EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- The Terror Con
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bailout Helps Fuel a New Era of Wall Street Wealth
Even as the economy continues to struggle, much of Wall Street is minting money - and looking forward again to hefty bonuses.
Many Americans wonder how this can possibly be. How can some banks be prospering so soon after a financial collapse, even as legions of people worry about losing their jobs and their homes?
It may come as a surprise that one of the most powerful forces driving the resurgence on Wall Street is not the banks but Washington. Many of the steps that policy makers took last year to stabilize the financial system - reducing interest rates to near zero, bolstering big banks with taxpayer money, guaranteeing billions of dollars of financial institutions' debts - helped set the stage for this new era of Wall Street wealth.
Titans like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are making fortunes in hot areas like trading stocks and bonds, rather than in the ho-hum business of lending people money. They also are profiting by taking risks that weaker rivals are unable or unwilling to shoulder - a benefit of less competition after the failure of some investment firms last year.
So even as big banks fight efforts in Congress to subject their industry to greater regulation - and to impose some restrictions on executive pay - Wall Street has Washington to thank in part for its latest bonanza.
"All of this is facilitated by the Federal Reserve and the government, who really want financial institutions to get back to lending," said Gary Richardson, a research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. "But we have just shown them that they can have the most frightening things happen to them, and we will throw trillions of dollars to protect them. I have big concerns about that."
Not all banks are doing so well. Giants like Citigroup and Bank of America, whose fortunes are tied to the ups-and-downs of ordinary consumers, are struggling to turn themselves around, as are many regional banks.
But the decline of certain institutions, along with the outright collapse of once-vigorous competitors like Lehman Brothers, has consolidated the nation's financial power in fewer hands. The strong are now able to wring more profits from the financial markets and charge higher fees for a wide range of banking services.
"They are able to charge more for all kinds of services because companies need banks and investment banks more now, and there are fewer strong ones to help them," said Douglas J. Elliott of the Brookings Institution.
A year after the crisis struck, many of the industry's behemoths - those institutions deemed too big to fail - are, in fact, getting bigger, not smaller. For many of them, it is business as usual. Over the last decade the financial sector was the fastest-growing part of the economy, with two-thirds of growth in gross domestic product attributable to incomes of workers in finance.
Now, the industry has new tools at its disposal, courtesy of the government.
With interest rates so low, banks can borrow money cheaply and put those funds to work in lucrative ways, whether using the money to make loans to companies at higher rates, or to speculate in the markets. Fixed-income trading - an area that includes bonds and currencies - has been particularly profitable.
"Robust trading results led the way," said Howard Chen, a banking analyst at Credit Suisse, describing the latest profits.
To prevent a catastrophic financial collapse that would have sent shock waves through the economy, the government injected billions of dollars into banks. Some large institutions, like Goldman and Morgan, have since repaid their bailout money. But most of the industry still enjoys other forms of government support, which is helping to stoke profits.
Goldman Sachs and its perennial rival Morgan Stanley were allowed to transform themselves into old-fashioned bank holding companies. That switch gave them access to cheap funding from the Federal Reserve, which had been unavailable to them.
Those two banks and others like JPMorgan were also allowed to issue tens of billions of dollars of bonds that are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures bank deposits. With the F.D.I.C. standing behind them, the banks could borrow the money on highly advantageous terms. While some have since issued bonds on their own, they nonetheless enjoy the benefits of their cheap financing.
Granted, banks are also benefiting from a stabilizing economy. The fear that gripped the markets earlier this year, when doomsayers predicted a second Great Depression, has largely dissipated. Stocks, corporate bonds, even risky corporate i.o.u.'s - have all rallied from their bear market lows, some spectacularly so. The Dow Jones industrial average has soared 50 percent this year, and touched 10,000 this week for the first time since the crisis.
Banks that had marked down the value of the assets on their books during the dark days of the crisis are now enjoying a rebound in the value of many of those assets.
"Confidence has returned," said Shubh Saumya, a financial services specialist at the Boston Consulting Group. "Some of the assets that bankers wrote down last year in the midst of the crisis, now they have got some of that back."
As the number of banks has dwindled, the survivors are moving into the void left by rivals that are either dead or limping and unwilling to take risks.
A big reason for Goldman Sachs's blowout profits this year has been the willingness of its traders to take big risks - they have put more money on the line while other banks that suffered last year have reined in such moves. Executives say there are big strategic gaps opening up between banks on Wall Street that are taking on more risks, and those that are treading a safer path.
Banks that have waded back into the markets have been able to exploit large gaps in the prices of various investments, a feature of the postcrisis financial markets. The so-called bid-ask spreads - the difference between the price at which banks are willing to buy things like bonds, and the price at which they are willing to sell - are roughly twice what they were two years ago.
Still, the newfound success is largely limited to the big securities houses on Wall Street. This week, Citigroup and Bank of America reported losses from credit card delinquencies and mortgage defaults - a sign of the lingering pain on Main Street.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



15 Comments so far
Show AllOf course they are making money. Our government is giving it to them. To make up for it, the government is going to take [among other things] the 6 billion per annum which would be the COLA for Social Security. And the government will continue to float loans, repayable by the Amerikan middle class taxpayer. [The wealthy, of course, don't pay taxes]. and the corporate sluts [excuse me, politicians] who make this possible are re elected time and again because television delivers the 55% of the vote. The rest of us, who have some idea of what is going on, can go to hell as far as the government is concerned. We don't count.
But does anyone remember that the American Revolution was executed by less than 40% of the Colonial population? The majority hated the revolutionaries and wanted only to live quietly under British rule. Is there a lesson here?
How come Republican Ron Paul is the only pol that wants to abolish the Fed? Where are our progressive pols on this?
Did you forget Dennis Kucinich?
I haven't heard much from Kucinich about abolishing the Fed. I wish he would introduce a bill to that effect. And another banning lobbyists and revolving doors.
If the trillions given to the banks had bee gifted to the population, how much would that be per person?
Might have amounted to a nice hunk of change per person, but the fact us that with unemployment growing and no manufacturing base being reestablished and so-called free trade draining what is left of jobs no amount of money per person would have gone very very far or lasted very long. Even if the money had been doled out on a perperson basis it would not have taken WS very long to have figured out how to get it all back. Maybe Bernie M. could use come company.
A few months ago, I read that the amount that could have been sent to each and every one of us was $42,500. For a family of four, that would have meant a direct infusion of cash to the tune of $170,000. And, at the time, the writer concluded that most people would have been able to pay their bills -- ward off foreclosure, etc., and would still have a little padding if unemployed.
The other day, I read an article that said the amount per person is now at $80,000 per person, with a family of four receiving $320,000.
Hmm, the similarities between banking/finance and the health insurance companies are striking. Both perform a public service, both siphon off a huge percentage of the take into overhead & profit, upwards of 30% in the case of insurance companies, who knows how much for banks. On the other hand Medicare's overhead is less than 5% with no profit, of course, since it's a government plan. Which is a major reason that every industrialized nation, except ours, has opted for single payer. Another reason is that, with profit (ie greed) out of the way, the health and well-being of we the people becomes paramount. Which raises the question as to why not nationalize banking & finance? Wouldn't the advantages of a government health care system such as Medicare for all (ie increased efficiency and being based on human need rather than greed apply here too? As for the one about the banking industry having all these indispensable math geniuses out of MIT who rev up the GDP by coming up with various new Ponzi schemes, hey, remember, it was their god damn schemes that got us into this mess. Is their any reason to think that our economy wouldn't be better off if banking & finance were run by public employees (well paid & with decent benefits, albeit, no bonuses), overseen, perhaps, by citizen advisory committees, just to keep them on the straight & narrow? After all isn't China's economy merrily marching ahead at a 7-8% clip? Despite or on account of its government directed system of banking & finance? Oh, but we're not communists? Neither is China.
I fear the day when the majority of U.S. citizens are no longer an asset to the corporations.
To make Shawn Happy --------- Goldman Sachs being uber rich has nothing to do with the human inhabiting the WH.
I think it is policy coming from the divine.
I am going to write my congress person and politely ask if he could possibly escort all the Goldman executives, who unnoticed oozed into the WH, out of the WH.
I admire your plan, but I hope you realize that if it is fulfilled, there won't be anyone left in the White House to pay the rent!
· Yr Obd't Servant
"Confidence has returned," said Shubh Saumya
Yes sir, the "Confidence GAME" is better than ever.
However since the "health care" industry is now part of Wall Street, they've changed the old saying (there's a sucker born every minute) the con artists have to a new, more catchy, saying:
There's one dying every minute!
Here's what I posted to the neo-liberal stooges at the NYT --- and they censored:
"What the ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire that now controls our country should keep in mind is that during the late 1960’s --- during the combined; counter-culture, anti-Vietnam-war, social, class oppression, and racial early spark of a limited revolution in America --- the GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality for the then blue-collar working-class, white collar working/middle-class, and the whole country was a very low, fair, egalitarian, and (by the CIA’s terms non-revolutionary) 0.34 (well within the norm of all advanced European and Japanese societies).
Attached is a great video by Bernie Sanders, and an article by Glen Greenwald, that points to the revolutionarily high GINI inequality today ---- and here's what I posted on Op-Ed News, AlterNet and other principled left sites, along with unprincipled liberal sites like Huffington, --- regarding the massive and revolutionary change in the GINI ranking that has been caused by our corrupted two-party government and Wall Street 40 years later to impact over 90% of our population:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/143320/the_dow_and_the_down_and_out/?comments=view&cID=1346537#c1346537
“Yea, we can top Zimbabwe in 2010!!”
Based on this 'bailout' and Wall Street looting, it looks like the US is well within reach of finally beating Robert Mugabe's dictatorial kleptocracy of Zimbabwe in 2010 with a higher GINI Coefficient of Income INEQUALITY in the U.S. of over 0.53.
Yes, the US is certainly way above all advanced social democracies in Europe and Japan --- which have low, fair and egalitarian GINI Indexes of 0.23 to 0.31.
And we've certainly beat out the former Soviet Empire's oligarchs in Russia at their middling GINI rank of 0.41, and the reformed "Corporate Communist" China at GINI 0.46.
We've even smashed through that supposed barrier that our CIA warns of at GINI 0.45, where civil disobedience and revolution set in among most country populations --- but not us.
Rather, under our new 'hope', and 'change' President Obama, we have pulled together with Wall Street, and it finally looks like 2010 will be the year that America, 'our’ former country now controlled by a ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE which hides behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy, can at last overtake Zimbabwe (currently running at 0.53) as the champion of high GINI Coefficient of Income INEQUALITY!!
Let's really 'hope' that this 'change' that is aided by Obama, with his refusal to even whisper the word corporate EMPIRE (or as Dylan Ratigan bravely shouts on MSNBC, "Corporate Communism"), will allow us in the U.S. to finally shout --- "We're #1. We're #1. We're #1, in the world --- in income inequality"!!!
I know it's been a long hard fight, but with the help of this corporatist EMPIRE, and with Obama's yeoman efforts in keeping the EMPIRE hidden and 'looting on all cylinders', we peonized serfs of working-class Americans can finally get the low-wage slave status and recognition that we deserve in being the highest GINI ranking of Income INEQUALITY in the whole world --- and that Obama can lead us in some sort of national TV celebration or Kennedy Center fireworks display in Washington DC, maybe with Obama reprising Mickey Mercury of 'Queen' in a resplendent singing of "We are the Champions of the World ---- in Income INEQUALITY"
I'm already feeling the warmth, love and electricity in the air.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
If you were to watch a stock on AOL Canada, you'd see stocks rising in the US and falling in Canada. Goldman Sacks was suing someone who they claimed was using their software to take advantage of these situations. It might be that Goldman is right, but probably not (they probably stole the property) but it does show where these "profits" come from. They're euphanistic, they're profits "by declaration". ie: We declare it therefore it is.
As long as there are dummies enough to believe and criminals enough to sell, our economy is going nowhere but the paper shredder.
Just wait for the homeless middle class to get the tax bill for Wall Street's bonuses.
Our republic has been stolen by a Neo-Aristocracy.