|
With big bank bailouts dominating the news, there's no better time to get
the truth about bank safety.
This informative article has been excerpted from Bob Prechter's New York Times
bestseller Conquer the Crash. Unlike recent news articles that are responding
to the banking crisis, it was published in 2002 before anyone was even talking
about bank safety. However, you may find the information even more valuable
today than ever before.
For even more information on bank safety, visit Elliott Wave International
to download the free 10-page report, Discover
the Top 100 Safest U.S. Banks. It contains details on how you can protect
your money from the current financial crisis, updated for 2008.
Risks in Banking
Between 1929 and 1933, 9000 banks in the United States closed their doors.
President Roosevelt shut down all banks for a short time after his inauguration.
In December 2001, the government of Argentina froze virtually all bank deposits,
barring customers from withdrawing the money they thought they had. Sometimes
such restrictions happen naturally, when banks fail; sometimes they are imposed.
Sometimes the restrictions are temporary; sometimes they remain for a long
time.
Why do banks fail? For nearly 200 years, the courts have sanctioned an interpretation
of the term "deposits" to mean not funds that you deliver for safekeeping
but a loan to your bank. Your bank balance, then, is an IOU from the
bank to you, even though there is no loan contract and no required interest
payment. Thus, legally speaking, you have a claim on your money deposited in
a bank, but practically speaking, you have a claim only on the loans that the
bank makes with your money.
If a large portion of those loans is tied up or becomes worthless, your money
claim is compromised. A bank failure simply means that the bank has reneged
on its promise to pay you back. The bottom line is that your money is only
as safe as the bank's loans. In boom times, banks become imprudent and lend
to almost anyone. In busts, they can't get much of that money back due to widespread
defaults. If the bank's portfolio collapses in value, say, like those of the
Savings & Loan institutions in the U.S. in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
the bank is broke, and its depositors' savings are gone.
Because U.S. banks are no longer required to hold any of their deposits in
reserve, many banks keep on hand just the bare minimum amount of cash needed
for everyday transactions. Others keep a bit more. According to the latest
Fed figures, the net loan-to-deposit ratio at U.S. commercial banks is 90 percent.
This figure omits loans considered "securities" such as corporate, municipal
and mortgage-backed bonds, which from my point of view are just as dangerous
as everyday bank loans. The true loan-to-deposit ratio, then, is 125 percent
and rising. Banks are not just lent to the hilt; they're past it.
Some bank loans, at least in the current benign environment, could be liquidated
quickly, but in a fearful market, liquidity even on these so-called "securities" will
dry up. If just a few more depositors than normal were to withdraw money, banks
would have to sell some of these assets, depressing prices and depleting the
value of the securities remaining in their portfolios. If enough depositors
were to attempt simultaneous withdrawals, banks would have to refuse. Banks
with the lowest liquidity ratios will be particularly susceptible to runs in
a depression. They may not be technically broke, but you still couldn't get
your money, at least until the banks' loans were paid off.
You would think that banks would learn to behave differently with centuries
of history to guide them, but for the most part, they don't. The pressure to
show good earnings to stockholders and to offer competitive interest rates
to depositors induces them to make risky loans. The Federal Reserve's monopoly
powers have allowed U.S. banks to lend aggressively, so far without repercussion.
For bankers to educate depositors about safety would be to disturb their main
source of profits. The U.S. government's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
guarantees to refund depositors' losses up to $100,000, which seems to
make safety a moot point. Actually, this guarantee just makes things far worse,
for two reasons. First, it removes a major motivation for banks to be conservative
with your money. Depositors feel safe, so who cares what's going on behind
closed doors? Second, did you know that most of the FDIC's money comes from
other banks? This funding scheme makes prudent banks pay to save the imprudent
ones, imparting weak banks' frailty to the strong ones. When the FDIC rescues
weak banks by charging healthier ones higher "premiums," overall bank deposits
are depleted, causing the net loan-to-deposit ratio to rise.
This result, in turn, means that in times of bank stress, it will take
a progressively smaller percentage of depositors to cause unmanageable bank
runs. If banks collapse in great enough quantity, the FDIC will be unable
to rescue them all, and the more it charges surviving banks in "premiums," the
more banks it will endanger. Thus, this form of insurance compromises the
entire system. Ultimately, the federal government guarantees the FDIC's deposit
insurance, which sounds like a sure thing. But if tax receipts fall, the
government will be hard pressed to save a large number of banks with its
own diminishing supply of capital. The FDIC calls its sticker "a symbol of
confidence," and that's exactly what it is.
For more information on bank safety, including how to choose a safe bank
during the current financial crisis, download EWI's free 10-page report, Discover
the Top 100 Safest U.S. Banks.
|