• Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • >

Posts tagged Financial Melt-Down

The Obama Bank Tax Plan, “Responsibility” isn’t the word

Back to the grind after a much needed vacation from Political idiocy.  There is just so much moronic activity you can deal with before it starts turning your own brain to mush.  Back to covering political stupidity, and the first subject is a doozey:  Barack Obama has announced intentions to levy a new tax an financial institutions, something laughingly called a “financial crisis responsibility fee.”

Why laughingly?  Well, it doesn’t tax those responsible for the financial crisis.

The financial crisis was caused by mortgage loans being handed out to people who were high credit risks.  These loans were given due to pressure from the Government, charging that the banks were engaging in racial discrimination in their decision not to give loans to these credit risks (i.e. “Red Lining”).

Also involved in giving out these loans were organizations known as Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the F.H.A. (Federal Housing Administration), otherwise known as the Government.

These loans were bundled in an attempt to lower the risk involved and sold to the banks.   The banks that bought these bundled mortgages underestimated the risks involved.  They didn’t cause the financial problem, they were the victims of the ones that did (the Government).

That’s just the first problem with this so-called “Responsibility Fee.”

Another problem is the fact that the vast majority of the banks that took TARP funds  have already paid back the TARP funds, with interest.   (The only bank that hasn’t paid back TARP funds is Citigroup).  The Government has already gotten the TARP funds back from these banks.  Asking for more on top of what has already been paid is just double-dipping on the part of the Government.

Couple that with the fact that many of the banks that took TARP funds did so because the Government forced them to after deciding that the bank was in “financial trouble”.  The people running the bank didn’t think they need the money, and paid it back as soon as the Government allowed them to do so.  The fact that these banks are now showing a profit means the people running them were right, and the loan was not needed, and the Federal Government was wrong.

Think about that, the Government forced the banks to take loans they didn’t want, gets the loans paid-back with interest, and now wants to punish the banks for taking the money they didn’t want or need in the first place.

Then there is the fact that the “Responsibility Fee” will hit banks that never took TARP fundsHow can banks that didn’t hold these bundled mortgages, were never in financial trouble and never took TARP funds, possibly be responsible for the financial crisis?

Never mind, Obama will tax them anyway.

Then there is the effect that this “fee” will have.

To start with, the fee will not simply be absorbed by the banks.  They will pass the additional cost imposed by this fee onto the people that use these banks.  That means higher ATM fees, higher mortgage rates, higher fees on checking/savings, etc.

In other words,the fee will take  more money out of the pockets of the American Consumer.

It’s the consumer that drives the American economy, and taking more money out of their pockets will hurt economic growth.  This during a Recession with a double-digit unemployment rate.

Secondly, the fee has the potential to lower the Capitol available to these banks to give out in the form of loans.  (Assuming that attempts to pass the cost along aren’t completely successful)

This comes on the heels of President Obama lambasting banks for their failure to give out loans.

Excuse me, you say you want the banks to give out more loans and then turn around and propose a fee that will limit their ability to do so?   Given President Obama’s previous rhetoric and the fact that the banks have already paid back the TARP funds, the proposed fee makes absolutely no sense as long as you accept the supposed reason for it.

It gets even worse when you examine all the entities that also received TARP funds or that also played a part in the mortgage crises.  Chrysler and GM both took TARP funds, but are exempt from the new tax.  It probably doesn’t hurt that the Government is now basically running both these companies.  Do you really think the overnment would ever tax itself?

Then there is the matter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  These companies probably bear the majority of the responsibility for the financial crisis.  After all, they were the entities most responsible for the mortgages that were re-bundled and sold to the banks.  But they won’t be hit by the tax.

In fact, Freddie and Fannie will benefit from the tax.  The Government, in its infinite wisdom, decided to give the American People a Christmas present, and eliminated the $400 Billion cap on tax payer liability for loses incurred by these companies.

The Government basically told these two irresponsible companies that they could lose however much money they wanted, and then decided to tax the profitable banks (also known as the responsible banks) in order to pay for the losses.

It’s not a “Responsibility fee” it’s a fee to pay for irresponsibility.

The stink surrounding this idiotic proposal gets even worse.

President Obama announced this proposal on Thursday.  The very next day, the Democrats started using it in an attempt to keep the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated due to the death of Ted Kennedy.

Martha Coakley is ina very tight race against Scott Brown, in large part due to her support for the Democrat’s plans in regards to Health Care.

She immediately glommed on to the proposed fee in an attempt to change the subject away from Health Care.  Apparently, she can’t get elected unless she has an enemy to run against.

The problem is what happens when people in Government decide that profitable banks are the enemy.  A country where banks are not allowed to make a profit, is a country without the means to spur economic growth.

You want banks to lend money and stimulate the economy? Change your policies.

The naming of Ben Bernanke as Time’s Man of the Year prompted a discussion on a local talk show as to whether or not he deserved it.

One caller called in saying no, arguing that he had not really done anything to deserve the recognition.  The caller stated that he had not actually done anything to stimulate the economy.  When asked by the hosts what more he could have done, the caller answered “raise interest rates.”

The hosts could not understand how raising rates would stimulate the economy and the caller did a very poor job of explaining.

Interestingly, the topic of how raising rates is what is needed to stimulate the economy came up on today’s Rush Limbaugh show.  (I know, there are some people that will have a visceral reaction to that name.)

As usual, Rush did a much better job of explaining this.

The problem starts with the Prime Rate.

This is the interest rate that the Fed. Reserve charges private banks on the money it loans out.  The current Prime Rate is almost zero.  MEaning it costs banks almost nothing to borrow from the Federal Government.

At the same time, interest rates on Federal Bonds is in the 3% range.  These bonds are typically purchased by institutional investors.  This includes banks.

Right now, banks can achieve a guaranteed, risk-free rate of return of 3% on the money they borrow from the Fed. by simply buying Government Bonds.  Banks have very little incentive right now to give the money they get from the Fed out in the form of private loans.

The only way to solve this problem is to raise the short-term Federal Rate to the point where simply buying Government Bonds is no longer a viable option for banks.  That means a hike in interest rates to the 3% range.

This comes after President Obama excoriated banks for not loaning out the money they were given.

Well, if he wants banks to loan money to private entities, he really needs to take a good long look at the policies of his administration.

Right now, he is giving banks the incentive not to loan that money out.

Another example of the President needing to look in the mirror when it comes to the economic problems currently facing this country.

Never has an American President so clearly illustrated they are economically illiterate

Never has Presidential economic illiteracy been so clearly defined as it has in the past couple of days in the statements President Obama has made in regards to the Banking industry.

The first statements came in the interview Obama gave on 60 minutes on Sunday.

In that interview, President Obama attacked saying:

“They’re still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let’s see, You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in — in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we’ve got 10% unemployment.”

Excuse me, Mr. President, but you are attacking the wrong “Guys”.

The “Guys” responsible for the current economic problems were primarily the politicians in Washington.  Those “Guys” pressured these banks to give those loans, loans that the banks were reluctant to give out.

When they refused to give them out, you people accused them of being racist.  (Remember the term “redlining?)

They starting giving those loans out to avoid bad publicity and lawsuits, and then rebundled them in an attempt to lower the risk.

Then those “Guys” in Washington change accounting rules, making those rebundled loans worth nothing for accounting purposes.  Forcing the banks holding those rebundled loans to ignore the fact that only a portion of the loans were actually worthless.

You really think Washington telling banks to treat assets that had value as if they had none played no portion in the meltdown?

I can understand why you want to ignore Washington’s role in the crises, since you were in the Senate when President Bush tried to head it off and opposed his attempt to do so.

That means, Mr. Obama, YOU are one of those Guys responsible for the current economic problem.

This is doubly true when you consider the fact that you have been President for nearly a year.  What economic policies have you enacted that would boost the economy and create jobs.

Mr. President, stop blaming other people for the problems that you are responsible for.  It’s unpresidential.

To paraphrase the President from my home town, the buck stops with you.
Stop pushing the blame for the economy onto someone else.  And stop telling them they are responsible for creating economic growth by giving out more loans. The reason they aren’t giving these loans out, is because they are risky.  Stop telling bankers they are responsible for creating an economic disaster by giving out risky loans, then turn around and tell them to give out loans they consider risky in order to create economic growth.  That is just shear idiocy.

Bankers are not responsible for stimulating the economy.  The responsibility of Bankers is to ensure the safety of the money deposited in their financial institution.  By insisting that they (again) give that money out in the form of risky loans (after all, if they weren’t risky they would already be giving these loans out) you are actually insisting that the abandon their responsibilities.

Mr President, the person responsible for creating economic growth, is you.

Clearly, you have absolutely no idea how to do this.

Hopefully your replacement will.

The Financial Disaster: The Other Shoe is About to Drop

The New York Times has an article that should greatly concern anybody with a passing familiarity with the causes of last year’s financial melt-down.

The latest problem?  The F.H.A. or the Federal Housing Administration.

The F.H.A. was created in 1934 to aid lower-income and first-time home buyers purchase homes.  It does this by insuring the mortgages given out to these people.  It also offers loans at terms not available from other lenders.  The problem is that the people running the F.H.A.  have apparently decided that their job is no longer helping people purchase houses.  Instead, they are making decision based on propping up housing prices.  That means facilitating as many sales as possible.

Propping up housing prices is not the role mandated for the F.H.A.

And the proverbial doo-doo is about to hit the fan.

Roughly 20% of the loans given out in 2007 and 2008 are in serious trouble.  The number of loans in default have jumped from 232,864 to 410,916 in only a year. And the F.H.A.’s response is to increase the amount of loans they give out.

The mortgages issued by the F.H.A. are bundled into mortgage-backed securities and sold to investors.  Investors aren’t buying.  They aren’t buying because they realize just how much of the loans backing the securities amount to bad debt.  You know, the toxic-assets that caused the financial melt-down in 2008?

This means money is drying up at the F.H.A.  The F.H.A.’s capitol reserve has dropped from 6% two years ago to under 2% now.  This is below the reserve mandated by the Government.  This is likely to result in the F.H.A. being bailed out by the Federal Government.

Only the Government would reward poor decision making with more money.

The tragic part of this entire debacle is that the only reason the Government felt the need to intervene in the first place, is that Government policy made our financial markets dependent on artificially inflated housing prices.  Prices that were also inflated by government policies.

If Government had stayed out of the housing market in the first place, it wouldn’t feel the need to intervene now.

We are coming out of a period of time that saw a housing bubble.  Housing prices were inflated due to Government policies that allowed people that couldn’t ordinarily afford to buy one to do so.  Now, Government is trying to fight against the bursting of the Government created housing bubble.  It’s a losing battle, and the American people are going to be caught in the implosion.

Only Government could decide that the thing to do when finding themselves in a hole is to get the back-hoe out.