And now, a Game of Concentration
Posted: August 31, 2009 Filed under: Bailout Blues, Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, U.S. Economy | Tags: banking cartel, banking oligopoly, TARP Comments Off on And now, a Game of ConcentrationWhen I saw this NYT Headline, “As Big Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit”, it really did not send me to a
Expecting customer service? Fat Chance!
happy place. You’re probably going to raise a Spock-like eyebrow and ask me to explain. Why, Kat, you’re probably saying, isn’t a 15% return on our “money” a good deal in this market? Remember finance 101, rates are relative to risk so let me tell you why I’m a concern troll on this. First, here’s what the author thought was the punch line to this story.
But critics at the time warned that taxpayers might not see any profits, and that it could take years for the banks to repay the loans.
As Congress debated the bailout bill last September that would authorize the Treasury Department to spend up to $700 billion to stem the financial crisis, Representative Mac Thornberry, Republican of Texas, said: “Seven hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money should not be used as a hopeful experiment.”
So far, that experiment is more than paying off. The government has taken profits of about $1.4 billion on its investment in Goldman Sachs, $1.3 billion on Morgan Stanley and $414 million on American Express. The five other banks that repaid the government — Northern Trust, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, U.S. Bancorp and BB&T — each brought in $100 million to $334 million in profit.
What the author really missed was that information also comes on the back of this information last week that shows that the government has created incredible high concentration ratios in the banking market. I discussed it here in a piece where I called it a big ol’ game of monopoly. This is an ongoing policy disaster and many folks appear to be missing it.
J.P. Morgan Chase, an amalgam of some of Wall Street’s most storied institutions, now holds more than $1 of every $10 on deposit in this country. So does Bank of America, scarred by its acquisition of Merrill Lynch and partly government-owned as a result of the crisis, as does Wells Fargo, the biggest West Coast bank. Those three banks, plus government-rescued and -owned Citigroup, now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards, federal data show.
There are so many headlines buried in that NYT piece that you’d think it was written by ostriches. This is one alone should’ve grabbed a banner headline.
But the real profit came as banks were permitted to buy back the so-called warrants, whose low fixed price provided a windfall for the government as the shares of the companies soared.
Well, isn’t that nice, the best borrowers paid back first. Some one over there ever take any finance classes? I doubt it. Of course, that’s going to happen you twit!! It’s the implication of what that means that scares the pants off me. The fact they’ve borrowed funds allows us to regulate their actions. Now, the big ones are paying them back so they’re out of the reach of tighter TARP regulation! They like their old loosey goosey nonsense regulations especially now that they’re all set up as a de facto cartel with government blessing. They’re ready to price discriminate, restrict services, and create extraordinary profits all they want with FEW RESTRICTIONS. Just wait until we get to witness the new and improved, unregulated CEO pay schemes!
It’s similar to handing all of our energy needs and policy over to OPEC.
How About a Big ol’ Game of Monopoly?
Posted: August 28, 2009 Filed under: Bailout Blues, Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, Surreality, The Bonus Class, U.S. Economy | Tags: banking industry, corporate welfare, externalities, K Street Lobbyists, rent seeking Comments Off on How About a Big ol’ Game of Monopoly?
If we’re a ‘free market’ economy, why do we keep protecting so many businesses and promote monopoly? Well, I suppose the practical answer is that businesses who can afford to do so will rent-seek via K Street and politicians looking for donations will happily give them whatever they want. The bigger question is why do we keep politicians in office that DO this to us? Why do we put up with policy makers that continually keep corporations safe from the economic Darwinism implied by capitalism while we pay for all their negatives like externalities, restricted output, and high prices? Can we just say, for once, that the real welfare queens in the economy are the bonus class and these kinds of corporations? They suck up the public funds like a bunch of leeches at a Louisiana picnic. Today’s news just provides us this ongoing example from the banking industry. It’s from WaPo and David Cho. Go read Banks ‘Too Big to Fail’ Have Grown Even Bigger; Behemoths Born of the Bailout Reduce Consumer Choice, Tempt Corporate Moral Hazard for a really good example of market failure. It makes me want to socialize the lot of them! I mean, if we’re going to continually subsidize them and give them monopoly status, we might as well have a stake in their assets.
The crisis may be turning out very well for many of the behemoths that dominate U.S. finance. A series of federally arranged mergers safely landed troubled banks on the decks of more stable firms. And it allowed the survivors to emerge from the turmoil with strengthened market positions, giving them even greater control over consumer lending and more potential to profit.
J.P. Morgan Chase, an amalgam of some of Wall Street’s most storied institutions, now holds more than $1 of every $10 on deposit in this country. So does Bank of America, scarred by its acquisition of Merrill Lynch and partly government-owned as a result of the crisis, as does Wells Fargo, the biggest West Coast bank. Those three banks, plus government-rescued and -owned Citigroup, now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards, federal data show.
A year after the near-collapse of the financial system last September, the federal response has redefined how Americans get mortgages, student loans and other kinds of credit and has made a national spectacle of executive pay. But no consequence of the crisis alarms top regulators more than having banks that were already too big to fail grow even larger and more interconnected.
“It is at the top of the list of things that need to be fixed,” said Sheila C. Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. “It fed the crisis, and it has gotten worse because of the crisis.”
I really hate going to the mail box these days. I am now banking with Capital One not by choice but by merger. I now have a trading account with J.P. Morgan, not by choice but by merger. My mortgage is miserably serviced by Wells Fargo, not by choice but by secondary market transaction. Each day, I find myself to be a customer of a behemoth bank with whom I would not choose to do business voluntarily. It takes me forever to get out of customer service automated voice response hell to try to figure out how to close my account so I can go elsewhere. An expedition to Patagonia would be easier.
“Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them”
William Shakespeare.
“And some have greatness handed to them on a silver platter by their government”
Dakinikat.
Feel the Bern!
Posted: August 25, 2009 Filed under: Bailout Blues, Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, U.S. Economy | Tags: Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Bank, Larry Summers Comments Off on Feel the Bern!While I stuck the announcement into the morning links, you had to know that I’d front page this announcement some time today. So you also probably knew that I breathed a quiet sigh of relief last night when I found out we were not getting La La Summers for Fed Chief. President 
Obama has decided to re-appoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to another term.
I awakened this morning to the bleating of the bloggies on this move. Of course, I have this tendency to look at folks’ credentials before I decide to take their opinions seriously. It also helps to know their political agendas and frames. Chairman Bernanke has probably had the most challenging time at that job since Paul Volcker took over the Fed helm back in the days of rampant inflation and Carter malaise. So many blogs have come to criticize Bernanke, but I’m just glad we’re not here to bury him. He may not be perfect, but he’s a damn sight better than just about everything else out there. Ben Bernanke is an economist’s economist.
Wall Street and academic economists in recent weeks showed enthusiasm for giving Mr. Bernanke a second term, and some administration insiders felt similarly even though Mr. Bernanke was appointed by — and served in the White House of — President George W. Bush. Appointing a Democrat such as Janet Yellen, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, or Alan Blinder, former Fed vice chairman — both former advisers to President Bill Clinton — would have been popular with many Democrats. But a move by Mr. Obama to install his own person at the Fed might have have rattled markets and unsettled the foreign investors.
Phil Izza at the WSJ has a pretty good line up of comments from both political and financial folks on the Bernanke appointment. Some of the performance the financial markets today(so far, all up) could be linked to the decision as the Fed Chair heads up the Federal Open Market Committee and sets its agenda. It is a rare FOMC that will go against the recommendations of their chair when setting monetary policy(primarily levels of interest rates, exchange rates, and bond offerings) although there is usually a healthy amount of debate and exchange or so I’ve heard since the meetings are top secret.
- I think it’s good news for the Federal Reserve. It’s good news for the country. It’s a great choice. Chairman Bernanke has done a terrific job in bringing openness to the Fed. He has been bold and creative in dealing with the financial crisis… It was not clear to most people that the crisis was going to be as broad-based, and that the excesses in the financial markets and in lending were as broadly based as they turned out to be. Even at the start, he was willing to consider all options to deal with what appeared to be more a liquidity than a solvency crisis. As it began to become more clear that it was a crisis of solvency and leverage and a classic credit crunch, he didn’t flinch in bringing enormous creativity to bear in mitigating the problem –Richard Berner, Morgan Stanley
- Having a new chairman come in at this late date would put the Fed engineered solution to both the recovery and the exit strategy at risk. The Federal Reserve made a hasty exit from easy money stimulus in the 1930s and we know how that worked out… Mistakes have been made at many regulatory institutions during this crisis, but all the Fed’s mistakes would have been made by any man according to the prudent man rule. Bernanke is a true prudent man who calls them as he sees them, and knows the ins and outs of policymaking… If he can pull off this recovery that still needs nurturing, he could well go down as one of the greatest Fed Chairmen in history. –Christopher Rupkey, an economist with Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi
The Markets sell the Governator Short
Posted: August 8, 2009 Filed under: Economic Develpment, Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, Surreality, The Bonus Class, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy Comments Off on The Markets sell the Governator Short
I was looking for just the right twist of irony sprinkled over my reality today. Bloomberg.com served it to me shaken, not stirred, with a delightful, tangy twist. Do you remember our discussions of those not so obscure derivatives called Credit Default Swaps? They’re basically the Wall Street version of a side bet. Some sucker agrees to provide a form of “insurance” that makes some entity is a better risk and some one else bets against them thinking nothing will make that entity worthwhile?
In most instances, the bet is against the holder of the entity’s bond. The holder, at some point, invested in the bond because they thought it a good investment. The investor may who holds the bond may want a little extra assurance so they enter into a swap agreement. If the bond defaults, they get a payment. However, in a lot of instances, the swap may be ‘synthetic’. That means some folks don’t actually hold the bonds or intend to buy or sell the bonds. They want to place a bet on which way the risk premium will move and pocket the difference. (That’s the extra cost associated with the bond if the market deems the bond to be risky or junk.) Okay, hopefully, that’s enough to get you situated but if you want to learn a little more here’s some information on Naked CDS from The Atlantic.
Okay, so now I want to move towards the punch line, if you will. There’s still a huge market for these things. Remember, it’s actually much bigger than the equities markets despite recent events. Here’s the fun headline from Bloomberg: Russia Beats California as Default Swaps Favor BRICs . Gosh, don’t you just hate it when you really have to explain a joke? So, BRIC is short for Brazil, Russia, India and China. So, that mean’s that the bonds of those countries are considered less likely to default than those of California. Grok on that a minute with some special consideration to Russia who defaulted not all that long ago.
It’s just a little bit of Policy Fail Repeating
Posted: August 6, 2009 Filed under: Bailout Blues, Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, president teleprompter jesus, Team Obama, The Bonus Class, The DNC, The Great Recession, The Media SUCKS, U.S. Economy | Tags: bad bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, homeownership, James B. Lockhart, mortgage origination, secondary market for mortgages, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner Comments Off on It’s just a little bit of Policy Fail Repeating
When you let lobbyists make public policy, failure is an acceptable outcome. That’s because the point of the policy isn’t the public and isn’t necessarily doing what will work. The point of the policy is to enrich and perpetuate the entrenched interests. Every other possible goal becomes expendable including those that have to do with protecting the public purse and welfare.
Imagine my lack of surprise when I saw that the creation of a “bad bank” policy is back in today’s WaPo headlines. Go take a look at “U.S. Considers Remaking Mortgage Giants:’Bad Bank’ Would Wipe the Slate Clean for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac by Taking Their Toxic Loans” and weep. This administration will reward bad players as long as there is a political reason for them to exist. So, instead of real reform of Fannie and Freddie, they’re proposing a solution that sweeps past mistakes under the rug and allows these failed institutions to operate in the same irresponsible way that brought them their current fate. There is no such thing as the discipline of the market or the bankruptcy court when you’re big enough to hire K Street impresarios to keep your show running and the federal government enables you.
The Obama administration is considering an overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would strip the mortgage finance giants of hundreds of billions of dollars in troubled loans and create a new structure to support the home-loan market, government officials said.
The bad debts the firms own would be placed in new government-backed financial institutions — so-called bad banks — that would take responsibility for collecting as much of the outstanding balance as possible. What would be left would be two healthy financial companies with a clean slate.
The moves would represent one of the most dramatic reorderings of the badly shattered housing finance system since District-based Fannie Mae was created by Congress to support mortgage lending during the Great Depression. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, based in McLean, have government charters to buy home loans from banks, which they then repackage and sell to investors. The banks can then use the proceeds to offer more loans to home buyers.
The leviathans became emblematic of the financial crisis when they were effectively nationalized in September amid a market meltdown that revealed much of their holdings to be troubled. The government has since pledged more than $1.5 trillion, including $85 billion in direct aid, to keep the mortgage market working through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The proposal, which is preliminary and one of several under discussion, is scheduled to be taken up by the White House’s National Economic Council on Thursday.
What about the Japanese lost decade and all the papers and studies written about the bad bank policy did these folks miss? Well, of course, you do know that the head of the “White House’s National Economic Council ” is La-La Summers, right? Mister, I got mine from Wall Street? Let’s look at the other players who buy into this. I’ll just highlight them so you can see that it’s basically the same players that had some kind of supporting role in the original failure. Why does Washington D.C. continue to reward the very same people and players? It has too be some thing pathological.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments