Thursday, June 21, 2012

Bidness History 101

Not that I expect anyone to actually read this....


Here's how our economy went over the cliff:  Historically banking was a fairly mundane business.  Banks paid depositors a small percentage interest, charged borrowers a higher rate of interest, and the gap in the middle was their profit.  They matched up those who had an excess of money (depositors) with those who needed money (borrowers).  It was called 3-6-3 banking...they paid depositors 3%, charged borrowers 6%, and were on the golf course by 3pm.  Every small town had their own bank and everyone knew the banker and the banker knew all the townspeople.  They knew who was a good credit risk and who wasn't.  They thought long term, hopeing to help you start and grow a business and become your banker for life.  Banking was NOT a "get rich quick" profession.


Occasionally they strayed and began bankrolling speculators in exchange for higher returns for themselves, but things usually ended badly.  (Think:  The Great Depression)  After that fiasco the government passed all kinds of new laws hopeing to prevent a recurrence, the big one being the Glass-Steagall Act.  It said commercial banks (the ones where you put your paycheck) were given FDIC protection, but were limited to the very mundane types of banking ONLY (see above).  Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, etc were NOT given FDIC protection, but were allowed to gamble with their "investors" money with the hope of hitting a home run....higher risks, higher returns.  Brokerage firms could buy and sell securities, but could not do what commercial or investment banks could.  These firewalls kept our financial system out of serious trouble for the next 50 years.


With the wave of deregulation begun by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan these various types of financial service companies began eyeing and envying the others.  The firewalls began to spring leaks.  Commercial banks wanted to be able to gamble like the investment banks hopeing for a home run for themselves.  The investment banks thought if they had the HUGE piles of depositor's money to play with like the commercial banks did they could before long own the world.  With individual investors, mutual funds, and pension funds, etc, seeing the potential for nice returns on Wall Street, the volume of stocks traded went from a few million to eventually several billion a day.  And remember, brokerages are paid by the number of shares traded, NOT whether the market goes up or down.  The banks wanted some of that, too.


Little by little they were allowed to stray a bit farther from their roots.  The small town banks were largely bought up by the regional "downtown" banks, who were in turn absorbed by the "money center" banks such as Citi and Bank of America.  Their power became enormous and they learned how to exchange "campaign contributions" for Washington favor.  Finally, in 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which killed off Glass-Steagall.  The firewalls were removed.  Banking became a highly desirable "get-rich-quick" profession.  Banks became less focused on helping their neighbors establish and grow businesses and more focused on devising new products to sell (such as "derivatives") which could generate almost unimaginable profits for their stockholders and immense commissions for themselves.  There was little reason to make "prudent" loans (well, they had to look prudent at least long enough to sell them) as the risk was passed on to those who eventually bought these new financial products.  


Greed ruled.  And then the wheels came off.  Some other time I'll explain what happened next.


S


NOTE:  I would welcome any feedback correcting this post if I have gotten something wrong.  Factual constructive criticism would be appreciated.



12 comments:

  1. I think some part of the missing equation is the international side. Part of the reason for changing regulations was foreign banks had an unfair advantage over US banks. Us Banks were losing business and lobied for regulation reduction to give them competitive equal footing with foreign banks.

    THis is all very complicated stuff and your explaination is of course simplified, but I believe it is essentially correct.

    Banks should get back to lending depositors money at a profit and stay away from speculation. Brokerage firms should stick to investing money for clients and earn a commision for doing so. THey should limit risk and speculation to trading in order to help facilitate executions for their customers which involves minimum short term risk.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your insight Joe. I learned something. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. BTW - I am by no means an expert on this topic. My 40 years with a brokerage firm were strictly on the operations side. I do have some experience with the arrogant "experts" who could explain why you are all wet.

    It was Harvard MBA's who developed computer trading models and complicated derivative and hedging products who could explain why these practices are completly safe and how the 2007 meltdown could never happen. SHit they could make you believe that it never happened!
    In 2005-6 I worked on a special task force to straighten out a HUGE accounting mess in the derivitive products of my firm. These products were so complicated that I realized if anything could bankrupt my firm (for years the largest most prestegious firm on the street)it was these products. I sold all the Company Stock in my 401 (about 90%) because I distrusted these products. In 2007 my company was basically bankrupt and was saved only by a Government sponsered by out by a larger bank.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think you've done a great job of explaining what went wrong, at least to a non-technical person like me. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know, if we could get back to 20-cent a gallon gasoline so that America could get back to making behemoth cars that only Americans knew how to mass-produce and if we could get back to the $25,000 home and live in the same neighborhood our whole lives then banks could make nice safe loans, take home there 3 to 5% profit margin and we'd all live happily ever after. We'd elect our Congressmen and Senators to maintain this lovely status quo and we'd make sure that Congress kept the doors to the outside world firmly closed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Burst....Are you suggesting that "banking" as it was practiced in the first decade of this century was a good thing? That the implosion of our economy in 2008 and what Europe is going through today was/is business as it SHOULD be practiced? "More, please!"

    Brings to mind Albert Einstein's quote, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read it :-) I try to avoid reading financial news as I have no clue how the systems work, so thanks for the lesson :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. My pleasure Doug. And to you Canucks credit, your system is much more sane than ours was. Your banks came through in much better shape than ours did. ;)

    S

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm clueless about such things, but Mike says: In general, I blame deregulation and greed for most of our ills, and it has been a process that both Democrats and Republicans have signed off on. I blame Reagan more than any other single president, of course, but, yeah, as a nation we have lost our way. We are letting the most conservative economists and politicians dictate what capitalism is and isn't, and that is both absurd and potentially catastrophic. To me, teaching true supply side economics is like teaching Creationism...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm also very clueless about such things, but I like how you explained the whole thing in terms that people like me can understand.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for the post L&S. Nice job, again.

    fin

    ReplyDelete
  12. I actually understood it - and that's tough for me sometimes LOL - thank you

    ReplyDelete