Banks to bail out the regulator?

posted at 10:55 am on September 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

If Americans have had enough of government bailouts of banks, maybe they’ll like the latest twist on the financial collapse — but they shouldn’t.  The New York Times reports that banks may have to bail out the FDIC instead of the other way around, thanks to a cash shortage in the deposit guarantor’s insurance fund.  That would certainly put the FDIC in an awkward position to enforce its own regulations:

Tired of the government bailing out banks? Get ready for this: officials may soon ask banks to bail out the government.

Senior regulators say they are seriously considering a plan to have the nation’s healthy banks lend billions of dollars to rescue the insurance fund that protects bank depositors. That would enable the fund, which is rapidly running out of money because of a wave of bank failures, to continue to rescue the sickest banks.

The plan, strongly supported by bankers and their lobbyists, would be a major reversal of fortune.

A hallmark of the financial crisis has been the decision by successive administrations over the last year to lend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to large and small banks.

“It’s a nice irony,” said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, a consulting company. “Like so much of this crisis, this is an issue that involves the least worst options.”

That is open to debate.  The driving principle of this decision comes from a mutual antagonism between FDIC chair Shiela Bair and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.  The Treasury Department has already set up a $100 billion credit line for the FDIC to use if the agency finds itself in need, and Bair doesn’t need to get Geithner’s permission to access it.

However, for some reason, Bair would rather borrow the money from banks she has to regulate at the same time.  While the law allows for that, it sets up at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.  It also puts the government in the position of issuing bonds to float its own insurance agency that should run on dues and fees, bonds which will have to be paid back at some point, with interest.  It seems as though this decision will get made on the basis of personal animosity rather than rational thought, as this quote indicates:

“Sheila Bair would take bamboo shoots under her nails before going to Tim Geithner and the Treasury for help,” said Camden R. Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers. “She’d do just about anything before going there.”

And of course, the biggest part of the story is the fact that the FDIC has to get a bailout in the first place.  Like the FHA, it appears that the front line of the two administrations over the past year has been underresourced and the problems underestimated.  Having the regulated bail out the regulators appears likely to make those problems worse in the long run.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“So, the plan is to take the bailing bucket, scoop up water from this lifeboat, and pour it into that other lifeboat.”

Vashta.Nerada on September 22, 2009 at 10:58 AM

What could go worng?

trigon on September 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Like the FHA, it appears that the front line of the two administrations over the past year has been underresourced and the problems underestimated.

Look on the bright side. Only one in four FHA mortgages is either behind on payments or in foreclosure.

Vashta.Nerada on September 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Let’s have ourselves a few good old fashioned bank runs.

BowHuntingTexas on September 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Another five spiral crash.

pugwriter on September 22, 2009 at 11:01 AM

“Sheila Bair would take bamboo shoots under her nails before going to Tim Geithner and the Treasury for help,” said Camden R. Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers. “She’d do just about anything before going there.”

In any SANE time this would be an immediate red flag to every journalist as to why the industry does NOT trust the US Treasury and would start questions flying.

The Financial Industry is doing what they should have done last year and is protecting/healing itself and that’s a good thing, but the reasoning shows that the FI sees that there’s something really BAD going on with this Administration.

But in Obama’s Zombieland, journalists would rather investigate why Fox news is harassing their benevolent leader…

Skywise on September 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM

You’re stranded on a desert island with no food.
No problem!
Just eat your own arms.
What could go wrong?

VelvetElvis on September 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM

If I operated a organization the same way, I’d be doing time.

jbh45 on September 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Obama, Obama, Obama…what hast thou wrought upon our great land…you are like a hungry locust, devouring all that is good.

right2bright on September 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM

“Sheila Bair would take bamboo shoots under her nails before going to Tim Geithner and the Treasury for help,”

Yet we are the teenagers.

sammypants on September 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Just eat your own arms.
What could go wrong?

VelvetElvis on September 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM

So you say off-handily…

right2bright on September 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Who’d have thought that having the government issue guarantees to cover losses might go wrong?

Tonus on September 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM

FDIC borrows the money that they are supposed to be protecting in order to protect the money that they just borrowed? (HT Optimal from the Ticker Forum).

Iceberg indeed.

flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

All of this money shuffling will have to stop some time. That’s what we need to be afraid of because once the shuffling stops, the whole scheme will be exposed and our country is done.

MobileVideoEngineer on September 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Like the FHA, it appears that the front line of the two administrations over the past year has been underresourced and the problems underestimated.

Gee what a shame Congress didn’t pass some sort of massively expensive targeted recovery programs to prevent such situations.

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

The one thing to note here is that this “loan” is not for the benefit of the FDIC, it’s for the benefit of the banking system as a whole. It’s in the banks own best interest to make sure that the insurance fund remains solvent, if only to assure their own clients about the general stability of the US banking system.

It is off-putting (to put it mildly) that Bair might allow her animosity towards the Treasury Department to influence policy. One thing that I dislike about financial regulators (and I used to be one) is that they are so intent on protecting their franchise, even to the detriment of the greater good. It’s civil service at its worst.

furytrader on September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

“Sheila Bair would take bamboo shoots under her nails before going to Tim Geithner and the Treasury for help,” said Camden R. Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers. “She’d do just about anything before going there.”

Maybe Bair knows that if she gives Geithner/White House (does anyone think Geithner runs his own show?) a toe hold into the FDIC they will take the opportunity to seize the banks.

Bair has a positive rep on Wall Street, I don’t think she’s totally drinking the kool aid.

Stephanie on September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

I don’t get it: why don’t the strong banks just buy the weak banks and cut the government out of the picture?

There’s something rotten in Denmark…

Cheers,
Liberty Card

Liberty Card on September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

That’s what we need to be afraid of because once the shuffling stops, the whole scheme will be exposed and our country is done.

MobileVideoEngineer on September 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Like musical chairs. When the music stops, somebody’s sacred cow is going to be out of luck.

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Why should this be considered a loan?

We gave billions and billions to the banks to prop them up.

Just reclaim what we require from our own TARP cash given to them and fund the FDIC as needed.

Smoke and mirrors by the banks and the government with fiat currency.

AKA fiscal insanity.

profitsbeard on September 22, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Maybe Bair knows that if she gives Geithner/White House (does anyone think Geithner runs his own show?) a toe hold into the FDIC they will take the opportunity to seize the banks.

Bair has a positive rep on Wall Street, I don’t think she’s totally drinking the kool aid.

Stephanie on September 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

That’s probably part of it. Another part could be that those loan guarantees haven’t been tranched yet, and the bond issues are getting harder to sell to China, et al.

Vashta.Nerada on September 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

What could go worng?

trigon on September 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM

I don’t know, but I have a feeling we’re going to find out soon.

So, where’s a safe place to put money? The bank? Public bonds? Private bonds? Stocks? I’m not liking the options.

forest on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

we are in the very best of hands.

psv on September 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I smell some old Limburger cheese in the room somewhere…

PatriotRider on September 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Does this mean that the banks will control government workers pay? Did I get that right?

javamartini on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Gets complicated. The banks can use bailout money from taxpayers to insure those same taxpayers’ bank funds from bank mismanagement, while the government serves as middleman and takes a finders fee in the form of FDIC operating costs, while trying to regulate the lenders. Now lets talk about a single payer public option health care system with no viable funding mechanism. Ah, yes.

a capella on September 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Senior regulators say they are seriously considering a plan to have the nation’s healthy banks lend billions of dollars to rescue the insurance fund that protects bank depositors.

Well, this settles everything I feared about the health insurance reform currently being legislated. I’m sending a check to the government today to help pay for my health insurance needs—because I’m soooooo financially healthy.

(sidenote: if these “healthy banks” lend money to the government, do they get a free AMERICAN FLAG to fly at their locations so we know they are doing their patriotic duty?)

Rovin on September 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM

The plan, strongly supported by bankers and their lobbyists, would be a major reversal of fortune.

That part scares me the most.

WashJeff on September 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

It probably is personal. Geithner went on a profanity laced tirade at Bair in a meeting with her Mary Shapiro and a few other financial regulators a few months ago. Everyone at the meeting was shocked at Geithner’s tone and his f-bombs. It was just totally out of place. Geithner doesn’t have a clue. He has no core integrity or leadership abilities. He’s just a mediocre bureaucrat that has risen via the Peter Principle. Now he’s supposed to be in charge. He sits in on these White House meetings and watches Rahm Emanuel screaming and dropping f-bombs on a speaker phone so he copies Rahm’s style. That style might work when you are dealing with UAW or SEIU, but it won’t work with Sheila Bair. Geithner is an embarrassment. Time for a change.

Ted Torgerson on September 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

I agree to this plan ONLY if ACORN is in charge of funding oversight…

Scary…

“DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!”

Khun Joe on September 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

So, where’s a safe place to put money? The bank? Public bonds? Private bonds? Stocks? I’m not liking the options.

forest on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

I’ve been asking the same question since the issue came up. Cash isn’t the answer with the hyperinflation I’m anticipating.

a capella on September 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Our government is being run by Milo from Joseph Heller’s novel Catch-22.

shick on September 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

I’m not seeing a lot wrong with this. Yes the money will have to be paid back with interest, but as Ed pointed out said money comes from dues and fees. I would rather that than have them borrow from the Treasury which would have to be paid back through taxes and/or inflation.

That’s my $2B (formerly two cents)

Onus on September 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Iceberg ahead

We’re surrounded by icebergs.

steveegg on September 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM

it’s bush’s fault.

SHARPTOOTH on September 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM

javamartini on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Great comment. Nice fantasy.

promachus on September 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM

So, where’s a safe place to put money? The bank? Public bonds? Private bonds? Stocks? I’m not liking the options.

forest on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

How about an ACORN approved tin buried in the backyard?

highhopes on September 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Great bunch of comments everyone. You all seem so down. I suggest you all start drinking the Kool-Aid and just hope in the change.

shick on September 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM

So, where’s a safe place to put money? The bank? Public bonds? Private bonds? Stocks? I’m not liking the options.

forest on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

In a tin container, buried in your back yard, where only you know where it’s at.

Brat4life on September 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

There’s a hidden danger in this scheme – I’m not quite sure what it is, but I *think* it has to with the conflict of interest that will naturally arise when the regulator is financially dependent on the largesse of the regulated.

Asking for more fees will give banks a hit on earnings and retained capital. Why would banks be in favor of this? Maybe, just maybe, they have reason to think that from now on the FDIC will be much more “understanding” on any enforcement issues, and may also relax capital standards in order to “make up” for the new fees.

Anytime the Umpire starts taking payoffs from the players you gotta worry about the integrity of the game. Especially when the players are so happy about it.

WWS on September 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Forgot to add, I don’t know why we are all worried, the adults are in charge and the recession is over. We should all be dancing in the streets Zero has saved us.
/sar

Brat4life on September 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Anytime the Umpire starts taking payoffs from the players you gotta worry about the integrity of the game. Especially when the players are so happy about it.

WWS on September 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I see your point, but which is worse, Bair getting funds from the banks, or from Tax Cheat Timmy?

Vashta.Nerada on September 22, 2009 at 11:30 AM

WashJeff on September 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Nah, it’s just a way to get sick banks’ assets as cheaply as possible, without having to pay a “special assessment” to the fund. That’s what the banks are trying to avoid.

And frankly, I don’t know where we get this idea that Sheila Bair hates Geithner. Isn’t it more likely that the FDIC doesn’t want a bad political reaction to borrowing from Treasury? Which, in turn, would cause a (however slight) bad financial situation (in the form of a run on certain banks)?

BradSchwartze on September 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM

javamartini on September 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM

LOL! I move for pay caps!

batter on September 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Banks bail them out.
Fed bails them out.

What’s the diff these days?

genso on September 22, 2009 at 11:33 AM

According to Calculated Risk’s Problem Bank List, There are approximately 436 troubled banks with a total of $294 billon in assets.

Currently the FDIC has less than $10 billion in its reserve fund.

With or without Treasury’s lifeline, the FDIC looks to be in big trouble.

Mike Honcho on September 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM

There’s a hidden danger in this scheme – I’m not quite sure what it is, but I *think* it has to with the conflict of interest that will naturally arise when the regulator is financially dependent on the largesse of the regulated.WWS on September 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

BINGO!

Kinda like a fox guarding the hen house.

Rovin on September 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Ah yes, How could I forget the “tin in the back yard under some grass” option for my money? Thanks guys.

forest on September 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM

“We need some money.”

“Huh. We were going to ask you for some.”

Akzed on September 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM

“…The Treasury Department has already set up a $100 billion credit line for the FDIC to use if the agency finds itself in need, and Bair doesn’t need to get Geithner’s permission to access it…However, for some reason, Bair would rather borrow the money from banks she has to regulate at the same time…”

Why not,borrow money from the banks?

The FDIC is nothing more than a slush fund by the banks for the banks.
I’m always been for “turnabout is fair play”. Why shouldn’t Paul be willing to pay Peter?

What’s not to like here?
Poetic justice served.

Much better than the Treasury [taxpayers] footing the bill; for the outrageous excesses, of bank management, malfeasance.

Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I’m not seeing a lot wrong with this.
Onus on September 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Responsible bankers see a lot wrong with this. They don’t want to be forced to pay for the mistakes of the big boys. In a capitalist system the cream should rise to the top and those who made bad bets should take their lumps. The profitable banks should be allowed to grow and become the new big banks. Instead, we’re going to buttress the idiots on the backs of the prudent. Socialist hell!

flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM

There is a hell of a soap opera going on right now within the financial services industry and its regulators. Sheila Bair has done a wonderful job at FDIC but is now showing signs of megalomania. She think she is untouchable now. However, my sources tell me that Geithner hates HER, not the other way around. Geithner is very thin-skinned and jealous, and I know Bair is not. If she did go to the Treasury credit line, Geithner would make it very tough for her with negative media leaks etc.

It is really important to keep the FDIC fund solvent, no matter what the method. I personally prefer loans from the big banks to dipping into the Treasury. The FDIC can’t increase ts assessments on the broader population of banks that are barely staying in business. It’s in the interest of the big banks to keep the entire fund solvent and not cause a public panic and run on all banks, which would obviously hurt them the most.

rockmom on September 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM

So do most conservatives like the FDIC, I wonder? It’s hard to rebut the argument that it encourages risky behavior by banks by guaranteeing their depositors their money. Without the FDIC, banks that behaved badly would simply lose their depositors and go out of business. With the FDIC, I can put my money in basically any bank and be guaranteed to get it back.

kc8ukw on September 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM

BradSchwartze on September 22, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Nah, it’s just a way to get sick banks’ assets as cheaply as possible, without having to pay a “special assessment” to the fund. That’s what the banks are trying to avoid.

I agree this is what will happen. The FDIC will repay banks by giving them the assets of failed banks. Private business and government working this closely together never sits well with me.

WashJeff on September 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM

According to Calculated Risk’s Problem Bank List, There are approximately 436 troubled banks with a total of $294 billon in assets.

Currently the FDIC has less than $10 billion in its reserve fund.

With or without Treasury’s lifeline, the FDIC looks to be in big trouble.

Mike Honcho on September 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM

The FDIC is arranging buyouts of most of those troubled banks, without huge payouts from the deposit insurance fund. But there are the occasional outright failures.

rockmom on September 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM

So do most conservatives like the FDIC, I wonder?

kc8ukw on September 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Why can’t the banks form their own insurance company or an insurance company provide the service?

WashJeff on September 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM

What, government agencies teetering on insolvency due to Democrat intransigence and myopia? Never…

spmat on September 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM

flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Where’ve you been angler?
The FDIC has always been about good managers bailing out bad managers to maintain public confidence in the entire, banking system. So that, both you and I will continue to faithfully deposit our money.

Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM

And the fed will fire up the presses.

davidk on September 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM

So do most conservatives like the FDIC, I wonder? It’s hard to rebut the argument that it encourages risky behavior by banks by guaranteeing their depositors their money. Without the FDIC, banks that behaved badly would simply lose their depositors and go out of business. With the FDIC, I can put my money in basically any bank and be guaranteed to get it back.

kc8ukw on September 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Deposit insurance may have been the single most important reform of the New Deal. Before then, panics and massive bank runs happened fairly regularly in the U.S. Imagine a nationwide bank run in a $4 trillion economy. Imagine millions of little old ladies losing their life savings because they couldn’t get to the bank before it ran out of money and closed.

And deposit insurance has been entirely paid for by the banks. It protects them as well as their customers, and the assessments are pretty minimal. I’ve worked in banking circles for over 25 years and I’ve never heard a real complaint about the FDIC.

There are some good arguments that extending deposit insurance from $100,000 to $200,000 last year was not a good idea. Nobody is going to end up on welfare if they lose that extra $100,000 in a bank failure. On the other hand, if you own a small business that $100,000 may have been your payroll.

rockmom on September 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Bank loans FDIC $x. Payments on $x loan exceed premiums bank pays FDIC for insurance= banks get paid for insuring themselves. Sweet.

shaken on September 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM

So do most conservatives like the FDIC, I wonder?

kc8ukw on September 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I would prefer a private, voluntary system. Then customers could choose the insured bank, or the uninsured bank (which would have correspondingly higher interest rates) The fact that the FDIC guarantees bank deposits with future tax revenues in addition to fees is what is troubling. We see now what happens when all of the various ‘guarantees’ come due at the same time.

Vashta.Nerada on September 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM

These guys make Madoff look like a piker.

jharada on September 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM

So, where’s a safe place to put money? The bank? Public bonds? Private bonds? Stocks? I’m not liking the options.
forest on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Hey, that’s the question everybody’s asking, anybody have a good answer?

Chainsaw56 on September 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM

It’s almost as if Obama is trying to destroy the state of our currency so that we will be agreeable to adopt a one world currency.

Buddahpundit on September 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM

flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM

My point was specifically about where the money for this is coming from. And with the banks having a vested interest in ensuring that their customers feel like their deposits are insured, it only makes sense that they would be willing to pony up the cash.

I happen to agree with you that bad decisions shouldn’t be rewarded and that the FDIC shouldn’t be in the business of bailing out banks. If a bank is run poorly and fails that’s OK by me, but the FDIC was setup to insure depositors. Those folks should be able to get their money back.

Onus on September 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Geezer, that sounds nice…on paper. And in the old days it worked that way. But do you understand the rape and pillage (I like to call it fraud)engaged in by the big banks (with Congresional help)? I audited banks when I was a CPA with the Big Eight. And I have represented many banks as an attorney. I’ve deal with FDIC for years. I blame CONgress and the regulators, the NY FED in particular (Geither), for failing the American people. The looting operation that has gone on is absolutely staggering. I don’t believe small local banks (or their depositors in the form of fees) should bear the burden.

But you know, the specifics of this plan don’t matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. The truth is our banking system cannot be propped up forever. The losses on the toxic assets eventually have to be taken by someone. And there is no palatable solution. Right now everyone is playing kick-the-can.

flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Until all of the banks mark their junk to market, nobody knows what is a sick bank and what is a healthy bank. At this point, I assume there are no healthy banks until evidence otherwise is presented. I think we will find that that they are all in serious trouble, and that is why the obscurity.

To suggest that ‘healthy banks’ loan to the FDIC is to prssume that there are healthy banks, and I question that presumption.

shaken on September 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM

FDIC borrows the money that they are supposed to be protecting in order to protect the money that they just borrowed? (HT Optimal from the Ticker Forum).

Iceberg indeed.

flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

It’s the Ponzi/Madoff process.

the_nile on September 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Okay, this…..is…..insane. They’re all insane.

gocatholic on September 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM

But you know, the specifics of this plan don’t matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. The truth is our banking system cannot be propped up forever. The losses on the toxic assets eventually have to be taken by someone. And there is no palatable solution. Right now everyone is playing kick-the-can.

flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Whatever happened to the idea of forming the “dummy” corporation to basically buy up all the junk and take the hit that TARP was originally supposed to do?

Skywise on September 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM

The music is about to stop, and there’s one huge-ass tack on the only remaining chair.

TheMightyMonarch on September 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM

It’s almost as if Obama is trying to destroy the state of our currency our economy so that we will be agreeable to adopt a one world currency facism.

FIFY.

TheMightyMonarch on September 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Skywise, Paulson scrapped that before the TARP check was cut. And from what I’ve read $700 billion wouldn’t come close to filling that hole.

flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Why all the long faces? We had the same problem in my country. We solved it by printing gajillions of dollars. And now all our banks are fine. Trust me, it will work out just fine for you all.
– Pres. Mugabe

angryed on September 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Mike Honcho on September 22, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Don’t presume all those banks on the “Problem Bank List” are going to fail. A lot of those actions appear to date back more than 2 YEARS, and appear to be restricted to things such as:

1. No CRE/C&D loaning without enough capital.
2. Please change your management so that you don’t have so many family members or cronies.

BradSchwartze on September 22, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Two words: Bank Holiday.

singer on September 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM

So, where’s a safe place to put money? The bank? Public bonds? Private bonds? Stocks? I’m not liking the options.
forest on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Depends on who you talk to. Hyperinflationists tend to go for gold and other precious metals. My big argument against that is that hyperinflation hurts the banks, and the banks own Congress and the Fed, so no way that’s happening.

If you’re in the deflationary depression camp like those at zerohedge and Market Ticker, you’ll want to get out of debt ASAP, liquidate into cash (preferably parked in a relatively safe local bank), and be prepared to get that out in a hurry when TSHTF. Guns, ammo, and non-perishables wouldn’t hurt, either.

As for T-Bills and other government debt, I can’t see being long on any of it. The more they issue the more upward pressure is put on interest yields. If that happens I’m starting to worry about a partial or total default of government debt, in which case your bonds aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

The stock market is no longer a place for investors. If you’re a trader and you’re quick, you can do well for now. If you’re a retail investor, I’d get the hell out, as current stock prices and movement have zero basis in any kind of market fundamentals, or reality for that matter. I made a nice bump off the recent rally but got most of it out a couple of months ago. I missed out a bit on the current bump but I can stand missing out on it if it means dodging the incoming devaulation entirely.

Personally, I’m holding a bit of physical gold and silver…not so much as a hyperinflation hedge but as barterable currency. I’ve also paid off my credit cards and starting to hoard a bit of cash. Some parked in my credit union, some parked in a gun safe right next to my Rem 870 and plenty of shells. Oh, and about six months to a year of non-perishable food and other goods.

TheMightyMonarch on September 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM

I’m so sick of the daily stupidity. These idiots aren’t going to be satisfied until they push us in a full blown depression. Yup, keep screwing with our financial institutions, that always brings confidence during a recession.

Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM

So, where’s a safe place to put money? The bank? Public bonds? Private bonds? Stocks? I’m not liking the options.
forest on September 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

The ACORN lady told you. Put it in a tin and bury it in the back yard and put grass over it.

Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM

“So, the plan is to take the bailing bucket, scoop up water from this lifeboat, and pour it into that other lifeboat.”

Vashta.Nerada on September 22, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Pretty much.

I’m putting out an ad:

***Wanted***
A good home to wait the coming apocalypse out of. Preferably a conservative household who has stored food, guns, and gold.

Hobbyist welder who’s good with electronics, woodworking, and gardening/farming. Excellent shot. Will pay in food, work, and gold.

Chaz706 on September 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Personally, I’m holding a bit of physical gold and silver…not so much as a hyperinflation hedge but as barterable currency. I’ve also paid off my credit cards and starting to hoard a bit of cash. Some parked in my credit union, some parked in a gun safe right next to my Rem 870 and plenty of shells. Oh, and about six months to a year of non-perishable food and other goods.
TheMightyMonarch on September 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Hmm.. aside from the physical gold and silver, that sounds like me. But the plan is to acquire those as well.

Chainsaw56 on September 22, 2009 at 12:29 PM

I’m putting out an ad:

***Wanted***
A good home to wait the coming apocalypse out of. Preferably a conservative household who has stored food, guns, and gold.

Hobbyist welder who’s good with electronics, woodworking, and gardening/farming. Excellent shot. Will pay in food, work, and gold.

Chaz706 on September 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I think we can fit you in.We have almost 500 acres, mostly dense woods and enough firepower to hold off for a while.

Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Personally, I’m holding a bit of physical gold and silver…not so much as a hyperinflation hedge but as barterable currency. I’ve also paid off my credit cards and starting to hoard a bit of cash. Some parked in my credit union, some parked in a gun safe right next to my Rem 870 and plenty of shells. Oh, and about six months to a year of non-perishable food and other goods.
TheMightyMonarch on September 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM

The food’s a good idea, though I recommend a years worth at minimum. They always teased us mormon’s for stocking a year’s worth of food (which we do now, and have since the 30′s). It’s was always a good idea to me, but it’s starting to make a lot more sense now.

If I were you, I’d add a good rifle to that mix, but considering the ammo shortages, it may be too late already.

I’d also get a truck, and keep plenty of gas in it. At some point, staying home, even with all the supplies, might become a bad idea. Be prepared to bug out if the crap hits the fan and comes on thick.

Chaz706 on September 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I think we can fit you in.We have almost 500 acres, mostly dense woods and enough firepower to hold off for a while.

Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Seriously? When the crap really does hit the fan, I might just take you up on that. I’d sleep in a tent if I had to.

Chaz706 on September 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM

With MightyMonarch speaking about Karl (MarketTicker), he did a nice ticker on this very subject. It so badly reeks of fraud, it’s quite sickening.

SkinnerVic on September 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Seriously? When the crap really does hit the fan, I might just take you up on that. I’d sleep in a tent if I had to.

Chaz706 on September 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM

One problem, repopulating the area after the war. Skip the women in the area unless you want single digit IQs and butt ugly kids.

Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM

The music is about to stop, and there’s one huge-ass tack on the only remaining chair.

TheMightyMonarch on September 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM

LOL!

Chaz706 on September 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Another reason to love ALison’s Pantry! LOL!
My distributor didn’t know I was LDS & made a comment on how it was so wierd Mormons stockpile a year’s worth of resources.
I’m betting she’s rethinking that idea.
As far as the gas in the pick-up goes: I’ve got my horses & I think I’m really going to be needing them soon what with Cap & Trade coming & the EPA’s regulation of dust as a pollutant (only gravel roads around here for the most part).
As far as banks go: we do most of our banking through our small town bank & though the interest rates are a little higher than the big ones, they will give us a loan or extend our operating loans when the others won’t.
Our bank relies upon us to be successful & they KNOW us.
Our reputation is what matters to them, not our credit rating.

Badger40 on September 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Come on. Genetic studies show you are no more likely to have retarder or ugly kids by inbreeding.
You’ll only get that if you each have rare traits to pass on & that can happen in racial populations, not just familial ones.
But the real question is:
what are your traits? LOL!

Badger40 on September 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM

I’d also get a truck, and keep plenty of gas in it. At some point, staying home, even with all the supplies, might become a bad idea. Be prepared to bug out if the crap hits the fan and comes on thick.

Got ya covered, I’ve had an ’01 Chevy Silverado for a few years now and always make sure to have a full tank. If the SHTF I pack up my wife, my father-in-law, the dog, and as much goods as possible and high-tail it to the parents’ ranch 90 minutes away.

TheMightyMonarch on September 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM

One problem, repopulating the area after the war. Skip the women in the area unless you want single digit IQs and butt ugly kids.

Jeff from WI on September 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM

I hope to be married by that point…

…but that might dissuade me from coming.

As far as the gas in the pick-up goes: I’ve got my horses & I think I’m really going to be needing them soon what with Cap & Trade coming & the EPA’s regulation of dust as a pollutant (only gravel roads around here for the most part).

Badger40 on September 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Horses? Not a bad idea. Just make sure they have shoes, or they won’t last long.

And on your question concerning Genetic Traits: I’m Half Korean. Not afraid of hard work or study. Better than average at math, but my dad’s genes kinda make me scatterbrained at times, hence the dabbling in gardening and welding.

I’m pretty sure my ‘gun nut’ trait came when my dad worked at Winchester. You usually acquire that after being surrounded by bullets (no seriously! He had a discount on ammo!).

Chaz706 on September 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM

“…I blame CONgress and the regulators, the NY FED in particular (Geither), for failing the American people.” flyfisher on September 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Interesting, I might have ventured that the complacency, laisser-faire attitude and yes, perhaps even dereliction of duty may have actually begun, during Hank Paulson’s tenure at Goldman Sachs [1994-98].

“…In 2004, at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses—including Goldman Sachs, then headed by Paulson—the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission agreed unanimously to release the major investment houses from the net capital rule, the requirement that their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and risk exposure.”

“…Creating the collateralized debt obligation (CDO’s) forming the basis of the current crisis was an active part of Goldman Sach’s business during Paulson’s tenure as CEO.”

During Mr. Paulson’s later stint [2006-09] as Geither’s counterpart in the Bush administration…

“… Paulson told bankers that they would be forced to accept government bailout money, whether they wanted it or not. One of the documents, a talking points memo, gave bankers the ultimatum: “If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance.”

All water under the bridge, right?
This is Obama’s and Geither’s baby now…!

Geezer on September 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Can’t wait for MSNBC’s economic advisers to explain this one!

bluegrass on September 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I can see alot of people here aren’t in the financial industry…

What most people don’t know is that banks have been funding this insurance since the beginning and one way or another, the banks will continue to fund it. What Ms. Blair is trying to do (and why it actually has bank and lobbiest approval) is to prevent some of the borderline banks from failing, thus adding more need for more funds. She is trying to stop the insanity and because the FDIC would rather fund this from the banks (as they have always done) she is avoiding the treasury.

Most people here probably missed the special assessment that came up around March (and is payable at the end of September) also had the authority to raise a special assessment for the 3rd and 4th quarters as well. The going rate for the first assessment was 5% of assets – tangible equity and for even smaller banks was a huge expense. 2 more of those and they will force more banks out, which will cause an even bigger drag on the system.

Next, you have the fact that for MOST banks, the FDIC is not a primary regulator, in fact, the only banks that the FDIC is a primary is State Chartered banks, the largest banks, which are the ones more likely to fund this, are all OCC banks and thus the OCC is their primary regulator, so the conflicts would be minimal, especially since the FDIC has depended upon the banks from day one for the insurance fund, so this shouldn’t create any more of a conflict than already existed. Even in the case where the FDIC is the primary, they are not the only regulator as any state chartered bank is also regulated at a state level, thus any ‘issues of conflict’ can be found on the back side exams.

In short, I really don’t see the issue with this, it is just a different way to obtain the fund needed to keep the insurance level up where it needs to be and give them more time to broker the deals to get the toxic banks out of the system.

TKSnider on September 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Personally, I’m holding a bit of physical gold and silver…not so much as a hyperinflation hedge but as barterable currency. I’ve also paid off my credit cards and starting to hoard a bit of cash. Some parked in my credit union, some parked in a gun safe right next to my Rem 870 and plenty of shells. Oh, and about six months to a year of non-perishable food and other goods.
TheMightyMonarch on September 22, 2009 at 12:21 PM

The food’s a good idea, though I recommend a years worth at minimum. They always teased us Mormon’s for stocking a year’s worth of food (which we do now, and have since the 30’s). It’s was always a good idea to me, but it’s starting to make a lot more sense now.
If I were you, I’d add a good rifle to that mix, but considering the ammo shortages, it may be too late already.
I’d also get a truck, and keep plenty of gas in it. At some point, staying home, even with all the supplies, might become a bad idea. Be prepared to bug out if the crap hits the fan and comes on thick.
Chaz706 on September 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

The AR-15 Supply is starting to come back after the shortages of last spring. It might behoove everyone to stock up.
And note that there is nothing that says you have to keep all your guns in one place. Several locations can be very amenable to different types of emergencies.

Zam88 on September 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM

The plan, strongly supported by bankers and their lobbyists, would be a major reversal of fortune.
—————————————————–
That part scares me the most.

WashJeff on September 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Me too. And also, why doesn’t Bair want to go to the FED for money? Is it personel, or is there some other thing we should all know about?

BadgerHawk on September 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Or ‘personal’. Whatever.

BadgerHawk on September 22, 2009 at 1:38 PM

BadgerHawk,

I think in some cases she feels that the government probably already has too big a hand on it, if she were to take money from them, they would likely declare they have an open course to control the regulations for banks as well.

I believe there are some severe personal and ideological cracks that are beginning to show, this may be one of them.

TKSnider on September 22, 2009 at 1:47 PM

TKSnider on September 22, 2009 at 1:47 PM

There’s an interesting side note to this story:

Do we want to FDIC borrowing money from the FED, which is in turn borrowing that from and paying interest to China, or do we want it borrowing from and paying interest to American banks?

Something to ponder…

BadgerHawk on September 22, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2