Jeremy Warner's Outlook: The financial storm continues to build
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
There's a famous perversion of the old saying "it's always darkest just before the dawn", sometimes attributed to the former Chinese leader Mao Zedong, which goes: "It is always darkest just before it is completely black".
That's how it looked at the time of writing after a day of high drama in financial markets, involving multiple nationalisations of European banks, culminated in Congress rejecting a $700bn bailout plan, already substantially modified to buy off political opposition. From George Bush to Warren Buffett, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke, they'd all lined up to warn that it would be the end of the world if it failed, so what happens now?
As ever with US politics, it's never over until it is over, and yesterday's vote isn't the finale. Pork-barrel politics now enters the equation as potential swing voters are persuaded to change their stance. Yet massive uncertainty now persists as the world waits to see if Congress is prepared to take the immediate actions necessary to save the financial markets, or in bloody-minded obstinacy is destined to plunge the world into a severe recession.
Credit spreads are off the scale and the price of insuring against default through credit default swaps is soaring, not just for banks but even for mainstream industrial companies. Meanwhile, even the most unflappable of moneymanagers are taking their money out of banks, now perceived as almost universally unsafe, and sticking it into Treasuries and other government bonds. There's already a pecking order, by the way, with British and US bonds seen as not quite as safe as Germany and France. What to date has been a relatively measured stock market correction is turning into a full-blown crash.
Before last night's dramatic Congressional vote, I was tempted to write that yesterday's nationalisations were the bottom, the final death rattle of the credit crunch, with things gradually improving from here on in, at least for financial markets if not the real economy. This now looks far less clear. Dawn has again been postponed.
The danger of the credit crunch has always been that a bad downturn in the real economy would start to kick in before the banking system had had a chance to recover from the traumas of the sub-prime crisis, and this is indeed what now seems to be happening.
Worse, the "deleveraging", or balance sheet contraction, which the banks are undertaking in response to the credit crunch, is now adding substantially to the woes of the real economy. According to figures from the Bank of England yesterday, British banks reduced their lending to the UK economy by nearly £600m in the six months to the end of August. That process will have accelerated since. The contraction now apparent is after a long period of substantial growth, so the effect of the deprivation will be felt doubly hard in the real economy.
As the economy heads south, both in the US and Europe, a whole new raft of bad debt experience will take over from where the credit crunch is leaving off, causing confidence in the banking system to be further undermined. Nor has the policy response in attempting to reignite trust and confidence in banks been as brilliant as it might have.
The decision in the US to let Lehman Brothers go to the wall was plainly a mistake, causing some $400bn of liquidity to be sucked out of the system, thereby hugely increasing the magnitude of the funding challenge for other banks. At the same time, it collapsed confidence in the banking system more generally because of fears over which banks might be allowed to fail next. The upshot is that a solvency problem has been piled on an existing liquidity crisis. Indeed, it has become impossible to disentangle the two, with the fear that banks may not have enough capital to cover their bad debts understandably making banks even more wary of lending to one another.
The nationalisation of banking assets without compensation for equity holders, which began with Northern Rock and is now being repeated with Bradford & Bingley, hasn't helped matters. The same policy mistakes have broadly been mirrored in the US.
Fund managers and bankers who were prevailed upon by the Financial Services Authority only a few months back to put up fresh equity to recapitalise Bradford & Bingley have found themselves completely wiped out. They are unlikely to oblige regulators again. From here on in, it's going to be difficult to persuade the private sector to recapitalise the banks in the manner now so obviously required.
All this supports the contention that whatever happens to the $700bn bailout, things are going to get more difficult still before they get better. The pain in the real economy is in any case yet to come. Fast rising unemployment now looks a done deal. As for the crisis in financial markets, it remains impossible to tell how things will play out.
Certainly, a lot more needs to happen before we can be confident of things being on the mend. Europe and Britain must quickly start cutting interest rates. In Britain, the special liquidity scheme needs to be reformed to make it easier and faster for banks to access its liquidity. Similar "bad bank" arrangements to those proposed for the US, allowing banks to sell their illiquid assets to the taxpayer, may have to be established in Europe. There may, regrettably, also need to be a lot more banking consolidation.
The way things are going, the Lloyds TSB merger with HBOS could be just the hors d'oeuvre. Royal Bank of Scotland, owner of National Westminster Bank, found its share price again under sustained attack yesterday. This wasn't just because of its entanglement with ABN Amro, an ill-judged takeover which has already helped sink Belgium's Fortis; it was also because of concern over funding. RBS is quite heavily dependent on short-term, wholesale funding.
Like HBOS, RBS is too big to be allowed to fail. With so many tentacles in the UK economy, such an event is unthinkable. A nuclear winter of economic hardship would follow. But even more so than HBOS, RBS is also too big to nationalise. If the worst came to the worst, it would have to be taken over. The only British-based bank capable of doing so would be HSBC. Is such an outcome even remotely conceivable? In these markets, anything is possible.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
17 Comments
Compensation and Protection:
Is the "Virgin One Account" owned by Royal Bank of Scotland?
On the list of Bank Ownership and Licences, from This is Money,
it's listed as being Licenced by Virgin Group.
On my paying in slips, it says Royal Bank of Scotland???
Posted by Roy A Giles | 01.10.08, 08:44 GMT
I think people fail to realize that if the bailout passes, inflation will automatically rise in proportion to the float that is currently out there. I think that the bailout is a bad idea because it feeds on the fear of the 1929 Depression. The situation today is totally different and the bailout is unmerited and unnecessary. I think that President Bush is doing this on the advice of the Federal Banking system. They are the ones seeking the bailout, not American businesses. Banks need to accept the risk they have taken on and absorb the losses. After all, why should the American taxpayer accept all of the risks and the banks get all of the gains. It's all about GREEDY PEOPLE.
Posted by Peter | 01.10.08, 03:57 GMT
If the Americans allow these scammers to take their money and run they deserve all they get. These people have spent generations screwing people out of their money, they're good at it. This so called bail out is the big one 700 billion in one throw straight. The secretary who decides who gets the money with NO recourse to the courts. Step out of line and the Blackwater rifles are gonna put you straight. The people of America have been scammed for years, they will take just about anything thrown at em. Likewise Gordons mob have joined in the fun. The people will spend generations paying for this toxic mess that Brown has created by doing nothing to regulate these bankers. Don't bother to read the papers they have nothing to say, the real truth can only be found on the net. 700 Billion and the yanks are crying, but they said nothing when 650 billion was thrown into the military black hole recently. But then guns etc are important, people are not they're expendable eh!
Posted by Alan | 30.09.08, 14:50 GMT
neo classical synthesis versus dialectical materialism,how beautiful the irony that the first answer ,from the leaders of our economy ,is rooted by marxist tenets. rugged individualism gone wrong, socialism to the rescue. now that Greenspan can voice his true opinion it seems clear he is enjoying his "retirement". these times negate all that we have ever known, assuming that we all pray to the god of fortune and riches . if not relax, individuals did not cause this and cannot fix it. the bankers are not at personal fault on this one. we must have a way to value and exchange services , this must also be regulated and administrated. the spice must flow in our system of greed and dispair. we will all work to stabilise this as we ,the people, are the only interested party. those that have sought place and emolument ,through all of this, are destined to suck on the carbon monxide meerschaum whatever happens. forgive and rebuild ,with morality not politics.
Posted by sami | 30.09.08, 14:09 GMT
RBS was not under attack - holders just decided to sell.
RBS has taken so many risks that a sensible person would wait for them to go bust, then buy the best bits from the State, like WaMu.
Lloyds should have done this with HBoS and that is why shareholders are vexed.
Posted by Get Shorty | 30.09.08, 13:32 GMT
Can anyone else hear the deafening sound of Maynard Keynes books being dusted off?
Posted by phil b | 30.09.08, 11:56 GMT
There's always a few optimists like TheDonkey who cling to their delusion that if their mortgage provider goes belly-up then they would no longer have any obligation to repay.
Quite the contrary. If your provider goes bust then the administrators will scour the asset base to dredge whatever they can from the wreck. Your mortgage payments would almost certainly increase, with your debt sold to another operator with, you guessed it, higher rates.
You are more likely to lose your home if your provider folds.
Posted by Tony Peterson | 30.09.08, 11:55 GMT
Maybe a fullblown crash is the only way out from our current troubles. but just as it was it America's best interest after WW2 to bale out a broke Europe, so it is in the best interests of the socalled BRIC countries to bale out the US as customer of last resort, because nothing happens and no wealth is created till someone makes a trade and buy or sell something, we are mutually interdependant. I suspect US hubris has forgotten this vital fact particularly since the demise of the Soviet Union.
Posted by edward | 30.09.08, 10:38 GMT
Quote from jeremy warner, who must be a big man in finance as he writes about it for his living: 'even the most unflappable of moneymanagers are taking their money out of banks, now perceived as almost universally unsafe, and sticking it into Treasuries and other government bonds' ,
Well, i'm just a dopey old pensioner with a few hard saved ££££ which i took out of dodgey building societies ("so sorry, did we really miscalculate your interest?") and beadyeyed banks ( "is there anything else we can do for your today?" and the prize-winningly cynical "we care for more than your money") at least 5 years ago, and put them into assorted natnl savings, incl a safe and so far quite profitable flutter on the premium bonds- presumably they will still be the last to turn the lights out?
Posted by jaff | 30.09.08, 10:25 GMT
If all the banks collapsed and they couldn't buy each other out and neither could the government what would happen to the average Joe's mortgage and debt. Wouldn't it just disappear? If that were the case wouldn't it be great for the economy. Average Joe would have a roof over his head and a bag more money in his pocket and would probably as a result go on a spending spree hence pumping loads more money into the real economy. The banks and stockmarkets would collapse and a load of financial types would be jobless. Big deal, what usefull role do they play in society anyway apart from making themselves obscenely rich. Nobody would miss the stockmarkets either as stocks and shares have become so de-coupled from the true worth of companies as to render the markets the new Ladbrokes.com; A haven for high stakes gamblers. Wise up people.
Posted by TheDonkey | 30.09.08, 10:22 GMT
17 Comments