Tag Archives: Bank of America

Biden and the Bank Crash – Why Biden’s Green Energy Push is Driving US Banks into Insolvency

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Here I make the case that the financial crisis engulfing the USA’s banks and financial sector can be traced straight back to Biden’s inflationary green energy push.

Breitbart Business Digest: Markets Humiliate Jerome Powell

JOHN CARNEY 4 May 2023

When Banks Talk About Solid Liquidity, Look Out Below

To put it lightly: Jerome Powell is not having a good week.

The market seems to be in full panic mode. What set off the sell-off on Wednesday evening was a relatively anodyne report that PacWest was “weighing strategic options,” which could include a sale of the bank or even a break-up. Normally, news that a company is considering a sale pumps up its share price. But in the midst of a crisis on confidence for banks, this has the opposite effect. Investors figure you are not selling because you want to, but because you have to.

Similarly, the market seemed to have interpreted PacWest’s attempt to be reassuring as a sign of weakness.

“The bank has not experienced out-of-the-ordinary deposit flows following the sale of First Republic Bank and other news,” PacWest said in a statement. “Our cash and available liquidity remains solid and exceeded our uninsured deposits.”

Memories of 2008

Many on Wall Street recall that on March 13, 2008, Bear Stearns Chief Executive Alan Schwartz went on CNBC to dispute widespread speculation that the investment bank faced a cash shortage.

“We don’t see any pressure on our liquidity, let alone a liquidity crisis,” he said.

That was a Wednesday. Over the following weekend, Bear Stearns had to be rescued by JPMorgan Chase with support from the Federal Reserve.

…Read more: https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2023/05/04/breitbart-business-digest-markets-humiliate-jerome-powell/

Why do I think this is Biden’s fault? The reason is Biden’s attack on fossil fuel and reckless borrowing to push forward the green transition is a major driver of inflation.

Green energy transition will further fuel inflation: Bank of America

Matthew CranstonUnited States correspondent
Nov 17, 2021 – 3.45pm

Washington | The rush for resources and labour to build renewable energy capacity could add more than 3 percentage points to inflation, according to economists at Bank of America, who have used estimates from the International Energy Agency and International Monetary Fund.

Ethan Harris, the bank’s chief economist, said while demand for technology to mitigate climate change could add up to 0.4 of a percentage point per year to GDP, this “could be held back by a lack of productive capacity, labour shortages and inflation”.

“This in return can come above the 1-3 per cent inflation IEA estimate,” Mr Harris said.

The IEA estimates in a joint analysis with the International Monetary Fund that the net zero energy transition will cost about US$150 trillion ($204 trillion) in total investment over the next 30 years, or $US5 trillion per year.

“[Inflation] could be higher and uneven, as financing of $US5 trillion will increase investments, demand for employees would push wages and supply disruptions could increase prices,” Mr Harris said.

…Read more: https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/green-energy-transition-will-further-fuel-inflation-bank-of-america-20211102-p5954d

Why does inflation impact bank stability? The reason is inflation, and the interest rate response, creates instability in bank investments. Banks tend to invest customer’s money in bonds, in fixed interest rate IOUs issued by reliable payers like the US Government. The bonds (IOUs) can be sold on, but the price you can get for those sold on bonds varies depending on the current interest rate, and can dip below the original price paid for the bonds. When interest rates go up, the value of fixed rate bonds which were sold when rates were lower tends to drop.

Buying bonds from rock solid payers is normally a great strategy for keeping your money safe. But the surge in inflation has hammered the value of those bonds. That drop in bond price is causing banks to suffer cash shortages, and is eroding their ability to cover account holder withdrawals.

The value of the bonds doesn’t exactly track interest rates, other factors such as the duration of the bond, the length of time until the money is paid back, and future expectations of interest rate and inflation rate changes can affect perceptions of value. But as interest rates go up, as the Fed puts up rates to counter the damage caused by Bidenflation, the value of existing bank holdings of bonds takes a beating.

Bonds were seen as a safe haven – but they are central to this bank crisis

Toby Nangle
Tue 21 Mar 2023 00.11 AEDTFirst published on Tue 21 Mar 2023 00.10 AEDT

Troubles at Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse are due partly to impact of rising interest rates

If you’re a banker, it’s been a month to forget. Two regional US banks have gone to the wall, central banks on both sides of the Atlantic have been forced to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency lending to shore up the financial system, and the Swiss financial group Credit Suisse has been ignominiously absorbed into the larger UBS at the behest of its regulator. About half a trillion dollars have been wiped from banks’ stock market valuations.

Inflation is high in the UK, mainland Europe and the US. The standard macroeconomic policy to arrest high inflation is not to strike hard public sector pay deals; it is for central banks to increase interest rates. Higher rates mean a higher cost of borrowing for everyone, reducing the propensity of households and businesses to spend money on credit and reducing aggregate demand versus supply. Doing this in a way that cools inflation without inducing a recession is a hard balance to strike. This is precisely what the Bank of England, European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve have been trying to do for the past year.

In the US, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) collapsed this month after a depositor run – the second-largest US banking failure by assets in history. The run followed an admission of a near-$2bn (£1.6bn) loss on its long-dated government bond holdings, putting it in need of recapitalisation. Signature Bank and the tiny Silvergate – the two banks who were by reputation the most closely linked to the cryptocurrency industry – were also shuttered as depositors fled.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/20/bonds-bank-crisis-silicon-valley-bank-credit-suisse-interest-rates

Obviously Biden’s green energy policies weren’t the only source of inflation. The war in Ukraine has disrupted fuel and food supplies. But if the USA had maintained a pro-fossil fuel energy policy, and prioritised energy independence over Net Zero, the USA would not have been so vulnerable to global fuel price shocks. Perhaps the US Secretary of State would not have had to shake the hand of a an oil rich dictator who is on the DEA’s most wanted list, in the hopes of winning access to his oil.

Biden could still fix this. Even a credible attempt to change course on energy policy, right now, would have an immediate impact on US markets. Interest rates would fall, in anticipation of inflation dropping, and bond prices would rise, providing immediate relief to those banks which are quietly on the brink of an insolvency crisis. Remember I said bond prices are partially driven by expectations of future inflation. A business friendly policy pivot would feed into those expectations, and create confidence that inflation was on the way down.

A relaxation of harsh environmental crackdowns, which are driving up business costs and helping to drive up retail price inflation, would also help restore confidence.

But countering the financial forces which are driving the US banking crisis would require Biden to renounce his Net Zero green energy fantasies, and copy President Trump’s energy policies, to alleviate pressure on energy prices and food affordability, two of the major US measures of inflation.

Why is food affordability affected by energy prices? Because food production costs are heavily tied to the cost of fuel and energy, through the need for large quantities of energy intensive fertiliser and other agricultural chemicals, and all the agricultural equipment and truck miles required to grow, transport and process food.

I doubt Biden will take sensible corrective measures. In my opinion we are as likely to see an outbreak of common sense from the Biden administration, as we are to see a flock of green pigs flying into the sunset.

The window of opportunity to fix this mess is very narrow – even a small delay in changing course could lock in the coming bank crash. Further borrowing and spending, which seems likely as 2024 approaches, is throwing gasoline on the inflation fire, and increasing the pressure on banks.

The only remaining question, how were banks caught so flat footed by the fall in in the value of their bond holdings? Banks have access to financial instruments such as put options and futures, which could have been used to hedge (insulate) their bond holdings against inflation driven loss in value.

There is only one explanation which makes sense to me – the banks which are currently suffering distress miscalculated, they weren’t anticipating that inflation would be so bad. Perhaps some bankers actually believed Biden’s green energy transition would succeed, and positioned their portfolios in anticipation of that success. Or perhaps they thought Biden was lying about his commitment to Net Zero.

Whatever the explanation, the blind faith of bankers in their market forecasts, combined with Biden’s reckless and inflationary green energy policies, have brought the American financial system to the brink of disaster. But sadly this is the nature of systemic banking failures. The hard lessons are always learned after the fall.

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 3: James Dimon, left, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase and Alan Schwartz, right, president and CEO of Bear Stearns testify before Congress. Photographed April 3, 2008 in Washington , DC. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

CFACT challenges ESG at BOA, CitiGroup shareholder meetings

From CFACT

By Adam Houser 

ESG environmental social governance as green company development strategy tiny person concept. Ecological resource consumption and renewable energy usage for responsible business vector illustration.

As part of its Shareholder Accountability Project, CFACT attended the shareholder meetings of Bank of America and CitiGroup to act as a watchdog on the two large banking corporations.

At center focus of each meeting were the practice of ESG investing (Environmental, Social, and Governance), which prioritizes leftist ideology over sound financial practices. CFACT asked questions to each of the company’s CEOs and voted on pertinent proposals, hoping to hold management’s feet to the fire on the ill-advised practice of ESG.

At the Bank of America meeting, CFACT’s question was posed directly to the CEO, Bryan Moynihan, live at the hearing.

CFACT’S question was:

“The large number of shareholder proposals regarding climate change clearly indicates that Bank of America’s strategy of trying to appease the activists is not working. Why doesn’t Bank of America simply focus on maximizing value for shareholders and just ignore these people?”

CEO Bryan Moynihan waved off the impact such activists have on the company and answered, “I think we focus on running the company under responsive growth along the dimensions that are laid out clearly in our annual report and proxy statement. And so, you know, this is the way it works in America, there are the ability to have shareholder proposals, and we will address them each time, based off the rules of the SEC, and the key thing is they really don’t impact how we run the company – we run the company on consistent strategy and that’s what we’ve done for years and that’s what we’ll continue to do so as laid out by [inaudible] and our board and the team to continue to drive forward to do what we need to do to continue to help clients make the transition on energy, while at the same time importantly preserving a strong energy security for our country and the countries around the world.”

Meanwhile, at the CitiGroup meeting, when challenged on the bank’s role in continued financing of fossil fuel projects by a leftist shareholder, CEO Jane Fraser pushed back and said, “…the global economy simply cannot operate without fossil fuels today, nor can it grow without them in the mix. And that’s because we simply don’t yet have affordable alternatives at the scale and reliability that is required…”

While the practices and management of these banks are by no means perfect, it is refreshing to hear CEOs push back against some of the climate alarmist rhetoric aiming to drag these companies into extremism. This is a slight shift from prior years when companies were much more willing to give in to the demands of activist investors. CFACT is proud to have had a role in being a force for reason pushing back against the “woke” climate tide.

And what’s even better is that the shareholder proposals brought by climate activists at each meeting went down in flames, while proposals brought by CFACT allies to CitiGroup and Bank of America, despite failing, showed promising results for possible passage in the future.

That proposal, put in by our allies from the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) at both shareholder meetings, called for the establishment of an “independent board chairman,” and was primarily necessary because of Brian Moynihan, the chair and CEO of Bank of America. Moynihan is running the company in such a manner as to promote globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) and its ESG priorities over shareholder values and needs to be held accountable. CitiGroup chair and CEO Jane Fraser continues to promote ESG initiatives, despite some of her positive comments on fossil fuels.

Paul Chesser, who spoke for NLPC at the Bank of America meeting, said, “My fellow shareholders may be surprised to learn that the World Economic Forum prioritizes transhumanism, abolition of private property, consumption of bugs, social credit systems, the ‘Great Reset,’ and other Orwellian objectives. Why is this important for Bank of America to boost these globalists at the expense of US sovereignty and values?”

The proposal garnered 26% in favor at the Bank of America meeting and 18.12% in favor at CitiGroup; still a way to go towards future passage, but the proposals performed far better than other leftist proposals brought before the shareholders.

For example, a proposal to “request that the Board of Directors adopt a policy for a time bound phase out lending and underwriting to projects and companies engaging in new fossil fuel exploration and development” failed badly, receiving only 9.94% of votes in favor at CitiGroup and a similar proposal received 7% in favor at Bank of America. Those were the lowest approval ratings received for any proposals at the CitiGroup and Bank of America meetings.

CFACT, of course, voted against the proposals.

These were the first of the shareholder meetings of 2023 CFACT attended to bring reason and facts to corporate America board rooms. More meetings covering the sectors of energy and technology are to come, and CFACT will bring its same tenacity and focus on facts to these meetings going forward.

Author

  • Adam Houser
  • Adam Houser coordinates student leaders as National Director of CFACT’s collegians program and writes on issues of climate and energy.