Reply #18: Buffett’s imaginary economy--Rolfe Winkler Option ARMageddon [View All]

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/

Some breaking news from Reuters about an updated deficit projection:

The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

The higher deficit figure, based on updated economic data, brings the White House budget office into line with outside estimates and gives further fuel to President Barack Obama’s opponents, who say his spending plans are too expensive in light of budget shortfalls.

Some might be inclined to give Obama credit for this, for updating his deficit forecasts at a politically inconvenient time. He’s pushing his health care plan pretty hard and this news gives a HUGE talking point to critics who say we just can’t afford it.

But the way the news was announced is suspect. There were two deficit projections released this week. The good news — about this year’s deficit projection falling from $1.84 billion to $1.58 billion — was released mid-week. The bad news — about the 10-yr deficit projection — was dumped late on a Friday evening.

..............

And now for tonight’s tidbit: I have been critical of FDIC in the past for not collecting deposit insurance premiums from most banks between 1996 and 2006. I wasn’t aware that FDIC was prevented by law from doing so during that period because the DIF was above 1.25% of insured deposits.

I was wrong to be critical of FDIC on this point. It was Congress’ fault, not theirs.

They changed the law back in 2006, by the way, right before Sheila Bair was installed as Chairwoman. For those interested, it’s 12 USC Section 1817 (b).

.......................


Big banks still hold FDIC captive


Sheila Bair has moved with impressive alacrity to shutter failed small and medium-sized banks. But she is still held hostage by the too-big-to-fail four.

Over the last eight days, her agency has been particularly busy, handling the two largest bank failures of the year. Last Friday it was Colonial Bank, today it will be Guaranty Bank. (THIS IS SPECULATION--REPORT NOT YET IN--D OOPS! THERE IT IS NOW! I'LL ADD IT ABOVE)

With $25 billion and $14 billion of assets respectively, Colonial and Guaranty are the sixth- and 10th-largest failures in the history of the FDIC. Still, they pale in size compared to the biggest banks.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch, which had $2.3 trillion of assets at the end of the second quarter, is nearly 100 times larger than Colonial. JPMorgan Chase, with $2.1 trillion, and Citigroup, with $1.8 trillion, are nearly as big. Wells Fargo had $1.3 trillion, 100 times more than Guaranty. These amounts don’t include hundreds of billions of dollars of off-balance sheet assets.

Yet even Colonial and Guaranty are large enough to give the FDIC indigestion. Its deposit insurance fund had just $13 billion as of March 31. The 56 failures since then will cost it an estimated $16 billion, including nearly $3 billion for Colonial. (That amount excludes Guaranty – the FDIC should provide an estimate for those losses later today.)

It’s an unsettling thought if you have money in a bank. Officially, FDIC backs $4.8 trillion worth of deposits. If you include “temporarily” insured deposits, the total is $6.3 trillion. Yet the insurance fund protecting these deposits is going broke. Soon, the FDIC may have to draw on its credit line at Treasury.

It’s not surprising, given the sorry state of the Deposit Insurance Fund and the gargantuan heft of the big four, that FDIC is taking a bifurcated approach to bank resolutions.

Bair has moved decisively to close small and medium-sized banks. With the monsters, she not only assisted in their bailouts — providing federal insurance for their debt even as she already insures their deposits — she also sponsored their continued growth — putting WaMu in the hands of JPMorgan and pushing Wachovia into the arms of Wells Fargo.

Not that she had much choice. The biggest banks are far too big for her to resolve. One way to measure this is deposits in failed banks as a percentage of GDP.

(Click chart to enlarge in new window)deposits-in-failed-banks SEE LINK

In 1934, the worst year for bank failures during the Depression, the total was 6.4 percent. In 1989, the most expensive year for the FDIC during the S&L scandal, it was 2.5 percent. Last year, the figure was 1.6 percent.

But the 2008 figure excludes Citi, BofA and Wachovia, which properly should be dumped in the failure bucket. Citi and BofA were goners without bailouts while Wachovia failed and fell into the arms of bailout recipient Wells Fargo. When you include those three, deposits in failed banks jump to 15.7 percent of GDP for 2008.

The FDIC, which was created to protect society from deposit runs, is no longer able to fulfill its mission because the biggest banks have grown far beyond its grasp.

That’s why these banks need to be downsized dramatically. A tax on assets is a good idea, but not enough. To break them up, Washington should limit the deposits in any single bank to a threshold far below what the big four currently hold.
.....................

Warren Buffett is back as the nation’s financial conscience, publishing an op-ed in yesterday’s NYT lamenting the dangers of too much monetary and fiscal stimulus. As regular readers of this blog are aware, that’s a message with which I wholeheartedly agree. My problem with Buffett’s piece is that he makes a good argument and then totally undercuts it in his conclusion:

Our immediate problem is to get our country back on its feet and flourishing — “whatever it takes” still makes sense. Once recovery is gained, however, Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and keep our growth in obligations in line with our growth in resources.

This have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too approach is typically what we get from Paul Krugman: Yeah, debt is a problem and has to be dealt with long-term, but in the meantime we should jack up deficit spending in order to boost growth. To paraphrase St. Augustine, make us fiscally and monetarily prudent, just not yet. Ben Bernanke said something of that sort in a speech. He was trying to be funny.

The problem, it seems to me, is that rising GDP and employment—i.e. “recovery”—is not compatible with de-leveraging, which is what Buffett is talking about.

When consumers try to cut debt and boost savings, the economy goes into a deflationary spiral that Keynesians argue must be counteracted with fiscal and monetary stimulus.*

Consumers de-lever, government re-levers.

Private consumption and government spending now drive something like 80% of GDP. It can’t keep rising unless consumers, the government or both continue borrowing huge sums.

The goldilocks economy Buffett describes, in which we can have “recovery” without increasing debt, is a fantasy.

My point is that in order to reduce debt we have to endure some sort of deflationary recession. The alternative is to spend and print perpetually, which Buffett points out is the worse option.

What Buffett should have said? Suck it up folks, we’ve no choice but to learn to live with less.

——

P.s.: I think Buffett actually knows this, but being asset-rich, he’s boxed in. Deflation hammers the value of all non-cash assets, so he has to support monetary/fiscal stimulus in order to preserve his own and his shareholders’ wealth. Hence the opening of the piece, which lauds the “wisdom, courage and decisiveness” of the Bush and Obama administrations in the face of collapse, and the end of the piece, which says their emergency measures continue to be necessary. He maligns the effects of stimulus, but he’s stuck supporting it.

*The “Paradox of Thrift” this is called, a particularly problematic economic theory used to justify heavy government borrowing.