Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Banks in Recovery as Home Foreclosures Hit Record
BOSTON - Just months after getting a massive handout from Uncle Sam to prevent the collapse of Wall Street, big banks say they are back on solid ground and ready to repay the money.
Tape put up by demonstrators that reads 'Foreclosure Free Zone' is seen outside a foreclosed home in Elmont, New York, April 9, 2009. (REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton) The banks are selling stock and debt, and racking up excellent returns on mortgages, loans, high credit card rates and refinancings.
Three big banks, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley, say they are so healthy now that they can begin to pay back the billions they were given by the U.S. Treasury in December when they said they were on the brink of failure.
Meanwhile, home foreclosures in April were 342,000 -- the highest level yet -- and average national unemployment rose to 8.9 percent, the highest level since 1983. Some communities are just barely hanging on.
"There's an enormous impact of the foreclosure crisis and the unemployment crisis on people of colour," Rinku Sen, executive director of the Applied Research Centre, a public policy institute advancing racial justice through research, advocacy and journalism, told IPS.
"Because they were so concentrated in communities of colour, the larger system didn't pay attention. The banking system didn't send out any red flags, and local and state officials didn't start looking into the crisis. There wasn't the scrutiny there should have been, given the millions of people affected," Sen said.
Mortgage lenders and banks sought out people of colour in particular, and charged higher than average interest rates on loans with poor terms, according to the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), which is suing some of the nation's largest banks -- many the same ones that received a bailout.
Under the bank bailout, nine big banks received 125 billion dollars, followed by smaller banks, for a total of about 400 billion dollars awarded to 586 banks, insurers and auto companies. The U.S. government received warrants to buy stock in the banks, in a deal many economists say was a giveaway to the banks.
"Is it possible taxpayers will get their money back 10 years from now? Yes, but it's not likely. It's clearly a massive subsidy," Robin Hahnel, economics professor emeritus at American University, told IPS.
Larry Summers, the hand-picked economic advisor to President Barack Obama, and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are not doing right by U.S. taxpayers, Hahnel said.
"My position is they are mismanaging this so badly they need to be fired immediately. They are putting us at terrible risk," Hahnel told IPS.
"Some banks are in a position to repay because they've made money the old-fashioned way, by borrowing at low rates and lending at significant interest rates," said Timothy Canova, economics professor and associate dean at Chapman University School of Law.
The banks borrow money from the Central Bank at nearly zero percent interest and then loan it out at five or six percent, he said.
"That's a healthy spread," Canova told IPS.
The entities that took the Treasury money have had to comply with rules that restrict salaries and bonuses to executives, and limit the hiring of non-U.S. citizens. The rules were only enacted after public outrage over millions in bonuses paid to individual executives.
"The main motivation for returning the money is that the bank officials would like to be able to start rewarding themselves again with higher compensation packages. They don't want the strings attached," Canova said.
"We can expect to see more paybacks. But we can also expect to see more banks that will need more funding in future," Canova said.
Nineteen big banks with more than 100 billion dollars in assets recently conducted financial reviews, called stress tests, at the request of the Federal Reserve. The Fed announced that nine banks are in the clear and 10 will need 74.9 billion dollars more, under a best-case economic scenario. Under the worst-case scenario, they would need up to 600 billion dollars more.
The reviews have been widely criticised by a range of conservative and progressive economists for not being realistic.
Canova said even the worst-case scenario seems overly optimistic, predicting an unlikely growth in the GDP.
"It's quite possible the GDP will continue to decline and then the banks may need twice that amount of money," Canova said.
The stress tests were conducted by the banks themselves. The Fed asked them to predict their own potential losses and liabilities under the two scenarios. Banking supervisors chosen by the Fed met with bank management to evaluate the estimates, all performed within 45 days.
The 10 banks that need cash can request a handout from the U.S. Treasury, in exchange for stock valued at a rock-bottom price, at slightly below what it traded for in February 2009.
But more likely, they can get the cash from the private market, by selling stock and seeking investors, Geithner said.
"If these institutions are essentially solvent, as Mr. Geithner suggests based on the stress test results, then it seems appropriate to put an end to these taxpayer subsidies," economist Dean Baker told the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology on Tuesday.
"Is there really a need for the special lending facilities that have been created by the Fed and have more than two trillion dollars outstanding in loans to the banks and other institutions?" said Baker, co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research.
In addition, in June, the U.S. government will begin purchasing up to 1 trillion dollars of the bad assets now held by banks, he said.
The stress test results immediately boosted the value of stock at many of the banks, and they wasted no time in taking advantage of their good fortune.
Within a day of the test results, Morgan Stanley sold enough stock to raise 3 billion dollars. It was aiming for 1.8 billion dollars, as called for in its stress test. It will eventually need to give back about 10 billion dollars in bailout funds to the Treasury.
Many banks will continue to make significant money on credit cards, charging interest rates of 21 percent or more, plus fees and penalties. The credit cards are issued by many major banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup and JP Morgan. A credit card reform bill is expected to be signed by Obama by the end of this week.
According to recent hearings in the U.S. House and Senate, 78 percent of all U.S. households have at least one credit card, and they have paid an average of 15 billion dollars in penalty fees per year.
The proposals in play, one passed by the Senate Tuesday, would not go into effect until 2010 at the earliest.
In the meantime, Edward L. Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, told reporters this week that the industry would continue to raise interest rates, this time on its best credit card customers, to make up for the revenue it expects to lose under the upcoming credit card reforms.
- Posted in



16 Comments so far
Show AllAnd Geithner is calling for DISCLOSURE reform?? What we need is tar and feathers.
Well, at least this time the best credit card customers are getting hit. Maybe people will start paying attention, although I don't hold out a great deal of hope.
Once the upcoming credit card reforms kick in I am confident the banks will find creative new ways to steal our money.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Yet another example of the philosophy behind Reagan's 'trickle down' approach to the US economy. If the rich become sufficiently rich then the poor are bound to benefit. It's like speculating that if that 500 lb. guy at the table continues to scarf down everything he can get his hands on, then eventually he will become careless and some crumbs may fall to the floor to be joyously feasted upon by the starving beggars. The fact is, the guy got to be obese because his appetite will never be satisfied. And so, yes, let the banquet of the gluttons begin again. And we beggars will sing praise of their 'fulfillment' even as we lose our jobs, our retirements, our homes, and our dignity.
Until LAW AND ORDER is enforced against BIG BANKS and our corrupt pols stop giving away taxpayer funded bailouts to them, it's a win-win for the lazy crooked banks and a lose-lose for us hardworking taxpayers. Even the Libertarians aren't this stupid even though I don't endorse some of their crap.
maxpayne, and just who is going to enforce law and order against big banks? I don't see anyone in sight.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Screw them. Banks get trillions in a few weeks, they jack up their interest rates in days, but the most pathetic legislation meant to help struggling consumers won't go into effect for another year. Congress is doing a dance about it. Bow in appreciation. Hell, let's give them a raise!
Congress didn't even try to put a cap on the interest rates. What tremendous gonads.
Cancel all but one card for necessities like booking travel, car rental, etc. Use cash or checks for everything else.
Over 15 years ago I decided to destroy my credit cards and live strictly on a cash-and-carry basis. I lived moderately, worked, and saved my money. In 2003 I bought my current car (a gas-saving Toyota Echo) for CASH. More than that, my savings account is quite healthy and I now have a substantial reserve in case of emergency.
Who needs bank loans or a credit card??? I used to have them and all they did was perpetuate debt for me. That's when I decided to pay them all off and never use them again.
The only debt I have today is my mortgage (on my three-bedroom townhome) which has a comfortably affordable balance on it. I refinanced it about five years ago and am now paying less than I would pay to rent an apartment locally.
Give the banks and credit cards the finger!!! Live sensibly, spend for only what you need, and occasionally reward yourself with a night out and a vacation trip once a year. It works!
Yours are words of wisdom indeed. I will have two credit cards paid off by the end of this coming October. One I will close out. The other I will keep but use only for the same reasons you note. I wish I had done this 15 years ago.
Couldn't be better for the bankers if they planned it from the start.
BANKSTERS and FED are like DRUG DEALERS.
They literally give away easy and ‘cheap’ credit to create dependency. Once people are hooked on the euphoria of easy obtainable cash they develop a habit of being in debt. On top they are obliged (=mor’gaged) to stay with the drug dealer. The addicts loose everything.
The drug users’ (debtors’) greed and inability to control their (drug) consume feeds the drug dealers (banksters). With the economy bleeding they keep on entrapping more users. There is no law enforcement against this drug dealing in fact laws protect it.
The political mafia provides an incredible security for these gangsters: if you can’t pay the drug dealers can take all you got.
In Indonesia and China they execute drug dealing scum and their henchmen.
"ezeflyer May 20th, 2009 7:39 pm
Couldn't be better for the bankers if they planned it from the start."
It's unlikely that they did? I don't think it's unlikely. Whether they did, or not, is a different question, but it's not unlikely that they planned this or much of it. Or so I believe anyway. After all, they [definitely] can [not] be trusted to be ethical, morally just, non-connivers.
================================
FrankS May 20th, 2009 7:02 pm,
Excellent choice you made and given that you've surely done as well as you describe, it's good that you share your information with others.
It definitely is always better to avoid living based on credit, debt. I had some problems due to the massive wave of imported computer professionals used to replace U.S. citizens and when I went totally bankrupt, with only $700 left to my name, I cut up the CC's, which were never used during my nine months of job searching, because, and out of personal principle, precaution, I didn't use the cards unless I was working, and given I couldn't pay off the balance I just told the cies, "Sorry, but I have nothing to pay you with". And "that was that", end of it.
I wouldn't want CC's ever again and mainly because it simply is better to avoid living based on credit or debt; and because it's also good for character development. By abiding by this rule we may end up well surprised about having struggled and learned, which should and hopefully will lead to becoming more [resourceful].
Easy to say for whites, easier than for coloured Americans anyway, I believe; but it's still and always better to try to avoid living based on debt(s).
I figured it up once. I think that payday check cashing outfits can end up charging 1,000% annual interest.
I'll bet it has happened somewhere at least once.
People who did this used to be considered scum. They tried to keep what they were doing secret. They were social outcasts and criminals. If caught they were summarily executed.
You think payday check cashing offices are little loan sharks with one foot in the next county? Not true. They are owned by the big banks who are now getting handouts from the very people they cheated.
The system is not being fixed. It's just being patched together to continue business as usual.
I'm glad I did not contribute more than I did to Obama's campaign.
Didn't anybody learn that the longer you put it off the worse the shit will be? Worldwide civilization could collapse next time.
I'm not sure I even care. And I have three grandkids.
It's pretty clear who got bailed out, and it wasn't the people who needed (and whose tax dollars paid for) it, it's the rich bankers who end up pocketing hundreds of billions of borrowed (from China) dollars.
The current scoreboard reads:
Banks $1,400,000,000,000
Regular folks 0
"The Weimar Hyperinflation? Could it Happen Again?", by Ellen Brown, webofdebt.com , May 19, 2009
(url broken over two lines)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=13673
EXCERPT(S):
Some worried commentators are predicting a massive hyperinflation of the sort suffered by Weimar Germany in 1923, when a wheelbarrow full of paper money could barely buy a loaf of bread. An April 29 editorial in the San Francisco Examiner warned:
“With an unprecedented deficit that’s approaching $2 trillion, [the President’s 2010] budget proposal is a surefire prescription for hyperinflation. So every senator and representative who votes for this monster $3.6 trillion budget will be endorsing a spending spree that could very well turn America into the next Weimar Republic.”1
In an investment newsletter called Money Morning on April 9, Martin Hutchinson pointed to disturbing parallels between current government monetary policy and Weimar Germany’s, when 50% of government spending was being funded by seigniorage – merely printing money.2 However, there is something puzzling in his data. He indicates that the British government is already funding more of its budget by seigniorage than Weimar Germany did at the height of its massive hyperinflation; yet the pound is still holding its own, under circumstances said to have caused the complete destruction of the German mark. Something else must have been responsible for the mark’s collapse besides mere money-printing to meet the government’s budget, but what? And are we threatened by the same risk today? Let’s take a closer look at the data.
History Repeats Itself – or Does It?
In his well-researched article, Hutchinson notes that Weimar Germany had been suffering from inflation ever since World War I; but it was in the two year period between 1921 and 1923 that the true “Weimar hyperinflation” occurred. By the time it had ended in November 1923, the mark was worth only one-trillionth of what it had been worth back in 1914. Hutchinson goes on:
“The current policy mix reflects those of Germany during the period between 1919 and 1923. The Weimar government was unwilling to raise taxes to fund post-war reconstruction and war-reparations payments, and so it ran large budget deficits. It kept interest rates far below inflation, expanding money supply rapidly and raising 50% of government spending through seigniorage (printing money and living off the profits from issuing it). . . .
“The really chilling parallel is that the United States, Britain and Japan have now taken to funding their budget deficits through seigniorage. In the United States, the Fed is buying $300 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds (T-bonds) over a six-month period, a rate of $600 billion per annum, 15% of federal spending of $4 trillion. In Britain, the Bank of England (BOE) is buying 75 billion pounds of gilts [the British equivalent of U.S. Treasury bonds] over three months. That’s 300 billion pounds per annum, 65% of British government spending of 454 billion pounds. Thus, while the United States is approaching Weimar German policy (50% of spending) quite rapidly, Britain has already overtaken it!”
And that is where the data gets confusing. ...
Schacht Lets the Cat Out of the Bag
Light is thrown on this mystery by the later writings of Hjalmar Schacht, the currency commissioner for the Weimar Republic. ... What actually drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation, said Schacht, was speculation by foreign investors, who would bet on the mark’s decreasing value by selling it short.
...
At first, the speculation was fed by the Reichsbank (the German central bank), which had recently been privatized. But when the Reichsbank could no longer keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.4
A Story with an Ironic Twist
If Schacht is to be believed, not only did the government not cause the hyperinflation but it was the government that got the situation under control. The Reichsbank was put under strict regulation, and prompt corrective measures were taken to eliminate foreign speculation by eliminating easy access to loans of bank-created money.
More interesting is a little-known sequel to this tale. What allowed Germany to get back on its feet in the 1930s was the very thing today’s commentators are blaming for bringing it down in the 1920s – money issued by seigniorage by the government. Economist Henry C. K. Liu calls this form of financing “sovereign credit.” He writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:
...
... Projects were first earmarked for funding, including flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and .... ... Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. The workers then spent the certificates on goods and services, creating more jobs for more people. ... But the certificates circulated as money and were renewable indefinitely, making them a de facto currency; and they avoided the need to borrow from international lenders or to pay off international debts.6 The Treasury Certificates did not trade on foreign currency markets, so they were beyond the reach of the currency speculators. They could not be sold short because there was no one to sell them to, so they retained their value.
Within two years, Germany’s unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. ...
END OF EXCERPT(s)
Very interesting and great history it is, clearly one to [learn] from. Hitler did greatly with this for Germans; and like Ellen Brown says, it's just (and very) unfortunate that he ended up commanding the horrors he remains guilty for or of.
The above excerpt should be enough to seriously entice people to read the whole.
Protectionism is bad? Some or many people have been bitching about protectionism, but I think it's what Ellen Brown describes of what Hitler did and if it is, then it can evidently be very good.
Edit: Re. what Hitler well did, Ellen Brown later states it wasn't original. The early or first "American colonists" had done this much earlier. Otoh, she then goes on to describe a "dramatic difference", too.
More in next post.
I believe this ties in with the fairy tales of how the economy is starting to show signs of improvement because the housing market is also starting to recover as well, but in reality those rich f**ks are now buying up those foreclosed homes a dime a dozen making them the new and 'improved' landlords of tomorrow thus the american dream of owning one's own home becomes dimmer and dimmer.
Excerpting a little more from Ellen Brown's article linked in my prior post in this CD page, now with respect to the U.S. economy under the Obama administration, we get some promise (hope) as well as a warning of very serious economic danger, but while she also mentions a remedy, cure.
EXCERPT:
The Real Weimar Threat and How It Can Be Avoided
Is the United States, then, out of the hyperinflationary woods with its “quantitative easing” scheme? Maybe, maybe not. To the extent that the newly-created money will be used for real economic development and growth, funding by seigniorage is not likely to inflate prices, because supply and demand will rise together. Using quantitative easing to fund infrastructure and other productive projects, as in President Obama’s stimulus package, could invigorate the economy as promised, producing the sort of abundance reported by Benjamin Franklin in America’s flourishing early years.
There is, however, something else going on today that is disturbingly similar to what triggered the 1923 hyperinflation. As in Weimar Germany, money creation in the U.S. is now being undertaken by a privately-owned central bank, the Federal Reserve; and it is largely being done to settle speculative bets on the books of private banks, without producing anything of value to the economy. As gold investor James Sinclair warned nearly two years ago:
“[T]he real problem is a trembling $20 trillion mountain of over the counter credit and default derivatives. Think deeply about the Weimar Republic case study because every day it looks more and more like a repeat in cause and effect . . . .”9
The $12.9 billion in bailout funds funneled through AIG to pay Goldman Sachs for its highly speculative credit default swaps is just one egregious example.10 ..., we could indeed be on the Weimar road and there is real cause for alarm. ... We can beat Wall Street at its own game, by forming publicly-owned banks that ....
END OF EXCERPT
Publicly-owned banks? Hmmmm; sounds very interesting!
How, though?
Maybe she explained how to do that elsewhere in the article and I either didn't understand or don't recall it, but I otherwise think she did or does not in this particular piece of hers.
Verifying merely for the word 'public, doing a page search, the above is the only instance; therefore, if she does explain how publicly-owned banks are formed elsewhere in the article, then it's not with the use of this word. So, I guess she doesn't explain this in this article.
For people who appreciate her excellent writings on economics and who'd like to read a very serious review of her book, 'Web of Debt', Stephen Lendman has a series of articles for this review and just posted his fifth part on May 19th at GR. To get all of the parts, people can simply go to his author index at GR.
I haven't gotten around to reading those articles yet, but look forward to it; because she's evidently a strongly serious writer, analyst and (I guess anyway) historian on economics, or western economics anyway. Certainly seems to be.
'What is robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" - Bertolt Brecht