20:26
Canadian health health insurance system : what will change
source : hc-sc.gc.ca
Canadian health care system (Medicare)
The national Canadian health insurance, commonly called "health insurance", aims to ensure that all residents have reasonable access to hospital services and medically necessary without having to pay directly for these services. Rather than having a single system across the country, Canada has established a national system is comprised of thirteen health insurance plans separate provincial and territorial, but share certain characteristics and standards of basic protection common. The principles governing our health care system are defined by the Canada Health Act and reflect Canadian values of equity and solidarity. The federal and provincial / territorial governments share roles and responsibilities for health insurance. Under the Canada Health Act - our federal law on health insurance - the provincial and territorial health insurance must meet certain conditions to be eligible for all of the cash portion of the contribution Federal paid to them by virtue of the Canada Health Transfer (CHT). The provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the administration, organization and delivery of health services for their residents.
19:10
the difference between the banking systems, Canadian and American
A few words about the structure of U.S. banks, these banks ... and the difference.
The U.S. Federal Reserve:
1) decides the monetary policy of the United States with a dual objective of price stability and full employment, and the obligation to facilitate economic growth;
2) oversees the U.S. banking system;
3) publishes reports, such as the Beige Book, on the U.S. economy;
4) acts as a lender of last resort;
5) can influence the external value of the currency, the U.S. dollar, particularly through the use of interest rates (interest lenders) to motivate the coming or the flight of capital and thus influence the money supply and growth U.S. economy (example of disguised protectionism resulting in a subsequent devaluation of the dollar and therefore a better price competitiveness);
6) is independent of political institutions.
In the current crisis, it is this last point that has hurt the U.S. economy.
In Canada, in 1990 the government decided not to allow mergers of large Canadian banks, which determined the border between "banks" and "too big banks." In addition, our banks have kept a strict standard for granting credits.
Specify a few differences:
1) Canada has a strong regulatory system and centralized it has a different mortgage market from the United States.
2) We do not encourage the level of access to mortgage tax.
3) A mortgage sub-prime "almost not exist in Canada. In addition, a borrower has a mortgage greater than 80% must ensure its mortgage.
Finally, domestic banks are subject to substantial government regulation that is centralized. To do this, we have the "Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions" and "Financial Consumer Agency of Canada."
Finally, the World Economic Forum, believes that the Canadian banking system is the most "healthy" in the world.
To see rates inétrêts:
Businesses have a need for funding and will borrow. The interest rate is a cost of production, companies will pay the principal and intérêts.Si the interest rate is high, the cost of credit will be high, there will be a drop in demand for capital and investment will fall.
Households have a net lending, as they save. The interest rate is income: if the interest rate is high, the savings increase (ie traffic stops), consumption falls, output falls and unemployment increases.
There is a situation that some describe as the risk when interest rates are low.
This risk is capital flight to foreign countries where the yield is higher. In fact, if our assets are invested abroad, normally, the return from these investments, increase our wealth. Unless this is the Caisse who choose where to invest, it seems.
The U.S. Federal Reserve:
1) decides the monetary policy of the United States with a dual objective of price stability and full employment, and the obligation to facilitate economic growth;
2) oversees the U.S. banking system;
3) publishes reports, such as the Beige Book, on the U.S. economy;
4) acts as a lender of last resort;
5) can influence the external value of the currency, the U.S. dollar, particularly through the use of interest rates (interest lenders) to motivate the coming or the flight of capital and thus influence the money supply and growth U.S. economy (example of disguised protectionism resulting in a subsequent devaluation of the dollar and therefore a better price competitiveness);
6) is independent of political institutions.
In the current crisis, it is this last point that has hurt the U.S. economy.
In Canada, in 1990 the government decided not to allow mergers of large Canadian banks, which determined the border between "banks" and "too big banks." In addition, our banks have kept a strict standard for granting credits.
Specify a few differences:
1) Canada has a strong regulatory system and centralized it has a different mortgage market from the United States.
2) We do not encourage the level of access to mortgage tax.
3) A mortgage sub-prime "almost not exist in Canada. In addition, a borrower has a mortgage greater than 80% must ensure its mortgage.
Finally, domestic banks are subject to substantial government regulation that is centralized. To do this, we have the "Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions" and "Financial Consumer Agency of Canada."
Finally, the World Economic Forum, believes that the Canadian banking system is the most "healthy" in the world.
To see rates inétrêts:
Businesses have a need for funding and will borrow. The interest rate is a cost of production, companies will pay the principal and intérêts.Si the interest rate is high, the cost of credit will be high, there will be a drop in demand for capital and investment will fall.
Households have a net lending, as they save. The interest rate is income: if the interest rate is high, the savings increase (ie traffic stops), consumption falls, output falls and unemployment increases.
There is a situation that some describe as the risk when interest rates are low.
This risk is capital flight to foreign countries where the yield is higher. In fact, if our assets are invested abroad, normally, the return from these investments, increase our wealth. Unless this is the Caisse who choose where to invest, it seems.
As I said, I do not see any other impediments to the interest rate below that limit opportunities for speculators, especially those on exchange rates that are, in fact, the biggest speculators of finance.
source : centpapiers.com
André Lefebvre
19:06
Highlights: The Canadian banking system
Canada's banks are well regulated by two main authorities: the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and the Agency for Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC). Canada's banks are well managed, it is prudent lenders. Canada's banks are among the best capitalized in the world. Our bank financial groups are well diversified, with subsidiaries in investment supported by strong deposit banks. The Bank Act of Canada is reviewed and updated every five years so that the regulatory structure keeps pace with changes in the sector. Unlike many other countries, Canada does not have to bail out financial institutions to inject capital or to set up public entities to purchase toxic assets. In Canada, the vast majority of mortgages are good, and lenders tend to have a much higher percentage than in the U.S. mortgage that they are the source.
Canadians are careful borrowers and mortgage arrears in Canada remains very low (indeed, according to figures from June 2010, only 0.42% of mortgages taken out with banks were in default). Unlike the U.S., Canada, mortgages with a downpayment of less than 20% must be insured. Banks contribute 3% of GDP. The banks paid $ 7.5 billion in taxes (2009). Banks directly employ over a quarter of a million Canadians, representing an increase of 28.67% over the last 10 years. The banks provide financing to some 1.2 million SMEs. Pension funds and RRSPs are major beneficiaries of the billions of dollars in dividends that banks pay each year. 85% of Canadians trust the banking system. 92% believe that the strength of Canadian banks is essential to ensure the health of the economy as a whole. 91% of Canadians are confident that their deposits are safe. The World Economic Forum has called on the Canadian banking system stronger in the world for the third straight year. The World Economic Forum has called on the Canadian banking system stronger in the world for the third straight year.
Canadians are careful borrowers and mortgage arrears in Canada remains very low (indeed, according to figures from June 2010, only 0.42% of mortgages taken out with banks were in default). Unlike the U.S., Canada, mortgages with a downpayment of less than 20% must be insured. Banks contribute 3% of GDP. The banks paid $ 7.5 billion in taxes (2009). Banks directly employ over a quarter of a million Canadians, representing an increase of 28.67% over the last 10 years. The banks provide financing to some 1.2 million SMEs. Pension funds and RRSPs are major beneficiaries of the billions of dollars in dividends that banks pay each year. 85% of Canadians trust the banking system. 92% believe that the strength of Canadian banks is essential to ensure the health of the economy as a whole. 91% of Canadians are confident that their deposits are safe. The World Economic Forum has called on the Canadian banking system stronger in the world for the third straight year. The World Economic Forum has called on the Canadian banking system stronger in the world for the third straight year.
source : cba.ca
19:04
The creation of the Canadian banking system
For most people, the banks form a muffled world, even mythical, in part because the transactions remain private. The impressive architecture of banks or their safes closed by indecipherable combinations maintain this secret and mysterious side.
On 10 September 1987, André Raynault, professor of economics at the University of Montreal, Pierre Olivier tells the story of banks. In Canada, major banks are emerging in the 19th century. They then specialize in financing businesses.
On 10 September 1987, André Raynault, professor of economics at the University of Montreal, Pierre Olivier tells the story of banks. In Canada, major banks are emerging in the 19th century. They then specialize in financing businesses.
19:02
The strength of the Canadian banking sector is helping the country overcome the crisis
The headlines these are distressing days. You can not open a newspaper without reading once again a bank in one country or another, asked the government to bail it out, while others put the key in the door. However, when the global financial system through this difficult period, it is important to consider the situation of foreign banks relative to banks in Canada. These distinctions directly and positively affect the ability of our economy to overcome crises.
See the situation in the United States. Recently, the Economist magazine suggested the possibility that more than 1,000 banks go bankrupt in the U.S. over the next five years if the situation were to deteriorate. For now, bank lending in the United States is less available, banks enroll losses, government tax revenues fall, the U.S. government must come to the rescue of banks and lax banking regulation is strongly criticized.
Contrasts with the situation in Canada
Although banks in Canada are not completely spared, they benefit from the strength and stability of the foundations of a national banking system. Our banks continue to offer credit - in fact, loans to businesses by banks increased by almost 11% in January 2009 compared to January 2008. The Canadian banking sector is profitable and will continue to be an important source of revenue for the Government of Canada, contributing to the financing of social programs popular with Canadians.
Moreover, no bank in Canada has needed financial assistance from the government and no pressure was exerted on it so that it frees the banks from their bad debts. Instead, the federal government has implemented the program to purchase mortgages insured under which it buys from banks and mortgage quality, safe and insured to inject liquidity into the credit market, and this the benefit of taxpayers.
Such a healthy banking system, strong and stability is essential to the long-term prosperity of Canada, no matter where you live. In 2007, Quebec, banks have contributed to the provincial GDP at a rate of 2.76% and employed nearly 42,000 people. The strong presence of banks serves as a valuable anchor for economic recovery.
A growing number of Canadians are aware and continue to place great confidence in our banking sector. A survey conducted in late 2008 by The Strategic Counsel on behalf of the Canadian Bankers Association (CBA) revealed that 77% of Canadians describe the Canadian banks as being safer and more stable than the banks' abroad.
Prudence, management and regulation
According to this study, three main factors explain the confidence that our banking sector inspires Canadians: the prudence of banks' loans and investments, improved management of domestic banks compared with banks abroad and government regulation of the banking sector .
It is true that we have not a single body of securities regulators. However, overall, our regulatory regime has broad support from people like U.S. President Barack Obama, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker U.S. and many other observers. We can conclude that the banking model is best able to overcome economic crisis seems more like red and white than red, white and blue.
And the world looks to Canada for advice on how to get out of the current banking crisis. The Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is working closely with its G20 counterparts to help stabilize the global banking system. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, and the Superintendent Julie Dickson, participate actively in the efforts with their counterparts around the world, like the CEO of Scotiabank, Rick Waugh, through his work at the Institute of International Finance. Collectively and individually, the efforts of those Canadians and others accolent Financial Services of Canada label strength and reputation abroad.
A serious concern persists, however: the distinctive approach of Canada does lose in the race towards a new global regulation of international organizations or in a wave of international regulations excessive, unnecessary and inappropriate? Or will we rise to new approaches that would reflect the elements that made the Canadian system so strong? We can not allow a race to the regulatory epidermal crush us.
Maintain balance
Canada's approach - a balance between the close monitoring of solvency, and prudent management of banks and competition - has allowed its financial system to meet its commitments. Given the role played by the banking sector in stabilizing our economy, we should defend this distinctive Canadian approach.
In our view, it is essential that each country determines what changes are needed in its legislation now rather than waiting for a world body imposes new rules. We strongly support the adoption of internationally agreed standards, but no country should give up its ability to set its own standards, even in matters of capital adequacy and risk management. Instead, the development of these standards must be consistently and transparently in every country.
Much remains to be done and the bankers of Canada must continually demonstrate the many strengths of our banking and financial system, and maintain the trust of our customers. The banking sector in Canada is the challenge, helping to sustain our economy and establishing global leadership at a time when many countries face not only difficult, but are looking for models.
See the situation in the United States. Recently, the Economist magazine suggested the possibility that more than 1,000 banks go bankrupt in the U.S. over the next five years if the situation were to deteriorate. For now, bank lending in the United States is less available, banks enroll losses, government tax revenues fall, the U.S. government must come to the rescue of banks and lax banking regulation is strongly criticized.
Contrasts with the situation in Canada
Although banks in Canada are not completely spared, they benefit from the strength and stability of the foundations of a national banking system. Our banks continue to offer credit - in fact, loans to businesses by banks increased by almost 11% in January 2009 compared to January 2008. The Canadian banking sector is profitable and will continue to be an important source of revenue for the Government of Canada, contributing to the financing of social programs popular with Canadians.
Moreover, no bank in Canada has needed financial assistance from the government and no pressure was exerted on it so that it frees the banks from their bad debts. Instead, the federal government has implemented the program to purchase mortgages insured under which it buys from banks and mortgage quality, safe and insured to inject liquidity into the credit market, and this the benefit of taxpayers.
Such a healthy banking system, strong and stability is essential to the long-term prosperity of Canada, no matter where you live. In 2007, Quebec, banks have contributed to the provincial GDP at a rate of 2.76% and employed nearly 42,000 people. The strong presence of banks serves as a valuable anchor for economic recovery.
A growing number of Canadians are aware and continue to place great confidence in our banking sector. A survey conducted in late 2008 by The Strategic Counsel on behalf of the Canadian Bankers Association (CBA) revealed that 77% of Canadians describe the Canadian banks as being safer and more stable than the banks' abroad.
Prudence, management and regulation
According to this study, three main factors explain the confidence that our banking sector inspires Canadians: the prudence of banks' loans and investments, improved management of domestic banks compared with banks abroad and government regulation of the banking sector .
It is true that we have not a single body of securities regulators. However, overall, our regulatory regime has broad support from people like U.S. President Barack Obama, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker U.S. and many other observers. We can conclude that the banking model is best able to overcome economic crisis seems more like red and white than red, white and blue.
And the world looks to Canada for advice on how to get out of the current banking crisis. The Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is working closely with its G20 counterparts to help stabilize the global banking system. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, and the Superintendent Julie Dickson, participate actively in the efforts with their counterparts around the world, like the CEO of Scotiabank, Rick Waugh, through his work at the Institute of International Finance. Collectively and individually, the efforts of those Canadians and others accolent Financial Services of Canada label strength and reputation abroad.
A serious concern persists, however: the distinctive approach of Canada does lose in the race towards a new global regulation of international organizations or in a wave of international regulations excessive, unnecessary and inappropriate? Or will we rise to new approaches that would reflect the elements that made the Canadian system so strong? We can not allow a race to the regulatory epidermal crush us.
Maintain balance
Canada's approach - a balance between the close monitoring of solvency, and prudent management of banks and competition - has allowed its financial system to meet its commitments. Given the role played by the banking sector in stabilizing our economy, we should defend this distinctive Canadian approach.
In our view, it is essential that each country determines what changes are needed in its legislation now rather than waiting for a world body imposes new rules. We strongly support the adoption of internationally agreed standards, but no country should give up its ability to set its own standards, even in matters of capital adequacy and risk management. Instead, the development of these standards must be consistently and transparently in every country.
Much remains to be done and the bankers of Canada must continually demonstrate the many strengths of our banking and financial system, and maintain the trust of our customers. The banking sector in Canada is the challenge, helping to sustain our economy and establishing global leadership at a time when many countries face not only difficult, but are looking for models.
source : cyberpresse.ca
18:59
The Canadian banking system: a real example!.....................
The international crisis we are experiencing now has many banks in a difficult position. Some even seem to be on the verge of bankruptcy ... but there are countries where banking systems are significantly less risk: that of Canada, for example, is the healthiest in the world, according to the Global Competitiveness Report prepared by the Economic Forum Global non-profit based in Geneva.
The Canadian banking system ahead because the systems in Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia ... and Ontario, with Toronto in mind, is at the heart of the banking system copy!
A sophisticated and efficient banking system
Canada has a sophisticated financial system and very innovative: it is updated every 5 years to adapt equally well to changing times than good times or crisis, like we live in now, which is the soundest banking system, as evidenced by the IMF.
Aid in the creation of new businesses unique
Canada has also been elected the number 1 in the Global Competitiveness Report for the help in the creation of new businesses, because the steps are much faster. Toronto, Ontario, is one of the ten "most powerful cities in the world, economically," according to Forbes, and "with London, Toronto is the most important financial center in the G7," which demonstrates that Ontario stability and ability to grow your business and expand it.
Leader in the growth of North American Market
Many investors already know that Canada is one of the safest places in the world to invest, especially the province of Ontario - and Toronto in particular - which is part of the 3 main players in North America the financial services sector. Since 2004, the Ontario government has reduced corporate taxes by more than $ 1.5 billion.
A strong economy and growing
Ontario's GDP (over U.S. $ 453 billion) is larger than Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and the Scandinavian countries and represents over 38% of the total GDP of Canada.
World leaders there are only advantages, as evidenced by growth at 13% of foreign direct investment in Canada in the sectors of finance and insurance in 2007, making Ontario a safe bet for investors to help expand rapidly both in Canada and around the world.
Growth was boosted by a skilled workforce
More than 336,000 people work in the field of finance and insurance in Ontario, and almost half of them in banking. Ontario has trained 6,000 financial analysts, more than 8,500 specialized in financial planning, and more than 31,000 accountants.
MBA programs in Ontario are among the best in the world. And the number of financial specialists is growing, encouraged by a significant investment in training by the government. Thus, 17 universities have over 55,000 students enrolled in "business" and nearly 14,000 students in accounting.
Moreover, in order to attract the brains in the financial sector, the Government of Ontario has recently established a Centre of Excellence for Education in the field of financial services, and allocated $ 4 million over 3 years. The center's mission is to promote innovation and technology, attracting students from around the world in Toronto.
Ontario is thus the "engine" that powers the Canadian financial services.
Ontario, a paradise for investors!
Accessibility, proximity to the NAFTA region, cost competitive in business, stability and ability to develop various industries in many sectors (professional and financial services, life sciences, etc ...) and copy the banking system, all qualities that make Ontario a haven for international investors!
source : mediaslibres.com
The Canadian banking system ahead because the systems in Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia ... and Ontario, with Toronto in mind, is at the heart of the banking system copy!
A sophisticated and efficient banking system
Canada has a sophisticated financial system and very innovative: it is updated every 5 years to adapt equally well to changing times than good times or crisis, like we live in now, which is the soundest banking system, as evidenced by the IMF.
Aid in the creation of new businesses unique
Canada has also been elected the number 1 in the Global Competitiveness Report for the help in the creation of new businesses, because the steps are much faster. Toronto, Ontario, is one of the ten "most powerful cities in the world, economically," according to Forbes, and "with London, Toronto is the most important financial center in the G7," which demonstrates that Ontario stability and ability to grow your business and expand it.
Leader in the growth of North American Market
Many investors already know that Canada is one of the safest places in the world to invest, especially the province of Ontario - and Toronto in particular - which is part of the 3 main players in North America the financial services sector. Since 2004, the Ontario government has reduced corporate taxes by more than $ 1.5 billion.
A strong economy and growing
Ontario's GDP (over U.S. $ 453 billion) is larger than Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and the Scandinavian countries and represents over 38% of the total GDP of Canada.
World leaders there are only advantages, as evidenced by growth at 13% of foreign direct investment in Canada in the sectors of finance and insurance in 2007, making Ontario a safe bet for investors to help expand rapidly both in Canada and around the world.
Growth was boosted by a skilled workforce
More than 336,000 people work in the field of finance and insurance in Ontario, and almost half of them in banking. Ontario has trained 6,000 financial analysts, more than 8,500 specialized in financial planning, and more than 31,000 accountants.
MBA programs in Ontario are among the best in the world. And the number of financial specialists is growing, encouraged by a significant investment in training by the government. Thus, 17 universities have over 55,000 students enrolled in "business" and nearly 14,000 students in accounting.
Moreover, in order to attract the brains in the financial sector, the Government of Ontario has recently established a Centre of Excellence for Education in the field of financial services, and allocated $ 4 million over 3 years. The center's mission is to promote innovation and technology, attracting students from around the world in Toronto.
Ontario is thus the "engine" that powers the Canadian financial services.
Ontario, a paradise for investors!
Accessibility, proximity to the NAFTA region, cost competitive in business, stability and ability to develop various industries in many sectors (professional and financial services, life sciences, etc ...) and copy the banking system, all qualities that make Ontario a haven for international investors!
source : mediaslibres.com
18:56
Barack Obama will propose a broad reform of U.S. financial system
The Obama administration needs to present on Wednesday the most ambitious project to reform the financial system since the 1929 crisis, a whole battery of new operating rules and controls to prevent the U.S. economy to plunge into a vicious circle.
And it's not temporary measures, such as the recent partial nationalization of the automakers or major financial institutions, but permanent changes, leading to a heated debate between Democrats and Republicans.
The government wants to rebalance and the power and authority between the agencies responsible for regulating the banking, credit and investment, all of which play a role in the lives of everyday Americans through credit cards, mortgages or pension funds.
Based on the fact of obsolescence of existing rules for financial system has become incredibly complex and opaque, the administration will have to find the right balance between action ultimately ineffective and too timid a straitjacket that would hinder capitalism. "From a macroeconomic view, we are very supportive of reform," says Tim Ryan, CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), which represents the interests of securities firms, banks and managers assets.
The new organization will address the four main weaknesses identified in the current financial system.
- The absence of a federal entity capable of detecting the institutional tensions that threaten the financial system and the government's failure to intervene to help large institutions whose collapse would undermine the whole system. This entity already exists for banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.. Fund (Federal Deposit Insurance, FDIC);
- The under-capitalization of major financial institutions. When the crisis came, most banks had too much debt and not enough equity (capital);
- The emergence of large markets such as little-regulated investment funds at risk (hedge funds) and large insurers such as AIG, without federal oversight. The Obama administration is that the big private investment funds are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Constable of the award, and is considering creating a federal charter for insurers;
- Consumers and lending institutions whose decisions reckless borrowing and credit were crumbling families in debt and contributed to the instability of the financial system. Barack Obama will probably recommend the creation of a protective device that can monitor for specific financial products than borrowing like mortgages and credit cards.
With regard to streamlining the number of regulatory agencies, banking, and insurance, Democrats and Republicans want the latter but at the same time would weaken the powers of the Federal Reserve (central bank) and the FDIC .
The administration has proposed a time to merge the SEC and the policeman of the commodities market, CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission) but gave up before the political and legal difficulties of the operation.
Reforms may well anyway to make a winner: the Fed. The government and the president of the institution, Ben Bernanke, want the Central Bank becomes the regulator of "systemic risk" watch the financial system responsible for identifying gaps and tensions that could undermine it. At the time the responsibility for monetary policy and supervision of the largest financial institutions in the United States, if not the world, the Fed would gain an authority unmatched. The industry hopes the administration will propose to attend the Fed's board of controllers capable of detecting potential hazards.
Regarding the management of bankruptcies pose a risk to the entire financial system, the government wants to strengthen the role of the FDIC but leave the Fed and the Treasury's decision to involve the Fund. The Republicans meanwhile prefer that companies are restructured or liquidated by the bankruptcy court and do not trust government institutions to prevent or even anticipate crises.
To which the chief economic adviser of President Obama, Lawrence Summers, replied that can not ask the government to sign big checks to save financial institutions and they refuse to be supervised by the state. AP
source : latribune.fr
18:50
The U.S. banking system is insolvent,
Roubini is once again cautioned against the risk of recession - or depression - L, which seems to be confirmed with a contraction in the fourth quarter of 2008 to 6% of GDP in the U.S. and Europe, 12% in Japan, and 20% in Korea. Like most economists, he believes that European authorities have not realized the seriousness of the issues and show a dangerous timidity in refusing to act decisively and quickly. The American situation was hardly better. Of the 800 billion recovery plan by Obama, only 200 will be allocated this year, which should disappear in a hundred household savings. In total, the effect of the stimulus would be less than 1% of GDP in 2009. But there's more, the global economy will not start again until deep conversions have occurred among both exporters and the U.S.. The system built on consumerism and the U.S. deficit on the one hand, and exporting economies other hand, will not start again in the state, as the deleveraging of U.S. households will be a long and painful process. In the immediate restructuring of the financial system in the United States is more necessary than ever. With the economic downturn, losses could reach 3.6 trillion dollars, he estimated. Conclusion: the industry is bankrupt, and nationalization is needed, otherwise the huge amounts provided by the state are only trying to protect shareholders and creditors for the time wasted.
by Nouriel Roubini, Forbes, March 5, 2009
The relative optimism of those who claimed that the rate of growth of economic activity would become positive again, the economy contracted, but at a slower pace than in the fourth quarter of 2008, have been belied by the figures latest. In the fourth quarter 2008, gross domestic product fell by almost 6% in the United States, 6% in the euro zone, Germany 8%, 12% Japan 16% to 20% in Singapore and South Korea. The situation is even more terrible in Europe and Asia and the United States
In fact, there is an increasing risk of depression L-shaped, which would be worse than the current global recession and painful U-shaped Here's why:
First, note that most indicators suggest that the trend [1] of economic activity is still strongly negative in Europe and Japan and close to a negative value in the U.S. and China. Some signals indicating that she was again positive for the United States and China have proved to be false information. United States, the indices of industrial production Empire State and Philly Fed are still in freefall, and the jobless claims are at frightening levels, suggesting an acceleration of job destruction. The increase in sales recorded in January is not significant - it shows more of a rebound in sales after a very aggressive very depressed in December rather than a sustained recovery.
On China, growth in credit is only motivated by the desire of companies to borrow cheaply to reinvest in more profitable investments but not by investing, and steel prices have resumed their fall. The most frightening of these figures are trade in Asia, with exports falling by nearly 40% to 50% in Japan, Taiwan and Korea.
Even taking into account the effects due to Chinese New Year, exports and imports are down sharply in China, with imports falling more (-40%) than exports. This is a signal of fear, because Chinese imports are mainly raw materials and intermediate inputs. Although China's exports have declined much less than in the rest of Asia, they could fall much more sharply in the coming months, as indicated by the sharp decline in imports.
With an economy that shrank in the first quarter of 2009 at the same pace in the fourth quarter of 2008, the U-shaped recession could turn into a quasi-depression (or stag deflation) much more severe, form of an L. The magnitude and speed of the synchronized contraction of the global economy is really unprecedented (at least since the Great Depression), with a free fall in GDP, income, consumption, industrial production, the employment, exports, imports, real estate and, more worryingly, investment worldwide. Now, many economies in emerging countries are about to cross a real financial crisis, starting with the emerging Europe.
The monetary and fiscal stimulus becomes increasingly aggressive in the U.S. and China, but is less in the euro area and Japan, where policy makers are petrified and remain behind. However, these raises are unlikely to lead to sustained economic recovery. The policy of monetary easing - even unorthodox - like the action of someone who - instead of push - pull on a rope.
The problems of the economy are those of the insolvency and lending rather than the lack of liquidity. There is an excess capacity in housing, automotive, consumer durables and massive excess capacity, due to years of overinvestment in China, Asia and other emerging markets. At the same time, businesses and households in debt does not react to lower interest rates, and it will take years to absorb this surplus. Deflation remains high real rates even if nominal rates are near zero. The spreads between investment-grade bonds and Treasury bills are still 20%, despite the policy of zero rates.
Fiscal policy in the United States and China also has its limits. Of the 800 billion U.S. stimulus plan, only 200 billion will be spent in 2009, the rest being hired in 2010 and thereafter. And those 200 billion, half consists of tax cuts that will result primarily in savings and not consumption for households worried about their jobs and paying their mortgages and consumer. Of the $ 100 billion tax cut granted last year, only 30% was spent and the rest saved.
Thus, given the collapse of five of the six components of aggregate demand: consumption, residential investment, business investment, inventories and exports, the government's stimulus will have a very small effect this year.
The recovery will also affect China much lower than might suggest the number that made headlines: $ 480 billion. Firstly, China's economy depends heavily on world trade, with a trade surplus of 12% of GDP, exports representing over 40% of GDP, and most investments (almost 50% of GDP) directed to increase the production capacity of goods exported. The rest of the investment goes toward real estate (down sharply today after the bursting of the Chinese real estate) and investments in infrastructure (the only component of investment that is rising).
With massive excess capacity in industry and manufacturing, with the closure of thousands of firms, why companies, whether private or public, they would invest more, even if interest rates are the lowest and cheap credit? Require state-owned banks to lend and businesses to spend and invest more would only increase the volume of distressed debt and excess capacity.
Consequently, without a recovery in U.S. and global economy, there can be no sustained recovery of growth in China. In the U.S., the recovery requires a reduction in consumption, an increase in private savings and reduced deficits. The U.S. recovery will therefore require the same time that growth in China and other surplus countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) depends more on domestic demand and less on the positive balance of exports. But growth in domestic demand is weak in these surplus countries for economic and structural reasons. Therefore, a recovery of the global economy can not occur without a rapid and orderly adjustment of current account imbalances worldwide.
At the same time, the adjustment of U.S. consumption and savings continues. Household consumption rose temporarily in January and anecdotal, and their savings rate increased by 5%. But this increase in savings is illusory. There is a difference between the definition of household savings in the national accounts (NIA), ie disposable income less consumer spending, and economic definition or it is calculated by taking into account not only the savings but also changes in asset value, like that of financial assets or the price of a property.
In years when the stock market and real estate were up, those who saw a positive view of the sharp rise in consumption and lower savings claimed that savings was underestimated because we did not account for the variation in the value of assets due to the increase in property prices and stock markets.
But now that the stock price has lost more than 50% and that property prices have fallen by 25% (and will fall another 20%), destruction of the net worth of households has reached crisis . In fact, if one takes into account the sharp decline in value of assets, the household savings rate is not 5% as suggested by the official definition of NIA, but remains fairly strongly negative.
In other words, given the massive destruction of household wealth since 2006-07, the measurement of saving the NIA will increase even more than it is today to restore the situation very compromised financial households. As a result, the contraction in real consumption will continue in future years, until the adjustment is completed.
For now, the Dow is below 7000, and U.S. stock indexes dropped 20% since the beginning of the year. I had said in early January that the 25% gain in stock markets recorded between late November and the end of the year was no tomorrow and collapse at the first announcement of bad economic news or financial shock. The same factors still push down U.S. stocks and world for the rest of the year, with the continuing recession in 2010 or beyond.
We can not of course exclude another upward rally in 2009, probably during the second or third quarter. It could be caused by the improving trend in economic growth and activity due to a temporary effect of stimulus Americans and Chinese. But after that will be dispelled at the end of summer the effects of tax cuts, and once the initial infrastructure work immediately achievable have been completed, the effects of the stimulus will fall during the fourth quarter, as most large infrastructure projects take years to start and be done.
The same way in China, the fiscal stimulus will boost short-lived production for the domestic market, while industrial exports will continue to shrink. But given the gravity of the macroeconomic imbalances in the balance sheets, household finance and business in the United States and worldwide, this stock market rally of the second or third quarter will be short lived, as the other five that took place over the last twelve months.
Meanwhile, the carnage on financial markets and among businesses continues. The debate on the "nationalization" of banks is borderline surreal when the U.S. government has already committed to the financial system 9000 billion in the form of guarantees, investments, recapitalization and liquidity - (and it has already spent a staggering $ 2 trillion of that amount).
The U.S. financial system is de facto nationalized since the Fed became a lender of first and only resort rather than last resort, and that the U.S. Treasury has become the customer and the guarantor of the first and only appeal. The only question is whether banks and financial institutions should be nationalized also de jure.
But even in this case, the distinction boils down to: full or partial nationalization. With 36% participation (and soon) in the Citi Bank, the U.S. government is already the main shareholder. What is this nonsense not to nationalize the banks? Citi is already partially nationalized in fact, the only question is whether it should be full.
Ditto for the insurer AIG, which lost $ 62 billion in the fourth quarter, 99 billion for the full year 2008 and already owns 80% of the state. With staggering losses as it should be held officially at 100%. Until now, the funds committed by the Fed and the Treasury to bail out the shareholders and creditors of AIG fell from $ 80 billion to 162 billion.
Because common shareholders of AIG have already ruined (the share price is worth nothing), the AIG bailout becomes a bailout by its creditors would be without him now bankrupt . AIG has sold more than 500 billion toxic contracts, which guarantees the failure credit (CDS). The subscribers of these contracts are major U.S. banks.
The press and analysis produced by banks suggest that Goldman Sachs has received about $ 25 billion out of the money allocated by government for the bailout of AIG and Merrill Lynch was the second largest benefactor of this largesse. It can not be taken as estimates because the government is trying to conceal who the beneficiaries of the bailout of AIG. (The Bloomberg should perhaps continue the Fed and the Treasury to compel them to disclose this information.)
But some elements are yet known: Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman was the sole ruler of a Wall Street firm to be present at the meeting of the New York Fed bailout of AIG when was discussed. Let us stop playing: the $ 162 billion bailout of the AIG bailout is a non-transparent, opaque and dark AIG clients: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and other domestic and foreign banks.
When the Treasury took shelter behind the excuse of "systemic risk" to engulf another 30 billion into AIG, this is a polite way of saying that without such a bailout (and another half-dozen government programs to rescue such as TAF, TSLF, PDCF, TARP TALF, not to mention a program that has awarded additional 170 billion of credit for banks, with full government guarantee), Goldman Sachs and all other major U.S. banks are today ' Today completely insolvent.
Even with the 2,000 billion allocated by the government, most of these financial firms are insolvent. With defaults on loans that increase - and given the macroeconomic outlook - this means that the expected losses on loans incurred by U.S. financial firms will reach 3.6 trillion. To put it simply, the U.S. financial system is effectively insolvent.
source : by Nouriel Roubini March 9, 2009
contreinfo.info
18:46
The U.S. banking system implodes!
These are tough times for banks. After rescuing the banks Bearn Steans and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the U.S. government, or rather the U.S. taxpayer, the financial world witnessing helplessly at the wreck of the merchant bank Lehman Brothers and perhaps also to that of insurer AIG. Sign of the times if any, consequences of failures of these behemoths of finance and insurance show how monetary and financial balance and tenuous. Indeed, the flexibility is low, the first to fall in the latter inevitably leads to his downfall, the world helplessly watching this debacle. Analysts say them, "experts predict," hardly dare admit the possible consequences of these failures, by being reserved. However, there is actually the collapse of a financial system that, contrary to what its designers predicted, not self-regulate and has accumulated over several decades the excesses of his matchmakers. Thus, French banks, for what remains, are therefore not protected from contamination progressive and deep financial markets and thus could see their fate be closer to their American counterparts.
source : linformateur blog
18:43
Learning from each other: the U.S. and European banking experiences ,!!!!
What is happening in the U.S. banking system should be a lesson to those who wonder about the currency and the European Central Bank.
That, at least the opinion of two eminent economists of the Federal Reserve System.
Europe can still learn from the experience of major American banking: the financial guarantee insurance system by the government may undermine a prosperous banking system [1].
This article reveals how the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism are distorted by regulation, particularly in the U.S. yet known to be the champions of market economy.
It is not surprising that currency, the stock market and financial activity are completely deregulated: the rules were changed banking unconsciously and by clumsy government intervention.
A swarm of small banks
The home of gigantic works with banks of a very small size, which are at considerable risk.
That differentiates the U.S. from most European countries.
This originality is very old. It reflects, first, the opposition of the American people to large financial institutions, on the other hand, fear that competition between banks is harmful for depositors and borrowers.
Very soon, the U.S. legislation is taken to organize the banking system in a swarm of small establishments strictly controlled.
At December 31, 1990, there were 12,383 banks in the United States, with median assets of $ 45 million only. 5425 banks did not have a subsidiary or a single office.
This is because the banking law, which is the responsibility of Member States is hostile to large national banking networks. The federal government had tried to impose a banking system extended to the entire U.S. territory, but the experiment was conducted from 1791 to 1811 and from 1816 to 1836, was not pursued: these networks have the privilege can be installed anywhere, were too subject to influence politicians and the public has turned away. Today, most states recognize the possibility for banks to have subsidiaries within their borders, but only fourteen accept bank subsidiaries located outside, while three do not admit any subsidiary any kind.
The banks had found a way by creating multi-bank holding companies (CHM): they were associated while retaining their legal independence, and were therefore in good standing with the state legislation. Douglas Amendment to the Companies Act in 1956 prevented holding companies even this attempt to interétatisation. Yet, from 1978, and following the example of Maine, a growing number of states have authorized local subsidiaries of CHM. But it is far from a national network. CHM 80% of the 163 operating in three states at most. Even Citicorp, the organization's largest national bank, operates in only ten states.
The consequence of this structure is to make U.S. banks are particularly vulnerable. The first such cost is the geographical restrictions banking risk increased by lack of product diversification. In 1980 alone, there were 480 bank failures in Texas. By delaying their expansion into markets outside their own states, geographical restrictions forced the banks to concentrate Texan significantly their credits on the sectors of energy and stores.
Cordon sanitaire around the banks
Another specific feature of the banking system is the prohibition on banks to link their interests with those of companies with a trade or business. Whereas in Europe it is not uncommon to see close financial links between banks and insurance companies, banks and industry, banking and real estate, etc. ... such confusion is not possible in the U.S..
Here is a federal law, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which advocated the separation of banking and investment banking. This was confirmed by Act 1956 CHM: you can not turn the law by forming holding companies.
How to explain such provisions?
One reason is the fear of the association-business banks enjoy a huge advantage in the market and destroy competition. It was suggested that the business of such an organization (commercial-banking conglomerate) operating with a fair advantage over their competitors who are not part of such conglomerates.
There was also fear that giving banks the ability to create conglomerates, they give undue political power. It is the old popular fear of the "wall of money". But why industry concentration would not it creates the same feelings? Yet there is no law limiting the size of firms or the establishment of industrial conglomerates. We can also say that industry composed of small businesses organizing as a corporation can be as effective politically powerful industry dominated by a few large firms.
Basically, it all rests on the idea that banks hold any degree of market power and can set the price of credit. If it was, they would hold everyone to them thank you. But in these terms, do not we see that the best defense would not restrict the banking business, but to allow free competition between banks?
Still others were in favor of the limitations of the banking business on the grounds that banks enjoyed a government guarantee (with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). But, as we shall see, the FDIC has been imposed on banks, and more at risk with banks of small size and shackled with banks released. Anyway, this problem is rather an argument for restructuring the insurance of deposits to prevent the confusion of banking and commerce. Free banks to expand their activities could diversify their portfolio and overall risk has diminished, although some non-bank activities were very risky. Even high-risk activities can be incorporated to reduce the variability of total earnings if its covariance with the existing bank earnings are low or negative.
At the limit, moreover, that a bank would not take more risk? This would, for example, a bank that would grant more credit!
The European Way
It seems that the European bank has taken in the past a very different tack. Will she kept in the coming years?
So far, apart from the English who are closer to the tradition of "specialization" U.S., European banks, especially German banks have extensive networks and activities in all areas. It seems that the deadlines of 1993 did not alter this general line.
European countries will in fact benefit the game of the principle of "mutual recognition of standards" established by the Single Act. The principle of mutual recognition means that the power of control over banking regulation up to the country of origin. This approach will lead financial firms to be located in countries with the most liberal banking regulations. This trend, in turn, will push other countries to review their banking regulatory and recast them to give them the form developed by the most liberal governments.
This system is much better than the U.S., where relations between states involving federal regulations. Thus, there is, within each state, two laws: that of the state and the federal powers in Washington. Is a banking system "dual".
Congress does not seem to understand this situation. EDF and its Chairman, Alan Greenspan, try to introduce new rules, including increasing the financial powers of commercial banks. Although the economic arguments in favor of universal banking are obvious, the American political system has not arrived to seize the benefits to be derived from the European approach of banks.
The prognosis seems so easy in the 90s, Europe, or at least the EEC, will exchange bank freer than the United States.
The trap of deposit insurance
Today, not only U.S. banks are in trouble, but the breakup is complete in the Caisses d'Epargne.
This is so because of the diabolical invention of Americans in 1933: the auto insurance of deposits by the public.
Impressed by the bankruptcies of the 1929 crisis, politicians have forced U.S. banks to join a federal system of deposit insurance (FDIC): these are American citizens protected against bank failures. But here also that lessens the severity of bank failures: the banker always has the safety net of the FDIC. And as long as the bank in question is important, and make them take big risks the FDIC, the Federal Reserve System, which will come to the rescue of threatened property. This practice has led to a growing stream of unconsciousness bankers, but things have gone even further with the Caisses d'Epargne.
It all started with a serious increase in the amount of guaranteed deposits.
In 1933, the maximum was $ 2,500. In 1980, Congress fixed the ceiling at $ 100,000!
At the same time being lifted ceilings, it liberalized the conditions under which the savings banks could open credits: in practice, almost no operation they were banned.
Under these conditions, many savings banks began to aggressively buy insured deposits (ie guaranteed) to finance their rapid growth. Banks then rush in the cavalry: they claim absorb current losses due to unnecessary risks with the profits they realized on future operations more risky! As always, the horse ends with a quest for money overnight.
The Caisses d'Epargne looking for high profitability is therefore engaged in operations in increasingly risky, so utterly irresponsible. The possibility of financing this growth was the result of the deregulation of deposits and raising the ceiling for coverage, regardless of the moral hazard inherent in deposit insurance system. An insurer must pay even for suicidal behavior of its policyholders, has little chance to survive, it is true that in the circumstances, the insurer has insured himself because he works out of public funds .
Commercial banks would have come out better than the Caisses d'Epargne, because they did not get the freedom to engage in any type of operations.
The moral of this story is that in the USA, the government eventually distort all the rules of the game's credit, and introduced in the financial climate of euphoria and artificial widespread irresponsibility.
In banking, the government has injected a dose of harmful social practices in the allocation of investment funds. Guarantees comfortable, like deposit insurance, anesthetize the credit markets, hiding feelings of risk ... It replaces the evaluation of market regulation.
Europe will choose
The American experience has a double influence on European projects.
- On one hand, European banks are accustomed to large networks are willing to expand in Europe beyond national borders. Having thus "Europeanized", they already claim to "Americanize". But here, as evidenced by the GATT negotiations, they clash with U.S. law, and the U.S. then go to protect their domestic banking space (when their own banks face the same constraints).
- Secondly, the European authorities are beginning to sow the seeds of a regulation that would limit U.S. practices in their most harmful: free insurance deposits.
The idea that some banks are "too big to fail" is gaining ground. The Second Banking Directive of the EEC (1989) research regulatory harmonization of national systems, instead of letting play the principle of mutual recognition of standards, much better. On this occasion, Europe seems more conducive to the adoption of a policy to support troubled banks. While European governments have sown the seeds of problems in the banking system of American style.
Today British banks are in trouble because of the housing market collapse and the situation is as bad in France. In both cases, we see that banks have gone too far because they felt to be covered in any event.
The cover comes from tampering with public authorities. Ultimately, since neither the applicant nor the shareholder or the bond or the bank assumes the risk, the state-ie, the taxpayer who does.
The U.S. banking crisis, however, should be a lesson to the Europeans. We must remind ourselves that capitalism, as economic life is based on risk management. But no serious management can be made if public funds are permanently net. We must allow insolvent banks to deal with such failures. Private economic agents should be exposed to losses from investment funds in financial institutions.
This reminder of general principles is helpful when Europe wants to remove its internal economic borders. This deletion should not be a pretext for a US-style banking regulations.
The warning of R. Clear and G. O'Driscoll should be understood with particular attention to France, where the banking sector and Caisses d'Epargne is controlled by the State for three quarters, and where the "institutional investors" put their money more according to political criteria risk considerations. But France saw it not been for a long time in a socialized economy?
source : libres.org
by Robert T. Clair and Gerald P. O’Driscoll.
That, at least the opinion of two eminent economists of the Federal Reserve System.
Europe can still learn from the experience of major American banking: the financial guarantee insurance system by the government may undermine a prosperous banking system [1].
This article reveals how the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism are distorted by regulation, particularly in the U.S. yet known to be the champions of market economy.
It is not surprising that currency, the stock market and financial activity are completely deregulated: the rules were changed banking unconsciously and by clumsy government intervention.
A swarm of small banks
The home of gigantic works with banks of a very small size, which are at considerable risk.
That differentiates the U.S. from most European countries.
This originality is very old. It reflects, first, the opposition of the American people to large financial institutions, on the other hand, fear that competition between banks is harmful for depositors and borrowers.
Very soon, the U.S. legislation is taken to organize the banking system in a swarm of small establishments strictly controlled.
At December 31, 1990, there were 12,383 banks in the United States, with median assets of $ 45 million only. 5425 banks did not have a subsidiary or a single office.
This is because the banking law, which is the responsibility of Member States is hostile to large national banking networks. The federal government had tried to impose a banking system extended to the entire U.S. territory, but the experiment was conducted from 1791 to 1811 and from 1816 to 1836, was not pursued: these networks have the privilege can be installed anywhere, were too subject to influence politicians and the public has turned away. Today, most states recognize the possibility for banks to have subsidiaries within their borders, but only fourteen accept bank subsidiaries located outside, while three do not admit any subsidiary any kind.
The banks had found a way by creating multi-bank holding companies (CHM): they were associated while retaining their legal independence, and were therefore in good standing with the state legislation. Douglas Amendment to the Companies Act in 1956 prevented holding companies even this attempt to interétatisation. Yet, from 1978, and following the example of Maine, a growing number of states have authorized local subsidiaries of CHM. But it is far from a national network. CHM 80% of the 163 operating in three states at most. Even Citicorp, the organization's largest national bank, operates in only ten states.
The consequence of this structure is to make U.S. banks are particularly vulnerable. The first such cost is the geographical restrictions banking risk increased by lack of product diversification. In 1980 alone, there were 480 bank failures in Texas. By delaying their expansion into markets outside their own states, geographical restrictions forced the banks to concentrate Texan significantly their credits on the sectors of energy and stores.
Cordon sanitaire around the banks
Another specific feature of the banking system is the prohibition on banks to link their interests with those of companies with a trade or business. Whereas in Europe it is not uncommon to see close financial links between banks and insurance companies, banks and industry, banking and real estate, etc. ... such confusion is not possible in the U.S..
Here is a federal law, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which advocated the separation of banking and investment banking. This was confirmed by Act 1956 CHM: you can not turn the law by forming holding companies.
How to explain such provisions?
One reason is the fear of the association-business banks enjoy a huge advantage in the market and destroy competition. It was suggested that the business of such an organization (commercial-banking conglomerate) operating with a fair advantage over their competitors who are not part of such conglomerates.
There was also fear that giving banks the ability to create conglomerates, they give undue political power. It is the old popular fear of the "wall of money". But why industry concentration would not it creates the same feelings? Yet there is no law limiting the size of firms or the establishment of industrial conglomerates. We can also say that industry composed of small businesses organizing as a corporation can be as effective politically powerful industry dominated by a few large firms.
Basically, it all rests on the idea that banks hold any degree of market power and can set the price of credit. If it was, they would hold everyone to them thank you. But in these terms, do not we see that the best defense would not restrict the banking business, but to allow free competition between banks?
Still others were in favor of the limitations of the banking business on the grounds that banks enjoyed a government guarantee (with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). But, as we shall see, the FDIC has been imposed on banks, and more at risk with banks of small size and shackled with banks released. Anyway, this problem is rather an argument for restructuring the insurance of deposits to prevent the confusion of banking and commerce. Free banks to expand their activities could diversify their portfolio and overall risk has diminished, although some non-bank activities were very risky. Even high-risk activities can be incorporated to reduce the variability of total earnings if its covariance with the existing bank earnings are low or negative.
At the limit, moreover, that a bank would not take more risk? This would, for example, a bank that would grant more credit!
The European Way
It seems that the European bank has taken in the past a very different tack. Will she kept in the coming years?
So far, apart from the English who are closer to the tradition of "specialization" U.S., European banks, especially German banks have extensive networks and activities in all areas. It seems that the deadlines of 1993 did not alter this general line.
European countries will in fact benefit the game of the principle of "mutual recognition of standards" established by the Single Act. The principle of mutual recognition means that the power of control over banking regulation up to the country of origin. This approach will lead financial firms to be located in countries with the most liberal banking regulations. This trend, in turn, will push other countries to review their banking regulatory and recast them to give them the form developed by the most liberal governments.
This system is much better than the U.S., where relations between states involving federal regulations. Thus, there is, within each state, two laws: that of the state and the federal powers in Washington. Is a banking system "dual".
Congress does not seem to understand this situation. EDF and its Chairman, Alan Greenspan, try to introduce new rules, including increasing the financial powers of commercial banks. Although the economic arguments in favor of universal banking are obvious, the American political system has not arrived to seize the benefits to be derived from the European approach of banks.
The prognosis seems so easy in the 90s, Europe, or at least the EEC, will exchange bank freer than the United States.
The trap of deposit insurance
Today, not only U.S. banks are in trouble, but the breakup is complete in the Caisses d'Epargne.
This is so because of the diabolical invention of Americans in 1933: the auto insurance of deposits by the public.
Impressed by the bankruptcies of the 1929 crisis, politicians have forced U.S. banks to join a federal system of deposit insurance (FDIC): these are American citizens protected against bank failures. But here also that lessens the severity of bank failures: the banker always has the safety net of the FDIC. And as long as the bank in question is important, and make them take big risks the FDIC, the Federal Reserve System, which will come to the rescue of threatened property. This practice has led to a growing stream of unconsciousness bankers, but things have gone even further with the Caisses d'Epargne.
It all started with a serious increase in the amount of guaranteed deposits.
In 1933, the maximum was $ 2,500. In 1980, Congress fixed the ceiling at $ 100,000!
At the same time being lifted ceilings, it liberalized the conditions under which the savings banks could open credits: in practice, almost no operation they were banned.
Under these conditions, many savings banks began to aggressively buy insured deposits (ie guaranteed) to finance their rapid growth. Banks then rush in the cavalry: they claim absorb current losses due to unnecessary risks with the profits they realized on future operations more risky! As always, the horse ends with a quest for money overnight.
The Caisses d'Epargne looking for high profitability is therefore engaged in operations in increasingly risky, so utterly irresponsible. The possibility of financing this growth was the result of the deregulation of deposits and raising the ceiling for coverage, regardless of the moral hazard inherent in deposit insurance system. An insurer must pay even for suicidal behavior of its policyholders, has little chance to survive, it is true that in the circumstances, the insurer has insured himself because he works out of public funds .
Commercial banks would have come out better than the Caisses d'Epargne, because they did not get the freedom to engage in any type of operations.
The moral of this story is that in the USA, the government eventually distort all the rules of the game's credit, and introduced in the financial climate of euphoria and artificial widespread irresponsibility.
In banking, the government has injected a dose of harmful social practices in the allocation of investment funds. Guarantees comfortable, like deposit insurance, anesthetize the credit markets, hiding feelings of risk ... It replaces the evaluation of market regulation.
Europe will choose
The American experience has a double influence on European projects.
- On one hand, European banks are accustomed to large networks are willing to expand in Europe beyond national borders. Having thus "Europeanized", they already claim to "Americanize". But here, as evidenced by the GATT negotiations, they clash with U.S. law, and the U.S. then go to protect their domestic banking space (when their own banks face the same constraints).
- Secondly, the European authorities are beginning to sow the seeds of a regulation that would limit U.S. practices in their most harmful: free insurance deposits.
The idea that some banks are "too big to fail" is gaining ground. The Second Banking Directive of the EEC (1989) research regulatory harmonization of national systems, instead of letting play the principle of mutual recognition of standards, much better. On this occasion, Europe seems more conducive to the adoption of a policy to support troubled banks. While European governments have sown the seeds of problems in the banking system of American style.
Today British banks are in trouble because of the housing market collapse and the situation is as bad in France. In both cases, we see that banks have gone too far because they felt to be covered in any event.
The cover comes from tampering with public authorities. Ultimately, since neither the applicant nor the shareholder or the bond or the bank assumes the risk, the state-ie, the taxpayer who does.
The U.S. banking crisis, however, should be a lesson to the Europeans. We must remind ourselves that capitalism, as economic life is based on risk management. But no serious management can be made if public funds are permanently net. We must allow insolvent banks to deal with such failures. Private economic agents should be exposed to losses from investment funds in financial institutions.
This reminder of general principles is helpful when Europe wants to remove its internal economic borders. This deletion should not be a pretext for a US-style banking regulations.
The warning of R. Clear and G. O'Driscoll should be understood with particular attention to France, where the banking sector and Caisses d'Epargne is controlled by the State for three quarters, and where the "institutional investors" put their money more according to political criteria risk considerations. But France saw it not been for a long time in a socialized economy?
source : libres.org
by Robert T. Clair and Gerald P. O’Driscoll.
Revue des Etudes Humaines, numéro 9, septembre 1992.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
usa and canada systeme banck. Fourni par Blogger.
SES by business degree online promotion team.
Submit ExpressSEO Services & Tools
visites
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |