The Best Way to Rob a Bank: Own One!

The financial industry brought the economy to its knees, but how did they get away with it? With the nation wondering how to hold the bankers accountable, Bill Moyers sits down with William K. Black, the former senior regulator who cracked down on banks during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Black offers his analysis of what went wrong and his critique of the bailout

The Dirty Dozen

Meet the bankers and brokers responsible for the financial crisis - and the officials who let them get away with it!

Dirty Dozen

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Magazines Periodicals & Report marketing music

Source: Rolling Stone

Anatomy of a Giveaway (or Why Stocks Soared Yesterday)

The stock market’s positive reaction—best 10-day gain since 1938—should leave no doubt about Geithner’s bank rescue plan: it’s a mammoth taxpayer giveaway to investors. Or so the market believes it’s going to be. Forthwith, a tutorial for those not quite clear about the mechanics of the giveaway.

(At the bottom, there’s an extra credit question. And there’s a prize for being first to get it right!)

Having taxpayer’s absorb the banks’ bad assets means equity holders are no longer in line to eat those losses. Take Citigroup stock for example. At $1 a share, C’s shareholders were essentially buying a call option on the possibility that the government would rescue them from their bank’s terrible mistakes. It’s a small bet with potentially huge upside.

On a stand-alone basis, the bank is insolvent. It’s equity is worthless and much of its debt would be in line for a huge haircut. But if the government is going to absorb the bank’s toxic assets, then suddenly the balance sheet looks a heck of a lot better.

A busted bank balance sheet is very similar to an upside down mortgage. Understanding the mechanics of the rescue is to understand why equity is miraculously increased…
OA’s erstwhile example uses an imaginary condo buyer, who in 2006 plunked down $1 million for a phat pad that in 2009 is only worth $500k. His original equity investment was his $50k downpayment; the other $950k was financed with a mortgage. The condo buyer’s before and after balance sheet looks like this (recall assets = liabilities + equity):

**********************************************************************************
Condo Buyer, 2006—$1m condo = $950k mortgage + $50k downpayment.

Condo Buyer, 2009—$500k condo = $950k mortgage - $450k equity
**********************************************************************************

This is what it means to have “negative equity.” The value of the asset isn’t high enough to pay off the liability, so equity is negative. Someone has to eat the loss. It should be the bank. After foreclosing on the buyer (assuming he stops paying his mortgage), the bank has to sell the house at the $500k market value and write off the $450k portion of the mortgage it’s never going to collect.

So here is the bank’s balance sheet:

***********************************************************************************
Bank, 2006—$950k mortgage loan = $400k consumer deposits + $400k debt + $150k shareholder equity.

Bank, 2009—$500k mortgage loan = $400k consumer deposits + $400k debt - $300k shareholder equity.
***********************************************************************************

The bank’s stock is just a single share of its total equity. If equity is negative, then the stock is $0. In the example, there’s still $300k of losses to absorb after equity is wiped out. This puts the bank into bankruptcy, where creditors have to fight it out to determine how they’ll share the losses.

But the bank hasn’t been forced to write down the value of the mortgage just yet. It hasn’t foreclosed on the home just yet, so its day of reckoning is delayed. The market knows the writedown is coming, so the stock trades at a paltry sum, probably $1 or less. Why does it have any positive value? Because it’s possible the government will still rescue the bank.

To do so, the government has to do something about the toxic asset on the left side of the equation. This is how the Geithner plan miraculously repairs the bank’s equity. Using government money, he creates a brand new balance sheet to buy the $950k mortgage from the bank at close to that price.

The Fed prints money to buy Treasury bonds–>the Treasury uses proceeds of the bond sales to finance its public-private partnership vehicle–>the vehicle buys the toxic asset, the mortgage, for $850k let’s say.

Here is the vehicle’s balance sheet:

***********************************************************************************
Vehicle, 2009—$850k mortgage = $720k FDIC debt + $65k Treasury equity + $65k private equity.
***********************************************************************************

Having paid $850k cash for the bank’s mortgage, suddenly the bank’s balance sheet is rescued:

***********************************************************************************
Bank, post Geithner plan—$850k cash = $400k deposits + $400k debt +$50k equity.
***********************************************************************************

Suddenly the bank again has positive equity value. Shareholders are saved! The stock market skyrockets!

Ah, but like a good economist, you note that there’s no free lunch. The condo is still only worth $500k. Who eats the additional $350k loss? Well, you do.

***********************************************************************************
Vehicle 2010—$500k mortgage = $720k FDIC debt - $220k Treasury equity + $0 private equity.
***********************************************************************************

The money loaned to the vehicle is non-recourse, so the private partner stands to lose no more than his initial investment. It’s Treasury and FDIC, i.e. you and me, that ends up eating the loss.

And that’s how you use taxpayers’ money to rescue a bank.

Source: Rolfe Winkler

Geithner's Five Big Misconceptions

Tim Geithner has finally revealed his plan to fix the banking system and economy. Paul Krugman, James Galbraith, and others have already trashed it.

Why?

In short, because the plan is yet another massive, ineffective gift to banks and Wall Street. Taxpayers, of course, will take the hit.

Why does Tim Geithner keep repackaging the same trash-asset-removal plan that he has been trying to get approved since last fall?

In our opinion, because Tim Geithner formed his view of this crisis last fall, while sitting across the table from his constituents at the New York Fed: The CEOs of the big Wall Street firms. He views the crisis the same way Wall Street does--as a temporary liquidity problem--and his plans to fix it are designed with the best interests of Wall Street in mind.

If Geithner's plan to fix the banks would also fix the economy, this would be tolerable. But no smart economist we know of thinks that it will.

We think Geithner is suffering from five fundamental misconceptions about what is wrong with the economy. Here they are:

The trouble with the economy is that the banks aren't lending. The reality: The economy is in trouble because American consumers and businesses took on way too much debt and are now collapsing under the weight of it. As consumers retrench, companies that sell to them are retrenching, thus exacerbating the problem. The banks, meanwhile, are lending. They just aren't lending as much as they used to. Also the shadow banking system (securitization markets), which actually provided more funding to the economy than the banks, has collapsed.

The banks aren't lending because their balance sheets are loaded with "bad assets" that the market has temporarily mispriced. The reality: The banks aren't lending (much) because they have decided to stop making loans to people and companies who can't pay them back. And because the banks are scared that future writedowns on their old loans will lead to future losses that will wipe out their equity.

Bad assets are "bad" because the market doesn't understand how much they are really worth. The reality: The bad assets are bad because they are worth less than the banks say they are. House prices have dropped by nearly 30% nationwide. That has created something in the neighborhood of $5+ trillion of losses in residential real estate alone (off a peak market value of housing about $20+ trillion). The banks don't want to take their share of those losses because doing so will wipe them out. So they, and Geithner, are doing everything they can to pawn the losses off on the taxpayer.

Once we get the "bad assets" off bank balance sheets, the banks will start lending again. The reality: The banks will remain cautious about lending, because the housing market and economy are still deteriorating. So they'll sit there and say they are lending while waiting for the economy to bottom.

Once the banks start lending, the economy will recover. The reality: American consumers still have debt coming out of their ears, and they'll be working it off for years. House prices are still falling. Retirement savings have been crushed. Americans need to increase their savings rate from today's 5% (a vast improvement from the 0% rate of two years ago) to the 10% long-term average. Consumers don't have room to take on more debt, even if the banks are willing to give it to them.

In Geithner's plan, this debt won't disappear. It will just be passed from banks to taxpayers, where it will sit until the government finally admits that a major portion of it will never be paid back.

Source: BusinessInsider

Krugman Trashes Geithner's Bank Plan

Over the weekend The Times and other newspapers reported leaked details about the Obama administration’s bank rescue plan, which is to be officially released this week. If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy — specifically, the “cash for trash” plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair.
After all, we’ve just been through the firestorm over the A.I.G. bonuses, during which administration officials claimed that they knew nothing, couldn’t do anything, and anyway it was someone else’s fault. Meanwhile, the administration has failed to quell the public’s doubts about what banks are doing with taxpayer money.

And now Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they’re doing.
It’s as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.

Let’s talk for a moment about the economics of the situation.

Right now, our economy is being dragged down by our dysfunctional financial system, which has been crippled by huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets.

As economic historians can tell you, this is an old story, not that different from dozens of similar crises over the centuries. And there’s a time-honored procedure for dealing with the aftermath of widespread financial failure. It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.

That’s what Sweden did in the early 1990s. It’s also what we ourselves did after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And there’s no reason we can’t do the same thing now.

But the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, apparently wants an easier way out. The common element to the Paulson and Geithner plans is the insistence that the bad assets on banks’ books are really worth much, much more than anyone is currently willing to pay for them. In fact, their true value is so high that if they were properly priced, banks wouldn’t be in trouble.

And so the plan is to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to “fair” levels. Mr. Paulson proposed having the government buy the assets directly. Mr. Geithner instead proposes a complicated scheme in which the government lends money to private investors, who then use the money to buy the stuff. The idea, says Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, is to use “the expertise of the market” to set the value of toxic assets.

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, there’s something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that they’re doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

You might say, why not try the plan and see what happens? One answer is that time is wasting: every month that we fail to come to grips with the economic crisis another 600,000 jobs are lost.
Even more important, however, is the way Mr. Obama is squandering his credibility. If this plan fails — as it almost surely will — it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

All is not lost: the public wants Mr. Obama to succeed, which means that he can still rescue his bank rescue plan. But time is running out.

Source: New York Times

Obama Deficits To Be Much Higher Than Expected

The White House has estimated that the Obama budget will produce deficits of about $6.9 trillion over 10 years. But a powerful congressional office that is due to file its budgetary estimate on Friday will report a uch larger deficit.

The Congressional Budget Office has warned the White House in advance of Friday's estimate that the deficit projections will outpace the White House estimate, perhaps by as much as 20%, Politico reports. Democrats expect that the CBO projections will add around $1.5 trillion more to the Obama deficit.

One of the things pushing up the deficit is a lowered baseline for economic performance over the next few years. In addition, some spending programs may be viewed as more costly than earlier anticipated.

"In 2014, at which point the White House projects a deficit of $570 billion, it’s now expected that CBO will show a number in excess of $700 billion," Politico reports. "Five years later, in 2019, Obama’s budget concedes that the deficit will have widened to $712 billion; Democrats expect CBO to put the number over $1 trillion."

Source: John Carney @ Business Insider

United States Now Printing Money

Mike Shedlock writes that the US is now in the middle of a grand experiment.

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in January indicates that the economy continues to contract. Job losses, declining equity and housing wealth, and tight credit conditions have weighed on consumer sentiment and spending. Weaker sales prospects and difficulties in obtaining credit have led businesses to cut back on inventories and fixed investment. U.S. exports have slumped as a number of major trading partners have also fallen into recession. Although the near-term economic outlook is weak, the Committee anticipates that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, together with fiscal and monetary stimulus, will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth.

In light of increasing economic slack here and abroad, the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued. Moreover, the Committee sees some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term.

In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability. The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and anticipates that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period. To provide greater support to mortgage lending and housing markets, the Committee decided today to increase the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet further by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, bringing its total purchases of these securities to up to $1.25 trillion this year, and to increase its purchases of agency debt this year by up to $100 billion to a total of up to $200 billion.

Moreover, to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee decided to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. The Federal Reserve has launched the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to facilitate the extension of credit to households and small businesses and anticipates that the range of eligible collateral for this facility is likely to be expanded to include other financial assets. The Committee will continue to carefully monitor the size and composition of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet in light of evolving financial and economic developments.

Read Full Article

The Federal Reserve is Bankrupt - And BTW So is the Bank of England

How Did It Happen and What are the Ugly Consequences?

The Federal Reserve is bankrupt for all intents and purposes. The same goes for the Bank of England! This article will focus largely on the Fed, because the Fed is the "financial land-mine".

How long can someone who has stepped on a landmine, remain standing – hours, days? Eventually, when he is exhausted and his legs give way, the mine will just explode!

The shadow banking system has not only stepped on the land-mine, it is carrying such a heavy load (trillions of toxic wastes) that sooner or later it will tilt, give way and trigger off the land-mine!

In a recent article, I referred to the remarks of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Obama calling for the shadow banking system to be outlawed.

Even if the call was genuine, it is too late. The land-mine has been triggered and the explosion cannot be averted under any circumstances.

The only issue is the extent of the damage to the global economy and how long it will take for the world to recover from this fiasco – a financial madness that has no precedent. The great depression is "Mary Poppins" in comparison!

The idea of a central bank going bankrupt is not that outlandish. I am by no means the first author who has given this stark warning. What underlies this crisis (which I initially examined in an article in December 2006) is the potential collapse of the global banking system, specifically the Shadow Money-Lenders.

Nouriel Roubini, the New York University professor said:

"The process of socialising the private losses from this crisis has moved many of the liabilities of the private sector onto the books of the sovereign. At some point a sovereign bank may crack, in which case, the ability of the government to credibly commit to act as a backstop for the financial system – including deposit guarantees – could come unglued."

Please read the underlined words again. "Sovereign bank" means central bank. When a central bank "cracks" i.e. becomes insolvent, "all hell breaks lose", because as the professor correctly pointed out, "any government guarantees will ring hollow and will be useless".

If a central bank goes belly up, it is as good as the government going bankrupt. Period!

Read Entire Article Here

Source: Matthias Chang - Market Oracle