Worrying About Large-Deposit Bank Runs 20 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Dealbook gives us something new to worry about:
In Washington Mutual's case, customers withdrew $16.7 billion in cash from the thrift in the last nine days, according to the Office of Thrift Supervision. The majority of those that withdrew cash were holders of retail deposits that were over the government's $100,000 insurance cap.
It's a potentially troubling tale: If depositors that have more that $100,000 began withdrawing their cash all around the country, the banking industry would have a serious problem.
Is this true? If everybody with more than $100,000 on deposit moved their money to one of the Big Three banks - Citi (C), Chase (JPM), BofA (BAC) - would that cause "a serious problem" for the banking industry as a whole? If such people had $16.7 billion on deposit at WaMu (WM) alone, one can only imagine the sums they have on deposit in aggregate at smaller banks and thrifts across America. And if that kind of money moved en masse to the Big Three, there would surely be some huge dislocations in the banking industry.
The statistic doesn't actually come from the OTS factsheet, but rather from the conference call, where an OTS official said that
a majority of the deposit outflows (a) came from the state of California, and (b) were deposits in excess of the insurance deposit limit.
I can certainly imagine that California has more deposits in excess of $100,000 than any other state. WaMu was very big in California, so maybe it was particularly at risk of large-deposit outflows. This is actually reassuring: We don't need to worry about banks in general suffering large-deposit outflows, just those banks in the richest parts of the country where you're likely to find large deposits in the first place.
Since the largest bank in California is Bank of America, and the largest banks in the Washington-Boston corridor are Chase and Citibank, there probably won't be a big problem there. There could conceivably be a problem with Wells Fargo (WFC), but since it still has a market cap of well over $100 billion, I doubt it. What's more, even depositors with more than $100,000 in WaMu are untouched: All deposits, of whatever size, have been taken over by JP Morgan Chase (JPM).
Incidentally, one line from the conference call jumped out at me: Another OTS official saying that what happened at WaMu "was a liquidity crisis, not a problem bank crisis". The clear implication is that JP Morgan got itself quite an attractive deal and that WaMu was solvent even before its bondholders were wiped out to the tune of $30 billion or so. I can imagine that they're extremely unhappy right now: Expect lawsuits.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Philip Davis
-
3
Bill Gross
-
4
Tyler Durden
-
5
TraderMark
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 20 comments:
I wonder if Greenspan has a copy?
When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management is a book by Roger Lowenstein published by Random House in 2000. (ISBN 0-375-50317-X) As of 2008, there have been six editions.[1]
JPM picked up $176 billion of home mortages and many billions of deposits for under $2 billion. So they write-off $31 billion. They will still have $145 billion of mortages. Any banker would lick their chops at this deal. And they get a big tax accounting loss as an added bonus.
JPM is still poping the champagne corks. They looked at (cased the joint like a thief) WM books a few weeks ago. Then, the FDIC conspired ( ala Hugo Chavez style) with JPM to seize the stockholder and bond holder's GOLD in order to "inject liquidity" into a mega bank in order to shore up financial markets. Win-win for JPM and FDIC. Lose-lose for stockholders and bond holders. Conveniently, WM'S senior management and directors were caught offguard by"surprise." Sure they were.
Our government steals just like Hugo Chavez does and with the same result - unjust enrichment without compensation.
i doubt whether a very large JPM is in the best interest of the country.
i think to stop a further degradation, the government needs to insure 100% of the deposits in banks for the next six months. this will give the banks some breathing room to correct their books or find a buyer with deep pockets.
the next six months will not be pretty - expect all hell to break loose.
Just remember Argentina 2001, Russia 1998, Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe nowadays.
Forget this doom and gloom nonsense
________________
Salmon is absolutely correct that large deposits will be reallocated - it's happening now - but I think Bankokdog has identified phase two, which is the flight to safety a la Marc Faber and Jim Rogers - (time to convert the bank notes in the safety deposit box to Vienna Philharmonica)
www.cnbc.com/id/158402...
The banks are paying you only 2% interest so they can lend out for 6% mortgage and loan interest. Thats 300% margin!!
So it should be okay if its in BS, FRE, FNN, AIG, and others like it, shouldn't it?
keep it, the safest place on earth.
Or, get 45 shares of AIG, based on $3.15 PER SHARE, good deal.