Fed Chooses Wall Street Over Main Street
By Mr Practical May 07, 2008 1:15 pm
Saving big banks a costly proposition for middle class.
“It took from 1914 until November 2007 for the Federal Reserve to accumulate $800 billion worth of Treasury debt. It has taken from December 17 to the end of April for the Fed to divest itself of $260 billion of this portfolio, a decrease of one-third. In its place, it has placed AAA-rated mortgages. At the current swap rate, the Federal Reserve System will be out of Treasury debt in December of 2008. But by adding car loans to the list of eligible paper, the Fed will most likely greatly accelerate this.”
- Economist Gary North
To the average person this is gibberish. Perhaps this is why the Fed is able to do what it's doing: slowly nationalize the banking system. The stabilization that everyone is giddy about has its cost. The private market, with the encouragement of the Federal Reserve, has manufactured vast debt that cannot be repaid. Banks used up their capital long ago, so the Fed has to take those bad loans away from them and give them capital back.
Stabilization is not a working banking system. When you hear all the CEOs of Wall-Street say the crisis is nearing an end, it has no implication for a working banking system that will create more credit.
The Fed adds a new twist everyday. Now it's going to pay interest on reserves banks must keep at the Fed. This will allow the Fed to expand its balance sheet even more and buy even more bad loans from banks. Again, this isn't a positive: It illustrates just how bad things are.
By the way, it's the U.S. taxpayer that will be picking up a good portion of this interest they will now pay to banks.
Chairman Ben Bernanke has been given high marks for saving the system. But just what are we saving? The average person does not understand that what they are really saving is the bankers and Wall Street at the expense of the middle-class standard of living. A devalued dollar of 50% hurts the middle class much more than a 50% decline in the stock market. Why not let a failed system fail, thus re-distributing savings and income back to the middle class? Of course, everyone will suffer but in the long run that will happen anyway and saving the system will disproportionally hurt the middle class more.
The system is broken. Every action by the Fed says so. Those that anticipate a shallow recession still do not understand this. The credit crunch has barely begun affecting the real economy. We're in the very early stages of this process and the government wants to boil the proverbial toad (the middle class) as slowly as possible.
Risk is very high.
- Economist Gary North
To the average person this is gibberish. Perhaps this is why the Fed is able to do what it's doing: slowly nationalize the banking system. The stabilization that everyone is giddy about has its cost. The private market, with the encouragement of the Federal Reserve, has manufactured vast debt that cannot be repaid. Banks used up their capital long ago, so the Fed has to take those bad loans away from them and give them capital back.
Stabilization is not a working banking system. When you hear all the CEOs of Wall-Street say the crisis is nearing an end, it has no implication for a working banking system that will create more credit.
The Fed adds a new twist everyday. Now it's going to pay interest on reserves banks must keep at the Fed. This will allow the Fed to expand its balance sheet even more and buy even more bad loans from banks. Again, this isn't a positive: It illustrates just how bad things are.
By the way, it's the U.S. taxpayer that will be picking up a good portion of this interest they will now pay to banks.
Chairman Ben Bernanke has been given high marks for saving the system. But just what are we saving? The average person does not understand that what they are really saving is the bankers and Wall Street at the expense of the middle-class standard of living. A devalued dollar of 50% hurts the middle class much more than a 50% decline in the stock market. Why not let a failed system fail, thus re-distributing savings and income back to the middle class? Of course, everyone will suffer but in the long run that will happen anyway and saving the system will disproportionally hurt the middle class more.
The system is broken. Every action by the Fed says so. Those that anticipate a shallow recession still do not understand this. The credit crunch has barely begun affecting the real economy. We're in the very early stages of this process and the government wants to boil the proverbial toad (the middle class) as slowly as possible.
Risk is very high.
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(26)
Reply
2008-05-07 13:23:46
Since the days of the Lincoln administration,
the US government has been more about mercantilism than capitalism. Most of the founding fathers were men of virtue. Too bad the US government has mutilated every shred of virtue in the universe in exchange for $600 for an unfortunate few.
2008-05-07 13:34:12
boiling the toad
maybe this was the long term plan all along
the debt and interest on the debt becomes a perpetual monies machine to maintain those who, it is said out loud now, cannot be allowed to fail
the debt and interest on the debt becomes a perpetual monies machine to maintain those who, it is said out loud now, cannot be allowed to fail
2008-05-07 13:49:21
The dark side of globalization
There was a time when the upper class had to care about the lower classes in their own country. They needed tradesmen and peasants and so on to create trade goods, grow their food, and so on. Further, the rich could not oppress the poor too much, because the poor were right there in the same community and could riot or revolt, which was at a minimum inconvenient.
Now, the ruling elite have no loyalty to any nation, and if the citizens of any country 'revolt', the rich and / or their capital can be freely moved to another country. They no longer need the lower classes in their country so long as there remains another country to which they can move.
The upshot of this is that yes, things are different this time. Once as much money as possible is extracted from the lower classes of the USA, the upper classes will move to China or India or Dubai and leave us to starve. After we have been reduced to utter poverty and are willing to work at Chinese wages the capital, and capitalists, will return.
Now, the ruling elite have no loyalty to any nation, and if the citizens of any country 'revolt', the rich and / or their capital can be freely moved to another country. They no longer need the lower classes in their country so long as there remains another country to which they can move.
The upshot of this is that yes, things are different this time. Once as much money as possible is extracted from the lower classes of the USA, the upper classes will move to China or India or Dubai and leave us to starve. After we have been reduced to utter poverty and are willing to work at Chinese wages the capital, and capitalists, will return.
2008-05-07 13:53:52
A devalued dollar of 50% hurts the middle class much more than a 50% decline in the stock market. Why not let a failed system fail, thus re-distributing savings and income back to the middle class?
Why not?, Let's see some of the potential results of current track:
More poor people -bigger 'all voluntary' army, more nation building, more arms sold, higher oil, more poor people, repeat....
Higher food costs-genetically modified seeds allowed in more areas of the world, seed price cartel, higher food costs, more poor people, see above....
Meanwhile some whoppin big corps make whoppin big cash for the next qtr, anyway and that is all that matters.
It seems simplistic, but I am not very smart...
More poor people -bigger 'all voluntary' army, more nation building, more arms sold, higher oil, more poor people, repeat....
Higher food costs-genetically modified seeds allowed in more areas of the world, seed price cartel, higher food costs, more poor people, see above....
Meanwhile some whoppin big corps make whoppin big cash for the next qtr, anyway and that is all that matters.
It seems simplistic, but I am not very smart...
2008-05-07 14:25:59
frog legs
the gov feeds us garbage, but they do it w/ kid gloves, easily, slowly, smoothly, so we don't really notice til its too late
kind of like the murdering spouse who uses small but sufficient doses of arsenic to do in the significant other
kind of like the murdering spouse who uses small but sufficient doses of arsenic to do in the significant other
2008-05-07 14:56:34
The Same "Minyanville Staff"
indicated just a day or two ago that if there really is/was a recession, it was piddling and is over now anyhow.
Maybe the lithium in the water there is good. It's supposed to help schizophrenia.
Maybe the lithium in the water there is good. It's supposed to help schizophrenia.
2008-05-07 15:07:37
Hey Bushwackers, what are you trickling down this time...
Simply another twist to - and example of - the ever-failing supply-side economic theory...this time with debt being trickled down to the masses. It had to happen...as supply-side economics fail to create solid economic growth, as it always will in a Democratic State, the only recourse is to trickle down the debt creation. What's next? The requisite burden of increased taxes to cover runaway local, state and federal government debt. I can hear it already next year... "there you have it - those dasdardly Democrats and their tax and spend foundational economic policies. What a mess they are creating." How about IMPEACHING this President to send a message to this and future Republican Administrations to never again manage this country with supply-side economics... plain and simple, it just does not work.
2008-05-07 15:11:19
Is it the government or the administration
I think we need to be more specific. Our government should work, it is based on democratic principles that most of us buy into.
I think it is more proper to talk about the administration of the government. The creation of the self regulating Fed seems to be a mistake. We now have someone hand picked by the Bush administration that is doing everything he can to please that administration and follow policies that he believes in.
All comes back to mistakes made in the past and present.
And I suppose the fact that many have voted with their pocket books... promise a tax cut and you get elected. Does not matter if you have an ounce of intelligence or not.
Let's get term limits in for congress and get an administration that believes in free market capitalism here at home.
that's my rant for today.
I think it is more proper to talk about the administration of the government. The creation of the self regulating Fed seems to be a mistake. We now have someone hand picked by the Bush administration that is doing everything he can to please that administration and follow policies that he believes in.
All comes back to mistakes made in the past and present.
And I suppose the fact that many have voted with their pocket books... promise a tax cut and you get elected. Does not matter if you have an ounce of intelligence or not.
Let's get term limits in for congress and get an administration that believes in free market capitalism here at home.
that's my rant for today.
2008-05-07 15:36:35
collateral for loans vs. purchase
Before I will concede that the Fed is tossing the American middle class under the train to help out Wall Street, I would like to point out one thing. So far, IMHO, the FED hasn't actually created a Put on bank stocks (well, except for the $29B to JPM) that many people claim. They have a lot of overvalued AAA assets on their books, but these are COLLATERAL. The Fed doesn't own them (and take the loss) unless either (1) the bank that offered them goes bankrupt (bear in mind, that techinically Bear Stearns did NOT go bankrupt) (2) they (the Fed) change the rules yet again and purchase them.
Wall Street and the Fed are claiming that the big problem with the CDOs and MBS is (was?) liquidity, not valuation. The claim is that the spreads were unreasonably wide because of the huge disparity in actual value of assets with the same grade (AAA, AA, etc.), so good assets went down with bad.
So basically there are three outcomes:
1) The AAA's in the Fed's hands is now fairly valued (doubtful). This is the best case scenario, and is the shallow/no recession outcome that is currently trumpeted by the media.
2) The AAA's in the Fed's hands are overvalued and some default. Because this is COLLATERAL, the Fed gives it back to the Banks and the banks take the losses. The banks will become more conservative (real PE's <10 for a long time), the dollar will strenghthen, commodities will pop, inflation will come down. This is what I'm hoping for.
3) The AAA's in the Fed's hands are overvalued and some default. The FED PURCHASES the AAA's. The dollar (and the FED) become worthless, inflation is rampant, the Wall Street bankers move to Asia. This is what I'm hoping against.
Wall Street and the Fed are claiming that the big problem with the CDOs and MBS is (was?) liquidity, not valuation. The claim is that the spreads were unreasonably wide because of the huge disparity in actual value of assets with the same grade (AAA, AA, etc.), so good assets went down with bad.
So basically there are three outcomes:
1) The AAA's in the Fed's hands is now fairly valued (doubtful). This is the best case scenario, and is the shallow/no recession outcome that is currently trumpeted by the media.
2) The AAA's in the Fed's hands are overvalued and some default. Because this is COLLATERAL, the Fed gives it back to the Banks and the banks take the losses. The banks will become more conservative (real PE's <10 for a long time), the dollar will strenghthen, commodities will pop, inflation will come down. This is what I'm hoping for.
3) The AAA's in the Fed's hands are overvalued and some default. The FED PURCHASES the AAA's. The dollar (and the FED) become worthless, inflation is rampant, the Wall Street bankers move to Asia. This is what I'm hoping against.
2008-05-07 15:40:20
dumb question
Can someone explain the statement:
"...let a failed system fail, thus re-distributing savings and income back to the middle class"?
I guess if they let the system fail, then some banks go bankrupt and the stock market tanks, but how do we (mid. class) get savings and income back? What's the "mechanism"? What's meant by "re-distributed savings"?
Thank you to whoever explains this to me.
George
"...let a failed system fail, thus re-distributing savings and income back to the middle class"?
I guess if they let the system fail, then some banks go bankrupt and the stock market tanks, but how do we (mid. class) get savings and income back? What's the "mechanism"? What's meant by "re-distributed savings"?
Thank you to whoever explains this to me.
George
2008-05-07 16:25:13
Is it the government or the administration
How about this:
You cannot make a campaign contribution for an election unless you can legally vote in that election. Which leaves out corporations, unions, PACs, et cetera
You cannot make a campaign contribution for an election unless you can legally vote in that election. Which leaves out corporations, unions, PACs, et cetera
2008-05-07 17:24:23
Is it the government or the administration
Dean,
yes add that to the list... get rid of the lobbyists that represent corporations, etc..
yes add that to the list... get rid of the lobbyists that represent corporations, etc..
2008-05-07 18:12:14
dumb question
There's probably more to this, but a part of it may have to do with the idea that if the govt doesn't use the public's money to prop up Wall Street, the dollar will strengthen and commodity prices will come down. ("A devalued dollar of 50% hurts the middle class much more than a 50% decline in the stock market.").
2008-05-07 18:22:58
dumb question
There is also Todd's familiar theme of "dollar value versus asset value". If the real, intrinsic value of a 100 shares of XOM is X acres of Iowa farmland, a 50% decline in the value of the dollar will make both the Iowa farmland and the shares of XOM double in dollar terms; however, someone valuing them in Euros might assess that their value had not changed.
So, letting the dollar appreciate would be almost invisible to those who value everything in dollars (the middle class) but it might hammer those who are betting against the USA by their actions.
So, letting the dollar appreciate would be almost invisible to those who value everything in dollars (the middle class) but it might hammer those who are betting against the USA by their actions.
2008-05-07 21:20:15
dumb question
Oh you mean like Mr. Cheney and his anti-dollar portfolio?
2008-05-07 21:53:01
dumb question
I just thought of something which may be the simple answer to my own question:
Letting the banks fail means the Feds don't have to use our tax dollars to bail them out. So we get to keep our savings and income. Kind of an indirect way of "re-distribution".
Letting the banks fail means the Feds don't have to use our tax dollars to bail them out. So we get to keep our savings and income. Kind of an indirect way of "re-distribution".
2008-05-07 22:39:30
Check out this clip. It captures the current financial crisis. Please give me a great ranking if you like it and forward to a friend. Im trying to spread the word that this bear isnt over. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGWxBpoZtZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGWxBpoZtZ8
2008-05-08 09:52:51
Is it the government or the administration
What we need is a cohesive definition of the governments role. This was supposed to be defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Elected officials were meant to be a part of a continuing form of government. The state of respect and support of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the officials of the government is defunct. The best possible outcome would be for the best and brightest group of lawyers to attack the Federal government in the courts for the total disregard of it's responsibilities and force it into compliance. That is why there is three arms in our form of government. Said lawyers would not make a dime, but would go down in history as some of the finest people in American history. That, my friend, is my rant for the day.
2008-05-08 11:50:27
Is it the government or the administration
The courts whose judges were appointed by?
Did you catch Scalia saying that torture at Guantanamo wouldn't be cruel and unusual punishment because it's not intended to punish but to interrogate? People who can play those sorts of games with semantics can issue any ruling necessary for the benefit of those that appointed them. "Strict Constructionist" my fragrant hindquarters.
So if we execute Justice Scalia (after trial & appeals) in a manner that would give Dante the willies but say we're doing it not as punishment but as a deterrent to future justices who might be tempted to issue ludicrous rulings, it's OK with the Constitution. That's good to know.
Did you catch Scalia saying that torture at Guantanamo wouldn't be cruel and unusual punishment because it's not intended to punish but to interrogate? People who can play those sorts of games with semantics can issue any ruling necessary for the benefit of those that appointed them. "Strict Constructionist" my fragrant hindquarters.
So if we execute Justice Scalia (after trial & appeals) in a manner that would give Dante the willies but say we're doing it not as punishment but as a deterrent to future justices who might be tempted to issue ludicrous rulings, it's OK with the Constitution. That's good to know.
2008-05-08 12:02:48
It is #3 Paul Smith. (well doen by the way) The proliferation of rampant speculation over the past 10 years in the Real Estate sector in this Boomer econo-cycle is undeniably the proverbial "nail in the coffin". It takes real discipline and vision to be an above average investor and we have had too many easy-money Real Estate speculators. Those exposed will be toasted. Trust me, we are looking at 20 years+ of 30% to 50% residential asset class depreciation. And, if the economy stablilizes at the lower standard of living, which will be, we will look back in about 20 years and say, Thank God for that correction...our [children] at least had a chance to buy a small patch of land, put a roof over their head and food on the table. They say what goes around comes around... timing just depends on how big the circle is.
PS: I am very impressed with the Minyan commentary herein. Dean Simmons may just have it about right...another sad story of individual greed over common good.
PS: I am very impressed with the Minyan commentary herein. Dean Simmons may just have it about right...another sad story of individual greed over common good.
2008-05-08 12:46:09
collateral for loans vs. purchase
Based on the fed's actions to date, unfortunately, it seems that scenario 3 has the highest probability. The short term effect on banks is more important than the long term effects on the economy. When are we going to get a politician, including Bernanke, with the strength to do the "right thing"?
2008-05-08 12:48:28
Is it the government or the administration
Glad to hear you agree with my assesment of the current situation. I agree with you that my solution is a pipe dream that will not happen, but the corrections need to begin soon, demanded by the people, or our nation will disolve. Ron Price
2008-05-08 14:00:30
Is it the government or the administration
I think that it may be the other way around; I believe that the Fed hand picked this administration. It's the Fed calling the shots and the administration slowly nodding it's head with that blank (light's on, no one home" stare saying "Whatever you think is best...".
2008-05-08 14:08:47
Is it the government or the administration
I don't think Bernanke picked Bush. Now, if you want to posit malign powers that selected both, go ahead, but conspiracy theories of that sort are not helpful because they cannot be proved or disproved. Given enough conspirators with enough money we're back to the Truman Show where we are all just toys being fed lies for someone's amusement.
2008-05-10 09:45:45
dumb question
Are you privy to Mr. Cheney's portfolio? If so and if you really believe in your comment, you should be a very rich person. If you were rich though, I see no reason for posting inplaces like this. So you most likely are not rich. Also most likely you are very bitter. Posting uninformed, bitter comments along with others who are really thoughtful is a diservice tous all. Your apology expected and accepted in advance.
2008-05-12 10:17:36
dumb question
Robert,
Certainly not my intent to offend. I do believe I read somewhere that his portfolio was anti-dollar and heavy on oil and so I was passing on what I recall reading as it seemed to fit the theme being discussed that the powers in charge might have agendas. That is why it was posed as a question, not a statement of fact. I do not feel I fall into the bitter guns and bible folk. At this point I am more rich in love than in money, but I am certainly not poor either. But blessed are the poor for they will inherit the earth. I do not recall an income test to post here at the 'Ville. Besides, I thought in our republic it was our responsibility to question our leaders, not blind obedience.
Charles
/articles .moneycentral .msn.com /Investing /Extra /Cheneys Betting on Bad News .aspx take out the spaces
Certainly not my intent to offend. I do believe I read somewhere that his portfolio was anti-dollar and heavy on oil and so I was passing on what I recall reading as it seemed to fit the theme being discussed that the powers in charge might have agendas. That is why it was posed as a question, not a statement of fact. I do not feel I fall into the bitter guns and bible folk. At this point I am more rich in love than in money, but I am certainly not poor either. But blessed are the poor for they will inherit the earth. I do not recall an income test to post here at the 'Ville. Besides, I thought in our republic it was our responsibility to question our leaders, not blind obedience.
Charles
/articles .moneycentral .msn.com /Investing /Extra /Cheneys Betting on Bad News .aspx take out the spaces
Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options. Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved
















