PDF Summary:All the Devils Are Here, by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera

The 2008 financial crisis wreaked havoc across markets and economies globally. In All the Devils Are Here, Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera provide an in-depth examination of the crisis' origins and evolution. They trace the roots of complex financial instruments like derivatives, mortgage-backed securities, and credit default swaps—and how seemingly minor flaws in their construction led to systemic risks and instability.

The authors also scrutinize the roles of lenders, rating agencies, regulatory bodies, and government-sponsored enterprises in creating and inflating the housing bubble. Through meticulous research, McLean and Nocera expose the misaligned incentives, lack of foresight, and ethical lapses that transformed the U.S. mortgage market into a ticking time bomb.

(continued)...

The legislation alterations made it easier to extend credit to individuals with less-than-ideal credit histories.

The authors highlight the pivotal policy choices that inadvertently set the stage for the expansion of the sector specializing in mortgages with elevated risk levels. The 1980 legislation known as the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act eliminated the state-mandated interest rate limits that banks were previously required to adhere to. This transformation, along with the 1982 Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act, enabled intricate mortgage structures like adjustable-rate mortgages, which in turn opened the door for high-risk financial entities to participate in the home loan industry and also permitted traditional banks to provide loans to individuals with less secure financial histories.

Role of Federal Government Policy in Encouraging Homeownership

The authors illustrate how the consistent promotion of owning a home by government entities significantly contributed to the foundational instabilities that precipitated the subprime lending debacle. During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton launched a robust campaign aimed at increasing homeownership, setting an ambitious goal to introduce eight million more homeowners.

The writers highlight that, alongside various other measures, the sector focused on providing loans to individuals with less-than-ideal credit histories expanded swiftly, offering a route to owning homes for those who had earlier been denied access to mortgage opportunities. The supportive political atmosphere for expanding homeownership across different political factions, seemingly advantageous to low-income and minority homeowners, posed challenges for regulators in taking strict action against subprime firms, particularly when the troubling elements of their operations came to light.

The Harmful Convergence of Immoral Conduct and Excessive Lending to High-Risk Borrowers

The book by Nocera and McLean delves into the revival of the subprime sector in the early 2000s following its near collapse towards the end of the 1990s, propelled by a decrease in interest rates, the unyielding quest for profit on Wall Street, and a renewed governmental emphasis on expanding homeownership. They unveil the aggressive marketing, the reckless tactics, and the utter disregard for the borrowers' ability to repay the loans, which characterized the later increase in high-risk mortgage lending and laid the groundwork for the disastrous outcomes that followed.

The revival of subprime lending was driven by a decrease in interest rates, along with the practice of bundling loans for investment purposes.

The initiation of the second subprime boom was influenced by the action taken by Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to reduce interest rates to unprecedented levels during the early 2000s. The authors note that the decline in interest rates significantly increased the demand for home purchases and also made Wall Street's high-risk subprime mortgage products more attractive, which included various home loans with increased risk. The authors depict a "money machine" that propelled an increase in lending activities while neglecting to properly assess the value of the assets backing these loans. The authors argue that a relentless pursuit of profit, coupled with a blind reliance on complex financial models based on historical data, set the stage for a remarkable economic downfall.

Aggressive Marketing, Reckless Lending Practices, and Rampant Fraud

Nocera and McLean's book thoroughly investigates the escalation of lender behaviors due to the increased appetite for mortgages with significant risk, which culminated in rampant improprieties and overindulgence during the latter part of the subprime surge. Borrowers were lured into accepting adjustable-rate mortgages with initially low teaser interest rates that were designed to rise after a short period, resulting in a substantial rise in their monthly payments. These mortgages were often marketed to consumers who were not financially savvy and were led to believe that rising home values would make refinancing possible before the higher rates kicked in.

The authors chronicle the extensive spread of misleading tactics throughout the entire financial industry. Loan officers fabricated income statements, property appraisers inflated values, and brokers encouraged clients to misrepresent their financial information, all of which led to a housing loan market permeated with deceit. Combining different mortgages severed the connection between the initial lender and the final purchaser of the loan, thereby establishing a "moral hazard" as it separated all parties from feeling responsible for the repercussions of these substandard loans.

Lenders were significantly motivated to extend credit, while borrowers often lacked the means to fulfill their repayment obligations.

The revival of high-risk mortgage lending, as described by Nocera and his co-author, originated from a significant disconnect between the borrowers' ability to repay and the incentives of the individuals involved in creating, distributing, and packaging these mortgage products. The writers highlight that the rapid amalgamation of mortgages into financial instruments led to a widespread issuance of loans without adequately assessing the borrowers' ability to manage debt or their financial solvency.

The original lenders had no incentive to ensure the loans' long-term viability since they were destined to be transferred to Wall Street investors. Brokers were also motivated by the potential for significant commissions from more expensive loans, paying little attention to the borrower's ability to sustain the future payments. In its quest for securities with higher returns, Wall Street overlooked the fact that numerous underlying mortgages were akin to concealed bombs. The writers argue that the disaster was precipitated by an unyielding quest for short-term profits and widespread dependence on complex financial models believed to mitigate risk.

Ameriquest set a precedent for extreme conduct in the lending sector, which entailed substantial hazards.

Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera provide an in-depth exploration of the high-risk mortgage sector, focusing specifically on the management styles of Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide Financial and Roland Arnall at Ameriquest. The firms, driven by the ambition to expand their market footprint and cater to the relentless demand from Wall Street for lucrative mortgage products, overlooked risks and embraced approaches that precipitated widespread turmoil across the sector engaged in home loans.

Countrywide engaged in issuing loans to subprime borrowers as a strategic maneuver in response to market competition.

Countrywide Financial expanded into the subprime lending sector, driven primarily by the competitive pressure to maintain market share against competitors focusing on these riskier mortgages. Angelo Mozilo had mixed feelings about the practice of subprime lending. Mozilo, ascending from humble beginnings, fervently believed in the profound impact that owning a home could have and maintained that an individual's previous credit history should not be a barrier to obtaining loans. He frequently expressed contempt for the assertive tactics seen in firms like Ameriquest, highlighting how Countrywide's approach stood in stark contrast.

However, the narrative illustrates that Countrywide's initial caution was ultimately cast aside as it adopted an aggressive approach to preserve its leading position in the subprime sector. The firm's executives aggressively pursued the replication of competitors' products, often overlooking their own policies, resulting in an accumulation of riskier loans that eventually became a major issue for the firm.

Angelo Mozilo harbored ambivalent sentiments regarding Countrywide's swift growth and its participation in the distribution of high-risk loans.

Angelo Mozilo, at the helm of Countrywide as its CEO, embodied a complex character with ambivalent views on subprime lending, and his intense drive to dominate the mortgage sector guided the company to its collapse. The authors portray Mozilo as someone whose ambition for success was profound, harboring resentment towards the traditional financial aristocracy and passionately believing in the positive impact of homeownership, while simultaneously scorning the deceitful lending practices that, in his view, sullied the good name of the subprime sector.

The authors portray Mozilo as highly sensitive to the notion that Countrywide might be missing out on a significant share of the burgeoning subprime market. Countrywide broadened its lending standards, diversified its mortgage products, and aggressively took advantage of the lax regulatory environment, driven by an unwavering ambition to grow its market share and Mozilo's belief in the company's ability to manage the risks associated with subprime loans. The authors' method was instrumental in the growth and eventual downfall of the sector known for its precarious mortgage dealings, as seen in Countrywide's rapid growth through increasingly risky lending methods that had dire repercussions for the company and the nation as a whole.

Ameriquest engaged in lending practices that ultimately led to a settlement with state legal officials due to their recognition as predatory.

Under Roland Arnall's leadership, Ameriquest emerged as a notorious emblem of the pervasive abusive lending practices within the subprime mortgage industry. The book outlines the aggressive marketing strategies, widespread sales network, and the organizational ethos that either sanctioned or ignored the numerous fraudulent activities conducted by the individuals in charge of loan administration. The firm's extensive network of branches hired loan officers lacking experience, yet they received substantial compensation for pushing "affordability products" that featured initially low-interest rates, eventually causing numerous borrowers to grapple with escalating repayments.

State attorneys general initiated a collaborative probe into Ameriquest, spurred by an increasing number of complaints and journalistic inquiries from various outlets. The authors Nocera and McLean chronicle the investigative process and intense negotiations culminating in a pivotal settlement in January 2006, where Ameriquest, without acknowledging any wrongdoing, agreed to pay $325 million to settle allegations of predatory lending practices. The authors observed that the company committed to a comprehensive restructuring of its business practices, including enhancing the evaluation of asset values, eliminating incentives for sales personnel to levy exorbitant fees and prepayment penalties, and ceasing the offering of predatory products to customers. They note, however, that these promises were often not kept, resulting in Ameriquest's withdrawal from the high-risk mortgage sector. Nonetheless, the story of Ameriquest is a prominent example of how a single company, driven by its quest for profit and with insufficient regulation, could significantly shape the landscape of high-risk mortgage lending.

Other Perspectives

• While deregulation in the 1980s did remove ceilings on mortgage interest rates, some argue that it also spurred competition and innovation within the financial sector, which can lead to more affordable and accessible financial products for consumers.
• The assertion that federal government policies encouraging homeownership significantly contributed to the subprime lending debacle can be countered by the view that homeownership is a key aspect of the American dream and that the policies were well-intentioned efforts to increase social mobility and wealth accumulation for lower-income families.
• The idea that aggressive marketing and reckless lending practices were uniformly adopted across the industry overlooks the presence of responsible lenders who did not engage in such practices and maintained ethical standards.
• The criticism of lenders being motivated to extend credit without regard to borrowers' repayment abilities does not account for the argument that borrowers are also responsible for understanding their financial commitments and the risks associated with taking on debt.
• The portrayal of Ameriquest's conduct as setting a negative precedent in the lending sector could be balanced by acknowledging that the company's practices were not representative of the entire industry and that there were many firms that operated ethically and responsibly.
• The criticism of Angelo Mozilo's ambivalent sentiments regarding Countrywide's growth and high-risk loan distribution could be tempered by recognizing the complexity of navigating a competitive market and the pressures to maintain a business's profitability and market share.
• The narrative that Ameriquest's settlement with state legal officials was solely due to predatory practices could be challenged by noting that settlements often occur without an admission of wrongdoing and can be the result of a strategic decision to avoid protracted litigation.

The role that Government-Sponsored Enterprises assumed amidst the financial turmoil.

The text segment examines how the government-backed organizations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, played a role in triggering the housing crisis. The writers chronicle the transformation of these institutions from their modest origins, where they aimed to help Americans secure cost-effective homes, to giants that progressively turned to leveraging debt in their quest for amplified earnings.

Fannie Mae evolved from a body dedicated to fostering homeownership into a massive institution driven by the pursuit of profits.

The authors delve into the evolution of Fannie Mae, charting its journey from a conservative entity established to fund housing in the Great Depression era to its expansion in the 1990s into a massive profit-driven enterprise that leveraged its perceived government support to take control of the market. The story highlights the pivotal role played by CEO Jim Johnson in transforming the company and markedly elevating its susceptibility to risk.

Under David Maxwell's leadership, Fannie Mae accomplished a number of initial noteworthy successes.

In 1981, David Maxwell took the helm of the struggling Fannie Mae and transformed it into a powerful force in the housing market. Guided by Maxwell, the institution focused on improving its lending practices, refining its operational procedures, and establishing itself as a key entity in promoting homeownership across the United States.

The book elaborates on how Maxwell's relationships with pioneers like Lew Ranieri, who was instrumental in the development of the mortgage-backed securities market, show the transformation of Fannie Mae into a crucial intermediary between those who originate mortgages and Wall Street's financial markets, bolstered by governmental backing. The guarantee provided by Fannie Mae on the mortgages bundled into MBSs bolstered investor confidence, which in turn spurred an increase in home buying and reduced the costs related to financing homes.

Despite this success, the authors note that among Washington insiders, resentment and envy were simmering due to the perception that the government's favorable actions led to disproportionately large compensations for those leading Fannie Mae.

The growing clout of Fannie Mae and Jim Johnson's assertive political tactics.

During Jim Johnson's leadership, the book depicts Fannie Mae's evolution from a prudent supporter of the housing market into a bold organization that fervently protected its profits and expanded its influence within the mortgage sector. Johnson adeptly maneuvered through the complexities of regulations, quieting critics and establishing a formidable advocacy group that expanded the reach and also cultivated an aura of invincibility and infallibility around the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Johnson skillfully used the commitment of Fannie Mae to promote homeownership as a strategic defense, which in turn helped the company expand its market dominance and substantially increased shareholder earnings. His aggressive tactics, bordering on fixation, not only cemented the firm's dominance in the conventional mortgage sector but also bolstered its influential stance within the political corridors of Washington D.C.

Shift to Portfolio Expansion for Profit and Critics’ Concerns

The book highlights Jim Johnson's pivotal influence in securing Fannie Mae's dominant position in the market and altering its fundamental business strategy through aggressive growth of its home loan holdings. The book details how the pursuit of outsized profits led to a change in strategy, emphasizing how Fannie Mae leveraged its assumed government support to obtain loans at lower costs and subsequently put funds into riskier mortgages with higher returns, a strategy that was explicitly criticized by Alan Greenspan for its significant profit margin.

Following Johnson's departure, Fannie Mae underwent considerable growth in its portfolio, which became a key contributor to its earnings, yet this expansion also raised doubts among analysts regarding the sustainability of its business tactics and the potential economic strain on taxpayers should the housing market falter.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's gradual shift into more hazardous areas.

Initially reluctant to participate in the subprime mortgage market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ultimately succumbed to a mix of government housing goals, market competition, and the attractive profits offered by these high-risk financial instruments. Their gradual move to support and take on riskier loans was a significant factor, even though it came later, in the expansion of the housing bubble, particularly as these two government-sponsored entities became major buyers of highly-rated financial products secured by subprime loans.

Efforts to boost market competitiveness were paired with goals to improve the ease of access and affordability of homes.

In the dawn of the 21st century, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were increasingly compelled to participate in the riskier aspects of their business due to the substantial growth in the sector dedicated to issuing loans to less creditworthy borrowers. The narrative details the mandate by Andrew Cuomo, in his capacity as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, to expand the acquisition of residential mortgages for families with limited income, particularly in regions that had been underserved historically. Faced with the challenge of subprime lenders circumventing their assurances and diminishing their market share, Fannie and Freddie had to reevaluate their strategic options.

The authors noted that while these entities backed the objective of making housing more affordable, they also understood the necessity to preserve their standard profit levels and to please their investors. They explored approaches to adhere to the directives from the authorities while reducing the potential hazards to their economic stability.

Allocating funds to those portions of subprime financial instruments considered to be the most creditworthy.

The two government-backed entities initially ventured into more hazardous domains by acquiring the top-tier portions of securities underpinned by subprime loans. The allure of higher returns motivated the GSEs to integrate these securities into their plans for meeting affordable housing goals. The authors emphasize the contradiction that government-sponsored enterprises, which were created to ensure market stability during volatile periods and to assist in the procurement of less profitable mortgages when necessary, ultimately sought out the most profitable subprime choices—choices that were not consistently conducive to securing homeownership.

The authors describe the extensive investments made by the Government-Sponsored Enterprises, which at their height amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars, motivated by the conviction that the credit rating agencies had correctly evaluated the risk associated with these premier segments of financial instruments. Investors were drawn to the perceived safety promised by the triple-A rating, much like their peers with less expertise. The authors elaborated that the consequences would be disastrous, affecting the whole market and the Government-Sponsored Enterprises, culminating in a scenario in which the government would be compelled to implement a taxpayer-funded rescue plan.

The process of obtaining and safeguarding residential property loans known as Alt-A.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac broadened their scope to manage Alt-A mortgages, which carry a level of risk intermediate to that of subprime and prime mortgages, and to provide assurances for portions of mortgage-backed securities that had received the highest credit evaluations. The GSEs were drawn to these mortgages as they were designed for borrowers with weaker credit histories or those lacking the documentation required for traditional prime loans, and they offered higher yields compared to typical conforming loans.

The authors illustrate how this measure heightened the vulnerability of the Government-Sponsored Enterprises to potential hazards while simultaneously obscuring their true commitment to housing goals. The Alt-A market, as they underscore, was marked by a less stringent evaluation of borrower creditworthiness in contrast to prime mortgages, which culminated in a pervasive adoption of morally questionable loan issuance methods and increased the vulnerability of the housing market.

Other Perspectives

• Fannie Mae's shift toward profit-driven operations could be seen as a response to market demands and the need to maintain financial viability in a competitive sector.
• The success under David Maxwell's leadership might be attributed to broader economic trends and government policies that favored homeownership, rather than solely to the changes he implemented within Fannie Mae.
• The role of Fannie Mae as an intermediary in the mortgage-backed securities market could be defended as a necessary evolution to adapt to the changing landscape of finance and housing.
• Concerns about economic strain on taxpayers due to Fannie Mae's growth could be countered by the argument that the GSEs provided a net benefit to the economy by stabilizing the housing market and promoting homeownership.
• The shift to riskier loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might be justified by the need to fulfill government housing goals and the pressure to compete with private entities in the subprime market.
• The conflict between market competitiveness and housing affordability goals could be seen as an inherent challenge in balancing public service with financial sustainability, rather than a failure of the GSEs.
• Investments in top-tier portions of securities backed by subprime loans could be defended as a rational decision based on the information and ratings available at the time, which were widely trusted across the financial industry.
• The management of Alt-A mortgages by the GSEs could be argued as a strategic move to serve a broader range of borrowers, potentially expanding homeownership opportunities to those who might not qualify for prime loans.

Regulatory Failures and Policy Decisions

This part examines how the shortcomings of various regulatory bodies played a role in precipitating the financial crisis. The authors highlight that the misguided belief in self-regulation of the market, coupled with the dominant sway that financial sectors held over their overseers, set the stage for rampant malpractice and resulted in a colossal accumulation of risk that became unmanageable.

The central banking system of the United States faced difficulties in upholding market regulatory scrutiny.

The book highlights the role of the Federal Reserve's insufficient regulatory vigor in its failure to recognize or prevent the impending crisis in the sector of high-risk mortgages. The book outlines the unchecked expansion of the second subprime bubble, occurring in a setting where clear warnings were ignored, largely due to Greenspan's firm belief in the market's self-regulatory capacity and his resulting doubt about the necessity of governmental regulation.

Alan Greenspan wielded considerable influence through his resistance to regulatory measures.

Alan Greenspan, who presided over the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, staunchly supported the idea of limited governmental intervention and possessed an unshakeable belief in the self-regulatory nature of the markets to promote ethical behavior. Nocera and McLean clarify that under the guidance of Greenspan, the Federal Reserve developed a particular perspective that shaped its choices and contributed to its reluctance to oversee the excesses in the subprime mortgage industry.

According to the authors, the Federal Reserve was tasked with monitoring the financial system's stability by utilizing its regulatory powers and mechanisms such as the Act concerning Homeownership and Equity Protection (HOEPA), yet Greenspan aimed to downplay these regulatory functions, delegating such duties to other officials within the Federal Reserve and advocating for a hands-off approach to market operations. The authors convincingly argue that a lax attitude permeated the mortgage lending industry, setting the stage for its eventual collapse.

Ignoring warnings related to the hazards and ensuing consequences associated with lending to subprime borrowers.

Despite numerous warnings about the risks of lending to individuals with poor credit histories, the leadership of the Federal Reserve, during Greenspan's tenure, consistently downplayed or disregarded these cautions. Consumer rights groups, along with Federal Reserve economists and state legal officials, raised concerns about the growing prevalence of risky mortgage lending, warning that it might precipitate a catastrophic downturn in the housing market.

The authors observe that Greenspan and his peers at the Federal Reserve frequently responded to concerns with the claim that the inherent self-correcting mechanisms of the market, combined with prudent borrowing practices and the process of securitization, would offer ample safeguards against potential fiscal challenges. The authors describe how Greenspan consistently refrained from using the supervisory authority of the central bank to regulate lending to high-risk borrowers, opting instead to encourage increased transparency, which turned out to be grossly insufficient in a market marked by intricacy and pervasive deceit.

Regulatory authorities failed to use their authority to curb the excesses linked to high-risk mortgage lending.

The book illustrates the deficiencies during Greenspan's leadership at the Federal Reserve, characterized by a failure to recognize the dangers in the subprime mortgage market and a choice to abstain from applying its regulatory powers to curb wrongdoing in that area. The authors highlight that Greenspan, despite having the authority through laws like HOEPA to oversee, persistently refrained from examining or overseeing subprime lending companies, adhering to his conviction that the market would autonomously weed out unscrupulous entities and protect consumers against predatory practices.

They chronicle his consistent dismissal of consumer organizations and affordable housing proponents who pressed for investigations, his steadfast confidence in the sufficiency of self-regulation, and the Federal Reserve's resistance to internal advice, such as Edward Gramlich's proposal to scrutinize financial entities engaged in high-risk mortgage loans. The authors argue that Greenspan's unwavering dedication to minimal regulation, along with his conviction that the market could regulate itself, laid the groundwork for the uncontrolled growth of the subprime bubble.

Firms that assessed creditworthiness contributed to risk yet evaded responsibility.

This part of the text sheds light on the crucial role played by the agencies tasked with assessing financial soundness, particularly Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch, in contributing to the subprime mortgage debacle. McLean and Nocera illuminate the methods by which the agencies' flawed business approaches, combined with a deterioration of moral principles and the elevation of profit over integrity, resulted in the broad approval and dissemination of mortgage-backed financial instruments that were mistakenly classified as 'triple-A' because of their assumed security.

The shift to issuer-funded models inherently gave rise to conflicts of interest.

During the 1970s, the fundamental business approach for Moody's, S&P, and Fitch shifted from a dependence on revenue from subscribers to a system where bond issuers were responsible for the payment of their own credit ratings. This decision, according to McLean and Nocera, created a huge, and largely unaddressed, conflict of interest: the agencies’ ratings were now being paid for by the very institutions hoping for favorable assessments.

The authors describe how the burgeoning market for complex structured financial products increased the susceptibility of rating agencies to the sway of the entities that were creating these securities, despite their early assertions of being able to manage these conflicts with integrity. The writers highlight that this juncture marked a pivotal moment for the agencies, resulting in a deterioration of their standards and an unyielding pursuit of a greater market presence.

Deterioration of standards and prioritizing fees above integrity.

The quest for financial gain by the rating agencies, as described by McLean and Nocera, led to a gradual erosion of their moral standards, emphasizing the issuance of favorable assessments and the pursuit of fees connected to complex financial products, instead of accurately assessing the risks involved.

The authors highlight the rise of Brian Clarkson at Moody’s, a former lawyer whose drive for market share and profits transformed the agency’s culture, leading to a shift away from rigorous analysis and skepticism towards prioritizing client satisfaction. Under Clarkson's leadership, Moody's prioritized expanding its market presence, pressured its analysts to assign elevated ratings, and disciplined those who were not compliant. Nocera and McLean illustrate the organization's shift in priority from ensuring the integrity of credit to emphasizing revenue creation, a change that, coupled with the inherent conflicts arising from issuer-based funding, resulted in catastrophic consequences.

Other Perspectives

• The belief in self-regulation is based on the idea that markets are made up of rational actors who, in their own self-interest, will act in ways that maintain stability and efficiency.
• Alan Greenspan's resistance to regulatory measures was in line with the prevailing economic thought of the time, which favored market solutions over government intervention.
• Some argue that the Federal Reserve's mandate is not to prevent asset bubbles but to manage inflation and employment levels.
• The effectiveness of warnings about subprime lending is debatable; some economists believe that the warnings were not clear or strong enough to warrant a different course of action.
• The Federal Reserve may have lacked the appropriate tools or legislative backing to effectively regulate the burgeoning derivatives market associated with subprime mortgages.
• Issuer-funded models for credit rating agencies are not inherently flawed; the issue lies in the execution and management of conflicts of interest, which can be mitigated through proper regulation and oversight.
• The shift in business models for credit rating agencies towards issuer funding was a response to market demands and the need for more timely and accessible ratings.
• Brian Clarkson's leadership at Moody's, while criticized for prioritizing market share, could also be seen as a response to competitive pressures and the need to adapt to a rapidly changing financial landscape.
• The quality of underwriting is influenced by a complex set of factors, including market demand, regulatory environment, and economic conditions, which can make it challenging for any single entity to address deteriorating standards effectively.