Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 22, 2008
Bad Assets – No Trust

For about a year now, the Fed is pushing more and more money towards banks, but even a trillion and some dollars later, nothing seem to have helped. Sure interbank landing rates came back a bit from the record values we saw before, but they are still much higher than they should be. More important lending to even good real economy companies has slowed to a crawl.

One reason is the counter intuitive Fed policy. To somewhat sterilize the expansion of its balance sheet the Fed is now paying interest on the reserves banks keep with it. The result:

Last week, banks were sitting on about $800 billion in excess reserves with the Fed, doing absolutely nothing with them.

But the real issue is trust. Some banks are insolvent, but we do not know which one is or which one is not. The Fed and the Treasury repeat the mistakes made in the 'lost years' in Japan where insolvent banks were kept alive until, six years into the crisis, then economics minister Heizo Takenaka got one thing right and finally forced them to come clean and write off their bad assets. Sweden did the equivalent when it nationalized the banking system, eliminated the shareholders and forced the banks to write down bad debt and to restructure before returning them to normal business.

As I wrote before when I demanded Declare All Credit Default Swaps Null And Void trust is the important issue and there is only one way to get it back.

As Ilargi says:

All of the money spent so far, all the trillions, every penny of it, will be a complete waste if these [toxic] assets are not forced out of their closets. Everybody talks about the need to restore markets by restoring trust and confidence. Well, Mr. Obama, here is your key to reviving that trust. Find your own Elliott Ness, this one specialized in derivatives, get him the people he wants and needs, and start raiding the banks' vaults, and the hedge funds, and the pension funds. Force it all out into the open. Refuse to give them even one more nickel, until all of it is on the table. All of it, not just some of it. If that doesn't happen, the US economy will not recover, because there will be no trust and no confidence."

Gloomy as s/he is, Ilargi looks at Obama's advisers and does not expect this to happen. Maybe it will take six years?

There is now some prominent support.

Wolfgang Münchau comments in the Financial Times (reg.req.):

I am sceptical about the benefits of the Fed’s new policy of quantitative easing. We do not have a liquidity crisis, but a solvency crisis, which expresses itself in large spreads and dysfunctional money markets. I cannot see how adding more and more liquidity to the system solves this problem.

Instead of propping up each bank, and swamping the market with cash, we need to restructure and shrink the banking system, as a first step to a sustainable solution to this crisis. Quantitative easing without deep structural financial reform could cause lot of trouble in the long run.

In Japan Takenaka was perceived by some as a puppet of 'western' economic advisers because many 'western' economists pushed with him for writing down bad assets and bank restructuring. Now Japanese economists make the same case for the U.S. But I see little push by their 'western' colleagues.Why?

Comments

All the banks are ‘insolvent’. (?)
The only topic is who will be caught out, thus destroyed, next.
The definition of ‘insolvent’ is tough – if they can continue to do business, then it is Ok, they are still standing…. Tautology.
Madoff did not do anything different from AIG or Lehman or UBS (as far as I can understand from news reports and making a very rough comparison) – the money goes in and out, you juggle the balls, the new pay for the old, and on it goes on the merry-go-round, until the moment ppl want their money back or doubts arise and then Poof!
Everyone played the same game. Now they hunker down or try to be invisible waiting for all the axes to fall, hoping they can somehow, magically, escape the chopper that is aimed at them. Making nice and talking about reform and a lot of PR and excuse me fecking with pols will see some of them through.
Pop Elton: I’m still standing, you tube

Posted by: Tangerine | Dec 22 2008 20:15 utc | 1

This CEO should be in jail, but the Irish Gvmt threw 1.5bn at them today.

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan has defended his decision to use money from the National Pension Reserve Fund to recapitalise Ireland’s three main banks.

Poof goes the future.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Dec 22 2008 20:44 utc | 2

Resident Genius (Tangerine): you make it sound like the culprit is Greed (coupled with Fraud). But I always believed, with Harry Shutt, that the culprit was excess capital, finding profits harder to come by starting in the seventies, and lacking new, prudent areas for investment. Even old market mavens used to say that what kept the stock market up was cash that had nowhere better to go. If that is the case, then the question might be has enough capital been wasted in the current collapse to keep the monsters Hedge Fund and CDS from returning?
Of course, as you say, some may “hunker down” and try to avoid the ax, but will there be the excess capital and the super rich to support them when they surface?

Posted by: seneca | Dec 22 2008 20:51 utc | 3

cloned poster is back. welcome.

Posted by: b real | Dec 22 2008 20:58 utc | 4

Remember that when a bank declares losses, it is doing so only because the economic situation precludes them from continuing to employ the standard creative bookeeping tricks that it used to keep them buried.
So bankers know that any bank that is compelled to declare x billion in bad assets probably has about 10x billions buried somewhere.
Many works of fiction and fantasy describe a legendary land where lost socks, pens, guitar picks, car keys, etc. wind up. Is there a secret bank vault somewhere in the depths of Manhattan where all these bad assets collect?

Posted by: ralphieboy | Dec 22 2008 21:08 utc | 5

Tangerine: Everyone played the same game.
I think the game is over (for good?). You seem to imply that those who can duck & hide may yet return to the profit, or scam or whatever game, as opposed to the visible ones like perhaps Madoff who will go to jail?
So far we have seen so very little jailing of any perps, and we don’t expect to see much if any do we. As if when the public gaze is diverted by media distraction or another war or other, they can continue the ripoff. They the perps know no other way of life.
But I believe and hope that this gullible world has done been picked clean; there’s no more booty out there. Well there is but the system for scarfing it all up is history. I suppose the invisible bosses have yet another Phase in the works to initiate after this one is no longer useful. Also believe and hope that the invisible bosses are out of options like everybody else, but that’s a dream only.
Just wanted to add another odd perspective to the discussion.

Posted by: rapt | Dec 22 2008 22:23 utc | 6

The financial markets became a gigantic ponzi scheme papered over with Credit Default Swaps as unsecured insurance on the gigantic bets. You are correct. The crisis will remained unresolved until the 50 trillion dollars are wiped off the banks books and what is left are transparent assets.
The Democrats have the inherent problem that they are intimately involved in all the excesses of the last decades from the financial bubbles to the torture of Muslims. If denial wins and the stimulus monies are not spent on work that improves transportation efficacy and if the Middle East Crusade never ends; all that will come out of the Obama Administration is bankruptcy.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Dec 22 2008 23:37 utc | 7

The obsession with scarcity and its opposite – abundance – drives the thinking: assets that lost value will recover it and add more; ‘storehouses’ of value require protection from usurpers (e.g. the Internet being one usurper); preserving and maintaining perception and bias regarding value using the media, established institutions (education, industry, government, lobby groups).
One good, recent article to start you thinking differently in the USA:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Sustainable-Farming/Joel-Salatin-Interview.aspx
Diluting the losses has not worked (as alluded to by others, here), neither has it stimulated demand sufficiently. The Europeans will find some sort of a recovery because they have a ‘smarter’ or more disciplined approach to materialism.
Merry Christmas!

Posted by: Sustain26 | Dec 23 2008 0:14 utc | 8

The Big Picture – Cost of Banks
If that’s part of the deflation the system is so worried about, I don’t think I mind it…

Posted by: Alamet | Dec 23 2008 0:54 utc | 9

The problem with the constant fixation with the economic crisis is the nagging suspicion that we are performing as desired when we talk about it – worry about it -seek to reform it etc.
This is compounded by the reality that engaging with the rich on the subject of money is always a losing proposition.
I realise that my refusal to involve myself with loans credit cards stocks or other instruments of the corporate global financial system has left me far more insulated from the current problems than most others and it is therefore easy for me to say ‘don’t worry’ or you’re just playing their game obsessing about the daily news of financial catastrophe, but I have tried to factor that into my thinking and I still come to the same conclusion.
What-ever hapens from now on most ordinary peeps, particularly older ones like us baby boomers are going to be far worse off in our old age than many of us expected.
However my decision not to get caught up in too much of the instruments of our generation’s economic destruction wasn’t the result of any foresight, it was just a decision that for me I couldn’t resolve the ethical dilemmas raised by profiting from investments or financing the trans national usurers who issue credit cards. Just for me -others know what suits them better than I could.
However that said I still believe that the constant daily chatter from the financial community, money shows on the tube, the financial press and all the rest of the paid apologists for global capitalism only serve to distract us from the real issues.
I’ve no doubt b is correct in his assertion that credit default swaps should be nullified but that said, we can talk about this until the cows come home, spread the word but in the end it doesn’t matter how many share b’s view, it only takes one insider from the game to say “you’re talking rubbish because you have no standing” and everything that has been done and said is nullified.
Arguing economics or financial practices, even financial regulation with the rich is a mug’s game.
When we do so we automatically concede all the territory and all the power to the rich who control the area, the rules, the umpires and all the balls.
We are walking into their construct, one that has been designed to remove archaic ideas like one person one vote, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and replace those notions with one share one vote – got a billion shares you got a billion votes, and everyone is as right as the lawyer they can afford – in the eyes of the law.
By arguing the minutiae of global capitalism we legitimise it’s existence when it is as plain as day that the only viable way to resolve the horrors of conflict, poverty and the imminent destruction of our living space is to de-legitimise then destroy global capitalism.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Dec 23 2008 8:12 utc | 10

Trust is gained when the insolvent (individuals, firms counties..) are allowed to fail and everyone sees the naked truth. Fact is that wiping away all the CDS contracts will do nothing to add trust to the system. The fraud and criminal activities need to be illuminated.
Why are all the sick banks and firms like GM being bailed out?? Because ultimatly if the banks, firms etc. fall and fail.. the trust in the USA governement falls and the empire will be over and done. The politicos of course do not want that..
Just read an article in the NZZ here in zurich that Germany has a debt of 1.6 trillion Euros (not as bad as US but still quite bad as germany is losing it’s population..) and god knows what is happening in UK and Ireland so europe is just as bad.
So what happened was that the productive people all over the world (many in Asia as well) that wanted to save their hard earned money for the future invested it in what they thought was the safest place (the banks and firms of the western economic powers) and it turns out that most of it was just hype.
Are there still value in the west? sure there is but there is also a lot of untapped value in the developing world and if there was transparency the good money would find it. As it is now good money is sitting in a box doing nothing
So there needs to be a shakeout globally only then will the good money be able to go to the correct places

Posted by: Sam | Dec 23 2008 13:32 utc | 11

Seneca, yes I suppose I do make it sound like a combo of greed-n-fraud; but I was in fact trying to see the similarities between Madoff and say UBS, not in the motivation, but the process. One is a ‘worthy’ bank, the other will go to prison for the rest of his life – so we have no viable definition of fraud any longer (if we ever had.)
For the rest, I agree with your opinion, so what did we get (da dum, add the music), amongst other things, was a bubble economy, housing the latest and the upcoming the accounting system itself (money)! What happens next is anyone’s guess.
I also believe that the decoupling of finance from the pompously termed fundamentals or the ‘real economy’ is for a large part due to peak oil and peak energy per capita being way in the past. That has been masked by ersatz development and neo-colonialism and the grand casino (finance) in the sky. In fact one could argue that the financial symptoms of the present crisis are trivial…
Madoff. Today’s paper gives a new loss of almost 3 billion for a Geneva ‘office’. (The rough total for GE is 8 billion?) Santander sent the investments of rich Spanish and S. American investors to Optimal, CH, 43 employees. Santander took 52 million in commissions and Optimal invested the lot with Madoff (“Strategic US equity Fund”). Other investors then flocked to Optimal, private Swiss banks and so on. The 50 page description of the fund does not contain the word ‘madoff’. The yearly report is more explicit, and says black on white that the deposit/managing of the money ‘is’ Madoff. A stark warning appears in a bold paragraph: A risk that the manager might just vanish with the funds exists; it is also possible that the information given by /him/ could be fallacious or inexact. The accounts were audited, controlled by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. They apparently (?) relied on the 3 man office of control in NY. Optimal attests that it did due diligence and sent all its info to the *Risk Desk* in Madrid…and so on.
Madoff was ‘hot’ and everyone wanted ‘in’ and they cared not for the details. Being part of the savvy, accepted in-group, joining a club of the privileged who by entitlement does better, deserves to do better, than the poor Joe who figures you can’t beat the S&P index is normal. Connections, knowing the rich and famous, being accepted in that tribe..Ordinary prudence flies out the window; successful frauds often count on that.
The perception that to gain extraordinary advantage one must indulge in criminal activity (mafia, kickbacks, corruption, fraud, illegal trade in human bodies, drugs, etc. etc.) is easily refuted by strange curves and numbers, a show of respectability (tennis, anyone? no sorry golf!) the hint at great secrets – once it has become legitimate for anyone to try and beat the system.
So what is at issue here is not greed as a characteristic of humans, but a corrupt system in a particular socio-economic landscape…
ok much too long…
Rapt, I think it is game over. How will it play out?

Posted by: Tangerine | Dec 23 2008 17:00 utc | 12