Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

In Fed Q&A Jerome Powell Wonders “How Did Bank Failures Happen?”

At roughly the 1:26:00 mark in the video below, Powell responded to a Politico reporters question on the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co3WU9xjQkM

Politico: Can you speak to the role you will be playing in the Fed’s internal investigation on its supervision and regulation. 

Powell: Vice-chair [Michael] Barr is of course leading that review. And he is responsible for it in his capacity as vice-chair for supervision. We, uh, I realized right away that there was going to be a need for a review. I mean, the question we are all asking ourselves over that first weekend was how did this happen.

How Did This Happen?

  1. The Fed held interest rates too low too long, once again.
  2. The Fed even wanted to make up for lack of prior inflation, initially welcoming the pickup of inflation.
  3. The Fed failed to understand how $9 trillion in QE would fan asset bubbles.
  4. The Fed failed to understand how three rounds of fiscal stimulus, the largest in history, would fan inflation.
  5. The Fed presidents believe in economic models such as inflation expectations that its own studies prove do not work. 
  6. When inflation did pick up, the Fed kept inisting that inflation was transitory.
  7. Even when the Fed finally realized inflation was not transitory, it kept QE going until the bitter end, not wanting to disturb prior forward guidance.
  8. The San Francisco Fed, whose job it was to monitor Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was asleep at the wheel.
  9. The Fed considers treasuries a risk-free asset, ignoring duration risk.
  10. The Fed ignored a record concentration of long-term treasury and mortgage assets at SVB despite understanding the interest rate risk of those assets.
  11. The Fed’s forward guidance has been a disaster. It openly encouraged speculation. 
  12. The Fed reduced reserve requirements on deposits to ZERO. 

Dear Jerome Powell

Dear chairman Powell, instead of wasting taxpayer money on a study that will undoubtedly attempt to whitewash the Fed’s responsibility, please address each of the above twelve points. 

ZERO Reserve Banking

Bank deposits, money that is supposedly 100% payable on demand, was in fact NOT payable on demand. It’s like leasing your car to two people simultaneously, banking on the notion one will not show up. 

If I lease a house to two people hoping that one would not show up, I would be arrested.

Amazingly, people defend this practice when banks do it. 

The duration risk of SVB coupled with virtually no reserves, both of which the San Francisco Fed ignored, guaranteed that once a run on the bank started, it was doomed. 

Some of us warned about these things in advance.

Even now, after the clear facts, the Fed wonders “What Happened?” 

Another View

Danielle DiMartino Booth has another take. 

OK, Powell inherited decades of garbage from Bernanke, Greenspan, and Yellen. And Powell is not King Louis. But, I’m sorry, Powell steered the Powell Fed and should be held accountable. He deserves a lot of blame for where we are right now. 

So, I respectfully disagree with the idea “Why not grow up?

The Fed cannot defend those points I made. 

Too Small to Not Fail 

But “Why not grow up?” is just one small clip of her overall take.

In Too Small to Not Fail Booth also provides a great deal of insight into problems with the Commercial Real Estate Sector.

It’s well worth a read. 

It’s a serious mistake to judge a person by one or even a small number of viewpoints that you disagree with.

Fed Policy: It’s Not Fractional Reserve Banking, It’s ZERO Reserve Banking

For more details on zero reserve banking and my proposed solution, please see Fed Policy: It’s Not Fractional Reserve Banking, It’s ZERO Reserve Banking

This post originated on MishTalk.Com.

Thanks for Tuning In!

Please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

64 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
KyleW
KyleW
3 years ago
I’ve been waiting for more bank failures since 2010 or so. As soon as I found out about how our monetary system is designed with all these fractionally-reserved banks. There are a lot of creditors in this country, bondholders, depositors, and retirees, and the money isn’t there to pay them.
david halte
david halte
3 years ago
Powell just needs to clear the low bar of ignorance. Last October the Bank’s Office of the Inspector General investigated Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic’s multiple violations. Including trades made through third-party financial advisers during the Fed’s “blackout” period. Bostic filed incomplete information for each year of his presidency, and held more than $50K in U.S. Treasuries, which exceeded the permissible limit. Bostic said the errors were a misinterpretation of the Bank’s rules, even though third party transactions broke Fed policy. The OIG acknowledged the violations and accepted Bostic’s explanation.
Jack
Jack
3 years ago
Reply to  david halte
He would not be making much circumventing rules with 50k$ of treasuries.
JackWebb
JackWebb
3 years ago
Still nothing about the role of the Federal Home Loan Bank. WTF?
whirlaway
whirlaway
3 years ago
What the Fed is doing now is to hike interest rates in an effort to create unemployment and to reduce consumer price inflation, while at the same time, keep QE going so that they can preserve the asset inflation.
The hiking (rates) is aimed at screwing the working class, while the easing (QE) is aimed at helping the rich capitalist class.
Winn
Winn
3 years ago
FED is entertaining the world every 10 years or so.
Asian financial crisis, Dot com crisis, Subprime crisis, Latest all bubble crisis, etc.
Every times after crisis FED learned the lesson and vowed not to repeat again.
Result: Different kind of crises ensued.
Clown Bernanke said “subprime crisis was contained” – Wow , banking crisis
Joker Yellen said “we won’t see another financial crisis in our life time” – All asset bubbles created and
Magician Powell staged a show – showing ” disappearance of banking crisis “
Its a good show. Lets see what he will surprise us more.
ColoradoAccountant
ColoradoAccountant
3 years ago
Powell monetized the Trump/Biden stimulus during a supply shock. He caused the inflation fire. Then the hose he used to put it out was too fast for some to get out of the way.
Salmo Trutta
Salmo Trutta
3 years ago
The banks, as a system, are losing money on their interest-bearing deposits. See: “Should Commercial
Banks Accept Savings Deposits?” Conference on Savings and Residential Financing
1961 Proceedings, United States Savings and loan league, Chicago, 1961, 42, 43
“As a result of Section 11 of the Banking Act of 1933, Regulation Q was promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board on August 29, 1933. In addition to prohibiting the payment of interest on demand deposits (a prohibition that the act also wrote into the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C.371a) as Section 19(i)), it was also used to impose interest rate ceilings on various other types of bank deposits, including savings and time deposits.[3] The motivation for the deposit interest restrictions was the perception that the bank failures of the early 1930s, during the first part of the Great Depression, had been caused in part by excessive bank competition for deposit funds, driving down the margin between lending rates and borrowing rates and encouraging overly speculative investment behavior on the part of large banks.” Wikipedia
All monetary savings originate within the payment’s system. The monopolization of banks, just permits a few banks to go bigger than they should.
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
Suella Braverman GB minister : SPX will flip back up.
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
SPX 1M : for 3 months there is no close > Dec high. Rishi Sunak : Feb 2023 high was bs. Sunak saved GB and US, but in Mar 2023 the baby
flipped on it’s head. No harm is done to the Fed, because JP, after he falls, always jump on his legs.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
3 years ago
It’s not a ZERO reserve banking. The backing is by infinite printing press. Nice (con)job.
Jackula
Jackula
3 years ago
With the likes of Brainard waiting in the wings to replace Powell I think I see where she is coming from…
Portlander2
Portlander2
3 years ago
  • The San Francisco Fed, whose job it was to monitor Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was asleep at the wheel.
  • The SF Fed knew what was going on for years, sent official “warnings”, but repeatedly took no action. SVB’s CEO was on the SF Fed’s board. This is a smoking gun of conflict of interest and malfeasance at the very top. The CEO almost certainly had the tacit support of the VC and other insiders when they saw what was going down, and was advised: get rid of your CRO, get rid of your interest rate hedges, and let ‘er blow. Promise lower level staff they’ll get their bonuses before lighting the fuse if they’ll stay quiet. After Kaboom! get Peter Thiel to signal the run has started, get the Fed to panic, get Governor Newsom and the DC Lobby to chime in, and Powell will give you the “systemic risk exception.”
    SVB gave every medium sized bank a lesson in how to play the Fed.
    Unless the $250K insurance cap is formally rescinded, so deposit insurance applies to everyone without limit (and insurance premiums are collected without limit), banks will take more risk and runs will continue. Senior bank managers of dodgy banks will have an incentive to take their bonuses, put TNT in the balance sheet, and run, just as happenned at SVB. So, the $250K cap just makes moral hazard worse. The present system puts the burden of insurance on the little guys, and the big boys get “socialism for the rich.” Again.
    I wish the Financial press would quit the “asleep at the wheel” narrative. It insults the intelligence of the public.
    Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa_Hooker
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Portlander2
    Eliminate the FDIC insurance completely.
    Strongly suggest depositors research the bank(s) in which they keep their money.
    Jail bank executives that mislead customers or regulators (forget fines).
    Require banks to again give free appliances to new depositors.
    Return $500 and $1000 Federal Reserve Notes to circulation.
    McQT8129
    McQT8129
    3 years ago
    Hello, I appreciate your thoughts! Do you know what the banking reserve limits are at currently? Shocking that they were lowered to that point in 2020, albeit consistent with the unlimited firehose policies at the time.
    Keep Trying
    Keep Trying
    3 years ago
    It seems all the crisis are caused by the same thing. Its power induced quick policy changes that reduce the value of assets. Tax law changes affected the collateral value in the s&l crisis. Rising interest rates drove down bonds in 2008 and 2023. The reverse caused values to maybe rise too fast, also. It’s blindly believing markets can adjust quickly enough to the whims of power as that power wreaks havoc on the value of assets. The destruction of bond values was known about long before the ____ hit the fan. In short, tptb tend to believe in manipulation of markets and values rather than allowing free markets to work. Oh well.
    Melinda Romanoff
    Melinda Romanoff
    3 years ago
    No one seems to be talking about the types of credit creation and associated risks involved, I’d like to see more of that, please. NPLs on restricted stocks should be a huge red flag, but was ignored under the “Other Assets” on balance sheets. Especially wrt crypto. It’s not crypto that’s the problem, but unrestricted and unregulated credit creation. That’s the inflation that’s being targeted by the Fed, and it shows up in trading, first.
    Salmo Trutta
    Salmo Trutta
    3 years ago
    Powell doesn’t know:

    the difference between the supply of money & the supply
    of loan funds,

    the difference between means-of-payment money & liquid
    assets,

    the difference between financial intermediaries & money
    creating institutions,

    doesn’t know that interest rates are the price of loan-funds,
    not the price of money,

    that the price of money is represented by the various price
    (indices) level,

    that inflation is the most important factor determining
    interest rates, operating as it does through both the demand for & the
    supply of loan-funds.

    Tony Bennett
    Tony Bennett
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Salmo Trutta
    OK, enough ragging on Jay … what would YOU do?
    Dubronik
    Dubronik
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Tony Bennett
    Let it all burn down…Teach those bastards a lesson.
    shamrock
    shamrock
    3 years ago
    If he doesn’t know what happened to SVB how can we possibly believe his statement that the banking system is sound? He thought SVB was sound also right up to the end.
    Tony Bennett
    Tony Bennett
    3 years ago
    Reply to  shamrock
    Most banks are “solid” … right up to the bank run.
    Jay probably is correct system as a whole is sound (for now) … but he really only cares about TBTFs … and SVB not in the club.
    Federal Reserve not only regulator. Where was FDIC? OCC?
    Quagmire46
    Quagmire46
    3 years ago
    Reply to  shamrock
    As Mish used to say ” It’s all OK until it’s not OK. “
    WarpartySerf
    WarpartySerf
    3 years ago
    Wow what a dunce. “How did it happen?” says the Banker’s Buddy .
    How did it happen that Powell became Fed Chairman , and didn’t even know how to tell that the banks were bankrupt ?
    That’s the real question.
    Captain Ahab
    Captain Ahab
    3 years ago
    Reply to  WarpartySerf
    What Powell thinks and says in private is likely different to what he says in public.
    They couldn’t pay me enough to lie in his position.
    Tony Bennett
    Tony Bennett
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Captain Ahab
    +100
    Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa_Hooker
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Captain Ahab
    I will gladly take Powell’s job and at a 10% pay cut.
    History shows no matter how much the Fed chair screws up there are no really serious personal repercussions.
    They all retire comfortably.
    Some that became Treasury Secretaries should have retired.
    Captain Ahab
    Captain Ahab
    3 years ago
    The ‘problem’ began when competition faded, and gets worse with every step closer to a planned/controlled economy. Competition is nature’s ‘survival of the fittest’ principle at work. We might not like the outcome when the lion devours the cute baby antelope, but as soon as we begin picking winners and losers, we upset the balance. The weak become stronger. The weak survive and multiply. The weak overcome commonsense and logic. They cannot go wrong, EVER. There is NO RISK, and always a bailout.
    The Fed is adept at picking ‘winners and losers’, useless at stimulating true competition and innovation. Kill off Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and save Citigroup? Back down whenever Wall Street whines? It is a long list of failures.
    We have reached the point where the Fed cannot control the outcome. In the simplest terms, the Fed’s goals have become mutually exclusive (forget targets). ZIRP/QE to infinity, and all the attendant messaging, has created an environment and momentum that will be difficult, perhaps impossible to stop before implosion. We can see it with the DOW, jammed at 30-33K, which has nothing to do with actual value–just messaging. The longer it stays there, the more people believe this is over. Meanwhile, I hold gold
    KidHorn
    KidHorn
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Captain Ahab
    At some point, we need to take our medicine. The sooner the better. FED should continue with QT and not cut rates. The weak will go under while the strong will survive. Problem is there’s an election next year and the FED, like the US government, are overwhelmingly democrats.
    Captain Ahab
    Captain Ahab
    3 years ago
    Reply to  KidHorn
    I agree, however,I am taking a page from the ‘PapaDave’ book… how to profit from impending implosion… To quote myself (and others)… “the Fed cannot control the outcome…”
    How bad can it get? The market is finally waking up to another time-bomb–CRE. It makes me wonder about the collective IQ on Wall Street. What of the other time-bombs caused by ZIRP/QE??
    Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa_Hooker
    3 years ago
    Reply to  KidHorn
    There is a very good possibility that the Democrats will control all four branches of the American Government in 2025.
    Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa_Hooker
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Captain Ahab
    “They cannot go wrong, EVER. There is NO RISK, and always a bailout.”
    Welcome to the compassionate Woke society.
    Enjoy your future.
    Tony Bennett
    Tony Bennett
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Captain Ahab
    “They cannot go wrong, EVER. There is NO RISK, and always a bailout.”
    Well, perhaps things might change.
    We all know the story (conspiracy theory?) of how Bernanke became Chairman of Federal Reserve just before the GFC because he was a student of The Great Depression and wouldn’t make the same mistakes (helicopter speech).
    Maybe, just maybe Jay Powell became Chairman to take down a TBTF:
    “… In October 2011, immediately before I was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board, I helped design a public simulation of the failure of a large financial institution under OLA…………….. As we developed the simulation, however, I came around to the view that it is possible to resolve a large, global financial institution. What changed my mind was the FDIC’s innovative “single-point-of-entry” approach, which was just coming into focus in 2011….”
    Tony Bennett
    Tony Bennett
    3 years ago
    “But, I’m sorry, Powell steered the Powell Fed and should be held accountable. He deserves a lot of blame for where we are right now.”
    Absolutely.
    But he inherited a mess. “Tried” to do the right thing in 2018 … but flinched … BigTime. Monetary actions of 2020 a travesty. Having said all that, I have no problems with what he’s done past year since rate hikes / QT commenced.
    Anyone b!tching and complaining about him NOW … what would YOU have done differently past year?
    KidHorn
    KidHorn
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Tony Bennett
    I agree he moved in the right direction, but I think he hiked too fast. Banks didn’t have enough time to adjust.
    Tony Bennett
    Tony Bennett
    3 years ago
    Reply to  KidHorn
    Banks dug their own holes. Even though Federal Reserve commenced hikes / QT in March 2022 financial (market based) conditions EASED further Q2 and Q3 … did not begin to tighten till Q4. And why did they ease? Nearly every “expert” since last Spring predicted a “pivot” right around the corner. Banks had enough time. Instead, they chose to make stupid loans … and buy back their stock and pay dividends … rather than batten down the hatches.
    Let them Burn.
    Matt3
    Matt3
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Tony Bennett
    Banks have also run simulations for interest rate spikes (instantaneously up 300 – 400 bp). These are done at all banks but they also have data that is used in the simulation that forecasts the expected deposit run off. These have most deposits as sticky as that is what the history shows. Unfortunately, deposits are not as sticky as the simulations had shown. That makes the associated liquidity plans insufficient. It was generally viewed that you could sell the “available for sale” securities and tap lines for enough liquidity without having to touch “held to maturity”
    Like most things, the reality didn’t unfold like the computer simulations had expected.
    Webej
    Webej
    3 years ago
    Way to go Mish. You turned one mistake into an even dozen sins.
    I consider #9 the severest.
    It is hard to imagine how contagion will not spread. Anybody with deposits that are not covered by FDIC is going to think about taking their money to a SiFi and/or wonder whether their deposit rates are well matched for the extra risk.
    A gradually declining interest rate environment will stealthily bankrupt everybody who capitalized at higher rates previously, as sure as a fire which devoured part of your capital stock, but without marking the loss. Analogously to how they mark it as a gain when their own liabilities are discounted by the market because of doubts about their credit worthiness.
    Captain Ahab
    Captain Ahab
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Webej
    Where did all those low-fixed-rate 30-yr housing mortgages end up?
    Matt3
    Matt3
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Captain Ahab
    I think most were packaged in Mortgage Backed Securities and then sold to banks, investment funds and pensions. Sold with a 7 year average life that has now extended. That just makes the change in rates even worse. They are sitting on major losses
    TheCaptain
    TheCaptain
    3 years ago
    Everyone posts symtoms. These are just noise and they are damaging to the cause because, while true, it is TLDR. Thus, unactionable.
    There is EXACTLY one problem which is root to everything else: we all got conned into accepting fake money as if it were real. End of story. However, we need to know this so that we don’t get fooled again.
    Captain Ahab
    Captain Ahab
    3 years ago
    Reply to  TheCaptain
    So, knowing that, apart from not getting conned again, where do YOU put your savings?
    Doug78
    Doug78
    3 years ago
    Reply to  TheCaptain
    You can give me all your fake money then because if it isn’t real if you give it to me then you lose nothing. I will even give you gold for your fake money but at a good discount to the price stamped on the face of your fake money. You will then make a profit because now you will have in gold real money. What say you?
    StukiMoi
    StukiMoi
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Doug78
    “You can give me all your fake money then because if it isn’t real if you give it to me then you lose nothing.”
    Problem is, The Fed is good enough at that one single thing, counterfeiting, that there is no way of telling a counterfeit dollar from a real one. All you know is that, statistically, far and away most of your, and everyone elses, dollars are counterfeit. But noone can tell which ones are real, and which are fake. You know 20 real dollars was, is and always will be, enough to get you an ounce of Gold; no matter what an ounce of Gold buys you at any given time. But you won’t accept 20 dollars in exchange for an ounce (I hope, for your sake….). Since, like everyone else, you can’t tell a fake from a real one, either….
    Doug78
    Doug78
    3 years ago
    Reply to  StukiMoi
    Then you refuse my completely reasonable offer because you say that the money is counterfeit. What about a bank transfer? It’s still fake money so nothing changes. If you still refuse then I will have to believe that you do use the fake money as real money which means that it is real “real” money because you accept it at face value in everyday life. That brings another question. Why are you bitching about it if you use it and accept it as real money?
    StukiMoi
    StukiMoi
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Doug78
    Dude, I’m not the one refusing anything. I’ll buy all the Gold you can sell me, at $20/oz….
    Problem is, I can’t guarantee the dollars I’ll hand you are real, hence worth 1/20th of an ounce of Gold. And neither can anyone else. But hey, if you feel lucky, I’ll offer you $25 of my, to my simpleton eyes indifferent from the real thing, dollars for an ounce…
    Everyone throws around Fed-counterfeited dollars these days. Since noone can tell the difference. Formally, once the quality of counterfeits reach a level where they are indistinguishable from the real thing, counterfeiting becomes debasement. And debasement, in any real economy, is a one way function. There is no way to (deterministically) reverse it nor “sort it out.”
    Hence why everyone these days are mostly resigned to treat dollars as statistical money: People know a certain share of maybe-dollars are real dollars, hence worth 1/20th oz of Gold. But they don’t know which specific ones are, and which ones have just been counterfeited; as in printed without proper backing. So they end up demanding a lot more than 20 of them, in order to part with their ounce. Figuring that, if only I get enough of them, there will statistically be 20 real ones in the wad, among all the unbacked, fake ones that The Fed has counterfeited over the years.
    And it’s not just Gold. This is exactly why prices of near all other goods have risen and risen and risen as well, despite nearly all goods in reality getting cheaper and cheaper as the technology to produce them improves: People demand more and more maybe-dollars, since that is the only way to make it likely that there is enough real, 1/20 of an ounce, dollars in the wad they are getting.
    Doug78
    Doug78
    3 years ago
    Reply to  StukiMoi
    Why should I sell you gold at $20 an ounce???? That was the price in the 1930’s and has nothing to do with today. I am talking about today, not 100 years ago, not 1000 years ago.
    If we do a bank transfer the dollars will be real ones. You are just looking for excuses. You use what you call “fake” money for everything and won’t part with any of it at discount because you know it is real for your needs.
    KidHorn
    KidHorn
    3 years ago
    At least he has the balls to raise interest rates to something reasonable. Is it too late? Looks like it. But doubt his predecessors would have done that.
    A lot of the problem is rates were raised too quickly. Had the FED raised in 0.25 increments, a lot of the problems could have been avoided. Inflation would have probably been higher, but banks would have had more time to respond.
    Captain Ahab
    Captain Ahab
    3 years ago
    Reply to  KidHorn
    I suspect the key is not the rate of increase, but the message contained within the increase.
    Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa_Hooker
    3 years ago
    Reply to  KidHorn
    Kid, I do not believe the blind banks would have had clearer vision if the rate increases had been smaller or slower.
    KidHorn
    KidHorn
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
    Their losses would have been more gradual. They could have taken smaller losses in exchange for shorter duration.
    Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa_Hooker
    3 years ago
    Reply to  KidHorn
    They could have chosen to take losses at any time.
    What do you think would have prompted them to start looking?
    They were blind by intent.
    Dr. Pangloss told them that everything was fine.
    Doug78
    Doug78
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
    They knew full well that rates were going to rise. Everyone did. Why they didn’t cover their bond portfolio is a mystery.
    Tony Bennett
    Tony Bennett
    3 years ago
    Reply to  KidHorn
    “At least he has the balls to raise interest rates to something reasonable.”
    Yes.
    Can ANYONE imagine Bernanke or Yellen doing the same??
    HippyDippy
    HippyDippy
    3 years ago
    Personally, I think they believe this is all a banking success. We’ll have more consolidation everywhere, which will make all the important people (Large Multi-National Corporations, Politicians, and Large Banks) a lot more prosperous, and barely burdened with that sinful competition. We get even more power going to those same people. Plus, if they play their cards right, they can finally kill off this pathetic shell of a dollar they created out an actual dollar. Bring on the social credit crypto! Sounds like a resounding success to me. Or, you ca believe that the people in charge can’t even balance their own checkbook. Despite decades of experience. And I would mock you for that bit of stupidity.
    MarkraD
    MarkraD
    3 years ago
    “OK, Powell inherited decades of garbage from Bernanke, Greenspan, and Yellen. And Powell is not King Louis.”
    This completely misses the fiscal side and blames it all on the Fed.
    In 1980 the top 1% of wage earners accounted for 10% of all income, that number is now 22%, coincidentally at the same time household debt to GDP has almost doubled.
    During the same time, CEO salaries have increased 950%, top .1% incomes have increased 650%, meanwhile median wages have increased 15% – the middle class doesn’t make enough to sustain profits for the latter without debt.
    The inception of Reaganomics, tax cuts and deregulation for the wealthy, while at the same time beating down worker wages/unions and then outsourcing/globalization has gradually led to the Fed cutting rates to make debt service affordable for both the middle class and government.
    The solution to this is to increase median wages while at the same time increasing rates, wealth disparity is almost at the extremes it was just before the Great Depression, excess household debt makes the economy much more susceptible to shock.
    .
    Captain Ahab
    Captain Ahab
    3 years ago
    Reply to  MarkraD
    You can always apply for the job of CEO, or join the top 1%.
    It is easy to place ‘blame’ for the disparity in incomes. However, why does that football star get $millions for one season? That rock star? That Hollywood actor? They have unique skills with value, and they work to retain that uniqueness. The same is true of CEOs and the rest of the 1%–unique skills–some of which include who you know. Non-unique skills get paid at the mass-rate. Inflation isn’t the issue–it is global competition.
    You touch upon the causal factor–globalization, yet fail to realize its full impact. Labor, like capital, has become ‘mobile.’ You compete against the masses in China, India, England, Kenya, people crossing the US border… unless you have unique skills. In which case you compete against people from other countries with the same unique skills.
    Who to blame? Start with an education system that fails to teach what is needed. Add a social system that says we are all ‘equal.’ Plus an economic system that allocates on spurious values….
    Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa_Hooker
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Captain Ahab
    Only one “unique skill.”
    Can they make a profit for me?
    MarkraD
    MarkraD
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Captain Ahab
    As a biz owner myself – My higher net worth clients don’t spend any more, in fact, they often try to negotiate price.
    When you cut incomes of the lower earners to enhance incomes of the higher, it doesn’t benefit the rest of us – to me it just means fewer customers.
    “Job creating tax cuts”, as you note, have created jobs in China, India, Mexico…so, where’s the benefit of single digit “job creating” taxes for the wealthy?
    A man that makes $1 billion/year eats as much as a $30K worker, he wears as many clothes, there is no proportional increase in consumption, there is an increase, but nowhere near proportion to income.
    We’ve been sold a bill of sales that tax cuts for the wealthy creates jobs and will pay itself back since 1980, evidence points to the complete opposite.
    .
    Nuddernoitall
    Nuddernoitall
    3 years ago
    I read the complete Powell Q & A last night, in part because I wanted to know why the market fell off a cliff during his session. (The answer to that as it turns out was, it wasn’t Powell that shocked the market –thru the first 17 minutes of his session — it was Yellen’s banking remarks to a congressional committee.)
    Regarding Powell’s quote, (How did it happen, etc.,) I found it stunningly weak and certainly poorly worded. He was later criticized by some financial outlets as “appearing weak.” The criticism may be fair in this case.
    In these Q &A sessions, Powell, whether you like him or not, does have a habit IMO of being a bit chatty and sometimes edging close to the line of casual “speak.” A few less words said would not be a bad idea.
    While Liz Warren was not in the room, her talking point minions from a few left-leaning media outlets asked questions of Powell that allowed little wiggle room for a proper response. Of course, Powell didn’t take the bait.
    Columbo
    Columbo
    3 years ago
    Add to the fact which didn’t help, the banks that went down had over 50% of there deposits over the 250k FDIC limit. The Fed needs to scrutinize any bank that has more than 50% of uninsured deposits.
    Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa_Hooker
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Columbo
    Even a moderate size business can require deposits over $250k to do business.
    Have you ever had to have the cash to meet a payroll for a non-small business?
    Matt3
    Matt3
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
    Lisa,
    That’s correct. It’s virtually impossible to run a business with under the 250K level. Additionally, most non-large businesses borrow at the regional or community bank level. As a part of borrowing agreement, they are required to bank with the lender.
    I’ve been working on this for a few weeks now and expect to be able to get around the rules and get balances down but still not under 250k. I will reduce my risk some. Not sure I can do better than that.
    Columbo
    Columbo
    3 years ago
    Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
    I think my point was misunderstood. I’m not suggesting a bank can’t have over a 50% level, what I mean is they should be under “The too big to fail” rules like big banks do if they do exceed that level.
    While I am at it, I’m also wondering if it’s feasible that the capital requirements could be tied to the changes in the Fed rates. Raising the capital requirements when they raise them by say each 1.00% and loosen the requirements when they ease the rates, for example.

    Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

    Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

    Stay Informed

    Subscribe to MishTalk

    You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.