Showing posts with label Warren Sulmasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warren Sulmasy. Show all posts

Monday, June 30, 2014

Banks probably will need ZIRP until March 2015 to be fully recapitalized from the crisis

In March 2013 Warren Sulmasy estimated that banks had lost $1 trillion in the crisis, and had recapitalized as little as $300 billion of that by that time.

Chris Whalen has estimated that ZIRP yields banks profits of $100 billion quarterly at the expense of savers who are not fairly recompensed for their deposits under the Federal Reserve policy known as zero interest rate policy.

So theoretically by March 2014, one year on from Sulmasy's estimate, banks had recouped an additional $400 billion, with $300 billion yet to go, which should take us to the spring of 2015 before we can say that banks should have been made completely whole from the crisis.

ZIRP should most definitely end by then, or things are worse than we imagine.

Business as usual: a government of the banks, by the banks and for the banks.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Best Summary Yet Explains Federal Reserve's Real Objective Behind ZIRP: To Fix The Banks (Not You)

0.25% is the upper limit of the Fed Funds Target Range
And there's still a LONG way to go.

From Warren Sulmasy of Trinus Investment Partners last March:


[E]veryone ... should ask why the Federal Reserve Bank has overnight rates at 0.25%.

The financial calamity of 2008 relieved the global banking system of around one trillion U.S. dollars. Therefore, in order to recapitalize itself, the global banking system needs to make around 1 trillion US dollars.

The Federal Reserve has made a dramatic, concerted effort to help the global banking system recapitalize itself principally by keeping rates at near zero. The current estimates place the recapitalization in the $300 to $400 billion range. While that is a wonderful gain by any measure, $300 to $400 billion is woefully short of the $1 trillion hole, over $500 billion short.
  
The next $500 billion will be much more difficult for the banks to recapitalize due to the new rules and regulations. While the Dodd/Frank and the Volker rule were created with very good intentions, as so many laws and rules and regulations are, the real impact of these new rules and regulations will be on the bank's bottom lines.

Both Dodd/Frank and the Volker Rule severely limit the businesses banks can pursue. This will create a difficult environment for banks to earn profits and thus, will only increase the time it will take for the global banking system to completely recapitalize itself. Therefore, the Federal Reserve will be obligated to continue the current near zero interest rate policy for a longer period of time than people have projected in order to continue assisting the global banking system to get closer to recapitalizing itself.

Read the rest, here.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

What Is The Cost Of 5 Million Homes Repossessed By The Banks?

In 2009, it is estimated the average mortgage was $172,000. If 5 million homes have been repossessed by banks in the current 7 year housing catastrophe, using that average amount as a proxy for the cost would mean a hit to the banks of about $860 billion, far less than the $7.7 trillion in emergency lending extended by the Federal Reserve which we have learned about.

The government could have stepped in, if it had had the resolve, and paid off each mortgage at that cost to save the banks in question who were on the hook, and renegotiated ownership with each homeowner. An additional 10 million plus mortgages today are underwater, and could have been incorporated also into the payoff deal.

For its part, the government could have prevented moral hazard in the arrangement by enforcing foreclosure and assuming ownership where applicable, and expanded its public housing role by radically expanding its owned housing stock and becoming the landlord to the former owners, now transformed into renters.

Why that is not preferable to the current arrangement where we continue to bail out the banks and extend and pretend on housing I do not know. It would be bad, but it couldn't be worse.

Yes, it is a formidable logistical task, not without considerable cost in itself, but we'd have this behind us by now if there had only been resolve and decisive action had been taken.

It takes imagination, and our leaders don't have it, in either party.