Acorn, Fannie Mae and the Housing Bubble: Who is Responsible?

In a recent WSJ piece, Edward Pinto links the housing bubble to liberal advocacy groups like Acorn.  The argument goes something like this: government polices aimed at increasing home ownership forced entities like Freddie Mac to lower lending standards and acquire large amounts of risky mortgages.

“The flood of CRA and affordable-housing loans with loosened underwriting standards, combined with declining mortgage interest rates—to 5% in 2003 from 10% in early 1991—resulted in a massive increase in borrowing capacity and fueled a house price bubble of unprecedented magnitude over the period 1997-2006.”

Groups like Acorn lobbied for “innovative and flexible” lending practices and helped “ignite” the housing bubble. Acorn is a large political advocacy group that pushes issues for low-income earners.  Pinto links Acorn’s efforts to increase homeownership to the recent housing bubble and financial crisis.

Does he have a case? First we should recognize his bias.  Mr. Pinto was chief credit officer at Fannie Mae from 1987-1989. Not surprising then that he would defend his former professional affiliation.  However, a massive increase in loans made without due diligence over the past 15 years is an undeniable cause for collapse.  As Pinto points out, loans made with less than 5 percent down increased from 9 percent in 1991, to 29 percent in 2007.  Default rates also increased.  Government-sponsored enterprises’ high-risk loans faced a 10.3 percent default rate.

Bankers and regulators should have known better.  Barney Frank, Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, argued to switch the focus from home ownership to rental properties.  This would have isolated the mortgage industry from reckless lending practices.  He made his argument back in 2002.

Lack of due diligence is the real crime here.  Why did the nation’s largest mortgage lenders ignore a fundamental principle of finance?   The answer to that question will help us avoid another meltdown.  You cannot blame a poverty-advocacy group for a banker’s lack of competence.  Yes, policies aimed at increasing homeownership failed.  But that is only part of the puzzle.  Financial innovation, de-regulation, derivatives, Glass-Steagall, China and Fed policy where other factors.

Though I agree with Pinto’s analysis, blaming community groups for advocating loose lending standards is a bit harsh.  Bankers need to take some responsibility.

Tom Powell

 

Commercial Real-Estate Crisis Squabble

For the past few weeks, financial news has been mixed on commercial real estate.  On the one side, fear mongers like Randall Zisler expect crisis in the next few years.  The meat of their argument is that high default rates and high unemployment will keep the market depressed.  On the other side, high profile investors like Sam Zell  say that the crisis is a myth. 

I’m leaning toward Zell here, and agree with Sheryl Nance-Nash.  She referenced a report that found commercial real estate markets are likely to bottom in 2010.  Notice the verb there- bottom, not crash.  The report calls 2010 through 2012 a “cyclical low” period in the market.  In other words, there will be great opportunities for prudent investors in the next few years.  As the rest of the economy picks back up, capital will flow into commercial real estate and bring prices back up to normal, or at least 70 percent of recent highs.  The report is worth taking a look at.

The federal propensity for bail out clouds the issue.  The FDIC announced last week that it would allow banks to report underperforming loans as performing.  Many properties are worth less than the debt owed on them, and this legislation gives banks leeway for renegotiation.  There is little evidence on how much refinancing is actually taking place.  Instead of selling properties off, banks are keeping them on the books.  As long as seller is kept from buyer, the market is on freeze.  In the short-term this policy prevents a crisis by avoiding a panicked sell-off.  However, the regulation prevents the market from functioning, perhaps even prolonging recovery in the long-term.

Fed Policy

Don Bauder at the San Diego Reader links, correctly, the troubled commercial real estate market in California with its budget problem.  He then argues that recent stock gains are not based on ‘reality’ but a low federal funds rate: 

“The Journal’s lead sub-headline Tuesday morning was “Cheap Money Sends Shares to 2009 High” — a stark warning that liquidity is buoying various markets, not reality. The Federal Reserve promises to keep interest rates around zero for the indefinite future. This emboldens investors to gamble…. — watch out.”

Under Greenspan, this was a fair argument.   However, today we are at the ‘zero-lower bound’ of interest rate policy. Any increase in the funds rate is seen as devastating for recovery. It’s important to recognize that the source of growth today may not be interst rate policy- since monetary policy has become ineffective.  Also, liquidity is welcomed by the Fed during recessionary periods.

Thomas J. Powell

 

 

 

Real Estate Wrap-Up and the RIA

Residential Real Estate  

There are dozens of reasons why the residential real estate market bubbled and exploded, causing the ensuing credit crisis and economic strife. The popularity of loans requiring no documentation, the easy access to sub-prime loans and the Federal Reserve’s decision to keep interest rates low all intertwined to fuel the housing crisis. The housing bubble was also inflated by Wall Street’s ability to package and sell mortgages in large pools. Now, after struggling to repair the housing market for more than a year, we are seeing improvements that are unveiling extraordinary investment opportunities in residential real estate.

It appears we have hit the bottom of the housing market trough. Housing prices found some stabilization, although the prices are still close to the lowest they have been all decade. But, the collapse took years to build and expecting a complete turnaround in 2009 is unrealistic. The real promise in housing is in the future. Getting your money into the market now is optimal because of low prices and reasonable mortgage rates. Plus, there will continue to be tax relief with the recent Obama-endorsed home-buyers’ tax credit extension—which is planned to be available for repeat buyers who have lived in their prior residence for at least five years.

The United States should see a gradual increase in home sales throughout 2010, but the residential market will most likely not witness a return to “normalcy” until 2011. According to Steve Bergsman, author of “After the Fall, Opportunities and Strategies for Real Estate Investing in the Coming Decade,” “When a bubble market bursts, left behind is a lot of carnage and it takes about three years for the markets just to get a handle on the mess.”[1]

The three-year anniversary of the housing collapse is fast approaching and a number of high-profile reports have been published this month that suggest the residential housing market is already improving. The Case-Shiller index, which tracks variations in the values of houses in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas, showed an increase of 2.9 percent in the second quarter of 2009. In the first quarter it was down 7.9 percent. Two reports released by the Commerce Department last week suggest that while the overall economy continues on a wobbly path toward recovery, the housing industry is experiencing a number of positive signs. For example, “The supply of new homes was at 7.5 months in September, down from 9.5 months in May.”

While residential inventory appears to be slimming, foreclosure rates continue to mount in multiple areas across the country. With a significant number of Option ARMs set to reset over the next several months, many cities will continue to experience record-setting foreclosure levels.  

However, foreclosures are increasing in different cities than those affected in the last quarters of 2008.  Rates appear to be easing in the cities that were hit hardest by the housing collapse and rising in major metro areas in other states. This suggests that the cities previously overrun with foreclosures have found ways to combat the problem and are gradually making progress.

A continuing stream of foreclosures may keep the residential inventory plump, and prices could remain stable over the next couple quarters. But, as inventory shrinks, so too will the abundance of quality investment opportunities. With the residential real estate market now hovering around the bottom, now is the right time to invest.

Commercial Real Estate: No Reason to Panic

While it appears that we have already witnessed the worst of the residential real-estate collapse, we are preparing for the brunt of the crash in commercial real estate. The commercial real-estate industry has taken the place of residential real estate as the breeding ground for widespread fear. Daily reports suggest the commercial real estate storm will be more severe than the one that struck residential housing. Instead of causing another shipwreck, our economy’s commercial woes may prove to be more of an anchor that puts an imposing drag on our recovery.

The combination of job losses, store closings, rising vacancies and drastic cost-cutting measures puts commercial real estate in a serious bind. However, knowing their mortgages will soon come due or reset, owners and managers of office buildings, shopping centers, hotels and apartment complexes have had ample time to prepare for upcoming obstacles.

 Owners of commercial real estate are not backed into a corner. Banks prefer options that keep mortgage payments flowing. Therefore, banks are willing to work with borrowers to find solutions, even though bundled commercial mortgages will add to the difficulty of negotiations. Securing loan payments is not entirely the responsibility of banks or those who hold investments in pools of bundled loans. The owners of commercial buildings originally took on the responsibility and many of them are actively working to find solutions to keep their properties operating. Many property owners will continue to make their payments either because they have adapted their strategies to fit the difficult times, or because they have explored creative ways to bring in extra income. Of course, some number of defaults will be inevitable. Some of those property owners who are unable to acquire loan restructuring or extensions will view a loan default as their best option.

As with the residential real estate debacle, the government is sure to intervene in an attempt to keep our economy from falling into another dark hole. For example, the already-in-place Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) supports the issuance of asset-backed securities in order to help small businesses meet their credit needs. The TALF is one of a handful of sluggish government efforts that was created to help provide a crutch for the commercial real-estate industry.

Commercial real estate will continue to tug on recovery efforts, but it is not likely to cause the amount of damage we witnessed during the residential collapse. The time to invest is not when everyone shows interest in an asset. A staple to wise investing has always been buying low and selling high. The commercial real estate market has produced sound investments in the past and will once again flourish. Getting into the market in times of success is more costly, the opportunities are scarcer and the rewards are not as fruitful. The best time to invest is when the masses are fearful, and the masses are easily spooked by commercial real estate right now.

The Benefits of Hiring Professionals

As is the case when taking on any money-making venture, the waters are difficult to navigate alone. We all want to make investments that are conducive to both our current financial situation and our future goals. Investing with a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) helps eliminate the series of headaches that come with making sound investment decisions.

Hiring a RIA has a number of benefits. For instance, a RIA can take on the following responsibilities:

• Provide objective investment and financial advice
• Set achievable financial and personal goals
• Take into account all of the factors that influence your current financial situation (your assets, liabilities, income, insurance, taxes, etc.) and provide a comprehensive analysis of where improvements can be made. Also, this helps to guide your investment plans and retirement goals
• Provide consistent investment consultation based on your fluctuating savings, investment selections and asset allocation

Before hiring a RIA, you should also be able to answer the following questions:

• What services do you need? Can your potential RIA deliver these services or are there any limitations on what they can deliver?
• What experience does the RIA have in dealing with investors in your situation?
• Has the RIA ever been disciplined by a government regulator for unethical behavior?
• What services are you paying for and how much do those services cost?
• How does the RIA plan on getting paid and are you comfortable with this payment method?
• RIAs are required to register with either the SEC or their state securities agency, depending on their size. It is imperative to ask for proof of their registration

There are a number of professionals who can provide guidance for your investment strategies. Hiring a RIA can help to take the frustration out of the investment process and help you avoid many of the common roadblocks. The true value of a RIA is their ability to thoroughly understand your overall financial goals and provide professional investment advice that is consistent with those goals.

 All My Best,

Thomas J. Powell

---

[1] Bergsman, Steve. After the Fall: Opportunities and Strategies for Real Estate Investing in the Coming Decade. Wiley, 2009.

Stimulus, Growth and Recovery: The Debate Continues

There is growing intelligent dissent to the administration’s stimulus policy.  Critics argue that recent growth is the result of market principles.  Edward P. Lazear wrote Monday in the WSJ, that he forecasted a return to growth without stimulus spending.  He goes on to argue, along with others, that  housing programs have had questionable results.  Lazear said that Uncle Sam is fibbing about job growth as well, reporting job retention as if it where job creation.  John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute agrees.  The administration has an incentive to report positive unemployment numbers- the most popular, but also misunderstood indicator.

Unemployment is only part of the overall picture.  Other improving indicators reported this week tell us that the economy is turning around-but for whom? It depends on how you define growth.  A technical definition says that growth is positive GDP.  That means little to most people.  Real growth, theoretically, is an improvement in living standards for the entire country.  That’s why Main Street understands the unemployment rate.  Accordingly, the media use it as the sole judge for growth.  The problem is, as Lazear mentioned,  job growth is the final component of recovery- behind financial stability and GDP growth.  Unemployment lags years behind an actual recovery.   If unemployment is a lagging indicator, Lazear cannot empirically link failed stimulus policy to persistent unemployment.  He says that the administration is ignoring job losses while inflating job creation numbers.  Isn’t he doing the same thing by ignoring market stabilization and GDP growth? 

BEA Released GDP Data This Week 

According to the BEA, GDP is up for a number of reasons.  Look closely at the report.  Exports rose 14 percent over last quarter and consumer spending rose 3.4 percent.  Market Watch reported that positive numbers where in part due to stimulus spending, but as I argued in the past, these gains are only temporary.  The purpose of the stimulus is to stabilize the economy so that private markets can function again.  There is no wider conspiracy.  The government will roll back stimulus as soon as it sees the return of private investment.  There is evidence of this already: government spending actually slowed by 3.5 percent.

Not all the news was good.  Personal income fell and prices rose.  Hopefully this is a temporary trend based on slight price increases and high unemployment.  However, as long as export growth remains positive, I see no need to fear 70s style stagflation.  

Savings and Long-Term Growth

According to the old Solow Model, a country’s savings rate is positively related to long-term growth.  Today, personal savings is around five percent, that’s up from around one percent just four years ago.  This bodes well for long-term growth in the US.  And now is a great time to invest.  As private investment (including people’s savings) replaces public spending in the next few years, markets will rebound.  Private investment will power an upswing in the business cycle, spark growth and reduce unemployment. The sooner the government rolls back stimulus, the better.  In the mean time, citizens can take advantage of great opportunities in real estate and other deflated markets.  This transfer of savings from a stock to a flow will jump-start the economy in way no stimulus could.  It would take tens of trillions of dollars in government spending to match the power of private investors.

Thomas J. Powell

Rebuilding Your Wealth with Real Estate

              As our economy slowly recovers, many investors are concerned with recouping the money they lost during the crisis. Pulling your funds out of investments all together will do nothing to bulk up your savings, while sinking your money into risky funds can do further damage. So, with black-and-white options not offering solutions, where can investors put their money to work?

Many investors are turning to investments that they feel are safe, such as bank CDs or money market mutual funds. The problem with these “safe havens” lies in the low returns. “The average money market fund yields .05 percent, or $5 on a $10,000 deposit.” With rates of return this low, these investments may not be able to keep up with inflation, let alone fill the gaps left by the losses experienced over the last 24 months.

Another option is to do nothing. Yvon Chouinard, founder of the Patagonia sports outlets, says, “There’s no difference between a pessimist who says, ‘Oh it’s hopeless, so don’t bother doing anything’ and an optimist who says, ‘Don’t bother doing anything, it’s going to turn out fine anyway.’ Either way, nothing happens.” The idea of holding on to your portfolio “as is” and wishing for the stocks you currently hold to rebound may work in some instances. But, if time turns out to be your enemy, your retirement years will be funded only by the amount you currently have, minus the effects of inflation.

As investors actively search for ways to re-energize their portfolios, many are returning to real estate. The real estate market is hovering around the bottom, interest rates remain near record lows and a large inventory gives buyers an abundance of options. On the residential side, many foreclosures and bank-owned properties can now be purchased for a fraction of their value. The same opportunities are becoming available in commercial real estate as owners are unable to pay off or refinance their loans.

As I have mentioned before, real estate can help your portfolio win the battle over inflation. Real estate’s value will return at some point.

Shaking Our Stone Age Tendencies  

Letting our emotions dictate our investment decisions is a risky behavior. Out of instinct, we all get emotional when we earn or lose money. It is in our wiring to feel connected with the money we have accumulated. We tend to panic when our money is in jeopardy.

We make a connection between money and safety. Psychology suggests that we are programmed to protect our safety the same way our ancient ancestors were. Even though we encounter vastly different problems than our ancestors did, we still attempt to solve them in the same way. Moving with the herd used to be crucial to staying alive. Today however, moving with a herd of investors can weaken your portfolio. Pushing money into an investment simply because the majority of others are is usually the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

In the same vein as the herd behavior, is our tendency to make investment decisions based on past success. Just because a strategy worked in the past does not necessarily mean it will work in the present. Markets change dramatically from week to week. Strategies you used in the Dotcom boom of the late nineties may lead to an unpleasant outcome in today’s market. Sticking to market fundamentals is one thing, but taking on blind risk a second time because it worked out the first, is nothing more than a gamble. It is the same concept behind betting on red because the roulette ball fell in a red pocket the previous spin. No matter what your past performance, prudent due diligence is always necessary to gauge the current market trends, analyze risk and make sound investment decisions.

I have encountered a number of studies that suggest we remember the bitter feeling of losing money more acutely than the feelings we have when we earn the same amount in an investment. A few lousy investment decisions and an investor can be turned off indefinitely. It is important to learn from our mistakes and use the knowledge to our advantage. Our emotions can lead us to make decisions that, in hindsight, are horrible ideas. A bad decision is bad no matter what the outcome. Making money out of an emotional decision is lucky, but the decision itself was still the wrong one.

There is no way to completely escape our tendencies to invest based on emotion. But, by being aware of the negative impact our emotions have on our investment decisions, we can limit their influence. Wise approaches such as hiring investment professionals, practicing prudent due diligence and planning sound exit strategies can all help us become better investors. 

Bank Closures v. the FDIC 

Last week, federal regulators seized seven more banks- three in Florida and one each in Georgia, Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin. The bank failures brought the year’s total to 106, which is the most since the savings and loan debacle brought about 181 failures in 1992.  Plus, with 416 banks on the FDIC’s watch list, the number of bank failures is expected to rise before the end of the year. With bank closures quickly absorbing millions of dollars from the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, is it possible that our savings accounts are realistically still protected?

The FDIC operates like a basic insurance policy, except banks are the customers instead of individuals or groups of individuals. Banks pay insurance premiums to the FDIC in exchange for its commitment to protect their depositors’ money. In the late 1920s, when banks closed at an alarming rate, depositors had no protection from bank failures. Between 1929 and 1933, banks lost an estimated $1.3 billion of their customers’ money. Today, the FDIC protects several trillion dollars worth of deposits. But as of June, it only had $10.4 billion in its deposit insurance fund—down from about $45 billion earlier this year.

The FDIC’s reserves have quickly depleted as the cost of bank failures outpace the fees the corporation collects. Last month, as bank closures continued to mount, the FDIC’s board of directors considered four ways to bulk up the insurance fund. The options considered were: borrow from healthy banks, borrow from the treasury, levy a special fee on banks or collect regular premiums early.

Borrowing from healthy banks would reduce the amount of money available to the private sector. Borrowing from the Treasury could send the wrong message to the public and have adverse effects on the banking industry. Levying a special fee on banks could push those on the edge into failure. The last option, albeit not particularly attractive either, is to collect regular premiums early. Deciding to follow through with this option, the FDIC stated it “adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require insured institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012.” The press release indicated that the FDIC estimates prepayments will total approximately $45 billion.

Once approved, the proposed prepayments could give banks a bill for three years of premiums by the end of this year. While the requirement would put banks in a tough situation, the FDIC does not seem to think banks will find it too cumbersome. The FDIC believes that “the banking industry has substantial liquidity to prepay assessments.” As stated in the press release, “As of June 30, FDIC-insured institutions held more than $1.3 trillion in liquid balances, or 22 percent more than they did a year ago.”

The FDIC does have the capability to protect our deposits. However, initiatives that charge banks three years’ worth of premiums at once could help the FDIC weather an onslaught of bank closures without requiring the government to print more money…I hope.

All My Best,

Thomas J. Powell 

Reno’s ELP Capital Seeks OK for Investment Vehicles

BY JOHN SEELMEYER

ELP Capital Inc. of Reno seeks regulatory

approval for two investment funds that will

target well-heeled sophisticated individual

investors.

Thomas Powell, the chief executive officer

of ELP Capital Inc., says the funds mark an

effort to jump-start the northern Nevada economy

by channeling local investment dollars

into local projects.

The company last week filed a notice with

the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

that it believes the two funds are exempt from

securities regulations because they will be sold

to a limited number of investors or to buyers

who meet the SEC’s standards for accredited

investors. (Those standards include net worth

and annual income for individual investors.)

The ELP Strategic Asset Fund LLC has

raised $450,000 so far, the company said in an

SEC filing. There’s no maximum size on the

fund, and minimum investments are set at

$250,000.

A second fund, ELP Opportunity Fund 1—

GBLL LLC, is planned to raised $2.3 million.

So far, $100,000 has been raised.Minimum

investment in the fund is $50,000.

ELP Capital, incorporated in 2004, has

managed debt and equity financing of real

estate. The company traces its beginnings to

IntoHomes LLC, a residential mortgage lender

launched by Powell in 1999.

Along with Powell, its board includes Jesse

Haw, president of Hawco Properties of Spanish

Springs, and Bob Barone, chairman of Ancora

West Trust Co. in Reno.

Powell, who’s also an author of books and

articles, has argued recently that private

investors can play a major role in getting the

construction and development markets moving

again if they’ll fund stalled quality projects.

“This recession … left a stockpile of quality

real-estate projects to collect dust.Without

proper funding, the projects remain undeveloped,

unproductive and severely underemployed.

Placing our private capital into quality

projects will bolster the number of available

jobs in our communities and get people

behind a meaningful cause,” he wrote in an

essay this month.

ELP Capital expects to charge an annual

management fee of 1 percent of the funds’

assets, and it also may collect a performance

fee.

Along with the two investment funds, ELP

Capital last week filed SEC paperwork for

exempt offerings of securities in two real estate

funds.

One of the filings covers ELP Mortgage

Fund III — The Ridges LLC. The company

said $2.1 million of the $2.5 million fund has

been sold to accredited investors.

The second filing covered ELP Acquisition

Fund—Citi Centre LLC, which has raised

about $3.28 million of a $4.5 million offering.

Pulling the Unemployed off the Ropes and Into the Fight

As markets continue to produce signs of stabilization over the next quarter, it is unlikely that unemployment figures will show much improvement. With figures the highest they have been in more than 25 years, unemployment appears to have neared its peak. Lowering the rate to levels our economy can adequately support will prove to be a daunting task. But, with a little encouragement the corporate sector certainly has the power to handle it.
Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was quoted by multiple major news sources after he told the Brookings Institute, “The recession is likely over at this point.” According to Bernanke, the economy appears to be growing, but not at a pace that will be sufficient for lowering the unemployment rate. Historically, economic upturns after recessions have been stamped with consumer demand. This time around, however, many Americans may not have the ability to help lead a recovery because they have been completely wiped out financially.
In order to spur consumer-led demand, the corporate sector will again have to make jobs readily available. The unemployed are not the kind of consumers that are needed to invigorate our economy and induce growth. We do not need to turn to an economics textbook to tell us that our broken economic cycle can be patched with more available jobs—this much we know.
Corporations large and small have been forced to adapt to this constricted economy and the majority of them were required to do so through downsizing. Now, company leaders are reluctant to increase their workforce until they are confident there is a significant increase in demand for their products and services. But, one strong possibility that could provide the encouragement needed to get company leaders hiring again is a temporary change in corporate tax policy.
A temporary tax break aimed at equaling the payroll costs of adding new employees would strip the risk for companies that are awaiting a full-blown recovery before they hire. Plus, according to a recent article published in The Wall Street Journal:
“The impact of a two-year program on the federal deficit would be relatively modest. Using a conservative set of assumptions, an $18 billion annual program, which represents 10% of estimated corporate tax receipts in the next fiscal year could create nearly 600,000 good-paying jobs …”

Before they commit to hiring, companies are waiting for consumers to spend. But, before consumers commit to spending, they are waiting for companies to hire. The cycle is stagnant and will remain so until one side is persuaded to change their behavior. A government-sponsored tax break for companies that agree to hire could be the first action taken during this recession that encourages our country’s government, companies and individuals to work together.

Capital River is Frozen; We Can Thaw it

Because of the severe impact of the recession, the stream of capital that once flooded our economy has been reduced to a trickle. The majority of the flow evaporated when banks were forced by the Fed to tighten their lending standards as delinquent loans polluted their books. Consequently, failing to restore the flow is making it extremely difficult for the Fed to take progressive measures toward recovery and has the potential to drop us back into another recession.
According to Bloomberg.com:
“The Fed’s second-quarter survey of senior loan officers, released Aug. 17, showed U.S. banks tightened standards on all types of loans and said they expect to maintain strict criteria on lending until at least the second half of 2010.”

With dropping values in commercial real estate, rising unemployment numbers and a seemingly unending onslaught of delinquent mortgages; banks are not lacking reasons to practice strict lending measures. Earlier this year, through a series of stress tests, the Fed found that 19 of the country’s largest banks needed $75 billion in new capital to protect themselves from mounting losses.
With all of my recent writings and blog postings concerning the benefits of getting our private capital back in the game, I am by no means hiding my agenda for restoring capital flow. The economy will only be repaired once the flow of capital is rejuvenated. It is much easier to lead capital tributaries back into the main stream if they are first flowing. Over the next couple of quarters, banks will continue to deleverage and work toward a balanced lending system. But, without raising more private capital, banks will not be able to establish a lending system that enables credit-worthy individuals and businesses to acquire reasonable loans; which puts an enormous restraint on economic progress.
Our economy is already positioned to attempt to force a jobless recovery, which will certainly create complications in sustaining a recovery. Trying to force a credit-less recovery will only exacerbate our struggles. Dragging our banks through a painful recovery without sufficient capital will only position them to break and lead us right back through more of the same. By identifying ways to put our private capital back into the equation we are positioning our financial system to rise from this recession stronger and more efficient. By investing in private enterprise, we are sparking long-term, mutually-beneficial relationships between capital-producing businesses and banks (while also earning gracious returns on our initial investments). Now is the time to put our private capital back to work.

Without Our Capital, Banks Get the Axe

Our private capital plays an integral part in our local economies—which then all collectively have crucial roles in our country’s financial stability. Because banks have become over-reliant on easy credit, they are now struggling to keep their businesses running by raising capital the old fashioned way. Without our capital, our banks (and more importantly our communities) cannot function properly. Not able to fulfill their debt obligations, banks are closing their doors and falling under the control of the FDIC; which “estimates bank failures will cost the fund about $70 billion through 2013.”
Banks are necessary to ensure that money circulates in our communities. They distribute the money of their depositors to borrowers who have a worthwhile purpose for the money. The banks secure our savings and lend the money to companies or individuals. Banks provide a convenient location for borrowers to acquire funds. Without banks, companies would find it very difficult to borrow large sums of money.
While banks perform their role as intermediaries, they also essentially increase the supply of money. By accepting deposits from its customers and loaning the money to worthy borrowers, banks “create” money. Consider the following simple example. Imagine a customer deposits $20,000 into her bank account. Even though the bills are no longer in circulation, the amount of money in our country does not change as a result of the deposit. Allowing the money to simply sit in the bank’s safe would not earn the bank anything. Therefore, the bank lends $10,000 to an entrepreneur in return for an additional interest fee. The depositor still has a $20,000 credit in her account and the entrepreneur has $10,000, therefore the money supply has increased by $10,000. The entrepreneur purchases supplies with the money and creates a product that he sells for a profit. As long as banks have depositors, they are able play their crucial role of increasing the money supply by making funds available to those looking to find backing for their ventures.
The word “bank” itself is derived from the Italian word “banca,” which referred to the table on which coins were counted and exchanged in the middle ages. “Bancarotta,” from which the word “bankrupt” was derived, means “broken bank.” Originally, if a banker was unable to pay his debts, the authorities arrived to smash his table in half with an axe. Today, the FDIC seizes failed banks and seeks buyers for their branches, deposits and faulty loans—all, for some reason, without smashing anything with an axe.

All my best,

Thomas J. Powell

 

 

Ghost of Recessions Past

Maybe this is all a bad dream, and like Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge, a voice from the past is warning financial regulators.
Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker testified in front of the House Financial Services Committee today. Look at the excerpt from his prepared statement. He warns that the Fed’s reaction to the recent crisis may actually increase the likelihood of future collapse. By creating a safety net for the too-big-to fail banks, Volcker argues, we are exposing the financial system to more risk!
Paul Volcker is no stranger to economic crisis. As head of the fed from 1979-1987, Volcker helped steer the economy out of the infamous ‘stagflation’ of the late 1970s. Stagflation was an economic anomaly: high unemployment combined with inflation and negative growth rates. Many hail Reagan’s deregulatory policies as the solution. But this was only a piece of the puzzle. Volcker headed the Fed at a time when the structure of the world economy was undergoing an historic shift. The international monetary system had collapsed and, like today, monetary policy was ineffective at solving the nation’s problems. Volcker oversaw a dynamic shift in how we value currencies and conduct monetary policy.
Why is all this important? Because 82-year-old Volcker is saying the same thing I am. Instead of looking at real changes to the system itself, like Volcker did, regulators continue to recklessly throw money at the problem. Fortunately for us, we are not facing stagflation. The problem today is the steady deflation of our wealth. However, the lesson is the same: let’s look at ways to change the system instead of perpetuating the cycle with safety nets. Volcker suggested re-instating Glass-Steagall. This should reduce big bank’s incentives to gamble our wealth away.
I also agree with his stance that smaller institutions are getting squeezed out of the economy. If the government only backs a small handful of participants, how will smaller private firms compete? Without those firms we will never return to prosperity.
So let’s take a minute to heed Volcker’s advice. It’s more than Obama is doing. Volcker may be one of the president’s chief advisors, but he’s not listening. Unlike Dickens’ tale, this is not a dream. I think Volcker’s advice will haunt the halls in Washington for a long time.

Tom

Cambridge AMDP Newsletter

Check out my recent entry in the AMDP Alumni Newsletter.
Cambridge AMD Alumni Newsletter

Best Wishes,

Thomas J. Powell

Main Street Versus Wall Street

While Wall Street is celebrating an end to the recession, folks on Main Street know better. Jobs are still disappearing. It is widely acknowledged that America’s small businesses are the engine of job creation. So, the recession won’t end until small business expands. For this to happen, access to credit for working capital is essential.
We should all be disturbed, then, that our government has used trillions of our taxpayer dollars to save Wall Street while ignoring the financial institutions on Main Street who actually lend to small businesses (the community financial institutions). The number of troubled institutions on the FDIC’s list is now 416, mostly community institutions. With their insurance fund nearly depleted, it is a certainty that the FDIC will soon be using its Treasury line of credit. As long as they are now using our taxpayer money, shouldn’t these community institutions get the same treatment that the large Wall Street firms received (i.e., access to funds to shore up their capital bases until the recession ends)? Most of the troubled institutions are in the states hardest hit by the real estate bubble, i.e., AZ, CA, FL, and NV. Their assets are troubled, not because they made speculative bets on funny new financial instruments (like Wall Street did), but because their economies have tanked.
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, since TARP and other funds were given to the behemoths, business loans have declined every single month (Oct. ’08 through July ‘09). So much for the requirement that these folks increase loans to businesses. It appears that the TARP funds were either pocketed as unconscionable bonuses or went into shoring up the capital bases of these institutions that now prowl the countryside looking for takeover targets and requiring taxpayer participation in losses (the normal FDIC practice) when takeover occurs.
I have seen several in depth studies that indicate that today’s financial structure does not have the capacity to refinance the debt already out there that will be coming due in the next five years. Fortune 500 companies don’t have to worry because the now saved Wall Street banks will fund them. But, unless America’s community institutions get equal access to TARP, America’s small businesses won’t get the liquidity or credit they need to expand. So much for job creation!
The political party that now controls both Congress and the Presidency say they represent the “little guy”. So far, they have only aided the rich and greedy on Wall Street.

Guest Blogger,

Robert Barone, Ph.D.
Robert Barone is a Principal and an Investment Advisor Representative of Ancora West Advisors LLC an SEC Registered Investment Advisor. He is also a Registered Representative and a Registered Principal of Ancora Securities, Inc. (Member FINRA/SIPC).

Robert’s Blog