The chart to the left is of non-borrowed reserves of Depository Institutions (h/t CD.) Which, in English, means "bank reserves". As Chicago Dyke pointed out, what that chart indicates is that the banks are, well, bankrupt. Or, more technically accurate, since they’re still in business, insolvent.(1)
Wall Street’s acting like the credit crisis is over. What that chart tells you is that it isn’t. As folks were saying at the time, it was never a liquidity crisis, it wasn’t about just not having enough cash or near cash equivalents around but rather a solvency crisis. Institutions were insolvent.
Are insolvent.
Nonetheless things have calmed down in the last couple months despite the fact that, well, US banks not only have no money, they’re so deep in a hole they’re close to digging to China. But even China doesn’t have enough money to bail them out.
The reason things have calmed down is simple enough. With his actions, Bernanke told the world that the full faith and credit of the US government is behind both banks and Wall Street firms. Let me translate that into English.
Bernanke said "I am going to make Americans pay to clean up this mess. The huge amount of money that was transfered to rich people will not be paid for by the rich, instead it will be paid for by ordinary Americans".
The Fed saying that it will take any crap paper the banks care to give it at near par, even if they aren’t worth anything, even if they are such garbage that no one but the Fed would take them, is a massive government bailout.
But government, in this case, means "American citizens". There are only two ways the US can pay for the trillions of dollars of losses. You can tax and directly bailout, or you can print money. Neither of these is free – the cost of taxation is obvious, the cost of printing money is inflation.
Let’s run a little further with that. It’s Memorial Day weekend, the first day of spring. And Americans are driving hither and yon, all the time bemoaning gas prices.
Why are gas prices high?
Well, a large part of it is indeed supply and demand. But, at the same time, it is also true that there aren’t actual shortages. No one who needs gas isn’t able to get it. As Shell’s CEO Jeroen van der Veer said:
There are no tankers waiting in the Middle East, there are no cars waiting at gasoline stations because they are out of stock. This has to do with psychology in the markets and you cannot forecast psychology.
Except that der Veer is wrong about why the market is high. Oh, not that it isn’t about psychology, that’s part of it, no question. But most of it is about what Stirling Newberry likes to call the world’s investment shortage.
See, there’s a lot of loose money floating around in the world. Not only are the rich richer than anytime since the Gilded age, but due to the miracle of leverage you can easily take one million and turn it into, no joke, 100 million worth of speculative cash through the joy of leverage. Once you’ve got all that leveraged cash, however, you need to find something to do with it.
In the nineties that money went mostly into stocks. And so we had the dot-com bubble and the attendant frenzy.
Since then stock prices, if you measure them in Euros, have remained pretty close to flat. There have been some rises and falls, but basically, movement has been minor and soon lost.
Instead, in the 2000’s that money split largely between four types of plays.
- Labor arbitrage plays in which you move production from the 1st world to 3rd;
- Real Estate plays, largely through the vehicles of mortgage backed Collateralized Debt Obligations (though there are other kinds of CDOs which also got great play) and other chopped up securities packages;
- Currency speculation; and,
- Commodity speculation.
Labor arbitrage plays are still ongoing but they’re slowing down a great deal as the US economy moves into recession and as costs in China and the core areas of India increase.
Real Estate plays are over. All types of real-estate markets are collapsing.
The other two types of plays – currency speculation and commodity speculation remain available. So you’ve still got your billions and trillions of money floating around, because rather than allowing deleveraging to occur properly the Fed and other central banks are sweeping the junk into trash bins, and that money is still looking for returns. There are no great new industries or technologies to invest in that can soak all that money up doing useful things. Sure, you can put a few hundred billion into alternate energy, but that’s peanuts. The rest of it has no where productive to go.
But it still needs to make returns. And there’s nowhere for that money to go but into currency speculation (against the US dollar, not that the US dollar shouldn’t be collapsing based on fundamentals) and into commodity speculation. And since there are some fundamental reasons why food and oil supply are down, those are good places to pile that money into.
Oil and food prices, based entirely on fundamentals, would have risen. China and India coming on line is raising the demand for oil significantly. Climate instability and stupid government policies like ethanol price support are amongst the factors decreasing supply relative to demand for food.
But neither of them would have risen as fast or high as they did without speculative excess.
So. How do you fix this? As with many problems the world and the US has, it isn’t a problem we don’t pretty much know how to solve, we just don’t have the willpower to wring speculative excess out of the system.
1) You put the major banks and Wall Street Brokerage, which are insolvent, into receivership. You sue for the return of all bonuses. You let the investors, who took the profits, take a full 100% loss on their stock holdings. You start, slowly, unraveling the swaps, CDOs and so on, and you force people to take their losses.
2) You have the government, in effect, take over the mortgage market.
3) Don’t allow leverage beyond 10X max. Don’t allow already leveraged money to be leveraged again.
4) Implement a Tobin tax, that is a tax on every single transaction. Tobin originally suggested it just for foreign currency transactions but at this point putting it on anything but plain vanilla bond and stock transactions would be wise. This will raise hundreds of billions very quickly, will make speculation less profitable and will take money out of the hands of the rich.
5) Implement a strong progressive tax which taxes income, all income, over 1 million dollars, at at least a 90% rate. This must include taxing unearned income at the same rate as earned income. Again, the idea is to get money out of the hands of the rich who have no productive use for it.
All of these actions, except the first, require international cooperation or the willingness to unilaterally impose currency controls. However they require less international cooperation than you might think – if, say, Japan, the US and the EU were to agree to these rules and were to slap currency controls on transactions with nations outside of the compact, the rest of the world would come into compliance very quickly. And since everyone has the same problems, only the extent varying, it’s more possible than one might think.
If, and only if, you’re willing to reign in speculative excess.
Of course, a number of other steps would be needed, including anti-usury laws, breaking up the telecom monopoly, reworking financial markets to support new energy technologies, and more besides.
Will this be done? My best guess is no. I think we’re going to take one more round at the gambling table. I think that those who control the system now are going to do everything they can to hold onto their ill-gotten gains from the past thirty years, and that they will crash the system rather than allow real reform.
But I could be wrong. Pressures are going to be very strong on the next couple of Congresses and on the next President, to do something. This recession is only starting and it is going to get much worse. Deleveraging is going to continue. Housing prices are going to keep dropping for a few years at least. And the losses may be more than the Fed and the rest of the world’s central banks can print their way out of without causing either hyperinflation in necessities, or, paradoxically, winding up in a deflationary spiral.
But rest assured that if they do manage to keep it together, they are only kicking the can down the road. And I think this will be the last time they can do so.
(1) Technical note: the chart doesn’t indicate anything suddenly changed. What has happened is that money borrowed from the Fed has been classified as borrowed reserves, rather than non-borrowed reserves, because, well, it’s borrowed. Now to borrow that money each bank gave the Fed some securities. So if those securities are worth face, everything’s good. If they aren’t, things aren’t ok. Just from a general eyeball of the chart, if the securities are worth about 65cents to 70cents on the dollar, the system is probably (barely) solvent. This is no different than two or three months ago, it’s just that this puts a number (and a picture) to the situation
Related posts:






Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

g’afternoon, Ian and Firepups!
Hey Ian.
I thought the government was looking for ways to increase oil and food prices.
Hi Ian….. will catch up with you’all later…. going to the home improvement store to buy insulation to put in my attic…. Since it is unseasonably cool this weekend….
I read somewhere that the average millage every item in a average grocery store travels between 1300-1500 miles…..expected the cost of fuel to impact it…
Yes. That solvency hole seems to have no bottom as yet. I see no bounces.
Time for some put options on petroleum?
Holy crap.
so I’m told you can speculate on oil with only 5 percent.
this means that when the market does crash we will bail out those people who invested in the petro market just as we bailed out the mortgage bankers
I just went to fill up the tank and wasn’t allowed to get more than 75.00. Has anyone heard that there is a 75.00 limit on gas purchses now? Maybe it’s only in California?
I don’t give trading advice. :) And even in a bubble/bull market there are pullbacks. And at some point, the bubble (if it is one, and contra-Krugman, I think it is) will burst.
If I knew when, I still wouldn’t be rich. But I’d be a bit richer.
Interesting. That’s the first I’ve heard of actual rationing.
I haven’t heard a thing about it, when I was pumping it just stopped at $75. I asked the atendant and he said they weren’t allow to sell more than $75. at a time.
attendant. I really miss the edit feature…..
Wonder if that’s related to their own guidelines about how much cash they have sitting around. Kind of surprising.
maybe it’s always been that way, to not have losses with credit cards, and that it’s only noticeable now because the price of gas has gone up so high. and maybe they’ll up their limit now as well.
I noticed that, too, with credit cards, but there wasn’t any sign saying that cash purchases had a limit.
Hi Ian – a good, if sobering essay (as usual). It’s amazing how quickly things can go kablooey, isn’t it?
That is what it is…not a gas limit. It’s a charge to your card limit.
Has anyone said this recently?
Worst.President.Ever.
You know, I was only being half-serious the other day when I wondered about it being a shell-game…wonder where the pea is?
This blew me away. Gives me a better perspective on the Feds moves. Of course no administration since FDR will induce pain to fix something properly.
Worst Congress ever, too, I sometimes think. Not this one – the last. This one’s only as useless as usual.
I’m not very good at economic big picture stuff. But my sense is that Bush/Cheney and cronies have done a bang up job of robbing our treasury and any national assets.
Am I wrong?
yep.
Nope. And now we have to pay for it. In a number of ways.
here’s the pain that has to be induced if we get an fdr and it does NOT involve us;
reclaim the assets that were stolen from us, the assets that were stolen and left our infrastructure to go unattended and collapse, the assets that were missapropriated by inept “tax codes” which redistributed middle class wealth and placed thoese assets into the pockets of the wealthiest people on the planet
that is not their money it’s ours and we get it back NOT by “taxing the wealthy” but by “reclaiming missapropriated funds”
bing
Thanks for calling the elephant in the room by name.
Let’s face it.
This was not all put here to make a handful of people very rich.
BTW, why is it nobody is proposing MASSIVE conservation as a way of dealing with energy prices?
the bush and cheney trusts, funds and assets must be federalized
The pumps computer only goes to 75.00. They are going to 1/2 gallon meters now to reflect the new reality.
I think their conduct of the Iraq War and the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (In)Security will probably merit that distinction. I’m not an economist, either, nor a historian. You’d think other examples of such monumental incompetence and larceny would leap to mind if there were any, though.
For the same reasons we were encouraged to go shopping to help the war effort, I suspect.
Things fall apart. As for the real estate mess, we can start getting out by refusing to foreclose mortgages. This happens on a state level, but it requires judges with serious fortitude and there aren’t many of those. It is likely foreclosing plaintiff’s don’t have standing in the traditional sense. Incomes streams were so parsed, and mortgages so thrown into pools, one is hardpressed to decide who owns any particular mortgage. It would serve those greedy bastards right if a substantial legal oversight did them in, but when push comes to shove, judges, like everyone, make allowances for the rich.
Sort of citizen “nationalization”. I think I like that idea.
This Congress hasn’t covered itself with glory either.
Well, and I say this with as much snide disdain as I can, the energy execs always say we should conserve…they make me sick.
Yes, perhaps I was giving them too much credit. Merely saying they were as useless as usual implies they’ve done no damage.
Cheney thought California conserving was funny. I can’t say anything else because my keyboard will catch on fire.
Old, trite, but probably true: “If you aren’t part of the solution you’re part of the problem.” Congress, are you listening? You’re ALL up for reelection in the House, you know…
me too.
what a SOS. pardon me.
Campaigning on any of the options you list would almost certainly be the death knell of any campaign. And once in office would anyone in Congress or the White House have the political will to make an attempt? But as you say we can’t continue to kick the can down the road. I particularly like the idea of the speculators taking their lumps.
Well, imo, we need to step up and start taking action–such as riding or walking to work.
I was riding my bike to work or walking when able. People looked at me like I was weird. I don’t know about you guys, but there is something of a stigma to walking or riding bikes…
“we” being the “we the people of the United States…”
I think a Tobin tax could be mentioned in a campaign. Well, maybe not, the donors would hate it. But ordinary people wouldn’t care. How many people do you know who play in futures and options and swaps? Unless you’re in certain very limited circles, the answer is probably none, or maybe one. (I know a few, but I move in odd circles.)
I’m not concerned by what strangers think about what I’m doing. If these strangers are morons why should I care? I’ve had people ask me why I walk here or there and I just tell them it doesn’t make any sense for me to drive a vehicle a few blocks and that I’m not that lazy. That usually takes care of the situation.
I didn’t learn to drive til I was in my early 30s. I know that stigma real well.
Ian, why are you looking at nonborrowed reserves instead of capital ratios? I’m not sure I understand how you’re jumping to banks having issues based on non-borrowed reserves.
I hear you, SD, and I continued to ride my bike despite people thinking I was weird…
I just wonder how we got to that point (at least where I come from) of looking down on pedestrians?
I have an SUV (I hate) but we’ve filled it plenty of times, which has for quite a while taken more than 75. so it hasn’t always been that way. I understand the reason for it I think, just haven’t heard anything about it.
I certainly don’t travel in that circle and I’ve long advocated a tax on every stock transaction at the time of transaction. But you’re right, the investment class will pull out all stops to derail the election of anyone who wants to tax or limit their accumulation of wealth. Regulation the futures markets is a must. This nonsense of being able to put down 5-10 percent down on these investments is just crazy. I was brought up to treat stocks as a long term investment, using the dividends to build up a nest egg. People now don’t even have savings accounts any longer. Banks discourage them by putting monthly fees on accounts which dip below a set amount. Regions Bank charges if the amount falls below $500. And charges well in excess of whatever interest is earned on that account for that period.
No, it’s not. I’ve gone past the 75. plenty of times.
Status. They spend their entire lives trying to convince people they are something other than what they are.
You might try a jar in the back yard…probably be cheaper in the long run (no fees)…
you can say you know me Dragon … i “play” with those things … actually, I do research on them as a Financial Economist
and there are margin calls, btw
Or, as they liked to say in chemistry class – if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.
If you used a credit card to buy your gas, the authorization used to have a $50 limit, now up to $75 most places … it has to do with the amount authorized on the credit card. I ran into this a year ago when I was moving, buying gas for the rental truck I was driving.
I belong to a Fed credit union. Joined when I first went to work for the VA in Denver in 80. Interest on savings accounts sucks but it’s better than nothing and no fees. Vet bills recently have really put a huge dent in it though.
My boss had to come up with over 100 grand on a margin call from WorldComm, I believe it was.
I used my check card, for Point of Sale purchses I can use up to 300. I’ve put more than 75. in the tank with the same check card in the past.
yeah, they can be really nasty for folks if the market moves against you… no mercy
The plunge is due to the Fed lending money at the discount window. They’re classifying that as borrowed money, which imo, they should. If your reserves are less than zero, then your capital ratio pretty much has to stink. What this comes down to is “do you think the securities they gave the Fed are worth much”.
But if you think those securities loaned as collateral are worth more, then perhaps numbers aren’t as bad. The number seems to be somewhere between 65 and 70 cents on the dollar to make it to above zero.
Shareholders equity, imo, btw, should be counted as zero for most of the companies. Forced to clear their books, they wouldn’t be able to, and they would be bankrupt, with nothing left for the shareholders.
Margot–Cripes, you would think people would see the positives of not polluting, not contributing to the depletion of resources, and getting some exercise, fer cryin’ out loud…
I had one station limit me out at $50, another at $75 … it probably varies from station to station. A check card or POS card is likely handled the same way, they pre-authorize up to a set limit, then charge whatever you actually bought.
Interesting; I commute by bike several days a week and all I get is “attagirl” from coworkers and people who see me. I make it my business to say hello to everyone I pass in the neighborhoods on my way into the office. there is a group of cyclists who stop for coffee downstairs at the coffee shop, too. On the other hand, we must have some very courteous drivers because my road is a pretty heavily traveled road, even at six a.m. when I’m out and I never get any issues.
It’s always smart to know what you’re doing when investing. This guy was, and is still, clueless about the market. I think a lot of it has to do with the availability of easy money. I think if you’re going to borrow money from a brokerage to buy stock you should have to put down 50 percent minimum and the rest paid off in a period of a few months, not treating it as a loan from the bank. When I was growing up I was taught that if you didn’t have the money to lose right then and there, don’t invest it. Borrowing to invest in stocks or bonds was a no-no. Call me old fashioned but I think it’s still a sound idea. Add to that the fact that people don’t invest for a nest egg anymore. They invest for a quick profit. Then again, and again.
I filled the car up a week ago more than 90 bucks. Same station, same card. It’s weird.
[GROAN]!
Ian..this would wipe out people whose retirements are in 401k’s right?
It’s 7.5 miles from home to work for me … I would love to bicycle, but probably would not live 3 weeks doing it if I tried, the way people drive around here (North Dallas area). Besides, it’s in the 90’s most days … no shower at the office, so kind of hard to make that work.
Oh, noes… Should I invest in a large refrigerator carton under the bridge?
Well … that IS weird.
That is sooo cool, Toby. You’re fortunate to have that kind of support. I do make it a point to smile at folks, but they still think I’m weird.
I live about 7 miles from work as well. The way folks drive here I’d probably get killed first day out. It’s also in the upper 90’s here as well. I would love to retire the car. Just not an option at this point.
Ian, what is your take on the oil find in Brazil in the last couple of days?? Any ultimate impact?
It’s not rationing, it is a dollar amount limit on credit cards… or so
i am told… you can just restart the pump
Well, at work it helps that the boss does motocross ;). I did a twentyfive mile fundraising ride in late April and everyone at work was cheering me on, keeping me focused on training.
I’m honestly not sure what the protections are on 401Ks. I would assume, if they’re like in Canada, that they have seperate reserves from the general bank reserves and that in case of bankruptcy they are dealt with seperately from the general bankruptcy.
I should add, in general, that the chart above doesn’t indicate a different situation from 2 months ago. It just puts a number and a picture to it.
Oh, Marion, you haven’t heard? Refrigerator cartons are sooo yesterday…it’s matching washer and dryer cartons that are all the rage now.
Hadn’t noticed it. I can’t imagine it will make any real difference, unless it’s a massive major new field on the order of a major Middle Eastern country’s reserves.
However, that doesn’t really take into account what their using the borrowed funds for … as you alluded to, it really only reflects one side of the balance sheet. And on top of that, since member banks are overwhelmingly the huge banks and holding companies, that percentage compared to earlier percentages when there was less concentration in the banking sector, is not comparable over time. It really depends on what they’re investing in short-term assets. Is it treasuries? is it commercial paper? is it something different than that? Also, what off-balance sheet items are out there? I agree that if they’re holding a huge percentage in some kind of mortgage-backed security, that would be an issue. But this has been a huge issue to investment banks primarily because they’re not obligated to hold certain assets and refrain from investments in others. I think you really need to move more deeply into call reports to really ascertain problems in the commercial banking sector. If you’re saying the crisis, simply has to to do with the creditworthiness of assets, that’s one thing. There’s a huge total written down coming on sub-prime-asset-backed securities, probably about $285 billion, which is why they could be storing up the cash. But if the losses more from amplifiers rather than the projected losses, and if they set in non depository institutions, you may have overstated your case. Just a thought.
no, no, no, it depends on what you’re underlying assets are invested in. 401ks are regulated. They can’t be invested in low grade assets. You may see a slight decrease in returns since this has made the market slightly bearish for awhile, but your underlying assets are undoubtedly secure.
Isn’t it something like 10 years to get the oil out of the ground once it’s located? That was one of the arguments I heard about the administration touting drilling in ANWR.
What’s the role of oil company profits in the price of gas. They’re at all-time galactic highs, aren’t they? So, the cost at the pump pays the companies as well as their investors, right?
Is isproper to say to gas/oil companies, “Hold on, now. Your profits are indecent. Accept lower profits or we’ll do — .” What would we do? Nationalize them?!
Ian, this is one report about it:
http://canadianpress.google.co…..NpMTlK7KGg
and I might mention, I’m trying hard to keep this as nontechnical as possible, I apologize, if I’m not. Occupational hazard and all.
Well, folks, it’s been a long day–going to call it a night. Have a good evening, all.
You may be right. Mea culpa, if it turns out I have overstated. I actually don’t think the chart reflects a change from 2 months ago, but then 2 months ago I thought most of them were bankrupt, and this puts a picture and numbers to it.
The real question, which no one has an answer to, is “how much is that paper they’re holding really worth?” Depending on the answer… they may or may not be bankrupt. My guess is they are, but I certainly could be wrong. And I think it goes far beyond sub-prime, and I think 285 understates it, because the declines in prices don’t seem to be slowing.
But, at the end of the day, this could be a case of ‘when the panic ends, people will pay close enough to face’ that it will just go away.
And clearly, they won’t be allowed to actually go bankrupt if Ben can do anything to stop it.
Still, I tend to think that because of the massive over-leverage, and because of the systemic refusal to do proper due diligence on anything, that if real structural reforms aren’t put in place, even if we do manage to skate on by on this one, we’re just setting ourselves up for the next one.
Well, I’m rereading your 79 cuz this guy is really dense when it comes to the nitty gritty of the markets. Maybe that’s why I’ve stayed a DFH instead of the man in the gray flannel suit.
whew(stopping packing my life into cardboard boxes) — at the moment, my big ‘investment’ is in energy efficiency in our house and we put in a big garden this spring.
80 billion is pretty huge, 1/3 of Saudi reserves. If it proves out, it will buy a few years and some easing. Though it’s deep water and that means at least a few years before it’s up and running.
The real problem is demand side, though. Bringing on millions of Chinese and Indians into a western lifestyle, complete with cars (and soon burbs) means that as much oil as there is, pretty much, it’ll be used. And used up.
I don’t think I can afford a duplex…. (707)
I used to work for the FED, the inside information I have is about 68 banks are in serious trouble and being sort’ve carved up at the moment. Believe me, as some one who used to manage the department that managed the bank reserves at one point, not a dime drops that the Fed doesn’t know about in the member banks. The holes are in the investment banks and the brokerage houses that don’t technically take in ‘deposits’ but have funds and such that don’t fall under any one’s scrutiny but the SEC. The SEC is not set up to monitor those sorts of things like the FED is. That is why there is an entire debate going on right now about where the Fed’s jurisdiction starts and ends. FED doesn’t want the job unless they get the teeth. SEC should’ve have since this coming after previous debacles. The other interesting twist these days is the roll of sovereign funds like those from the emirates. It’s clearly possible we could see ownership of certain key assets of the financial market transferring ownership based more on country of origin.
Added a technical note about what the chart means to make it more clear.
Very interesting. You should be writing some of these articles (or maybe you are, just elsewhere for a very different audience).
I think, though the Fed knows of every dime, the problem comes in the assumptions. Is that security worth the number of dimes that financial models say it is? If it isn’t… And that’s where the fear comes in.
Banks here are very limited as to what they can invest in …Munis, agencies, treasuries the like… and with value accounting they are marked to market daily. Big swings come when interest rates move.
And yes, i do write journal articles for academic things. I’m known as THAT woman who is not interested in making money and is always looking for the cracks the greedy creep through …
Good on you.
interesting. so it’s something new.
Hmmm, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure banks like Citi were massively involved in markets like CDOs, swaps, and so on. They may have created seperate entities to play the games, but those entities are not so seperate that they are not on the hook, which is why Citi needed massive cash infusions, and why 86 banks are in danger. Interest swings haven’t been that severe.
Am I missing something?
yes, these entities have to be separate. the holding companies (and hence stock prices) can have problems, the FIs themselves are in another division … Depository institutes because of their fiduciary responsibility cannot invest in equities for example
if FIs were using swaps it was as a hedging instrument … that’s a different ball game
CDOS are sorta more like having an insurance policy for risk… the FI’s hold the underlying asset –the loan but if the loan, defaults, they’ve paid a premium to the CDO holder to pay them if one of the loans in the bundle defaults … the CDO’s are traded in a different market, the banks can’t buy them as an asset only use them to package their own loans for ‘reinsurance’ if you will that’s the securitization part of it … the hedge funds and such are the big buyers in those markets
So if Citi goes under, everything except the bank proper also goes under? Or does the bank go too, since it’s under the umbrella? How does that shake out?
And, as a practical matter, given the sheer amounts of money involved in every other division, is it much different for the economy? Though I guess, if the bank proper hangs on, then depositers don’t get annihalated.
But, also, a lot of banks proper were throughputting the mortgages that were eventually chopped up. A lot of CDOs have repurchase agreements, that if the price drops below face, the issuers have to take them back. If those issuers (who are not the banks, but upstream entities) go bankrupt, where does the mortgage land?
Hedging is very dangerous. If your models are off, you can still lose your shirt.
The real danger to the FI’s in this thing, is that if the feel like they had reduced their risk through using these CDOs or something to that effect, they get loosey-goosey with their credit standards. This is because if one of their loans defaults, they get paid. So, some folk think that the accounting write-offs, the reserves they keep in case their loans start defaulting, might be lower than they should be because of the CDO market. The argument is that it transfer risk to places like hedge markets to folks that can most afford the risk, but it can also cause banks to loan below their usual credit standards.
no, the bank doesn’t go under …. it’ll be pulled from Cit and sold to some one else BEFORE cit goes under…
Based on this information what if anything is Bush likely to do about it besides blame Democrats? Like it or not him and Helicopter Ben are in charge until November.
Also what kind of things could cause this bubble to burst.
Don’t I know … I used to do hedging back in 1979 right when GNMA futures got started at a S&L. Sheesh, that was a mess!
Far far below, from everything I’m hearing. One friend who is involved says that most banks essentially have no real credit departments left – they really aren’t doing due diligence at all, because they know they’re pushing the risk to others.
Problem is, are they?
What bridge are you going to be under? Is it bicycling distance from the bridge I’ll be under?
Also, if you originate the loans, package them up and sell them. You’re not stuck with the asset. Depends on if you hold the asset or not. WAMU is sort’ve shaky because it holds a lot more of those shaky mortgages than many of the other players do.
Print money, pray it goes away. The Fed will extend as much money to banks and other financial institutions to make sure they don’t go under as it has to. Bernanke has made that real clear.
Unless he wakes up in a sweat one morning and realizes he just can’t keep doing it.
Hard to say when so much depends on the decisions of so few people.
lol.
This is an outrage. While you folks at FDL are wasting precious energy on trivial matters like the economy, money supply and the looming depression, sister blogger Malkin is leading the new crusade against Rachel Ray for possibly wearing a scarf that kind-a-sort-a, possibly perhaps resembles the Palestinian kaffiyeh. Thus proving Rachel’s solidarity with the head chopping jihadists that are poised to seep across America and raise the crescent over the Whitehouse.
Not to mention the looming Starbucks boycott over the outrageous pornography all over their cups.
Wake up!
-G
yes, I would say some are. there are some that have not been doing their due diligence. depends on if they keep the assets or not and what the older assets look like. and of course, the interest rate differential and all the above. as long as interest rates don’t move against them and bring down the performing assets, it won’t kill them. that’s why the fed’s promised to keep the Fed Funds rate low for awhile. If the rates go up to rapidly, the older parts of the porfolio risk going into nonperforming, simply on the interest rate move.
no kidding, why do you think Ben Bernanke gets the same secret service detail and treatment as the President … not even the Vice President gets that level of treatment
Good answer Ian thanks for digging up these numbers for the post now if only we could get the MSM to report on this story…truthfully Kudlow I’m sure will say its a good thing for the markets!
Anyway what happens if Banks start going under and the Fed still has their collateral does the Fed or the taxpayers/government get those assets?
Ben won’t blame the democrats. He knows the problem is that the development of these derivatives has outstripped the regulators. Fed’s well aware that new regs are called. Besides, many many Dems are in the pockets of the Wall Street Gang. It’s not just the repubs. Barney Frank seems to be on top of it and is a position to make some changes. I really trust him to get it through the congress at least. Fed just doesn’t want to have to do the job without having the teeth. That’s why Ben’s treading softly. Right now, it’s very much been in the SEC’s court and they don’t really have the authority to do what is required…
Ben really wasn’t a bad appointment. He’s got more knowledge on this than any one else and he’s a good friend of Blinder. Blinder’s one of the most progressive economic gurus I know.
sheesh, Yall, I’m on vacation, why do i feel like the semester re-started again?
Ian
What about the 500/700 trillion worth the derivatives that are out there. Is there a day that some one call those in?
jo6pac
The Race to the bottom continues.
my bad lol
Ben might not blame Democrats but Bush will if the economy explodes under his watch. New regulation is a good idea but the cat is out of the bag how do we get banks solvent?
I think payday loans are a neglected small first step they should be regulated in the amount of interest they charge. F wallstreet what will help the common man right now.
I spotlighted this story; I hope others will also.
Where do you teach?
University of New Orleans —part of the Louisiana State University System.
Just to make life more itneresting, in CA there are two props on the June ballot that deal with eminent domain – fixing the potential problems that Kelo brought out. Prop 99 is straightforward (but not ideal), dealing only with eminent domain. Prop 98, on the other hand ….
Prop 98 is written so as to also kill off rent control. As such, it’s being backed, heavily, by the mobile-home park owners. I suspect a lot of those owners bought in the last 10 years and have loans they have to pay off, and if they want to make a fat profit as well, they need to be able to raise the rents on the spaces they own … not that they have a lot of vacancies, but I think they figure to force out tenants who’ve been around longer and are paying less. (Apartment owners also do this when they buy places already in use: get the people with the lowest rent out, even if it means running the place into the ground.)
Assets of defunct banks go up for sale … depends on if the bank is sold outright or sliced and diced.
Pay day loans and regulations come under the states and not the Federal Government. Some states ban them. Some have limits on them. Same let them operate freely. Totally depends on the state you’re in.
The holes are in the investment banks and the brokerage houses that don’t technically take in ‘deposits’ but have funds and such that don’t fall under any one’s scrutiny but the SEC.
Ok if the problem is with the investment banks and brokerage houses how big is it and do you have any idea when or if it will explode. What are the likely effects on are economy if this happens?
that’s a really tricky question. There are actually more derivatives out there than there are underlying assets. Also, many of the holders of the derivatives aren’t really known to the holders of the underlying assets. Right now, a lot of the holders have been the hedge funds and the investment banks and as we know, they are suffering heavy losses. Some of the markets have basically ground to a halt and there is no volume. Some of them are still highly operational. Who every holds the derivative as an asset suffers the loss. Banks don’t hold the risk of the derivative, only the risk of the underlying assets, btw. Investors in derivatives will loose all the $ because there is no guarantee on them.
Why not keep the assets until the market goes up and we can get a better price if its subprime loans the Fed took as collateral well given the current real estate market we the tax payers won’t get that good a price right now.
Plus if the Fed holds a fire sale on subprime homes wouldn’t that drive down realestate prices even lower than they are now?
Ben’s fundamentally an inflationist who won’t stop the game, only try and manage it. His scholarly work is mostly about how to stop the Great Depression, which is good, but his motivation appears to have been that without the GD you don’t get FDR, and without FDR you don’t get the New Deal.
Not a fan.
That said, within his external and internal constraints, he’s doing a pretty good job. But I’m sick of kicking this ball one more time.
Fed gets the assets pledged on collateral. Of course, what they’re worth is an open question.
I read somewhere that the most Fundie Christie States have the most unregulated payday loan industry. Family values and all. Don’t you just love Christipalism.
well, to a certain extent, some of its happened already… and believe me, the risks are extremely high, the Bear Sterns thing was a close to a great depression scenario as I’ve seen … many much much greater minds than mine were really worried. It seems to have settled down, but I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the reverberations. There’s probably more detritus that will float to the top; I’d say it won’t rate a panic, but it won’t be pretty, Fed’s on top of a lot of it right now
The question about Ben is if, as soon as Dems come in power, he suddenly becomes a born again inflation fighter and throws the economy into an even worse downspin.
Are bank created seperate entities still off the banks books?
Part of what the Fed’s doing right now is parking those things on it’s balance sheet (which by the way is a first)
They’ll hold on to them until they know what to do with them. Most likely they’ll sell them at a deep discount to some healthy bank to hide in their assets.
I have a feeling that you could do a federal usury law if you really wanted to.
God only allows real believers low rates of interest, the rest just create dividends in the stocks of real believers.
‘-)
The thing is, a lot of firms have been buying derivatives on their own account. And on those, they are on the hook. Unwinding swaps and so on will cost hundreds of billions.
Dr. Murphy is upstairs, pups.
WaPo: Official Memory Hole For The 2008 McCain Campaign
You should read Bernanke, Reinhart & Sack, 2004. It’s called Monetary Policy Alternatives at eh Zero Bound: An Empirical Assessment. Part of the FEDS. You can google it. It explains a lot of what’s going on. He really studied the Asian Financial Crisis of the 90s and the Japanese Central Banks’ Crises. It really is a telling paper.
Ian you and Dakinikat have given me allot to think about this situation just gets worse the more I learn about it. Thanks both of you I never would have learned this stuff until it was to late reading the MSM.
Yes, it would be possible, they’d have to write fees into the APRs. That’s where a lot of the payday guys get their money.
Thanks
It’s just another problem done the road.
jo6pac
That’s putting it very succinctly.
Oh give me a break. Bernanke’s a pragmatist, not a religious, nor party, fanatic.
I was wont to say that economics is not an experimental science. That you are talking about real people, and real jobs. Had to revise my sentiments when Rs gained control of all the policy levers. But FRB, even under Greenspan, showed signs of realizing what was at stake.
We need to attack that as an election issue a Fed discount sale of subprime homes to the Wallstreet fat cats who caused this mess could really hurt the GOP.
good question, not sure any one but Ben knows the answer, thank goodness for the other members of the FOMC
howdee, Ian’s making me fire synapses..
well, if i had my way, i’d rewrite some of the corporate laws to ensure that if you’re a CEO, and the business gets run into the ground, your personal assets are up for grabs… maybe the CFO too … there was some of that churning around for the entire BOD … still would let stockholders have limited liability, but not the big $ guys
I’ve fired all mine that are available tonight. Worked outside for 7 hours, had neighbors over for wine & cheese, and have about exhausted physical & mental resources.
Odds are, on many of these assets, you might have to hold them for 5 to 10 years for them to be again worth par. The underlying assets are genuinely junk, that’s the core problem. People were paying too much for stuff that wasn’t worth that much.
It was a good misspell.
Thanks to both of you, must don’t get it. This election is really important but what has been done to the world markets by the Smartest ones in the Room has been a disaster. May we all see each other when it’s done.
jo6pac
Off to fix dinner and wine
Never did G care about the worker.
jo6pac
No. but he did realize what would happen if workers (who are also consumers) couldn’t buy any more.
Sorry, don’t agree. I knew what was coming down the line in 2003. Wrote about it then, and there are people who can confirm it. Also knew the dot-com bubble. Knew what had to be done to stop it. These are real people who are either greedy or ideologues, if they were not one, or the other, or both, they would not have done what they did.
My prediction record on this stuff has been just fine. And I have predicted based on the thesis that Greenspan was a libertarian Republican ideologue. It predicted his actions just fine. He REFUSED act on what was blindingly obvious to many of us who were outside of the system, and who had no ideological axe to grind about, say, how wonderful home ownership is because home owners support capitalism.
As for Bernanke, using the thesis “he’s a Republican inflationist” has predicted his actions damn near 100%.
Everyone’s a “real person” and real people have ideologies. Those who think they don’t are just acting out someone else’s ideology without being aware of it.
Well, let’s give you several pats on the back.
I was referring to the aftermath, not the anticipation. G apparently never thought Fed should make bubbles the object of monetary policy. (I disagree with him & agree with you, but that’s another subject.) What he always thought was that the Fed should intervene after bubble burst, which is why he kept interest rates so low for so long after the tech bubble burst. Ditto the slow recovery in the 1990s.
G’s attitude about Fed having no business in bubble prevention is apparently documented Fed Gov Laurence Meyers’ book, but I got it out of his mouth after a meeting in about 2005.
Thanks Ian
For him him to speak out know, AFTER THE FACT OF WHAT HE DID is wonderful but we are sinking because he wanted do what his his masters wanted.
jo6pac
Stopping foreclosures?
Jundge in Ohio? did that with a bunch of Mortages the Deutsche Bank claimed they owned, but could not proove. Those were, I believe, Judicial Foreclosures.
Non-Judicial foreclosures – don’t seen to require the same level of proof.
Anyone with knowledge?
Everyone’s a “real person” and real people have ideologies. Those who think they don’t are just acting out someone else’s ideology without being aware of it.
Ideas that may or may not hold a basis in fact but are accepted on well Faith is as a good a word as any despite evidence to the contrary is an idea to explore further.
Are we with less illusions because several years of GOP rule have forced us to abandon anything that really does not work?
Is Bush so bad because he has never been told No?
Is Ideology just bad code that got into the system even if it turns out to be right. Is the problem ideas accepted as true for some reason without facts?
Do our desires form reasons for what we wish were to be?
My station only allows $48 and it’s related to the banks and how ATMs work not ‘rationing’. The banks want to limit their exposure to folks with $5 in their accounts pumping out $75.
Human behavior is remarkably predictable. The economy is a human construct.
Hyman Minsky knew this well and developed a model to predict, and help prevent “bubbles” in the future based on 7 stages. Nice rundown here:
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/s…..hp?t=24601
We basically know what people are going to do now, and what they’ll do in the future in regard to financial behavior. That’s why we need government regulation designed to stop us from destroying ourselves. More here:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/…..lk_cassidy
It’s all really quite simple.
i’m pretty sure i can at least confirm 2004 – was reading your posts at bopnews then.
Lower profit rate, invest excess profit in ‘green’ energies or get taxed to remove the huge profits which are partly to blame for inspiring speculation.
Take away much of the profits and the speculators have a lot less reason to manipulate the markets.
Take away the excess speculation (read as larger demand for oil than usual) and the price will decrease to more normal levels.
Government is talking a lot lately, but they need to get with the program or we’ll all be bankrupt before their legislation has any effect.
Is that the Libertarian or Conservative Economic model of non-intervention?
When will they let an entity fail and what defines when they don’t think they can afford to do that?
Is this just a crazy scheme on a massive scale to wipe out billions, hundreds of billions of dollars so the switch to Petro-Euros can proceed? What would we do with all those dollars chasing few good anyway? Oh, that’s the inflation we’re already seeing.