Should Part of The £37 Billion Bail-Out Go To Shareholders

I came across this question on UK Bubble and had to join in the comments, here’s what I put:

‘Banks using part of the £37 Billion of tax payers money to pay dividends is a slap in the face to everyone who hasn’t got shares in these banks.

If the government had tried to sell this difficult to swallow spending spree, on the basis that it would go straight into shareholders pockets, everyone from parliament to the tabloids would have ripped them apart.

I doubt the rest of Europe would have signed up to similar arrangements if they had to explain this to their electorates, but the most galling aspect of this latest bank whimpering is that they’ve played along with the whole non payment plan right up until they had the cash in their pockets, and now they announce that the rules change.

I would have thought that with reality catching up with highly paid liars, they might have bought a clue and cut the crap, but they can’t be grateful for a rescue that no other companies on earth would get, oh no, they have to have their cake and then dish it out to shareholders too.

Given how long this change of heart took it seems very likely they had no intentions of stopping shareholder payments, but just paid lip service to the idiots in Downing street long enough to get their hands on our tax pounds.

This is quite frankly outrageous, how dare they slap tax payers in the face like this, so soon after we kept them afloat. We should have let them all go to the wall and see how the shareholders feel about that lack of a dividend.’

———————————————————————————–

To deal with the main reason why the banks want to keep paying shareholder payments, they think that posting no dividends will drive the value of their businesses down further, making them less attractive to investors and less competitive in the wider market. A reduced business value would also make raising short term loans against the value of their businesses more difficult, which increases the risk of a shortfall in meeting debt payments, increasing the risk of bankruptcy.

The truth is that they should be viewed as less attractive assets by the wider market. They are bankrupt businesses that are limited in what they can offer shareholders, and their market price should reflect that. In fact the market price of their shares should reflect the reality that they are bankrupt, and hit its true value. The government has done them a favour in keeping them running, and this has distorted their true value.

For greedy selfish banks this distortion isn’t enough, they want the markets to treat them as the strong viable businesses they thought they were, so they want to further distort the markets’ perception of their true value, by posting the dividends that most businesses are now going to struggle to post in the current economic climate.

The fact is that they aren’t viable – they should not be valued as businesses that are so strong they can keep posting dividends no matter how difficult the economic climate becomes. They should be forced to learn that lying to themselves about how great they are is what has got them into this mess in the first place, and tax payers should not be dragged into helping them perpetuate this myth.

It seems that no matter how bad thing get they cannot break their natural instincts to claim value exists in an asset, when it quite clearly doesn’t. The taxpayers and UK government should be helping banks to start dealing with reality, instead of helping them to find new ways of distorting the true position of their businesses. They are like junkies that are trying to get right back on the smack, we have a moral obligation to say ‘NO’ and force them to exist in their true form as poor investments, until they can make their way back up with hard work and prudent policies.

The term ‘Enough is Enough’ is all I want to hear from the UK government, and a forcible rehabilitation program, without any easy rides, is the only prescription the Chancellor Alistair Darling should have on offer.

$700 Billion Bail-Out of the US Economy

It’s hard to know what to make of this proposition – yes, it’s needed, yes, it’s wanted in some quarters, but in the end it is government intervention in the markets, which means it’s not capitalism.

This is the big problem for the $700 billion Federal Reserve bail-out of Wall Street; that 133 Republicans & 95 Democrats are so into the ideals of capitalism, they are willing to ride this collapse all the way through to a depression.

The key problem for capitalists is that, with the government being the chief regulator of the economy, it will cause a massive conflict of interests when the same people who will have to audit every company in the market, then have to manage their assets against the very companies they are regulating.

They will have an unequalled access to the accounts of their competitors, and are then meant to make a profit for the taxpayers whose money they are managing, but without using the knowledge they have gained through regulation. This ‘Chinese walls’ situation is so unrealistic that it has long been decided that for governments to be effective in regulation, and seen as being impartial, they should never join the market as a player.

Another sticking point in this rescue package for both Democrats & Republicans in Congress is that they have an election coming up in November, and none of them want to be insisting to their constituents that they shoulder the hurt from the state of the economy, while Wall Street gets all the money their constituents are told they can’t have, because of the damage it would cause.

To make matters worse, it seems that Morgan Stanley after being one of the chief contibutors to this market collapse would get a $1 Billion contract to manage and distribute the $700 Billion rescue package. Having made huge personal sums of wealth getting the US economy into this mess, Morgan Stanley are then going to get paid more tax-payers money to save their own arses. A situation that beggers belief is the only term that comes to mind. How can they be trusted with anyones cash after being a leading culprit of this disaster in the first place?

On top of that, both Henry Paulson and Morgan Stanley are going to have one of the strongest positions of patronage ever witnessed. As everyone has to come to them for help, they will effectively become untouchable, as no companies will want to risk their own slice of this $700 billion bail-out pie by critisising either one of these players in the coming months. The terms of Henry Paulson’s original deal were so stacked in his favour (such as no oversight, no limits, no checks and a free hand to spend this cash) these terms alone were enough to outrage Congress and wider America.

Not only has Paulson overseen this whole mess, now he wants unpresedented power to spend as he sees fit. Even the American tax-payers can tell that being in charge of a mess like this should mean you get the sack, not the patronage to spend $700 billion helping out your mates on Wall Street, while the rest of Americans lose their homes, jobs and savings.

The Banking Collapse

On the 7th of September Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac moved out of private ownership and were de-facto nationalised through a process the US Treasury calls ‘Conservatorship‘. This means that the US Government has now guaranteed a $5.3 Trillion companys debts and taken them on as part of the national debt. Furthermore any new trading of mortgage-backed bonds by Freddie & Fannie will also need to be backed by the government.

This action started the Credit Default slide that Alex Ritson warned about back in July; that the failure of Freddie & Fannie would constitute as a default. This meant that all other companies involved with Freddie & Fannie would come under pressure from 2 possible sources. Either they would have to lose vauable cash paying out on any default swaps that deliver returns with the collapse of Freddie & Frannie, or they would have to devalue any mortgage backed assets, that were backed by Freddie & Fannie.

This then created a problem, as not only did banks and insurers find they had no cash left after making default payments, the devaluation of their MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) meant that many companies overall market vaue was significantly reduced. This then means that when Lehman Bros., AIG, Merryll Lynch and HBOS most need to raise cash against the value of their businesses, that overall value has come down so much that they can’t get any more money from the markets.

Unfortunately for Lehman Bros. the consequences of not being involved with the commercial (home/personal loans) banking sector meant that they were exposed to the markets (and practices such as ‘Short Selling’ of banking stocks) without any money to fight anyone off, and most significantly with no government support as a safety net. The stock markets anywhere in the world treat weakness as a chance to make easy money, and where there’s easy money there’s always a broker.

On 15th September Lehman Bros. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which means thay are bankrupt. The combination of a falling stock price because of their inability to soak up anymore bad debt, the downward pressure of ‘Short Selling’, and the need of humans to flee a potential sinking ship, even if this reaction will make going down a certainty, meant that Lehman Bros. lost too much value and went bankrupt.

This finally reminded the financial system that it was a financial system (and not the fun end of a US government department) and the markets underwent the sort of correction that has been long overdue. Stocks went from 11421.99 to 10, 917.51 with a 4.42% loss, based on the fact that Lehman Bros. failure proved that failure itself was still possible. The great collapse would now begin. All stocks would fall, all companies relying on revenue and credit from the markets would eventually go into bankruptcy, and the cascade effect of bad debt would sweep the whole system.

With the the primary quake having now gone off with the collapse of Freddie, Frannie and Lehman Bros., next to hit were the aftershocks from the realisation that the constant growth from credit-fueled trading was over. Subsequently Merryll Lynch was purchased by The Bank of America, and the collapse took place of a well hidden keystone of the western financial system; AIG (American International group).

The $85 Billion rescue of AIG by the US Treasury on the 17th September 2008, which gave the US Treasury 79.9% overall control of the company, was a recognition by the US government that while it could live with the failure of Lehman Bros, some market players are ‘too strategic to go down’.

AIG holding everyone else’s loan protection policies (Credit Default Swaps), combined with so many financial companies now being reliant on AIG backed assets for market value, meant that the US government could not allow AIG to fail and devalue $400 Billion of assets held by other key market players.

AIG had one key failing in its revenue stream – it went mad on selling credit default swaps. It had sold this defacto insurance on so many US mortgage assets held by the wider market that its own failure would put the whole stock market at risk of collapse. This prompted the US Treasury to look at AIG in a different way to Lehman Bros, with the subsequent bailout of AIG delivered at a cost to the US Government of $85 Billion.

Next to go was Merrill Lynch, purchased by The Bank of America to aviod becoming the next Lehman Bros, and was joined with the takeover of HBOS (the UK’s largest mortgage lender) by LLoyds TSB for the same reason. Barclay’s decided to join The Bank of America in aquiring new assets, with its purchase of the US investment arm of Lehman Bros.

In both cases these rescuing banks themselves have been under pressure for resources recently, but seem to have played the psychology of the situation and made good on the idea that the best way to convince investors you’re not in trouble is to play it cool and flash the cash. It does begger belief that, once again, there are companies seemingly looking to spend their way out of trouble, but it may well work, and will undoubtedly secure them the backing of both the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England.

This left only two investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. After the shares of both of these companies started to come under pressure on Friday 19th September, they organised over the weekend to change their banking status with the Federal Reserve from investment banks to become Bank Holding Companies. Not only did this mean that the banking crisis has discovered a problem in the housing market, the business model of investment banks had failed, starting with the collapse of Bear Stearns in March, and ending with the status switch of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

As recognition of how the traders who ’short sell’ stock have contributed to the collapse in stock prices of most of the banks on the FTSE 100 & Dow Jones stock exchanges, on Monday the 22nd of September the UK’s FSA (Financial Service Authority) banned the practice of ’short selling’ until 16th January 2009.

‘Short Selling’ is so controversial because the traders borrow stocks in a target company (like Lehman Bros.) and then dump that stock onto the market. This causes the stock price to fall, at which point they then reacquire at the lower price the stocks they borrowed, and pocket the difference. They therefore make money when stock prices fall, and then pay no regard to the damage this causes as it reduces the market capitalisation of the the banks, building societies & insurance companies affected.

It’s at this point we can now consider what the US Treasury’s spending spree will cost. Although it may seem like a bottomless pit of finance, especially as oil is traded in your currency, but there is a limit set by Congress and the US Treasury has spent more than the US people ever expected they would need to borrow.

Billions of dollars now seem like small sums compared to the total of $11.3 Trillion, which is what Henry Paulson has just asked Congress to lift the national borrowing limit to, as a way to cover the cost of his new $700 billion bail-out plan, on top of the purchases of Freddie, Fannie & AIG.

The problem with all of this borrowing is that on the government books it will cause the dollar to crash as the value of the US economy is reassessed by the markets. This devaluation will see inflation rise as America’s love of imported goods ensures that they either end up spending more on imports to recieve the same volumes of goods as they did last month, or they get less for their dollar. Either prices go up or consumption goes down and jobs with them, a real lose-lose situation, with possibly both happening at the same time.

To counter this collapse in the dollar and rapid influx of inflation into the economy, and to maintain the US Treasury’s long standing committment to a strong dollar, Interest Rates will have to be lifted. Lifting interest rates will strengthen deposits in the banking sector as a whole because the rates of interest offered will now be stronger than the returns offered on the stock markets.

As this switch will be into very low risk saving accounts it will seem very attractive to large organisations like pension funds and mutuals. The overall effect will be to make less money available to the markets and more held as savings, and so reducing consumption, especially that based on borrowing, and allow inflation to fall back to the 2% target level.

The problem with this solution is that while you’re waiting for inflation to start to decrease you have both high inflation, high interest rates and a low dollar. With reducing consumption you will have economic contraction in GDP and more companies will repost reduced profits and lose share value. This may then cause the start of the next wave of businesses coming under pressure over liquidity linked to their market capitalisation.

There is no mistaking however, this $11.3 Trillion debt the US Treasury and Federal Reserve have presided over will cost the US economy dearly. During this housing crash the lift in interest rates alone will take some absorbing. This then will be disturbingly combined with the affects of the gold rush in housing (from November 2005) coming back to haunt the US housing market, as huge numbers of home owners come to the end of their 3 year fixed rate introductory offer mortgages in November 2008.

The subsequent surge in prices due to a high base interest rate will cause a new round of mortgage defaults, and almost guarantee that all the toxic assets the US Treasury purchase through their rescue package will be proven to be as worthless as the rating agencies had made out, causing them to be offloaded in the first place.

It seems that there’s no escaping the fact that the bad debts are going to hurt someone, and the US bail-out will ensure that it’s the American tax-payers that suffer most with the prospects of a recession becoming a depression before the economy hits bottom and GDP growth once again returns, along with rising house prices.

Reality Bypass

The current UK Government is suffering from a serious case of ‘We can’t face reality’. The situation is dire because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, is predicting economic growth of 1.75% – 2.25% for this year and next, when all around him are finally getting nearer the mark, such as the IMF who are predicting 1.4% economic growth for 2008 and 1.1% economic growth for 2009, and the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) now predicting 0.4% economic growth for 2009.

This is very bad because if the UK Treasury can’t come to terms with the reality of a collapsing economy, they can’t set policy to deal with next years lack of money. No reality = no policy.

The situation will be a minimum inflation of 5%, lower tax receipts from the financial sector, housing sector (Stamp Duty) and retail sector; interest rates that are on the rise (or they should be if the BoE have any sense) and a rapid increase in unemployment which will increase government spending on benefits. This squeeze on incomes and increase in outgoings will leave the government with the same choices that we’ve had in the past.

1. Raise Government borrowing
2. Raise taxation
3. Cut public spending

Option 1 is out because the 10p tax debacle has already put us way past the safe borrowing limit that indicates a net outgoing of revenues on interest payments that will restrict economic growth.

Option 2 was tried in the late 1970’s under a Keynesian structure of tax and spend, which never works, because increased government spending when inflation is on the rise only fuels further inflation and, on top of our current high borrowing levels would result in both double digit inflation and interest rates, such as those in 1979.

Option 3 is just like Margaret Thatcher’s early 1980’s approach, rolling back the state and cutting government spending. However as the above analysis shows, we are entering a period of low government tax revenues and higher government spending on unemployment benefit, which would only leave spending cuts in other government departments such as the Department for Health (with spending up from £35 Billion in 1997 to £90 Billion in 2007), to achieve a reduction in government spending. Cutting 3,000 hospital beds while cutting back on Local Government services will be as popular today as it was during the 1980’s.

The big problem with option 3 however is it will cost too many votes in the run up to the next general election in 18 months time, and for an already very unpopular Prime Minister (Gordon Brown), this would finish him off as Prime Minister and the Labour Party as the UK Government. Besides, as Alistair Darling’s comments show, the current Labour Government doesn’t have the stones to deal with reality, let alone present a potential cure to mitigate against the coming problems, that would then cost them the next General Election.

As a result of all this we are left with infuriating persistence by the Treasury that they are right about GDP growth, and pretty much everyone else is wrong – me included.

This current problem at the Treasury is confounded by the worst offender of all, the chief turd-polisher herself, Housing Minister Caroline Flint, who in the middle of a housing collapse keeps coming up with wonderful statements to prove how this housing crisis isn’t actually a problem at all.

When speaking on Radio 4’s Today program on 10th July she made the following housing market comments:

“In terms of consumers we’ve seen a modest fall in house prices” - This comment comes 3 weeks before UK house prices showed their biggest annual fall since the Nationwide began its housing survey in 1991. The 8.1% annual decline came after house prices dropped by 1.7% in July, the building society said.

“We’ve seen an increase in repossessions, but nowhere near the sort of repossessions we saw years ago” - Home repossessions have risen by 48% in the past year. There were 18,900 repossessions in the six months to June (2008), up from 12,800 in the same period last year. While this is still not as big as the 75,540 repossessions seen in 1991, we have not yet even entered recession in 2008, while the 1991 figure was taken at the bottom of the last housing market crash during a bad and deep recession. As things stand at the moment the 75,540 mark could well be broken as unemployment rockets out of control.

“In some cases flats were necessary for first time buyers” - (1 month later) A fall in flat prices has become a key factor in the slowdown of the housing market, UK government figures show.

“And most of those people being taken to court hold onto their homes if they are given the right advice”. (5 weeks later) Last week the regulator (FSA) warned it would take action against lenders who were too aggressive to customers in arrears. But the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) said the FSA was wrong to suggest the whole industry was at fault. The FSA replied that potential problems with repossession policies were found with all types of lender. “There were issues discovered across the piece with all lenders which is why the warning was addressed to the whole market place,” said an FSA spokeswoman.

Between the lack of reality from the Chancellor and the Treasury, and the ridiculous comments from the Housing Minister Caroline Flint, Merv King at the Bank of England will have his work cut out bringing these two down to earth.