new altre sette banche chiuse... certo che bel lavoro sta facendo bernacca
tutto il suo appoggio SOLO A 10 grandi banche ..lui dice troppo grandi per fallire..ma se sbaglia..sarà la guerra davvero azzoooo fangul a lui...
due domande a Rosendahl
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Regulators on Friday shut down a total of seven banks in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas and Arizona, lifting to 139 the number of U.S. banks that have fallen this year as soured loans have mounted and the economy has sputtered.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took over the banks, the largest of which by far was Hillcrest Bank, based in Overland Park, Kan., with $1.6 billion in assets.
With 139 closures nationwide so far this year, the pace of bank failures exceeds that of 2009, which was already a brisk year for shutdowns with a total of 140. By this time last year, regulators had closed 106 banks.
The pace has accelerated as banks' losses mount on loans made for commercial property and development. Many companies have shut down in the recession, vacating shopping malls and office buildings financed by the loans. That has brought delinquent loan payments and defaults by commercial developers.
The 2009 total of bank failures was the highest annual tally since 1992, at the height of the savings and loan crisis. The 2009 failures cost the insurance fund more than $30 billion. Twenty-five banks failed in 2008, the year the financial crisis struck with force; only three succumbed in 2007.
The growing bank failures have sapped billions of dollars out of the deposit insurance fund. It fell into the red last year, and its deficit stood at $15.2 billion as of June 30.
The number of banks on the FDIC's confidential "problem" list jumped to 829 in the second quarter from 775 three months earlier, even as the industry as a whole had its best quarter since 2007, making $21.6 billion in net income. Banks with more than $10 billion in assets -- only 1.3 percent of the industry -- accounted for $19.9 billion of the total earnings.
The FDIC expects the cost of resolving failed banks to total around $52 billion from 2010 through 2014.
If we continue this pace we could easily reach 160-170 closed banks for 2010 and we should continue to see the smaller banks closed as that's where the issue is currently. One has to ask though, does the FDIC have the man power to close banks at a faster rate that matches the current 829 problem banks?
While we should be closing 300-400 banks per year, I highly doubt they have that kind of man power. At the current pace, it would take 5 years to close their problem bank list. Either way, the FDIC should be busy for months and years to come.
What no one discusses though is how similar the banking issue is to real estate. If real estate were to fall in values, the number of home owners upside down would explode. In banking, if the economy or real estate took a dive, the number of loans going bad would explode and so would the FDIC's problem bank list.
Hope all is well.
J.D. Rosendahl, Rosey
Hi J.D,
I have two questions for you that maybe you would like to address in your blog.
Q. Week after week I read about corporate insider selling greatly out numbering insider buying. I am also well aware that the Federal Reserve is probably going to target higher inflation with the next round of quantitative easing. Do you think this means that corporate insiders do not expect asset inflation as a result of QE2 or is there some other explanation?
Q. Do you think it is possible that the Federal Reserve could/would buy state or municipal bonds as part of QE2? If so, what effects do you see?
Thanks!
Insider Selling: There's been a massive wave of insider selling. We have to take that as a bearish longer term view from executives. They get to see the economy from the 50 yard line from the front row while the rest of us are up in the bleachers. If I keep it simple, I don't think they see revenue growth or a growing economy or any real improvement on the Main Street economy. And that might be their best outlook.
QE2 or not, successful or not, their selling should be a longer term warning about the economic outlook. Can you imagine that many insider sellers being wrong in the long run? I can't. In this question, I'm more focused on insider selling than QE2. However, if they really thought QE of any kind was going to work, I'm quite confident they would be massive buyers of stock.
Federal Res. Buying Muni Bonds: I love this question. Let's look at the biggest issue in state deficits. The Bubble State (California) has a deficit of $19 billion, which does not include all of the local municipalities that have deficits in CA that also have muni bonds to payoff, separate of the State's bonds.
There's no way, absolutely no way the State of California and local cities and counties work out of their budget crises without defaulting on their bonds, or by getting aid from the US Gov't. There are a number of reasons the US Gov't will attempt to buy state bonds.
First:
In my 8 risks for deflation, California is one of those risks of aiding to a deflationary cycle. It's simply too big of an economy with too many people to not impact the rest of the US if it implodes in a bubble melt down. From that perspective, it would seem logical for the US Gov't to try to step into the mix to help CA on the basis of too big to fail.
Second, we have too many people in this country that do not pay taxes, so they have no equity in how the country is operated financially. So why should they care if the government is wasting tax payer money on this or that, or bailing out GM, Banks, or eventually the State of California. Our citizenry has become ignorant to the negatives of our government's monetary and fiscal policies because they do not pay taxes so why should they care if tax dollars are pissed away. The idea of buying muni bonds might not get any push back from voters, especially if it's a multiple state purchase where a concentration of the population lives (New York and CA, etc).
Lastly, we've created a trend of the US government being the everything of last resort. That's simply for political power. They're the lender of last resort, the world's cop, the health care provider of last resort, the retirement fund of last resort, and the economic stimulus of last resort. So why shouldn't we expect them to back stop the states in a last resort. A lot of people expect the government to step in when there's an issue of any kind.
It just seems to fit based on the way our government works. Oh sure, at first they will tell you it will never happen, but we've already seen them float ideas of bailing out cities or floating more money for teachers etc. We aren't that far away, are we?
Personally, I think they will try smaller ways to help states in a hope the economy bounces back and bails out all the flawed financial decisions by government at all levels. As this fails, they might get pot committed holding 7-2 off suit and do something crazy by going all in buying muni bonds.
Impact: If we get to the point of buying muni bonds on the US balance sheet my first thought was a collapse in the US dollar, but by the time we get to buying muni bonds the dollar might already have sold off. So, I think the outcome will be a collapse in global confidence in the US government and maybe our bonds. We might see foreign governments lose interest in holding US paper and this might be part of a greater movement in the bust of the bond bubble. But frankly, I'm just spit balling what might be an outcome, I think it's very difficult to gauge currently.
Caveat: If there's a reason it does not happen it's this one: As social unrest permeates this country in a deflationary cycle, we should see a massive back lash against the wealthy. We witnessed it first in bonus pay for AIG employees and trying to control bank executive pay.
As social unrest settles into the US the number of angry broke voters could overwhelm politicians. The voter might view muni bond holders as the wealthy and want them to pay for state deficits via a bond default. Politicians might have to ignore the wealthy to save their seat. One of the things they can do to save state budgets is to support the default of bonds or some version of state bankruptcy.
It's an odd thought, especially when we consider there are too many Americans who don't understand the damaging effects of monetary and fiscal policies and believe that it's the governments job to restore the economy, not a free market without government.
The public is going to have to go through a serious change in mind set before we get that angry mass voter block. If it happens, it happens at the bottom of deflation when the public is completely washed out and finally understands they've been hosed.
Hope all is well.
J.D. Rosendahl, Rosey
link banche fallite venerdì
vado a cena a domani
7 banks closed in Fla., Ga., Ill., Kan., Ariz. - Yahoo! Finance
sul vix mi mancherebbe un gap da chiudere in area 17.50 mi pare...m a potrebbero non farlo...sopra ho gap aperti fino a 80
