Passa ai contenuti principali

BIS Drops a Bombshell: Four U.S. Mega Banks Are Core of Repo Loan Crisis


Wall Street Mega Banks Are Highly Interconnected: Stock Symbols Are as Follows: C=Citigroup; MS=Morgan Stanley; JPM=JPMorgan Chase; GS=Goldman Sachs; BAC=Bank of America; WFC=Wells Fargo.

Wall Street Mega Banks Are Highly Interconnected: Stock Symbols Are as Follows: C=Citigroup; MS=Morgan Stanley; JPM=JPMorgan Chase; GS=Goldman Sachs; BAC=Bank of America; WFC=Wells Fargo. (Source: Office of Financial Research.)

Yesterday, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) dropped a bombshell report that torpedoed the Federal Reserve's official narrative on what has caused the overnight lending market (repo loan market) on Wall Street to seize up since September 17, leading to more than $3 trillion in cumulative loans from the New York Fed as lender of last resort.

The Federal Reserve has said the repo crisis was a result of corporations draining liquidity from the system to pay their quarterly tax payments alongside a large auction of U.S. Treasury securities settling and adding to the cash drain. That excuse was clearly bogus since the Fed has provided hundreds of billions of dollars weekly into the repo market since September 17, while stating that it plans to continue this activity into next year.

The BIS report dropped the bombshell that the "US repo markets currently rely heavily on four banks as marginal lenders." Curiously, the BIS report was too timid to name the banks.

As Wall Street On Parade has regularly pointed out, there are more than 5,000 Federally-insured banks and savings associations in the U.S. but the bulk of the assets, derivatives and risk to U.S. financial stability are concentrated at just a handful of Wall Street's "universal" banks — those making high risk trading gambles while also owning federally-insured, deposit taking banks. Ranked by assets, as of June 30, 2019, those are the bank holding companies of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs Group, and Morgan Stanley. Those six Wall Street banks hold $8.9 trillion of the $18.56 trillion in assets at the 5,213 federally-insured banks and savings associations in the U.S. That's six banks holding 48 percent of the total assets of 5,213 banks.

The risks posed by a handful of banks in the derivatives market is even more concentrated. According to a quarterly report from the federal regulator of national banks, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), just five banks control 82 percent of the $280 trillion in notional (face amount) of derivatives at the 25 largest bank holding companies. Derivatives played a critical role in blowing up Wall Street banks in 2008 and resulted in the largest taxpayer and Federal Reserve bailout of any industry in U.S. history.

Despite that epic crisis, which produced the worst economic downturn in the United States since the Great Depression, Wall Street lobbyists have continued to stymie meaningful reform and have actually convinced the Trump administration to engage in weakening the inadequate regulations that Congress passed in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation.

One of the myriad ways that Dodd-Frank has been weakened was to gut the staffing and budget of the Office of Financial Research (OFR) which was created under Dodd-Frank to provide an early warning system of emerging risks to financial stability in the U.S. banking system.

OFR provided a dire warning of the risks of bank concentration in a report it issued in 2015. The OFR researchers found:

"The larger the bank, the greater the potential spillover if it defaults; the higher its leverage, the more prone it is to default under stress; and the greater its connectivity index, the greater is the share of the default that cascades onto the banking system. The product of these three factors provides an overall measure of the contagion risk that the bank poses for the financial system. Five of the U.S. banks had particularly high contagion index values — Citigroup, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs."

The OFR researchers also found in the same report that:

"A bank that has large foreign assets and large intrafinancial system liabilities is a potential source of spillover risk. If a large loss in value in foreign assets caused such an institution to fail, the losses could be transmitted to the rest of the U.S. financial system. Five banks had large foreign assets (exceeding $300 billion) and Citigroup and JPMorgan had large figures for both foreign assets and intrafinancial system liabilities…Again, the largest banks are the most interconnected and they are involved in the most cross-jurisdictional activity."

This interconnectedness of a handful of U.S. mega banks was called out earlier in a 2011 paper on the 2008 financial crisis prepared for the Money and Banking Conference in Buenos Aires by financial researcher Jane D'Arista. She wrote:

"Interconnectedness is one of the critical clusters of related causes of the crisis. It resulted from the extraordinary growth in indebtedness within the financial sector that facilitated higher leverage ratios and rising levels of speculative trading for institutions' own accounts. As the amount of short-term borrowing and lending among financial institutions expanded, markets for repurchase agreements and commercial paper became primary funding sources, forging a chain that linked the fortunes of many institutions and various financial sectors to the performance of a few of the largest and exacerbated systemic vulnerability. Increased profits and compensation masked the growing vulnerabilities in the system but the crisis outcome was inevitable given:

— the buildup of unsustainable debt for individual institutions and the system as a whole;

— systemic undercapitalization as inflated on- and off-balance sheet positions increased risk from falling prices and the potential loss of funding, and;

— the heightened potential for loss of confidence as opaque markets for funding and OTC derivatives increased uncertainty about prices, volumes of transactions and the positions of counterparties."

As proof that market stresses are growing, this morning the New York Fed offered $25 billion in a 28-day repo loan to 24 of Wall Street's trading houses (primary dealers). There was an outsized demand for that money with bids submitted for $43 billion. The New York Fed provided only its planned $25 billion in loans, meaning that $18 billion in needed liquidity went unfilled. In addition, the New York Fed provided $56.40 billion in an overnight repo loan.

The problem with all of the narratives that have surfaced thus far on the repo loan crisis is that this market historically has turned over $1 trillion daily in loans in the U.S. Since the Fed is only providing approximately $100 billion a day, clearly the biggest banks and money market funds are making loans to those counterparties that they believe are good risks. This supports the thesis from Wall Street On Parade that the biggest banks are backing away from lending to those institutions that are deemed a bad risk or are heavily interconnected to an institution deemed to be a bad risk – even for an overnight loan since the institution could file for intraday bankruptcy.

This is precisely the scenario that led to credit seizing up and banks refusing to lend to one another in 2008.

Adding to the thesis that the crisis is not improving, during questioning by the House Financial Services Committee last Thursday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said that the New York Fed was called before the Financial Stability Oversight Council (F-SOC) last week to answer questions on what has happened to the proper functioning of the repo loan market. F-SOC is made up of the heads of every major federal regulator of banks and Wall Street. It was also created under the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation to prevent another epic financial crisis like that of 2008.

Commenti

Post popolari in questo blog

Fwd: The Looming Bank Collapse The U.S. financial system could be on the cusp of calamity. This time, we might not be able to save it.

After months  of living with the coronavirus pandemic, American citizens are well aware of the toll it has taken on the economy: broken supply chains, record unemployment, failing small businesses. All of these factors are serious and could mire the United States in a deep, prolonged recession. But there's another threat to the economy, too. It lurks on the balance sheets of the big banks, and it could be cataclysmic. Imagine if, in addition to all the uncertainty surrounding the pandemic, you woke up one morning to find that the financial sector had collapsed. You may think that such a crisis is unlikely, with memories of the 2008 crash still so fresh. But banks learned few lessons from that calamity, and new laws intended to keep them from taking on too much risk have failed to do so. As a result, we could be on the precipice of another crash, one different from 2008 less in kind than in degree. This one could be worse. John Lawrence: Inside the 2008 financial crash The financial

3 Reasons Why Gold Will Outperform Equities And Bonds

3 Reasons Why Gold Will Outperform Equities And Bonds https://www.forbes.com/ 3 Reasons Why Gold Will Outperform Equities And Bonds For centuries, gold has played a major role in human history and has become interwoven into the financial fabric of society. Beyond its investment following, gold has become synonymous with wealth. Historically, gold's early use cases revolved around money – a form of "medium of exchange". After the second world war however, several countries and their respective currencies, started to shift away from the gold standard and migrated towards a fiat currency system. Today, gold remains largely a "Store of Value", and due to its unique properties and large number of use cases, it has managed to distance itself from other asset classes in terms of correlation, demand / supply drivers, and investment purpose. Gold's idiosyncrasies function as a double-edged sword, as it is challenging to predict

What Will Stocks Do When “Consensual Hallucination” Ends?

The phenomenon works – until it doesn't. What's astonishing is how long it works. There is a phenomenon in stock markets, in bond markets, in housing markets, in cryptocurrency markets, and in other markets where people attempt to get rich. It's when everyone is pulling in the same direction, energetically hyping everything, willfully swallowing any propaganda or outright falsehood, and not just nibbling on it, but swallowing it hook, line, and sinker, and strenuously avoiding exposure to any fundamental reality. For only one reason: to make more money. People do it because it works. Trading algos are written to replicate it, because it works. It works on the simple principle: If everyone believes stocks will go up, no matter what the current price or the current situation, or current fundamental data, then stocks will go up. They will go up because there is a lot of buying pressure because everyone believes that everyone believes that prices will go up, and so they bid up