Photos
Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson
House votes to restrict Wall Street pay: Congress acts to end million dollar bonuses paid with bailout money
Welcome back!
The United States House of Representatives passed a bill that restricts bonuses to bank executives.
Nothing has enraged ordinary people more than the idea that the biggest banks used bailout money to pay huge bonuses to their executives.
The House voted Friday to slap restrictions on how Wall Street executives are paid after nine banks that took government bailout money rewarded thousands of their employees with bonuses topping $1 million each. House Votes
In the same year the banks were failing, and taking billions of dollars in bailout money, the banks were paying their executives million dollar bonuses.
The core of the problem is the connection between reward and risk. Safe investments tend to be low paying investments. Often, the greater the risk, the greater the profit.
One of the reasons that the economic system got so out of whack is because the biggest banks found ways to make greater profit with riskier loans after the Glass-Steagall Acts were rescinded in 1999.
The Glass-Steagall Acts were passed in 1932-33 to prevent another Great Depression.
I wrote a report, “Why Banks Went Broke Making Money: The Money-Making Magic That Triggered The Global Recession.” In this report, I explain why the ability of banks to make more and more money with risky loans that violated every standard of responsible banking practices led to the financial crisis of 2008.
The real estate boom years coincided with successful political efforts to de-regulate the banking system. Based on the idea that government regulations limited free-market capitalism, Congress passed laws to set the banks free from all kinds of restrictions about what different types of banks could do, and significantly reduced oversight of banking.
Those who believed that “the best government is no government” argued that these restrictions and regulations were impeding free market capitalism. “The most notable results of this effort to set the banks free from government regulation were the repeal of the “Glass-Steagall Acts” of 1932 and 1933, and the enactment of the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act” of 1999.
“Glass-Steagall” required a clear distinction between investment banks and commercial banks, to separate risky ventures from ordinary banking services. “Gramm-Leach-Bliley” removed these restrictions. This Act allowed commercial banks to engage in speculative investment banking.
With new-found freedom from all kinds of post-Great Depression era regulations, the biggest banks threw caution to the wind, and created a dazzling array of paper instruments which allowed them to make massive profits. Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Why Banks Went Broke Making Money,
Without these restrictions, the biggest banks had great incentive to engage in risky banking. The riskier the banking, the greater the potential profit.
As the banks took greater risks, their actions also had the potential to create great harm to the economy. The “mortgage meltdown” and the bank bailouts are all the direct result of increased risks by banks.
According to Barney Frank, the banks realized that they would make great profits only if they took great risks.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who sponsored the bill, said the extra regulation is necessary to ensure bankers and traders aren’t rewarded only if they take big risks. Under the provision banning risky incentive-based pay, regulators would be given nine months to dictate precise guidelines.
If a bet goes wrong, “the company loses money and the economy may suffer, but the decision makers do not,” he said. House votes
As the banks took greater risks, their actions also had the potential to create great harm to the economy. The “mortgage meltdown” and the bank bailouts are all the direct result of increased risks by banks.
The practice that has enraged ordinary people more than anything else has been the extremely generous executive bonuses paid to bankers who were running their banks and the economy into the ground.
It’s one thing to realize that the banks have been paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives who were making such bad banking decisions. People were angry enough about that. What turned anger into outrage is the realization that the banks were continuing to pay generous bonuses after they received government bailout money.
At its core, the financial crisis is a banking crisis, brought about by risky behavior by banks and lack of regulation by government agencies. This action by the House is an effort to change the risk to reward ratio, so that bad banking is not so rewarding to the people who made the bad banking decisions.
Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson
Tags: bank bailout, banks, Barney Frank, executive bonuses, financial crisis, Glass-Steagall, House of Representatives, make money, recession, Wall StreetRelated posts
The Lending Game Gone Bad: The Money Reason Why Banks And Corporate Giants Are In Trouble
One of the factors creating turmoil in the economy is the blurring of financial roles.
In the Monopoly Game®, the rules are clear. The players have a clear set of rules, which determine what they can and cannot do with money. The banker also has a clear set of rules, which allows the banker to use money differently than the players do.
This distinction between the money rules for players and the money rules for bankers is a critical element in No Money Limits.
In the real economic world, we have experienced significant blurring of roles among various institutions, as the rules have changed and evolved over time.
Banks are a prime example. It used to be that the lines between different types of banks were clearly defined. In broadest terms, commercial banks served businesses, thrifts served consumers by taking deposits and originating home mortgages, and investment banks help businesses acquire capital. In recent years, through a series of legal changes, these lines have become so blurred that most of us have only the vaguest idea of the difference between various types of banks.
During the same period of time, there has also been significant blurring of the lines between bankers, non-banking companies, and private lenders related to lending.
One particular example concerns large companies that have become both sellers and lenders.
Analysts point to two key reasons why some of the nation’s largest companies have unraveled in the current downturn. One is that they had come to rely on providing financing to their customers, lending money for sales of their own products. When the credit markets ground to a halt in mid-September, it set off chain reaction of pain, hurting consumers and manufacturers alike. Corporate America’s Giants Crumbling
As we analyze what went wrong with the economy, to lead us to this state of economic crisis, one theme keeps recurring. The economic crisis originated with lending practices gone bad.
Lending money can be extremely profitable. To get in on the profits, various types of banks kept expanding their services and their capacity to make loans. At the same time, big corporations realized that they could increase their profits if they became lenders for consumers who wanted to buy their products.
In the process, bankers made risky mortgages to people who could never repay them, because the lending process itself was highly profitable. Meanwhile, big companies set up their own lending divisions. Instead of sending car buyers to the bank to get car loans, why not provide financing directly to your customers? As a result, a company such as General Motors became both the maker of cars and financer of cars through its financing arm, GMAC.
In retrospect, [Ed] Yardeni said, the business model was essentially flawed. When companies like GM and GE financed customers, the loans must have been cheaper than what the customers could get elsewhere and must have meant that the risk of lending to them wasn’t being reflected in the loan rates. Corporate America’s Giants Crumbling
Self-financing by big companies led to the same trap that ensnared the banks that got caught up in making subprime mortgages.
“Self-financing is inherently a dangerous game,” Yardeni said. “You’re biased. You want to convince yourself that the borrower is good for it, and you want to make the sale. You’re not going to be an objective lender. That may be one of the problems here.” Corporate America’s Giants Crumbling
The driving force behind the expansion of their traditional roles—both for banks and large companies involved in self-financing—is the intention to create profit by increasing transactions. This is the essential goal of any business.
Ultimately, the nature of money made all of this possible. Money is not a commodity in limited supply. Money is created in transactions. By creating more transactions, banks and self-financing companies could make more money. The more transactions they made, the more money they would make.
The primary insight of No Money Limits is that the only limit to money is the belief that money is limited. What we are seeing in the current economic crisis is the result of people who took this insight too far.
In the desire to increase profits, banks and self-financing companies made more and more bad loans, throwing prudent lending practices out of the window, until the whole financial structure teetered on the edge of collapse.
Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson
Tags: bad loans, banks, lending, Monopoly, No Money Limits, recession, self-financingRelated posts
Why Money Itself Is The Underlying Cause Of The Recession
Money itself is the underlying cause of the recession. Although you will hear many explanations for the economic meltdown, few explanations analyze the role of money itself in creating the problem. Instead, analysts blame a long list of usual suspects, including irresponsible consumers, greedy bankers, and corrupt government officials. However much truth there is in these explanations, the ultimate cause of our economic crises originates from the nature of money itself.
What is money? In most of the commentaries, accusations, and proposals about what went wrong and how to fix it, this critical question remains unasked.
Watch the news broadcasts about the economic stimulus plan. What do they show as they talk about proposed solutions? They show high-speed printing presses spewing out endless sheets of currency at the Bureau of Printing and Engraving in Washington D.C.
Listen to the commentators. You will hear again and again. “We need the government to step in because only the government can print money.”
This idea that the government can “print money” obscures the fundamental cause of the dire global economic crises. The notion that governments “print money” misrepresents the nature of money. It misrepresents what governments do. And it even misrepresents what we are seeing as the printing presses print out sheets of paper currency.
Let us start with the most basic question. Is the United States government in fact printing money? To answer this question, look carefully at a United States twenty-dollar bill and ask yourself: “What is this piece of paper?” You will see the answer printed on the paper itself. Conveniently and truthfully, United States paper currency identifies each piece of paper currency with this label: “Federal Reserve Note.”
And so then the question is: Is a Federal Reserve Note actually money? In fact, a “note” is a promise to pay. The pieces of paper the government prints out on its high-speed presses are in fact sheets and sheets of promissory notes.
If you wonder if these pieces of paper are equivalent to money, ask yourself another question: “If someone writes an IOU on a piece of paper, do you have money?” One way to find out is to take your IOU to your local supermarket, load up your cart with groceries, and then attempt to use your IOU to pay for them. You will quickly find out that your IOU won’t buy you anything. Your IOU is a piece of paper promising to pay a debt. It is not money.
The critical point is that every piece of currency is a promise to pay a debt. These pieces of paper printed by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving are not money at all. They are promissory notes. And yes, you can use those promissory notes from the United States government to pay for your groceries, but this does not change the fact that these pieces of paper are notes rather than money itself.
So what is money? Money can be represented by tangible things, but it is itself intangible. Money is fundamentally a belief. Money is not a piece of paper.
In fact, currency is a symbol for money, not money itself. Money itself is an idea and the currency we hold in our hands is the physical representation of the idea of money. No Money Limits
And why is money itself the cause of the recession? Money itself has no capacity to make decisions or take actions. Money as the cause of the recession comes from the nature of money as a belief in value. Because money is an idea, money can be created at will by people who understand that money is not equivalent to any tangible object. The long list of culprits who share responsibility for the financial crisis share one critical distinction. They know that money can be created out of thin air, through all sorts of creative financing techniques.
[This is the first post in a series about how creative financing techniques, which created money out of thin air, led to economic crises around the world.]
Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson
Find out more about the nature of money and how money is created out of thin air in No Money Limits For Real Estate Investors: Discover The Money-Making Secret In The Real Estate Game That Transforms Your Money Struggles Into Financial Abundance, National Best Books 2007 Awards Winner in Business: Real Estate Category and Finalist in Business: Personal Finance Category.
For a simple and clear guide to real estate notes as the safest way to increase profit, sell quickly, and increase cash flow, see Owner Financing Made Easy.
Related posts
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.