FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘Swaps’ Category

I have written hundreds of articles documenting that unregulated, speculative derivatives (especially credit default swaps) are a primary cause of the economic crisis.

And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist
crusading against global warming says it won’t work, and (3) there is a
very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the
carbon trading markets.

Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:

The
banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design
and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge
their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell
carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

 

[Blythe]
Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory
carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest
possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the
mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from
the value of an underlying commodity — in this case, CO2 and other
greenhouse gases…

 

 

Who is Blythe Masters?

She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit
default swaps, and is now heading JPM’s carbon trading efforts. As
Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the
above-linked Bloomberg article):

Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities…

 

As
a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of
JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third
parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment
bank.

Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap.

Some in congress are fighting against carbon derivatives:

“People
are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we’ll be in trouble,”
says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You
can’t stay ahead of the next tool they’re going to create.”

 

Cantwell,
51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right
to ban unregulated financial products. “The derivatives market has done
so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a
very-high-stakes casino — except that casinos have to abide by
regulations,” she wrote in a press release…

However, Congress may cave in to industry pressure to let carbon derivatives trade over-the-counter:

The
House cap-and-trade bill bans OTC derivatives, requiring that all
carbon trading be done on exchanges…The bankers say such a ban would
be a mistake…The banks and companies may get their way on carbon
derivatives in separate legislation now being worked out in Congress…

Financial experts are also opposed to cap and trade:

Even
George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers
would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be
gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in
July. “That’s why financial types like me like it — because there are
financial opportunities”…

 

Hedge fund manager Michael Masters,
founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S.
Virgin Islands [and unrelated to Blythe Masters] says speculators will
end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could
trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other
commodities…

 

The hedge fund manager says that banks will
attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge
funds and pension funds.

 

“Wall Street is going to
sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with
carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the
asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We
have seen this movie before.”

Indeed, as I have previously pointed out, many environmentalists are opposed to cap and trade as well. For example:

Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst in San Francisco for Friends of the Earth, isn’t convinced.

 

“Should
we really create a new $2 trillion market when we haven’t yet finished
the job of revamping and testing new financial regulation?” she asks.
Chan says that, given their recent history, the banks’ ability to turn
climate change into a new commodities market should be curbed…

 

“What
we have just been woken up to in the credit crisis — to a jarring and
shocking degree — is what happens in the real world,” she says…

 

Friends
of the Earth’s Chan is working hard to prevent the banks from adding
carbon to their repertoire. She titled a March FOE report “Subprime
Carbon?” In testimony on Capitol Hill, she warned, “Wall Street won’t
just be brokering in plain carbon derivatives — they’ll get creative.”

Yes,
they’ll get creative, and we have seen this movie before …an
inadequately-regulated carbon derivatives boom will destabilize the
economy and lead to another crash.

From The Daily Capitalist
December 3, 2009

Since the biggest financial collapse in world history was built on credit related to housing, it is pretty obvious that we should be paying very close attention to that market. The reasons are complex, but a recovery must be based on the liquidation of bad debt. The sooner that happens the quicker a recovery will happen.

When we mean “liquidation of debt” we are talking about a mountain of credit built on the housing bubble. This phony bubble wealth permeated the entire economy. When home owners saw the price of their home rising, they saw it as a source of capital to use for a variety of things, but let’s face it, most people spent it.

New stores opened, malls were built, financial institutions grew, cars and boats, second homes, vacations, and restaurants all flourished. Credit card debt mushroomed. Home mortgages were increased to pull cash out for spending. Yes, some of it went to good things, like our children’s education, helping our aged parents, and paying off bills. But the reality was that our debt kept growing.

The clever lads created even more phony wealth under the guise of insurance, but as we found out, companies like AIG really had no idea how large their obligations were for credit default swaps written against almost any financial risk. And these instruments were further leveraged without understanding the magnitude of these triple-counted obligations or their relationship to housing.

It all comes back to housing as the fuel for the 70% of our economy that was consumer spending. The thought was that housing has always gone up, and if it went down, it really never went down if you averaged growth since the post-WWII-period. A drop of 10%? Never has happened. 20%? Not even a 6th deviation possibility.

My thesis has been that this was all fueled by the Fed through monetary policies that created and supported the bubble. Aided and abetted by governmental policies and financing schemes that favored housing and risky loans. This was not a “free market” phenomenon. Far, far from it.

My thesis has also been that we can’t recover until all this bad debt is liquidated, and capital generated by savings is created and ultimately invested in profitable enterprises. It would be a mistake to rekindle the bubble. But, as we know, that’s what our government is trying to do. The government creates uncertainty as it flails around with programs, spending, and debt schemes to revive the economy. As a result mark-to-market accounting is thing of the past and banks are guarding their balance sheets, corporations are sitting on a lot of cash, cutting costs, and becoming leaner, and Mr. and Mrs. America still favor savings and debt instruments over equities and spending.

The big question: is the housing market bottoming out? Because once it does, debtors and debt holders will then have a handle on how great their losses are. When the bottom is falling out, it is difficult to get lenders to lend if they are afraid their remaining cash reserves will be needed to shore up the bank because of loan losses. The holders of subprime debt find it difficult to value their assets while housing values are still dropping.

Lenders have been shepherding their cash, reducing debt obligations, and cutting back lending and new investments because they do not know how deep their hole will be until housing bottoms out. Keynes called this a “liquidity trap.” More reasonable people, especially the Austrian school economists, call this a reasonable and necessary response to uncertainty.

The Fed and the federal government have been flogging this liquidity trap issue without let up and basically credit is still drying up. A 0.25% Fed Funds rate is basically a negative rate and they still can’t get banks to lend. The Fed’s balance sheet is at a record high. They have bought $850 million of mortgage backed securities. They are injecting cash into lenders. They have basically suspended mark-to-market accounting.

In Q3, the FDIC reported that bank lending still contracted by 3%:

Loans and leases held by U.S. commercial banks have declined for 10 straight months, falling to $6.7 trillion as of Oct. 28 from $7.2 trillion at the end of 2008, according to a separate statistical release from the Fed.

 

Commercial and industrial loans have dropped to $1.37 trillion from $1.6 trillion, commercial real-estate loans have declined to $1.66 trillion from $1.72 trillion, and consumer loans have fallen to $847 billion from $857 billion at the end of last year.

What do banks do? They have decided they would rather hold Treasury paper instead of make loans. This chart shows what’s been happening. No wonder T-rates have stayed so low despite massive deficit financing.

This is what makes Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers lose sleep at night. “It’s supposed to work, dammit!” Maybe this is why Summers is always falling asleep. No matter what they’ve tried, they can’t get banks to lend. I think they are very worried about this and while they say the economy is recovering nicely, they are crossing their fingers at the same time.

Back to housing.

I have been saying that I think the housing market is finding a bottom. I thought that low prices and rising affordability was the main driver of the housing market. If this were so, then housing prices would reflect real market valuations and this would finally bring about the liquidation of assets and debt wastefully invested during the prior artificial credit cycle. Lenders would know where they stood financially and would liquidate bad assets and rebuild their balance sheets. No more waiting around wondering what the Fed or the government would do to save housing.

I was wrong.

The housing market I now believe is being sustained almost entirely by the Fed and the federal government. This rekindling of the housing bubble is counterproductive and will hinder a real recovery of the economy because an artificially backed market will delay the necessary liquidation of the prior cycle’s malinvestment of capital.

Here is why I changed my mind:

First, 59% of new home buyers are relying on government-backed FHA, the Veterans Administration, and the Department of Agriculture loans. Most of these sales are driven by the first-time home buyers tax credit. The tax credit program has been extended through April, 2010.

Second, existing home sales are being driven by the tax credit and by foreclosure and short sales. Existing home sales are up 10.1%. Distressed sales — mainly foreclosures and short sales — accounted for 30% of transactions in the third quarter. And. according to the NAR, home sales are being driven by first time home buyers trying to make the previous November deadline.

This will have a negative impact on future sales. Like Cash for Clunkers, these government-driven sales may just be eating into sales that would have occurred in 2010. Many economists are referring to this phenomenon as “payback.”

Third, mortgage rates are now at 30 year lows. Another Fed related gift to home buyers. The average 30-year mortgage rate was 4.95% in October, down from 5.06% in September, according to Freddie Mac. Today, Freddie said the rate was down to 4.7%.

But … home prices are still falling. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of prices fell 8.9% for the July-through-September period from a year earlier. That was an improvement from the 14.7% drop in the second quarter and the 19% decline in the first three months of 2009. Median prices of existing homes fell in 123 of 153 metropolitan areas during the third quarter compared with a year earlier. The national median price was $177,900, down 11.2% from the third quarter of 2008. [Don't ask me to explain the disparity. Case-Shiller and NAR measure this differently.] Last month the median price for an existing home was $173,100, down 7.1% from $186,400 in October 2008.

Thus, despite record interference in the housing market by the government, home prices are still falling. There are several reasons why it is likely that home prices will continue to fall.

Almost 25% of home owners are upside down with their mortgages. Nearly 10.7 million households had negative equity in their homes in the third quarter, according to First American CoreLogic. This shadow market is huge:

Home prices have fallen so far that 5.3 million U.S. households are tied to mortgages that are at least 20% higher than their home’s value, the First American report said. More than 520,000 of these borrowers have received a notice of default, according to First American. …

 

But negative equity “is an outstanding risk hanging over the mortgage market,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist of First American Core Logic. “It lowers homeowners’ mobility because they can’t sell, even if they want to move to get a new job.” Borrowers who owe more than 120% of their home’s value, he said, were more likely to default.

 

Mortgage troubles are not limited to the unemployed. About 588,000 borrowers defaulted on mortgages last year even though they could afford to pay — more than double the number in 2007, according to a study by Experian and consulting firm Oliver Wyman. “The American consumer has had a long-held taboo against walking away from the home, and this crisis seems to be eroding that,” the study said.

This overhang will continue to drive prices down. There is no way the Feds can force lenders to modify enough loans to make a serious dent in this overhang. It’s imply too big. Eventually the losses from forced modifications will mount and the FHA or any other agency will not be able to pay off their guarantees to lender. Nor should they try.

Mark Zandi, who correctly predicted a crisis in the housing market, but not the Crash, said on Wednesday, “The housing crash is not over.” He said the lull in foreclosure sales for the past few months, due to the government’s pressure on lenders to modify loans, has resulting in higher prices. He expects Case-Shiller to bottom by Q3 2010 with an overall price decline of 38% (now at 32%).

“Foreclosure sales will increase, and home prices will resume their decline by early 2010 as mortgage servicers figure out who will not qualify for a modification,” he said.

 

Zandi said 7.5 million foreclosure sales will have taken place between 2006 and 2011. The majority of these sales, however, have not emerged yet, with 4.8 million foreclosure sales expected between 2009 and 2011.

What this means is that the housing supply, now down to a 7+ months supply, will rise again, and prices will continue to decline. We haven’t seen the bottom yet.

by Marla Singer and Geoffrey Batt

Buried in the depths of page 26 of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s (SIGTARP’s) November 17, 2009 report “Factors Affecting Efforts to Limit Payments to AIG Counterparties” hidden in footnotes 33 and 34 is something of a mystery.  It might be the beginning of an interconnected financial chain involving Dubai, the Federal Reserve, AIG, Basel I, Eastern Europe and even Switzerland and which, even if it doesn’t worry you, probably should.  Or it might be nothing at all.

Consider first “footnote 33,” that reads as follows:

The first Basel Accord, known as Basel I, was issued in 1988; it focused on the capital adequacy of financial institutions. The capital adequacy risk—the risk that a financial institution will be hurt by an unexpected loss—categorizes the assets of financial institution into five risk categories (0 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, and 100 percent). Banks that operate internationally are required to have a risk weight of 8 percent or less….

The original paragraph that references the footnote reads thus:

As of September 30, 2009, AIG had $172 billion in exposure to swaps in its foreign regulatory capital portfolio.  The portfolio contains swaps purchased by financial institutions, principally in Europe, to provide regulatory capital relief under Basel I. [note 33]  AIGFP’s COO informed SIGTARP in July 2009 that they expect that most of these swaps will be terminated by the end of the first quarter 2010 as most financial institutions complete their transition to Basel II.  Currently, financial institutions are required to hold a certain level of capital against their assets, and one way for a financial institution to reduce the amount of capital is to purchase swap protection on its assets.  However, new requirements decrease the level of capital required for such assets and, in most cases, there will be limited capital benefit to holding on to the existing swaps. Nonetheless, AIG warned in a June 29, 2009, SEC filing that if credit markets deteriorate, the company may recognize unrealized losses in AIGFP’s regulatory capital credit default swap portfolio. [note 34]  AIG could continue to be at risk if the swaps in its regulatory capital portfolio are not terminated by the end of first quarter 2010 as expected. (Emphasis added).

Taken together we read the thrust of this section to mean that a number of European banks, seeking to limit their regulatory capital requirements under Basel I (read: seeking to increase their leverage) bought swap protection on their assets from AIG.  These obligations still sit with AIG and, in the event credit markets sink materially, AIG is likely to take losses on these instruments.  Not just that but:

According to an AIG SEC filing, an ongoing concern for AIGFP is whether it will have to post more collateral if credit markets continue to deteriorate.  The amount of future collateral postings is partly a function of AIG’s credit ratings, which may be affected by any further decline in AIG’s financial condition. (Emphasis added).

Simply put, AIG might also have to post more collateral.  Moreover, though AIG initially expected most of these swaps to “be terminated by the end of the first quarter 2010 as most financial institutions complete their transition to Basel II,” we see from footnote 34 that:

Subsequent to the June filing, European regulators adjusted the implementation timing of Basel II, potentially affecting the holders of AIGFP’s regulatory capital swaps to hold beyond previously anticipated termination dates.

In other words, AIG is still on the hook- and hadn’t planned to be.

This raises a number of questions:

1. If the European banks that bought swap protection from AIG are still relying on this protection to meet their capital requirements, and AIG might be unable to make good on the agreements, are these banks actually out of Basel I compliance as we type this?
2. Are the banks still able to use swap protection to reduce their collateral requirements because of the implicit or explicit backing of AIG by the Federal Reserve?
3. If this situation existed in September-November 2008, as it certainly appears to have, how exactly can the Federal Reserve claim in good faith that it lacked the leverage to negotiate with these banks from a position of strength?  (One assumes that many of the same names collecting payment from AIG were also AIG swap protection buyers of the sort mentioned in the SIGTARP report).  Failure to back up an insolvent AIG would have resulted in near-immediate Basel I non-compliance as the protection offered by these swaps, and on which these banks depended for their reduced capital requirements, evaporated- a near death sentence.
4. Or had these banks somehow, and in the middle of the credit crisis, managed to boost their capital to levels that made the swaps unimportant?
5. If so, why keep them on the books now, instead of unwinding them?
6. Since it doesn’t seem likely that a teetering AIG could make good on these agreements without substantial assistance is the Fed is currently the ultimate backstop for AIG?
7. Does this mean that the Fed is effectively underwriting these swap agreements?
8. Will the Fed post collateral if deteriorating credit conditions at AIG (today’s -$11 billion news suddenly seems especially daunting if the potential insurance shortfall has an effect on credit ratings) or general credit market issues require it?  Or are we missing something significant?  By September 30, 2008 AIG had already posted $974 million in collateral for its “Foreign Regulatory Capital” portfolio.
9. What if European banks are hit with more losses from, oh, we don’t know, say… Dubai?  Deleveraging, risk reduction and credit tightening would have an effect on LIBOR, the Eurobond market and, of course, Eastern Europe.  Might not that sort of contagion easily spread to, say, Switzerland, which enjoyed the other side of the carry trade for years by lending Swiss Franc like mad to any Eastern European mortgage borrower who could sign documents?
10. Could it be that the Fed, once again, might have to bail out the world?

Or maybe we are just missing something obvious.

By Economic Forecasts & Opinions

Stock markets around the world cracked on Friday with the Dow Jones industrial average down more than 150 points (Fig. 1), and commodities plunging as Dubai debt woes unnerved investors, and sent tremors of uncertainty throughout all markets.

The crisis flared after Dubai, a part of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) federation, asked to delay interest payment for six months on $60 billion of debt issued by the state-run conglomerate Dubai World and its main property unit Nakheel.

Concerns that a government-backed investment company risked default ripped through world markets. Investors read it as a sign of yet another sovereign implosion after Iceland and Ireland, and recoiled from risk and piled into dollars.

Las Vegas on Steroids

Dubai World has served as Dubai’s main driver of growth, operating ports, transportation groups, spearheading real-estate & infrastructure projects both at home and abroad. Its real-estate subsidiary Nakheel built Dubai’s iconic palm-tree-shaped island, packed with luxury villas and hotels, many still under construction. Real estate and construction accounts for about 23% of Dubai’s GDP.

With little oil, Dubai financed much of this rapid real estate development with debt. After incurring its estimated $80-$90 billion of debt in a four-year construction boom to transform its economy into a regional financial and tourism hub, Dubai suffered the world’s steepest property slump in the first global recession since World War II.

Deutsche Bank estimates that Dubai’s property prices, both commercial and residential, have halved since August last year, and could fall a further 15-20% this year.

U.S. Banks Less Exposed

Most analysts believe U.S. banks are probably less exposed than European rivals to a potential debt default by Dubai World, but a lack of transparency and the interconnection of the modern financial system make it difficult to know which institutions are ultimately exposed.

Dubai World’s largest creditors are reportedly domestic banks in Dubai and Abu Dhabi. MarketWatch noted data from the Bank for International Settlements which put cross-border banking exposure for the UAE as a whole at $123 billion at the end of June. Of that total, European banks hold 72%, with the United States and Japan only holding 9% and 7% of the exposure, respectively. The United Kingdom is by far the biggest creditor with a share of 41%.

Reminder of Other Risks

On a global scale, Dubai World’s debt problem seems relatively minor, but it illustrates the impact from one tiny country in an increasingly interconnected world. The Dubai news also cast doubt over the strength of the U.S. economic recovery, and the prospects for a bottoming of property prices.

Commercial Real Estate

As pointed out in my previous article that the commercial real estate sector posed a much greater threat than the over-hyped “mother of all carry trades.”  The Dubai debt crisis further reinforces this viewpoint.

The potential for contagion from Dubai’s debt woes could further unhinge an already fragile U.S. commercial real estate sector, whose values have already fallen 42.9% from their 2007 peak, close to the lowest since 2002, according to Moody’s. (Fig. 2) The latest Moody’s projection is for prices to bottom at 45-55% below their peak, but could drop as much as 65% from their peak in a “stress case”.

As commercial property values fall, debt defaults rise. The $3.4 trillion outstanding in debt backed by commercial real estate poses a real threat to the recovery. Trepp LLC reported that last month, delinquencies on U.S. commercial real estate loans that were packaged into commercial mortgage-backed securities reached 4.8%, more than six times the year earlier level. Hotel loans, at 8.7% distressed, have begun falling into delinquency faster than any other kind of commercial real estate debt.

Write-downs and losses at banks around the world have risen to more than $1.7 trillion since 2007 as the credit crisis undermined the value of assets owned by financial institutions, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Any further deleveraging and the resulting credit tightening from commercial real estate would impede the financial sector and probably derail the U.S. economy sending it into another recession. 

Housing Market Mortgage Crisis

So far, the appearance of recovery in the housing sector is being driven primarily by reduced prices combined with federal programs to lower mortgage rates with the goal of bringing more buyers into the market.

Based on a study released by Zillow.com, the foreclosure crisis has moved beyond subprime mortgages and into the prime mortgage market. (Fig. 3) While subprime borrowers are still a factor in the current foreclosure epidemic, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the weak labor market is the driving force behind the mortgage crisis we face today.

According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, one in seven U.S. home loans was past due or in foreclosure as of Sept. 30, putting that quarterly delinquency measure at its highest level since t

he report’s inception, 1972, and up from one in ten at the beginning of the year.

The continued surge in delinquencies suggests that a recovery in the housing market could be hindered by the weak job market as well as by further fallout from the easy money and loose lending practices of the past. The foreclosures and delinquencies are expected to keep rising well into 2010, not leveling off until the unemployment rate starts to moderate.

In a study by First American CoreLogic found that one in four of all U.S. mortgage-borrowers owe more than the value of their properties in the 3rd quarter. And many experts didn’t expect U.S. home prices to hit bottom until early 2011, perhaps falling another 5-10%, as more foreclosures get pushed onto the market.

Negative equity is another outstanding risk hanging over the mortgage market.

Dubai Is No Lehman

The circumstances behind Dubai’s moves are murky, making it hard to gauge the exact risk to the pertaining bonds and Dubai’s own general creditworthiness. UBS cautioned that Dubai’s overall debt “might be higher than the generally assumed $80 billion to $90 billion, due to potential off-balance sheet liabilities. These could include unlimited and unquantifiable amount of credit default swaps (CDS) and other derivatives against the underlying assets, and once unraveled, could potentially erupt into a subprime-like crisis.

The current expectation; however, is that there’s a good chance that Dubai’s problems will probably prove a local issue. Most likely, Dubai, or its neighboring emirate, Abu Dhabi, won’t risk tarnishing their images and reputation further, and will come up with a reasonable resolution.

Even if Dubai goes into sovereign default, the amount is probably not enough on its own to threaten the financial system since any actual losses would be a fraction of the total. So, the problems in Dubai are unlikely to be as serious as last year’s Lehman Brothers collapse, nor is it a reflection on the ability of emerging markets to lead a global economic recovery.

Rational Expectations?

But Dubai could well spur a broader crisis of investor confidence in overly leveraged economies as market confidence world-wide is still fragile from the severity of the financial crisis.  The debts of many emerging markets have risen even further as the countries governments have fought the ravages of the global recession by issuing more stimulus debt to fill the gap voided by private investment.

The spread of credit-default swaps on developing-nation’s bonds jumped 14 basis points after the Dubai news broke, the most in a month, to 3.24 percentage points, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s EMBI+ Index. There is also a clear sign of potential contagion effects of global risk aversion on basically all risky assets, with the dollar and yen being the prime beneficiaries.

Rational expectations or not, for now, the Dubai crisis is simply a reminder that the severe global recession has relegated much debt to near junk status, and there still remains a high degree of uncertainty as to the percentage recoverable on all outstanding debt which is going to be coming due over the next 5 years.

Despite some seminal signs of green shoots in the news headlines during this 9 month liquidity driven rally in many asset classes around the globe, we should be reminded that all that glitters is not gold, and that the global economic recovery is still on shaky ground.

#  “I know the odds are against me, but if there’s a win I’m gonna find it!”  ~Goku  #

Economic Forecasts & Opinions

? Washington’s Blog.

A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature reviews the research on trust and economics:

Trust … plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down.
In the absence of trust in a country’s institutions and leaders,
political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that
trust contributes to economic, political and social success.

Forbes wrote an article in 2006 entitled “The Economics of Trust”. The article summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:

Imagine
going to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, only to find that
the refrigerator is locked. When you’ve persuaded the shopkeeper to
retrieve the milk, you then end up arguing over whether you’re going to
hand the money over first, or whether he is going to hand over the
milk. Finally you manage to arrange an elaborate simultaneous exchange.
A little taste of life in a world without trust–now imagine trying to
arrange a mortgage.

 

Being able to trust people might seem like a pleasant luxury, but
economists are starting to believe that it’s rather more important than
that. Trust is about more than whether you can leave your house
unlocked; it is responsible for the difference between the richest
countries and the poorest.

 

“If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would
explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of
the United States and Somalia,” ventures Steve Knack, a senior
economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of
trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4
trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering,
is 99.5% of this country’s income. ***

 

Above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth. ***

 

Economists distinguish between the personal, informal trust that
comes from being friendly with your neighbors and the impersonal,
institutionalized trust that lets you give your credit card number out
over the Internet.

Similarly, market psychologists Richard L. Peterson M.D. and Frank Murtha, Ph.D. wrote in October:

Trust is the oil in the engine of capitalism, without it, the engine seizes up.

Confidence is like the gasoline, without it the machine won’t move.

Trust is gone: there is no longer trust between counterparties in the
financial system. Furthermore, confidence is at a low. Investors have
lost their confidence in the ability of shares to provide decent
returns (since they haven’t).

And two professors of finance write:

The
drop in trust, we believe, is a major factor behind the deteriorating
economic conditions. To demonstrate its importance, we launched the
Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index. Our first set of
data—based on interviews conducted at the end of December 2008—shows
that between September and December, 52 percent of Americans lost trust
in the banks. Similarly, 65 percent lost trust in the stock market. A
BBB/Gallup poll that surveyed a similar sample of Americans last April
confirms this dramatic drop. At that time, 42 percent of Americans
trusted financial institutions, versus 34 percent in our survey today,
while 53 percent said they trusted U.S. companies, versus just 12
percent today.

 

As trust declines, so does Americans’ willingness to invest their
money in the financial system. Our data show that trust in the stock
market affects people’s intention to buy stocks, even after accounting
for expectations of future stock-market performance. Similarly, a
person’s trust in banks predicts the likelihood that he will make a run
on his bank in a moment of crisis: 25 percent of those who don’t trust
banks withdrew their deposits and stored them as cash last fall,
compared with only 3 percent of those who said they still trusted the
banks. Thus, trust in financial institutions is a key factor for the
smooth functioning of capital markets and, by extension, the economy.
Changes in trust matter.

They quote a Nobel laureate economist on the subject:

“Virtually
every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust,”
writes economist Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel laureate. When we deposit money
in a bank, we trust that it’s safe. When a company orders goods, it
trusts its counterpart to deliver them in good faith. Trust facilitates
transactions because it saves the costs of monitoring and screening; it
is an essential lubricant that greases the wheels of the economic
system.

Americans clearly don’t trust the big banks and financial companies.

Indeed, as leading economists have pointed out, the big financial institutions don’t even trust each other,
because they know that all of the other companies might have hidden
toxic assets in SIVs, overvalued their assets, gamed their books, or
otherwise tried to bury their problems.

For example, Anna Schwartz – co-author with Milton Friedman of the leading monetarist book on the Great Depression – told the Wall Street Journal:

We
now hear almost every day that banks will not lend to each other, or
will do so only at punitive interest rates…This is not due to a lack
of money available to lend, Ms. Schwartz says, but to a lack of faith
in the ability of borrowers to repay their debts. “The Fed,” she
argues, “has gone about as if the problem is a shortage of liquidity.
That is not the basic problem. The basic problem for the markets is
that [uncertainty] that the balance sheets of financial firms are
credible.” 

So even though the Fed has flooded the credit markets with cash,
spreads haven’t budged because banks don’t know who is still solvent
and who is not. This uncertainty, says Ms. Schwartz, is “the basic
problem in the credit market. Lending freezes up when lenders are
uncertain that would-be borrowers have the resources to repay them. So
to assume that the whole problem is inadequate liquidity bypasses the
real issue”…

 

In the 1930s, as Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Friedman argued in “A Monetary History,” the country and the Federal Reserve were faced with a liquidity crisis in the banking sector…

 

But “that’s not what’s going on in the market now,” Ms. Schwartz
says. Today, the banks have a problem on the asset side of their
ledgers — “all these exotic securities that the market does not know
how to value.”

 

“Why are they ‘toxic’?” Ms. Schwartz asks. “They’re toxic because
you cannot sell them, you don’t know what they’re worth, your balance
sheet is not credible and the whole market freezes up. We don’t know
whom to lend to because we don’t know who is sound.”

As financial writer Will Hutton says:

“Such
was the break down in trust and sense of panic that some of the most
familiar names in British high street banking would not lend to each
other at all or, at best, just overnight. Instead, the Bank of England
had to supply tens of billions to banks who found the normal sources of
funds blocked.

***

Unless there is a radical and government-led change in ownership,
structure, regulation and incentives so that the principles of fairness
are put at the heart of the Anglo American financial system -
proportionality of reward and fair distribution of risk – there is no
chance of the return of trust and integrity upon which long-term
recovery depends.”

Economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich agrees that Wall Street’s biggest problem right now is the collapse of trust:

The
problem is, government bailouts, subsidies, and insurance aren’t really
helping Wall Street. The Street’s fundamental problem isn’t lack of
capital. It’s lack of trust. And without trust, Wall Street might as
well fold up its fancy tents.

Reich also writes:

Despite
all the money going directly to the big banks, despite all the
government guarantees and loans and special tax breaks, despite the
shot-gun weddings and bank mergers, despite the willingness of the
Treasury and the Fed to do almost whatever the banks have asked, the
reality is that credit is not flowing.

 

Why? Because the underlying problem isn’t a liquidity problem. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the
problem is that lenders and investors don’t trust they’ll get their
money back because no one trusts that the numbers that purport to value
securities are anything but wishful thinking. The trouble, in a nutshell, is that the financial entrepreneurship of recent years — the derivatives, credit default swaps, collateralized debt instruments, and so on — has undermined all notion of true value.

 

Many of these fancy instruments became popular over recent years
precisely because they circumvented financial regulations, especially
rules on banks’ capital adequacy. Big banks created all these
off-balance-sheet vehicles because they allowed the big banks to carry
less capital.

In other words, I would argue that our economy is not
fundamentally stabilizing (notwithstanding a couple of temporary “green
shoots”) because the government and the financial giants are taking
actions and releasing data which encourage more distortion and less trust.

The
crisis will deepen unless honest and transparent accounting is used,
investments become transparent and understandable again, and the
government stops gaming the system for the benefit of the big boys.

As structured finance and derivatives expert Janet Tavakoli says, lack
of transparency, lying and fraud which “we’ve seen massively in the
financial system” has undermined trust, so no one wants to buy our
financial products.

As John Carney writes:

“We’re probably making things worse. Allowing insolvent
institutions to fail and requiring worthless and worth less assets to
be fully written down would provide transparency to the market.
Instead, we’re dedicated to the post-Lehman proposition of “Never
Again.” The various programs of our government continue to obscure
asset pricing and conceal insolvency. This means that you can’t trust
the market to tell you which firms are failing.

 

Twisting the arms of bankers to lend to institutions that may be
insolvent is a recipe for deepening the crisis. We’ve just been through
a period of malinvestment–we spent too much borrowed money on junk.
Borrowing more to spend on junk only digs us in deeper.

 

Bank lending won’t get going again until trust in the markets can
be restored. Fighting a Great Depression era problem probably won’t
help. More transparency, which means more write-downs and failures, is
probably necessary if we’re going to get through this. Unfortunately,
we’re still sailing in the opposite direction.”

Happy Talk: Then and Now

It
is true that consumers and small investors drive a large portion of the
economy. And it is true that consumers and small investors, in turn,
are largely driven by their perception of what is happening.

But
I would also argue that all of the happy talk in the world won’t turn
the economy around when the fundamentals of the economy are lousy, or
there has been a giant bubble and vast overleveraging, or there has
been massive fraud, or the government has gone so far into debt that it
has formed a black hole.

Happy talk did not work during the first couple of years of the Great Depression, once the speculative bubble and leverage of the Roaring 20′s burst, leading to the inevitable crash.

As economist Irving Fisher pointed out (as recounted by economist Steve Keen):

Hobbled
by this naive belief in equilibrium, the economics profession was as
unprepared for today’s crisis as it had been for the Great Depression.
Now that the crisis is well and truly with us, all
conventional “neoclassical” economists can offer is the hope that the
crisis can be overcome by a good, strong dose of confidence.

From [Irving] Fisher’s point of
view, such a belief is futile. In an economy with an excessive level of
debt and low inflation, he argued that confidence was irrelevant–and in
fact dangerously misleading, as he knew from painful personal experience.

University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief
Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici wrote in 2006:

The
speculative frenzy of recent years is causing a major adjustment, and
the happy talk of realtors is prolonging the process. The absence of
realistic analysis about the extent of overvaluation is characteristic
in an industry that sees nothing but an upward progression for values,
but houses like any other asset can be overpriced.

Things are likely to get worse before they get better.

Morici was pointing out that there was a bubble in housing, and happy talk would not keep the bubble from bursting.

As Washington Post business writer Steven Pearlstein predicted in August 2007:

Despite
the happy talk from Washington and Wall Street investment houses –
eerily reminiscent, by the way, of the early days of the
savings-and-loan crisis of the late ’80s — these shocks [the subprime
and credit crises] will have serious consequences …

And economist James Galbraith is saying now (just as his father economist John Kenneth Galbraith said 50 years ago) – that “happy talk” won’t solve the crisis.

Indeed, the chair of the congressional oversight committee of the bailouts (Elizabeth Warren) and the senior regulator
during the S & L crisis (William Black) both say that hiding the
true state of affairs and trying to put a happy face on an economic
crisis just prolongs the length and severity of the crash

Donald
W. Riegle Jr. – former chair of the Senate Banking Committee from 1989
to 1994 – wrote (along with the former CEO of AT&T Broadband and
the international president of the United Steelworkers union) wrote recently:

It’s
almost as if the [Obama] administration is opting for a
rose-colored-glasses PR strategy rather than taking a hard-nose look at
actual consumer and employment figures and their trends, and modifying
its economic policies accordingly.

In short, happy talk and fake confidence-building exercises (like the stress tests, which Time Magazine called a con game) don’t work.

Indeed, I believe that trying to instill false confidence will actually backfire on Summers, Geithner, Bernanke and the boys and make the crisis worse.

Why?

Well, initially, as Yves Smith points out:

Team Obama has made it clear that it sees restoring confidence as paramount, when anyone
with consumer marketing experience will tell you that advertising
campaigns that make exaggerated claims about the product often don’t
simply fail (as in customers see through the hype) but often backfire
(buyers discount future ad messages about the product). The
press has had a manipulated feel, with readers on sending news stories
that have misleadingly positive stories with Panglossian headlines and
upbeat initial paragraphs that are often undercut by other material in
the same article.

So in our new branding, “the economy is no longer in a freefall” has
become “recovery.” The self-congratulatory tone among US financial
regulators (who should instead be engaging in serious
self-recrimination for failing to foresee and prevent this crisis) is
premature.

In addition, psychologists say that – until
government and business leaders prove they can behave responsibly, and
until the perpetrators of financial fraud are held accountable – real
trust will not be restored and the economy will not recover

For example, one of the leading business schools in America – the Wharton School of Business – has written an essay
on the psychological causes and solutions to the economic crisis.
Wharton points out that restoring trust is the key to recovery, and
that trust cannot be restored until wrongdoers are held accountable:

According to David M. Sachs, a training and supervision analyst at the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, the
crisis today is not one of confidence, but one of trust. “Abusive
financial practices were unchecked by personal moral controls that
prohibit individual criminal behavior, as in the case of [Bernard]
Madoff, and by complex financial manipulations, as in the case of AIG.”
The public, expecting to be protected from such abuse, has suffered a
trauma of loss similar to that after 9/11. “Normal expectations of what
is safe and dependable were abruptly shattered,” Sachs noted. “As is
typical of post-traumatic states, planning for the future could not be
based on old assumptions about what is safe and what is dangerous. A
radical reversal of how to be gratified occurred.”

 

People now feel more gratified saving
money than spending it, Sachs suggested. They have trouble trusting
promises from the government because they feel the government has let
them down.

 

He framed his argument with a fictional patient named Betty Q.
Public, a librarian with two teenage children and a husband, John, who
had recently lost his job. “She felt betrayed because she and her
husband had invested conservatively and were double-crossed by
dishonest, greedy businessmen, and now she distrusted the government
that had failed to protect them from corporate dishonesty. Not only
that, but she had little trust in things turning around soon enough to
enable her and her husband to accomplish their previous goals.

 

“By no means a sophisticated economist, she knew … that some
people had become fantastically wealthy by misusing other people’s
money — hers included,” Sachs said. “In short, John and Betty had done
everything right and were being punished, while the dishonest people
were going unpunished.”

 

Helping an individual recover from a traumatic experience provides
a useful analogy for understanding how to help the economy recover from
its own traumatic experience, Sachs pointed out. The public will need to “hold the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible and take what actions they can to prevent them from harming the economy again.” In addition, the public will have to see proof that government and business leaders can behave responsibly before they will trust them again, he argued.

Note that Sachs urges “hold[ing] the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible.” In other words, just “looking forward” and promising to do things differently isn’t enough.

Are the “perpetrators of the economic disaster” being held accountable?

So
far, Obama, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke and the crew have tried to
paper over the cause and severity of the financial crisis, instead of
honestly addressing them. They haven’t lifted a finger to hold anyone
accountable (other than a Madoff or two), but have actually thrown
billions of dollars at the perpetrators (or else appointed them to
government posts).

Indeed, William Black says that “the [government's] entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts”.

Economist Dean Baker made a similar point, lambasting
the Federal Reserve for blowing the bubble, and pointing out that those
who caused the disaster are trying to shift the focus as fast as they
can:

The current craze in DC policy circles
is to create a “systematic risk regulator” to make sure that the
country never experiences another economic crisis like the current one.
This push is part of a cover-up of what really went wrong and does
absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem that led to this
financial and economic collapse.

 

The key fact that everyone must always remember is that the story
of the collapse was not complex. We did not need great minds sifting
through endless reams of data and running incredibly complex computer
simulations to discover the underlying problem in the economy. We just
needed some people who understood the sort of arithmetic that most of
us learned in 3rd grade.

 

If the people at the Fed, the Treasury, and in other key positions
had mastered arithmetic, and were prepared to act on their knowledge,
they would have taken steps to stem the growth of the housing bubble.
They would have prevented the bubble from growing to the point where
its inevitable collapse would bring down both the U.S. economy and the
world economy…

 

We didn’t need some super-genius to solve the mystery. We just
needed an economist who could breath and do arithmetic. But the DC
policy crowd tells us that if only we had a systematic risk regulator
this disaster could have been prevented.

 

Okay, let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose we had our systematic
risk regulator in 2002. Would this person have stood up to Alan
Greenspan and said that the country is facing a huge housing bubble the
collapse of which will sink the economy?…

 

Alan Greenspan said that there was no housing bubble; everything
was just fine. Would our systematic risk regulator have said that
Greenspan was nuts and that the whole economy was a house of cards
waiting to collapse?

 

Anyone who believes that a risk regulator would have challenged
the great Greenspan knows nothing about the way Washington works. The
government is run by people who first and foremost want to advance
their careers.

 

And, the best way to advance your career in Washington is to go
along with what everyone else is saying. If that was not completely
obvious before the collapse of the housing bubble, it certainly should
be obvious now.

 

How many people in government have lost their jobs because they
failed to see the bubble? How many people even missed a promotion? In
fact, the top financial officials in the Obama administration, without
exception, completely missed the housing bubble. One might think it was
a job requirement.

This lack of accountability among economists and economic analysts is the core problem that must be tackled.
Unless these people are held accountable for their failures in the same
way as custodians and dishwashers, there will never be any incentive to
buck the crowd and point out looming disasters like the housing bubble.

The reality is that we have a systematic risk regulator. It is called the Federal Reserve Board. They blew it completely. We
will do far more to prevent the next crisis by holding our current risk
regulator accountable for its failure (fire people) than by pretending
that we somehow had a gap in our regulatory structure and creating
another worthless bureaucracy.

Remember also that the Wharton study pointed out that
“the public, expecting to be protected from such abuse, has suffered a
trauma of loss similar to that after 9/11.”

Trying to put a happy
face on a grim situation, continuing to do things which are transparent
attempts to instill false confidence, and leaving in power the people
who caused the crisis reinforces the market’s convictions that (1)
government and business leaders are behaving irresponsibly instead of
addressing the fundamental problems and (2) there is no accountability.

Keeping
quiet about how bad things are won’t help. As numerous leading
independent economists and financial experts agree, the three things
that will help are:

1. Honestly addressing the causes of the crisis;
2. Honestly addressing the necessary – if bitter – medicine needed to get out of the crisis; and
3. Holding responsible those who caused the crisis.

Postscript: Time Magazine notes:

Traditionally, gold has been a store of value when citizens do not trust their government politically or economically.

In other words, the government’s political actions affect investments, such as gold.

It is interesting to note that Americans no longer trust their politicians, the justice system, their ability to obtain liberty, or the media. Americans know that the boys launched the war in Iraq (which will end up costing $3-5 trillion dollars) based upon justifications which turned out to be untrue. Many Americans have read that the government imported communist Soviet Union torture techniques and then said “we don’t torture”. Many Americans also know that the government spied on American citizen (even before 9/11 … confirmed here and here) while saying “we don’t spy”, and that the government apparently planned both the Afghanistan war (see this and this) and the Iraq war before 9/11.

This
is an economic, not a political, essay. But I think the lack of trust
in government concerning political issues poses an interesting
question. Specifically, is it possible that the American people’s
distrust of the government concerning the above-described issues also
bleeds over into a lack of trust in the government’s economic actions
and statements? In other words, if people discover that a government is
lying about political issues, do people trust the government’s
pronouncements about economic issues less?

I
don’t know the answer, but analyzing the possibility could provide a
researcher with an interesting project (or a PhD candidate with a
potential doctoral thesis).

? Washington’s Blog.

Why isn’t the government breaking up the giant, insolvent banks?

We Need Them To Help the Economy Recover?

Do we need the Too Big to Fails to help the economy recover?

No.

The
following top economists and financial experts believe that the economy
cannot recover unless the big, insolvent banks are broken up in an
orderly fashion:

• Nobel prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz

• Nobel prize-winning economist, Ed Prescott

• Dean
  and professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, and
  chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W.
  Bush, R. Glenn Hubbard

• MIT economics professor and former IMF chief economist, Simon Johnson (and see this)

• President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Thomas Hoenig (and see this)

• Deputy Treasury Secretary, Neal S. Wolin

• The President of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington-based trade group with about 5,000 members, Camden R. Fine

• The Congressional panel overseeing the bailout

• The head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair

• The leading monetary economist and co-author with Milton Friedman of the leading treatise on the Great Depression, Anna Schwartz

• Economics professor and senior regulator during the S & L crisis, William K. Black

• Economics professor, Nouriel Roubini

• Economist, Marc Faber

• Professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business, Luigi Zingales

• Economics professor, Thomas F. Cooley

• Former investment banker, Philip Augar

• Chairman of the Commons Treasury, John McFall

Others, like Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, think that the giant insolvent banks may need to be temporarily nationalized.

In addition, many top economists and financial experts, including Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer – who was Ben Bernanke’s thesis adviser at MIT – say that – at the very least – the size of the financial giants should be limited.

Even the Bank of International Settlements – the “Central Banks’ Central Bank” – has slammed too big to fail. As summarized by the Financial Times:

The
report was particularly scathing in its assessment of governments’
attempts to clean up their banks. “The reluctance of officials to
quickly clean up the banks, many of which are now owned in large part
by governments, may well delay recovery,” it said, adding that
government interventions had ingrained the belief that some banks were
too big or too interconnected to fail.

 

This was dangerous because it reinforced the risks of moral hazard
which might lead to an even bigger financial crisis in future.

If We Break ‘Em Up, No One Will Lend?

Do we need to keep the TBTFs to make sure that loans are made?

Nope.

Fortune pointed out
in February that smaller banks are stepping in to fill the lending void
left by the giant banks’ current hesitancy to make loans. Indeed, the
article points out that the only reason that smaller banks haven’t been
able to expand and thrive is that the too-big-to-fails have decreased
competition:

Growth for the nation’s smaller banks
represents a reversal of trends from the last twenty years, when the
biggest banks got much bigger and many of the smallest players were
gobbled up or driven under…

 

As big banks struggle to find a way forward and rising loan losses
threaten to punish poorly run banks of all sizes, smaller but well
capitalized institutions have a long-awaited chance to expand.

BusinessWeek noted in January:

As big banks struggle, community banks are stepping in to offer loans and lines of credit to small business owners…

At a congressional hearing on small business and the economic
recovery earlier this month, economist Paul Merski, of the Independent
Community Bankers of America, a Washington (D.C.) trade group, told
lawmakers that community banks make 20% of all small-business loans,
even though they represent only about 12% of all bank assets.
Furthermore, he said that about 50% of all small-business loans under
$100,000 are made by community banks…

Indeed, for the past two years, small-business lending among community
banks has grown at a faster rate than from larger institutions,
according to Aite Group, a Boston banking consultancy. “Community banks
are quickly taking on more market share not only from the top five
banks but from some of the regional banks,” says Christine Barry,
Aite’s research director. “They are focusing more attention on small
businesses than before. They are seeing revenue opportunities and
deploying the right solutions in place to serve these customers.”

And Fed Governor Daniel K. Tarullo said in June:

The
importance of traditional financial intermediation services, and hence
of the smaller banks that typically specialize in providing those
services, tends to increase during times of financial stress. Indeed,
the crisis has highlighted the important continuing role of community
banks…

For example, while the number of credit unions has declined by 42
percent since 1989, credit union deposits have more than quadrupled,
and credit unions have increased their share of national deposits from
4.7 percent to 8.5 percent. In addition, some credit unions have
shifted from the traditional membership based on a common interest to
membership that encompasses anyone who lives or works within one or
more local banking markets. In the last few years, some credit unions
have also moved beyond their traditional focus on consumer services to
provide services to small businesses, increasing the extent to which
they compete with community banks.

Indeed, some very smart people say that the big banks aren’t really focusing as much on the lending business as smaller banks.

Specifically
since Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, the giant banks have made
much of their money in trading assets, securities, derivatives and
other speculative bets, the banks’ own paper and securities, and in
other money-making activities which have nothing to do with traditional
depository functions.

Now that the economy has crashed, the big banks are making very few loans to consumers or small businesses because they still
have trillions in bad derivatives gambling debts to pay off, and so
they are only loaning to the biggest players and those who don’t really
need credit in the first place. See this and this.

So we don’t really need these giant gamblers. We don’t really need JP Morgan, Citi, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley. What we need are dedicated lenders.

The Fortune article discussed above points out that the banking giants are not necessarily more efficient than smaller banks:

The
largest banks often don’t show the greatest efficiency. This now seems
unsurprising given the deep problems that the biggest institutions have
faced over the past year.

 

“They actually experience diseconomies of scale,” Narter wrote of
the biggest banks. “There are so many large autonomous divisions of the
bank that the complexity of connecting them overwhelms the advantage of
size.”

And Governor Tarullo points out some of the benefits of small community banks over the giant banks:

Many
community banks have thrived, in large part because their local
presence and personal interactions give them an advantage in meeting
the financial needs of many households, small businesses, and
agricultural firms. Their business model is based on an important
economic explanation of the role of financial intermediaries–to
develop and apply expertise that allows a lender to make better
judgments about the creditworthiness of potential borrowers than could
be made by a potential lender with less information about the
borrowers.

A small, but growing, body of research suggests that the financial
services provided by large banks are less-than-perfect substitutes for
those provided by community banks.

It is simply not true
that we need the mega-banks. In fact, as many top economists and
financial analysts have said, the “too big to fails” are actually
stifling competition from smaller lenders and credit unions, and
dragging the entire economy down into a black hole.

The Giant Banks Have Recovered, And Are No Longer Insolvent?

Have the TBTFs recovered, so that they are no longer insolvent?

Negatory.

The giant banks have still not put the toxic assets hidden in their SIVs back on their books.

The tsunamis of commercial real estate, Alt-A, option arm and other loan defaults have not yet hit.

The
overhang of derivatives is still looming out there, and still dwarfs
the size of the rest of the global economy. Credit default swaps have arguably still not been tamed (see this).

Indeed, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said recently:

The
U.S. has failed to fix the underlying problems of its banking system
after the credit crunch and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc.

 

“In the U.S. and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks
have become even bigger,” Stiglitz said in an interview today in Paris.
“The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis.”

 

Stiglitz’s views echo those of former Federal Reserve Chairman
Paul Volcker, who has advised President Barack Obama’s administration
to curtail the size of banks, and Bank of Israel Governor Stanley
Fischer, who suggested last month that governments may want to
discourage financial institutions from growing “excessively.”

While the big boys have certainly reported some impressive profits in the last couple of months, some or all of those profits may have been due to “creative accounting”, such as Goldman “skipping” December 2008, suspension of mark-to-market (which may or may not be a good thing), and assistance from the government.

Some
very smart people say that the big banks – even after many billions in
bailouts and other government help – have still not repaired their
balance sheets. Tyler Durden, Reggie Middleton, Mish and others have looked at the balance sheets of the big boys much more recently than I have, and have more details than I do.

But the bottom line is this: If the banks are no longer insolvent, they should prove it. If they can’t prove they are solvent, they should be broken up.

The Government Lacks the Power to Break Them Up?

Does the government lack the power to break up the TBTFs?

Wrong.

One of the world’s leading economic historians – Niall Ferguson – argues in a current article in Newsweek:

[Geithner is proposing that] there should be a new “resolution
authority” for the swift closing down of big banks that fail. But such
an authority already exists and was used when Continental Illinois failed in 1984.

Indeed, even the FDIC mentions Continental Illinois in the same breadth as “too big to fail” banks.

And William K. Black (remember, he was the senior regulator during the S&L crisis, and is a Professor of both Economics and
Law) – says that the Prompt Corrective
Action Law (PCA), 12 U.S.C. § 1831o, not only authorizes the government
to seize insolvent banks, it mandates it, and that the Bush and Obama administrations broke the law by refusing to close insolvent banks.

Whether or not the banks’ holding companies can be broken up using the PCA, the banks themselves could be. See this

And no one can doubt that the government could find a way to break up even the holdign companies if it wanted.

FDR seized gold during the Great Depression under the Trading With The Enemies Act.

Geithner
and Bernanke have been using one loophole and “creative” legal
interpretation after another to rationalize their various
multi-trillion dollar programs in the face of opposition from the
public and Congress (see this, for example).

And the government could use 100-year old antitrust laws to break them up.

So
don’t give me any of this “our hands are tied” malarkey. The Obama
administration could break the “too bigs” up in a heartbeat if it
wanted to, and then justify it after the fact using PCA or another
legal argument.

Is Temporarily Nationalizing the Giant Banks Socialism?

Many argue that it would be wrong for the government to break up the banks, because we would have to take over the banks in order to break them up.

That
may be true. But government regulators in the U.S., Sweden and other
countries which have broken up insolvent banks say that the government
only has to take over banks for around 6 months before breaking them up.

In
contrast, the Bush and Obama administrations’ actions mean that the
government is becoming the majority shareholder in the financial giants
more or less permanently. That is – truly – socialism.

Breaking
them up and selling off the parts to the highest bidder efficiently and
in an orderly fashion would get us back to a semblance of free market
capitalism much quicker.

The Real Reason the Giant Banks Aren’t Being Broken Up

So what is the real reason that the TBTFs aren’t being broken up?

Certainly, there is regulatory capture, cowardice and corruption:

• Joseph Stiglitz
  (the Nobel prize winning economist) said recently that the U.S. government is wary of challenging the
  financial industry because it is politically difficult, and that he
  hopes the Group of 20 leaders will cajole the U.S. into tougher action

• Economic historian Niall Ferguson asks:
  

  Guess
  which institutions are among the biggest lobbyists and campaign-finance
  contributors? Surprise! None other than the TBTFs [too big to fails].

• Manhattan Institute senior fellow Nicole Gelinas agrees:
  

  The
  too-big-to-fail financial industry has been good to elected officials
  and former elected officials of both parties over its 25-year life span

• Investment analyst and financial writer Yves Smith says:
  

  Major financial players [have gained] control over the all-important over-the-counter debt markets…It is pretty hard to regulate someone who has a knife at your throat.

• William K. Black says:
  

  There has been no honest examination of the crisis because it would embarrass C.E.O.s and politicians . . .

  Instead, the Treasury and the Fed are urging us not to
  examine the crisis and to believe that all will soon be well. There
  have been no prosecutions of the chief executives of the large nonprime
  lenders that would expose the “epidemic” of fraudulent mortgage lending
  that drove the crisis. There has been no accountability…

  The Obama administration and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have
  refused to investigate the nature and causes of the crisis. And the
  administration selected Timothy Geithner, who with then Treasury
  Secretary Paulson bungled the bailout of A.I.G. and other favored “too
  big to fail” institutions, to head up Treasury.

  Now Lawrence Summers, head of the White House National Economic
  Council, and Mr. Geithner argue that no fundamental change in finance
  is needed. They want to recreate a secondary market in the subprime
  mortgages that caused trillions of dollars of losses.

  Traditional
  neo-classical economic theory, particularly “modern finance theory,”
  has been proven false but economists have failed to replace it. No
  fundamental reform can be passed when the proponents are pretending
  that there really is no crisis or need for change.

• Harvard professor of government Jeffry A. Frieden says:
  

  Regulatory
  agencies are often sympathetic to the industries they regulate. This
  pattern is so well known among scholars that it has a name: “regulatory
  capture.” This effect can be due to the political influence of the
  industry on its regulators; or to the fact that the regulators spend so
  much time with their charges that they come to accept their world view;
  or to the prospect of lucrative private-sector jobs when regulators
  retire or resign.

• Economic consultant Edward Harrison agrees:Regulating Wall Street has become difficult in large part because of regulatory capture.

But there is an even more interesting reason . . .

The number one reason the TBTF’s aren’t being broken up is [drumroll] . . . the ‘ole 80′s playbook is being used.

As the New York Times wrote in February:

In
the 1980s, during the height of the Latin American debt crisis, the
total risk to the nine money-center banks in New York was estimated at
more than three times the capital of those banks. The regulators,
analysts say, did not force the banks to value those loans at the
fire-sale prices of the moment, helping to avert a disaster in the
banking system.

In other words, the nine biggest banks were all insolvent in the 1980s.

And the Times is not alone in stating this fact. For example, Felix Salmon wrote in January:

In
the early 1980s, when a slew of overindebted Latin governments
defaulted to their bank creditors, a lot of big global banks, Citicorp
foremost among them, became insolvent.

So the
government’s failure to break up the insolvent giants – even though
virtually all independent experts say that is the only way to save the
economy, and even though there is no good reason not to break them up – is nothing new.

William K. Black’s statement that the government’s entire strategy now – as in the S&L crisis – is to cover up how bad things are (“the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts”) makes a lot more sense.