Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Banking System in Crisis

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Ferd Berfle Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:36 AM
Original message
U.S. Banking System in Crisis

Here's a big red Flag.
In some indicators we are in uncharted territory (article). In others we are in 1929.

This report is from the St Louis Federal Reserve Bank.

They won't be able to hide this much longer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4821.html

U.S. Banking System in Crisis- Why Banks Are NOT Lending?

Here's an eye opener. The attached report from the St. Louis Fed on banks' non-borrowed reserves shows that it has just gone down in flames. According to the chart, the amount of money that banks have in reserve that is non-borrowed is not only at a 50-year low, but has entered negative territory for the first time since these statistics have been kept. Does this mean our banks are now insolvent? Frankly, I don't have an answer, but this information is very disturbing, to say the least. The FDIC is gearing up for it, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Aha - more results from 'conservative' Republiconomics in action...
Ptoooey on their phony so-called 'conservativism'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferd Berfle Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Agree - I finally know why "the facts don't matter' to conservatives

I was just alerted to this and it explains a lot!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3342843&mesg_id=3342843

Same guy that did "The Power Of Nightmares"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes, Let's Return to the Days Before the Fed
where the money supply was unregulated, deposits were uninsured, credit was tight, and the value of money was backed by gold. Things were so much better for working people back then.

I can't understand the amount of paleoconservative populism that passes as enlightened progressive economics here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDJane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. The fed is part of the problem......
but it's part of the problem because it is not national asset. If the federal reserve were run as a state-operated asset, the money supply would not be regulated by the foxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferd Berfle Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Bingo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. I Would Disagree
Would you want Bush to have direct control over the levers of money supply and interest rates? Or Congress, with the need to get reelected every two years? The kind of short-term stimulation we've seen over the last decade would have happened much earlier, been much more severe, and had much worse long-term effects. Looking for a soft landing without widespread failures is the responsible way to proceed right now.

I believe the Fed operates best as an independent agency which is neither truly public or private. And while the Fed chairmen have not had perfect records, the last few have academics who were not overly concerned about personal profit, and done what they saw was best for the economy. I would argue that the inflationary policies since the late 90s are a disaster for the banking industry -- if there's anything worse for a lender than high foreclosures, it's being stuck with 30-year low-interest fixed-rate loans in a period of inflation.

You can make the argument that the Fed boards are dominated by the banking industry -- that is a valid point. The remedy for that is not direct government control, but diversifying the composition of the board. That could actually have a beneficial effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDJane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. The fact remains that
the fed is in mostly private hands, and those hands have manufactured crisis after crisis. The true answer for a stable money supply is to have a fed that is a truly public entity, run by those who take the public good seriously. The biggest problem with the fed is when you get someone like the last guy, who has an admiration for the complex scam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. A Public Entity Means That the Money Supply and Interest Rates
would be in the hands of people who take the public good seriously? You have a lot more faith in politicians and appointees than I do. I do not think that having appropriations, taxes, interest rates, and money supply in the same hands has a very successful history. The practice of appointing a well-regard academic to an independent public-private entity is a good one.

To put together several of your remarks: Your view that the Fed is run by a self-serving cabal of bankers who manufacture crises to profit from them is at odds with how recent chairmen behaved before or after holding the position. The Fed chairmen seem to me to have been attempting to do the right things, in many cases having to adjust for failures in government or industry and in some cases causing problems for financial industry. They certainly make some mistakes, but there were reasonable cases to be made at the time.

I would argue that the Fed has more often acted acted in ways that would benefit the whole economy rather than just the banking industry. Historically, banks do better in high interest environments with highly valued currency. That is not what has happened since the late 90s. I think Bush is completely irresponsible in economic matters, but you look at the actual decisions made by the Fed in the late decade, they match historically progressive remedies much better than banking industry interests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDJane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. The fed follows the politicians anyway,
whether for the public good or not.

And yes, I do have more faith in the government than most Americans. However, Americans keep electing people who don't want to govern!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. The Fed Does Not Always Politicians
Bush Sr. was furious at Alan Greenspan not being more accommodating before the 1992 elections, and attributed his loss to the dismal results. It is a perfect example of an administration being at odds with the Fed over election concerns.

Paul Volcker created an even bigger crisis in 1980s by allowing the prime rate to rise to over 20%. It is hard to see how that could not have affected Carter's reelection prospects. It is worth noting that after the hard landing of the early 80s, Volcker was very accommodating, and a long period of growth with low inflation followed.

Any decision can be questioned, but these are both clear examples of how the Fed and an administration would have acted differently. It is important for monetary policy and interest rates to be set based on economic philosophy rather than on reelection concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-29-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
29. The Fed Does Not Always Follow the Politicians
Greenspan (circa 1990) and Volcker were very unpopular for fighting inflation at the risk of jobs and growth. Putting the Fed completely under political control exacerbates and makes it permanent. However, I would have thought that a more compliant Fed would be what you were looking for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
26. I think with Greenspan Bush or the right wing was in control of the money.
Basically the republican conservative meme is all about the wealthy wanting to grow their wealth at the expense of the rest of us. Where is the money that was borrowed that resulted in the huge deficit? It is in the hands of the wealthy who are not bothered by the results of their actions because their wealth protects them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Unlike the First Bush Presidency,
Greenspan seems to have more politically accommodating with the second Bush. Maybe he had second thoughts about his political independence in the early 90s. Everyone seemed to think he could do no wrong. Probably a case of being in the job too long.

Greenspan's more expansionist policies over the last ten years, however, are diametrically opposed to what the banking industry has historically wanted, and they are suffering for it now. "The wealthy" is not a single block with a single set of interest. If the Fed has gotten us into trouble by being overly accommodating, that suggests we would have been better off with more independence and more control by the banks, not less. Making the Fed a branch of the government would be a step in the wrong direction.

I think that the Fed is trying to learn to be as expansionist as possible without triggering inflation or crashes. That is an excellent goal. The boom since the early 80s is unprecedented, and the setbacks have been fairly minor. Some of what they have done has worked, but they need not to get carried away during good times. Greenspan should have taken away the punchbowl earlier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferd Berfle Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. False choice ribofunk

It's not an either / or situation.

If we dump the Fed it doesn't mean we have to go back to the bad old days.
The Fed is a private for profit Corporation - The Nation's money supply PRIVATIZED. That's a huge part of this problem -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. I May have Misjudged Your Post
and the philosophy of the linked blog. Sorry about that. I associated it with more traditionalist anti-Fed pro-Gold sentiments than are often found here. The Market Oracle is a bit sensationalistic, but they seem to be more sophisticated than many of the more conservative anti-Fed sites. (Plus they're UK-based, with provides a little more impartiality IMO.)

I still don't agree with the sentiment that the money supply and interest rates have been privatized in order to benefit of the banking industry. There were some times in the late 90s and early 00s that may have called for more restrictive policies, but direct political control would have been likely to exacerbate those decisions. Influence of the banking industry has historically been used to tighten. A larger dose of that might have been good in the face of overly accommodating policy during the internet bubble, Y2K fears, post-911 slump, the housing bubble, and the oil and commodities bubbles. Seeking a soft landing in 2008 without massive financial failures seems sensible, even if it is inflationary for the short-term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDJane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes.
It means your banks are insolvent.

Technically, they're just more insolvent; the banking system has been a house of cards from the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
8. Banks aren't lending because interest rates are low
At interest rates like 5%, banks have decided they won't make enough profit to loan out money to average people. Instead, they invest it, expecting to make larger profits.

So us average slobs are out of luck. I don't know where I'm going to get money to pay my daughter's community college tuition this fall.

Banks no longer exist to serve the public - if they ever did. They exist to serve their stockholders and their CEOs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. It's not a matter of willingness to lend
it's a matter of capability. See the chart up top - US banks have negative non-borrowed equity reserves.

This is not a credit crisis - it is a solvency crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Community Colleges should be free
or as close too it as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Yes, I agree
We can thank Ronald Ray-gun for eliminating free attendance at California's state college/university system. Once the s.o.b. started the trend, other formerly free or low-cost public schools around the country began charging and/or raising tuition, until you see what a mess the whole system is today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. you mean the banking PYRAMID SCHEME is failing as any other pyramid scheme
You think our society will function much longer based on monopoly notes print out of thin air???
Or database records???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LucyParsons Donating Member (938 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Are you implying the current nonregulated banking system based on hollow investments
is a pyramid scheme, or capitalism in general?

Either way, I like it. (Your reasoning.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Capitalism in general is not pyramid scheme. But a lot of pyramid schemes
proliferate inside capitalism and the banking system is the tool used to create those schemes.
If you are the game master (the families that control the banks and the federal reserve) it's easy for you to
influence what people do, just by promising them monopoly notes that can be easily printed.
The scheme lies in the fact that real wealth is not money. It's education and control of the means of production:
real estate and hardware. So a lot of workers are scammed into working hard and longer hours for a little bit extra monopoly notes, that won't give them real wealth or independence. Then they are tricked into giving part or all of the money back: buying insurance for things that will never happen, buying items they don't really need, getting mortgages and loans that will make them slaves of the banks forever. Then there are the pyramid schemes literally: pensions, investment funds, where you give part of your salary
for years and years and then some day the company bankrupts and nobody knows where the money is.
The purpose of all these schemes is to keep the real wealth in the hands of the few on top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
15. Great
I need another cup of coffee.... well actually I don't, but ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
19. The Ponzi scheme has been exposed.....
..... It's going to be painful, but a new type of economy is coming.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ferd Berfle Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Unfortunately marmar - you are exaclty Correct.
Edited on Tue May-27-08 03:13 PM by Ferd Berfle
Amero? North American Union?

Just askin
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-27-08 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
24. I've been worried for a few years now...
and that chart is truly frightening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
25. Even a monkey can understand that chart n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-28-08 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
28. I wonder if Basel II is part of this.
Edited on Wed May-28-08 12:05 PM by SimpleTrend
Said to be due to come online for the U.S. banking sector in 2009 (edited to add I could be mistaken about the date)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_II

The third pillar

The third pillar greatly increases the disclosures that the bank must make. This is designed to allow the market to have a better picture of the overall risk position of the bank and to allow the counterparties of the bank to price and deal appropriately.


Creative accounting based upon smoke and mirrors (or profitability is what we claim it is -- without supporting facts) is coming to an end. Ending of CDO and off balance sheet transactions? So, they now have to admit that the money is long gone.


emphasis added:

http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-26.htm

March 3, 2008

Comptroller Dugan Tells International Bankers that Basel II
U.S. Implementation on a Prudent, Deliberate Path



WASHINGTON — Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan today said that many national banks in the United States have indicated they will take advantage of the flexibility provided by the 36-month window for Basel II implementation provided in the final U.S. rule. Mr. Dugan said that the parallel run period included in the rule could begin as early as April 1 of this year, but that no banks have notified the OCC of their intent to start parallel run at that earliest possible date.

“Since parallel run can only begin on the first day of a calendar quarter, the next time an institution could begin that process is July 1,” Mr. Dugan said in a speech to the Institute of International Bankers. He stated that it was unclear at this time whether any national bank would begin parallel run on that date.

The U.S. rule provides for a 36-month window—until April 2011—for mandatory institutions to start the first of the transition years; parallel run would have to begin by April 2010 to meet that requirement, he said. That 36-month window likely will mean that starting dates for individual banks will be staggered over time, which will “allow all of us to ease into the process incrementally, which I think could be a good thing.”

Mr. Dugan also noted that by October 1 of this year, each mandatory institution is required to submit to its primary supervisor an acceptable, board-approved implementation plan. In the meantime, national banks are developing systems that will be used for Basel II, and the OCC reviews those systems as part of ongoing supervision.

“Because Basel II was designed to build upon a foundation of good risk management practices, much of this ongoing work in the banks reflects the natural refinement of risk management processes and systems,” he said. “In a way, qualification for Basel II is incremental—our guiding principle is that Basel II qualification should not be a unique, stand-alone event, but rather should be normalized into the supervisory process.”

In his remarks, Mr. Dugan pointed out that the U.S. is taking a sensible and measured approach to the Basel framework, “an approach that incorporates various transitional arrangements and prudential safeguards that will help us be sure that the new standard works the way it’s supposed to.”

“These safeguards include a parallel run period that lasts at least four quarters but could be longer for individual institutions; during this period, banks have to show that their risk measurements and management processes meet stringent requirements as they compute minimum capital requirements under both the old and the new approaches,” Mr. Dugan said. “This parallel run experience will provide the basis for the OCC’s initial Basel II qualification decisions.”

Following initial qualification, he said, a minimum three-year transition period begins, which permits U.S. supervisors to see a bank’s Basel II systems in full operation and ensure that any potential reductions in capital requirements will be strictly limited through a system of simple and conservative capital floors. Banks will continue to be subject to the U.S. agencies’ leverage capital and Prompt Corrective Action requirements.

“If that sounds like belt and suspenders—it is, and appropriately so,” Mr. Dugan said.

Mr. Dugan added that the U.S. agencies, together with the Basel Committee and others, are reviewing certain aspects of the treatment of CDOs and securitization. The U.S. rule has been structured to allow adjustments during implementation, if necessary, and to make those changes while the transition safeguards are still in effect. If U.S. supervisors see unacceptable results during the parallel run or the transition periods, “we can and will identify and fix the shortcomings,” Mr. Dugan said.

Mr. Dugan pointed out that the Basel II capital framework illustrates a larger point that “with global financial markets, a bank regulatory agency can’t be effective if it focuses narrowly on domestic concerns.”

OCC-supervised banks had 1.7 trillion dollars of foreign exposure, and foreign exposure has been growing more than 30 percent per year, he said. The OCC supervises 30 national bank and trust companies that are foreign-owned, with more than $500 billion in assets, as well as 49 federally licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks with combined assets of about $156 billion.

“Issues of liquidity, governance, transparency, data security, or risk measurement and management have been, and continue to be, concerns around the world—concerns that, for that matter, are not unique to the banking sector,” Comptroller Dugan said.

Mr. Dugan noted the OCC’s participation in the work of the Joint Forum, which brings together supervisors from the banking, insurance, and securities sectors from 13 major countries to address issues of mutual interest. Mr. Dugan currently is serving a two-year term as Chairman of the Joint Forum. He noted that the work of the Joint Forum has taken on added significance and urgency in light of current market developments. “These next two years promise to be an interesting time to chair the Joint Forum, and I’m pleased to have the opportunity to lead a group that, by its composition and mandate, is positioned to make a unique and valuable contribution to the tone and content of international policy discussions.”

“We live in a time when effective supervision and regulation requires that we actively recognize and address the international dimension of banking and finance,” Mr. Dugan concluded. “I see the international activities of the OCC—including our active role on international supervisory bodies such as the Joint Forum and the Basel Committee—as essential components of our ability to effectively accomplish our mission.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC