READ MY LIPS

USA HOUSEHOLD WEALTH AND DEBT

In 2000, USA household wealth was $44 trillion and rose to $65 trillions in 2007 or equal to 108% of world GDP or twice the value of world trade or 4 times the world's energy consumption by $ value. It fell by $18 trillions and has recovered $5 trillions, though debt has fallen little. Household debt was 20% of USA household wealth in total and then rose to 28% before improving to 24%. But that's only the average. A fifth of the population or of households are too poor to have bank debts. Half the population had net wealth and now don't. Som will be dwelling on a 'lost decade' if they only think in money terms? They're the so-called middle class that both parties remain desperate to help and woo for votes. The Democrats also want to do something for the poor at least in health care insurance reform.
The USA has about one third of world wealth and a similar proportion of world output. Roughly 10% of the population own 70% of US wealth, top 1% own 40%. The bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth, half of whom own nothing valuable!
When it comes to debt that is not distributed in the same proportions as wealth, but will be concentrated in the middle of the US household population. Do not assume that income tax is exactly proportionate to wealth distribution either. The top richest 1% pay 33% of federal income tax; the next 9% pay another third; the next 15% pay 22% of the income taxes; and the next 25% pay 33% of income tax. The next 10% pay 3% and the last 40% pay no income tax, but a lot of sales tax and local taxes for which they get something in return, maybe most of it somehow, let's hope so. The US has a progressive tax structure which taxes less for smaller incomes. But the US does not directly tax wealth except the estate tax (what in UK is called death duties and inheritance tax).
A quarter of households retain net wealth and are rich of which the top fifth (5% of all households) had under 10% loss. The top 1% may feel that in real terms or at least relative to everyone else they are in serious profit gains from buying distressed assets at discounts that will do well for them and their heirs in the future?

COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD BY GOVERNMENT BORROWING RATIOS TO GDP

BANKS OF THE WORLD BY CUSTOMER LENDING

CONTRACTS FOR DIFFERENCE? SOLD SHORT?

CBOT Floor - Credit default Swaps (CDS) and Contracts for Differences (CFDs), similer to put options, are major tools of 'short-selling' generally (which depends on stock lending), are employed on a large-scale by hedge funds, but also by medium to small brokers, and by individuals speculators, and were at the heart of the relentless fall in bank shares especially in the two years after June 2007 when the bottom fell out of the markets followed by the credit bottoms falling out their trousered-economies.
CFDs are a leveraged way of participating in short-selling to profit from loss of market price in stocks, and as importantly, a way to profit from how short-sellers can cause stocks to fall in price! Many small sell-orders can drag a price down far more effectively than one much bigger sell-order. The blame for the credit crunch (that triggered an Anglo-Saxon recession by pricking the asset bubbles of credit-boom economies) is a long list that includes:
Sub-prime, self-certified, and buy-to-let mortgages sold to over-indebted borrowers;
Bugs in models of credit ratings agency that caused the models to be indifferent to defaults data and rate many Asset Backed Securities (ABS) far too highly;
Asset price weakness of Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs, also called ABS) when the bonds were offered into secondary markets that proved to be illiquid;
Credit Default Swaps (CDS) insurance-style derivatives on CDOs, and their further derivatives calls CDS Squared (CDSS);
Banks' inadequate levels of capital reserves, and their large 'funding gaps', which are banks' borrowings needed to fill the gaps between customer deposits and loans;
General accusations of weak regulation in an era of too-cheap money (low central bank discount rates);
Credit-boom economic growth policies in USA, UK and some other OECD countries such as Spain, Ireland, Greece, that also caused extreme imbalances in world trade;
Investor exuberance and blinkered risk-taking as property prices outpaced every other route to getting richer;
Extreme bias in bank lending in credit boom economies towards mortgages, property and consumer credit.
I could add other factors. But, surprisingly short selling, stock lending and CFDs have been treated as a tertiary symptom rather than also a major problem? A temporary ban was implemented on 'naked' short selling. This had limited effect because the rules totally misunderstood how short selling works to drag down stock prices. Note that short-selling and the equivalent of CFDs have been available for a century as a speculative way to profit iCFD short-selling, for example, was the lubricant for the German currency crash and hyper-inflation of 1923, and continued to be used in subsequent currency crises round the world - and in some minds especially in 1993 attack on sterling forcing it out of the EMS, called Black Wednesday. Shorting interest rates is well established.We see this again today in a sequence of sovereign debt crises and currency attacks. Traders are using every bit of political-economic news to perturb the markets, and sovereign debt is the current game of choice - why, because it can appear to the simple-minded to cover everything else in a national currency economy, which of course it does not really do so. Market regulators excuse call & put options, CFDs, in money market, bond and equities short selling as mostly legitimate risk hedging and also brokers need to maintain market liquidity by borrowing stock to sell when they are short of the stock, and so on. Hedge Funds and others have made $ billions of gains from asset price losses of longer term investors - one argument is that at least much of the value lost has been encashed and lost absolutely? The question is whether this is a source of sever systematic instability that should be checked. In defence of this lucrative activity, described by some as 'shooting turkeys in a barrel', various studies have been commissioned and published to show that profiting on the downside of markets is good, balancing, has little negative impact on prices, and is simply necessary! But, in crises when markets are volatile or obviously sliding, and when markets are nervous, easily moved by rumours and titbits of negative news, and when short term profit-takers out-weigh long term investors, then it becomes absurd to defend short selling or to assume that it is price-neutral or market-neutral!
At last there is some more determined action. A growing European consensus on the need for tougher regulation of CDS trading was reflected by Lord Turner, chairman of the UK FSA, who warned that naked trading in corporate CDSs could force companies into default. FSA has also said it is investigating stock lending - especially to identify where stock-owners have not been advised that there stock may be loaned out - to garner a fee for custodians - when the liklihood is that the stock will be returned worth less, like letting a hotel room to a rock band and getting it back trashed. A first-order problem is getting data on what's been going on for years and what is happening now?
Regulators in the US, Hong Kong and EU have outlined new reporting measures on short selling of equities while at same time trying to preserving liquidity benefits generated at the margin by short selling i.e. they seek to constrain the short term speculation. Europe and HK want more timely disclosure of short selling activity, America’s SEC is backing a rule that is resisted by traders who say it will detract from liquidity. The new rule seeks to block short selling if a stock falls at least 10% in one day. How that can practically operate is unclear. A Franco-German initiative, backed by Luxembourg and Greece, calls for regulators to be given “unlimited access” to a register of derivatives trading in order to identify who is trading and what they are doing. It proposes that derivatives transactions should only be allowed on exchanges, electronic platforms and through centralised clearing houses. Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) and CFDs are commonly used by banks and hedge funds to reduce their risk, but they are also popular with investors who buy and sell them with an eye to quick profit. Naked CDS and CFDs drove down Greek bonds this year and banks and financial companies last year, and the year before.
Lord Turner, who is also a member of the Financial Stability Board, which works on G20 global regulatory proposals. He wants regulators to look at the question of naked CDSs on both corporate and sovereign debt. “We need to think about whether we are being radical enough on credit default swaps . . . as to whether naked CDSs should be allowedd.” He is concerned that corporate CDSs can be easily manipulated to force a company into default, a form of market abuse. As before, however, hasty action is not advised! “We need to look at these issues very carefully. There is a danger of an oversimplistic belief that everything going on is shorting in the CDS market.”
Mario Draghi, chairman of the FSB, signalled this week that the group is focused on the issue. “This way of betting has systemic implications.The sense I have is that governments are increasingly uneasy with this. Whenever something has systemic implications, you can bet it is going to get systemic regulation.”

Bankers Without a Clue by Paul Krugman

NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL BUT TOO BIG TO FEEL!
First McDowell's comment: Bankers are not trained well and not trained in economics or history it seems - at least not the topmost bankers in charge of the biggest banks - this seems to be the impression that Paul Krugman gained from USA's Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission - it echoes similar impressions from the UK's House of Commons Finance Select Committee hearings. Read on. This cartoon, which I've added in here seems to say it all. NY Times: Published: January 14, 2010
The official Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission — the group that aims to hold a modern version of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, whose investigations set the stage for New Deal bank regulation — began taking testimony on Wednesday. In its first panel, the commission grilled four major financial-industry honchos. What did we learn?
Well, if you were hoping for a Perry Mason moment — a scene in which the witness blurts out: “Yes! I admit it! I did it! And I’m glad!” — the hearing was disappointing. What you got, instead, was witnesses blurting out: “Yes! I admit it! I’m clueless!”
O.K., not in so many words. But the bankers’ testimony showed a stunning failure, even now, to grasp the nature and extent of the current crisis. And that’s important: It tells us that as Congress and the administration try to reform the financial system, they should ignore advice coming from the supposed wise men of Wall Street, who have no wisdom to offer.
Consider what has happened so far: The U.S. economy is still grappling with the consequences of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression; trillions of dollars of potential income have been lost; the lives of millions have been damaged, in some cases irreparably, by mass unemployment; millions more have seen their savings wiped out; hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, will lose essential health care because of the combination of job losses and draconian cutbacks by cash-strapped state governments.
And this disaster was entirely self-inflicted. This isn’t like the stagflation of the 1970s, which had a lot to do with soaring oil prices, which were, in turn, the result of political instability in the Middle East. This time we’re in trouble entirely thanks to the dysfunctional nature of our own financial system. Everyone understands this — everyone, it seems, except the financiers themselves.
There were two moments in Wednesday’s hearing that stood out. One was when Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase declared that a financial crisis is something that “happens every five to seven years. We shouldn’t be surprised.” In short, stuff happens, and that’s just part of life.
But the truth is that the United States managed to avoid major financial crises for half a century after the Pecora hearings were held and Congress enacted major banking reforms. It was only after we forgot those lessons, and dismantled effective regulation, that our financial system went back to being dangerously unstable.
As an aside, it was also startling to hear Mr. Dimon admit that his bank never even considered the possibility of a large decline in home prices, despite widespread warnings that we were in the midst of a monstrous housing bubble.
Still, Mr. Dimon’s cluelessness paled beside that of Goldman Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein, who compared the financial crisis to a hurricane nobody could have predicted. Phil Angelides, the commission’s chairman, was not amused: The financial crisis, he declared, wasn’t an act of God; it resulted from “acts of men and women.”
Was Mr. Blankfein just inarticulate? No. He used the same metaphor in his prepared testimony in which he urged Congress not to push too hard for financial reform: “We should resist a response ... that is solely designed around protecting us from the 100-year storm.” So this giant financial crisis was just a rare accident, a freak of nature, and we shouldn’t overreact.
But there was nothing accidental about the crisis. From the late 1970s on, the American financial system, freed by deregulation and a political climate in which greed was presumed to be good, spun ever further out of control. There were ever-greater rewards — bonuses beyond the dreams of avarice — for bankers who could generate big short-term profits. And the way to raise those profits was to pile up ever more debt, both by pushing loans on the public and by taking on ever-higher leverage within the financial industry.
Sooner or later, this runaway system was bound to crash. And if we don’t make fundamental changes, it will happen all over again.
Do the bankers really not understand what happened, or are they just talking their self-interest? No matter. As I said, the important thing looking forward is to stop listening to financiers about financial reform.
Wall Street executives will tell you that the financial-reform bill the House passed last month would cripple the economy with overregulation (it’s actually quite mild). They’ll insist that the tax on bank debt just proposed by the Obama administration is a crude concession to foolish populism. They’ll warn that action to tax or otherwise rein in financial-industry compensation is destructive and unjustified.
But what do they know? The answer, as far as I can tell, is: not much.

CUSTOMER SERVICE OR NOT?

Standard Bank asks customers for ideas on how it can improve servicE - surely an excellent idea and one that other banks embrace - but vociferously not Bank of America?
Submitted ideas are posted on the bank's site, enabling other customers to vote for them and add their own comments. Several ideas have been posted such as asking for a tool to track home loan applications, a small business networking facility and a change to the current "boring and annoying" call centre music. This is following the healthy example of HSBC First Direct in the UK which recently introduced a section, Talking Point, to its site where customers can leave an open message. The contrast could not be greater than Bank of America, one of the world's very biggest banks. BoA specifically asks people not to contact it with ideas and suggestions for customer service improvement. It states, "unsolicited idea submission policy - Bank of America and its associates do not accept or consider unsolicited ideas, including ideas for new or improved products, processes or technologies, product enhancements, advertising and marketing campaigns, promotions or new product names. Please do not send any original materials, suggestions or other items," and "If, despite our request not to send us your ideas, you still do, then regardless of what your communication states, the following terms shall apply to your idea submission. You agree that:
(a) your ideas will automatically become the property of Bank of America, without compensation to you,
(b) Bank of America can use the ideas for any purpose and in any way, and
(c) any information you provide will be considered non-confidential."
Of course, part of the problem is the litigious and rights culture of USA where if in fact someone posted an idea and it happened to coincide subsequently with a reform or innovation by the bank whoever submitted the exact same or roughly similar suggestion would have a viable claim for compensation reward, which in the US courts easily translates into many $millions at the behest of no-win no-fee greedy lawyers.