Showing posts with label bailout econmics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bailout econmics. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2012

Former FDIC Chair Bair: Bank Bailout Was ‘Overkill’

Moneynews:

The billions of taxpayer dollars spent to bailout big banks was largely unnecessary, according to Sheila Bair, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairwoman.

In an excerpt from her new book “Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street From Wall Street and Wall Street From Itself,” which was published by Fortune, Bair writes “with the exception of Citi, the commercial banks' capital levels seemed to be adequate.”

“Without government aid some of them might have had to forgo bonuses and take losses for several quarters, but still, it seemed to me that they were strong enough to bumble through,” she writes.

That the U.S. government showered Wall Street with cash during the financial crisis as people were losing their homes and jobs continues to be a hot button issue. Many Americans blame the banks for the crisis and argue that Washington could have and should have done more for the people and less for those who created the problem.

Bair seems to agree and this is not a new position for her.

Last October, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Bair spoke at the National Asian American Coalition conference about her disappointment that so little appears to have been done for the millions of homeowners still in distress.

“I wish I could say things have gotten better, but I don't see that they have. The loan programs are not doing what they need to. Part of the problem is a not very well-functioning mortgage services industry. The resources are not there. The training is not there. The commitment is not there,” the Chronicle quoted her as saying.

Consistent with that sentiment, Bair writes in the book, “We used up resources and political capital that could have been spent on other programs to help more Main Street Americans.”

She admits that there was a lot less information available when the bailout decision was made and that that uncertainty played a factor in how the situation was handled.

Still, she writes, “In retrospect the mammoth assistance to those big institutions seemed like overkill. I never saw a good analysis to back it up.”

Related:

Economist Schiff: QE3 is Coming and Will Worsen Our ‘Depression’

The Student Loan Debt Bubble Is Creating Millions Of Modern Day Serfs

Obama Blocking the Economic Recovery… And Stutistics: What the Media Is Not Telling you About Obama’s Unemployment Record

Why We Have No Budget and Why It Can’t Be Balanced

Obama’s Own Statements on His Vision and Beliefs… in Video

EPA Mandates Motorists Buy At Least 4 Gallons of Gas at Ethanol-15 Pumps

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
America's Next TARP Model
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Video:  America’s Next TARP Model – with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show

What you are about to read should absolutely astound you. During the last financial crisis, the Federal Reserve secretly conducted the biggest bailout in the history of the world, and the Fed fought in court for several years to keep it a secret.

Do you remember the TARP bailout? The American people were absolutely outraged that the federal government spent 700 billion dollars bailing out the "too big to fail" banks. Well, that bailout was pocket change compared to what the Federal Reserve did. As you will see documented below, the Federal Reserve actually handed more than 16 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free money to the "too big to fail" banks between 2007 and 2010. So have you heard about this on the nightly news? Probably not. Lately Bloomberg has been reporting on some of this, but even they are not giving people the whole picture. The American people need to be told about this 16 trillion dollar bailout, because it is a perfect example of why the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down. The Federal Reserve has been actively picking "winners" and "losers" in the financial system, and it turns out that the "friends" of the Fed always get bailed out and always end up among the "winners". This is not how a free market system is supposed to work.

According to the limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the grand total of all the secret bailouts conducted by the Federal Reserve during the last financial crisis comes to a whopping $16.1 trillion.

That is an astonishing amount of money.

Keep in mind that the GDP of the United States for the entire year of 2010 was only 14.58 trillion dollars.

The total U.S. national debt is only a bit above 15 trillion dollars right now.

So 16 trillion dollars is an almost inconceivable amount of money.

But some other dollar figures have been thrown around lately regarding these secret Federal Reserve bailouts. Let's take a look at them and see what they mean.

$1.2 Trillion

A recent Bloomberg article made the following statement....

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 -- the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg -- was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The $1.2 trillion figure represents the peak outstanding balance on these loans, not the total amount of all the loans. On December 5, 2008 the "too big to fail" banks owed this much money to the Federal Reserve. Many of them could not pay these short-term loans back right away and had to keep rolling them over time after time. Each time a short-term loan got rolled over that represented a new loan.

$7.7 Trillion

Bloomberg is reporting that the Federal Reserve had made a total of $7.77 trillion in financial commitments to the big banks by the end of March 2009....

Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

But as mentioned above, a one-time limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act covered an even broader time period and revealed even more bailout loans.

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it. One of the only members of Congress that has said something has been U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

The following is an excerpt from a statement about this audit that was taken from the official website of Senator Sanders....

"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world"

So where is everyone else?

Why aren't leading Republicans and leading Democrats crying bloody murder over this report?

This scandal should have been front page news for months when it was revealed.

But it wasn't.

And Guess what?

Not only did the Federal Reserve give 16.1 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free loans to the "too big to fail" banks, the Fed also paid them over 600 million dollars to help run the emergency lending program. According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve shelled out an astounding $659.4 million in "fees" to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis in the first place.

In addition, it turns out that trillions of dollars of this bailout money actually went overseas. According to the GAO audit, approximately $3.08 trillion went to foreign banks in Europe and in Asia.

So why were our dollars being used to bail out foreign banks while tens of millions of American families were deeply suffering?

That is a very good question.

Also, it is important to remember that many of these bailout loans were made at below market interest rates, and this enabled many of these financial institutions to rake in huge profits.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, the big banks brought in an estimated $13 billion by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates....

While the Fed’s last-resort lending programs generally charge above-market interest rates to deter routine borrowing, that practice sometimes flipped during the crisis. On Oct. 20, 2008, for example, the central bank agreed to make $113.3 billion of 28-day loans through its Term Auction Facility at a rate of 1.1 percent, according to a press release at the time.

The rate was less than a third of the 3.8 percent that banks were charging each other to make one-month loans on that day. Bank of America and Wachovia Corp. each got $15 billion of the 1.1 percent TAF loans, followed by Royal Bank of Scotland’s RBS Citizens NA unit with $10 billion, Fed data show.

So once the financial crisis was over, were adjustments made to the financial system to make sure that this type of thing would never happen again?

Of course not.

Today, the "too big to fail" banks are larger than ever. The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.

So now they are more "too big to fail" than ever.

But this is what happens when we allow unelected central bank bureaucrats to run our financial system.

Most Americans do not realize this, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve is not part of the government. In fact, it is about as "federal" as Federal Express is. The Federal Reserve has admitted that they are a privately owned institution in court many times, and you can see video of a Federal Reserve employee admitting that the Federal Reserve is privately owned right here.

The Federal Reserve is an out of control monster that is throwing around trillions of dollars whenever it wants to. Nobody should be allowed to do this. Nobody should be allowed to give bailouts to banks and corporations without the express permission of the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States.

This is a point that I made in my article yesterday. The Federal Reserve decided this week that it is going to provide "liquidity support" to Europe. If the American people do not like this move, that is just too bad. We do not get a say in the matter.

Are you starting to understand why I keep pushing the idea that it is time to shut down the Federal Reserve?

Please share this information about the secret 16 trillion dollar Federal Reserve bailout with your family and your friends.

If we can get enough people to wake up, perhaps there is still time to change the direction that this country is headed.

From the Economic Collapse Blog

Video: The Fed Grants $7.77 Trillion in Secret Bank Loan - Now Do You Understand Occupy Wall Street?

Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve:

Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve!
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1718844/pg1
Kucinich bill seeks to end the Federal Reserve
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/01/kucinich-bill-seeks-to-end-the-federal-reserve/

Related:

WHAT THE HELL? The U.S. Secretly loaned 7.7 TRILLION To Banks Without Interest. Then Borrowed Back WITH Interest
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1718942/pg1

America's Next TARP Model
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-1-2011/america-s-next-tarp-model

A Bloomberg report reveals that the U.S. government loaned banks $7.7 trillion in secret bailout funds at no interest and then borrowed the money back at interest.
Bloomberg reports 7.7 trillion in loans to big banks and Wall Street
http://reading-sage.blogspot.com/2011/11/bloomberg-reports-77-trillion-in-loans.html?m=1pg1

h/t to Jean Stoner

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Obama’s Student Loan Plan: Implements Limited Forgiveness and Some Other Changes

Excerpt: 

It is also a part of the plan that monthly payments be capped at a level of 10 percent of the money that left over when all taxes are paid and basic necessities taken care of. This cap has been at 15 percent, which takes a lot more money out of the pockets of citizens and out of the economy.

Understanding Obama Student Loan Forgiveness

President Barack Obama will undoubtedly be remembered for his healthcare reform legislation that was recently passed by Congress. However, there is another program that is much less well known that could affect far more people directly. This is the Obama student loan forgiveness program.

Under the terms of this program, anyone who makes his monthly payments for twenty years after leaving college is eligible to have his/her remaining balance forgiven. At least, this applies to anyone with Federal Direct loans, Stafford loans, and Perkins loans. Those who take out their loans from private lenders such as Sallie Mae are still responsible for repaying their loans in total.

Individuals who spend ten years in public service positions become eligible to have their loans forgiven at that point rather than having to wait the full twenty years. This means that their debt is forgiven in half the time and their debt reduced significantly sooner.

It is also a part of the plan that monthly payments be capped at a level of 10 percent of the money that left over when all taxes are paid and basic necessities taken care of. This cap has been at 15 percent, which takes a lot more money out of the pockets of citizens and out of the economy.

There are also programs in place that allow teachers to work for just five years in elementary or high schools that have been designated as low income schools by the Dept. Of Education. This applies to FFEL loans and to Direct loans.

Military personnel are also able to achieve forgiveness for their student loans if they have a degree. This program works for members of all five branches of service, including the Coast Guard and Reserves.

A final option is to apply for income based repayment terms. While it is probably best to sign up for this early in the life of the loan, older loans may still qualify for this lower payment plan. Of course, the clock starts all over when one signs up for this option. That means that someone who has worked in public service for eight years and signs up for income based repayment must work another ten years in public service instead of the two he/she would have had left.

Student loans are a fact of life for the vast majority of college graduates. This is especially true of those who go beyond a bachelor's degree and take graduate level classes. Sadly, the much higher pay they were promised if they pursued their education to its fullest has not materialized. The economic recession has made this fact even worse for most.

The Obama student loan forgiveness program is intended to help ensure that individuals do not wind up broke because they chose to continue their education. While nobody will see his/her loan just disappear overnight, payments have been lowered and the time shortened that one must pay before the remaining balance is forgiven. Public service workers and teachers are eligible for forgiveness at much faster rates due to the nature of their jobs.

Achieving Student Loan Forgiveness Through One’s Career

For those who wish to get their college degree but are not as financially stable to do so, student loans are definitely a great thing to have. However, the large interest rates of such as well as the length of time it takes to pay for them can make them a financial burden in the long run. This has been the trend until student loan forgiveness programs were introduced.

Some people might not know this fact, but it is actually possible to get a student loan forgiven. An effective way to do so is by getting a job that entitles one to avail of the opportunity to get the loans lessened up to a certain degree.

Here are some of the occupations one can take up and expect the possibility of loan forgiveness.

1. Volunteers - Some of the organizations in the community today can offer a student loan forgiveness opportunity for their volunteers. This is available in exchange for a specified length of time in service.

2. Military personnel - Aside from being able to serve the country, a military man also gets to avail of student loan repayment. However, this is limited to the Army and Air Force as well as their corresponding national guards. The Navy also offers this for its members.

3. Doctor or lawyer - Certified practitioners in both the legal and medical fields can choose from a variety of options to get their student loans forgiven as well. Since it takes up to a six-figure amount for them to finish their degree and be able to practice fully, forgiveness loans are definitely a blessing for them.

4. Teacher - Teaching is a profession greatly honored by the government considering how valuable education is. Because of this, complete loan forgiveness is also offered for those who teach in public elementary, middle and high schools.

Student loans that are set on an income-based repayment plan can take up a maximum of 25 years. This seems like a long time. However, someone who pays dutifully every month without missing a beat might be able to lessen the entire term of the loan.

Knowing all these, a student can take time to assess what college degree to take up and career to build. Of course, it is still very important to take note of what one really enjoys doing, but the financial part of the process is also something to think about in order to reach the ultimate state of financial stability.

White House officials said Obama will provide student loan relief in two ways:

First, he will accelerate a measure approved by Congress that reduces the maximum required payment on future student loans from 15 percent of discretionary income annually to 10 percent. The White House wants it to go into effect in 2012, instead of 2014. In addition, the White House says remaining debt would be forgiven after 20 years, instead of 25.

About 1.6 million borrowers could be affected.

Second, he will allow borrowers who have a current loan from the Federal Family Education Loan Program and a direct loan from the government to consolidate them into one loan. The consolidated loan would carry an interest rate of up to a half percentage point less than before. This could affect 5.8 million more borrowers.

Washington Posts Wonkblog: There is a Bush-Era Backstory on Obama’s ‘New’ Student Debt Proposal

The student debt relief proposal President Obama rolled out this morning isn’t exactly new. As I mentioned earlier today, it’s more of an adaptation: It lowers some existing caps on how much student borrowers have to pay back on their loans each year. Those caps are pegged to income, hence the name for the policy: Income-based repayment. Or, in education policy terms, IBR.

The Obama administration didn’t create IBR; instead, it inherited the policy from its predecessor. President George W. Bush signed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act in September 2007. The law allowed, among other things, for student borrowers to cap loan payments at 15 percent of income and for loan forgiveness after 25 years of payments. All those changes came into effect in July 2009.

Today’s proposal uses the same structure, but moves the goalposts: the cap for loan repayments gets dropped to 10 percent of income and loan forgiveness gets moved up to after 20 years of payments.

The nonprofit Project on Student Debt for years now has been an IBR advocate. It drafted much of the policy proposal that Bush signed in 2007 and that the Obama administration has now strengthened. I spoke this afternoon with the Project on Student Debt’s president, Lauren Asher, about the history of income-based repayment, what these new changes mean and why the new publicity push matters for student borrows. What follows is a transcript lightly edited for content and length:

Sarah Kliff: Tell me about the history of income-based loan repayment. How did the proposal come to be law?

Lauren Asher: We’ve been working on these issues since 2005. The idea of income-based repayment evolved out of an analysis we did, that looked at payment options for student loans. Students were really getting mixed messages from borrowers: Sometimes you’re encouraged to borrow because it’s a good investment; but on the other hand you’re warned not to borrow too much.

We came up with this proposal, which was a sliding scale that took into consideration how much the borrower is earning. We originally thought of it as regulatory, but then legislators got involved. Our original recommendation said that the loan forgiveness should be at 20 years.

SK: But it got set at 25 years. How did that happen?

LA: The way the law got written, the education secretary had the authority to set it up to 25 years, so that’s where it’s currently set.

SK: What does today’s announcement mean for the program? How much more expansive does it get?

LA: One of the most important things about this announcement is the administration is committing to help more borrowers find out about IBR. There’s an estimated half million enrolled right now, and millions more could benefit from the program.

There really needs to be more public outreach and education. So we’re really thrilled that the department is going to do that. If you talk to people at the Occupy Wall Street protests, or in your everyday life, you find they owe more than they ever have before.

SK: That’s interesting that you mention the publicity around the program as the key change here. How much do you think it matters that the administration is also lowering the caps for loan payments in the IBR program?

LA: We’re especially excited about the commitment to raise awareness about IBR. In a previous life I’ve worked on other policy issues. And when something is a new policy, it can take awhile to penetrate public consciousness. With student debt, there’s no time to waste.

That being said, the changes to payment will make the program even more affordable for current students. IBR is a light at the end of the tunnel, and the tunnel will be shorter and brighter with these changes.

It is time for those who are just in the decision mode about college or future careers to start a new discussion.  Everyone does not need to go to college.  And junior college and online courses are great options if you are going.  It is also time for those in the trades to start viable apprenticeship programs again.

Side Note from Tea Party Nation:

The Occupy movement has many goals. Many of them inconsistent with each other, but that is what happens when you smoke too much marijuana.

One thing mentioned by almost every one of the group is the demand that student loans be forgiven.

Let’s assume for a moment that could be done.  What would it mean?  While consistency is not one of the strong points of the Occupy movement, this would be the ultimate form of corporate welfare.

From the Frum Forum:

All colleges are corporate entities. (Harvard University is actually the oldest corporation in the United States.) Unlike most other entities treated as charities or considered government agencies, they derive most of their revenue from the sale of services–education and research–to paying customers. Only a handful of institutions, maybe 400 of the country’s 4,000 or so colleges and universities, have endowments large enough that they don’t have to watch the “bottom line” for every single project they undertake. Even some colleges with big endowments–Johns Hopkins comes to mind–are fixated on growing revenue and surplus (profit). Explicitly for-profit colleges are just a little more honest about their status as businesses.

If all student loans were to be forgiven, they would almost certainly have to be forgiven for those currently enrolled. Forgiveness, furthermore, would create a precedent that tuition for all colleges would be essentially free going forward. This would amount to an open-ended subsidy that would benefit many of America’s largest corporations (the universities themselves) forever.

Tuition costs would almost certainly rise significantly in any case as the individuals consuming education services (few of whom pay “sticker price” right now) would have no reason to even look at the costs assessed.

Interestingly a Rassmussen poll finds that 66% of Americans oppose student loan forgiveness. 

To forgive the estimated $1 trillion in student loans would mean the government would have to give banks $1 trillion dollars to cover that loss.

Where would that money come from?   The taxpayers, of course.  We have a national debt set to hit $16 trillion soon.  What are we going to do, borrow another trillion from China?

Forgiving the student loans also sends several terrible messages.  First it teaches people that fiscal discipline does not matter.  The student who borrowed $100,000 to land a $20,000 social work job and who spent half that money partying and going on spring break to Cancun, is treated the same as the engineering student who worked his way through school with no student loans and sacrificed to get his or her education.

The fiscal cost alone should sink this really bad idea.  What make much more sense, as I have indicated in previous blogs on Tea Party Nation is to change the bankruptcy code and make student loans dischargeable under Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  The obligor would still have to pay for a number of years and would pay some of the loan back so the taxpayer is not on the hook for the entire loan amount.  This is not a perfect solution but it would allow the person who owes student loans the opportunity to begin moving forward without the crushing debt load on their backs.  It would also mean they pay for part of the debt they incurred.

The size of student loan debt forgiveness will probably kill the idea.  But look for Obama and the Party of Treason to suggest it as part of a desperate reelection bid. 

*When polled 66% of the American people are against as student loan bailout.

New Book:  The Entitlement Trap: How to Rescue Your Child with a New Family System of Choosing, Earning, and Ownership

Ask Marion~

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.


And so:


The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.


"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"


"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"


"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.