|
Just read leading U.S. newspapers and one see that Banker has become an unpleasant
word as banks take in taxpayers money and give nothing out. Then you have the
endless blame game ["we didn't force people to borrow money" - yes, you did
through enticing, pushy adverts and a rising property market incited greed,
which you peddled!] as Everybody loves to blame someone else as the global
banking system continues to teeter on collapse as central bankers raise the
amounts needed to save them and keep them going. So why do and did the banks
need saving? The banking system in the last 50 years has gone from a source
of loans in a cash society to the very financial artery of the economies of
the developed world. They have their hands on every single transaction everybody
makes all the time and they take a fee for doing it. Cash costs a lot to access
now and as part of our modern culture we have accepted that cash is risky and
a little Neanderthal. Take banking out of our lives now and economies just
can't function. Banks have managed to evolve into arteries and veins of our
economic life. Without them the system can't work. Maybe the solution is that
they retreat from this complete role. Until then their business culture will
continue under attack until, like veins and arteries, they allow the flow of
the lifeblood of the economy, money, to flow unrestricted. Why suddenly, are
they the modern Shylocks of our world?
The credit crunch started in the banks and they began to fail, dragging the
rest of the economy into recession and possibly worse. This is life and a feature
of the last hundred years, so what of it? It turned nasty when the Fed decided
that if they were allowed to fail then the heart of the economy would be in
danger of stopping. Along came Treasury Secretary Paulson and TARP.
TARP to make the banks lend?
TARP funds were directed at re-capitalizing the U.S. Banks in the belief that
a clean-up of their Balance Sheets would prompt them to return to lending
easily into a receding economy. But little of that has happened. A while
back [if you want this article to be sent to you, please ask for it via gold-authenticmoney@iafrica.com ],
we featured a piece on "government and banks - who rules", in which
we contended that the two would eventually clash in the current economic
environment. It may have seemed an unlikely event at the time, but we have
reached that point now. One leading banker said, "We're not going to change
our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the
public sector as they see it to have us make more loans."
But the purpose of the bailout was to precipitate lending by the banks. The
first objective of TARP bailouts clearly failed!
Banks won't lend.
An overwhelming majority saw the bailout program as a no-strings-attached windfall
that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for
the future. But Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jnr, said in October
that banks should "deploy, not hoard" the money to build confidence and increase
lending. He added: "We expect all participating banks to continue to strengthen
their efforts to help struggling homeowners who can afford their homes avoid
foreclosure." But a Congressional oversight panel reported on Jan. 9 that
it found no evidence the bailout program had been used to prevent foreclosures.
Why not? Are the banks simply taking opportunistic positions, ready to plunder
the economy of businesses failing solely because of a shortage of working
capital? Isn't their job to keep the economy going? Bankers would argue that
that is a secndary function contingent on their primary objectives being
reached - profita after prudence! In itself, this adds uncertainty to the
future.
Why aren't the banks willing to lend easily to take everybody out of recession?
The answer is that they were not designed to act as arteries and veins allowing
the unrestricted flow of money through the system, a role that they have persistently
attempted to evolve into over the last 50 years. Their first priority is to
be profitable. After all, banks are corporations and committed to making profits
as wisely as possible. Not now, we answer. Profits and prudence may well be
the guiding principles of bankers in the true capitalist fashion but they have
moved on from being simple corporations. They affect the very fabric of all
developed societies on this earth. As they have seeped into every single transaction
or payment we make they have become a vital part of the infrastructure, just
as electricity or water are in our lives. That changes things dramatically.
Particularly so, in that banks have invisibly integrated themselves into each
other through syndications, interbank lending and the like. With this role,
like our blood system comes new responsibilities and duties that bring them
closer to government. Now with the support of the government and the taxpayer
behind them they must adjust or continue to earn the Shylock title?
Banks have taxpayer's money on balance sheet.
The major U.S. banks are no longer parochial corporations, but part of a national
framework in most parts of this world, but particularly the U.S. In many
they walk hand in hand with central banks. Central Banks themselves, although
deemed independent, are also a direct influence on the economy, on consumers,
or put another way, voters/taxpayers [who are saving their bacon right now].
Hence they have, of necessity, come under the 'pale' of government [part
of the domain of government], whether they admit to it or not. No matter
how much bellowing of capitalist principles we hear, nothing will alter that,
only a shrinkage of bank's role and a return to cash transactions will change
that. After all banks have to adjust to the wide role they play in the economy
particularly now that taxpayers have invested in them without receiving the
usual equity that comes with such rescues. Taxpayers invested in them to
help them to lend and for no other reason except to keep them going. Banks
now affect every single money transaction made and have to work in synch
with the broad economy and government, now. Solely isolating prudence and
profit, as guiding principles, won't cut it any more.
They may well bleat that they don't lend because as deflation sets in, risks
rise in a deflating economy. Of course risks rise and the economy deflates
further because the banks won't lend. A typical Catch-22, but this alarms us
as the banks profit in such an environment taking assets under management to
be sold as conditions improve. After all that is business, they say. But the
taxpayer is helping them, ostensibly, so that they may well lend into the economy
to stave off deflation and turn the economy back to growth. Or is government
just being gullible? We doubt that!
Government to confront banks
No, government is now losing patience and calling on the banks to lend or else.
Governments in Europe and the United States are moving more forcefully to
assure that bailed-out banks lend more money to offset the depression that
has is about to engulf both continents. A day after officials of the incoming
Obama administration promised to take steps to force banks to lend, Britain
outlined details of a new £100 billion, or $147.5 billion, plan to
limit banks' losses from troubled assets in exchange for their pledge to
increase the flow of credit. This will be legally binding, the British prime
minister said. In France the 'or else' is described by none less than President
Sarkozy who has said the banks must lend or be seized. The French have a
new plan that would require banks receiving new capital injections to make "precise
commitments," including giving up bonuses this year. Denmark announced an
$18 billion aid plan for its banks, saying it would inject the funds on the
condition that the recipients increase lending. Last week, the Irish government
nationalized the Anglo Irish Bank, rendering equity stakes worthless.
Even private equity groups a source of huge amounts of capital to the economy
are now seeking ways to by-pass the banks and go direct to clients for capital
and for its distribution. Is this the beginning of the move away from banks?
Unless banks make some fundamentals adjustments to their underlying business
cultures they will diminish in importance.
Gold better than banks?
In the changing U.S. and developed world banking role banks are now being deemed
to have an economic role fused with that of government, whether they like
it or not. Bankers will claim that political interference into the banking
industry will be the biggest risk facing them. Bankers can continue to restrain
capital flows based on risk measurement and refuse to accept that they also
have to serve the economic good of the nations, but this will be self-destructive.
This is a major departure from capitalist and U.S. cultural principles in
the banking industry, never to be seen again. They can choose to tow the
line or be steamrollered by government in the days to come. The transition
to their new role will be accompanied by doubts and fears that make markets
dependent on the free flow of money through the system, subject to the volatility
that comes with fear and uncertainty.
With such a jolt to monetary confidence, it is now a matter of prudence as
well as profit to be well invested in gold and silver as insurance against
what has been shown to be a faulty system. Certainly until the risks of another
major credit crunch passes, expect the precious metals to reclaim their position
in portfolios.
Gold Forecaster regularly covers all fundamental and Technical
aspects of the gold price in the weekly newsletter. To subscribe, please visit www.GoldForecaster.com.
|
Julian D. W. Phillips
Gold-Authentic Money
"Global
Watch: The Gold Forecaster" covers the global gold market. It specializes
in Central Bank Sales and details, the Indian Bullion market [supported by
a leading Indian Bullion professional], the South African markets [+ Gold
shares shares] plus the currencies of gold producers [ Euro, U.S. $, Yen,
C$, A$, and the South African Rand]. Its aim is to synthesise all the influential
gold price factors across the globe, so as to truly understand the global
reasons behind the gold price. FIND
OUT MORE
Legal Notice / Disclaimer
This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the
solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment. Gold-Authentic
Money / Julian D. W. Phillips, have based this document on information obtained
from sources it believes to be reliable but which it has not independently
verified; Gold-Authentic Money / Julian D. W. Phillips make no guarantee,
representation or warranty and accepts no responsibility or liability as
to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of Gold-Authentic
Money / Julian D. W. Phillips only and are subject to change without notice.
Gold-Authentic Money / Julian D. W. Phillips assume no
warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance, correctness or
completeness of any information provided within this Report and will not be
held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained
herein or any omission. Furthermore, we assume no liability for any direct
or indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit which you may
incur as a result of the use and existence of the information provided within
this Report.
You should be aware that the Internet is not a completely
reliable transmission medium. Neither Gold-Authentic Money / Julian D.W. Phillips
nor any of our associates accept any liability for any loss or damage, including
without limitation loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from
your inability to access the website for any reason or for any delay in or
failure of the transmission or the receipt of any instructions or notification
sent through this website. The content of this website is the property of Gold-Authentic
Money or its licensors and is protected by copyright and other intellectual
property laws. You agree not to reproduce, re-transmit or distribute the contents
herein.
Copyright © 2003-2010 Julian D. W.
Phillips
Image rendition and html coding Copyright © 2000-2010
SafeHaven.com
ADVERTISEMENTS
« Opinions expressed at SafeHaven are those of the
individual authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of SafeHaven
or its management. Articles are available via RSS/XML. Please
visit RSSHelp for instructions. »
|