Business Loans Continue to Increase

The largest twenty-five domestically chartered commercial banks in the United States continue to increase lending to businesses (Commercial and Industrial Loans) over the latest four-week period according to the most recent Federal Reserve data.  Over the latest four-weeks ending November 2, large banks experienced a net increase in business loans by almost $11 billion.  Over the latest 13-week period, these loans have risen by almost $28 billion. 

From October 2010 to October 2011, the largest twenty-five banks have increased their portfolios of these business loans by a little more than $75 billion.

Still, one does not have a lot of confidence that these loans are going into areas that will contribute to the growth of the economy.  Larger companies are still accumulating “cash” to buy back stock or to make acquisitions.  Certainly the cost of borrowing is not a hindrance to these companies obtaining for these purposes these days. 

Commercial and Industrial loans have also increased in the rest of the banking system, but by a little more than one billion dollars over the last four weeks, and by just over $9 billion over the past 13 weeks.  It is not altogether clear what these loans are going for at the present time.  Given that this $9 billion increase is spread through about 6,400 banks, the rise in lending at each bank, on average, is not too great.

The interesting thing about the lending in the smaller 6,400 banks is that residential real estate loans have shown some increase over the past 13-week period.  Residential loans have risen by almost $25 billion over the past quarter, over $13 billion in the last four weeks alone.  The indication is that in some places in the United States, residential lending activity has been picking up.  We will have to watch this number closer in the upcoming weeks and months. 

The softest area in lending still remains the commercial real estate area and the weakness is predominantly in the small- to medium-sized banks.  These loans dropped by slightly less than $14 billion over the past 13-weeks, with more than half the decline at the smaller banks.  Over the past 4-weeks the declines in commercial real estate loans have all been outside the largest 25 banks in the country. 

All domestically chartered commercial banks in the United States reduced their holding of cash balance in the past 13-week period.  The largest 25 commercial banks lowered their balances by $185 billion. The other domestically chartered banks reduced their holdings by only $10 billion.  These decreases in cash balances came despite the fact that excess reserves in the banking system stayed relatively constant during this time period. 

In summary, the latest Federal Reserve statistics indicate that the banking system, as a whole, is becoming less conservative.  Business loans have been picking up for most of the last six months, especially at the largest 25 domestically chartered banks in the United States.  The question mark here, however, is the use that borrowers are putting these funds to.  It does not appear as if the loans are being used for productive purposes that would get the economy moving again. 

The commercial real estate area continues to stay week, especially at small- and medium-sized banks.  Here one still has questions about the quality of these loans on the balance sheets of the smaller banks and the implication of these difficulties for the future.   

One further note: Consumer borrowing at all commercial banks continues to remain weak.  Nothing seems to be happening in this area, which, again, has implications for future economic growth.  The consumer seems to be more interested in getting his/her debt under control than to really engage in more spending.  We will see what happens in this area as the holiday season approaches.

Closing note:  The largest 25 commercial banks in the United States, according to the Federal Reserve data, represented 57 percent of the assets in the banking system on November 2, 2011; foreign-related depository institutions represented 14 percent; and the other (roughly) 6,400 domestically chartered banks represented 29 percent.    

United States Loses 355 Banks in 2010

One December 31, 2010, the FDIC reported that there were 7,657 insured depository institutions in the United States. This was 355 less than the 8,012 institutions that were in existence on December 31, 2009. (157 banks were officially closed by the FDIC in calendar 2010.)

This is up from the 293 institutions that dropped out of the industry in 2009.

In the fourth quarter of 2010, the number of insured depository institutions in the United States dropped by 104 depository institutions.

The number of banks on the FDIC’s list of problem banks rose from 860 to 884 at the end of the year.

The FDIC does not list how many of these problem banks went out of business in the fourth quarter of 2010 or were acquired by or merged into other institutions during this period. But, the picture is not quite as rosy as New York Times columnist Eric Dash reports this morning: “And only 24 lenders were added to the government’s list of troubled banks, the smallest increase since the financial crisis erupted in late
2007.” (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/banking-shows-signs-of-a-turnaround/?ref=business)

Most of the banks leaving the banking industry were on the smaller size.

Furthermore, the list of problem banks does not include many other banks that are facing serious problems but have not yet qualified to be put on the FDICs list of problem banks. Need I mention the name of Wilmington Trust Bank, a bank that was considered by almost everyone as a bank that was doing OK. Then came the news of its sale last November. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/234027-wilmington-trust-sold-at-45-discount)

The problem list is a proxy for the number of institutions that are severely stressed, but does not include all that are still experiencing questionable futures. These latter banks have just not crossed the statistical threshold to be considered “problem banks.” Still 12% of the banking system is on the problem list.

I have been arguing for more than a year now that the actions of the Federal Reserve have been aimed at keeping things calm in the banking industry so that the FDIC can close or arrange acquisitions for troubled banks in an “orderly” fashion. This, I believe, has been one of the reasons that the Fed’s target interest rates have been kept near zero for such a long time. It is also part of the reason for the Fed’s second round of spaghetti tossing, or, quantitative easing (QE2).

The FDIC has needed the calmest environment possible to oversee a dramatic reduction in the number of banks in the banking system. As reported above, the banking system has almost 650 fewer banks in existence now than were in the banking system on January 1, 2009. That is a reduction of almost 8% of the banking institutions that existed at that time.

The other fact that does not bode well for the smaller banks in the country was just reported by the Associated Press: the profits of the big banks represented 95% of all bank profits in the fourth quarter of 2010. The big banks earned $20.6 billion of the $21.7 billion in profits earned by the banking industry as a whole. That is, only about 1.4% of the 7,657 banks noted above with assets of more than $10 billion saw these earnings.

And, bank lending. Bank lending continues to drag. I reported in my post of February 21, 2011:

“bank lending was abysmal over the past 6-week period and the last 14-week period.

Since the end of the year, loans and leases at the largest 25 domestically chartered banks in the United States dropped dramatically by about $50 billion, much of this coming in consumer lending although loan amounts were down across the board. Loans and leases held roughly constant in the eight weeks that preceded December 29 at these large banks.

In the rest of the banking system, the declines in the loan portfolio came primarily before the end of the year. After falling by about $60 billion in November and December, loans at these institutions rose slightly in the first six weeks of 2011. Notable decreases came in both residential lending and in commercial real estate loans, each declining by a little more than $20 billion over the last 14-week period.” (http://seekingalpha.com/article/254004-why-is-most-of-the-fed-s-qe2-cash-going-to-foreign-related-banking-institutions)

My question still remains, “why should the commercial banks be lending?” A large number of the banks have balance sheets that are not in very good shape, interest rates are abysmally low, and there are still quite a few sectors of the economy, housing, commercial real estate, consumer loans, state and local governments, that are experiencing serve financial difficulties themselves.

Having $1.2 trillion of excess reserves in the banking system is not justification for the banks to be lending…especially the smaller banks.

If the banks don’t lend right now it avoids the possibility of putting another bad loan on their balance sheets. In that way they can focus on their existing bad loans.
Some people looking for “green shoots” in the banking industry claim that they have found them. Unfortunately, I have not yet found a lot to raise my spirits.

The Banking System Seems to be Dividing: Large Versus Small

The last three months have seen more and more weakness in the smaller commercial banks in the United States. Last month I ask the question, “Is A Crunch Coming for the Smaller Banks?” (http://seekingalpha.com/article/229385-is-a-crunch-coming-for-smaller-banks)

This month things continued to decline amongst the smaller banks while the largest 25 banks in the country really seemed to expand.

Over the past four weeks ending Wednesday October 27, the biggest 25 banks in the country saw their assets increase by almost $94 billion while the assets at the smaller banks rose by only about $8 billion; but the cash assets at the smaller banks rose by almost $19 billion.

Over the past quarter, the total assets at the larger domestically chartered banks increased by a little less than $20 billion while the assets at the smaller banks actually declined by about $9 billion. Cash assets at the smaller commercial banks rose by over $33 billion during this time.

Loans and leases at the smaller commercial banks have fallen by $14 billion over the last four weeks and by almost $32 billion over the last 13-week period. And, where has most of this decline come from? Commercial real estate loans!

This is, of course, is where many analysts, including Elizabeth Warren, have predicted the trouble would come from until the end of 2011 or so. Warren even stated in congressional testimony that there were some 3,000 commercial banks that were going to face severe problems in the commercial real estate area as these loans either matured and had to be re-financed or went into a delinquent status.

Over the past four-week period, commercial real estate loans at the smaller banks fell by almost $10 billion. Over the past 13-week period, these loans dropped by over $23 billion.

Looking back over the past year ending in September, commercial real estate loans at the smaller commercial banks declined by $74 billion, with half of the decline coming in the last six months.

The decline in assets at the smaller commercial banks is coming exactly where Warren and others warned they would come. But these banks also moved more and more into cash assets during this time indicating a very risk averse position. Over the past thirteen weeks the smaller banks did exactly the opposite of what their larger competitors did: the smaller banks added $33 billion to their cash asset portfolios while the bigger institutions reduced their cash by $30 billion.

The largest 25 banks are still not aggressively pursuing loans. But, their securities portfolios continue to increase. Over the last four weeks, securities held by the largest banks in the country increased by almost $32 billion while they rose by almost $60 billion over the past 13-week period.

This behavior is also exhibited over the last twelve months, ending in September 2010. During this period, large commercial banks increased their securities portfolio by almost $125 billion while their portfolio of Commercial and Industrial loans fell by almost $80 billion and their portfolio of real estate loans dropped by $41 billion.

Some of the financing of these securities came from the cash assets of these large banks which declined by almost $70 billion during this time period. The largest supplier of new funds to these institutions came from something called “Borrowings from Others”. In essence, the larger banks seem to be playing an arbitrage game. They are borrowing short and buying long term securities. The risk to them seems minimal since the Federal Reserve is keeping short term interest rates exceedingly low for “an extended time.” An “extended time” seems to go well into next year.

The largest commercial banks are going to do just fine. They will continue to get stronger and bigger in the future.

The smaller banks continue to struggle. The problem here is that we, the public, really don’t have a handle on how serious the situation is with respect to the solvency of the smaller commercial banks in the banking system.

The “surprise” sale of Wilmington Trust last week took most people by surprise, even the very astute analysts. (See http://seekingalpha.com/article/234027-wilmington-trust-sold-at-45-discount.) Here is a bank known for its conservatism and, in addition, it was solidly producing earnings through its trust department. Yet, the bank had failed to really report the truth about its loan portfolio. Here is a bank, roughly around $10 billion in asset size with bad assets totaling around one billion dollars. How could this happen without someone knowing about it?

How many more commercial banks like Wilmington Trust are out there?

Bankers…lenders…do not like to admit that they have bad loans. In general, they postpone reporting bad loans until it is too late for them…and their shareholders.

Elizabeth Warren said that there were about 3,000 commercial banks in the banking system that were going to face serious strains over their commercial real estate loan portfolio and their construction loan portfolio.

Recent data indicate that large dollar amounts of commercial real estate loans are leaving the balance sheets of the smaller commercial banks in the United States. It would appear as if more and more of these bad assets are being recognized and removed from the banks’ balance sheets.

More and more people are calling for commercial banks to recognize their bad assets so that the United States can start to grow again. I believe that more and more people are realizing that a strong economic recovery is not possible until something is done about these bad assets…until they are written off the balance sheets of the commercial banks.

One of the problems that the Obama team is really going to have to deal with soon is to appoint some people to provide economic and regulatory advice and administration. On the economic side, only Tim Geithner at Treasury and Austan Goolesbee at the President’s Council of Economic Advisors are in place. On the regulatory side connected to depository institutions, only “Bubble” Ben will be in place by the middle of next year. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has an acting head. I was at a banking conference last week and there was talk that Sheila Bair, Chair of the FDIC is expected to leave next year and does not want to be re-appointed. The Office of Thrift Supervision is merging into the OCC and the top people are looking elsewhere for leadership. Many leadership positions are empty.

One could almost say there is little or no leadership at the top in Washington, D. C. when it comes to economics and banking.

And yet, 2011 could be a crucial year in American history for determining the future of the structure of the financial system.

Market Volatiltiy is Not Bad: Its the Better Alternative

Last week the United States stock markets dropped dramatically…the Dow Jones Index fell significantly below 10,000. This week the same markets are up sharply…the Dow Jones closed yesterday at almost 10,140.

Most financial markets this year have been especially volatile. All measures of volatility have risen. Yet, the world goes on!

When the markets are down, gloom pervades the scene and fears of a double dip recession or a drop back into economic depression flood media outlets. When the markets are up, optimism about the economic recovery increases.

Yet, this volatility is the better alternative to a financial market collapse which has been avoided this year, up to this point.

Where does this leave us?

What I have tried to convey in my recent posts is that economic conditions, in general, are improving but that there are a lot of problems that have not been fully resolved at this point. In essence, things are getting better but we are not “out-of-the-woods” yet.

On what do I base this conclusion?

At this point in time I see a lot of people trying to work out the problems that exist. Where the problems are identified and “owned” the process of resolution goes forward. When people fail to accept the fact that problems exist and deny that anything needs to be done to correct them, the road gets bumpy and further market problems ensue.

A case in point is the European crisis that took place earlier this year. Denying that a problem existed in the financial position of several European governments only exacerbated the situation and led to substantial financial turmoil. A cloud still hangs over the European Union with respect to the bank stress tests that are now going on. It took a major effort to make these tests a reality, but now the whole process is cloaked in a secrecy that only creates more fear and concern. When will people learn that opaqueness does not breed confidence?

As I have written before, “quiet” is good. That is, financial markets do not like surprises or the fear of surprises. Problems may exist, but if it appears as if people recognize that problems exist, if people are working hard to identify the problems, and if people are applying resources to correct the problems, the world goes along.

In such an environment there will be bad news from time-to-time, just as there will be good news. The financial markets, however, do not like news that falls outside the bounds of what is expected. In this respect, market participants are on the alert for “surprises”, especially “bad” surprises, pieces of information that indicate that things are worse than they had expected.

At times like the present, financial markets are particularly sensitive to bits of news that might point to “bad” outcomes.

The problem with “bad” outcomes is that they may cause people to discard their previous expectations. The danger is that the destruction of expectations may be so severe that people stop trading until they are able to re-construct expectations that they are willing to trade on. A time period in which people stop trading is a “liquidity crisis” and is usually connected with the breakdown of market expectations due to a “surprise” that shakes the market.

Many believe that European leaders risked such a consequence in their response to the financial market disruptions that took place earlier this year.

So what we want is a period of relatively “quiet” economic activity so that the problems that exist within the economy can be worked out. There is no arguing against the fact that there are still a lot of problems areas in the world today. That is why there is so much volatility in the financial markets. With so many problems still in existence, there are still many, many possibilities that new “surprises” may be discovered. Market participants have a right to be jittery.

In my mind, additional governmental stimulus programs will not correct this situation. More spending stimulus from the government, if it has any effect, will only work to postpone the resolution of currently existing problems. These problems must be worked out or they will just carry over to the next period of financial distress.

In fact, I have argued that this is what has happened over the past fifty years or so as governments have tried to stimulate economic activity in order to avoid excessive amounts of unemployed labor. The result of this activity, however, has been excessive amounts of under-employed labor as well as unemployed labor. (See my post, “Jobs and Skills: The Current Mismatch,” http://seekingalpha.com/article/213163-jobs-and-skills-the-current-mismatch.)

Government efforts to achieve “quiet” results are apparent in the banking industry. Big banks do not seem to be the major problem: problems do seem to exist among the “less-than-big” banks. Both the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance System are working to provide an environment in which these problems may be worked out in an orderly fashion.

First, the Federal Reserve has provided for a massive infusion of liquidity into the banking system by keeping its target interest rate near zero and allowing for about $1.0 trillion to remain on bank balance sheets as excess reserves. In additions, the FDIC has instituted a systematic process to close problem banks and to encourage a change in control of many other banks short of capital.

The result has been a steady handling of the problems in the banking system with no surprises. At least, no surprises up to this point in time. This is good…very good!

And, what do we see happening? People are seeing opportunities popping up in these “smaller” banks. (See my post from yesterday http://seekingalpha.com/article/213630-are-smaller-banks-a-good-investment, but also today from the Wall Street Journal, “Wilbur Ross’s N. J. Bank Play,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703609004575355031598784308.html?mod=ITP_moneyandinvesting_2.)

Problems are also being worked out in the economy as a whole. However, this “work out” process takes time and since it took about 50 years for the United States to get into the position it now finds itself in, things are not going to right themselves overnight. Impatience, like further short run fiscal stimulus plans, will not correct the situation because they work “against” the healthy correction of the economy, they do not work “with” the natural flow of activity. There are ways the government can work “with” the correction, but these also require patience for they have to do with re-training, education, innovation and a changing structure of incentives.

Volatility comes with the territory we now occupy. Volatility comes with the release of bad news and good news on the economy, government finances, and company performances. The volatility comes because people are still trying to understand what is going on and whether or not expectations are going to be met. However, knowing that people accept the problems and are working to correct them creates an environment that is more conducive to trust than the failure to acknowledge the fact that problems might exist. Even in hard times, knowledge is better than ignorance…or foolishness.

The Federal Reserve and the Smaller Banks

The Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System meets today. No one is expecting that there will be any change to the Fed’s target Federal Funds rate. The reason given is that the economy still remains exceedingly weak with the unemployment rate remaining just below 10 percent and the inflation rate as measured by the consumer price index less food and energy, the Fed’s preferred price measure, hovering between a one percent and a 1 ½ percent, year-over-year rate of increase. This latter fact combined with the information that there is a lot of unused capacity in United States manufacturing is believed to be the primary argument for keeping the target interest rate at such a low level.

I, too, believe that the Open Market Committee will not change the target rate of interest at this time, but I still believe that the Federal Reserve is still very troubled about the condition of small- and medium-sized banks. To repeat the statistics again, the FDIC has more than 700 banks on its problem list with the expectation that over the next 12 to 18 months there will be three to four banks closed, on average, every week. The small- to medium-sized banks in this country do not appear to be in very good shape.

To raise rates at this time and remove reserves from the banking system could make the situation amongst the small- to medium-sized banks much more difficult. Yes, according to Federal Reserve statistics, small domestically chartered commercial banks in the United States make up only about 34% of the banking assets of domestically chartered banks in the United States as of the first week of March 2010. (The largest 25 domestically chartered banks therefore makeup about two-thirds of the assets of domestically chartered banks in the country.) Therefore, about 8,000 banks in the United States hold only one-third of the bank assets in the country. Perhaps this is not sufficient to worry too much about.

However, one could argue that another reason, perhaps the main reason, that the Fed does not want to raise its interest target is the shaky shape of this portion of the banking system.

The smaller banks in the country hold about $320 billion or about 9% of their assets in cash assets in the first week of March. This is up from 6% one year ago!

Furthermore, these banks hold about 12% of their assets in Treasury and Agency securities with another 7% of assets held in other securities. (This total of 19% is up from around 17% one year ago.)

Thus, these banks hold almost 28% of their assets in cash or marketable securities. This is up from about 23% at the same time in 2009.

One keeps looking for “green shoots” amongst these smaller banks. The bigger banks are going to make it now and do not present much of a worry to the Feds. In fact, the bigger banks are raking in the profits, one way or another.

The problem is, that I don’t see much happening in the smaller banks. The total assets of the bank are about the same as one year ago, but as the above figures show these banks have gone 100% risk-averse. It seems as if they are just holding on, hoping to survive the worst.

Total loans and leases at these banks are down a little more than 6% year-over-year. However, these totals are down almost $88 billion over the past 13 weeks, a drop of almost 4% in about three months.

Commercial and Industrial loans are down around 9%, year-over-year, although they have only dropped about $6 in the 13-week period ending March 3. Business loans are down severely and show no sign of picking up. This has got to have an impact on Main Street because the businesses that deal with these banks have few alternative sources of funds.

Another major area of concern to the small- to medium-sized banks is their portfolio of commercial real estate loans. These loans are down by more than 5% year-over-year and down almost $40 billion over the last 13-week period.

This is an area of major concern to these smaller banks and are expected to be the source of extended troubles to the banks over the next 18- to 24-months. This is the area over which Elizabeth Warren, the head of oversight for Congress of the TARP funds, has expressed extreme anxiety.

The fear that one has in this area is that the loan problems of these small- and medium-sized banks have not really been fully worked out. As such, these banks are behaving in a very conservative fashion for a reason. They are building up cash assets and liquid assets in order to provide protection for themselves to weather potential loan charge offs over the next year or so. If interest rates begin to rise and the Fed begins to withdraw reserves from the banking system, these banking organizations could be forced to charge off many of these loans and this could cause severe damage to their capital positions. It is my belief that the Federal Reserve is cognizant of this situation.

Overall, the Federal Reserve is keeping excess reserves in the banking system at record levels. In the two weeks ending March 10, 2010, excess reserves in the banking system average roughly $1.2 trillion.

The banking system as a whole is recording about $1.3 trillion in cash assets in the banking week ending March 3. This is divided up between Large Domestically Chartered banks about $570 billion, Small Domestically Chartered banks about $320 billion, and Foreign-Related institutions about $460 billion. (What is perhaps interesting is this latter figure which was about $230 billion one year ago. Just what is going on with these foreign-related institutions?)

The loan portfolios of the large banks continue to contract as well. Total loans and leases are down about 7% year-over-year, and have dropped $85 billion over the last 13-week period. The two biggest declines registered come in Commercial and Industrial Loans, $31 billion, and Residential loans, also around $31 billion. There does not seem to be much activity in the Commercial Real Estate portfolio, contrary to what seems to be happening in the small- to medium-sized banks.

The conclusion?

No “green shoots” but lots of problems remaining in the smaller banks!

Surveys coming out from the Federal Reserve indicate that fewer banks are tightening up their lending standards. This is promoted as a good sign. Other indicators in housing construction, foreclosures, and bankruptcies are seen as pointing to a turnaround in the banking system.

I don’t see it yet. And, I don’t think that the Federal Reserve really sees it yet.

The banking system must begin lending again if we are to have an economic recovery and job growth. Many companies seem to be tapping the capital markets as debt issues climb. However, these are not Main Street businesses. And, history teaches us, the banking system must be there to underwrite any expansion of business activity because for many, Main Street is the only place they can raise funds.

Federal Reserve Exit Watch: Part 8

Looking at the Federal Reserve statistics these days is rather boring. As has been reported over the past month or two, the Fed has gotten its balance sheet in position for the “great undoing.” And, now it is just waiting.

One can divide the Fed’s balance sheet into three components: the “regular” portion which is roughly equivalent to the asset side of the balance sheet of the Fed in the “good old days”; the portion of the balance sheet that consists of line items related to the “new” facilities created to combat the financial collapse; and the “liability” side of the balance sheet which includes Treasury deposits and reverse repos, the account the Fed has stated it will use in the “undoing” of the excess reserves it has injected into the banking system.

The “regular” portion of the Fed’s statement now represents over 90% of the assets of the central bank. Almost $2.0 trillion of these assets are in the form of securities that the Fed has purchased on the open market and holds outright. The only real movement here is in the Fed’s holding of mortgage-backed securities which, on March 3, 2010, amounted to slightly more than $1.0 trillion. The Fed has stated that this account will reach $1.25 trillion by the end of March.

The Federal Reserve has added, net, $175 billion of the mortgage-backed securities to its portfolio over the last 13-week period, roughly $70 billion in the last four weeks.

In terms of the “new” facilities, the Fed is letting these items run off as the assets run off, are written off, or are sold. Over the last 13 weeks, since December 2, 2009, these accounts have declined by slightly more than $100 billion. Over the past month, since February 4, 2010, they have declined by $30 billion.

Overall, therefore, the Federal Reserve has supplied roughly $76 billion to the building of reserve funds over the last 13 weeks and slightly more than $30 billion over the last 4 weeks. Rather a non-event if you ask me.

In terms of factors absorbing reserve funds, the interesting item here is the Supplementary Financing Account of the United States Treasury. I wrote about this account on February 24, 2010 for it seems to be something that the Fed/Treasury is also planning to use during the “undoing”. For more on this see my blog post: http://seekingalpha.com/article/190404-the-treasury-s-latest-maneuver-with-the-fed.

What has happened in this account is that it has been increasing. It reached a low early this year at $5.0 billion, as the Congress had to approve an increase in the federal debt limit. Since February 4, 2010 this account has increased by $20.0 billion. The Federal Reserve announced that an agreement had been reached with the Treasury Department that the Fed will borrow $200 billion from the Treasury and leave the cash on deposit at the central bank. As explained in my post, this borrowing will be used by the Fed to help it “undo” excess reserves in the banking system. It seems as if the Fed is starting to build up this facility slowly so as not to be disruptive to the banking system.

If we combine all the factors supplying reserve funds to the banking system and factors absorbing funds from the banking system we find that commercial bank’s Reserve Balances with Federal Reserve Banks increased by roughly $70 billion in the last four weeks and over the last 13 weeks: thus, very little changed in the banking system over the last quarter of a year.

If we look at the statistics from the banking system itself, we see that excess reserves in the banking system rose by about $110 billion.

What the Fed did, as it has for an extended period of time now, went directly into the excess reserves of the banking system. Commercial banks, as a whole, are just sitting on their hands and doing nothing. This allows the Fed to do all its repositioning in order to prepare for the “great undoing” without throwing any more uncertainty into financial markets.

The Federal Reserve is still “sitting on the fence”. Its dilemma is that the banking system still remains extremely week…except, of course, for the big banks. For more on this see two of my recent posts: “The Struggles Continue for Commercial Banks”, http://seekingalpha.com/article/190191-the-struggles-continue-for-commercial-banks, and, “The Banking System Continues to Shrink”, http://seekingalpha.com/article/188566-the-banking-system-continues-to-shrink. The Fed cannot move too fast to remove excess reserves from the banking system for fear that this “undoing” may result in many more bank failures among the small- to medium-sized banks.

Of course, the economy remains weak and the Fed has used this excuse for not removing reserves from the banking system and raising short-term interest rates. This may be a cover for their real concern over the systemic weakness of the small- and medium-sized banks in the United States.

On the other side there is the continuing fear over the possibility that sooner or later the excess reserves in the banking system will turn into bank loans which will result in an expansion of the money stock measures which will result in a worsening of inflation. With over $1.1 trillion in excess reserves in a banking system that used to carry less than $100 billion in excess reserves there is substantial doubt that the Fed can smoothly remove all of these reserves thereby preventing possible inflation or even hyperinflation. Nothing like this has ever been experienced in history before.

So, we sit and wait.

The good news is that things within the banking system seem quiet now. The FDIC continues to close banks without major disruptions to banking markets or local economies. The focus of financial markets seems to be on Greece, Spain, Italy, the Euro, and California, New York and other political entities. That is good for the banking system!

Some have pointed to a potential problem arising from the sale of assets recently conducted by the FDIC. The argument is that now that these assets have a price, will other banks have to “mark-to-market” similar assets that they carry on their balance sheet? And, if they have to mark these assets to market, will this speed up the number of banks actually failing or force banks that seem to be doing OK into insolvency?

In the circumstances we now find ourselves, boring is good! Let’s hope it stays boring. Or hope that the situation becomes even more boring.

The "Next Greece" Again

The New York Times business section carries the headline, “Traders Turn Attention to the Next Greece”: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/business/global/04bets.html?ref=business.

“Is Spain the next Greece? Or Italy? Or Portugal?”

Sounds vaguely similar to another article on the topic, my post of March 1, “Where is the Next Greece?”: http://seekingalpha.com/article/191242-where-is-the-next-greece. But, the subject is in the air these days.

The New York Times article wades into the issue of whether or not the “banks and hedge funds” should be doing what they are doing.

“Indeed, some banks and hedge funds have already begun to turn their attention to other indebted nations, particularly Portugal, Spain, Italy and, to a lesser degree, Ireland.” Aha, the PIIGS, of course without the G.

“The role of such traders has become increasingly controversial in Europe and the United States. The Justice Department’s antitrust division is now examining whether at least four hedge funds colluded on a bet against the euro last month.”

The same concern has been expressed over short sales.

Little concern was expressed about the debt policy of nations, states, municipalities, businesses and consumers when they were piling on massive amounts of debt to their balance sheets.

Of course, nations, and others, have good reasons for loading up with debt. It stimulates the economy and everyone wants prosperity and full employment. Well, don’t they?

Everyone wants businesses to prosper. Everyone wants everyone else to own their own home.

All good reasons for piling on debt.

But, when do “good intentions” spill over into “foolish behavior”?

And, in an environment where excessive amounts of credit are being pumped into the economy (thank you again Federal Reserve)n to spur on housing or some other “good”, shouldn’t it be expected that “extra-legal” means will be used to “get the credit out”.

But, when does serving “societal goals” become fraudulent and hurtful?

The problem in both cases is that there is a very blurry line between the “good” and the “bad”. On the upside, of course, emphasis is placed on the “good” being done, and the “bad” is alluded to but quickly dismissed. A common theme in such periods is that “Things are different now!”

On the other side, however, great pain takes place. One can certainly sympathize with those who live in Ireland, and Spain, and these other countries.

This, however, is just where “moral hazard” raises its ugly head. There is a downside to the excessive behavior of nations, states, and so on! There is pain on the other side of the pinnacle.
And, eventually the pain must be paid for. Bailing out those that used excessive amounts of debt just postpones the situation and usually leads people to behave just the way they did before the crisis. That is, the lesson learned is the one can behave badly and, if there is the threat of sufficient societal pain, little or no cost will be carried forward because of the previous un-disciplined behavior.

The problem is that those in power get mad at the bankers and the hedge funds and try to prohibit them in some way from moving against those private or public organizations that are financially weak. But, in doing so they are taking away a tool that can be used to enforce discipline on those who have lived excessively. The same applies to short selling.

We have seen behavior like that exhibited by the “banks and hedge funds” in the past. The last time these predators were called “shadowy international bankers”, many of whom were pictured as living in Switzerland. In that time the “ bankers” attacked the currencies of profligate nations. France, under the leadership of François Mitterrand, is perhaps the best known example of such a situation. Mitterrand, the socialist, had to pull back from his grand plans and became a believer in fiscal discipline and an independent central bank. Similar cases are on record.

It is disconcerting to see the increased efforts to reduce or eliminate financial tools that help to bring discipline to the market place. If these investment vehicles get punished or face harsh controls and regulations then the world is so much the worse for it.

Yes, I agree, at this stage it looks like the strong are kicking the weak member of the party. But, in these cases we forget that many benefitted greatly on the upside, particularly the politicians that promoted goals and objectives that were underwritten by the undisciplined use of debt. And, the central banks were prodigal in underwriting this credit inflation.

And, now the piper is calling in the debt.

It is a rule of life: those in power that create a given situation are often the most vocal opponents of those that respond to the consequences of what the powerful have created. If you create an inflationary environment fueled by excessive credit expansion then, sooner or later, the price must be paid.
Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, England, and others are now facing the downside of so many years of “good intentions.” Let’s not just blame, or punish, the “bankers and hedge funds” for creating the situation we now face

Will Bernanke Never Learn?

The report from the Federal Reserve yesterday was positive. The headline in the Wall Street Journal was typical: “Fed More Upbeat, but Keeps Lid on Rates.” In other Federal Reserve news we hear that the Fed is going to phase out the special facilities set up during the financial crisis.

So, what else is new? (http://seekingalpha.com/article/178117-federal-reserve-exit-watch-part-5)

Our fearless leader, Time’s Person of the Year, POTY, Chairman Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, was an avid supporter of Alan Greenspan and low, low interest rates earlier this decade, rates that spurred on the credit bubble in housing and elsewhere. In 2007, Chairman Bernanke was late in identifying the fact that the economy was slowing and that there was a looming financial crisis on the horizon. Then, Time’s POTY seemingly panicked after the bailout of AIG in September 2008 and this resulted in the rushed passage of TARP. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/106186-the-bailout-plan-did-bernanke-panic)

Once it was finally accepted that there was a financial crisis, POTY saw to it that just about everything that could be thrown against the wall, was...thrown against the wall. In this he has been deemed a savior. The balance sheet of the Fed ballooned from about $900 billion to roughly $2.1 trillion.

Now, POTY is seeing that the target rate of interest for the conduct of monetary policy can hardly be differentiated from zero and this target has been maintained since December 16, 2008.

WOW! The Fed’s zero target rate of interest was one year old YESTERDAY!

Excess reserves in the banking system have gone from about $2 billion to over $1.1 trillion!

And, what is the result?

Big banks are eating this up! There are two articles in the morning papers that attest to this. See the column by John Gapper in the Financial Times, “How America let banks off the lease”: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ad195f8-ea7a-11de-a9f5-00144feab49a.html. Gapper writes, “As the FT reported on Wednesday, banks and hedge funds have made huge profits in distressed debt trading in the past year, aided by the Federal Reserve keeping short-term interest rates low. Meanwhile, the banks that turned out to be too big to be allowed to fail are bigger than ever.”

Next, the op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Gerald P. O’Driscoll, Jr., “Obama vs. the Banks”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704398304574597910616856696.html#mod=todays_us_opinion. O’Driscoll states “that banks can raise short-term money at very low interest rates and buy safe, 10-year Treasury bonds at around 3.5%. The Bernanke Fed has promised to maintain its policy for ‘for an extended period.’ That translates into an extended opportunity for banks to engage in this interest-rate arbitrage.” He then asks, “Why would a banker take on traditional loans, which even in good times come with some risk of loss?” Seems like I have been arguing this point for at least six months now in assorted blog posts.

But, of even more importance is the attitude of the bankers toward financial innovation.

There is no better environment for financial innovation than the one that we are now experiencing. I would argue very strongly that financial innovation is taking place right now even though we may not see all the different forms the innovation is taking. And, the current round of financial innovation is coming at the expense of regular borrowing and lending. And, the financial innovation is benefitting the large, financially savvy financial institutions and not the small- and medium-sized organizations that don’t have the resources, or, the inclination, or, the freedom, since they still have plenty of questionable assets to deal with. Hail, Wall Street! See you later Main Street!

For the past fifty years or so, the government of the United States has basically followed an expansionary economic policy that has provided a safety-net to the financial system, and established an inflationary bias within the economy. There is no better environment for financial innovation than this!

The banks, the financial system, the non-financial system, and governments have innovated like mad during this time period.

The current federal government is just continuing to underwrite this practice at the present time.

POTY and the current administration are just exacerbating the situation they are so heavily criticizing.

And, as Gapper states, "the banks that turned out to be too big to be allowed to fail are bigger now than ever."

POTY and the current administration may win, politically, in the short run because the big bankers seem to have a deaf ear: See http://seekingalpha.com/article/178269-defining-the-banking-situation-as-a-political-issue.

In the longer run, the victory may go to another side. Paul Volcker seems to be taking the other side of the argument. See the article by Simon Johnson in The New Republic: “Is History on Paul Volcker’s Side?” http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/history-paul-volckers-side.

The bottom line, however, is that Benjamin Shalom Bernanke doesn’t seem to get it…once again! Time after time, the Fed Chairman has seemed to miss the mark. Because of this record, one, I think, can seriously ask the question: “Why should we expect Bernanke to be correct this time?”

In nominating the Chairman for another term, President Obama seems to believe that Bernanke will be correct this time. More than anything else the president has done, even sending more troops into Afghanistan, his bet on the re-appointment of Chairman Bernanke may determine how his presidency is perceived by future historians. A lot is riding on Chairman Bernanke.

Banking, Banks, and the President: Defining the Issues

The side that wins the political battles is usually the one that presents the issues in such a way that the “public” responds to this presentation and goes with them rather than with the “other side.”

There is an election coming up next year and the campaigning has already begun. The battle: whether or not the Democrats are going to be able to maintain a large enough majority in Congress to control the action in Washington, D. C. Already, the Democrats are looking back over their shoulders to 1994 mid-term election and their loss of control of Congress at that time. And, they are scared.

The way to operate in politics is to “frame” important issues in such a way that they will resonate with a majority of the electorate. It takes time for specific issues to “take hold” with the public so the framing effort must be started well in advance of the election. The process of “framing” is moving ahead, full steam.

The economy is obviously going to be an issue. How it is framed will determine the result. It appears that the banking industry is going to play a big role in how the discussion on the
economy evolves. The battle lines: Main Street versus Wall Street. The issues: an unemployment rate of 10% and an underemployment rate at 17-18% versus lots of taxpayer money to bail out the banks and the subsequent profitability of the big banks. A further issue: people losing their homes through foreclosure versus the payment of large bonuses by the big banks to their executives.

Sure the meeting between the President and the heads of the major banks in the United States was a great photo op. But, what did the photo op turn into? Let me just say that a headline like “Bankers Put Obama on Hold” accompanied by a picture of the President at his desk holding a phone does not create a very favorable image of the bankers (see the article by Andrew Ross Sorkin in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/business/15sorkin.html?_r=1).

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, is still a hero to many people, myself included, and is perhaps the most respected person in finance in the world today. He stated very bluntly in West Sussex, England this week that the bankers just didn’t get it. Great headlines!

In debates like this it doesn’t always matter who is right and who is wrong. We have seen over and over again that in economics, identifying the cause and effect of an economic situation is so difficult and the lags between the cause and the effect are so long, that explaining a situation to the public in terms that they understand is almost impossible.

Here I am specifically writing about the run-up to the financial collapse of 2008. To me the causes of this collapse go back to the almost 50 years of inflationary finance perpetrated by the United States government, Republican and Democratic alike, on the American people. This includes the huge deficits run up by the federal government since 9/11 and the inexcusable monetary ease that kept real interest rates negative for two to three years in the 2002-2005 period. The financial bubbles that resulted in housing and the stock market this decade produced the conditions that led to the subsequent events.

An economy with an inflationary bias is ideal for the evolution of financial innovation. It is ideal for leveraging up the balance sheet. It is ideal for assuming more and more risk.

It is difficult, however, to explain this cause and effect to the public.

Financial innovation looks like greed run amok. Assuming more and more risk looks like greed run amok. And, excessive amounts of leverage looks like greed run amok.

But, what about the government policy makers that created the incentives that made financial innovation valuable? What about those that contributed to the inflation that made high degrees of leverage worthwhile and edgy risk taking more attractive?

The connection is very difficult to put into sound bites and win the hearts and minds of voters.

In terms of financial regulation? My belief is that banks, especially the big banks have moved beyond the recent financial collapse. Congress and the regulators are always fighting the last war. The goal of Congress and the regulators is to not let the events of 2008 and 2009 happen again.

Guess what? The events of 2008 and 2009 will not happen again. The banks have moved beyond that. The reformed regulations will probably hurt the smaller banks much more than the larger banks. The smaller banks are still the ones dealing with the past, the questionable commercial real estate loans, the residential mortgages that are in arrears or are not paying at all, the consumer credit, the credit of state and local governments and so on and so on.

But, the big banks. They are already into 2010 and 2011 and beyond! More on this in another post.

This is why the banking industry must be careful at this time. In a real sense, Volcker is right; the bankers just don’t get it!

They can’t afford to look as if they are making the President look silly. They can’t afford to make themselves look like they are “fat cats.” Whoops, that is what the President called them Sunday night and it is all over the country. The bankers can’t afford to look as if they are staunchly against regulation reform. The bankers can’t look like they don’t care about mortgage foreclosures, or small-business loans, or getting people back to work.

The issues are being “framed” right now. The bankers cannot put themselves in a position to be characterized as “Scrooge” while the Obama administration comes on as “Tiny Tim.”

The Secret No One Wants to Tell

The one thing that seems to provide an explanation for a lot of the things going on today is the continued weakness of the banking sector. It explains the actions of the Federal Reserve System. It explains the actions of the Treasury Department. It explains much of the data that are being released. And, it explains much of the behavior of the banking sector, itself.

The secret: the banking sector is a lot weaker than the government is letting on and the government does not want to publically recognize the fact.

The FDIC recently released numbers on the banking industry for the third quarter. Profit-wise, the industry is very skewed. It is skewed toward the larger banks. The results have been summarized this way:

• Banks with assets less than $1 billion in assets roughly broke even in the third quarter;
  
• Banks with assets between $1 billion and $10 billion, on average, lost $3 million apiece;
  
• Banks with assets in excess of $10 billion recorded an average profit of nearly $42 million each.
  

The big banks, the banks that the regulators were most concerned with, are reaping a bonanza. And, why not? The Fed is keeping short term interest rates down: financial institutions can borrow for three-months in the range of 20-25 basis points in the commercial paper market and the large CD market; they can borrow for six-months in the 30-65 basis points in the CD market or the Eurodollar market. They can buy Treasury bonds that can yield 330 to 400 basis points. This is a nice spread. Plus these banks are traders and there has been plenty of volatility in the bond market in recent months. And, this does not even include the possibilities that exist in the carry trade.

As Eddy, Clarke's brother-in-law, remarked in the movie “A Christmas Vacation”: “This is the gift that just keeps on giving!”

Why?

Because the Fed is going to keep short term interest rates low for an “extended period” of time.

This effort is just another way to “bail out” the big banks!

But, what about the banks that are smaller than $10 billion in asset size?

Here the commercial banking industry has been given a gift of $1 trillion in excess reserves.

And, what is going on in this part of the banking industry? The FDIC released the third quarter information on problem banks. The total of problem banks in the country is 552, up from 416 at the end of the second quarter. Almost all of these banks are of the smaller variety. Given that 50 banks were closed in the third quarter this means that 186 new banks achieved the honor of being placed on the problem list in the third quarter.

It is estimated that at least one-third of the 552 “problem” banks, or 182, will fail in the next 12 to 18 months. If this is true then the United States will experience 2.5 to 3.5 bank closures a week for the next year to a year-and-a-half. This is slightly below the rate of 3.8 bank closures per week that was achieved in the third quarter. The hope is that this situation won’t get worse.

The path ahead for even those banks that are not on the problem list is treacherous. Real Estate Econometrics released information that the US default rate for commercial mortgages hit 3.4% in the third quarter of 2009. This is a 16-year high. The company also released projections indicating that this default rate could rise to more than 5% in 2011. Many of the banks in the middle tier possess millions of dollars of these loans on their balance sheet, relatively more so than do the big banks.

The huge debt of Dubai and Greece and others hang over this market.

In terms of residential mortgages, the picture does not improve. First American CoreLogic, a real-estate information company, recently released data that indicated that roughly one out of four borrowers is underwater in terms of their mortgages. Even 11% of the borrowers who took out mortgages in 2009 owe more than their home’s value.

The Treasury continues to push mortgage firms and others for loan relief. There is an indication that some borrowers are not really helped by the relief measures already promoted and that many who have been helped still face the possibility of re-default going forward.

And, layoffs continue in large numbers, foreclosures continue to take place at a high rate, and large numbers of bankruptcies, both personal and business, continue to occur. Another fact, out this morning, is that delinquencies on auto loans are on the rise.

And, banks are not really lending in any form. The Federal Reserve continues to pump funds into the banking system, yet commercial banks seem to be very content to accept the funds and just hold onto them in the most riskless way possible. If you don’t make a loan, it won’t turn bad on you. Furthermore, commercial banks face the situation in which the longer term liabilities they had accumulated earlier in the decade are going to be maturing. They will need money to pay off these liabilities without replacing them.

Charles Goodhart, Senior Economic Consultant at Morgan Stanley, writes in the Financial Times that central banks should declare victory in the war against financial collapse and cease their policy of quantitative easing. (See “Deflating the Bubble”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b7b26de-ddcd-11de-b8e2-00144feabdc0.html.) He writes, “If the authorities go on blowing up financial markets too much, at some point yet another bubble will develop. The last time the financial bubble burst, the taxpayers got soaked...Certainly, we can never get the timing exactly right, but now does seem the moment to declare victory for (Quantitative Easing) and withdraw.”

That is, unless there is something we don’t know and the government is not telling us, like the extent of the weaknesses that exist within the banking sector.

A Quick Look at Profits

So far, two facts stand out to me in many of the current earnings releases. First, for many large financial firms, trading profits have provided almost all of the positive results that we have seen. Second, for many large non-financial firms, cost cutting has resulted in better-than-expected earnings.

Both of these lead me to the conclusion that the basic or fundamental businesses of the companies reporting are showing little or no life. In other words, the demand for the basic products or services they provide is listless, at best. And, results like these are not sustainable.

Yes, the results are encouraging. Profits are always better than losses. But, these profits are not connected with the core business of these companies and hence give no indication that either the financial firms or the non-financial firms have established some kind of competitive advantage that will last into an economic recovery.

In terms of the large financial firms, like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, the trading profits have allowed them to post substantial earnings and get the government off their backs. Getting the government off their backs is important and will become more so in the future because these companies can pay to keep their top-flite executives or pay to attract other major talent to their organizations. They can buy time as their core businesses improve. However, trading profits are not sustainable and should not be counted over an extended period of time.

The large financial firms that have not produced, like Citigroup and Bank of America, will find themselves at a considerable competitive disadvantage, both in the United States and worldwide, as their competition can apply their strengths to continue to grow and increase market share. Plus, these non-producers are having to sell off assets like BOA’s sale of First Republic and Citigroup’s sale of Phibro even though both were profitable operations.

The last thing these organizations need is to have their pay the top officers receive drastically cut. Not only do troubled firms have problems hiring top talent, but to have the onus of the government hanging over the companies and controlling what top executives get paid is doubly bad. These financial institutions were too big to fail—immediately. But, they are not too big to fail a slow death. Certainly the government’s effort to impact the remuneration of the top executives at firms still receiving government help will skew the playing field to the Goldman’s and the JPMorgan’s.

One can understand in today’s environment that a lot of people are angry about big salaries and bonuses, especially to those that have been bailed out by the government. Certainly, the forthcoming big bonuses to be received by the executives at Goldman and JPMorgan do not help stem these populist attitudes about the pay at financial institutions. But, in this case, the response of the public is just helping the competitive position of Goldman and JPMorgan and hurting that of these other large banks because the actions on pay just makes Citi and BOA less competitive! Goldman and JPMorgan are smiling all the way to the bank!

The other banks, the regionals and the locals? They need time to continue to work out their loan and security portfolios. They need to regroup, get back to their core business and they will be fine. But, this is going to take time. Nothing substantial in profits here for a long time.

As far as the non-financial firms are concerned, their cost-cutting efforts are paying off. Their efforts to return to their core businesses are paying off. But, cost cutting alone does not produce sustainable exceptional returns. Cost cutting can be duplicated. And, as long as consumers stay on the sidelines and restructure their balance sheets and keep reducing their debt not increasing it, the final demand for goods and services will not show much bounce.

There is continued hope in one sector after another that sales will pick up. In computers. In retail sales. In food services. There is continued hope that sales will pick up during Thanksgiving, or Christmas, or at some other relevant time. But, these blips of hope seem to pass on as sales continue to disappoint. The hope is transferred to the next holiday.

Companies, for the past four or five months, have posted not-so-good earnings, but they raise their forecasts for the upcoming year.

There is nothing these companies are doing right now that produce sustainable results. Demand for their products and services must be forthcoming and, right now, there is little encouragement that this will happen any time soon.

All of these factors raise two concerns in my mind. First, what is the basis for the continued rise in stock prices. The profit results that have been achieved so far are not sustainable and point to no growth in earnings or cash flows for the time being. Furthermore, the cost cuts are great, they help companies get their focus back onto the right things. But, cost cutting does not result in a continued increase in earnings or cash flows. In addition, trading profits do not contribute to extended growth in earnings or cash flows. This is why I am concerned about the possibility that the rise in stock prices since March might just be a bubble. (See http://seekingalpha.com/article/167561-are-we-in-an-asset-bubble-or-not.)

Second, managements are refocusing their efforts and reducing inventories, labor, and other resources that they had accumulated during the go-go years. This restructuring, given past experience, will continue, even when the economy begins to recover again. These managements are not going to return to the same business practices as before. This will change the supply side of the economy and, as a consequence, full employment of resources will not be the same as it was earlier in this decade.

If this does occur, and I believe that it will, it will just be one more part of the trend that began in the 1970s. Through all the cyclical swings in the economy during the last forty years or so, the economy has never regained the height it had achieved in the previous upswing. That is, the next peak of employment, of capacity utilization, of industrial production, has never as high as it was at the previous peak.

This means that the economic policies of the last forty years or so have left more manufacturing capacity idle, more workers discouraged, and more resources wasted each cycle of the economy. The American economy is changing along with competition in the world. Artificial stimulus on the part of the United States government just tries to put people and other resources back into the jobs that they once held, like in autos and steel for example. And, such an economic policy only exacerbates the longer term trend. Furthermore, this is not helpful to the stock market.

It is easy to build a case that the rise in the stock market in the 1990s and the 2000s were asset bubbles created by easy credit. Given the performance of financial and non-financial firms at the present time could the Federal Reserve just be producing another one?

The Small Banks Are Not Doing Well

This is my monthly report on bank lending. Last month I reported on the continued absence of the commercial banking industry in loan markets. (See my post of September 10, 2009, “Bank Lending Stays on the Sidelines”: http://seekingalpha.com/article/160890-bank-lending-stays-on-the-sidelines.) Bank lending was still absent during the most recent month, but there now seems to be a significant shift in the commercial banking industry: greater changes seem to be taking place in the smaller banks than we have seen during the current economic crisis.

This deterioration in the industry figures coincides with the increasing number of failures that are registering with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC). This problem made the front page of the New York Times on Sunday: see “Failures of Small Banks Grow, Straining F. D. I. C.”, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/economy/11banks.html?ref=business. And, with more than 400 banks, almost all of them small ones, on the FDICs list of problem banks, we can expect the number of failures to grow and the bank lending figures to continue to shrink.

Total assets at commercial banks declined by $320 billion over the latest 13-week period according to the Federal Reserve. Of this total, the decline in assets over the last 5-week period was $250 billion indicating that the slide at commercial banks is not receding. Although the absolute decline in both periods of time was greater for the large banks, the percentage change was greater for the smaller banks.

What is most interesting is that the absolute decline in bank loans and leases in both periods was roughly the same for the large banks and the small banks. The decline in loans and leases over the 13-week period was $112 billion for large banks: $97 billion for small banks. However, for the last 5-week period the decline in this figure for small banks was $69 billion and $66 billion for large banks.

Commercial and Industrial loans, business loans, continued to drop at a rapid pace over the 13-week time span ($108 billion) as well as in the 5-week period ($50 billion). Relatively speaking the declines were equally divided between the large banks and the smaller banks.

The big difference between the different size banks comes in the area of real estate loans. Overall, real estate loans dropped by $113 billion over the last quarter, $48 billion over the last 5 weeks. But the decline in small banks was $68 billion for the last quarter and $38 billion over the last 5 weeks. The figures for large banks were $41 billion and $6.3 billion, respectively.

Here we find the startling difference: the small banks experienced most of the drop in real estate loans in commercial real estate loans. The drop in commercial real estate loans at small commercial banks was $36 billion for the full 13 weeks, but most of the decline came in the last 5-week period as these loans dropped by $24 billion during this latter time.

We have been hearing for months that there was going to be a problem in commercial real estate lending and that this problem was going to be centered in regional and local commercial banks. It looks as if this problem is finally hitting the banking system and is showing up in the numbers. This is an area that we are going to have to continue to watch for the economic difficulties in commercial real estate could continue to paralyze the smaller commercial banks for quite some time going forward. And, with the large number of problem banks identified by the FDIC being smaller institutions, we could see a rapid increase in the number of these institutions going under.

It should be noted that commercial real estate loans at large commercial banks actually increased over the past 13-week period and roughly held constant for the last five.

Another sign that these difficulties are piling up at the smaller commercial banks is the accumulation of cash assets at the smaller institutions and the timing of this build up. Cash assets at small commercial banks rose by $54 billion over the past 13 weeks. These assets increased by $48 billion over the last 5 weeks. That is, most of the increase in cash assets came at the time that time that the commercial real estate portfolio at these banks were declining the most.

The implication of this behavior is that the smaller banks are really starting to suffer and this is leading them to take a more-and-more conservative position in their balance sheets.

It should be noted that large commercial banks actually reduced their holdings of cash assets during this period. The decline over the 13-week period was about $5 billion, while over the last 5 weeks the decline was a whopping $70 billion. So, large banks build up their cash position over the first 8 weeks of the period and then reduced this position substantially over the last five.

The basic conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that the balance sheets of the commercial banking sector continue to shrink and with this shrinkage we see very little new borrowing taking place.

The big story this month is that the smaller banks in the country are really being hit with problems relating to bad assets. As a consequence, their balance sheets are suffering much more than their bigger counterparts and this is especially true when it comes to commercial real estate. Not only are the smaller banks reducing their exposure to commercial real estate loans, it appears as if this retraction from the lending markets is connected with an overall move by these banks to much more conservative lending practices.

Such a move would certainly not contribute to economic recovery, especially on Main Street. It is true that the larger banks are also contracting their balance sheets now, but they will tend to be the first ones to get back into lending when the time is right.

However, if the smaller banks change their “risk preferences” and become more “risk averse” during this period of restructuring it is highly unlikely that we will see them return anytime soon to contribute to an economic recovery in their geographic area. Since these organizations do not have the same access to resources as their larger counterparts, they will probably stay very conservative for an extended period of time.

Just one thing more. Last week Excess Reserves in the banking system reached an all-time high. For the two week period ending October 10, Excess Reserves averaged $918 billion! This, of course, is being allowed to happen by the Federal Reserve System as reserve balances at the Federal Reserve got close to the astronomical figure of $1.0 trillion! This figure only averaged $960 billion in the banking week ending October 7, but daily figures over the past two weeks did reach levels substantially higher.

The banking system is weak. It remains weak. Maybe some of the larger banks, the ones that got bailed out, are doing OK. This does not seem to be the case for the smaller banks. The FDIC knows this. The Federal Reserve knows this. It is not a comfortable situation!

Banks Remain on the Sidelines

The commercial banking system is still holding onto cash rather than lending or investing. Over the thirteen weeks ending August 26, 2009 the assets of the banking system dropped by $246 billion, but the cash assets of the banking system rose by $87 billion. In the most recent four week period bank assets did rise by $85 billion, but cash assets at the banks rose by $183 billion during the same time span.

Overall, banks, during the last 13-week period, have reduced, at a more rapid pace, their holdings of loans and investments as write-offs have increased, as there has been little incentive to make new loans, and as the banks have gotten out of securities that are not issued or guaranteed by the U. S. government. This is evidence that the banks are de-leveraging and are attempting to clean up their balance sheets. More detail of this behavior is presented below.

The total amount of cash assets in the banking system was $1.1 trillion in the banking week of August 26. This amounted to 9.3% of the total assets in the banking system as total assets averaged $11.8 trillion for the week. Note that banks were required to hold an average of only $62 billion ($0.06 trillion) in reserves behind their deposits during the two week period ending August 26. The excess reserves in the banking system averaged around a whopping $0.8 trillion during this same two week period. (The peak level of excess reserves in the banking system was about $0.85 trillion in the month of May.) Also, note that bank reserve balances with Federal Reserve Banks averaged around $0.83 trillion in the banking week ending August 26.

Beginning in December 2008, the banking system has held an average of $0.76 trillion in excess reserves every succeeding month. Before September 2008, the banking system held, on average, $0.002 trillion in excess reserves. To put these figures in context, bank assets in the banking week of August 26, 2009 were only $0.8 trillion larger than they were in the banking week of August 27, 2008. Thus, the entire increase in bank assets over the previous 52-week period was in cash assets!

The banks certainly have not been lending or investing. Over the past 13 weeks, commercial banks reduced their holdings of securities by $335 billion and they also reduced their holdings of loans or leases by $237 billion.

The interesting shift in the investment portfolio is in government guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. These have been increasing over the past 13 weeks. (See the Wall Street Journal article “Banks Load Up on Mortgages, in New Way,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125253192129897239.html#mod=todays_us_money_and_investing.) The banks have also been purchasing U. S. Treasury and Agency (non-MBS securities) issues over the same time period.

The big decline in security holdings has been in Mortgage-backed securities that were not guaranteed by the federal government or a government agency. Here it is important to note that the banking system still holds more than $200 billion in non-government guaranteed mortgage-backed securities and over $700 billion in assets that include other asset-backed securities, other domestic and foreign debt securities, and investments in mutual funds and other equity securities with “readily determinable fair values.” The banks were obviously chasing yield by investing in these securities. Over 75% of these holdings are in large commercial banks with small banks primarily investing in this category in state and local government securities, although this may not be comforting.

The decline in loans and leases spans the board. Commercial and industrial loans are down by $57 billion in the last 13 weeks whereas these loans are down by only $68 billion over the past 52 weeks. This decline seems to be speeding up as the decline over the last four weeks totaled about $34 billion.

Real estate loans are actually higher now than they were a year ago, but the volume of these loans is now decreasing. Home equity loans are down by $9 billion over the previous 13 weeks, residential loans are down $40 billion over the same time period, and commercial real estate loans have fallen by $29 billion.

Consumer loans are about the same as a year ago, as is credit card debt and other revolving credit. However, these figures have shown weakness over the past three months with total consumer credit declining by about $39 billion and the credit card and revolving credit debt falling by about $26 billion.

The commercial banking system continues to restructure. It is maintaining high levels of cash and is moving into less risky interest earning assets. The banking system, net, is not lending. We continue to hope that the restructuring will continue to occur without further surprises. Strong economic recovery, however, will not occur with bankruptcies and foreclosures remaining at high levels and with unemployment continuing to increase. Banks are not going to lend into this environment.

The bottom line from this analysis: the economy is recovering but economic growth will be anemic. Economic growth will remain anemic as long as the banking system stays on the sidelines.

Is Treasury's TARP Debt Already Monetized? Part III

The discussion continues for one more post. I ended the last post with these words:

“The hope is that as the banking system works through its problems, TARP funds will be returned and the mortgage-backed securities will mature or be sold back into the market allowing the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve to contract back to where it was in the summer of 2008. The banking system is apparently holding onto reserves to protect itself and that is why they are really not lending. The idea is that if they don’t need these excess reserves they will return them. This is what the Federal Reserve is planning to happen. Let’s hope that they are correct!”

On this issue, let me point out the post by Jonathan Weil on Bloomberg this morning, “Crisis Won’t End Until Balance Sheets Get Real” (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=azsX7o.atu7U). After presenting interesting data on the state of commercial bank balance sheets he argues the following:

“Banks and insurers got Congress to browbeat the Financial Accounting Standards Board into making rule changes that will let them plump earnings and regulatory capital. There also was Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s line in March about “green shoots,” which sparked a media epidemic of alleged sightings.

For all this, we still have hundreds of financial companies trading as though the worst of their losses are still to come. Just imagine what their prognosis might be if the government hadn’t pulled out all the stops.”

And, then Weil closes:

“Truth is, there’s no way to know if the economy has turned the corner, or if last quarter’s market rally will prove sustainable. Yet when this many banks still have balance sheets that defy belief, it means the industry probably hasn’t re- established trust with the investing public.

Trust, you may recall, is the financial system’s most precious asset. On that score, we still have a long way to go before we can say this banking crisis is over.”

This is the short run problem and it is the one that is going to determine whether or not the Federal Reserve is going to be able to shrink its balance sheet. This has been the point of my last two posts. And why are we facing such uncertainty at this point? Because the Mark-to-Market rule was pulled and because there is not enough openness and transparency in the public financial reporting of financial institutions. If there are going to be regulatory changes in the future, a lot is going to have to be changed as far as the reporting requirements for financial institutions is concerned.

But, this is just the short run problem.

The longer run problem is the projected budget deficits of the Federal government. Even if things work out as the Federal Reserve has planned as far as bank reserves are concerned and Federal Reserve credit retreats back to where it was in August 2008, there is the massive problem facing the country about how prospective government deficits are going to be financed. The bet is that the Fed will finance a substantial portion of the deficits to come. Let the printing presses roll!

The fear? Inflation.

But many say, we are in a severe economic contraction now. The fear should be deflation and not inflation.

The only response to this counter argument is that in the latter half of the 20th century, any nation that has run substantial deficits has, sooner or later, run into problems related to inflation. Monetary authorities are never so independent of their central governments that imprudent fiscal policies are not in one way or another underwritten through some form of monetization. And, since this happens time after time, how can the international investing community sit on the sidelines and do nothing? Yes, the United States is in a severe recession right now, but what are your odds for the monetization of a lot of the Federal debt over the next three years? Over the next five years? Over the next ten years?

Where do you look for such for an indication of market sentiment on this? Look at the value of the United States dollar. The dollar fell by about 15% against major currencies in the latter part of the 1970s as the Carter budget deficits seemed to get out-of-hand. As we know, Paul Volker played the savior there by conducting a very restrictive monetary policy to bring the value of the dollar back in line. However, the Reagan budgets became so severe by 1985 that the value of the dollar began to plummet. In the face of continuing deficits and the realization that this would continue to result in a weak dollar, Volker gave up the reins of the Federal Reserve in August 1987. The dollar did not pick up strength again until fiscal restraint was returned to Washington with the Clinton administration as the value of the dollar rose over 25% from April 1995 until the end of 2000. The massive budget deficits of Bush 43 were translated into another precipitous decline in the value of the dollar which fell by almost 40% between the middle of 2002 to March 2008.

The fiscal policy of a nation does matter to the international investment community!

But, you say, look at all the other major countries having economic problems and their budgets are out of balance as well. Look at England, Germany, Italy, France, and others.

The response to this? This is not the case for many of the major emerging countries of the world, specifically the BRIC countries. Perhaps one leaves Russia out of this, but China, India, and Brazil are going to emerge from this period much stronger relative to the United States than could have been thought even a year ago or so. So is Canada and several other important countries. This world crisis is going to shift world economic power in a way that has not been seen since the shifts in world power that took place in the 1920s and 1930s. And, international investors are realizing this!

Yes, the dollar will still be used as the reserve currency of the world…for a while longer. The Chinese, and the Russians, and the Brazilians, and the Indians all realize this. And, even though they keep talking about establishing a new reserve currency, they seem to back off and say that the dollar cannot be replaced right now. Yet, the Chinese have called for the Group of 8 to talk about a new reserve currency at its upcoming meeting. The issue IS on the table and my guess is that it is not going to go away.

Which brings me back to the deficits. In my mind, the budget deficits of the United States government are out-of-control right now and there is great concern that this administration will not be able to regain control of them in the near future. There is no “reversal” mechanism that is built into these budgets as the Fed has attempted to build in a “reversal” mechanism in its efforts. As a consequence, great pressure will be put on the monetary authorities over the next several years to monetize a substantial portion of the debt that will be created. The history of the past fifty years or so is that the Fed will not be able to avoid the pressure. This is perception that the international investing community will be bringing to the market when it place its bets. This can be translated into higher long term interest rates in the United States and a continuation in the decline in the value of the United States dollar.

What Banks Aren't Telling Us?

I am still worried about what banks aren’t telling us.

Why?

Total Reserves in the banking system have increased by $857.8 billion over the twelve month period ending in May 2009. Excess reserves in the banking system have increased by $842.1 billion in the same time period.

The Federal Reserve System has overseen a 1,900% increase in total reserve in the banking system, year-over-year, for the year ending May 2009, and banks have chosen to sit on the injection almost dollar-for-dollar!

These figures come from the Federal Reserve statistical release H.3 “Aggregate Reserves of Depository Institutions and the Monetary Base.” I have used the “not seasonally adjusted” data.

This is unheard of! In May 2008, excess reserves were $2.0 billion and stood at 4.5% of the total reserves in the banking system. In May 2009, excess reserves totaled 93.7% of the total reserves in the banking system.

Unless someone can convince me otherwise there are, in my mind, only three reasons for this behavior. The first is the volume of bad assets currently on the balance sheets of banks that have not been recognized. The second is the volume of bad assets that banks anticipate will be forthcoming over the next year or so. The third has to do with how the banks have funded themselves in the past several years.

If these assumptions are correct, the recession cannot be called over yet and any economic recovery that might be forthcoming is going to be relatively tepid or postponed for some time. I obviously hope that I am wrong but something just does not “foot” with the data that I have reported above.

In the first category, current bad assets on the balance sheet, one would think that we know a fair amount about them. Their volume was sufficiently large so that the government put into place the TARP program and then followed that up with the idea of the P-PIP. Several banks feel sufficiently strong that they are returning their TARP money and it appears as if the P-PIP will never be actually implemented.

Financial markets have responded favorably to these events. Yet, we know that there still remain a large number of bad assets in the banking system. The current confidence has allowed some banks to return the TARP funds wanting to get the “Feds” out of their buildings and out of their compensation committees. In addition, with the relative calm in both financial and economic markets, confidence has risen within the banking system that maybe they can ride out the rest of the way to recovery, hoping that many of the remaining bad assets will turnaround or be refinanced or be worked with.

In my experience working in the banking sector, “hope seems to spring eternal” when it comes to believing that bad assets will eventually become good assets. The attitude is that “with time” the borrowers will come through.

But, what kind of confidence is it that sits on $844.1 billion in excess reserves, funds that are earning no return to the banks? Required reserves in the banking system in May only totaled $58.8 billion. What am I missing?

Let’s look at the second category, that about debt coming due or repricing in the future. We have seen more and more reports in recent weeks about the Option Mortgages that are coming due over the next 18 months or so; we read about all the commercial mortgage debt that is on the edge and this was accentuated this week with the bankruptcy filing of Six Flags; and we know that credit card delinquencies are still rising. What we don’t know is the extent of the fallout from the bankruptcies in the auto industry and how this will impact those industries and regions that have depended upon a healthy car business. In addition, personal bankruptcies and small business bankruptcies continue to rise and there is really no firm information about when the increase in these will moderate and what the effect on the banking system will be.

Finally, there is the problem of financing the banking system itself. I recommend that you take a look at the article by Gretchen Morgenson in the June 14 New York Times, “Debts Coming Due at Just the Wrong Time.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/business/14gret.html?ref=business.) Morgenson writes about the debt of the banking system and the need for bank balance sheets to shrink. The banking system, itself, needs to de-leverage and may have to do so unwillingly.

In this article, Morgenson refers to a study by Barclays Capital that discusses the amount of debt of financial companies coming due over the next year or two. The figures, roughly $172 billion of debt will mature in the rest of 2009 and $245 billion will mature in 2010. This means that financial institutions will have to refinance about $25 billion a month for the next 18 months or so. Part of the problem in refinancing this debt is that “many of the entities that bought this debt when it was issued aren’t around any more.” Furthermore, in general, “few buyers of short-term bank debt are around now.”

Raising equity capital is fine, but, over then next few years, the banks may have a larger hole to finance in terms of the debt that it must try to roll over. This, of course, will put more pressure on the policy makers. The policy makers have gone out on a limb in attempting to protect the need to write down bad assets. The policy makers have provided capital for some of the banks that were in the worst financial shape. The next issue has to do with the need for the purchase of bank liabilities. This may be a very tough balancing act to complete successfully.

But, maybe the government has already provided the funds to meet these emergencies. Maybe that is why banks are holding such large amounts of excess reserves. They know that over the next 18 months that they are going to have a severe funding problem. Excess reserves are the perfect answer to paying off the debt as it runs off, leaving the banks with a lot of funds that still can buy them time to “work out” the bad assets that remain on their balance sheets.