Why We See Trouble Ahead for the Big Banks
When the financial crisis hit in 2008, we were told that the big banks here in the U.S. were “too-big-to-fail,” so they received “financial assistance” from the Fed or the government, or both. The five big banks that received most of the bailout money were JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE/JPM), Bank of America Corporation (NYSE/BAC), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE/C), Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE/WFC), and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE/GS).
At the time, the U.S. government pledged that the country would never be held hostage by the big banks again in the future. To assure this, the U.S. government was going to institute new regulations to control the big banks.
At the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, the five big banks represented 43% of the U.S. economy (source: Bloomberg, April 16, 2012). Five years later, in 2012, the five big banks represent 56% of the U.S. economy.
Not only have the big banks not been reduced in size, but they have also actually increased in size over the last five years!
Where are the new limits on the big banks’ trading operations? Where is the call to prevent further consolidation of our financial system?
In the 1980s, there were roughly 13,000 banks in this country. In 2012, we are down to 6,291 (source: Bloomberg).
We've uncovered footage of a classified government facility. "Site M" is located 31 miles from the White House, next to the NSA building. It's almost half the size of the Pentagon... And it's where Obama is mobilizing the "6th Branch of the Military." One with cutting-edge technologies and sophisticated weapons at its disposal. The kind that could destroy ISIS, Putin, and China in one fell swoop. Sound hard to believe? Take a look for yourself. In fact, what's going on inside this war facility could change the way you see our government...and the way you look at America's military and war itself. Click here to see it now.
The current administration argues that legislation is in place that controls the big banks even though they are bigger. The big banks chime in by saying that they have more capital, which means they are better prepared to withstand a financial crisis.
In the financial crisis of 2008, the now infamous mortgage-backed securities helped bring the big banks and the world financial system to its knees.
Mortgage-backed securities are part of the unregulated system that can be grouped into the strange and unknowable universe known as derivatives.
Even though the five big banks have grown in size since 2008, you’d think they would have learned their lesson about derivatives. It’s actually not the case…
The five big banks own 96% of the total amount of derivatives issued in the U.S., or $221.76 trillion in derivatives (source: the Office of Comptroller of the Currency)!
The Bank of International Settlements estimates that there is over $707 trillion in derivates in the entire world. The big five big banks in the U.S. hold 31% of all of the derivates in the world!
When the next financial crisis hits, and the big banks need to be bailed out, just remember these numbers.
Because the big banks own so many derivatives, this means they have big exposure to Europe, Asia, and all parts of the world. The big banks here in the U.S. remain vulnerable.
Keep an eye on what’s happening in Europe, dear reader. I believe that those who tell us the financial crisis in Europe is isolated to Europe (and will not affect North America) have no idea what they are talking about.
I am a big believer in stock charts. And I believe the Dow Jones U.S. Bank Index speaks the truth. While the general stock market is only 10% away from breaking through its 2007 all-time record high, the Dow Jones U.S. Bank Index is still down 62% from its 2007 high! This index tells me that there’s trouble still ahead for big U.S. banks!
Michael’s Personal Notes:
A Bureau of Labor Statistics report released last week showed that, of working Americans, 7.2% earned so little that they were classified as living in poverty. This was the highest level in two decades for this measure. In 1999, this statistic was below five percent.
Top income earners saw their wages increase seven percent between the middle of 2009 and the first quarter of 2012, buoying their consumer spending habits.
Low income earners saw their wages rise only 2.5% during the same period (source: Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2012), dampening their consumer spending habits.
Adjusted for inflation, the income gain of 2.5% does not even cover inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is why more working Americans are living in poverty and why consumer spending is so weak.
Between 1979 and 1989, incomes for top earners increased 75%, but incomes for the bottom fared better relative to today, as they increased 54%. This is why consumer spending was so robust back then and why the economic recovery gained traction during this period: wealth was shared and more evenly distributed.
As revealed by statistics during the last decade, the gap between incomes for the top earners as compared to the bottom earners continues to widen, which explains why consumer spending is so weak. Part of this widening gap can be explained by those with an education having a better chance at higher salaries.
There is also the fact that technology has made previously good-paying jobs obsolete. Furthermore, the high-paying manufacturing jobs have all migrated overseas, especially China, sending consumer spending along with it.
As I have been arguing, the latest U.S. job numbers have continued to show strength in low-paying jobs, which does not bode well for consumer spending and the economic recovery.
Wells Fargo Securities has conducted a study that showcased the fact that, in the last two years, 40% of all the jobs created have been low-paying jobs, which leaves little room for consumer spending and is not a sign of a healthy economic recovery.
The Wells Fargo study goes further to illustrate that middle-income jobs, which employ 40% of all workers in this country, have been very poor over the last two years. These are the administrative roles, bank tellers, machine operators, and mechanics whose jobs disappeared with the financial crisis of 2008 and have yet to return, along with their consumer spending.
So if the top earners are doing well and jobs are being created on the low end for less money, while unemployment among the middle-income continues to be high, then this would explain why real disposable income continues to fall with this economic recovery.
With real disposable income declining, it is no wonder that consumer spending over the last two years has grown at the slowest pace of any expansion in the post-World War II era (source: Bloomberg, April 11, 2012). (See: Pathetic Job Numbers Expose “Fake” Economic Recovery.)
In the first quarter of 2012, the low income earners’ average paycheck was $360.00, while the top income earners’ average paycheck was $1,858.00. Couple this with the fact that unemployment among the middle-income earners continues to be poor and it is hard to picture a robust economic recovery with strong consumer spending.
Watch out for that stock market rally, dear reader; it acts if the economic recovery and consumer spending will pick-up steam—highly unlikely when growth in consumer spending has been at the lowest pace in decades!
Has America gone from “too-big-to-fail” to “too-small-to-survive?”
Where the Market Stands; Where it’s Headed:
Stuck on 13,000…that’s where the Dow Jones Industrial Average has been now for five weeks. The world’s most watched stock market index trades either a few points above or below the 13,000 level with no decisive action either way.
Yes, the stock market has come a long way from March 2009, fuelled in my opinion by increasing government debt and an aggressively expanding money supply. I believe the market is putting in a huge top at this point. (Also see: Proof Stock Market Rally’s Just an Old-fashioned Bear Market Trap.)
What He Said:
“We will wish Greenspan never brought rates down so low as to entice so many consumers to have such big mortgages.” Michael Lombardi in PROFIT CONFIDENTIAL, April 27, 2004. Michael first started warning about the negative repercussions of Greenspan’s low-interest rate-policy when the Fed first dropped interest rates to one percent in 2004.