Too Big And Rich To Not Be On Taxpayer Welfare
I'm just loving the logic as of late for why banks are made of the Tefloniest Teflon. The latest is from Bloomberg, with the question, "Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?" They explain:
So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren't really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?...Let's start with a bit of background. Banks have a powerful incentive to get big and unwieldy. The larger they are, the more disastrous their failure would be and the more certain they can be of a government bailout in an emergency. The result is an implicit subsidy: The banks that are potentially the most dangerous can borrow at lower rates, because creditors perceive them as too big to fail.
Lately, economists have tried to pin down exactly how much the subsidy lowers big banks' borrowing costs. In one relatively thorough effort, two researchers -- Kenichi Ueda of the International Monetary Fund and Beatrice Weder di Mauro of the University of Mainz -- put the number at about 0.8 percentage point. The discount applies to all their liabilities, including bonds and customer deposits.
Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a big difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year. To put the figure in perspective, it's tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.
...Neither bank executives nor shareholders have much incentive to change the situation. On the contrary, the financial industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle on campaign donations and lobbying, much of which is aimed at maintaining the subsidy. The result is a bloated financial sector and recurring credit gluts. Left unchecked, the superbanks could ultimately require bailouts that exceed the government's resources.
They say regulators can help by paring down the subsidy. I'm not going to hold my breath. You?








I never hold my breath for the government to do anything to protect a free market economy. I laugh when I hear the US referred to as capitalistic because I think we've moved so far away from the true definition of that word, as taught in school, that we cannot even see it in the rear view mirror. That being said, I don't look good in blue.
Lee at February 22, 2013 6:44 AM
I wonder how much it really matters... The Fed is inflating the currency at such a fantastic rate that pretty soon we're all going to be drowning in worthless dollars anyway. $83B isn't that much of a profit when a gallon of gas costs $100,000.
Cousin Dave at February 22, 2013 6:55 AM
Who'd be regulating the regulators?
Oh...yeah...
Sabrina at February 22, 2013 10:13 AM
The Wall Street tabloid, Dealbreaker, has an analysis of the Bloomberg story here: http://dealbreaker.com/2013/02/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-a-subsidy-of-83-billion-per-year-or-any-other-made-up-number-for-that-matter/
I don't suppose it matters, though, if the number is $1 million or $83 billion. Any level of government intervention is too much.
There is an argument that I'm partial to, that because the banks are supported by below-market funding from the Fed discount window (as well as the backstop of a government bailout, and let's not forget the FDIC) that the banks should be viewed more like utility companies in adminstration of a public resource (our money, rather than our water or electricity) than as private businesses. Any bank that does not want to be regulated in this way should not take discounted funds, receive no bailouts, or offer FDIC-insured accounts. Then, they would be free to run their own business as they see fit. Seems right to me.
Tyler at February 22, 2013 10:35 AM
William Sherman, famous later for marching his army 'to the sea', tried to run a bank in San Francisco in the 1850's. He was determined to be completely legit. He gave up, saying it was impossible, and the bank's owners called him back to St Louis. Other SF banks tried to make a serious profit, and he predicted they'd crash because of their shenanigans-- which they soon did.
jefe at February 22, 2013 5:23 PM
Leave a comment