No more Mr. Nice Guy. It is time for Mr. Bernanke to break out the big guns in JackÂson Hole this Friday.
Though the FedÂeral Reserve ChairÂman has run out of ammuÂniÂtion for stimÂuÂlatÂing the econÂomy, he can still take action to fix the economy.
I named the action Mr. Bernanke should take the "Fed's Bazooka" because it is, in terms of marÂket impact, comÂpaÂraÂble to forÂmer TreaÂsury SecÂreÂtary Hank Paulson's bazooka.
The time has come to move beyond the flacÂcid short-term stabs at stimÂuÂlatÂing the econÂomy and show the strong, deciÂsive leadÂerÂship needed to restore conÂfiÂdence in the capÂiÂtal markets.
Let's face facts. The bailout strateÂgies, despite costÂing taxÂpayÂers $1.6 trilÂlion, have not worked because they rely on "the same finanÂcial comÂpaÂnies that got us into this mess.[1]"
The "Fed's Bazooka" is the option to break up all the banks that are "too big to fail.” BreakÂing up means sepÂaÂratÂing the deposit-taking and lendÂing arm of the bank from all tradÂing, investÂment bankÂing and other specÂuÂlaÂtive activÂiÂties in which broker-dealers engage. The sepÂaÂrate bankÂing units would stand on their own with no shared liaÂbilÂiÂties. The high-risk-taking activÂiÂties of one entity only affect that one entity. They take full responÂsiÂbilÂity for their actions. If they over-spend or lose too much money on bad bets, then they go bankÂrupt just like every other AmerÂiÂcan corÂpoÂrate entity.
In addiÂtion, the high-risk-taking entiÂties would remain under Fed superÂviÂsion and would be subÂject to the same capÂiÂtal requireÂments and leverÂage restricÂtions as those applied to traÂdiÂtional banks. ImporÂtantly, derivÂaÂtives would be regÂuÂlated and cleared through a cenÂtral exchange to ensure that banks do not become too-interconnected-to-fail or take on greater liaÂbilÂity than they can afford.
It is within the Fed's power to break up the banks. In exchange for takÂing bailout funds in 2008, all of the big banks had to subÂmit themÂselves to the superÂviÂsion of the Fed.
Mr. Bernanke should fire his bazooka this FriÂday because it would:
- Jump-Âstart lendÂing by freeÂing up capÂiÂtal that is othÂerÂwise put at undue risk
- Restore conÂfiÂdence in our bankÂing sysÂtem and govÂernÂment leadership
Allow me to explain.
RepealÂing Glass-Steagall is one of the biggest misÂtakes ever made. As long as banks are allowed to fund the high risk/return investÂments with conÂsumer deposits (super cheap capÂiÂtal), they will conÂtinue to do so. If you were faced with a choice between high-profit tradÂing and investÂment bankÂing investÂments or loans to sleepy ole’ main street AmerÂica, which would you choose? The money goes to the highÂest return opporÂtuÂnity every time.
On top of the supeÂrior return opporÂtuÂnity, throw in the fact that the too-big-to-fail-banks may actuÂally only be accountÂable for litÂtle to none of the risk of their high-risk tradÂing and investÂment bankÂing activities.
Why not roll the dice and take bigÂger and bigÂger bets if you can enjoy the tremenÂdous upside potenÂtial withÂout havÂing to be accountÂable to the downÂside risk?
The point is that as long as Bank of AmerÂica (BAC – danÂgerÂous ratÂing), CitÂiÂgroup (C — very danÂgerÂous ratÂing), JP MorÂgan Chase (JPM – danÂgerÂous ratÂing) and any other banks that have tradÂing and investÂment are bankÂing under the same roof as conÂsumer and small busiÂness lendÂing, we canÂnot expect lendÂing to conÂsumers and small busiÂness to grow much. The capÂiÂtal is not availÂable because either these banks have higher-profit uses for it, or they are afraid they may need it to cushÂion losses in case some of the bad risks they have taken come home to roost.
None of the banks want to have another bailout, but as long as they are too-big-to-fail, they know, given the fragÂile staÂtus of the global finanÂcial sysÂtem, that the fedÂeral govÂernÂment has no choice but to bail them out. ExplicÂitly or implicÂitly, the bailout guarÂanÂtee is there.
ThereÂfore, as long as there is risk that the Fed could again authoÂrize taxÂpayer money to proÂvide a safety net for the risks taken by the too-big-to-fail banks, investors of all types will have a tough time havÂing much conÂfiÂdence in our finanÂcial sysÂtem as well as our long-term ecoÂnomic health.
MisÂapÂproÂpriÂatÂing taxÂpayer funds to pay for the losses of Wall Street fats cats not only throws good money after bad, but also it stinks of downÂright corruption.
And I mean it when I write "misÂapÂproÂpriÂaÂtion" as Wall Street exploited the fact that bailout funds were extended withÂout any restricÂtion on how they were used for comÂpenÂsaÂtion. Here are the numÂbers on how Wall Street got rich off taxÂpayer money. In 2008 when ConÂgress launched the $700 bilÂlion TarÂgeted Asset Relief Plan (TARP) to save the cash hemÂorÂrhagÂing banks, Wall Street paid out $18 bilÂlion in cash bonuses[2]. Total Wall Street comÂpenÂsaÂtion rose to an all-time high of $135 bilÂlion[3] in 2010, a 6% increase from $128 bilÂlion in 2009. Total bailout funds extended through the entire criÂsis were $12.8 trilÂlion[4].
Income redisÂtriÂbÂuÂtion to peoÂple in genÂuine need is underÂstandÂable. Income redisÂtriÂbÂuÂtion to the rich culÂprits who caused the finanÂcial meltÂdown is difÂfiÂcult to accept.
How can the Fed, ConÂgress or the White House expect to have any credÂiÂbilÂity with the AmerÂiÂcan pubÂlic after swinÂdling us like that?
What's worse is that the swinÂdling has been going on for some time. The recent bait and switch of risk for cash is, in my opinÂion, the natÂural proÂgresÂsion of a very bad trend. That trend is the increasÂing amount of influÂence that Wall Street has on WashÂingÂton. That influÂence transÂlates into laws and regÂuÂlaÂtions that enable Wall Street to enlarge their treaÂsure chests of profÂits, which, in turn, buy more influence.
How much influÂence? ... As much as money can buy. In his April 4, 2010 interÂview with ABC, Larry SumÂmers points out the fact that the finanÂcial serÂvices secÂtor (i.e. Wall Street) spent, in 2009, about $1m per conÂgressÂman while employÂing four lobÂbyÂists per conÂgressÂman. That is a lot of money and it buys a lot of influÂence. I am speakÂing from expeÂriÂence when I say that disÂsentÂing voices have a very hard time comÂpetÂing with the enorÂmous Wall Street lobÂbyÂing power. And when lobÂbyÂists canÂnot get the job done, Wall Street brings in more fireÂpower. Click here for details of a prime examÂple: Alan Greenspan and Larry SumÂmers crushed BrookÂsley Born's (forÂmer head of the ComÂmodiÂties Futures TradÂing ComÂmisÂsion) proÂposal to regÂuÂlate credit default swaps in the late 1990s[5].
This influÂence empowÂers Wall Street to bend regÂuÂlaÂtions and laws to their money-making favor. This kind of swinÂdling is someÂtimes subÂtle, and it is someÂtimes obviÂous: e.g. the Global Research SetÂtleÂment for allowÂing research anaÂlysts to get paid for IPOs on which they were supÂposed to be proÂvidÂing objecÂtive advice. I could write a great deal more on the subÂject of Wall Street's self-serving manipÂuÂlaÂtion of finanÂcial stateÂments and research. For now, I refer you to my artiÂcle on CitÂiÂgroup[6] (C – very danÂgerÂous ratÂing) and artiÂcle on MorÂgan StanÂley[7] (MS – danÂgerÂous ratÂing) for more details.
The botÂtom line: I don't believe there are any words that can restore investor conÂfiÂdence. Only deciÂsive action will do.
The bigÂger the Wall Street monÂster gets the more destrucÂtive and exploitaÂtive it will be and the conÂseÂquences could be devastating.
A capÂiÂtalÂisÂtic sysÂtem only works when marÂkets are truly free. When any one parÂticÂiÂpant in a marÂket can influÂence the rule makÂers and get rules and laws writÂten in their favor, they can corÂner the marÂket. Then the marÂket is no longer a free market.
I believe Wall Street has already corÂnered many marÂkets, albeit in a subÂtle enough way as to not arouse too much suspicion... at least not from the genÂeral pubÂlic. KeepÂing marÂket manipÂuÂlaÂtion subÂtle keeps awareÂness, and, thereÂfore, resisÂtance low.
The time has come to pull our heads out of the sand. It is time to stop givÂing the culÂprits responÂsiÂble for much of our predicaÂment hard-earned taxÂpayer dollars.
That giant suckÂing sound we hear as the stock marÂket tumÂbles will conÂtinue. That suckÂing sound is the depleÂtion of the trust and social capÂiÂtal critÂiÂcal to the proper funcÂtion of our capÂiÂtal markets.
Until investors trust they will not get robbed, conÂfiÂdence will be hard to come by.
WithÂout conÂfiÂdence and trust in the finanÂcial sysÂtem, everyÂthing grinds to a halt.
Mr. Bernanke, the time to act is now. The longer we delay, the worse the probÂlem gets as the more capÂiÂtal gets wasted and the lower the stock marÂket goes.
DisÂcloÂsure: CitÂiÂgroup © is on New ConÂstructs' Most DanÂgerÂous Stocks list for August. I receive no comÂpenÂsaÂtion to write about any speÂcific stock, secÂtor or theme.
[1] http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/08/10924/money-still-owed-federal-bailout-15-trillion-still-owed-treasury-federal-reserve
[2] "On Street, Pay Vaults to Record AltiÂtude", Wall Street JourÂnal, FebÂruÂary 2, 2011
[3] "ExecÂuÂtive Pay", New York Times, March 3, 2011
[4] "The True Cost of the Bank Bailout", PubÂlic BroadÂcastÂing SerÂvice (PBS), SepÂtemÂber 3, 2010
[5] "The WarnÂing", FrontÂline on the PubÂlic BroadÂcastÂing SerÂvice, OctoÂber 20, 2009
[6] Here is link to my CitÂiÂgroup artiÂcle: http://blog.newconstructs.com/2011/05/17/sell-citigroup-before-the-earnings-bubble-pops/
SDI Glossary:
"Asset" DefinitionSDI Glossary:
"the Fed" DefinitionSDI Glossary:
"Futures" DefinitionSDI Glossary:
"IPO" DefinitionSDI Glossary:
"Stock" DefinitionSDI Glossary:
"TA" Definition
This Article's Word Cloud:
Amer
Street
That
Wall
able
bailout
bank
banks
because
cial
come
dence
ence
fail
finan
from
funds
group
have
high
influ
invest
lend
lion
long
ment
ments
money
more
much
only
payer
risk
some
take
that
their
there
they
ties
time
tion
tive
trad
very
were
when
will
with
would
More articles: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next »