Banking for Smart People who aren't Bankers

Those "For Dummies" books and "Complete Idiots Guides" always rubbed me the wrong way. Who buys this stuff? "Hey, I'm a complete idiot, that's for me!" Uh-uh. You're smart and so am I. So let's talk about banking. I'd like you to understand, in simple terms, what's going on when they build a pyre of French antique commodes where Nassau runs into Broad at the corner of Wall Street and start burning bankers alive.

For the show trials they are a'comin. There is a lot of outrage that Uncle Sugar has provided bank capital and weeks later those damned banks are still not lending it. Well, let's examine that.

Basic banking is just a little more complicated than regular industrial enterprises. In a regular industrial enterprise the raw material is, say, habanero peppers and the end product after some processing is hot sauce. For a basic bank, the raw material is money and the end product, after no real processing, is also money.

So an investor -- you remember investors, right? they used to have money to invest -- an investor or investor group gets a bank charter, puts capital in to capitalize their bank, and opens for business. The bank charter allows the bank to take deposits and make loans. The bank loans its deposits. It does not loan its capital. Its capital sits in the vault.

That sets up popular misconception number 1: that having new capital from Uncle Sugar, banks should be lending it. No they shouldn't.

Banking regulations permit banks to lend out up to twelve times their capital.

What about deposits? Simple, plain vanilla banking is taking in deposits, and making loans. The bank pays as little interest as it can on deposits, and charges as much interest as it can on loans (plus points, fees, service charges, and whatever else it can get away with). The difference between interest and fees charged on loans and interest paid on deposits is profit.

The limit on the bank's lending is capital, not loans. If the bank wants to grow, that is to lend more, it needs more capital. A bank that lends less than its capital would permit is considered a conservative bank -- it has a capital surplus backstopping and its lending activities.

As for loans and deposits, the bank can lend out less than it takes in, the same amount as it takes in, or more than it takes in. If it lends out less to regular borrowers than it takes in from depositors, that excess doesn't sit in the vault. The bank buys bonds -- corporate bonds, government bonds, mortgage bonds, whatever. (A bond is just a loan in the form of a security.) If the bank wants to lend out more than it actually has from depositors, it can bid for deposits by raising the interest it pays, it may be able to borrow from the Federal Reserve, or it can borrow from other banks in a huge inter-bank market. Have you been hearing anxious talk about LIBOR, and not knowing what that is? LIBOR is the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate, a rate at which banks commonly lend to each other on a short-term basis.

Banking is a great business . . . you make a margin between what you give and what you receive. It is not a large margin as a percent of the loans and deposits, but because those are a multiple of capital, the returns on capital are large. Or they should be. But then there are losses.

Losses. Ugh. Banks expect that a small percentage of the loans they make to go bad. Some borrowers just get in trouble, some are crooks who never intended to pay back. In that case the bank forecloses on the house or repos the car, and takes what it can recover.

What the bank never expected was that so many of the mortgage bonds would go bad. Those bonds were supposed to be safe. Isn't that why Moody's and S&P put their great triple-A ratings on them?

So the bank looks at its loans and its bonds, and instead of a profitable portfolio it has bad loans, loans in collection, real estate on its own books losing value while no one maintains it and lawyers fight over it, and triple-A rated mortgage bonds in default. These losses are reported on the Profit and Loss Statement, and also charged against capital on the Balance Sheet.

Capital. You remember capital. Capital limits the loans that the bank can make. If the bank loses capital, it loses lending capacity. It can lend less to borrowers. Loan limits get cut. Lines get called, or not renewed.

When you multiply this effect by ten thousand banks across the national economy, you get a liquidity crunch and the economy judders to crawl almost immediately. You probably remember when it happened this time around: it was right around the day when Lehman Brothers went belly-up and we all realized how bad things were. We held our wallets closer, and stopped opening them for discretionary purchases. The economic motor slowed as if its power cord were yanked from the wall socket.

Banks can lend less, but with individuals and businesses cleaving tightly to their wallets, borrowers want to borrow even less. This answers popular misconception number 2: with new capital from Uncle Sugar, banks' capital is not constraining lending and liquidity should immediately re-form in loan markets. No it shouldn't. At this point the problem is not so much supply of loans. It is demand for loans.

With the economy slow and uncertain, everyone pulls back. If unemployment is rising, jobs are scarce, pay raises are hard to come by (and bonuses are made illegal by Acts of Congress), it is absolutely rational behavior for consumers to cut back on their use of credit. If business opportunities are thin on the ground and companies lack confidence, it is absolutely rational for business owners to hunker down, defer capital projects and try to cut back their demand for working capital.

There are some complications that I haven't got into here. I have tipped my hat to the ratings agencies, who have screwed up big time. I believe the standards-setting organizations for accounting and auditing have made this situation worse than it it needs to be by forcing banks to recognize losses too early on loans that can be worked out, crushing their capital. I have not talked about the Federal Reserve, the operations of which influence the price and availability of money.

What is the cure? I just alluded to part of the cure, it is that which cures all ills -- time. Given time, banks can work out of losses on many bad assets. Given time, individuals and business owners will regain confidence and begin to demand loans again.

Next, price. The Federal Reserve has hooked up the economy the a veritable firehose of liquidity and reduced the price to about zero. That lets banks cut their lending rates to levels that bring back prospective borrowers and yet still allows them to make a great margin.

Also, money. Banks are being recapitalized as the leaders of the industry and government figure out how to deal with the upsurge in bad loans. It is not only government money coming in to recapitalize banks, but also private capital that banks call upon from those that still have it. This also takes time (see above).

Hang in there. It gets better.

Will Exxon Apologize? Who will be first to denounce XOM?

AP Headline: "Exxon Mobil shatters US record for annual profit". Published Friday January 30, 8:32 am ET. See it here.

"Where is the outrage?"

If you take their money you will take their direction

President Obama took another shot at Wall Street today. "I saw an article today that indicated Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses. That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful."

We are uneasy about the anti-business tone being taken by the new administration and Congress. There's a ready market for this kind of populism, but after the bankers are burned alive on pyres of corporate jets and commodes, the economy catches no rise thereby.

American businesspeople are facing a world in which all their contracts and undertakings are examined line-by-line by government officials, second-guessed by PIRGs, NGOS, and the media (which is doing such a bang-up job managing its own affairs after all), and subjected to subpoena or prosecution by career-making politicians.

To advance themselves, they will not scruple to destroy you.

If you take their money, you will have to take their direction. Simple as that.

Burberry in China

Or as Morici said, "the most protectionist country in the history of the world."

Dangerous New Phase of Financial Crisis (4)

From the official designation of China as a currency manipulator, it is but a short step to actually blaming China for the whole financial crisis, as the Washington Post does in an article entitled "An OPEC Lesson for China".

When I heard about the article, I thought it had to be satirical. I thought you would have to be joking to assert that it was the Chinese who did this to us, forcing cheap money on American financial institutions to on-lend to subprime borrowers who couldn't pay back. But apparently they're serious. Expect to hear more of this, as well as outraged push-back from the Chinese whose narrative is that it is American dissipation and profligacy that is responsible for the economic mess of the entire world.

Dangerous New Phase of Financial Crisis (3)

Let me just send you to the account in The Independent newspaper of the UK: "America Goes Green" The title tells you a lot, but there is much more. As the article says, "Tilting at Mr Bush has become a hallmark of the Obama presidency," and today's windmill is the Bush admininstration's approach to environmental regulation of the motor industry, CAFE standards and so on.

The light touch is going away. At a time when the US auto industry is fighting for survival, this administration wants to lay whole new environmental regulatory and compliance burdens on them. I really don't believe they can bear up.

Dangerous New Phase of Financial Crisis (2)

In the inaugural address and on every subsequent working day of the new administration, the president has made remarks related to the economy and the financial situation. I already commented on the political theater aspects of the inaugural address; these were fully understandable, and even necessary.

But in the following days, the president has kept up the same line of discourse -- hammer the previous administration, talk down the economy. This is not uniting the public or restoring confidence, but rather the opposite. If there is very much more of this kind of talk, it will reinforce the lack of confidence in the economy and deepen the recession.

On Friday the president lowered himself to comment disparagingly on the office renovations of John Thain, late of Merrill Lynch; hours later he told congressional Republicans, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

Both Thain and Limbaugh are private citizens engaged in legitimate business, just like the other bankers and business-people that the administration appears to want to use regularly as foils in their play.

I expected this to be a less business-friendly administration, but I admit I did not expect it to be outright anti-business, or that there would be personal attacks on individual private citizens engaged in legitimate business. There is just something not right about an American president going in for this stuff . . . is "unseemly" the word for it?

Dangerous New Phase of Financial Crisis (1)

For no particularly good reason, Tim Geithner on Friday in his confirmation hearing set off after China, declaring it a currency manipulator in decidedly undiplomatic language.

China is a major trading partner and a principal creditor of the United States. At a time of financial stress maybe a little more delicacy is called for in this key relationship. Or if not, then batten down for capital flight and a dollar crisis.

FT reports China hits back in kind, says of Geithner: "This is a sign of his immaturity and his inability to do such an important job."

Not a good start. Not change I can believe in.

Just sayin'.

Note the political theater aspect of some of the economic discourse

In this trading week, the DJIA has been down 300+, up 200+, and as I write this note, down another 200+.

A significant part of Tuesday's drop occurred during and after Barack Obama's inaugural address. Whether you were wowed by the address or not, you have to admit there was a lot less gaseous uplift than we have come to expect from his speeches, and a bracing amount of sober description of the economic problems we now face.

There was also considerable weakness during our up 200+ Wednesday, as Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner was telling the Senate Finance Committee confirmation how gravely serious these problems are.

Unquestionably, there are real difficulties now, but it is necessary to bear one thing firmly in mind when the new president and his administration talk down the US economy. This is necessary and effective political theater. Now that they have taken ownership of the situation:

1) The new administration has to blame everything on the old administration.
2) They have to accentuate the old administration's responsiblity for all problems, so that they can take full credit for their remediation.
3) They have to set low expectations that they can expect to exceed.
4) And they have to enhance the crisis atmosphere, because that is the environment most receptive to their proposals for radical action.

I recall dark days during the Asian Financial Crisis, one of the several hundred-year floods I have experienced in an 18-year financial career. It was Christmas week, 1997. In Korea, Kim Dae-Jung won the election to succeed Kim Young-Sam, and the next day he made his inaugural speech. In so many words, this what he said: "Wow. Holy $h|t. Things are way more screwed up than even we thought. I don't know whether we are going to go bust tomorrow or the day after tomorrow."

The KOSPI did another belly-flop off the 10-meter board. But recognizing the speech as just great political theater rather than pure reasoned analysis, I thought that market break was buyable. And that buy turned out very well indeed.

If the theatrical elements follow the same script, this market break may also turn out very well, or so I may, ahem, hope.

The administration has a fine line to walk, however. They want to pursue the script only far enough to meet their political objectives, but not so far that everyone takes an even greater fright than they already have, killing confidence and tipping the economy into a depression from which it can't be pulled out.

Parnell, by W.B. Yeats

I called my best friend today, who is an Obama supporter and an African American gentleman, to congratulate him on the occasion of the inauguration. There's a two line poem by W.B. Yeats called "Parnell" that might have some relevance to the African American community at this time. Or not. But here it is:

"Parnell came down the road, he said to a cheering man;
'Ireland shall get her freedom and you still break stone.'"

(New Poems, 1938)

The Street didn't care for it

The Dow Jones Industrial Average went from -130 to -200 during President Obama's Inaugural Address, and kept dropping through the rest of the day. Finally -330 with hardly a skidmark, for the worst Inauguration Day in the history of the index.

Those looking for an "Obama Bounce" can hope it will be stronger as it begins from lower levels.

Inauguration Day

Whether Barack Obama was your choice or not, this is a great moment for the country. Wish him well, and hold on to the hope that the next four years will be also be great.

Perspective. 9/11 insured loss estimate was $40.2 billion

That is according to 2002 estimates from the Insurance Information Institute.

This puts the Bernie Madoff fraud into some perspective. Note I don't say "alleged" after our touchy-touchy American media fashion -- old Bernie has admitted it, and put a $50 billion number on it. While it is not clear there was ever really that much money there, that is the working number we have.

Whatever the number, it's a big one, of the order of the insured financial loss from the 9/11 attacks.

So what's up with the way our system seems to take the Madoff very lightly, while we went to war over 9/11? Why is this guy not down at Guantanamo getting waterboarded, instead of watching his life unfold on the big screen while he sits at home under house arrest?

I also have to wonder how much dollar value one of New York's minority citizens would have to steal from a corner store uptown from the Madoffs to be remanded to Riker's Island. It's probably less than $1 billion.

What do you think?