Category: Banks & Interest Rates

Posted on

Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks

In the wake of the bailout, the biggest banks are bigger than ever. Twenty years ago the ten largest banks on the Street held 10 percent of America’s total bank assets. Now they hold over 70 percent.

….I doubt the President will be condemning the Street’s antics, or calling for a resurrection of Glass-Steagall and a breakup of the biggest banks. Democrats are still too dependent on the Street’s campaign money.

That’s too bad. You don’t have to be an occupier of Wall Street to conclude the Street is still out of control. And that’s bad for all of us.

via Robert Reich: Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks.

Posted on

Ron Paul: “Blame The Fed For The Financial Crisis” | ZeroHedge

The Fed fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price—the price of time—and that attempting to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control. It fails to see that the price of housing was artificially inflated through the Fed’s monetary pumping during the early 2000s, and that the only way to restore soundness to the housing sector is to allow prices to return to sustainable market levels. Instead, the Fed’s actions have had one aim—to keep prices elevated at bubble levels—thus ensuring that bad debt remains on the books and failing firms remain in business, albatrosses around the market’s neck.

The Fed’s quantitative easing programs increased the national debt by trillions of dollars. The debt is now so large that if the central bank begins to move away from its zero interest-rate policy, the rise in interest rates will result in the U.S. government having to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in additional interest on the national debt each year. Thus there is significant political pressure being placed on the Fed to keep interest rates low. The Fed has painted itself so far into a corner now that even if it wanted to raise interest rates, as a practical matter it might not be able to do so.

via Ron Paul: “Blame The Fed For The Financial Crisis” | ZeroHedge.

I agree that the Fed should not interfere with interest rates. It causes market imbalances that later lead to recessions and bubbles in stocks and housing and threaten the very survival of the banking system the Fed is trying to protect.

QE achieved the opposite of its stated objectives, raising long-term interest rates with lowering unemployment, but did not really increase the national debt by a dollar. Sales of  bonds by the Federal Treasury to the Federal Reserve is like the US government selling to itself. The Fed is just an off-balance sheet, special-purpose entity (think Enron, bank CDOs and other bad smells) created by  the government and banks in 1913 to  bypass restrictions in the Constitution on the issue of bank notes. In all but name it is a division of the US Treasury. The majority of the “independent” board of directors are political appointments. Ever seen a dissenting vote coming from one of the political appointees? Regional board members, where most dissenting votes come from, are a minority appointed by regional banks. They can dissent, but when it comes to counting the votes they’re outnumbered.

Posted on

The Bankers’ Capital War – Howard Davies – Project Syndicate

Basel 3, the Basel Committee’s new global regulatory standard on banks’ capital adequacy and liquidity, will more or less double the equity requirements, and will impose extra costs on banks deemed “too big to fail.” The Committee’s analysis of the economic consequences found that the impact on growth would be modest, perhaps reducing GDP by 0.33% after five years – easily within the margin of forecast error. The OECD took a different view, putting the growth impact at about twice that level, and rather higher in Europe, where companies rely far more on bank financing than they do in the US.

In sharp contrast, the Institute of International Finance, the leading trade association for the world’s top banks, believes that the impact of higher capital requirements could be far stronger. The IIF believes that GDP could be fully 5% lower after five years, with unemployment more than 7% higher.

The IIF’s forecast may seem alarmist, but the competing estimates are based on some intriguing analytical differences. Regulators take the view that the impact of higher capital requirements on the cost of credit to borrowers will be modest, as the overall cost of funds to banks will not rise much. They rest their case on the famous Modigliani-Miller theorem, which implies that a company cannot alter its capital cost by changing the balance between equity and debt on its balance sheet. If there is more equity, then logically debt should be cheaper, as the company (or bank) is better insulated from default.

Bankers accept that, in the long run, the theorem might hold, but argue that it will take time, especially given recent events, to persuade investors that banks are genuinely safer….

via The Bankers’ Capital War – Howard Davies – Project Syndicate.

Posted on

A year later everyone is catching on about Fed policy and net interest margins | Credit Writedowns

“As I wrote in April: If long rates are largely determined by expected future short rates, the longer short rates are at zero percent, the lower long rates will go. That’s toxic for bank interest margins…..

Now that we are seeing more movement down on net interest margins (BofA and Wells Fargo both showed margin compression for example), the mainstream media is finally catching on to the connection between Fed policy and net interest margins. You heard it here first though.”

via A year later everyone is catching on about Fed policy and net interest margins | Credit Writedowns.

Posted on

Bernanke Hangs Tough on Financial Reform

“Central banks certainly did not ignore issues of financial stability in the decades before the recent crisis, but financial stability policy was often viewed as the junior partner to monetary policy,” he [Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke] said. “One of the most important legacies of the crisis will be the restoration of financial stability policy to co-equal status with monetary policy.”

via Bernanke Hangs Tough on Financial Reform.

The problem with having two equal objectives is, when they conflict, which do you choose?

Posted on

Wells Fargo’s Margin Slips – WSJ.com

At Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, net interest margin fell to 3.84%, the fourth consecutive decline. Wells Fargo blamed the problem on its inability to lend enough of the deposits pouring into the bank. The decline overshadowed a 21% jump in third-quarter net income, which rose to $4.1 billion, as Wells Fargo’s deposit base expanded and nonperforming assets fell. It said its growth in loans and capital was “solid.”

Wells Fargo shares sank 8.4%, or $2.25, to $24.42 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 4 p.m.

via Wells Fargo’s Margin Slips – WSJ.com.

Posted on

Fed’s Kocherlakota on Why Balance Sheet Expansion Need Not Be Inflationary – Real Time Economics – WSJ

I’ve mentioned how the Federal Reserve has bought over $2 trillion of government securities. It has funded that purchase by tripling the amount of deposits held by banks with the Fed — what are called bank reserves.

……. Banks have few good lending opportunities, and so they’re not trying to attract deposits. As a result, they are keeping nearly $1.6 trillion of reserves at the Fed in excess of what they need to back their deposits.

…… Some observers are concerned that ……. the banks’ excess reserves will serve as kindling for an inflationary fire. This concern would have been entirely appropriate three years ago. But in October 2008, Congress granted the Federal Reserve the power to pay interest on bank reserves. Right now, that interest rate is 25 basis points, or 0.25%. By raising that rate judiciously, the Fed has the ability to deter banks from using their reserves to create money, and through this mechanism, the Fed can prevent inflation.

via Fed’s Kocherlakota on Why Balance Sheet Expansion Need Not Be Inflationary – Real Time Economics – WSJ.

Monetary expansion through further asset purchases by the Fed (quantitative easing) would be ineffective, simply boosting the level of excess reserves held by banks on deposit at the Fed. Monetary tightening would be more difficult, but could be achieved by raising the interest rate paid on excess reserves in order to discourage banks from using their excess reserves. That would raise the overnight rate (fed funds rate) in the market and restrict banks from expanding their balance sheets.

Posted on

The Platypus blues – macrobusiness.com.au

Ms Luci Ellis, RBA Head of the Financial Stability Department:

Indeed, credit booms are very often part of the story in the lead-up to a period of financial instability. We published that assessment in the March and September Reviews. In the wake of that, we have sometimes been asked: how fast is too fast? Do we have a target for credit growth? Or for the ratio of credit to GDP? Or, perhaps, for housing and other asset prices? I can tell you quite plainly that we do not have numerical targets for any of these things. A target for credit growth, or any of these other variables, is not analogous to the RBA’s inflation target……….The distinction is simply that price stability is about inflation. So it can be defined as keeping inflation at an acceptably low rate. Financial stability is harder to define, but in essence it is about avoiding episodes when the financial system significantly harms the real economy.

My interpretation of this series of statements is that a fundamental flaw is at the heart of the RBA’s view of financial stability management. The RBA has specific targets for inflation and that is the single price (including assets) stability tool but has no targets or model parameters to govern financial stability. A big mistake not just of policy but market knowledge

via The Platypus blues – macrobusiness.com.au | macrobusiness.com.au.

Alarm bells should ring if household debt starts growing at 8pc to 10pc a year.

Posted on

Causes of the Crisis: Basel II

Why do they [European financial institutions] hold so much Greek government debt? Because under Basel II, implemented (outside the United States) in 2007, Greek government bonds, rated A-, had the same 20 percent risk weight as AA/AAA asset-backed securities in the United States. That is, until S&P downgraded Greek debt from A- to BBB+. That raised the risk weight to 50 percent, suddenly requiring 60 percent more capital from banks holding Greek bonds.

This appears to be the reason that the possibility of Greek default has led to fears of another banking crisis.

via Causes of the Crisis: February 2010.

The 20 percent risk weight required banks to only hold $2 of bank capital against a $100 security — at the 8 percent Basel rate for adequately capitalized banks — allowing 50 to 1 leverage compared to 12.5 to 1 on normal bank loans.

Posted on

Big Banks Are About to Get Blasted by the Volcker Rule :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website

Since a significant chunk of the big banks’ profits – especially that of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) – come from various forms of proprietary trading, the Volcker Rule stands to cost the industry billions in revenue.

To prevent cheating, complex compliance rules will require that banks prove that all their trading activities are for clients’ benefit, and not proprietary. Compliance alone is expected to tack on another $2 billion in costs.

via Big Banks Are About to Get Blasted by the Volcker Rule :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website.

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper