Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"Not With A Bang, But A Whimper: Bank Of America’s Death Rattle"

Froggy sent this along with the following note:

This is a big story. B of A has moved $53 Trillion in its Merrill Lynch derivatives from a holding company onto the FDIC INSURED balance sheet which is backed by about $1 Trillion in deposits following a credit downgrade. This is a potential massive FDIC depositor bailout of epic proportions, and basically a desperate move by the bank to avoid the potential Dodd Frank wind down. In other words, “Don’t fuck with us or we’ll blow a cool Trillion in deposits, bitch.”

This is very, very ugly.

Those of you with some knowledge of finance, please expand, so that the rest of us can be suitably freaked out.

26 Replies to “"Not With A Bang, But A Whimper: Bank Of America’s Death Rattle"”

  1. happyfeet says:

    fight fight fight housing is a human right

  2. newrouter says:

    Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romneyor any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.Obama’s key advantage is his ability to collect bigger checks from fewer donors, because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort. As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all the other GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data.

    Link

  3. Joe says:

    BOA is in a real mess. But this is some frightening stuff.

  4. Ernst Schreiber says:

    5 point 3 or Fifty-three? Because $53,000,000,000,000.00 sounds like an opening bid in Fizban.

  5. […] “Not With A Bang, But A Whimper: Bank Of America’s Death Rattle”Jeff G.Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:00:02 GMT Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  6. Kevin says:

    I don’t know a lot about the financial sector, but I’m ready to start freaking out whenever someone gives the word.

  7. LBascom says:

    Ah-hem! to expand: This is a “if I go down, I’m taking you all with me” move.

    Hey, you said “Those of you with ‘some’ financial knowledge”, not “those of you that know what they’re talking about”.

  8. LBascom says:

    An I know how many nickles in a dollar…

  9. Ella says:

    This is the tip of the iceburg. During the housing boom, banks were doing $3 trillion a year in home loans — but they were then selling derivatives and credit swaps based on those loans to the tune of $50-60 trillion during the bubble, a lovely side-effect of fractional reserve banking. Because the feds and the Fed made sure that housing never collapsed and banks never collapsed, all of that bad debt and busted CDOs and etc are still out there and still on the books. BofA, Citi, Wells Fargo … there is literally not enough money in the entire world to pay off the debts they owe each other. Option A is simply to let all the big banks fail — since they mainly owe the money to each other, it would be a nasty but contained collapse. Like Fukushima! I feel, though, that the feds and the Fed are going to go with Option B, and that is bad.

  10. dicentra says:

    I’ll be working at a bank (not BoA) until mid-November, when my contract ends.

    That’s all I know.

  11. guinspen says:

    Maybe BoA, et al, should try hiring a few Ivys.

  12. Ernst Schreiber says:

    What’s option B Ella?

  13. serr8d says:

    “Not With A Bang, But A Whimper: Bank Of America’s Death Rattle”

    FTFY.

    Slightly OT, BOA nuance-slapped OWSers and their lefty supporters, and in doing so annoyed various dirty socialists.

  14. motionview says:

    Ella sounds like she knows more about this than me, but I think option B is pretend and extend – never admit the losses, keep propping up the zombie banks, lose a decade or a generation.

  15. alppuccino says:

    almost feels like anyone who has an upside down home loan with BofA should probably walk away

  16. Mueller says:

    A 53:1 ratio isn’t good. Isn’t the norm 10:1?
    Calling Mr. Howard!

  17. McGehee says:

    Looks to me as if a bank started in San Francisco and currently based in North Carolina has learned how to play Chicago-style.

  18. Matt says:

    Rich guys contributing to Obama is like taking a hit out on themselves.

  19. JHoward says:

    A lengthy piece from Durden.

    Bank of America, which today reported a big bottom line loss net of one-time beneficial items, did something quite tricky and extremely devious last month: it shifted anywhere up to the total of $53 trillion of the total derivatives it held as of June 30 (as Zero Hedge previously reported) on its books at Q2 from the Holding Company, which was downgraded last by Moody’s from A2 to Baa1 (the third-lowest investment grade rating) to its retail bank, which was downgraded to the far more palatable A2 (from Aa3). The reason for the transfer? Bank customers who were uneasy with the fact that suddenly the collateral backstoping the operating entity handling their counterparty risk was downgraded to just above junk, demanded that said counterparty risk be mitigated by the bank’s $1 trillon in deposits. In other words, as Bloomberg first reported when it broke this story, anywhere up to the full $53 trillion (we don’t know for sure how much so we assume the worst case) is now fully and effectively backstopped explicitly by the bank’s $1,041 trillion (as of September 30) deposits. Pardon’s we meant the people’s deposits: the same deposits which caused the bank’s website to be inoperative for several days in a row after it was rumored that there was an electronic run on the bank. Why? Just so Bank of America can appears whatever remaining clients it has so they decide not to take their business to another derivative counterparty. And who is exposed to this latest idiocy? Why you. But that’s not all: the FDIC, which is the entity backstopping the deposits in a worst-case scenario, is not happy with this move for obvious reasons. Yet even it is hopeless to override the Fed, which as Bloomberg reports, “has signaled that it favors moving the derivatives to give relief to the bank holding company.” And so, once again, we see just how much more important to the Federal Reserve are interests of US taxpayers and savers, over those of the banks that effectively run the Fed.

    Etc.

  20. Jim in KC says:

    Option B is BofAs creditors get first dibs on whatever assets the bank holding company retains after it fails, followed by an FDIC bail-out to make depositors whole. They’re pissing in their own cornflakes and daring anyone to eat them, I guess you could say.

    Also, somewhere in there is a run on banks and of likely bank failures that makes the Great Depression look like a cake-walk.

  21. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Glenn Reynolds this morning highlighted this bit from tigerhawk:

    At this point, Wall Streeters really do not like Barack Obama. It has been a long time since I have met one who still actually supports him. But the extent of the pain of Dodd-Frank depends on regulations that have yet to be written by executive branch agencies that report to the White House. The big financial firms know that their future profitability requires that President Obama influence those regulations, and he is exploiting that for all it is worth.

    This, loyal readers, is “regulatory capture” in action. [emphasis added]

    So it looks to me like B of A is making sure that, now that they’ve been captured, the regulators dare’nt let go.

  22. TMI says:

    A = L + E.

    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marktomarket.asp

    Banks are required to hold a certain amount of equity in order to conduct their operations, that is, to lend money.

    What happens to a bank’s equity position is suddenly contracted due to a requirement to disclose the actual value of its equity?

    Think European banks holding Greek debt. What is the value of that debt? Do you take it at face value, or do you adjust the actual value of that debt under the accounting rules of Mark to Market?

    BofA has just put a gun to its own head. Didn’t this happen in “Blazing Saddles”?
    .

  23. Blake says:

    TMI, everyone holding real estate investments has been lying about their actual value.

    If every bank and more than a few corporations actually marked to market the value of their real estate holdings, they’d be instantly insolvent/bankrupt.

    I used to have some simple criteria when investing in the stock market. I looked at debt to equity and price to earnings.

    Price to earnings for a lot of stocks is way out of whack, and even if the p/e is okay, I cannot trust the debt to equity statement, simply because I don’t know if the claimed equity is a now worthless piece of real estate.

  24. VekTor says:

    I used to have some simple criteria when investing in the stock market. I looked at debt to equity and price to earnings.

    Price to earnings for a lot of stocks is way out of whack, and even if the p/e is okay, I cannot trust the debt to equity statement, simply because I don’t know if the claimed equity is a now worthless piece of real estate.

    Silly bumpkin. According to a prominent Harvard man, you should use a “profit and earnings ratio” instead. How do you expect to understand this modern economy without the right mathematical tools?

Comments are closed.