New Deal democrat's blog

The Blogosphere Banking Panic (II. A quick history of the FDIC)

There is only $53 billion in FDIC insurance to cover $6.84 Trillion in bank deposits

- Mike Shedlock, a/k/a Mish, "You Know The Banking System Is Unsound When...."

This is a trivially inadequate amount of insurance, right?

Wrong.

One of the many great accomplishments of the New Deal was the Banking Act of 1933, also known as "Glass-Steagall", which among other things established the FDIC.
FDR signing of the Banking Act of 1933

The Blogosphere Banking Panic (I.)

There have been recent blog posts which imply a panic in the banking sector worse than the Great Depression, with highly respected financial writer Mish a/k/a Mike Shedlock making the extraordinary claim that "The entire US banking system is insolvent." His essential reasoning:

There is roughly $6.84 Trillion in bank deposits. $2.60 Trillion of that is uninsured. There is only $53 billion in FDIC insurance to cover $6.84 Trillion in bank deposits. Of the $6.84 Trillion in bank deposits, the total cash on hand at banks is a mere $273.7 Billion. Where is the rest of the loot? The answer is in off balance sheet SIVs, imploding commercial real estate deals, Alt-A liar loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds, toggle bonds where debt is amazingly paid back with more debt, and all sorts of other silly (and arguably fraudulent) financial wizardry schemes that have bank and brokerage firms leveraged at 30-1 or more. Those loans cannot be paid back.

What cannot be paid back will be defaulted on.

Is he right?

Bankruptcy 2015 ? (Part II.)

In Part I of this series, I examined the 1992 best seller entitled "Bankruptcy 1995", which had predicted that the US would become unable to service its national debt as early as 1995 due to soaring budget deficits. So dire and well-documented was the warning that it affected the outcome of the 1992 presidential election, helping to elect Bill Clinton. In light of new looting of the national treasury by George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, I re-read the book to see if any of its predictions were now coming true. I posted those predictions, and the book's thesis that continued budget deficits would drive up interest rates and lead to "Death by Hyperinflation" or "Death by Panic" in Part I.
But "Bankruptcy 1995" obviously didn't happen, in spite of the fact that deficits have continued to be run nearly every year since then. Only part of the reason was the fiscally responsible Clinton tax and budget plan that began in 1993. In this diary I examine how a long-term, continuous decline in interest rates has actually reduced the carrying costs of the National Debt, and why that means the sky Hasn't fallen -- yet.

Bankruptcy 2015 ? (Part I.)

Is the US going bankrupt? With an intractable trade deficit and a national debt in excess of $9 trillion dollars, and an ongoing collapse in both the financial sector and of the national ($$$) currency, it may seem so. With that in mind, it is timely to consider documentary evidence of just what such a national bankruptcy would look like.

(NOTE: This is a republication of a diary originally published about a year ago at the Big Orange Political Blog, with minor updates to incorporate events that have occurred since)

Is China's bubble bursting?

If I simply showed you the following graph of a stock market losing nearly 60% of its value in 9 months, you'd probably conclude that a bubble had burst, and that the country whose companies it represented was probably in for some big Hurting:

So why has China been immune from such analysis? Presumably because the "story" behind China's growth is so compelling. Just about everybody seems to agree that China is the emerging economic world superpower.
Well, it's difficult to imagine now what life would be like without the internet, and yet that didn't stop the dot-bomb crash of 2000-2002. And the Mississippi Land Bubble was based on the accurate belief that what is now the US midwest would someday be the breadbasket of the world. Unfortunately they were off by 150 or so years.

1930

In The 1920s Credit Bubble, I explained how a credit binge gave rise to serial bubbles in housing, durable consumer goods, and the infamous stock bubble of the 1920s. Last week in The Panic of 2008: a Turning Point I gave a big picture overview of how our current credit crunch is unfolding. At that time I pointed out that there were some important differences between our credit crunch, and the collapse of the 1920s credit bubble into the Great Depression. The goal of this diary is to peer into our near future by means of a chronological examination of how the apparently mild if abrupt downturn that began in late 1929 transformed into a much more serious downturn that ultimately snowballed into the Great Depression, during the year following the stock market crash, 1930.

I. Introduction

Imagine it is a time like now, where there has been a remarkable credit binge that has ended in dramatic fashion, with the stock market suddenly crashing and losing 1/3 of its entire value. Consumers are saddled with debt, as are many who speculated on the newest baubles on offer by Wall Street. The assets pledged as collateral to back up the loans that went to buy both the consumer and financial baubles is caught in a vicious downward spiral. Eventually, and very soon, all of this bad debt is going to have to be liquidated, and both debtors and creditors may go under as a result.

The Panic of 2008: a turning point

Last November I wrote a diary called The Panic of 2008? in which I predicted:

This is NOT the Great Depression II. Nor is this the stagflationary 1970s. It is going to unfold as some other Beast. Only the broad outlines of this Beast appear discernable now: it will likely feature (1) increasing import prices; (2) wage stagnation (that does not keep up with price inflation); (3) real asset deflation; and (4) possibly a Japan-style "liquidity trap."

Neutron Bomb over Wall Street?

One of the heretical thoughts I continue to hold is that the "slow motion bust" that we are living through, may not proceed to destroy the entire economy like a nuclear bomb. Rather, like a neutron bomb over Wall Street, it might destroy the financial sector but leave most of the economic infrastructure in place. If it is a worthy goal that the doctrine of "Profits are privatized, losses are socialized" must cease, then it may be an absolute tonic if several financial enterprises thought "too big to fail", nevertheless do.

A noteworthy graph from Yahoo finance demonstrates that the "neutron bomb" scenario indeed may be unfurling. The graph below covers the last 3 years for the S & P 500 (red) and compares it with the financial sector as represented by the Financial SPDR (blue), starting from a baseline (0%) of 5 years ago:

Surprise 2! Positive yield curves haven't always been positive for the economy

Readers of my diaries probably know that I consider the bond market to be one of the most solid indicators of what lies ahead for the economy. In fact, the stock market is a leading economic indicator, and the bond market leads even that.
In 2006 and 2007 the bond market went into a mild inversion, i.e., interest rates on short term bonds were higher than rates on long term bonds. This is a historically accurate indication of recessions about 12 months further out. It does appear that we have dutifully slipped into recession in the early part of 2008 (although we may not "know" it officially until the final revisions to economic numbers is made official - several years from now!)

Surprise! Negative interest rates don't always mean high inflation

In the last couple a days a lengthy brief by Aaron Krowne, famous for the "Mortgage Broker Implode-O-Meter", titled Debate Over: It's Hyperinflation (and US Economic Collapse) has gotten extensive attention. The title is pretty self-explanatory. Krowne claims that the Fed's recent negative interest rate policy is going to provoke hyperinflation:

the one thing that is different this time; the only thing on the planet that could truly be the cause of the EXTREME price action in oil, are the actions of the Fed. In specific I mean holding interest rates at the ungodly low rate of 2% -- below even their own doctored inflation reading (which is around 4%); and hell, below even their core inflation reading, which is a percent lower or so.

Pages