Friday, October 23, 2009

Bank failures hit 106 on year


By Greg Morcroft, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Seven more banks failed Friday, pushing the 2009 total to 106 and marking the first year since 1992 that at least 100 have gone under.

Experts suggest we could be no more than 10% of the way through this cycle of bank collapses, which is sure to be the worst run of closures since the Great Depression.

The parade of failures continued on Friday with closures of three banks in Florida, one each in Wisconsin, Georgia, Minnesota and Illinois. See story.

So far 106 banks have failed in 2009. See FDIC timeline of 2009's failed banks.

CreditSights, which tracks the dismal data, predicts that in the current cycle, from 2008 through 2011, as many as 1,100 banks will fail. That would wipe out 13.4% of all U.S. banks, representing 7% of U.S. banking assets.

The last year in which the FDIC had that many banks to deal with was in 1992, at the tail end of the last real estate crisis. The FDIC rescued 122 in 1992, according to Keefe, Bruyette & Woods researchers.

The increasing stream of bank failures is likely to run through 2011 according to some industry experts, as the fallout from the credit crisis continues.

The panic that started in 2007 as a credit crisis quickly morphed into a full blown residential real estate collapse. The problems blossomed as prices on mortgage securities backed by ill-conceived loans then collapsed, triggering capital destruction at banks and a fear among firms to lend to each other.

The crisis worsened as tighter credit forced firms to lay off millions of workers, hitting retailers hard and triggering further spikes in credit card and mortgage defaults.

Most of the high profile large banks likely to fail already have, and the backlog of troubled banks now is concentrated at the regional and community level, and is weighed down by commercial real estate and construction loans.

Many smaller banks gorged on commercial real estate lending in the go-go 2000s, amid low interest rates and rising property values.

The fallout has been fast, and furious.

CreditSights' data show that commercial real estate loans made up almost half of all loans at most (80%) of the banks the research firm identified as troubled.

"Another wave of prolonged losses driven by weakness in commercial real estate could prove catastrophic to many of these weakened banks," CreditSights said.

FDIC-insured institutions have set aside just over $338 billion in provisions for loan losses during the past six quarters, an amount that is about four times larger than their provisions during the prior six quarter period, FDIC data show.

"While banks and thrifts are now well along in the process of loss recognition and balance sheet repair, the process will continue well into next year, especially for commercial real estate," FDIC chief Sheila Bair told Congress last week.

As a result, she said, the number of problem institutions increased significantly, to more than 400 during the second quarter.

Now, with unemployment near 10% and credit card default rates about the same, prime mortgage delinquencies are rising, stoking worries among the nation's banks that despite rising stock markets, fundamental banking industry health remains elusive.

Hundreds of billions of dollars of government support is helping to keep the biggest banks afloat, but many of the nation's smaller regional and community banks face failure.

"We expect the numbers of problem institutions to increase and bank failures to remain high for the next several quarters," Bair said.

That's created a devilishly vexing issue for the FDIC, the federal agency charged with making depositors whole.

10% of U.S. banks could fail

Before Friday's bank failures, the year-to-date total assets of the failed banks was $107.14 billion.

By comparison, the nation's four largest banks, excluding former investment banks Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) , Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) , J.P. Morgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) , Citigroup (NYSE:C) and Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC) , have average annual revenue of about $100 billion.

By contrast, according to the FDIC, during the Great Depression, about 9,100 banks failed between 1931 and 1934 representing a full one-third of the nation's then total banking system.

In modern times, the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s, defined by the years 1988 through 1992, saw 818 banks, or just under 5% of the industry at the time. The 1988-1992 periods saw 4.4% of the banking industry's assets lost, according to data from CreditSights and the FDIC.

As in all crises, some areas fare worse than others for various reasons.

In this cycle, Georgia has been hit hardest, with 19 failures, followed by Illinois with 16, and California with 10.

By CreditSights estimates, Georgia, Florida and Illinois have the most potentially troubled banks among the states, followed by banks, followed by Texas, Minnesota, Washington State and California.

But if there is a bright side, it's that some of the nation's well-managed smaller banks stand to benefit from picking up assets on the cheap.

"We continue to believe a select group of regional banks with sufficient capital, credit quality, and management talent stand to benefit by expanding their banking franchise through either rolling up failed institutions or acquiring market share and/or key lenders from the dislocation," analysts at Keefe Bruyette & Woods said earlier this month. See story about how regional banks are taking advantage of competitors' failures.

FDIC faces tough calls

The FDIC is facing its own money issues, as its Deposit Insurance Fund, which it uses to pay depositors' claims, fell to just $10.4 billion at the end of the second quarter. The FDIC estimates that its total cost for the 98 bank closings through Friday at $26.44 billion.

The problem the FDIC faces is that none of its options to raise money to fund its Deposit Insurance Fund are too appealing.

On the one hand, the FDIC has already hit banks with a special assessment earlier this year to beef up the fund, but that's not nearly enough to fill the expected void.

Also earlier this year, the agency's board approved a proposal to have the nation's banks prepay 3 three years of insurance premiums, but that too is unlikely to fill the gap the fund faces under CreditSights worst-case scenario.

And, while the FDIC could tap an emergency $500 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury, the agency appears loathe to do that given the likely political backlash.

"In the FDIC's view, requiring that institutions prepay assessments is also preferable to borrowing from the U.S. Treasury. Prepayment of assessments ensures that the deposit insurance system remains directly industry-funded and it preserves Treasury borrowing for emergency situations," FDIC chair Sheila Bair told Congress in last week's testimony. See Bair's full testimony.

"Additionally," she added, "the FDIC believes that, unlike borrowing from the Treasury or the FFB, requiring prepaid assessments would not count toward the public debt limit."

CreditSights' analysts agreed that a Treasury deal could prove politically tricky, and the debate sure to surround it could actually prolong the crisis,

"A request to draw down on the Treasury line may become yet another political football pitting banking interests versus small business interests. These types of debates seem to have in the past delayed regulatory action and this could be the case as well with an undercapitalized FDIC," the firm said.


ALERT:

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Obama Not Listening to Volker

Volcker’s Voice Fails to Sell a Bank Strategy

By LOUIS UCHITELLE
Published: October 20, 2009

Listen to a top economist in the Obama administration describe Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who endorsed Mr. Obama early in his election campaign and who stood by his side during the financial crisis.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Mannie Garcia/Bloomberg News

Paul A. Volcker, second from left, in a meeting in May at the White House with President Obama and his economic advisory board.

Related

Times Topics: Paul A. Volcker

“The guy’s a giant, he’s a genius, he is a great human being,” said Austan D. Goolsbee, counselor to Mr. Obama since their Chicago days. “Whenever he has advice, the administration is very interested.”

Well, not lately. The aging Mr. Volcker (he is 82) has some advice, deeply felt. He has been offering it in speeches and Congressional testimony, and repeating it to those around the president, most of them young enough to be his children.

He wants the nation’s banks to be prohibited from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that got the biggest ones into deep trouble in 2008. And the administration is saying no, it will not separate commercial banking from investment operations.

“I am not pounding the desk all the time, but I am making my point,” Mr. Volcker said in one of his infrequent on-the-record interviews. “I have talked to some senators who asked me to talk to them, and if people want to talk to me, I talk to them. But I am not going around knocking on doors.”

Still, he does head the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which makes him the administration’s most prominent outside economic adviser. As Fed chairman from 1979 to 1987, he helped the country weather more than one crisis. And in the campaign last year, he appeared occasionally with Mr. Obama, including a town hall meeting in Florida last fall. His towering presence (he is 6-foot-8) offered reassurance that the candidate’s economic policies, in the midst of a crisis, were trustworthy.

More subtly, Mr. Obama has in Mr. Volcker an adviser perceived as standing apart from Wall Street, and critical of its ways, some administration officials say, while Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, and Lawrence H. Summers, chief of the National Economic Council, are seen, rightly or wrongly, as more sympathetic to the concerns of investment bankers.

For all these reasons, Mr. Volcker’s approach to financial regulation cannot be just brushed off — and Mr. Goolsbee, speaking for the administration, is careful not to do so. “We have discussed these issues with Paul Volcker extensively,” he said.

Mr. Volcker’s proposal would roll back the nation’s commercial banks to an earlier era, when they were restricted to commercial banking and prohibited from engaging in risky Wall Street activities.

The Obama team, in contrast, would let the giants survive, but would regulate them extensively, so they could not get themselves and the nation into trouble again. While the administration’s proposal languishes, giants like Goldman Sachs have re-engaged in old trading practices, once again earning big profits and planning big bonuses.

Mr. Volcker argues that regulation by itself will not work. Sooner or later, the giants, in pursuit of profits, will get into trouble. The administration should accept this and shield commercial banking from Wall Street’s wild ways.

“The banks are there to serve the public,” Mr. Volcker said, “and that is what they should concentrate on. These other activities create conflicts of interest. They create risks, and if you try to control the risks with supervision, that just creates friction and difficulties” and ultimately fails.

The only viable solution, in the Volcker view, is to break up the giants. JPMorgan Chase would have to give up the trading operations acquired from Bear Stearns. Bank of America and Merrill Lynch would go back to being separate companies. Goldman Sachs could no longer be a bank holding company. It’s a tall order, and to achieve it Congress would have to enact a modern-day version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which mandated separation.

Glass-Steagall was watered down over the years and finally revoked in 1999. In the Volcker resurrection, commercial banks would take deposits, manage the nation’s payments system, make standard loans and even trade securities for their customers — just not for themselves. The government, in return, would rescue banks that fail.

On the other side of the wall, investment houses would be free to buy and sell securities for their own accounts, borrowing to leverage these trades and thus multiplying the profits, and the risks.

Being separated from banks, the investment houses would no longer have access to federally insured deposits to finance this trading. If one failed, the government would supervise an orderly liquidation. None would be too big to fail — a designation that could arise for a handful of institutions under the administration’s proposal.

“People say I’m old-fashioned and banks can no longer be separated from nonbank activity,” Mr. Volcker said, acknowledging criticism that he is nostalgic for an earlier era. “That argument,” he added ruefully, “brought us to where we are today.”

He may not be alone in his proposal, but he is nearly so. Most economists and policy makers argue that a global economy requires that America have big financial institutions to compete against others in Europe and Asia. An administration spokesman says the Obama proposal for reform would result in financial institutions that could fail without damaging the system.

Still, a handful side with Mr. Volcker, among them Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics at Columbia and a former official in the Clinton administration. “We would have a cleaner, safer banking system,” Mr. Stiglitz said, adding that while he endorses Mr. Volcker’s proposal, the former Fed chairman is nevertheless embarked on a quixotic journey.

Alan Greenspan, the only other former Fed chairman still living, favored the repeal of Glass-Steagall a decade ago and, unlike Mr. Volcker, would not bring it back now. He declined to be interviewed for this article, but in response to e-mailed questions he cited two recent public statements in which he suggested that the nation’s largest financial institutions become smaller, so that none would be too big to fail, requiring a federal rescue.

Taking issue implicitly with the Volcker proposal to split commercial and investment banking, he has said: “No form of economic organization can fully contain bouts of destructive speculative euphoria.”

For his part, Mr. Volcker is careful to explain that he supports 80 percent of the administration’s detailed plan for financial regulation, including much higher capital requirements and “guidelines” on pay. Wall Street compensation, he said in a recent television interview, “has gotten grotesquely large.”

Before the credit crisis, the big institutions earned most of their profits from proprietary trading, and those profits led to giant bonuses. Mr. Volcker argues that splitting commercial and investment banking would put a damper on both pay and risky trading practices.

His disagreement with the Obama people on whether to restore some version of Glass-Steagall appears to have contributed to published reports that his influence in the administration is fading and that he is rarely if ever in the small Washington office assigned to him.

He operates from his own offices in New York, communicating with administration officials and other members of the advisory board mainly by telephone. (He does not use e-mail, although his support staff does.) He travels infrequently to Washington, he says, and when he does, the visits are too short to bother with the office. The advisory board has been asked to study, amid other issues, the tax law on corporate profits earned overseas, hardly a headline concern.

So Mr. Volcker scoffs at the reports that he is losing clout. “I did not have influence to start with,” he said.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Social Security makes it official: No COLA in 2010

Social Security says no cost-of-living increase in 2010; Obama seeks $250 stimulus payments

  • By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer
  • On 1:11 pm EDT, Thursday October 15, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- There will be no cost-of-living increase for more than 50 million Social Security recipients next year, the first year without a raise since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.

Blame falling consumer prices. By law, cost-of-living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which is negative this year because of lower energy costs. Social Security payments, however, do not go down even when prices drop.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is pursuing a different way to boost recipients' income. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama called for a second round of $250 stimulus payments for seniors, veterans, retired railroad workers and people with disabilities.

The payments would match the ones issued to seniors earlier this year as part of the government's economic recovery package. The payments would be equal to about a 2 percent increase for the average Social Security recipient.

The White House put the cost of the payments at $13 billion. Obama didn't say how the payments should be financed, leaving that up to Congress. The president is open to borrowing the money, which would increase the federal budget deficit, just like Congress did with the first round of stimulus payments.

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest bump up since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

"Social Security is doing its job helping Americans maintain their standard of living," said Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue.

But, he added, "In light of the human need, we need to support President Obama's call for us to make another $250 recovery payment for 57 million Americans."

The Labor Department reported Thursday that consumer prices had declined 2.1 percent since the third quarter of 2008. The cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, or COLA, is based on the change in consumer prices from the third quarter of one year to the next.

Social Security recipients shouldn't get a raise next year because their purchasing power has already increased with falling consumer prices, said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.

"Since the purpose of COLAs is to preserve beneficiaries' purchasing power, the decline in overall prices means that beneficiaries do not need a COLA in January 2010," Kathy Ruffing, a senior policy analyst at the center, wrote in a report this week.

Over the past 12 months, gasoline prices have fallen 29.7 percent and overall energy costs have decreased 21.6 percent, the Labor Department said Thursday.

Ruffing noted that government forecasters don't expect consumer prices to return to 2008 levels until 2011.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H, called the $250 payments "inappropriate."

"The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living," Gregg said.

Some advocates for seniors, however, argue that older Americans spend a disproportionate amount of their incomes on health care costs, which rise faster than consumer prices.

The lack of a cost-of-living increase triggers several provisions in the law. Among them, the amount of wages subject to Social Security payroll taxes will remain unchanged. The first $106,800 of a worker's earned income is currently subject to the tax.

Also, Medicare Part B premiums for the vast majority of Social Security recipients will remain frozen at 2009 levels. However, premiums for the Medicare prescription drug program, known as Part D, will increase.

Obama's proposal calls for sending $250 payments to Social Security recipients as well as those receiving veterans or disability benefits, railroad retirees, and retired public employees who don't receive Social Security. Recipients would be limited to one payment, even if they qualified for more.

Obama's proposal has picked up support from key members of Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Republican leaders said they, too, favor the proposal, but without increasing the deficit.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he wanted to use unspent funds from last year's stimulus legislation to offset the cost.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he expected members of his rank and file would also want to offset the estimated $13 billion cost, but did not state a personal preference.

Several groups that advocate for seniors have also endorsed the $250 payments, including the AARP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

One group, The Senior Citizens League, said Social Security recipients would be better off with a 3 percent increase in their monthly payments.

"Although President Obama's call for a one-time payment of $250 will help seniors, it is a distraction since the zero COLA will cost retirees thousands in lost compounding throughout their retirement," said Shannon Benton, executive director of The Senior Citizens League.

The average monthly Social Security payment for all Social Security recipients is $1,094.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Op-Ed: 60 Million Mortgages May Have Fatal Flaws

Commentary by George W. MantorPrint Article Print Article

RISMEDIA, October 5, 2009—The latest chapter in the mortgage meltdown is being written in court, as one by one, judges are putting a halt to foreclosures. The latest was a recent Kansas Supreme Court case. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, the court held that a nominee company called MERS had no standing to bring a foreclosure action.

Nor was Kansas the first. In August 2008, Federal Judge for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada ruled MERS had no standing. ”Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary, the Note has been sold, and the named nominee no longer has any interest in the Note.”

In September of 2008, A California Judge ruling against MERS concluded, “There is no evidence before the court as to who is the present owner of the Note. The holder of the Note must join in the motion.”

On March 19, 2009, the Supreme Court of Arkansas determined that MERS was not the true beneficiary because the Note had been sold. Alabama and Florida have made similar rulings.

In each case, the reason stems from a fundamental misstep in the handling of Notes and Trust Deeds that runs contrary to established court policies which require that the real parties identify themselves to the court. Each of these cases involved MERS and, in each case, the courts’ rationales were almost identical.

First, a little background. Over the last 40 years, mortgage lending has evolved from a bank holding the mortgage to the mortgage being bundled and sold as part of an investment pool, usually in the form of a bond.

As a registered security, the Note is a negotiable instrument, like money or a cashier’s check, and under securities law that Note must be given to the investor. In this case, mortgage backed securities, (MBS) were bundled together in a pool and shipped to…well, we don’t really know.

One of the impediments to an MBS is the need to file assignments for the beneficiaries in each county each time the mortgage is resold. And apparently, no one holds them for very long because most have been passed around several times.

In order to avoid the logistical nightmare of trying to maintain a public chain of title, the biggest lenders joined MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

MERS was created with the sole intent of evading the recording fees due to the county in which the security is located.

In so doing, in my opinion, they also destroyed the age-old practice of making a public record of information concerning real property in general, and legal interest specifically. The chain of title is a vital record produced to resolve many a dispute.

Now, that’s gone. I believe, erased simply so they themselves, MERS, could siphon off the recording fees for themselves. They sold their business model to lenders as a better way to track mortgages that were being sold and resold all over the world.

But, as there often is with a BIG IDEA, there were also unintended consequences. Only now are they coming to light. Until MERS was challenged in a foreclosure proceeding, no one had taken a look at the law.

The law, according to a Nevada Judge, is that for purposes of foreclosure, both the Note and the Deed of Trust must be assigned. When the Note is split from the Deed of Trust, the Note becomes unsecured. A person holding only a Note lacks the power to foreclose because it lacks the security.

MERS lost track of the Notes. In some cases, according to my research, they deliberately destroyed them.

Every thing was fine until the economy contracted. MERS began foreclosing on delinquent home loans and then one day; someone said “show me the Note.”

In reviewing the judge’s rulings in the above matters, several key points have been determined:

• MERS is not the beneficiary of the Notes and has no skin in the game. It did not lend any money, collect any payments or do anything more than track the sale of the securities.

• Judicial procedure requires that parties identify themselves and prove their standing.

• Splitting the Note and Trust Deed leaves no party with standing to foreclose. The true holder of the Note, the security, paid the lender so the lender is covered. The true holder of the Note was insured by AIG so they are covered. AIG and the banks were bailed out by taxpayers. So, unless the American tax payer can produce a “blue-ink” original Note, no one has standing to foreclose.

• Allowing a foreclosure to proceed without the original Note places the homeowner in double jeopardy. If the original Note were to surface, the holder of the Note would be entitled to payment, but from whom? The borrower is still on the hook.

MERS currently holds 50 to 60 million loans so this is no small matter. And, just because they have lost repeatedly doesn’t mean they will give up. They will keep right on foreclosing in hopes that the homeowner won’t fight back and, in most cases, they won’t be stopped.


Read more: http://rismedia.com/2009-09-28/op-ed-60-million-mortgages-may-have-fatal-flaws/#ixzz0U0goZ2HP
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

CBO: Budget deficit hit record $1.4T in 2009

CBO: Budget deficit hit record $1.4T in 2009 thanks to recession-fed drop in revenue, bailouts

  • By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
  • On 7:02 pm EDT, Wednesday October 7, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week, congressional analysts said Wednesday.

The Congressional Budget Office estimate, while expected, is bad news for the White House and its allies in Congress as they press ahead with health care overhaul legislation that could cost $900 billion over the next decade.

The unprecedented flood of red ink flows from several factors, including a big drop in tax revenues due to the recession, $245 billion in emergency spending on the Wall Street bailout and the takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then there is almost $200 billion in costs from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as increases in programs such as unemployment benefits and food stamps.

The previous record deficit was $459 billion and was set just last year.

The Obama health plan would be "paid for" with new revenues and curbs in spending. But the overhaul effort would eat up tax increases and spending cuts that could be used to bring the deficit down.

Obama has attributed the nation's dismal fiscal situation to the financial and economic crises he inherited. White House Budget Director Peter Orzsag is overseeing the administration's efforts to tackle the soaring deficit next year.

"As part of the fiscal 2011 budget, we will be putting forward proposals that return us to a fiscally sustainable path and that have lower deficits in the out-years," Orszag said in a recent Associated Press interview.

The huge deficits have raised worries about the willingness of foreigners to keep purchasing Treasury debt. The administration promises that once the recession is over and the financial system is stabilized, it will move forcefully to get the deficits under control.

Economists worry that the deficits could place upward pressure on interest rates in future years as the government has to offer higher rates to attract investors

Republicans pounced on the bad news.

"This new CBO data makes it clear that our children and grandchildren will end up buried under a mountain of debt if we continue taxing, spending and borrowing at these dangerous levels," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "How many alarm bells have to be set off before Washington Democrats get serious about tackling dangerous budget deficits?"

Economists say the best measure of the deficit is to compare it with the size of the economy. On those terms, the 2009 deficit reached almost 10 percent of gross domestic product, a level not witnessed since World War II.

The White House says it wants deficits in the next few years to stabilize at or below 3 percent of GDP. But by the White House's own estimates released in August -- which predicted deficits averaging about 4 percent through the rest of the decade -- it would take several hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes or spending curbs to just get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP.

Those steps would easily exceed the efforts under way now to pay for Obama's health care plan. For example, bringing the 2014 deficit back in line with Obama's goals would require about $240 billion in deficit-closing steps in that year alone -- near the amount of revenue that would flow from the expiration of former President George W. Bush's tax cuts.

Such steps would almost certainly force Obama to break his promise to limit tax increases to the wealthy.

Other budget experts predict higher deficits that would require even more painful steps.

History has not been kind recently to presidents who tackle the deficit. President George H.W. Bush lost re-election in 1992 after violating his "no new taxes" promise. His successor, Bill Clinton, lost control of Congress in 1994 after pushing through a deficit-reduction plan laden with tax hikes.

Still, Democrats controlling Congress acknowledge they have no choice but to tackle the problem -- even if they inherited it from George W. Bush.

"It should be remembered that fiscal year 2009 began during the Bush administration, which left in its wake the worst recession since the 1930s, including a sharp plunge in revenues," said Rep. John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., chairman of the House Budget Committee. "But today's figures send us the latest alarm. As the economy stabilizes and starts to recover, we will have to turn our focus back to deficit reduction."

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The demise of the dollar

In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading

By Robert Fisk

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars.

In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

Related articles

The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs. Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China's former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. "Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable," he told the Asia and Africa Review. "We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security."

This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy. China uses more oil incrementally than the US because its growth is less energy efficient. The transitional currency in the move away from dollars, according to Chinese banking sources, may well be gold. An indication of the huge amounts involved can be gained from the wealth of Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who together hold an estimated $2.1 trillion in dollar reserves.

The decline of American economic power linked to the current global recession was implicitly acknowledged by the World Bank president Robert Zoellick. "One of the legacies of this crisis may be a recognition of changed economic power relations," he said in Istanbul ahead of meetings this week of the IMF and World Bank. But it is China's extraordinary new financial power – along with past anger among oil-producing and oil-consuming nations at America's power to interfere in the international financial system – which has prompted the latest discussions involving the Gulf states.

Brazil has shown interest in collaborating in non-dollar oil payments, along with India. Indeed, China appears to be the most enthusiastic of all the financial powers involved, not least because of its enormous trade with the Middle East.

China imports 60 per cent of its oil, much of it from the Middle East and Russia. The Chinese have oil production concessions in Iraq – blocked by the US until this year – and since 2008 have held an $8bn agreement with Iran to develop refining capacity and gas resources. China has oil deals in Sudan (where it has substituted for US interests) and has been negotiating for oil concessions with Libya, where all such contracts are joint ventures.

Furthermore, Chinese exports to the region now account for no fewer than 10 per cent of the imports of every country in the Middle East, including a huge range of products from cars to weapon systems, food, clothes, even dolls. In a clear sign of China's growing financial muscle, the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, yesterday pleaded with Beijing to let the yuan appreciate against a sliding dollar and, by extension, loosen China's reliance on US monetary policy, to help rebalance the world economy and ease upward pressure on the euro.

Ever since the Bretton Woods agreements – the accords after the Second World War which bequeathed the architecture for the modern international financial system – America's trading partners have been left to cope with the impact of Washington's control and, in more recent years, the hegemony of the dollar as the dominant global reserve currency.

The Chinese believe, for example, that the Americans persuaded Britain to stay out of the euro in order to prevent an earlier move away from the dollar. But Chinese banking sources say their discussions have gone too far to be blocked now. "The Russians will eventually bring in the rouble to the basket of currencies," a prominent Hong Kong broker told The Independent. "The Brits are stuck in the middle and will come into the euro. They have no choice because they won't be able to use the US dollar."

Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.

The US discussed the trend briefly at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh; the Chinese Central Bank governor and other officials have been worrying aloud about the dollar for years. Their problem is that much of their national wealth is tied up in dollar assets.

"These plans will change the face of international financial transactions," one Chinese banker said. "America and Britain must be very worried. You will know how worried by the thunder of denials this news will generate."

Iran announced late last month that its foreign currency reserves would henceforth be held in euros rather than dollars. Bankers remember, of course, what happened to the last Middle East oil producer to sell its oil in euros rather than dollars. A few months after Saddam Hussein trumpeted his decision, the Americans and British invaded Iraq.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)