US Stocks Slide, Ruble Plunges As Russia Prepares Capital Controls

Just days after Ukraine began discussing capital controls, and Russian lawmakers passed a bill enabling asset freezes, it appears Russia has reached its limit.

  • *RUSSIA SAID TO WEIGH CAPITAL CONTROLS IF NET OUTFLOWS INTENSIFY

The Ruble is plunging towards 40 to the USD (CB intervention levels), US equity futures gapped lower, and European stocks are sliding.

As Bloomberg reports,

Russia’s central bank is weighing the introduction of temporary capital controls if the flow of money out of the country intensifies, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the discussions.

 

Such measures would be preventative and used only if net outflows rise significantly, the people said, who asked not to be identified because no decision has been made. They didn’t give a timeline or a level that may force such a move, saying they are looking at all possible scenarios.

 

The discussions are the latest sign that U.S. and European sanctions are hurting Russia and rethink policies the central bank has sought to avoid. The Economy Ministry last week raised its estimate for this year’s outflows to $100 billion from $90 billion. Russia hasn’t had a net inflow of private capital since 2007, the year after lifted restrictions.

 

Central bank Chairman Elvira Nabiullina, a former economic aide to President Vladimir Putin, said in an address to the government on Sept. 25 that “introducing capital controls doesn’t make sense.”

 

Still, if trades restrictions — such as the U.S. and EU sanctions and Russia’s retaliatory measures — are prolonged and the tax burden rises, capital outflows will intensify. That will push the regulator to shift its focus more toward ensuring financial stability from fighting inflation and use various instruments “including non-standard” means, Nabiullina said.

 

The central bank’s press service declined to comment. The Finance Ministry isn’t discussing such measures, Svetlana Nikitina, a spokeswoman, said by text message.

US equities gapped lower…

 

And the Ruble plunged…

  • *RUBLE WEAKENS TO BOUNDARY OF RUSSIA CENTRAL BANK’S TRADING BAND
  • *RUBLE WEAKENS TO LEVEL WHERE CENTRAL BANK SAYS WILL INTERVENE

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/YGU9D6 Tyler Durden

"Broad-Based Deceleration" – Case-Shiller Home Prices Tumble Most Since Nov 2011, 3rd Drop In A Row

For the 3rd month in a row, S&P Case-Shiller home prices fell MoM with July’s 0.5% drop the biggest since November 2011. This dragged the YoY growth to 6.75% (missing expectations of 7.4%) and its slowest rate of increase since November 2012. Non-seasonally-adjusted the drop is even larger (-0.6% MoM). Perhaps most notably San Francisco was the biggest drag on the index.

4th miss in a row for YoY home price gains and weakest growth since Nov 2012…

 

as prices fall for the 3rd month in a row…

From the report:

The broad-based deceleration in home prices continued in the most recent data,” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. “However, home prices continue to rise at two to three times the rate of inflation. The slower pace of home price appreciation is consistent with most of the other housing data on housing starts and home sales. The rise in August new home sales — which are not covered by the S&P/Case-Shiller indices – is a welcome exception to recent trends.

 

“The 10- and 20-City Composites gained 6.7% annually with prices nationally rising at a slower pace of 5.6%. Las Vegas, one of the most depressed housing markets in the recession, is still leading the cities with 12.8% year-over-year. Phoenix, the first city to see double-digit gains back in 2012, posted its lowest annual return of 5.7% since February 2012.

 

While the year-over-year figures are trending downward, home prices are still rising month-to-month although at a slower rate than what we are used to seeing over the past couple of years. The National Index rose 0.5%, its seventh consecutive increase. At the bottom was San Francisco with its first decline this year and the only city in the red. New York tended to underperform over the past few years but it was on top for the last two months.”

The Y/Y NSA change:

And on a monnthly basis, things are getting from bad to worse to ugly when seasonally adjusted:




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1vtawzM Tyler Durden

“Broad-Based Deceleration” – Case-Shiller Home Prices Tumble Most Since Nov 2011, 3rd Drop In A Row

For the 3rd month in a row, S&P Case-Shiller home prices fell MoM with July’s 0.5% drop the biggest since November 2011. This dragged the YoY growth to 6.75% (missing expectations of 7.4%) and its slowest rate of increase since November 2012. Non-seasonally-adjusted the drop is even larger (-0.6% MoM). Perhaps most notably San Francisco was the biggest drag on the index.

4th miss in a row for YoY home price gains and weakest growth since Nov 2012…

 

as prices fall for the 3rd month in a row…

From the report:

The broad-based deceleration in home prices continued in the most recent data,” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. “However, home prices continue to rise at two to three times the rate of inflation. The slower pace of home price appreciation is consistent with most of the other housing data on housing starts and home sales. The rise in August new home sales — which are not covered by the S&P/Case-Shiller indices – is a welcome exception to recent trends.

 

“The 10- and 20-City Composites gained 6.7% annually with prices nationally rising at a slower pace of 5.6%. Las Vegas, one of the most depressed housing markets in the recession, is still leading the cities with 12.8% year-over-year. Phoenix, the first city to see double-digit gains back in 2012, posted its lowest annual return of 5.7% since February 2012.

 

While the year-over-year figures are trending downward, home prices are still rising month-to-month although at a slower rate than what we are used to seeing over the past couple of years. The National Index rose 0.5%, its seventh consecutive increase. At the bottom was San Francisco with its first decline this year and the only city in the red. New York tended to underperform over the past few years but it was on top for the last two months.”

The Y/Y NSA change:

And on a monnthly basis, things are getting from bad to worse to ugly when seasonally adjusted:




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1vtawzM Tyler Durden

US Regulators Fear "Runs" From PIMCO's Systemic Risk As Outflows Soar To 12.5% Of Assets

Things are rapidly shifting from bad to worse for PIMCO. In a triple whammy this morning, Bloomberg reports the Total Return Fund ETF (managed previously by Bill Gross) has suffered $446 million outflows (or over 12.5% of assets) so far; Morningstar downgrades the fund from ‘gold’ to ‘bronze’ citing “uncertainty regarding outflows and the reshuffling of management responsibilities”; and perhaps most concerning – given our previous warnings over bond market illiquidity – The FT reports, US regulators are monitoring trading and fund flows surrounding PIMCO’s Total Return Bond fund warning investors they should contemplate the unintended consequences of pulling their money and the possibility of systemic risk disruptions, fearful of “runs.”

 

First outflows are accelerating…

  • *PIMCO ETF GROSS MANAGED SEES RECORD $446 MILLION OUTFLOW
  • *PIMCO TOTAL RETURN ETF OUTFLOW REPRESENTS 12.5% OF SHARES

And Then…

Morningstar, the influential mutual fund research group, stripped the Total Return fund of its “gold” analyst rating late on Monday, downgrading it to “bronze” because of the “uncertainty regarding outflows and the reshuffling of management responsibilities”.

And on top of that, as The FT reports,

US regulators are monitoring trading and fund flows surrounding Pimco’s $223bn Total Return Bond fund and other products, in what could prove a test case in the debate over whether asset management groups contribute to systemic risk.

 

Officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury, among other bodies, have been talking to industry executives and other investors and warning they should contemplate unintended consequences of pulling their money from Pimco.

 

 

It also warned that large funds might be subject to “runs” if investors believe there is an advantage to pulling their money first, and it suggested regulators gather more data to test the concerns.

*  *  *

Who could have seen that coming?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rq5TXe Tyler Durden

US Regulators Fear “Runs” From PIMCO’s Systemic Risk As Outflows Soar To 12.5% Of Assets

Things are rapidly shifting from bad to worse for PIMCO. In a triple whammy this morning, Bloomberg reports the Total Return Fund ETF (managed previously by Bill Gross) has suffered $446 million outflows (or over 12.5% of assets) so far; Morningstar downgrades the fund from ‘gold’ to ‘bronze’ citing “uncertainty regarding outflows and the reshuffling of management responsibilities”; and perhaps most concerning – given our previous warnings over bond market illiquidity – The FT reports, US regulators are monitoring trading and fund flows surrounding PIMCO’s Total Return Bond fund warning investors they should contemplate the unintended consequences of pulling their money and the possibility of systemic risk disruptions, fearful of “runs.”

 

First outflows are accelerating…

  • *PIMCO ETF GROSS MANAGED SEES RECORD $446 MILLION OUTFLOW
  • *PIMCO TOTAL RETURN ETF OUTFLOW REPRESENTS 12.5% OF SHARES

And Then…

Morningstar, the influential mutual fund research group, stripped the Total Return fund of its “gold” analyst rating late on Monday, downgrading it to “bronze” because of the “uncertainty regarding outflows and the reshuffling of management responsibilities”.

And on top of that, as The FT reports,

US regulators are monitoring trading and fund flows surrounding Pimco’s $223bn Total Return Bond fund and other products, in what could prove a test case in the debate over whether asset management groups contribute to systemic risk.

 

Officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury, among other bodies, have been talking to industry executives and other investors and warning they should contemplate unintended consequences of pulling their money from Pimco.

 

 

It also warned that large funds might be subject to “runs” if investors believe there is an advantage to pulling their money first, and it suggested regulators gather more data to test the concerns.

*  *  *

Who could have seen that coming?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rq5TXe Tyler Durden

Another Conspiracy Theory Becomes Fact: The Fed's "Stealth Bailout" Of Foreign Banks Goes Mainstream

Back in June 2011, Zero Hedge first posted:

which we followed up on various occasions, most notably with

With the following key chart:

Of course, the conformist counter-contrarian punditry, for example the FT’s Alphaville, promptly said this was a non-issue and was purely due to some completely irrelevant microarbing of a few basis points in FDIC penalty surcharges, which as we explained extensively over the past 3 years, has nothing at all to do with the actual motive of hoarding Fed reserves by offshore (or onshore) banks, and which has everything to do with accumulating billions in “dry powder” reserves to use for risk-purchasing purposes (alas understanding that would require grasping that reserves are perfectly valid collateral to use as margin against purchase of such market moving products as e-mini futures, which in turn explains why traders usually don’t end up as journos).

Fast, or rather slow, forward to today when none other than the WSJ’s Jon Hilsenrath debunks yet another “conspiracy theory” and reveals it as “unconspiracy fact” with “Fed Rate Policies Aid Foreign Banks: Lenders Pocket a Spread by Borrowing Cheaply, Parking Funds at Central Bank

Wait… the Wall Street Journal said that? Yup.

Banks based outside the U.S. have been unlikely beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate policies, and they are likely to keep profiting as the Fed changes the way it controls borrowing costs.

 

 

Foreign firms have received nearly half of the $9.8 billion in interest the Fed has paid banks since the beginning of last year for the money, called reserves, they deposit at the U.S. central bankaccording to an analysis of Fed data by The Wall Street Journal. Those lenders control only about 17% of all bank assets in the U.S.

 

Moreover, the Fed’s plans for raising interest rates make it likely banks will see those payments grow in coming years.

Hmm, we almost feel like we should bring up the dreaded “P” word considering the bolded sentence is a recap of what we said in February of 2013 in “How The Fed Is Handing Over Billions In “Profits” To Foreign Banks Each Year.” That’s ok, though: imitation, flattery and all that…

So here is Hilsy “figuring out” what we have been explaining for over 3 years!

Though small in relation to their overall revenues, interest payments from the Fed have been a source of virtually risk-free returns for foreign banks. Large holders of Fed reserves include Deutsche Bank, UBS AG, Bank of China and Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, according to bank regulatory filings. U.S. banks including J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America Corp. are also big recipients of Fed interest payments, according to the filings.

 

“It is a small transfer from U.S. taxpayers to foreign taxpayers,” said Joseph Gagnon, a former Fed economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The transfer, he added, was a side effect of Fed policy, not a goal.

Actually it is a goal, but that would lead to a whole lot of embarrassing congressional hearings which the Fed would rather avoid, plus nobody really “gets” it. The reason why? Apparently things are so “complex” that anyone who figured it out years ago was clearly a conspiracy theorist:

Behind the payments is a complex interplay between new government regulatory policies and new methods the Fed has developed to control short-term interest rates.

 

The Fed has pumped nearly $3 trillion into the banking system since the 2008 financial crisis, increasing banks’ reserves, in efforts to stabilize markets and boost economic growth.

 

Since 2008, it has paid banks interest of 0.25% on those reserves. The Fed affirmed this month that the rate it pays on reserves will be the primary tool it uses to raise short-term borrowing costs from near zero when the time comes, likely next year.

 

In part because regulatory requirements discourage domestic banks from holding more cash reserves than they need, many of the reserves created by the Fed are held by foreign banks.

In other words, the Fed-funded risk-free carry trade finally goes mainstream. Of course, all those who read ZH in 2011 will know all of this by now:

The interest payments totaled $4.7 billion so far this year and $5.1 billion last year, and will increase over time as the Fed raises rates. The Fed remits most of its profits to the U.S. Treasury, and the rising cost of the interest payments could put downward pressure on the amount the central bank sends to taxpayers each year, the Fed has said.

 

Some observers say this could become a political challenge for the Fed, especially the payments it makes to foreign banks.

 

“The fact is that the Fed is going to be paying very large amounts of interest to banks,” said William Poole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. “It’s highly likely that some politicians will notice that and given the proclivity of some politicians anyway to demagogue issues, the Fed is going to have some political explaining to do.”

 

Some Fed officials also have expressed concern about how these payments will look. “I think the optics are very difficult to defend and might get us into trouble,” James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said in an August interview with MarketWatch.

 

Since 2009, foreign banks have earned roughly $5 billion by borrowing dollars cheaply, often at less than 0.10%, in short-term funding markets and depositing those funds at the Fed for 0.25%, according to the Journal analysis. That estimate doesn’t take into account the costs of raising money through other means, overhead and taxes, which affect net income.

But don’t blame the banks – they are merely doing what the Fed is encouraging them to do. And after all who wouldn’t collect billions in risk free cash?

A spokeswoman for one bank engaged in the trade, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi, said that the growth of excess reserves parked at the central banks is a natural consequence of the Fed’s policy. “The share
of excess reserve balances held by BTMU has been in alignment with its business footprint in the U.S.,” she said.

 

Deutsche Bank, which had one of the largest reserve balances at the Fed as of June 30, declined to comment. UBS didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Chinese official close to Bank of China said it has been parking funds at the Fed in order to help it comply with liquidity requirements in its home market.

 

The foreign banks’ activity is “entirely legitimate because they are providing a financial service and they are taking a spread,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at research firm Wrightson ICAP.

Sadly, the WSJ ends just before it gets good. So without further ado, here is what happens if and when one extrapolates a rising rate environment in terms of Fed handouts to foreign banks, from what we said in February of 2013:

We show the surge in the foreign bank cash level, as well as the cumulative cash interest paid to these banks assuming a weekly cash interest payment. What the chart shows is that from December 2008 through the last week of January, the Fed has paid out some $6 billion in cash (red line) to European banks simply as interest on excess reserves.

 

 

But that’s just the beginning. If we are correct in assuming that QE3 will be a replica of QE2 when all the new reserves created ended up as cash on foreign bank balance sheets, it means that we can quite accurately forecast what the total foreign bank cash position will be on December 31, 2013 (as the Fed will certainly not end its open ended monetization of the US deficit before then, or likely, ever). The result: just under $2 trillion in cash held be foreign banks operating in the US, which also means that in calendar 2013, the Fed will fund and subsidize foreign banks a blended interest payment of $3.5 billion! This is entirely separate from the $2 trillion liquidity subsidy that Bernanke will also have handed out to keep these banks afloat, and is $3.5 billion that will flow right through the P&L and end up in the pockets of offshore shareholders who otherwise would very likely be wiped out had it not been for the Fed’s relentless efforts to bailout foreign banks.

 

 

And since it is improbable that excess reserves held by any banks will decline at all in the coming years, one can also assume that the annualized interest paid to foreign banks, which would amount to at least $5 billion pear year, every year, will continue indefinitely as a direct Fed subsidy to the bottom line of Foreign banks.

 

All of this, of course, ignores what happens should the Fed hike interest rates across the board, which will also mean rising the rates on IOER, once inflation finally strikes: simple math means a 1% IOER means some $20 billion in interest paid to foreign banks, 2% – $40 billion, 5% – $100 billion paid to foreign banks, and so on. Putting these numbers in perspective, let’s recall that Italy’s third largest bank just got a €3.9 billion bailout (its third), and has a market cap of some €2.9 billion.

 

We can only hope someone in Congress asks Ben Bernanke in two weeks just under which Fed charter it is that the Fed is more focused on generating profits (not just trillions in excess liquidity) for European banks, than on opening up consumer lending which has been stuck in “petrified” mode for the past 4 years, with the total amount of loans outstanding currently at all US banks – foreign and domestic – at levels last seen the week Lehman filed for bankruptcy.

Obviously, nobody asked Bernanke and nobody has asked Yellen this simple question, because until last night apparently nobody aside from the Zero Hedge community had any grasp of what is going on.

That said, we doubt that anyone in control will ask any related questions in the near of not so near future even with Hilsenrath’s “How The Fed Is Bailing Out Foreign Banks For Dummies” primer, because let’s not forget – the same banks that control the Fed are also the same banks that purchase politicians at every possible opportunity (see for example: With Cantor Down, Which Other Politicians Has Goldman Invested In?).

In fact, the only good news from Hilsenrath’s report is that yet another conspiracy theory has been documented as unconspiracy fact. Then again, Zero Hedge readers knew all of this over three years ago, for free.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rq5QKY Tyler Durden

Another Conspiracy Theory Becomes Fact: The Fed’s “Stealth Bailout” Of Foreign Banks Goes Mainstream

Back in June 2011, Zero Hedge first posted:

which we followed up on various occasions, most notably with

With the following key chart:

Of course, the conformist counter-contrarian punditry, for example the FT’s Alphaville, promptly said this was a non-issue and was purely due to some completely irrelevant microarbing of a few basis points in FDIC penalty surcharges, which as we explained extensively over the past 3 years, has nothing at all to do with the actual motive of hoarding Fed reserves by offshore (or onshore) banks, and which has everything to do with accumulating billions in “dry powder” reserves to use for risk-purchasing purposes (alas understanding that would require grasping that reserves are perfectly valid collateral to use as margin against purchase of such market moving products as e-mini futures, which in turn explains why traders usually don’t end up as journos).

Fast, or rather slow, forward to today when none other than the WSJ’s Jon Hilsenrath debunks yet another “conspiracy theory” and reveals it as “unconspiracy fact” with “Fed Rate Policies Aid Foreign Banks: Lenders Pocket a Spread by Borrowing Cheaply, Parking Funds at Central Bank

Wait… the Wall Street Journal said that? Yup.

Banks based outside the U.S. have been unlikely beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate policies, and they are likely to keep profiting as the Fed changes the way it controls borrowing costs.

 

 

Foreign firms have received nearly half of the $9.8 billion in interest the Fed has paid banks since the beginning of last year for the money, called reserves, they deposit at the U.S. central bankaccording to an analysis of Fed data by The Wall Street Journal. Those lenders control only about 17% of all bank assets in the U.S.

 

Moreover, the Fed’s plans for raising interest rates make it likely banks will see those payments grow in coming years.

Hmm, we almost feel like we should bring up the dreaded “P” word considering the bolded sentence is a recap of what we said in February of 2013 in “How The Fed Is Handing Over Billions In “Profits” To Foreign Banks Each Year.” That’s ok, though: imitation, flattery and all that…

So here is Hilsy “figuring out” what we have been explaining for over 3 years!

Though small in relation to their overall revenues, interest payments from the Fed have been a source of virtually risk-free returns for foreign banks. Large holders of Fed reserves include Deutsche Bank, UBS AG, Bank of China and Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, according to bank regulatory filings. U.S. banks including J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America Corp. are also big recipients of Fed interest payments, according to the filings.

 

“It is a small transfer from U.S. taxpayers to foreign taxpayers,” said Joseph Gagnon, a former Fed economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The transfer, he added, was a side effect of Fed policy, not a goal.

Actually it is a goal, but that would lead to a whole lot of embarrassing congressional hearings which the Fed would rather avoid, plus nobody really “gets” it. The reason why? Apparently things are so “complex” that anyone who figured it out years ago was clearly a conspiracy theorist:

Behind the payments is a complex interplay between new government regulatory policies and new methods the Fed has developed to control short-term interest rates.

 

The Fed has pumped nearly $3 trillion into the banking system since the 2008 financial crisis, increasing banks’ reserves, in efforts to stabilize markets and boost economic growth.

 

Since 2008, it has paid banks interest of 0.25% on those reserves. The Fed affirmed this month that the rate it pays on reserves will be the primary tool it uses to raise short-term borrowing costs from near zero when the time comes, likely next year.

 

In part because regulatory requirements discourage domestic banks from holding more cash reserves than they need, many of the reserves created by the Fed are held by foreign banks.

In other words, the Fed-funded risk-free carry trade finally goes mainstream. Of course, all those who read ZH in 2011 will know all of this by now:

The interest payments totaled $4.7 billion so far this year and $5.1 billion last year, and will increase over time as the Fed raises rates. The Fed remits most of its profits to the U.S. Treasury, and the rising cost of the interest payments could put downward pressure on the amount the central bank sends to taxpayers each year, the Fed has said.

 

Some observers say this could become a political challenge for the Fed, especially the payments it makes to foreign banks.

 

“The fact is that the Fed is going to be paying very large amounts of interest to banks,” said William Poole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. “It’s highly likely that some politicians will notice that and given the proclivity of some politicians anyway to demagogue issues, the Fed is going to have some political explaining to do.”

 

Some Fed officials also have expressed concern about how these payments will look. “I think the optics are very difficult to defend and might get us into trouble,” James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said in an August interview with MarketWatch.

 

Since 2009, foreign banks have earned roughly $5 billion by borrowing dollars cheaply, often at less than 0.10%, in short-term funding markets and depositing those funds at the Fed for 0.25%, according to the Journal analysis. That estimate doesn’t take into account the costs of raising money through other means, overhead and taxes, which affect net income.

But don’t blame the banks – they are merely doing what the Fed is encouraging them to do. And after all who wouldn’t collect billions in risk free cash?

A spokeswoman for one bank engaged in the trade, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi, said that the growth of excess reserves parked at the central banks is a natural consequence of the Fed’s policy. “The share of excess reserve balances held by BTMU has been in alignment with its business footprint in the U.S.,” she said.

 

Deutsche Bank, which had one of the largest reserve balances at the Fed as of June 30, declined to comment. UBS didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Chinese official close to Bank of China said it has been parking funds at the Fed in order to help it comply with liquidity requirements in its home market.

 

The foreign banks’ activity is “entirely legitimate because they are providing a financial service and they are taking a spread,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at research firm Wrightson ICAP.

Sadly, the WSJ ends just before it gets good. So without further ado, here is what happens if and when one extrapolates a rising rate environment in terms of Fed handouts to foreign banks, from what we said in February of 2013:

We show the surge in the foreign bank cash level, as well as the cumulative cash interest paid to these banks assuming a weekly cash interest payment. What the chart shows is that from December 2008 through the last week of January, the Fed has paid out some $6 billion in cash (red line) to European banks simply as interest on excess reserves.

 

 

But that’s just the beginning. If we are correct in assuming that QE3 will be a replica of QE2 when all the new reserves created ended up as cash on foreign bank balance sheets, it means that we can quite accurately forecast what the total foreign bank cash position will be on December 31, 2013 (as the Fed will certainly not end its open ended monetization of the US deficit before then, or likely, ever). The result: just under $2 trillion in cash held be foreign banks operating in the US, which also means that in calendar 2013, the Fed will fund and subsidize foreign banks a blended interest payment of $3.5 billion! This is entirely separate from the $2 trillion liquidity subsidy that Bernanke will also have handed out to keep these banks afloat, and is $3.5 billion that will flow right through the P&L and end up in the pockets of offshore shareholders who otherwise would very likely be wiped out had it not been for the Fed’s relentless efforts to bailout foreign banks.

 

 

And since it is improbable that excess reserves held by any banks will decline at all in the coming years, one can also assume that the annualized interest paid to foreign banks, which would amount to at least $5 billion pear year, every year, will continue indefinitely as a direct Fed subsidy to the bottom line of Foreign banks.

 

All of this, of course, ignores what happens should the Fed hike interest rates across the board, which will also mean rising the rates on IOER, once inflation finally strikes: simple math means a 1% IOER means some $20 billion in interest paid to foreign banks, 2% – $40 billion, 5% – $100 billion paid to foreign banks, and so on. Putting these numbers in perspective, let’s recall that Italy’s third largest bank just got a €3.9 billion bailout (its third), and has a market cap of some €2.9 billion.

 

We can only hope someone in Congress asks Ben Bernanke in two weeks just under which Fed charter it is that the Fed is more focused on generating profits (not just trillions in excess liquidity) for European banks, than on opening up consumer lending which has been stuck in “petrified” mode for the past 4 years, with the total amount of loans outstanding currently at all US banks – foreign and domestic – at levels last seen the week Lehman filed for bankruptcy.

Obviously, nobody asked Bernanke and nobody has asked Yellen this simple question, because until last night apparently nobody aside from the Zero Hedge community had any grasp of what is going on.

That said, we doubt that anyone in control will ask any related questions in the near of not so near future even with Hilsenrath’s “How The Fed Is Bailing Out Foreign Banks For Dummies” primer, because let’s not forget – the same banks that control the Fed are also the same banks that purchase politicians at every possible opportunity (see for example: With Cantor Down, Which Other Politicians Has Goldman Invested In?).

In fact, the only good news from Hilsenrath’s report is that yet another conspiracy theory has been documented as unconspiracy fact. Then again, Zero Hedge readers knew all of this over three years ago, for free.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rq5QKY Tyler Durden

Secret Service Dropping the Ball, Syrian Rebels Wonder Whose Side We're On, Lena Dunham Has Opinions: A.M. Links

  • Lena DunhamA White House security breach has
    left some wondering
    whether President Obama is safe in the
    hands of the Secret Service.
  • The Supreme Court
    ruled 5-4
    against early voting in Ohio, which has angered
    Rachel Maddow and all the other people who usually get upset about
    that kind of thing.
  • Lena Dunham has
    opted to pay the warm-up acts
    for her book tour after all. She
    was previously criticized for expecting these people to perform for
    free. She’s
    still the worst
    , though, and National Review‘s Kevin
    Williamson
    explains why
    .
  • Should
    incumbent governors
    be worried about what’s coming one month
    from now?
  • It was only a matter of time: non-ISIS Syrian rebels are
    growing more and more
    annoyed about U.S. airstrikes against ISIS
    , since the strikes
    will end up helping dictator Bashar al-Assad.
  • Jon Stewart
    is furious
    that Congress won’t vote on Syrian airstrikes.
  • Poor Amanda
    Bynes
    .

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You
can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up
here
.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1xwRif4
via IFTTT

Secret Service Dropping the Ball, Syrian Rebels Wonder Whose Side We’re On, Lena Dunham Has Opinions: A.M. Links

  • Lena DunhamA White House security breach has
    left some wondering
    whether President Obama is safe in the
    hands of the Secret Service.
  • The Supreme Court
    ruled 5-4
    against early voting in Ohio, which has angered
    Rachel Maddow and all the other people who usually get upset about
    that kind of thing.
  • Lena Dunham has
    opted to pay the warm-up acts
    for her book tour after all. She
    was previously criticized for expecting these people to perform for
    free. She’s
    still the worst
    , though, and National Review‘s Kevin
    Williamson
    explains why
    .
  • Should
    incumbent governors
    be worried about what’s coming one month
    from now?
  • It was only a matter of time: non-ISIS Syrian rebels are
    growing more and more
    annoyed about U.S. airstrikes against ISIS
    , since the strikes
    will end up helping dictator Bashar al-Assad.
  • Jon Stewart
    is furious
    that Congress won’t vote on Syrian airstrikes.
  • Poor Amanda
    Bynes
    .

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You
can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up
here
.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1xwRif4
via IFTTT

Obama's Replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder Should be a Republican: Instapundit

Writing in
USA Today
, Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, offers provocative
advice to President Obama when it comes to naming a new attorney
general: Reach across the aisle.

This frequently happens with secretaries
of Defense
, and it has been of benefit to the administrations
that have done it. FDR
picked a Republican
, Henry Stimson, to be secretary of War in
1940, and that meant that the war — and the war’s casualties —
became a bipartisan matter instead of fodder for partisan attacks.
President Obama retained George W. Bush’s Defense secretary, Robert
Gates, for most of his first term. He replaced Gates with another
Republican, Chuck
Hagel
, in that position.

Having a Defense secretary from the other party makes war
bipartisan, and reassures members of the opposition that the powers
of the sword aren’t being abused. Likewise, naming an attorney
general from the opposite party would tend to make the
administration of justice bipartisan, and would provide
considerable reassurance, as Holder’s tenure in office emphatically
did not, that the powers of law enforcement were not being abused
in service of partisan ends. In an age of all-encompassing criminal
laws, and pervasive government spying, that’s a big deal.

I’m not sure I want war to be bipartisan but the idea of a
Republican AG would really restart any number of conversations that
have stalled out or stopped due to acrimony all around.

Reynolds provides a useful capsule summary of how the position
is usually filled:

…in choosing a friend, Obama was following in the footsteps of
presidents going all the way back to George Washington, who named
Revolutionary War comrades-in-arms to the slot. John F. Kennedy
named his brother Robert to be attorney general, and Richard Nixon
named his law partner, John Mitchell. In many ways, this makes
sense: The attorney general of the United States is at the top of
the law enforcement apparatus, and in that position, you want
someone you can trust.

But while presidents may feel better having an intimate, if not
a crony, in charge of law enforcement, that kind of closeness
raises questions for the rest of us. 


Read the whole thing here.

And read Reason on Holder’s legacy here,

here
, and
here
.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/10jthu5
via IFTTT