Where the Sequester Cuts Should Be

And the amount fits perfectly…

Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?

On television, in interviews and in meetings with investors, executives of the biggest U.S. banks — notably JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon — make the case that size is a competitive advantage. It helps them lower costs and vie for customers on an international scale. Limiting it, they warn, would impair profitability and weaken the country’s position in global finance.

So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?

Granted, it’s a hard concept to swallow. It’s also crucial to understanding why the big banks present such a threat to the global economy.

Let’s start with a bit of background. Banks have a powerful incentive to get big and unwieldy. The larger they are, the more disastrous their failure would be and the more certain they can be of a government bailout in an emergency. The result is an implicit subsidy: The banks that are potentially the most dangerous can borrow at lower rates, because creditors perceive them as too big to fail.

Lately, economists have tried to pin down exactly how much the subsidy lowers big banks’ borrowing costs. In one relatively thorough effort, two researchers — Kenichi Ueda of the International Monetary Fund and Beatrice Weder di Mauro of the University of Mainz — put the number at about 0.8 percentage point. The discount applies to all their liabilities, including bonds and customer deposits.

Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a big difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year. To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.

The top five banks — JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – - account for $64 billion of the total subsidy, an amount roughly equal to their typical annual profits (see tables for data on individual banks). In other words, the banks occupying the commanding heights of the U.S. financial industry — with almost $9 trillion in assets, more than half the size of the U.S. economy — would just about break even in the absence of corporate welfare. In large part, the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders.

sequester_is_manufactured_crisis

4 thoughts on “Where the Sequester Cuts Should Be

  1. patti

    I am actually pretty much OK with sequester – if I am understanding correctly. We are talking about 1% or so taken “indiscriminately” across the board. Which means without discrimination – from each bucket equally. Sounds about right to me – except I think it should be a higher percentage. This was the prezzi’s idea because he thought by making half the cuts from DOD that the republicans would back down. But they haven’t – yet – and I hope they don’t. They are still spending more money than last year – even with the “cuts” (I know I’m preaching to the choir here) If this is the only way to get those ass holes to cut their spending then so be it. Pain shared equally and without discrimination across the board.
    I’m even willing to give the Democrats the credit for it.

    1. Pam Post author

      I’m fine with sequester, especially if WE could stop funding big banks!

      The Ministry of Truth is waging an information war and the proles are sucking up the lies, though… the ‘sequester will kill us all’ bullshit.

  2. patti

    perhaps – if the GOP sticks by its guns….- when a month from now everyone is still alive – maybe, just maybe the proles will see that the sequester did not kill them and say meh – then maybe we can get on with it

    not that i’m holding my breath on any one of those points

Comments are closed.