SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (47355)9/17/2008 12:57:12 PM
From: MJ1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224705
 
Should government be held accountable, should tax payers bail them out?

Small is beautiful.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (47355)9/17/2008 1:03:16 PM
From: JakeStraw  Respond to of 224705
 
Democrats Praising McCain
youtube.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (47355)9/17/2008 2:00:44 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 224705
 
Federal bank insurance fund dwindling By MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writer
Tue Sep 16, 7:49 PM ET


WASHINGTON - Banks are not the only ones struggling in the growing financial crisis. The fund established to insure their deposits is also feeling the pinch, and the taxpayer may be the lender of last resort.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., whose insurance fund has slipped below the minimum target level set by Congress, could be forced to tap tax dollars through a Treasury Department loan if Washington Mutual Inc., the nation's largest thrift, or another struggling rival fails, economists and industry analysts said Tuesday.

Treasury has already come to the rescue of several corporate victims of the housing and credit crunches. The government took over mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and helped finance the sale of investment bank Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Eleven federally insured banks and thrifts have failed this year, including Pasadena, Calif.-based IndyMac Bank, by far the largest shut down by regulators.

Additional failures of large banks or savings and loans companies seem likely, and that could overwhelm the FDIC's insurance fund, said Brian Bethune, U.S. economist at consulting firm Global Insight.

"We've got a ... retail bank run forming in this country," said Christopher Whalen, senior vice president and managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Monday that the country's commercial banking system "is safe and sound" and that "the American people can be very, very confident about their accounts in our banking system." FDIC officials also have said 98 percent of U.S. banks still meet regulators' standards for adequate capital.

But fear is growing on Main Street as well as Wall Street about the likelihood of multiple bank failures and the strain that would put on the FDIC.

The fund, which is marking its 75th anniversary this year with a "Face Your Finances" campaign, is at $45.2 billion — the lowest level since 2003. At the same time, the number of troubled banks is at a five-year high.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair has not ruled out the possibility of going to the Treasury for a short-term loan at some point. But she has said she does not expect the FDIC to take the more drastic action of using a separate $30 billion credit line with Treasury — something that has never been done.

The FDIC's fund is currently below the minimum set by Congress in a 2006 law. The failure of IndyMac Bank in July cost $8.9 billion.

Next month, Bair plans to propose increasing the premiums paid by banks and thrifts to replenish the fund. That plan is likely to be approved by the FDIC board, which consists of her, Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, Thrift Supervision Director John Reich and two other officials.

Bair also is considering a system in which banks with riskier portfolios would be charged higher premiums, raising the possibility those costs could be passed on to consumers.

A Washington Mutual failure would dwarf the largest bank collapse in U.S. history — Continental Illinois National Bank in 1984, with $33.6 billion in assets.

By comparison, WaMu and its subsidiaries had assets of $309.73 billion as of June 30 and IndyMac had $32 billion when it shut down.

Arthur Murton, director of the FDIC's insurance and research division, said that when large institutions have failed in recent years, the hit to the fund has been about 5 to 10 percent of the company's assets.

Standard & Poor's Ratings Service late Monday cut its counterparty credit rating on WaMu to junk, action that followed downgrades by both Moody's and Fitch last week. Concern about the Seattle-based thrift, which has significant exposure to risky mortgage securities and other assets, has grown in recent weeks, and the company's stock price has plummeted.

WaMu responded Monday by saying that it did not expect the S&P downgrade to have a material impact on its borrowings, collateral or margin requirements. The bank said its capital at the end of the third quarter on Sept. 30 is expected to be "significantly above" required levels and that its outlook for expected credit losses is unchanged.

Some analyst estimates put the cost of a WaMu failure to the FDIC at more than $20 billion, but other experts say it is very difficult to predict. Unknown, for example, is the amount of advances that institutions may have taken from one of the regional banks in the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Banks and thrifts have significantly increased their requests for advances, or loans, from the 12 regional home loan banks since the mortgage crisis began last year.

These amounts aren't publicly disclosed but must be repaid if a bank or thrift fails, notes Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics.

If the FDIC doesn't have enough cash to cover the initial costs of a bank or thrift failure, one option would be short-term loans from the Treasury. That last happened in 1991-92, during the last part of the savings and loan crisis, when the FDIC borrowed $15.1 billion from the Treasury and repaid it with interest about a year later.

Based on projections of possible scenarios of bank failures, "between the (insurance) fund that we have now and our ability to draw on the resources of the industry ... we do have the resources" needed, Murton said Tuesday.

Though short-term borrowing from Treasury for working capital may be possible, he said, tapping the long-term credit line is unlikely.

But Whalen said the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Congress should "immediately devise" and announce a plan to backstop the FDIC with up to $500 billion in borrowing authority to meet cash needs for closing or selling failed banks.

"While the FDIC already has a credit line in place and this figure may seem excessive — and hopefully it is — the idea here is to overshoot the actual number to reinforce public confidence," Whalen wrote in a note to clients. "Simply having Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson or Ben Bernanke making hopeful statements is inadequate. Like it says in the movies: 'Show us the money.'"

Before Congress passed the law overhauling deposit insurance in 2006, about 90 percent of all insured banks and thrifts — considered to have adequate capital and to be well managed — paid no premiums to the FDIC. Today, all of them do.

There were 117 banks and thrifts considered to be in trouble in the second quarter, the highest level since 2003, according to FDIC data released last month. The agency doesn't disclose the names of institutions on its internal list of troubled banks. On average, 13 percent of banks that make the list fail. Total assets of troubled banks tripled in the second quarter to $78 billion, and $32 billion of that coming from IndyMac Bank.

Last month, Bair called those results "pretty dismal," but said they were not surprising given the housing slump, a worsening economy, and disruptions in financial and credit markets. "More banks will come on the (troubled) list as credit problems worsen," he said. "Assets of problem institutions also will continue to rise."

__



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (47355)9/17/2008 2:02:28 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224705
 
Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

When asked whether the Democrats “deserve some responsibility” regarding the economic crisis, Pelosi responded: “No.”

“John McCain said that this is a result of overregulation by the Democrats in Congress,” she added. “Either he doesn’t know what he's talking about or he’s misrepresenting the facts as he knows them. But it’s simply not true.”



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (47355)9/17/2008 2:03:36 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 224705
 
Cafferty: Obama: Race a factor?
Posted: 01:59 PM ET

From CNN's Jack Cafferty


Will race be the factor that keeps Obama from the White House?
Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

Time magazine's Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in the room. He says Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights back against the McCain-Palin campaign attacks.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (47355)9/17/2008 3:40:24 PM
From: tonto2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224705
 
The Fed's new role: Sugar daddy
Posted Sep 16 2008, 06:15 PM by Andrew Horowitz
Rating: [Poor] [Poor] [Fair] [Fair] [Average] [Average] [Good] [Good] [Excellent] [Excellent]
Filed under: Merrill Lynch, Lehman Bros, Andrew Horowitz, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

Since when do we rely on government to intervene in every case of a failing business? If anyone wonders why we have such a mess on our hands, look no further than our boneheaded government that has obviously forgotten its way. Think of this week's action within the financial markets as a result, not the cause of our problems.

AIG is in a battle for its very existence, Merrill has been absorbed and Lehman is bankrupt. And we're only part way through the week. What's next?

These days, many people are wondering what our government will do to stop the insanity. Yet, in a capitalistic society that relies on a free market system, we should only look to the government to guide and regulate against fraud and the manipulation of the system. Sometimes known as a laissez-faire philosophy, the government has a role, but it is not to be a business partner and a sugar daddy there to provide a backstop to the bad business practices of the banking system.

Surely, not everyone is in favor of bailouts. Reuters recently reported that when asked whether the government should provide a bridge loan or some other support for the company, which faces a liquidity crisis, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby told reporters, "Absolutely not ... I hope that they will not bail out, or get a bridge loan, to AIG."

He added, "Where do you stop? Where do you draw the line?"

Now that the market sentiment lives and dies with the actions of the Fed, it appears that investors and companies are getting used to the idea that no matter how bad it gets, money is available, rate cuts will appear and the Treasury will help with some kind of handout. This is not the way in which we create a market that is considered healthy. By constraining market gains and losses to the whims and taxing power of the regulators, we will never have a stock market that will make or lose money. In effect, it becomes net-neutral as losses that are absorbed will become a positive on investor's P/L statements, but the tax payments to fund the losses will trickle down and become a negative item.

This week has cost the taxpayer upwards of $400 billion as we have seen the bailout of Fannie/Freddie and the Fed pushing $70 billion of temporary money into the the financial system to help prevent a seize up of the credit markets. Then, we heard the 2:15 announcement of the Fed, which was initially greeted with a thud, eventual put some life into a sagging market. While most would have thought that a "no-change" policy would cause markets to collapse, odd as it seemed, they actually rallied.

The Federal Open Market Committee decided to keep its target for the federal funds rate at 2%. Below are the relevant segments of the official statement and inline comments/translation.

Strains in financial markets have increased significantly and labor markets have weakened further. Economic growth appears to have slowed recently, partly reflecting a softening of household spending. Tight credit conditions, the ongoing housing contraction, and some slowing in export growth are likely to weigh on economic growth over the next few quarters. Over time, the substantial easing of monetary policy, combined with ongoing measures to foster market liquidity, should help to promote moderate economic growth.

Translation: The Fed is here to act as a safety net if need be. Don't worry, that nasty inflation thing we spoke about in the last few meetings was a mistake. Go about your business.

Inflation has been high, spurred by the earlier increases in the prices of energy and some other commodities. The Committee expects inflation to moderate later this year and next year, but the inflation outlook remains highly uncertain."

Translation: We have conveyed a posture that helped to strengthen the dollar and it worked to weaken commodity prices. All we had to do was to mention that we were thinking about a rate increase and the dollar rallied. Now, go about your business as usual, we got your back.

The downside risks to growth and the upside risks to inflation are both of significant concern to the Committee. The Committee will monitor economic and financial developments carefully and will act as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability.

Translation: Speak loudly and carry a big stick. The first order of business is to keep the financial markets from imploding. Then we will make sure that prices are stabilized.

This is all on the heels of the August report that shows a dramatic increase to confidence and Tuesday's report that showed consumer prices saw a marginal decrease on an annual basis 5.5% in July to 5.4% in August. The report also found that the core inflation remained at 2.5% on a year-ago basis. As commodity prices have tumbled, the more recent data came in to show a slight decline on a month-to-month basis. It seems that inflation has left the house! Of course, this assumes that gasoline prices are not of consequence as they have not moved down appreciably.

If the Fed continues to play the Greenspan Put, we will eventually have an ineffective market as investors will have no real ability to analyze or project the outcomes of stocks. Businesses that are allowed to survive, even as they are insolvent and illiquid will only further corrupt the system.

Let the market work out its problems and likely, over time, the strongest will survive. If you don't believe me, just ask Mr. Darwin.