Wall Street

Thursday, July 10th, 2008&; a

Inside : The Reasons

the U.S. Lost its

By Shah Gilani
Contributing Editor

Unlike Dorothy in &;The Wizard of Oz,&; the brutalized U.S. will never again to that comfortable, cozy, and cushy it once happily referred to as &;.&; But its &;Wicked Witch&; was its own greed. The has finally been pulled back on the machinery, and the hot used to pump up the U.S. &;s version of the Emerald in the Land of Oz.

For decades, banks operated on a - and nicely profitable - model: They took in deposits and lent out .

In the simplest model, a might take in deposits of a million dollars and lend out a million dollars. In a perfect , such a &;matched book&; is established if they know that the deposit will be in the for a and the they made has a maturity of . If the pays the depositor 3% and charges the borrower 5%, it can assume a for the of 2% (the difference between the 5% and the 3% payout to depositors).

It Takes to - Disappear

In order to more , banks more to lend. In to taking in deposits, banks borrow to more loans, to buy assets to keep on their sheets, and to trade in the . They get this by such as certificates of deposits (CDs) to entice depositors to with them, they borrow overnight in the Feds Funds (from other banks), they sell backed by their sheets to investors, they get from profitable trades and , and they generate fees for their .

The problem is that banks &;t just take in in order to lend it out; they take in to more with it by and, yes, speculating.

On the deposit-and- of the equation, banks &;t even bother trying to run a matched anymore. They borrow short and lend long. This works well if their short- costs are substantially lower than their long- rates.&; But if short- rates to rise, profits in the borrow-and-lend to get squeezed. And if short- rates shift so much that they&;re actually higher than the rates the banks are charging on their long- loans, banks actually to lose .

- executives are fully aware of these - dynamics. Indeed, they knowingly speculate on - movements by running matched , and trying to their spread profits by as short as they can and for as long as they can. The : Banks actually are speculating on - movements.

Speculating on the of the U.S.

If you didn&;t already know that banks speculate, you&;re about to be really surprised. All the that is lent out to borrowers floats around in what&;s known as the &;s &;treasury.&; The of the who in the treasury is to with the that&;s sitting around. To a banker, idle is no better than idle hands - both are regarded as the devil&;s playthings.

There&;s some merit to that argument. After all, no actually makes with idle : It has to be to , lent out, used as or, of , used as in speculative .

Banks lend treasury funds overnight - and for short periods - to other banks, and to such - institutions as companies, corporate clients, securities broker-dealers, and banks ( banks do take in deposits and are therefore the same as banks, nor are they regulated by the same supervisory bodies that oversee operations).

For banks, the problem in making these loans is of &;counterparty risk&; - will the borrower be able to pay the funds back? Banks have become very wary of counterparty and have drastically cut back their to many traditional types of borrowers.

Instead, banks in assets, including bonds, corporate bonds, bonds, currencies and . Some actually end up on banks&; because they have to assets they are able to syndicate (sell pieces of to other partners). And sometimes banks assets so that they can as these appreciate in . (Of , stating that a is &; assets as &; is actually just a polite of saying that it is speculating).

The &;t Yet Within

Lately, banks have been bonds and similar instruments in so-called "off-balance-sheet" entities. By doing this, the essentially takes assets off its (which are visible to investors and regulators) and places them inside a special , where they now will be out of .

Why would a do this? . Banks are hiding risky assets so that their &;&; and sheets better. Truth be told, there&;s no for off--sheet entities. . They&;re more than a means for a fraudulent conveyance.

up below&;
and we&;ll send you a for :

&;The Three Best in .&;


&;

Banks trade - a . They buy and sell bonds, currencies, and whatever their charter allows them to trade. Banks trade billions and billions of dollars every . They are speculating.

Particularly in the U.S. , what has happened is that banks have over-speculated across the board. And the losses that have resulted have severely reduced their available . This means that they have less to lend and will be much more strict with prospective borrowers, exacting tougher and demanding higher creditworthiness before agreeing to any loans.

As banks lose - I expect will continue for perhaps the next several quarters - their prices will continue to fall, reducing their (which is what regulators at to determine their stability).

Banks keep via from sovereign wealth funds and through preferred and common rights offerings. And still their losses continue. They have to keep going back to the well. Sooner or later, this - well will have to run dry. There are going to be failures and we will the doctrine of &;too big to fail&; tested yet again, as a sinks into the abyss (the failure of The Stearns Cos. Inc. (BSC) was a test and the subsequent central--led bailout seems to have proved that it was too big to fail).

To understand this is to first understand what&;s wrong with banks. We come out of this if we do repair the to the lenders in the U.S. . And by &;repair,&; I&;m talking about fixing their credibility and integrity just as much as I am referring to the to restore their base.

This is the capitalist behemoth that it is because of our . Where are the regulators? Where is ? Where are the outraged stockholders and borrowers? Will it take a - collapse and a run by depositors to get these problems addressed and fixed?

Until the banks are fixed, avoid all - especially banks and banks. short on the . Short the indexes. If you have to remain long in equities, sell calls on a rolling .

The next stop on the Dow Jones Industrial Average is likely a test of 10,000.

[Editor&;s Note: Contributing Editor R. Shah Gilani - and his column, &;Inside &; - are brand- additions to the Morning lineup. Gilani brings readers the ultimate insider&;s : He&;s toiled in the pits in Chicago, run desks in , operated as a broker/dealer and managed everything from to . His -professed is to take readers on a through the &;shadowy back alleys&; of the U.S. - and the &;velvet rope&; that typically keeps the average from learning the secrets that sit beyond, just out of reach.]


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments are closed.