"Bank Failures Are
Coming", Says Ben Bernacke
Fed
Chairman Bed Bernanke told the Senators on the Senate Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs
that he expects some bank failures as a result of the quickly spreading financial
gloom.
Taking into account the growing population, US economic growth was zero in the last
quarter.
Bank failures have been rare. You have to go back to the savings and loan failures
of
1990 and 1991 to
see silimar circumstances. Then the taxpayers had to bail other banks out.
It was expensive.
But the stock market actually rose in 1991 and 1992.
The
Washington Post reports that a week before Bernanke said "there will probably be
some
bank
failures" among smaller regional banks", he had said he foresaw no bank
failures. Now he is
saying "I
don't anticipate any serious problems of that sort among the large, internationally active
banks that make
up a very substantial part of our banking system.". Sadly, the financial storm
is
fast-moving and
we can not be sure what Bernanke will say next week, or the week after. Keep
in mind this is
the same man who is denying the risks of inflation. "I don't think we are anywhere
near the
situation that prevailed in the the 1970's." Has he even bothered to look at
the steep
rises in corn,
wheat, coffee, soybeans, sugar, crude oil, gold, silver, platinum.... Look at the charts
on TigerSoft.
"Am I hearing you correctly that we're in actually -
we're in a worse position today to
respond to this
than we were eight years ago? asked Senator Christopher Dodd a week ago..
"I think
that's fair in that both fiscal and monetary policy face some additional restraints",
replied
Bernanke.
Bank failures are already starting. In January, bank regulators closed the small
($58 million-asset)
Douglass
National Bank of Kansas City. Douglass had made so many bad loans its net asset
value
less than
$1.5 million. "Douglass was closed by the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, and the
Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp. was named receiver. According to the OCC, "There is no
reasonable
prospect
that the bank will become adequately capitalized without federal assistance."
The FDIC said
Liberty
Bank and Trust Co. in New Orleans would assume all of Douglass' deposits, which totaled
$53.8
million.
The FDIC said the failed bank's three offices would reopen on Monday as Liberty branches.
Liberty
agreed to purchase $55.7 million of Douglass' assets at book value, less a discount of
$6.1 million.
The FDIC
said it would retain approximately $2.8 million in assets.
(Source: http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/banking_and_taxation_irs/news.php?q=1201320363
)
There were three bank failures in 2007: 1) 15.8 million-asset Metropolitan Savings
Bank in Pittsburgh
in February
2) $2.5 billion-asset NetBank in Alpharetta, Ga and 3) $86.7
million-asset Miami Valley
Bank of Lakeview,
Ohio
These are smaller sized banks. What would a large bank failure mean for the Federal
Deposit Insurance
Corp.
Presently mostdepositis are insured up to $100,000. Some retirement accounts
are insured up
to
$250,000. The Feds are seeking a rule change that "would place a
provisional hold on a fraction - say,
10%
or so -- of certain account balances at some 159 of the nation's largest banks."
Should you worry?
Quite
possibly. Depositors without FDIC coverage lost money in at least two of the recent
failures. Of the
$109
million in uninsured deposits (over the $100,000 maximum) at NetBank, nearly 30% has
not
yet been reimbursed. Of $14 million in uninsured funds at Miami Valley,
only 5.9% of
uninsured funds, so far, has been reimbursed.
Which Banks Are at Risk?
Six months ago, the Federal Depositors' Insirance Corp (FDIC) estimated there were 65
banks with
assets of $18.5 billion or more on its "Problem List". They will not
identify them. But Institutional Risk
Analytics of Torrance, California has set out the names:
BAC - Bank of America (in DJI-30)
C - Citigroup (in DJI-30)
JPM - JP Morgan (in DJI-30)
WB - Wachovia Corp.
HBC - HSBC Holding
(Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/how-risky-uninsured-bank-deposits/story.aspx?guid=%7B03FBB3D6-6F11-455A-8730-04DC7082FEEA%7D&siteid=yhoof
)
When we look at these bank stocks and many others like WM (Washington Mutual), we see how
these sell-offs evolve.
Initially. we see insider selling and distribution
(red reading below -.25 from
the Tiger Accumulation index.
Then slow and steady distribution becomes
impractical; too much
bad news starts coming out.
So, we see increasingly heavy trading volume on down days.
This is
the dumping phase.
Until this dumping ends, and that won't stop until investors
believe that all the
bad news is out, we must
expect still lower prices. I say this applies now to the bank stocks in
part
because I see that the Feds
lowering of interest rates has been demonstrated to be insufficient to turn these
stocks around. And the
negative and reinforcing side-effects of the credit (bank) panic are being reported
every day now. Yet the root cause, the war in Iraq goes on, is not blamed.
Tragically, the bank stocks'
declines remind me more and
more of a stock from 38 years ago, Equity Funding, which rapidly
fell from $50 to $0.
The insurance policies it had on its books just did not exist. It was an empty shell
and
not that much different from
Enron more recently. Could
this be happening again with bank stocks?
All that's needed are rampant
gullibility, greed, fraud and a cowardly mass media. It happens with each new
generation.
------------------------------------- Bank of America
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------- CitiGroup
------------------------------------------------------
|
------------------------------------- JP Morgan ------------------------------------------------------
|
------------------------------------- HBC
------------------------------------------------------
|
------------------------------------- Washington Mutual ------------------------------------------------------
|
|