By the end of the recession, there will be approximately 1,000 bank failures.  Does this sound extreme?  It should but the numbers don’t cover the entire story.  Since 2008 the number of bank failures has reached 269 and this doesn’t include consolidations done through the FDIC where bigger banks ate up smaller banks before they officially failed.  Last week, 7 banks failed.  At that pace, we are looking at 364 bank failures per year and the actual number of closings per week has consistently gone up.  The FDIC is in a precarious situation.  The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) is technically speaking, broke.  They have added additional cash reserves by front loading premiums on surviving banks but this can only stunt the financial bleeding for so long.  The problems in the banking system run deep and many of the smaller regional banks are failing because of commercial real estate loans going bad.

Here is the actual weekly trend of bank failures:

Source: FDIC

The trend is unmistakable.  The worse offending states are as follows:

Georgia:          40

Illinois:                        34

Florida:           34

California:       27

These four states make up 50 percent of all bank failures since the crisis started.  The current policy and momentum seems to be with banks ignoring balance sheet problems until they are no longer able to hide the dirt.  The too big to fail banks have already been chosen by the government and the rest will need to deal with the new economic landscape.  The FDIC, the seal of confidence and strength dates back to the Great Depression:

It is a game of confidence that we have increased the actual amount of deposit insurance to $250,000 from $100,000 at a time when the actual insurance fund is negative.  You would think that something this problematic will cause for a sense of urgency but the government is giving the FDIC until 2020 to get this fixed:

“WASHINGTON (MNI) – With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will now have until the end of September 2020 to bring its reserve ratio to the statutory minimum of 1.35%, rather that 1.15%.

This is more than the eight years provided under the current Restoration Plan that would have given the FDIC only until the end of 2016 to bring its reserve ratio to 1.15%, an FDIC spokesman told Market News International Wednesday.

The latest projections presented at a Board meeting in June, indicated agency did not expect to meet that deadline.”

While the government gives the FDIC until 2020 to get their house in order, this is how the deposit insurance fund is looking:

This is the third consecutive quarter in the absolute red.  The banking system is starting to look like an imploding ponzi scheme and Wall Street is capitalizing on this vulnerability.  How?  If you were a big time investor would you invest in a too big to fail bank that may be performing poorly but has full government support or a smaller well run bank that has no support at all?  The incentive is not necessarily with the best performing and that is usually a staple of a well run capitalist system.  We are not operating in a capitalist system but a corporate oligarchy based on political connections between Wall Street and D.C.  This kind of system has been prevalent for decades now and crosses both political parties.

As the FDIC digs deeper into a hole, the number of problem institutions grows:

Keep in mind that the above list also fails to catch many of banks that do fail.  It isn’t exhaustive.  So even just looking at the above, we already have the 1,000 banks that will fail.  And the problem of course is how the current banking system is structured.  We have close to 8,000 FDIC insured banks but in reality, a very few control the bulk of the assets:

The top 4 banks of Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citibank make up 55 percent of all banking assets.  Then there is another tier of roughly 100 banks that eats up another 20 to 25 percent of assets.  So you have some 7,800 banks basically fighting for the remaining scraps.  The FDIC is in deep trouble going forward and this means we are in deep trouble.  The taxpayer is on the hook for the bill.  The U.S. Treasury already extended a lifeline of $500 billion to the FDIC “in case” they need the money.  Looking at the above data do you think they are going to use that lifeline?  It is only a matter of time.

My Budget360

Paris, France – There are two major schools of thought on what is coming next…and two renegade, home-schools too. There are those who believe we have a recovery…though weak…that will continue and eventually bring the economy back to health. This is the line of the Obama Administration and most mainstream economists.

Then, there are those who think the recovery will not come as planned…and that the feds’ efforts to spur a recovery – along with strong demand from Asia and the emerging markets – will lead to higher levels of inflation, destroying the dollar and bonds. This is what Marc Faber expects. He urges listeners to avoid going too heavily into cash, since it might be the number one victim of inflation. Instead, you’ll do better in stocks and real estate, he says.

A third line of thinking is what Faber calls “hard core deflationism” – typified by Robert Prechter and Gary Shilling. They think the de-leveraging trend will be catastrophic – leading to outright deflation, taking the Dow down below 1,000, for example.

Then, there’s The Daily Reckoning line. You can call it “soft-core deflationism”:

1) There is no recovery; there won’t ever be a recovery
2) The de-leveraging period will be longer and harder than people expect…leading to spells of deflation and double…triple…dipping
3) The feds will fight it with every weapon available
4) However, they will not push the ‘nuclear button’ – wanton, reckless money printing – until the bond market cracks
5) It will not crack soon, because the feds are incompetent; they will not succeed in getting higher rates of inflation; at least, not soon.
6) The dollar will remain strong. Bonds will go up…for now…
7) The Dow will fall…but not below 1,000…probably not below 5,000

What does that mean for gold? Well, it means gold won’t do spectacularly well. It might decline…say, down to $850 or so.

Eventually, the bull market in gold will resume, however. You can’t keep a good metal down. Just don’t expect it to go up dramatically while the private sector is reducing its debts in an orderly fashion.

Does that mean you should sell your gold? We wouldn’t if we were you. Because something could go very wrong. Another big bank failure. A blow-up in China. It wouldn’t take much to cause a panic. Investors could turn to gold for security.

Or, maybe the feds will panic…and dump dollars from helicopters as Ben Bernanke threatened.

Besides, we could be wrong. Predictions are always difficult to get right. Especially when they’re about the future.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning

Without millions more good jobs, the U.S. economy is simply never, ever going to recover.  But at this point, there is every indication that the U.S. economy is going to continue to bleed jobs.  In the past, employment would bounce up and down as the economy went through various cycles.  But today what we are witnessing is something much different.  Over the past 30 or 40 years, literally millions of good jobs have been shipped off to China, India and to dozens of third world nations where half-starving workers are more than happy to slave away for big global corporations for less than a dollar an hour.  In the new “global economy” that we were promised would be so good for us, the expensive American worker is obsolete.  The giant global predator corporations that now dominate our economy do not exist to provide you and your family with a nice home, two cars and college educations for all your children.  No, their goal is to keep costs as low as possible so that their profits will be as high as possible.  For many of these giant global predator corporations, that means that paying workers as close to zero as possible is the best decision for the bottom line. 

The truth is that the American people were never told that “free trade” and a “global economy” would mean that they would soon be lumped into a giant global labor pool and would be forced to compete for jobs with people on the other side of the globe.

No, we were just told that we should enjoy all of the cheap plastic crap made overseas that all of the “big box” retail stores were pushing us to buy.

Well, the party was fun while it lasted.  Americans ran up unprecedented amounts of debt on their credit cards buying all this stuff, while our once great manufacturing cities degenerated into rotted-out war zones.

But isn’t it a good thing to get all these products at such a cheap price?

After all, who wants to pay substantially more for things?

Well, running an economy this way is kind of like tearing off pieces of your house in order to keep your fire going.  Sure the fire will burn brightly for a while, but eventually you will have torn down your entire house.

One way or another, we end up paying dearly for the jobs we have shipped overseas.

You see, the millions of Americans who are now chronically unemployed because of “free trade” have to be supported by the U.S. government.

That means that it is the U.S. taxpayers who end up footing the bill.

You didn’t think that we were going to let all of those unemployed workers starve in the streets, did you?

Without good jobs, an increasing number of Americans are becoming completely dependent on government handouts.

Already, state governments across the United States are going broke trying to pay out unemployment benefits to the hordes of Americans who don’t have a job and can’t find a job.

In addition, for the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.

Also, according to one new study, somewhere around 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010, which is the highest rate in 20 years.

The truth is that more Americans are dependent on direct payments from the federal government than ever before.

But how long can we afford to support the millions upon millions of Americans who have been impoverished by this new “global economy”?

The U.S. government budget deficit was a record $1.4 trillion in 2009.  Now the White House says that we will exceed that figure in 2010 and again in 2011.

So just how long can we afford to run deficits equivalent to 10 percent of GDP?

Anyone with half a brain knows that these kind of debts are not anywhere close to sustainable.

So where is the money going to come from to pay for these exploding government programs?

Well, from you of course.

Recently I dubbed 2011 “the year of the tax increase”.  A whole slew of new taxes is scheduled to go into effect starting next year that will impact every single American taxpayer.

It is almost enough to make you want to stop working and start collecting government handouts instead.

But the American people don’t need even more handouts.

Handouts are only a temporary solution to a long-term problem.

What the American people need are good jobs.

But where in the world are these jobs going to come from?

The reality is that in the new “global economy”, the United States is a very unattractive place to do business.

If you were a global corporation, would you rather open a new facility in the third world where there are very few rules and regulations and where people will work for less than a dollar an hour, or would you rather open a new facility in the United States where there are literally thousands of laws and regulations to comply with and where you are going to have to pay workers at least ten times as much?

It doesn’t take a genius to see where all of this is headed.

For decades, an increasing number of Americans have been forced into lower paying service jobs, but now there aren’t even nearly enough of those to go around. 

But it isn’t just the jobs that have been shipped overseas that are depressing wages and causing unemployment to skyrocket.  The millions of illegal immigrants that have flooded unchecked across the border have depressed wages and fundamentally changed the employment picture in industries such as construction and food service. 

Not only that, but in this environment not even high tech workers are safe.  In fact, there are some corporations in the high tech industry that have been openly abusing worker visas to ship in large numbers of foreign workers to replace more expensive American employees.

What all this means is that it is becoming much more difficult to live a middle class lifestyle in the United States.

Perhaps that is why one of my articles struck such a nerve recently.  An article that I originally wrote for The American Dream blog and adapted by Business Insider has gone mega-viral and has ended up on Yahoo Finance.  The article was entitled “The Middle Class In America Is Radically Shrinking – Here Are The Stats To Prove it” and it has received over 9000 comments on Yahoo.

So why did it provoke such an extraordinary response?

Well, because it hits people where they live.

Today, millions of American families are really struggling.  Record numbers of middle class Americans are receiving foreclosure notices and record numbers of middle class Americans are going bankrupt.

In fact, more Americans than ever find themselves just trying to survive.

According to a poll taken in 2009, 61 percent of Americans ”always or usually” live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

You see, the truth is that most American families are not concerned with saving for retirement or even with planning for next year.  In this economic environment, most American families are worried about how they are going to survive until next month.

So who has been doing well in the new global economy?

The very, very wealthy of course.

According to Harvard Magazine, 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.

Now, the truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with making money, but by any reasonable standard an economic system that produces such skewed results is horribly broken.

So will “redistributing the wealth” solve things?

No, it won’t.

At best, “redistributing the wealth” is only a temporary solution and it always ends up creating a lot of long-term problems.

What the American people really need are millions more good jobs.

But as we have seen, the current imbalances in the new “global economy” make it more likely that the American people will continue to lose millions more good jobs rather than gaining them.

Unless something is done, the standard of living for middle class Americans will continue to be forced down as labor increasingly becomes a global commodity.

So are you just going to accept that, or are you going to start demanding that your representatives change things?

The choice is up to you.

The Economic Collapse

Nathan’s Economic Edge

Last Friday seven more banks failed bringing the total bank failures to 103.

U.S. bank failures this year have surpassed a bleak milestone of 100 as regulators shut down banks in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Kansas, Nevada, Minnesota and Oregon.

The seven bank seizures announced Friday bring to 103 the failures so far in 2010. The pace of bank closures this year is well ahead of that of 2009, which saw a total of 140 banks shuttered amid the recession and mounting loan defaults. That was the highest annual tally since 1992, at the height of the savings and loan crisis.

The number of banks on the FDIC’s confidential “problem” list jumped to 775 in the first quarter, from 702 three months earlier, even as the industry as a whole had its best quarter in two years.

More Failures Coming

The FDIC is now deep in the red and the situation is getting worse every week. The situation would be even worse were it not for widespread “extend and pretend” tactics that keep woefully insolvent banks in business.

FDIC Shell Game To Hide Bad Assets

To address the situation, the FDIC is going to start selling U.S.-guaranteed FDIC senior certificates. However, it has no Congressional authority to do so according to former thrift regulator William Black.

Unlimited Taxpayer Bailout

Black claims an “unlimited taxpayer bailout” of the FDIC is on the way.

Barrons discusses the situation in Uncle Sam Rides Again: Banking on a Bailout?

BEFORE THE FINANCIAL CRISIS is unwound, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. expects to have taken over some 300 failed banks. The rapid closures have drained the agency’s cash reserves.

The FDIC must sell assets to continue the closings. It has about $37 billion of bad-bank assets to sell, but the stockpile would bring only 10 to 50 cents on the dollar.

Enter the FDIC’s Securitization Pilot Program, the sale of U.S.-guaranteed FDIC senior certificates. This enables the FDIC to push much of the losses off its books, thanks to the U.S. guarantee of principal and interest. The program starts with a $500 million issue.

“They aren’t really selling the bad assets. They’re selling the equivalent of a Treasury bond without congressional approval,” says William Black, a former thrift regulator. “It hides the economic substance of what’s really happening—an unlimited taxpayer bailout.”

The FDIC contests the characterization, saying it doesn’t expect a claim on the guarantee because of an equity cushion to absorb the losses, and the use of only performing mortgages in the pools. The agency says a lot of resources stand between it and the taxpayer.

Foot in the Door Ploy

Notice how the $500 million start gets the FDIC foot in the taxpayer’s door. At some point Congress will probably grant authority to the FDIC just as the Fed got unlimited funding for Fannie Mae.

President Obama and the Democrats are making matters worse by permanently upping the FDIC limit to 250,000 in the financial reform legislation that just passed.

Moral Hazards

FDIC is a moral hazard. Many banks that failed were able to stay in business because of taxpayer deposits at above market rates. For example, no one in their right mind would have had deposits at Corus Bank, a bank with many troubled loans to Florida and Nevada condo developers.

Corus bank would have failed long before it did, without the FDIC guarantee. Not only was the bank able to attract funding by offering above market rates, Corus contributed to the enormous property bubble in Florida and other places.

Instead of preventing risky bank practices in the first place, or upping the insurance rate on risky bank practices to cover excessive risk, the FDIC is about to get an unlimited taxpayer sponsored bailout by selling U.S.-guaranteed FDIC senior certificates, even though it has no authority to do so.

FDIC Legacy

As a result of the inept policy decisions by the FDIC, instead of having small bank failures widely spread out over time, we have had concentrated bank failures in a short period of time.

Taxpayers will be the ones to pay the price. This is the legacy of FDIC and its failed moral hazard policies.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

I recently had a conversation with a retired neighbor, a former Navy vet who worked most of his life at a local grocery store.  I wouldn’t call him wealthy but he has his financial house in order; he paid off his home in the early 1990s, has no other debts, and lives well below his means.  His big source of income comes from Social Security.  We talked about the current economy and the strain we are facing.  It was a good conversation and ultimately the mathematical problems we are facing for the working and middle class become extremely obvious when confronted face to face.  We both conceded that government retirement programs will have problems in one or two decades (doesn’t help many who are still working).  The economic issues faced between the generations will cause many hard decisions down the road.

First, we should examine income levels in the U.S.:

Source:  Bankrate

The bulk of American households bring in $65,000 a year or less.  The current tax rate for FICA (Social Security and Medicare taxes) comes in at 7.65% with the remainder paid by the employer.  So the family making $65,000 a year is paying roughly $5,000 a year into FICA.  With the employer match, this figure comes out closer to $10,000 going into the system.  If we look at the current amount paid out to Social Security beneficiaries it is roughly the same per year:

The average monthly benefit paid out is $1,067.  Over 53 million Americans receive some form of Social Security benefits.  The working and middle class have had an implicit agreement with the government that if they work for many decades that in the end there will be some sort of safety net to protect them.  Yet the system was designed at a time when people died at earlier ages and we had many more workers than we had beneficiaries.  The math now is tipping in a very unfortunate direction:

As of today, nearly 19 percent of all Americans receive some form of Social Security.  Compare this to 1970 when only 12 percent of all Americans received some form of Social Security.  The above chart is merely going to grow even faster as many more baby boomers enter into retirement.  For those in the working to middle class the prospect of a secure retirement is looking more and more remote.  It would be one thing if people had the ability to trust in Wall Street and invest into the market.  Yet Wall Street with no real reform is largely a predator casino as we have seen with flash crashes and large hedge funds making billions of dollars betting on the failure of Americans.

The original Social Security Act was signed in back in 1935.  The initial design was to help the old, widows, and children of the poor to have at least some basic safety net.  It was never designed as a long-term retirement program.  Today, over 50% of those that receive Social Security benefits in retirement use it as their primary source of income.  With Americans living longer, the strain on the system is largely taken on by the working generations.

Here is an interesting chart showing the progressive growth of the tax over the century:

Initially, the amount taken out of a typical worker’s paycheck was 1 percent.  Today it is up to 7.65 percent (not factoring in the employer’s portion).  It is also the case that SS is capped at a certain income level so the wealthy actually stop paying above a certain level (as of 2010 this level is $106,800).  Going back to a previous chart, you see that nearly $57 billion was paid out in May alone.  The demographics of the system only point to larger and larger monthly payouts:

The above chart is similar to charts in Europe although not as extreme.  But we see a shift to more and older Americans.  By default, many of these people will start drawing more and more on the already strained Social Security system.  And younger workers in our current economy are facing a much deeper impact of the current recession.  Even before the collapse of the system, the young were already losing ground:

The median net worth of Americans from 25 to 34 has consistently dropped since 1985.  There was a big drop from 2000 to 2004 and I would imagine the trend has accelerated in the current recession.  Yet how were people able to continue buying more and more?  It was all fueled by access to debt.  It was largely a debtor mirage that kept the economy going in the last decade.  In fact, the median amount Americans have saved in a retirement account (those still working) is $2,000:

Source:  BLS

The fact that the mean is $50,000 tells us we have massive income disparities in the system and it also helps to point to the fact that most stock wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few.  Another deceiving factor that was brought into the net worth equation was the net worth figure used housing values during a bubble to calculate net worth:

A giant part of net worth was pulled from housing equity that has now largely evaporated.  The fact that half of U.S. households only have $2,000 in retirement accounts tells us that many are close to a zero net worth after the housing bubble burst:

“(National Review) The macroeconomic consequences of this shift toward low-equity homeownership are visible in research from the Federal Reserve that examines the assets and liabilities of U.S. households. In the first quarter of 2001, U.S. households’ home equity stood at $7.7 trillion, or 61 percent of the value of all residential real estate. By the third quarter of 2008, it had declined to $7.6 trillion, even as outstanding mortgage debt increased by $5.6 trillion over the same period. By the first quarter of 2009, home equity was $1.35 trillion lower than it had been in 2001. Put another way: Despite the housing boom, the portion of residential real estate actually owned by households declined. This means that the increase in homeownership rates (and the subsequent rise in housing prices) was entirely debt-financed.”

In other words, say someone bought a home in 1998 for $100,000 and took out a $95,000 loan.  At purchase, they have a net worth of $5,000 (assume no other assets).  Fast forward to 2006 at the peak of the bubble and the home is now “worth” $250,000.  Seeing that they now have $155,000 in equity, they decide to pull out $75,000 pushing their total loan amount to close to $170,000.  The money is used to buy goods, take a vacation, and generally injected into the economy.  The housing bubble explodes and the home is now worth $150,000.  Yet they have $170,000 in outstanding loans.  This family went from having a $155,000 in equity (net worth) to suddenly going to a negative equity position of $20,000.  Today, one out of three U.S. homes with a mortgage is underwater.  This is why actual wealth is a better measure of financial well being than simply looking at home values especially in a bubble.

The higher unemployment for younger generations is making it harder to put more money into the Social Security money funnel. The low savings from the working generations tells us that many simply cannot save given the current economy.  Ironically, this means that many more will be dependent on government programs.  The calculus is troubling.  There are no easy answers to this.  A few of them include raising the cap to tax higher incomes or cutting benefits.  Seeing how powerful groups like the AARP are, it is doubtful benefits will be cut.

As I think back on the conversation with my neighbor that has served our country proudly in combat, how can you begrudge him?  He is living modestly, paid off his house, and let us be honest, $1,100 a month isn’t exactly Donald Trump territory.  Yet as I go out to work with millions of others, we wonder how things will be in one, two, or even three generations.  Having a paid off home and no debt actually sounds like the apex of a good retirement given our current financial predicament.

MyBudget 360

An interesting item in the Federal Register. This notice: (Link to FHA/FR)

SUMMARY: A recently issued independent actuarial study shows that the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) capital ratio has fallen below its statutorily mandated threshold.

We can pretend that that the FHA does not need a bailout, but it does. Unlike its bad siblings, Fan and Fred, there has never been a question whether Uncle Sam is on the hook with FHA. We don’t need a fancy conservatorship this time. Tim Geithner over at Treasury will just write the checks to cover the shortfalls. The good news is that those debts will not show up on the Federal balance sheet. They don’t count because there are “assets” behind these loans.

The Notice would appear to be a requirement of some sort to solicit public opinions on policy changes at FHA. The proposed changes would (supposedly) address the high default rates that the FHA is experiencing. What have they proposed to achieve this? Surprise surprise, they are going to instill some sanity into their lending program.

This kills me. I, and a hundred others, have been writing and screaming that FHA was just a ‘bailout to be’ for a few years now. This was an easy call. FHA was making 96 ½% LTV loans to borrowers with low FICO scores. They did this in a period where RE values fell by 25%. Their business plan was, “How To Take a Bath on the Tax-payer Dime”.

Don’t look for these changes to come anytime soon. I suspect that this will not evolve to a point where actual adjustments are made until after the next election. But these changes are coming. Real equity of 10% will be required for borrowers with low credit scores. There will be restrictions on seller equity, or “concessions”.

My read on the proposals is that the FHA is getting out of what I call “Silly Lending”. If they actually do take these steps it will mitigate future losses. It will also sharply restrict the availability of mortgage credit. Similar steps are being taken by F/F. The implementation will be felt this fall. By spring time mortgage land could look quite different. The D.C. lenders are 95% of the mortgage market today. There are no willing private sector lenders. If Washington steps back RE will get illiquid.

Central to our problems is the fact that for many years a social agenda and lending standards were mixed. The goal was admirable. Make mortgage credit available to all so that everyone could enjoy a leveraged bet on home appreciation. What a terrible bet the feds have financed. There are very few winners in this story. I read the following as a mea culpa. I think FHA accepts that bad lending standards have ended up hurting those they intended to aid. And along the way it hurt all of America’s homeowners.

Given FHA’s mission, allowing the continuation of practices that result in such a high proportion of families losing their homes represents a disservice to American families and communities. It is FHA’s intent to eliminate this portion of its business, and utilize other established methods to reach and support these families.

In the end the mortgage mess will cost us nearly a trillion. A very big price. For that tab we should learn a lesson. Soft lending to achieve broad social goals is a mistake. Tell that to Barney Frank. This was his dream.