much faster than trends in the wider economy might suggest. That is particularly true of the less creditworthy subprime borrowers. Moreover, consumers have stopped paying mortgages before they halt payments on their credit cards or automotive loans – turning the traditional delinquency pattern on its head. As a result, mortgage lenders have started to face losses at a much earlier stage than in the past.” (from “Last year’s model: stricken US homeowners confound predictions”, Financial Times, January 31 2008)
Very good. But wait. Maybe what people actually did was just to learn how to be affected by credit scoring in a most reasonable manner, since rates depend on FICO scores and only credit card data is used to calculate them. Well, just an hypothesis (a sociologist of credit devices would have put it that way).
(More indeed here.)
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Pages
-
Authors
-
typewritten
-
foamsociety
-
nikip
-
mudarchitect
-
dementine
-
metatester
-
wholeseller
-
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
Blogroll
- A (Budding) Sociologist
- A Fistful of Euros
- Acrimed
- AESF
- Alea
- ANTHEM
- ARC
- Biopolitical Times
- Bitten
- Center for Public Integrity
- CIMADE
- Contretemps
- CorpWatch
- Cosmopolitiques
- Crooked Timber
- Ecosistema Urbano
- Finanz und Gesellschaft
- Foucault Blog
- French Politics
- GISTI
- Global Integrity Commons
- Global Voices
- Indymedia
- Knowledge Rules
- La Pompe à Phynance
- Le Canard Enchaîné
- London Review of Books
- Maître Eolas
- Medialab-Prado
- Mobilibus
- Mother Jones
- Mouvements
- New York Review of Books
- New York Times
- Oficina de Innovación Política
- Orgtheory.net
- Paul Krugman
- Pénombre
- Potlatch
- Radical Chic
- RESF
- Rethinking Markets
- Rue89
- Sciences Citoyennes
- Scriptopolis
- SLR
- Socializing Finance
- Space & Culture
- Talking Points Memo
- The Accursed Share
- The Corner House
- The Memory Bank
- TomDispatch
- Vacarme
Meta
February 5, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Post updated with a link to a comment by the alluded actual sociologist of credit devices:
http://socfinance.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/one-model-got-it-right-new-consumer-behavior-is-likely-an-adaptation-to-the-fico-risk-scores-2/
February 6, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Yes, very interesting cases study. I think that Martha has a lot of mileage with this one. The general notion of ‘playing the model’ or ‘developing an optimal response to models’ is fascinating and maybe can help us to understand the general phenomenon of gaming better.
One little example is about people gaming the Amazon comments system:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/gaming-the-amazoncom-review-system/
February 7, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Yuval,
But perhaps the real problem here is that those financiers seem to be trying to investigate what people do without even caring about the fact that people might be doing what the devices financiers themselves throw at them make them do. So, yes, there is a problem of “reflexivity playing with models”, yes. But there is a more serious problem: blatant excess of cheek.