Tag Archives: TBTF

Who's for Too Big To Fail Reform Now?

By Ted Kaufman, Contributor          In 2010, the Brown-Kaufman amendment to Dodd-Frank, which would have imposed asset and liability limits on banks, was decisively defeated by a 61-33 vote in the Senate. I was frustrated, but not surprised. Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Obama administration opposed it. Only three Republicans voted for it. It was clear that too many Senators had bought the pitch that the banks had been chastened by their “near death experience,” and that new powers given regulators in Dodd-Frank would solve the TBTF problem.        Two years later, “chastened” is not an adjective I would use to describe our megabanks. They have spent millions in lobbying dollars to gut already watered down Dodd-Frank provisions. And the biggest banks have gotten bigger. In 1995, our six largest banks had total assets that added up to 18% of GDP. Today they are 63% of GDP.        Does anyone doubt that if any of them got into trouble the government would again have to come to their rescue? Certainly the worldwide bond markets are convinced it would happen. That’s why our big banks borrow money on the open market at a rate that is 0.8 percent lower than the rate paid by smaller banks. In the case of JPMorgan Chase, that amounts to a $14 billion a year government subsidy.        If you believe, as I do, in free, competitive markets, that TBTF rate advantage is repugnant. So were the LIBOR and London Whale scandals. So was the admission by the Attorney General of the United States that megabank executives were effectively too big to jail. Events since the defeat of Brown-Kaufman have made it increasingly obvious to more and more people that we still have a critical TBTF problem.        I believed, then and now, that banks that are too big to fail and demonstrably too big to manage are too big to exist. The soon-to-be-introduced Senate bill co-sponsored by Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and David Vitter (R-LA) doesn’t explicitly break up TBTF banks, but it is a major step in the right direction. Requiring banks to maintain a ratio of 10 percent of equity capital to total assets would make them less likely to need a government bailout in the next financial crisis. Because the bill would also impose additional capital requirements of up to 15 percent on banks with assets of more than $400 billion, it is likely its passage would encourage the megabanks to restructure.          Does it have any chance of becoming law? Senator Brown has picked up a lot of allies in the past two years, including his conservative Republican co-sponsor. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has pledged to “end the phenomenon of ‘too big to fail’ and reinstate market discipline.” George Will recently wrote a column supporting Senator Brown’s efforts. Peggy Noonan believes that “megabanks have too much power in Washington” and “too big to fail is too big to continue.” Sandy Weill, the creator of the Citibank behemoth

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedkaufman/2013/04/18/whos-for-too-big-to-fail-reform-now/

We Can't Save Capitalism Unless We Denounce Its False Prophets

By Bill Frezza, Contributor

A debate is raging among free market advocates regarding the proper posture to take with respect to Too Big to Fail (TBTF) banks. This has become an increasingly important issue as the financial sector has grown to take up an unprecedented share of our economy. While cleaving to tried-and-true libertarian defenses of finance as vital to the economy, some of us fear that the machinations of the crony capitalists running the TBTF banks—in cahoots with their allies in the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve—will result in not only another global financial collapse, but a populist anti-capitalist backlash that could destroy what’s left of our free enterprise system. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Bank of America: Why All the Hate?

By Amanda Alix, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

The big banks have certainly regained much of their financial health since the mortgage meltdown, but their reputations have not rebounded in tandem. And, when it comes to the most despised of all the TBTF banking institutions, Bank of America wins that title, hands down.

Why do people loathe B of A so much? The easy answer is, of course, its Countrywide division, with its stable of rotten, subpar loans written before the crisis. A new report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau bolsters that theory, but I think there is a customer service issue here, as well — and slowly but surely, Bank of America is working to fix that problem.

Most consumer complaints are mortgage-related
The CFPB’s list of complaints is dominated by those tied to home loans — fully 55% of the database’s 90,000 entries. While B of A was the subject of 30% of those grievances, its peers were implicated, as well: Wells Fargo , which has grabbed one-third of the mortgage market over the past year, prompted nearly 16% of the grievances, with JPMorgan Chase coming in third with 10%. Both Wells and JPMorgan responded to the report by noting that they are working assiduously to resolve these complaints.

For its part, Bank of America has noted that its Countrywide issues have put it in the front of the troubled-loan lineup, which would naturally cause the bank to garner the most complaints. In addition, B of A points out that 98% of those registered complaints have been resolved. Indeed, it looks like the bank has been pulling its weight in that regard, taking it on the chin in 22% of these cases, and making it right with the customer. JPMorgan did so in 16% of complaints, and Wells only 9% of the time.

More work needs to be done
While it is clear that B of A is trying to resolve outstanding issues in this area, it will take some time for the dings to its reputation to smooth over. Incidents from the past, such as when the bank attempted to foreclose on homeowners who didn’t even have a mortgage, continue to rile people and fuel the anti-B of A fervor. A general distaste for the way the big bank treats mortgage customers has made Bank of America a serious contender for Consumerist’s Worst Company in America… for the third year in a row.

As I’ve mentioned before, the bank has been tagged in the past for being the worst in the mortgage-servicing business, thanks largely to Countrywide. But the bank is making a huge effort to turn around its lousy customer service image, for which it deserves kudos — and time to get it right.

Bank of America’s stock doubled in 2012 — and, once its mortgage and consumer relations issues are resolved, it could go even higher. There are significant challenges still ahead, though, so it’s critical to have <a target=_blank …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

Reagan Budget Guru Declares: We’ve Been Lied To, Robbed, And Misled…

Then, when the Fed’s fire hoses started spraying an elephant soup of liquidity injections in every direction and its balance sheet grew by $1.3 trillion in just thirteen weeks compared to $850 billion during its first ninety-four years, I became convinced that the Fed was flying by the seat of its pants, making it up as it went along. It was evident that its aim was to stop the hissy fit on Wall Street and that the thread of a Great Depression 2.0 was just a cover story for a panicked spree of money printing that exceeded any other episode in recorded human history.

David StockmanThe Great Deformation

David Stockman, former director of the OMB under President Reagan, former US Representative, and veteran financier is an insider’s insider. Few people understand the ways in which both Washington DC and Wall Street work and intersect better than he does.

In his upcoming book, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, Stockman lays out how we have devolved from a free market economy into a managed one that operates for the benefit of a privileged few. And when trouble arises, these few are bailed out at the expense of the public good.

By manipulating the price of money through sustained and historically low interest rates, Greenspan and Bernanke created an era of asset mis-pricing that inevitably would need to correct.  And when market forces attempted to do so in 2008, Paulson et al hoodwinked the world into believing the repercussions would be so calamitous for all that the institutions responsible for the bad actions that instigated the problem needed to be rescued — in full — at all costs. 

Of course, history shows that our markets and economy would have been better off had the system been allowed to correct. Most of the “too big to fail” institutions would have survived or been broken into smaller, more resilient, entities. For those that would have failed, smaller, more responsible banks would have stepped up to replace them – as happens as part of the natural course of a free market system:

Essentially there was a cleansing run on the wholesale funding market in the canyons of Wall Street going on. It would have worked its will, just like JP Morgan allowed it to happen in 1907 when we did not have the Fed getting in the way. Because they stopped it in its tracks after the AIG bailout and then all the alphabet soup of different lines that the Fed threw out, and then the enactment of TARP, the last two investment banks standing were rescued, Goldman and Morgan [Stanley], and they should not have been. As a result of being rescued and having the cleansing liquidation of rotten balance sheets stopped, within a few weeks and certainly months they were back to the same old games, such that Goldman Sachs got $10 billion dollars for the fiscal year that started three months later after that check went out, which was October 2008. For the fiscal 2009 year, Goldman Sachs generated what I call a $29 billion surplus – $13 billion of net income after tax, and on top of that $16 billion of salaries and bonuses, 95% of it which was bonuses.

Therefore, the idea that they were on death’s door does not stack up. Even if they had been, it would not make any difference to the health of the financial system. These firms are supposed to come and go, and if people make really bad bets, if they have a trillion dollar balance sheet with six, seven, eight hundred billion dollars worth of hot-money short-term funding, then they ought to take their just reward, because it would create lessons, it would create discipline. So all the new firms that would have been formed out of the remnants of Goldman Sachs where everybody lost their stock values – which for most of these partners is tens of millions, hundreds of millions – when they formed a new firm, I doubt whether they would have gone back to the old game. What happened was the Fed stopped everything in its tracks, kept Goldman Sachs intact, the reckless Goldman Sachs and the reckless Morgan Stanley, everyone quickly recovered their stock value and the game continues. This is one of the evils that comes from this kind of deep intervention in the capital and money markets.

Stockman’s anger at the unnecessary and unfair capital transfer from taxpayer to TBTF bank is matched only by his concern that, even with those bailouts, the banking system is still unacceptably vulnerable to a repeat of the same crime:

The banks quickly worked out their solvency issues because the Fed basically took it out of the hides of Main Street savers and depositors throughout America. When the Fed panicked, it basically destroyed the free-market interest rate – you cannot have capitalism, you cannot have healthy financial markets without an interest rate, which is the price of money, the price of capital that can freely measure and reflect risk and true economic prospects.

Well, once you basically unplug the pricing mechanism of a capital market and make it entirely an administered rate by the Fed, you are going to cause all kinds of deformationsas I call them, or mal-investments as some of the Austrians used to call them, that basically pollutes and corrupts the system. Look at the deposit rate right now, it is 50 basis points, maybe 40, for six months. As a result of that, probably $400-500 billion a year is being transferred as a fiscal maneuver by the Fed from savers to the banks. They are collecting the spread, they’ve then booked the profits, they’ve rebuilt their book net worth, and they paid back the TARP basically out of what was thieved from the savers of America.

Now they go down and pound the table and whine and pout like JP Morgan and the rest of them,you have to let us do stock buy backs, you have to let us pay out dividends so we can ramp our stock and collect our stock option winnings. It is outrageous that the authorities, after the so-called “near death experience” of 2008 and this massive fiscal safety net and monetary safety net was put out there, is allowing them to pay dividends and to go into the market and buy back their stockThey should be under house arrest in a sense that every dime they are making from this artificial yield group being delivered by the Fed out of the hides of savers should be put on their balance sheet to build up retained earnings, to build up a cushion. I do not care whether it is fifteen or twenty or twenty-five percent common equity and retained earnings-to-assets or not, that is what we should be doing if we are going to protect the system from another raid by these people the next time we get a meltdown, which can happen at any time.

You can see why I talk about corruption, why crony capitalism is so bad. I mean, the Basel capital standards, they are a joke. We are just allowing the banks to go back into the same old game they were playing before. Everybody said the banks in late 2007 were the greatest thing since sliced bread. The market cap of the ten largest banks in America, including from Bear Stearns all the way to Citibank and JP Morgan and Goldman and so forth, was $1.25 trillion. That was up thirty times from where the predecessors of those institutions had been. Only in 1987, when Greenspan took over and began the era of bubble finance – slowly at first then rapidly, eventually, to have the market cap grow thirty times – and then on the eve of the great meltdown see the $1.25 trillion to market cap disappear, vanish, vaporize in panic in September 2008. Only a few months later, $1 trillion of that market cap disappeared in to the abyss and panic, and Bear Stearns is going down, and all the rest.

This tells you the system is dramatically unstable. In a healthy financial system and a free capital market, if I can put it that way, you are not going to have stuff going from nowhere to @1.2 trillion and then back to a trillion practically at the drop of a hat. That is instability; that is a case of a medicated market that is essentially very dangerous and is one of the many adverse consequences and deformations that result from the central-bank dominated, corrupt monetary system that has slowly built up ever since Nixon closed the gold window, but really as I say in my book, going back to 1933 in April when Roosevelt took all the private gold. So we are in a big dead-end trap, and they are digging deeper every time you get a new maneuver.

Reagan Budget Guru Declares: We've Been Lied To, Robbed, And Misled...

(Second column, 3rd story, link)


…read more
Source: Drudge Report

15 Reasons to Invest in Bank Stocks Right Now

By John Grgurich, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

When I began investing, bank stocks piqued my curiosity, but they definitely seemed too exotic and too arcane. So, for a long time, I stuck more with consumer-goods type companies, like Starbucks, Whole Foods, and Chipotle.

I’m still in those companies, and they’re performing as well as ever, but I’ve also made the leap into bank stocks, and my portfolio is all the better for it. Banks have actually become some of my best performers.

So as a salute to investable banks, and maybe with the hope of turning others on to the good investment direction I’ve found, here are 15 rapid-fire, easy-to-digest reasons to get some bank stocks into your portfolio right now (in no particular order).

1. Valuations on many banks are very low: The price-to-book ratio for Bank of America is an absurdly low 0.63. Citigroup‘s P/B is only slightly higher: 0.75.

2. “Too big to fail” still lives: Why is this a good reason to buy into a bank? The implicit guarantee of TBTF means that the federal government simply cannot let certain banks fail, so your investment is much safer than it would otherwise be.

For instance, no administration will ever be able to let JPMorgan Chase — the nation’s biggest bank — fail, no matter what crazy thing it might do to get itself into trouble.

3. Balance sheets are cleaner than ever: The housing boom and subsequent crash destroyed the balance sheets of many big banks, like Citi’s and B of A’s, but four-plus years on the banks have made great progress in dealing with their toxic mortgage debt.

4. The housing market is starting to recover: Banks can still make a lot of money the old-fashioned way: lending money and charging interest, and America remains at heart a home-ownership society, even after the most recent boom and bust.

5. The financials sector has serious momentum: In 2012, the financials sector was the best performing sector of the S&P 500. Investors are starting to realize what they’ve been missing, and are therefore driving up share prices.

6. Rising profits: In the fourth quarter, Goldman Sachs reported net-income growth of 185.5%. Wells Fargo reported net-income growth of 23.9%. Those are big numbers.

7. Great stress-test results: For 2013, 17 of the 18 financial institutions the Federal Reserve ran through its simulated, severe economic downturn passed, demonstrating once again how far banks have come since the crash.

8. Dodd-Frank is in effect: The 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is some of the most far-reaching and comprehensive bank-reform legislation passed since the Great Depression. Well-regulated banks make for safe, stable banks, and therefore better investments.

9. Banks are still viewed with suspicion post-crash: This despite the fact the banks are stronger than ever, which is all the more reason to get in now. And banks are only getting stronger and will increasingly be seen as a profitable way to invest.

10. Many banks already pay solid dividends: Wells Fargo pays …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

Do Bank of America and Citigroup Need This Subsidy?

By Amanda Alix, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

Last summer, Bloomberg‘s revelation that JPMorgan Chase received a de facto taxpayer subsidy of $14 billion made tongues wag for a time, but the subject eventually faded into the background. Of course, the Bank of Dimon wasn’t the only bank receiving a helping hand with its borrowing costs, but Jamie Dimon‘s appearance in Washington to answer questions regarding the London Whale trading debacle naturally put his bank in the spotlight.

This year, the update on this issue has come out before the advent of spring, and the numbers have climbed a bit. Whereas last year’s news reflected a total subsidy, as of 2009, of approximately $76 billion for the 18 largest U.S. banks, the most recent article has bumped that amount up to around $83 billion. It is estimated that JPMorgan’s cut has risen to over $17 billion.

Five largest banks get the most gravy, but do they need it?
Bloomberg notes that, of that $83 billion, the top five banks gobble up about $64 billion. Besides JPMorgan, Bank of America , Citigroup , Wells Fargo , and Goldman Sachs all get a sizable chunk of taxpayer charity.

The article explains that the subsidy is an implicit part of the TBTF landscape, whereby these large institutions are considered so systemically important that they must be pampered like toddlers lest they topple and take the whole economy with them. We’ve already been there, of course, and this seems to be the way the big banks’ supposedly fragile ecosystem is being handled since the financial crisis.

This subsidy isn’t direct, but it comes about as banks receive extremely favorable financing terms because creditors assume they will be rescued if anything goes awry. Still, it’s a lot, and it makes you wonder whether these banks really need this much support. Unfortunately, it appears they do.

B of A and Citi: negative profit without the subsidy
From Bloomberg’s calculations, which were annualized over 10 years, JPMorgan would make a small profit without the subsidy, as would Goldman. B of A and Citi, though, would be in negative profit territory if the subsidy was taken away. Only Wells Fargo would produce a somewhat decent return without the additional backup.

What would happen to Bank of America and Citi if this goody bag was suddenly unavailable? Normally, I wouldn’t count on anything being done on this score, but Ben Bernanke‘s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee last week might have lit a match under this issue.

When the Fed Chair was asked by freshman Senator Elizabeth Warren whether or not banks should be paying for this subsidy, he responded that banking reforms are attempting to change the need for such a helping hand. Also, when pressed, he said he believed the subsidy should end.

Nothing may happen, at least for a while — but each time this subject comes up, it gets a little more oomph behind it. It looks like B of A and Citi had …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance