What's to Like About the United States Banking System?

I really don’t see much to like in the United States banking system. 

With interest rates so low across the board, commercial banks have very little interest rate spread to work with.

With Congress and the regulators so screwed up and yet so anxious to pass laws and regulate, the “regulatory risk” and the “complexity risk” facing the industry is enormous.

There is still plenty of evidence that commercial banks have a lot of unrecognized overvalued assets on their balance sheets. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/320370-bank-stress-tests-a-substitute-for-mark-to-market-accounting)

There seems to be growing interest in suing banks that are alleged of “making misleading public statements as the property market crumbled in 2007 to hide internal downgrades of loans from investors” (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577169360314402158.html?mod=ITP_moneyandinvesting_2&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj) or for other reasons that banks failed to appropriately disclose their financial condition.  There are also other settlements coming related to bank lending practices in the 2000s.

Bank earnings are a mixed bag, at best.  The larger banks are not performing well because trading profits and profits on many non-traditional banking operations are off.  (See JPMorgan and Citigroup)  The returns to trust banks (BNY Mellon, State Street Corp. and Northern Trust Corp.) are sagging because these institutions have taken a “defensive position” with respect to the financial markets and shifted a substantial amount of funds into cash and ultra-safe assets. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/140b9e70-41da-11e1-a586-00144feab49a.html#axzz1jqA4rKTp)

Only the banks that have stayed pretty much as traditional banks (like Wells Fargo, U. S. Bankcorp, and PNC Financial Services Group) have held up, profit-wise, in recent periods. This performance seems to be connected with some minor pickup in loan growth. 

Even in the case of loan growth, analysts are relatively pessimistic about the future.  “It appears that much of the commercial loan growth we have seen at the large cap banks is coming from large corporate syndicated lending.  Not all banks are players in this market.” This from Christopher Mutascio at Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.  Note that Mutascio is expecting “total loan growth and commercial loan growth” to slow in 2012.  No bounce here. (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577168510658669178.html?mod=ITP_moneyandinvesting_2&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj)

In my most recent blog I discussed the effort of BankUnited, a Florida-based bank, to sell itself because of the condition of the banking industry, especially in Florida.  BankUnited wanted to grow and yet could find no other banks to acquire…and they had looked at about 50 banks in the Florida region and elsewhere.  Because of the state of the banks available to acquire, BankUnited decided to sell.

Well, yesterday, BankUnited pulled itself “off the market”.  The bank had attempted to set up an auction for itself but only Toronto-Dominion Bank and BB&T Corp. submitted preliminary offers.  These offers did not come up to the price of that BankUnited received when it went public last year.  Thus, the bank withdrew its offer to sell. (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203735304577169400198108514.html?mod=ITP_moneyandinvesting_1&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj)

Some of the banking statistics reflect the stagnant nature of the banking system as a whole.  For example, total commercial banking assets in the United States rose by about $700 billion last year. 

Note, however, that cash assets at commercial banks rose by about $515 billion!  That is, almost 75 percent of the growth in bank assets came from an increase in the cash holdings of the banks. 

Also, note that about 80 percent of this increase in cash assets at commercial banks in the United States occurred at foreign-related financial institutions. 

Furthermore, these foreign-related financial institutions increased their commitment to Net Deposits Due to Foreign-related offices by almost $650 billion.  Thus, these foreign related institutions took U. S. dollars and shipped them off-shore!  Thank you Federal Reserve System!

In all, the share of United States banking assets going to foreign-related financial institutions rose from about 11 percent to almost 15 percent from December 2010 to December 2012.  The largest twenty-five domestically chartered banks in the United States continue to account for almost 60 percent of the banking assets in the country.  The smallest domestically chartered banks (about 6,300 of them) continue to shrink as a proportion of banking assets. 

The American banking system is welcoming more foreign-related financial institutions to the ownership of its assets…note that one of the two bidders for BankUnited was Toronto-Dominion Bank…and is also seeing more and more of its assets being held by larger banks.

Right now, the commercial banking system seems to be going nowhere, just restructuring. 

This is just a very, very tough time for the banking system.  It is a time of transition.  The whole industry is changing. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/319449-the-banks-they-are-a-changing) But, then, the whole world seems to be going through a period of transition.  

The Smaller Banks Continue to Lose Ground

First, we need to define what the Federal Reserve calls “Small” banks.  The Federal Reserve defines small banks as domestically chartered banks that are not counted among the largest 25 domestically chartered banks in the United States.  Hence, “Large” domestically chartered banks are the largest 25 domestically chartered banks in the United States. 

As of September 7, 2011, the largest 25 domestically chartered commercial banks in the United States account for 56 percent of all the banking assets in the United States.  The smaller banks represent about 28 percent.  Foreign related financial institutions control about 16 percent.    

From August 2010 to August 2011, the total assets held by the small banks in the United States grew by one-half the rate at which the total assets in the largest 25 banks.  The “large” banks grew at a 1.4 percent annual rate while the “small” banks grew by 0.7 percent.

Over the last calendar quarter from the banking week ending June 1 through the banking week ending September 7, the smaller banks actually shrank by almost $20 billion while the larger banks grew by about $165 billion. 

Over this last quarter, “Loans and Leases” at the smaller institutions dropped by almost $70 billion.  At the largest 25 banks, “Loans and Leases” rose by over $130 billion.  At the smaller banks, loans fell in ALL categories. 

From the banking week ending August 3 through the banking week ending September 7, “Loans and Leases” at the smaller banks rose by only $1.5 billion while they rose by more than $30 billion at the 25 largest banks. 

One could say that lending activity is increasing on Wall Street but not on Mail Street.   One could ask questions, however, about the type of loans that the larger banks are initiating.  See my posts from last week: http://seekingalpha.com/article/293657-bankers-expect-weak-profit-performance-in-the-future and http://seekingalpha.com/article/293893-some-banks-are-stretching-for-risk.   

But, business loans are not suffering the most at the smaller banks.  Over the past year, residential real estate loans (home mortgages) at these smaller banks have declined by more than 6 percent, year-over-year.  Over the past quarter these loans have fallen by $12 billion. 

And the smaller banks still are suffering through the commercial real estate decline as these loans declined by almost 7 percent, year-over-year through August.  Commercial real estate loans at these banks declined by more than $40 billion over the last quarter alone. 

The FDIC reports that there were 6,413 commercial banks in the banking system as of June 30, 2011.  Of this number, 865 banks were included on the FDIC’s list of problem banks for this date, more than 13 percent of the banks in insured at that time.  Troubled banks total even more than this, some estimate that more than twice this number are very fragile institutions. 

From these data one can argue that bank lending activity may be picking up, but it is not picking up among many of the smaller banking institutions that still face serious balance sheet troubles.  These organizations are not going to participate in any economic recovery and, in fact, are going to have to be closed or absorbed into the banking system that will remain.  As mentioned above, even though loans may be picking up in the largest 25 banks in the country, the loans may not be going into the physical investment that would cause the economy to grow faster than it is. 

FOREIGN RELATED INSTITUTIONS, QE2, AND THE EUROPEAN BANKING CRISIS

Dollar deposits continue to flow out of the United States into foreign banking offices through domestically located foreign related institutions.  From August 2010 through August 2011, cash assets at these domestically located foreign related institutions rose by about $470 billion!  This increase in cash assets tracks closely the Federal Reserve’s implementation of QE2 and represents about 75 percent of the roughly $630 billion rise in cash assets of the whole United States banking system. 

The interesting thing for our purposes is that the item on the other side of the balance sheet that most closely tracks this increase in the cash assets of foreign related banking institutions is “Net Due to Foreign Offices.”  That is, this money is going off shore. 

From August 2010 through August 2011, this account, “Net Due to Foreign Offices”, rose by almost $540 billion.  In the last quarter it rose by over $160 billion.  In the last month it rose by $112 billion. 

Can the rise in this this account be associated with the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and the recent problems faced by many of the large European banks?

I believe one can make a pretty strong case for this conclusion.  The Fed’s QE2 preceded the agreements that the central banks made last week to provide more US dollars to European banks. 

Of course, this provision of US dollars to the world is not spurring on economic growth although it may be helpful to preventing another Lehman Brothers meltdown.  

Federal Reserve Money Continues to go Off-Shore

Yesterday in my post I reviewed the consequences of QE2 on the Federal Reserve balance sheet. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/276674-qe2-watch-no-qe3-in-sight)

The bottom line: “The ‘net’ increase in securities held outright by the Federal Reserve has been $589 billion, pretty close to the $600 billion ‘net’ increase promised.

Reserve balances at Federal Reserve banks, a proxy for excess reserves in the banking system, have increased by $584 billion to $1,594 billion over this time period. Actual excess reserves in the banking system averaged $1,610 billion for the two-week period ending June 15, 2011.”

Cash assets (excess reserves) at commercial banks in the United States rose by about $800 billion from December 29, 2010 to June 15, 2011 and closed slightly below $1,870 billion on the latter date. 

Basically the Federal Reserve pumped all these reserves into the banking system and there they seemingly sit.  Yet, the amazing thing is that of the almost $800 billion increase in cash assets in American banks, almost 85 percent of the increase, or about $670 billion, ended up on the balance sheets of Foreign-related Institutions in the United States. 

And, what increased on the other side of the balance sheet?

Net deposits due to related foreign offices.  These balances rose by almost $500 billion since the end of last year. 

In essence, it appears as if much of the monetary stimulus generated by the Federal Reserve System went into the Eurodollar market.  This is all part of the “Carry Trade” as foreign branches of an American bank could borrow dollars from the “home” bank creating a Eurodollar deposit.  This Eurodollar deposit could be lent to foreign banks or investors and this would not change the immediate dollar holdings of the American bank.  This lending and borrowing in Eurodollar deposits could then multiply throughout the world.  And, the American bank might be the ‘foreign-related” institution mentioned above and included in the statistical reports.

Note that the original dollar deposit created by the Fed is still recorded as a deposit at one Federal Reserve bank no matter how much shifting around the borrowing and lending in the Eurodollar market occurs.    

Thus, it appears as if the Federal Reserve pumped one-half a trillion dollars off-shore since the end of 2010!

And, this is going to stimulate spending and getting the economy to grow faster?

Cash assets at the smaller banks remained relatively flat over the last six months…and over the last three months.  Thus, the reserves the Fed was pumping into the banking system were not going into the smaller banks. 

And, although the largest twenty-five banks in the country increased their cash assets by about $130 billion over the last six months, these banks have been reducing their cash balances (by a little more than $30 billion) over the last three months. 

What have the domestically chartered commercial banks been doing over the last six months?

Basically, the twenty-five largest domestically chartered commercial banks have been modestly increasing their loans to businesses, both in the three-month period and the six-month period.  Commercial and Industrial loans as well as commercial real estate loans have been increasing at the largest banks over the past three-month period. 

However, business loans continue to “tank” at the smaller banking institutions.  For example, Commercial and Industrial loans at the smaller institutions dropped by almost $5.0 billion from March 30 to June 15.  Commercial Real Estate loans took an even bigger hit of almost $35 billion. 

Also, at the smaller banks, residential mortgages continue to decline…by a little over $9.0 billion since March 30 and by almost $35 billion over the last six months. 

The real lending by commercial banks is not taking place in the United States.  The lending is taking place off-shore, underwritten by the Federal Reserve System and this is doing little or nothing to help the American economy grow. 

It does seem to help produce inflation elsewhere which gets translated back into the United States in the price of imports.

The Fed has not yet gotten bank lending going, it has not yet caused an increase in the money stock measures, and it has not yet stimulated the economy to any degree. 

The Fed may have helped the FDIC close banks in an orderly fashion and it may have helped raise the prices of commodities world-wide. 

For all the efforts exerted in QE2, the results are not very encouraging.

NOTE: As mentioned in my post yesterday, I will not be posting anything for about a week or so.

Business Loans at Commercial Banks Continue to Rise

Commercial and Industrial loans in the banking system continue to rise.  Over the past thirteen week period business loans at all commercial banks in the United States increased by almost $37 billion.  These loans began a slight uptick last November and have been rising modestly since then.

Over the past four weeks, commercial and industrial loans have risen by about $16 billion. 

Up until recently the increase has been solely in the largest twenty-five banks in the country.  These large banks are still making the largest additions to the growth in business loans, but in the latest four-week period there seems to be some life in this kind of lending in the rest of the banking system. 

Of the $37 billion increase in business loans over the past thirteen weeks, $29 billion has come from the largest banks while $3 billion has come in the smaller banks and almost all of this latter increase came in the past four weeks. 

Real estate loans continue to drop although some leveling out in the larger banks seems to have occurred over the past month.  All real estate loans dropped by $65 billion over the last three months although they dropped by only $6 billion over the last month. 

Again, the largest balance sheet movements in the banking system came in cash assets. 

Over the past thirteen weeks, the cash assets in the banking system rose by about $415 billion while the total assets in the banking system rose by almost $500 billion. 

In the last four weeks, the cash assets in the banking system rose by a little less than $160 billion while the total assets in the banking system rose by about the same amount.

QE2 continues fund the banking system. 

There are some really important differences in the rise in cash assets, however, 

Over the past thirteen-week period, the cash assets at the largest twenty-five domestically chartered commercial banks dropped by $42 billion.  At the smaller domestically chartered banks, cash assets fell by $2 billion.

Cash assets at foreign-related financial institutions rose by almost $460 billion during this same time period! 

Over this past thirteen week period it appears as if all the excess reserves the Federal Reserve pumped into the banking system went directly into foreign-related financial institutions and…and…$44 billion of excess reserves already in the banking system found its way from domestically chartered banks into the hands of the foreign-related financial institutions!

Loans and leases at all domestically chartered commercial banks dropped by a small amount during this period of time. 

The summary: business lending seems to be getting stronger in the United States, but it is the only sign of life in the lending area in the domestically chartered commercial banks. 

The funds the Federal Reserve is pumping into the financial system is going directly into foreign-institutions in the United States and is going off-shore. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/273506-cash-assets-at-foreign-related-financial-institutions-in-the-u-s-approach-1t)

So much for monetary policy stimulus!

Large Foreign-Related Banks Now Hold $776 Billion in Cash Assets!

On February 21, 2011, I asked the question, “Why is most of the Fed’s QE2 cash going to foreign-related banking institutions?” (http://seekingalpha.com/article/254004-why-is-most-of-the-fed-s-qe2-cash-going-to-foreign-related-banking-institutions)

At that time, foreign-related banking institutions held $538 billion in cash assets. This was up $177 billion from the end of 2010.

This was so startling because large domestically chartered commercial banks in the United States held only $486 billion in cash assets. Yet, this number was up only $72 billion from the end of last year.

Here we are at the end of April and these same foreign-related banking institutions have increased their cash hoards by another $238 billion to $776 billion.

Note that since the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve has only increased the total cash assets in the banking system by $283 billion so that almost two-thirds of the QE2 money ended up at foreign banks!

The increase since then has been $250 billion of which 95 percent of the Fed’s injections have ended up in foreign banks!

What is going on here?

And what seems to be the major movement on the other side of the balance sheet?

Well, on December 29, 2010, these foreign-related banks had a negative $420 billion in an account called “Net due to related foreign offices.” Since this was a negative it serves basically as an asset. This is the amount owed foreign-related banks in the United States from their foreign offices.

On April 13, 2011, these foreign-related banks had a positive $7 billion in this account, so that the account moved $427 billion from an asset to a liability to these foreign offices.

In other words, it seems as if a bank asset was paid down to the point that the offices of these foreign-related financial institutions now came to “owe” their foreign offices.

What offset this $427 billion movement of funds from America to offshore accounts?

It looks a lot like the $415 billion increase in cash assets.

Is this what QE2 has succeeded in doing? Is QE2 getting transferred directly into foreign-related banking institutions and then getting transferred offshore?

Sure looks like it. The evidence is in the Fed’s own statistics.

No wonder that bank loans in the United States have failed to increase. No wonder the banking industry is not contributing to a stronger economic recovery.

Almost One-Half of Cash Assets in Commercial Banks are Held by Foreign-Related Institutions

Check this out: on April 6, 2011, Commercial Bank Reserve Balances with Federal Reserve Banks totaled $1.503 trillion (Federal Reserve Release H.4.1); for the two weeks ending April 6, 2011, Excess Reserves at depository institutions in the United States averaged $1.431 trillion (Federal Reserve Release H.3); and on March 30, 2011 Cash Assets held by Commercial Banks in the United States were $1.558 trillion (Federal Reserve Release H.8).

All these measures of excess cash in the commercial banking system seem to center around $1.5 trillion.

The Federal Reserve also reports that on March 30, 2011 the cash assets held by Foreign-Related (banking) Institutions in the United States totaled $702 billion or right at 45 percent of the cash assets held by commercial banks in the United States on that date!

The Federal Reserve policy of Quantitative Easing (QE2) is supposed to spur on bank lending which, hopefully, will contribute to a faster growing economy and lower unemployment.

The published figures indicate that a very large portion of the funds the Fed is injecting into the economy is going into the “carry trade” and contributing to the spread of American liquidity throughout the world.

One rationale that has been given for the policy that the Fed has been following is that when commercial banks aren’t lending (that is, there is a liquidity trap), the Federal Reserve needs to inject as much liquidity into the banking system as possible until the banks begin to lend again. This is the essence of quantitative easing.

This rationale was developed by people who studied the history of the Great Depression. Milton Friedman contended that a central bank should follow such a policy when faced with a banking system that was not expanding the money stock. Professor Ben Bernanke also suggested that such a policy be followed.

However, in the current environment, there are two things that seem to be different from that earlier period. The first relates to the international mobility of capital: in the period around the 1930s nations did not support the free flow of capital throughout the world because the international financial system was based on the gold standard and foreign exchange rates fixed in terms of the price of gold.

Thus, with international capital flows constrained, it was argued that a country could keep a fixed foreign-exchange rate for its currency and conduct its economic policy independently of other countries, thereby allowing the country to focus on reducing unemployment to more acceptable levels. The policy prescription advocated by Friedman…and Bernanke…could, therefore, be followed within such a world without major foreign repercussions.

This is not the situation that exists now. Capital flows freely throughout the world.

The second factor is that there was no designated national currency that was designated as the “reserve currency” of the world. Thus, currencies were seen as either fixed in value or were allowed to freely float in foreign exchange markets. (I am not dealing with “dirty” floats and so forth at this time because they are related to currencies that are not designated as “reserve” currencies.)

And, since the United States dollar serves as the reserve currency of the world and, because of this, is the default currency when there is a “flight to quality” in world financial markets, the value of the dollar does not fall to the level that is needed to allow the Federal Reserve to conduct its monetary policy independently of all other nations.

The consequence is that the Federal Reserve is inflating the whole world!

It is great for the currency of a country to be the reserve currency of the world. However, being the reserve currency of the world carries with it responsibilities.

One of these responsibilities is that the United States cannot conduct its monetary policy independently of everyone else!

The value of the United States dollar is higher than it would be if it were not the reserve currency of the world. As a consequence, the behavior of the value of the United States dollar does not act exactly as if it were determined if it were a freely floating currency in the foreign exchange markets.

Therefore, the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, given the free-flow of capital throughout the world, cannot be conducted in isolation.

We are seeing the result of this situation right before our eyes.

The Federal Reserve is pumping money like crazy into the commercial banking system. And, 45 percent of the money is ending up in foreign-related financial institutions.

This, I believe, is not what the Federal Reserve wanted.

This, I believe, is not what the people of the United States wants.

And, I believe, that this is not really what the rest of the world wants.

Still, QE2 continues, unabated.

Is Bank Lending to Business Starting to Pick Up a Little?

Last month I wrote a post about “Why is most of the Fed’s QE2 Cash Going to Foreign Related Banking Institutions.” ( http://seekingalpha.com/article/254004-why-is-most-of-the-fed-s-qe2-cash-going-to-foreign-related-banking-institutions)

This month the Fed’s “cash” injection has ended up at the largest 25 banking institutions in the United States. Cash assets at the largest domestically chartered banks rose by almost $160 billion over the past four weeks.

The cash assets at foreign-related banking institutions dropped modestly (about $4 billion) over the last four weeks but is still up approximately $125 billion since the end of last year.

According to the Fed’s data on the commercial banking industry, cash assets in commercial banks have risen by about $260 billion over the past nine banking weeks, with around $135 billion going to the largest 25 domestically chartered banks, $125 billion going to foreign related financial institutions and roughly zero going to the other 7,600 domestically chartered small banks.

Other than this fact, the interesting change within the United States banking system itself is that although credit extension at domestically chartered commercial banks declined rather substantially since the end of last year, the loans and leases at the smaller commercial banks actually went up.

Overall, loans and leases on the books of commercial banks declined by about $27 billion over the last four weeks and by $61 billion since the end of 2010.

Interestingly, the smaller banks recorded a $28 billion increase in loans over the last four weeks, with commercial and industrial (C&I) loans rising by $5.5 billion and commercial real estate loans increasing by about $18 billion.

It should be noted that residential mortgages fell by about $11 billion over the same time frame.
Is this a sign that commercial lending is picking up for the smaller banks. This is the first time in the last few years that commercial lending has actually shown any sign of increasing at these smaller institutions, especially in the area of commercial real estate.

C & I loans did pick up at the larger banks over the last four weeks and this dominated the activity in this area during the early part of this year.

However, commercial real estate lending declined at the largest banks by $25 billion, so that this category of loans did decline in total. Also, since the end of last year, commercial real estate loans at these large banks declined by $32 billion so that overall, the commercial real estate sector continued to decline throughout the early part of 2011.

So, the question is, “Is bank lending to businesses starting to pick up a little?”
Really, we only have a little information that it might be picking up. But, it certainly is something to keep our eyes on.

The big mystery still seems to be the placement of the QE2 money being generated by the Federal Reserve system. Reserve balances at Federal Reserve banks have increased by about $280 billion from the end of 2010 to March 2, 2011. This increase in Reserve Balances seems to be roughly divided between the largest 25 domestically chartered commercial banks and foreign-related financial institutions. But, loan at these institutions over this time period have actually gone down. What’s going on?

As for the smaller banks, they do not seem to have participated in this round of quantitative easing. Yet, it has been my belief that one rationale for QE2 has been to provide market liquidity for the smaller banks so that it will ease the strain on those banks that are especially having solvency problems. Given recent data released by the FDIC it seems as if there are still a large number of the smaller banks in the country that are still having major problems staying alive.

Thus, at least part of the purpose of QE2 is to help keep these banks open so that they can be closed by the FDIC in an orderly fashion. Through the first nine weeks of the year the FDIC has closed an average of just under 3 banks per week. This is down slightly from about 3.5 banks a week in 2010.

We continue to wait. Believe it or not, the economic recovery is just about a quarter short of being two years old. There are still areas of the economy that remain of concern like the banking industry, the residential housing market, the commercial real estate market, and state and local finances. And, there still are shocks around the world that threaten to bring everything else down: the unrest in the Middle East and arising oil prices; the earthquake in Japan; and the sovereign debt problem in Europe.

So the bad news is that the economic recovery is just about a quarter short of being two years old and underemployment is so large and manufacturing capacity is so low for this time in the business cycle.

The good news is that the economic recovery is just about a quarter short of being two years old
and the recovery seems to be robust enough to continue to meander along in an upward direction.

It would be nice to have more bank lending to spur the recovery along, but it will be even better if the financial system can continue to function without a disruption to the steady pace of the FDIC closing the banks it needs to close.

The Banking System Continues to Shrink

According to the latest statistics of the Federal Reserve on the banking system, the banking system, as a whole, continues to shrink. Over the last 12 months, the total assets of all commercial banks in the United States banking system shrank by $560 billion or by about 5%. In the three months ending in January 2010, total bank assets dropped about $170 billion, with about $40 billion of the drop coming in January, itself.

Concern is still focused on the small- to medium-sized banks. Last week additional attention was focused specifically on 3,000 of these banks in terms of the problem loans they have on their books. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/188074-problem-loans-still-weighing-on-small-and-medium-sized-banks)

Elizabeth Warren, who heads the TARP oversight panel, is quoted as saying: “The banks that are on the front lines of small-business lending are about to get hit by a tidal wave of commercial-loan failures.”

There are a little more than 8,000 banks in the United States banking system and they had about $11.7 trillion in assets in January 2010. The largest 25 banks in terms of asset size held about $6.7 trillion in assets or about 57% of the assets in the banking system. “Small” domestically chartered banks held about $3.6 trillion in assets or around 31% of the assets in the United States banking system while the assets of foreign-related institutions amount to $1.4 trillion or 12% of the assets of the banking system.

So, there are a very large number of very small banking institutions that make up only about one-third of the bank assets in the country.

The total assets at these “small” banks dropped by $42 billion in January 2010, although by only about $14 billion in the last three months. The more interesting thing, however, is in the composition of this decline.

During this time period the loans and leases at these “small” banks fell by $20 billion in January and by $36 billion over the past three months. These banks are just not lending!

The primary decline came in real estate loans: they dropped $12 billion in January and $22 billion over the last quarter. We have, of course, heard of the problems these banks are facing with respect to commercial real estate loans and the numbers support this concern. At the “small” banks, commercial real estate loans fell by $10 billion in January and by $21 billion since October 2009.

Things were not very robust in other lending areas, but the declines reported in these other loans were not nearly so dramatic. I will call attention to the fact that consumer loans dropped by about $5 billion at these small institutions in January, a rather substantial decline.

Another indication of the difficulties “small” banks were facing is the decline in the securities portfolios at these institutions. Securities dropped by $31 billion in January, a time in which the “large” banks and the “foreign-related” banks both added securities to their asset portfolios.

And, where were the “small” banks building up their assets? In Cash Assets! Cash assets at “small” banks rose by $8 billion in January, and the increase totaled $21 billion over the last three months.

The smaller banks in the United States are putting more and more assets into cash as their balance sheets and loan balances shrink. This certainty supports the idea that many of these banks are in severe straits.

Large banks, on the other hand, actually reduced their holdings of cash assets in January by a whopping $71 billion. Over the past three months they reduced they cash assets by $118 billion.

These banks were not putting funds into loans, however. They were putting funds into their securities portfolio, adding $17 billion in January and increasing the portfolio by $60 billion over the last three months. The vast majority of these funds went into United States Treasury securities or federal agency securities. One can certainly sense a riskless arbitrage-type of strategy going on here.

Loans and leases at these large banks actually dropped in January by $46 billion, being spread fairly broadly over Commercial and Industrial loans (dropping $11 billion), Real Estate loans (dropping $18 billion) and Consumer loans (dropping $11 billion). It should be noted that in the consumer loan area there have been massive declines in credit card and revolving credit, $14 billion in January alone, but $27 billion over the last three months.

American commercial banks are not lending…period!

The largest banks seem to be living off of the riskless arbitrage situations that are available. They are doing little to nothing to help stimulate the economy along. But, why should they get into risky business and real estate loans when they can earn a pretty handy return without risking anything? Thank you, Mr. Bernanke!

The smaller banks seem to be drawing up the ramparts, becoming more and more conservative. This is where the loan problems are and the behavior of these organizations certainly lend credence to that belief. The fact that these banks are even getting out of their securities raises additional concern about the seriousness of their situation.

Note: The behavior of foreign-related institutions during this time period is also of concern. In the last three months, foreign-related institutions reduced their securities portfolio by $19 billion, their trading assets by $26 billion and their loans and leases by $33 billion, a total of $78 billion.

And where did they put the proceeds of this reduction in assets? They increased cash assets by $73 billion!

Foreign-related institutions in the banking week ending February 3, 2010, held $473 billion in cash assets, 38% of all the cash assets held by the banking system in the United States.

I don’t know right now, whether or not this fact should be a concern, but I would like to understand a little bit more about the situation of these banks. The “small” banks in the United States are moving in this direction because of the “poor” state of their loan portfolios. Is this move on the part of the foreign-related institutions of a similar nature? Or, are they going to move assets out of the United States?