Commentary on the FDIC Bank Failure Report (19/02/10)

La Jolla Bank was quite a nasty one, with the assets only apparently worth around 53.27 cents on the dollar. Quite a painful affair, as that is after the bondholders and shareholders have already been wiped out financially. Considering that the FDIC had to kick in another $1.9 billion or so to make the failed bank whole is very telling as well: the U.S. banking system is not in pretty shape.

In fact, it's in horrible shape. Over the two-plus years since the beginning of the ongoing Depression, the recoverability of banks is only 57 cents on the dollar. This means that, if the entire banking system were to be immediately liquidated, in some Keynesian nightmare come alive, the market value of all assets would see a 40% haircut or so - and that is a best-case. Of course, such a liquidation is not going to happen all at one, but it is certainly happening piecemeal, as the FDIC steadily dismantles the small-to-medium sized banks in the U.S. Such as the other three banks which the FDIC closed this week, representing only a bit over $586 million all together. We will bet dollars to doughnuts (we'll even make the doughnuts, mind you) that there are quite a few more La Jolla Banks out there, than the FDIC's closure patterns might suggest.

Be that as it may, the stress information given by our analysis of the States' shares of the total cost to the FDIC for bank closures is quite enlightening. Overall, those States which have suffered bank closures are actually not all that badly off, relative to population. The six States listed in the report (Alabama, Georgia, Nevada, California, Florida, Illinois) are really the only States which are even remotely out of line with statistical expectations - i.e. how close their share of the total cost is, to their share of the total U.S. population.

The rest, interestingly enough, are lower - at times, much lower - than the State's population would suggest. Now, that of course could be because some State banking systems are healthier than others, such as North Dakota's. However, that would suggest the United States is not in, overall, terrible shape. We would object very strongly to such an intimation, because all economic indicators we'd care to consult are showing exactly the opposite.

Unemployment has increased year-over-year in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, for example. According to the Federal Reserve, assets of nonfarm nonfinancial corporations have shrunk year-over-year by 7% in the third quarter of 2009; household and nonprofit assets fell by 5.3%; if we pretend that private entrepreneurs are meaningful anymore, nonfarm noncorporate business assets collapsed by 13.8%. Is the picture grim enough, yet, dear Reader? We don't feel we need to continue to make the point: banks are reliant upon the health of the rest of the so-called economy. That economy is taking a face-plant, ergo banks are not in good straits.

Bank closures, to summarise, should not only be accelerating, but they will be getting worse. Since that factor is not apparent in the short-term of our present data set, we suspect that the FDIC has a modus operandi which has nothing to do with safe-guarding the health of the banking system, nor protecting depositors.

Rather, it seems more plausible that the FDIC is carrying on some sort of psychological management of the U.S. public. This assertion arises from our observation that the closures which the FDIC perform appear to be planned around some calculation of weekly assets, and perhaps total estimated cost to the FDIC. We can't necessarily prove this, of course, but it is our opinion on the matter.

The end of such a psychological management, at least from the perspective of both the banking system, and the Federal Government, is to keep the Citizenry from panicking. The last thing which both the Government and banks want right now is a full-scale bank run, as that would be a very difficult thing to have in concert with the 'ongoing recovery' incantations of the press.

* * *

This week's project for us will be to integrate pre-Depression (i.e. before December of 2007) bank closure data into our analysis. Our intention is to see the changes in recoverability over the early 2000's, leading up to the Depression.