Burnin’ Down the House! Part Two: Wall Street has a Weenie Roast With Your 401k

iStock_000004174476XSmall.jpg

Last week I wrote about the first part of my talk to the Bellevue Kiwanis Club on why our economy is in the position it is today. It is a story about good intentioned policies – like modifying credit scoring for Americans working in a cash-economy – that were bastardized in the execution – like some Americans using modified credit scoring to lie about their income. Just like there were superstar firms among the original “junk bond” companies, there were also firms like Enron and WorldCom.

In the first part of my story: banks wrote mortgages, their broker-arms sold them to the public in the form of bonds, they paid fees to Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s to get triple-A credit ratings, and they devised crazy default protection schemes which they also sold in the public capital markets. On top of all that, they screwed up the paper work so there was no relationship between houses and the ultimate financial paper that could be used to cover potential losses.

That’s when Wall Street staged a weenie-roast over the blazing fire of your 401k plan. They were making so much money in fees and trading profits that they decided to extend the scheme to car loans, credit card debt, and anything else they could package and sell off in capital markets around the world. When new money stopped flowing in and when the value of the underlying assets began the decline, the whole mess came falling down over their – and our – heads.

In case after case, there are more derivatives than their underlying assets. Here’s an example of just how absurd this is: The market value of Bank of America (BofA) is $32 billion; the contracts that payoff if BofA fails are worth $119 billion. This isn’t rocket science math. It’s worth a lot more to someone to see BofA fail than it is to see them succeed. Here’s a table of some of financial companies and home builders, alongside some countries, to give you an idea of what the potential cost would be of letting them collapse – because the derivatives would have to be paid off if they collapsed. Where the market value of a company’s publicly-traded shares (or the outstanding public debt of a nation) is greater than the derivatives outstanding (a negative number in the difference column), the “market” is probably betting in favor of the company.

Entity

Derivatives outstanding

Market Value or Public debt

Difference

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION

118,689,745,334

31,558,840,000

87,130,905,334

GMAC LLC

83,556,419,908

4,690,000

83,551,729,908

MORGAN STANLEY

84,271,180,804

24,186,940,000

60,084,240,804

DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

71,011,177,628

18,510,000,000

52,501,177,628

CITIGROUP INC.

61,875,137,002

12,760,000,000

49,115,137,002

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP (AIG)

47,393,950,401

2,230,000,000

45,163,950,401

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

43,373,996,836

1,540,000,000

41,833,996,836

CENTEX CORPORATION

41,027,349,092

856,760,000

40,170,589,092

LENNAR CORPORATION

40,426,782,677

1,260,000,000

39,166,782,677

AMBAC ASSURANCE CORPORATION

36,835,358,941

189,580,000

36,645,778,941

PULTE HOMES, INC.

38,364,111,999

2,460,000,000

35,904,111,999

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

39,618,004,718

5,030,000,000

34,588,004,718

THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

80,849,691,288

46,624,340,000

34,225,351,288

BARCLAYS BANK PLC

44,579,007,183

11,160,000,000

33,419,007,183

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

32,665,900,751

1,850,000,000

30,815,900,751

CBS CORPORATION

32,484,932,800

2,600,000,000

29,884,932,800

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

33,766,673,423

4,090,000,000

29,676,673,423

TOLL BROTHERS, INC.

27,532,256,817

2,590,000,000

24,942,256,817

SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION

33,852,494,934

10,230,000,000

23,622,494,934

AUTOZONE, INC.

31,489,303,582

8,700,000,000

22,789,303,582

D.R. HORTON, INC.

19,889,587,401

2,540,000,000

17,349,587,401

ALCOA INC.

20,554,123,223

4,620,000,000

15,934,123,223

AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY

28,098,626,953

13,970,000,000

14,128,626,953

K. HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.

9,458,710,459

70,220,000

9,388,490,459

AETNA INC.

15,056,041,259

9,720,000,000

5,336,041,259

TIME WARNER INC.

33,530,285,093

29,240,000,000

4,290,285,093

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY

47,902,948,043

58,060,000,000

-10,157,051,957

JPMORGAN CHASE &CO.

61,250,536,812

86,770,000,000

-25,519,463,188

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

102,631,256,656

151,000,000,000

-48,368,743,344

ABBOTT LABORATORIES

5,273,779,532

68,720,000,000

-63,446,220,468

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

169,668,377,905

243,747,000,000

-74,078,622,095

REPUBLIC OF ITALY

157,609,796,730

248,773,000,000

-91,163,203,270

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

18,409,990,929

126,860,000,000

-108,450,009,071

UNITED MEXICAN STATES

76,677,172,011

320,334,000,000

-243,656,827,989

FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL

113,249,393,554

814,000,000,000

-700,750,606,446

Derivatives outstanding is data made available by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation for publicly traded credit default contracts. Market value is for public companies generally in early March 2009; public debt is for countries generally from year-end 2008. Difference is author’s calculation. The average derivatives outstanding for entities with positive differences are 22 times the value of the entity (excluding GMAC as an outlier with a multiplier of 17,816).

In other words, you could buy all the shares of Lennar for $1.2 billion. However, if they go bankrupt, the payoff will be $40 billion for the holders of the derivative contracts. And at this point, we – the US taxpayers – are in the position of paying off on these contracts if the banks and other “too big” companies fail. This table also tells you that the “markets” think that Bank of America is significantly more likely to fail than, say, Brazil – which is probably true, if for no other reason than the fact that Brazil has an army and Bank of America doesn’t!

The bottom line is that the government has to continue to bailout these banks and large companies because many of them, including AIG which is now owned about 80% by us, are the same entities that will have to pay off the bets if the other companies fail. There’s really no way out of it now. I remain opposed to the bailouts – they create “moral hazard,” the scenario whereby it is more profitable to fail than to succeed. But: I understand why they are being done and why we have to keep doing it.

The reason is: it matters to our 401k plans, the pension plans of teachers and firefighters, the retirement benefits of loyal, hard-working Americans. You see, the debt of insurance companies and other triple-A rated credits (AIG had a good credit rating less than 12 months ago) are required investments for money market funds, pension plans, etc. Take a look at the prospectus for any of these investments if you have them and you’ll see what I mean. It is necessary for such funds to make triple-A investments because the funds need to be able to make payments and honor withdrawals, sometimes on short notice. That means they have to hold some very safe, very easily sold investments. Investments like those issued by AIG.

If the mutual funds holding your 401k and the pension fund supporting the school teachers and all that go broke – well, no one wants to imagine what that America would look like. Despite all the bad economic news, few Americans have run out in the streets in protest and even those who did didn’t vandalize any property, public or private. Nor did we take our CEOs hostage. In fact, I think a little civil unrest may be called for: print this story, wrap it around a hotdog, mail it to the New York Stock Exchange and tell them to enjoy their weenie-roast!

Here’s why: the time is coming very soon when Wall Street will need us again. Uncle Sam is doling out the bailout money to the financial institutions, but even now they are devising ways to get ordinary investors to come back to the markets – and to use our own money to do it.

Susanne Trimbath, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services. Her training in finance and economics began with editing briefing documents for the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She worked in operations at depository trust and clearing corporations in San Francisco and New York, including Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of DTCC; formerly, she was a Senior Research Economist studying capital markets at the Milken Institute. Her PhD in economics is from New York University. In addition to teaching economics and finance at New York University and University of Southern California (Marshall School of Business), Trimbath is co-author of Beyond Junk Bonds: Expanding High Yield Markets.



















Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

401(k) plans

401(k) plans, money market funds, other mutual funds, and pension plans should not have to have stocks, debts, and/or other investments of/from insurance companies and others in them. They should just be allowed to have money in banks and credit unions earning interest. They might just want to have money in small and medium sized banks and credit unions. They might want to avoid large financial institutions that helped cause the financial crisis. Putting money in small and medium sized banks and credit unions may make it a lot easier for them to give loans to small businesses that might help stimulate the economy.

The federal government and state governments pumping some of their tax dollars into small and medium sized banks and credit unions not tied to the financial crisis may do a lot to stimulate the economy by helping small businesses stay in business and create jobs. The more businesses that fire people the more businesses that may fire people. If the economy grows a lot, tax revenues may increase. If the economy grows a lot, the derivatives may do better and the large financial institutions may do better. The investments of many 401(k) plans, money market funds, other mutual funds, and pension plans may be more secure. The federal government pumping tax dollars into small and medium sized banks and credit unions may make a lot more sense than putting money into large financial institutions. The federal government might want to cut up many large financial institutions into smaller companies.

The best way to make it easier for businesses to obtain capital is for the federal government and state governments to stop taxing interest from savings accounts, dividends, capital gains, and estates. We have a liquidity crisis. Making it harder for businesses to obtain capital by increasing the capital gains tax during a financial crisis or threatening to do so is idiotic and insane. Increasing the capital gains tax on the wealthy may cause a lot of harm to the 401(k) plans of many poor people and middle class people if it causes wealthy people to invest less in stocks.

Congress should have learned from the Savings and Loans Crisis and regulated properly. I recommend people read

"The S& L Crisis: A Chrono-Bibliography"

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/

I would like 401(k) plans to be tax free global investment accounts so that people may be less harmed by the decisions of the federal government.

People should be allowed to take their contributions out of 401(k) plans whenever they want tax free and penalty free.

People should be allowed to take interest out of their 401(k) plans tax free and penalty free whenever they want.

People should be allowed to take capital gains and dividends out of their 401(k) plans tax free and penalty free whenever they want.

People should be allowed to invest in their 401(k) plans contributions in any mutual funds they want in the United States of America and foreign countries.

People should be allowed to invest their 401(k) plans contributions in any individual stocks they want in the United States of America and foreign countries.

People should only invest money they are prepared to lose.

Businesses should be allowed to say that their contributions to 401(k) plans have to be in their stocks and mutual funds they like.

Investments in the United States of America may do better than investments in foreign countries. Investments in the United States of America may be less risky than investments in some foreign countries.

Investments in some foreign countries may do better than investments in the United States of America. Investments in some foreign countries may be less risky than investments in the United States of America.

I recommend people check out

http://assetbuilder.com

http://www.kiplinger.com

I discuss ideas for reducing poverty on our planet and global solutions for dealing with the financial crisis on http://sites.google.com/site/kenstremsky/Home/global-thinking-expanded

I discuss ideas for how the United States of America may want to deal with the financial crisis and other topics on http://www.newgeography.com/users/kenstremsky

Sincerely,

Ken Stremsky