Wall Street Welfare Queens
Who's in the mood for a little thought exercise today? Because I came across this Bloomberg piece that claims Wall Street banks get an $83 billion annual taxpayer subsidy and, when you look at it the way they do, it's hard to disagree. The piece further states that the 10 largest banks in America wouldn't even break even without it, so essentially all the comp from bottom to top is a taxpayer handout.
There are a couple of things you have to accept for this to make sense. First, you must acknowledge that Too Big To Fail is enshrined in our policy now, thereby eliminating the vast majority of risk to bank bondholders. Obviously, with minimal risk comes a decreased borrowing cost (or government subsidy, if you will) which the IMF has pegged at 80 basis points.
When that discount is applied to the total liabilities of the 10 largest American banks, it results in an $83 billion taxpayer subsidy (because the banks' safety net is the implied backstopping by US taxpayers). Put another way, without this subsidy America's top banks would barely break even, and some would even lose money.
I realize this is a bit of monkey math (It's not like the banks are getting a check for it from the Treasury. It isn't 2009 after all.). But don't rush to dismiss it, because there is definitely something there.
If you go to buy a car after being on your first job for 60 days, you're going to pay a monster interest rate if they don't laugh you off the lot to begin with. You get your parents to co-sign on the loan, however, and it's a whole other ballgame. It saves you thousands over the life of the loan.
Essentially the US taxpayers are the fretting parents co-signing the loan for the teenage banker's monster truck.
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. Picture a meltdown in which the Treasury is helpless to step in as it did in 2008 and 2009.
With all the news about the sequester flying around right now, I could see cutting off this implicit subsidy becoming a popular notion with the general public (and, frankly, anyone with a love of free markets and an ounce of decency). What I think a lot of folks will fail to realize, however, is that it wouldn't actually save the government any money. On the other hand, it would certainly right an egregious wrong, so that's reason enough to do it in my book, but those well-paid bank lobbyists and scumbag politicians would never let that happen.
Anyway, I'd like to hear what you guys think. Is this an actual subsidy or more just a product of a think tank's need to justify its budget?






Comments
You forgot to mention all of
You forgot to mention all of the millions of deposit holders (i.e. creditors) of the big banks who likewise benefit from the surety of federal government backing. So therefore essentially you have taxpayers 'backstopping' their own accounts. Sounds a lot like one giant insurance policy to me.
Yes, it is a subsidy. I sure
Yes, it is a subsidy. I sure as hell wouldn't co-sign a deadbeat friends loan for nothing in return.
However, I don't think anything can really be done about it though, the government likes to use the banks when necessary, like making loans to poor people to make them feel wealthier so they can get elected. Also, the banks make great scapegoats. Why would the politicians want to get rid of one of their favorite whipping boys? Get rid of the banks then people might actually blame them.
diverse_kanga: You forgot to
You forgot to mention all of the millions of deposit holders (i.e. creditors) of the big banks who likewise benefit from the surety of federal government backing. So therefore essentially you have taxpayers 'backstopping' their own accounts. Sounds a lot like one giant insurance policy to me.
Completely different scenario. The FDIC guarantee is insurance that depositors pay for. Not a freebie.
How exactly would you cut off
How exactly would you cut off this implicit subsidy? If JP Morgan or Bank of America got in trouble, the overwhelming odds are that the gov't would step in and backstop them. Even if the gov't says "we're not going to backstop banks anymore", few investors would believe that statement.
Turbo leverage for capital explosion -- BD Capital
My WSO Blog
Just some more context: Matt
Just some more context:
Matt Levine's response to the methodology:
http://dealbreaker.com/2013/02/why-should-taxpayer...
Bloomberg's response to ML clarifying methodology:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-24/remember-...
"Social cohesion and puritanical morality place roughly on my list of concerns between whether I'll pick up jock itch at the gym this week (not likely, since I don't go the gym) and whether it'll rain in Christchurch, New Zealand next Tuesday."
-Eddie
Bloomberg has been slowly
Bloomberg has been slowly disappointing me for some time now. If borrowing costs went up so would lending costs. The banks wouldn't eat it. And all the big banks were profitable before TBTF entered into our vocabulary. So while this means TBTF banks can unfairly borrow at lower costs because of a government backstop, this isn't the same as the government giving direct hand outs.
I'm sorry, but an academic paper is not going to be synthesized down to a BB opinion piece without taking some huge liberties. This is a great example of it.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
I do think it is a subsidy,
I do think it is a subsidy, but I question the 80 bps number, especially because they are applying it to ALL liabilities, many of which don't require interest payments like Minority Interest.
It also includes depositor balances, which are covered by FDIC anyways so the safety of the bank itself isn't too much of a concern. Even if it were a concern, I think checking / savings accounts are pretty interest-rate-inelastic for the majority of people with bank accounts. Did any of you choose Bank XYZ because they paid 11 basis points on savings accounts rather than the 9 basis points of their competitors? It is basically assuming that everyone that uses the bank would demand an additional 80 bps per year on their savings accounts if it weren't for TBTF, which I don't think it realistic. I think it is a foregone conclusion for most people that you earn nothing on checkings / savings accounts, and it has nothing to do with TBTF.
Just for some reference, I looked up JPM and saw they have about $2 trillion in total liabilities. But if we exclude the stuff like Accounts Payable, Minority Interest, and Customer Deposits, which wouldn't realistically pay 80 bps higher without TBTF and look at just long term debt (and its current portion), they have about $685 billion in borrowed money. 80 bps of this would be about $5.5 billion, and after accounting for the tax shield of debt interest payments, this is about $3.5 billion.
This $3.5 billion is a lot of money, but considering the bank had net income of $19 billion in 2011, I would hardly say they would be scraping by without this "subsidy."
The article also assumes that the banks would operate the same without the subsidy, which I don't think is realistic either. I don't think the banks would take out as much debt if they had to pay 80bps more, and I think they would charge more interest across the board as well. The banks provide a necessary service, if their costs went up, they would just increase their prices. The demand for loans, checking, and savings accounts is never going to go away, it just might stall from time to time in poor economic environments.
"Well that's even more than less than unhelpful." - Jack Sparrow
Break up the big banks so
Break up the big banks so that they are small enough to fail without consequence.
Check out my WSO Blog
Well the too big to fail
Well the too big to fail effect on banks (read hidden subsidies) was already investigated in 2012. The researcher estimated, between 2007 and 2010, simply being too big to fail saved America’s biggest banks a combined $120 billion.
Google for "JPMorgan's $10 Billion Subsidy" and read the businessweek article (sorry, I cannot post the direct link as chimp).
TNA: Bloomberg has been
Bloomberg has been slowly disappointing me for some time now. If borrowing costs went up so would lending costs. The banks wouldn't eat it. And all the big banks were profitable before TBTF entered into our vocabulary. So while this means TBTF banks can unfairly borrow at lower costs because of a government backstop, this isn't the same as the government giving direct hand outs.
I'm sorry, but an academic paper is not going to be synthesized down to a BB opinion piece without taking some huge liberties. This is a great example of it.
Exactly what was going through my head.
Banks make money on the spread. It's not as if the spread would just close up if the government stopped giving them discounted borrow, they would just shift the spread upwards. All of the bank's clients benefit from this subsidy as well (not that I think that's a good thing).
TheKing: Break up the big
Break up the big banks so that they are small enough to fail without consequence.
Step 1: Take the large banks out from under their shield of bureaucratic red tape that makes building a small financial franchise next to impossible.
Bloomberg definitely puts
Bloomberg definitely puts forth an incomplete argument on its behalf and ignores some basic principles of banking (as already mentioned--spread). That said, the way Wall Street and Washington, D.C. operate is the argument for smaller and/or limited and/or Constitutional government. No matter if conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats are in office, the form of governance we have with the revolving door of D.C. bureaucrats and Wall Street executives and with Wall Street money and Congressional politics is inevitably corrupting. This is why I never understood the Occupy Wall Street movement. It targeted the rational players--high finance and finance lobbying to reap excess profits--instead of the big government crony capitalist system that legally entices rational business players.
If you reduce the influence of government on the market then you will inevitably reduce the ability of rich New Yorkers from receiving tax payer subsidies. As a banker myself, the idea that there isn't enough government in banking is breathtaking. We literally have entire departments dedicated to government compliance. Whether the "true subsidy" is $830 million or $830 billion, every penny of that subsidy is made possible through the bureaucracy, much of it the unelected bureaucracy.
NorthSider: TheKing: Break
Break up the big banks so that they are small enough to fail without consequence.
Step 1: Take the large banks out from under their shield of bureaucratic red tape that makes building a small financial franchise next to impossible.
http://www.politixcartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/...
YOU JUST GOT TROLLED
http://www.troll.me/images/red-foreman322/dont-you...
NorthSider: TheKing: Break
Break up the big banks so that they are small enough to fail without consequence.
Step 1: Take the large banks out from under their shield of bureaucratic red tape that makes building a small financial franchise next to impossible.
Agreed with this 110%. It's EXTRAORDINARILY difficult to start and/or operate a small bank in this regulatory environment. Just on the surface level, without FDIC insurance no bank could prosper; however, obtaining FDIC insurance is like getting into Harvard. Then to keep FDIC insurance and to meet consisent regulatory body oversight, a banking institution has to undergo monster efforts and hire a very expensive compliance staff or department.
There really is little incentive for small bankers to go into business. As a part owner in a bank, I often wonder what the hell it is that I'm doing. I can see that there can be some amazing payoffs, but the likelihood is very small for the typical investment group that would want to start a bank.
I used to go to Bloomberg for
I used to go to Bloomberg for decent and intelligent financial news. Now it has basically devolved into trash. Their opinion piece is completely political and a very simplistic article. Not something I go to Bloomberg for.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=USNIM
NIM is what we should be focusing on. I suppose their argument is that big banks get a benefit in their NIM because the rate they pay is artificially lower.
NIM for banks with average assets >$15B: 3.25%
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USG15N...
NIM for banks with average assets <$1B : 3.88%
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/US1NIM...
"Net interest margin (NIM) is a measure of the difference between the interest income generated by banks or other financial institutions and the amount of interest paid out to their lenders (for example, deposits), relative to the amount of their (interest-earning) assets. It is similar to the gross margin of non-financial companies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_interest_margin
So if a TBTF bank is borrowing at an artificially lower rate and lending at the market rate, their NIM should be higher than smaller banks which have a high borrowing rate.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Don't hate the player. Hate
NorthSider: TheKing: Break
"Others may come up with
Gomez Addams: "Others may
Government created this
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
UFOinsider: NorthSider: T
Gomez Addams: That conclusion
DCDepository: The question
YOU JUST GOT TROLLED
http://www.troll.me/images/red-foreman322/dont-you...
UFOinsider: DCDepository: T
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
UFOinsider: DCDepository: T
Yeah. Whenever someone talks
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
I agree that there is an
DCDepository: UFOinsider:
TNA: allow the bottom 25% to
YOU JUST GOT TROLLED
http://www.troll.me/images/red-foreman322/dont-you...
UFOinsider: Also, per point 7
I just vote for the party
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
evan1482: DCDepository: U
evan1482: Those future
nm
Edited
DCDepository: No, that's not
NorthSider: the top 1% of the
YOU JUST GOT TROLLED
http://www.troll.me/images/red-foreman322/dont-you...
Half this country doesn't pay
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Smaller government is always
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
UFOinsider: LOL oh hell no.
NorthSider: That would be an
Man bro, you can't do simple
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
evan1482: Where the fuck do
http://www.washingtontimes.co
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
You can't have a discussion
NorthSider: evan1482: Where
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
evan1482: You can't have a
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
TNA: evan1482: You can't
evan1482: You can't have a
I posted facts above. Are
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter