Browse by Tags

KnowNOW!

Global Economic Watch

Syndication

Recent Posts

Tags

Archives

  • SF Fed Economic Letter: A Potential Decline in the Decline of Small Business Lending

    While the number and overall value of loans to small businesses continues to decline, the rate of decline may be leveling off, according to San Francisco Fed economists Liz Laderman and James Gillan . In an Economic Letter , Laderman and Gillan chart lending to small businesses from large and small banks. Here's the trend for large banks: Laderman and Gillan write: The small business loan trend at large banks is similar to the trend for all banks. Aggregate small business loans at large banks shrank between June 30, 2008, and June, 30, 2009, at a steeper rate from then until June 30, 2010, and more slowly over the four quarters to June 30, 2011 (Figure 1). At those large banks, the rate of contraction moderated for small CRE loans and especially for small C&I loans. The moderation in C&I contraction since mid-2010 is consistent with the results of the Federal Reserve’s quarterly Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices, which gathers data from approximately 60 large domestic banks plus some U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks. The July 2010 survey was the first to show an easing of standards on C&I loans to smaller businesses since late 2006 (Federal Reserve Board 2010). But, whether positive growth in small C&I loans at large banks will soon occur and be sustained may depend on small business loan demand. The National Federation of Independent Business reports that about 25% of the small businesses it surveys cite poor sales as their main business problem. In contrast, only 3% cite financing as their main business problem, although 8% report that not all of their credit needs are satisfied (Dunkelberg and Wade 2011). It appears that a key variable for banks, small banks in particular, is whether small business loans are backed by commercial real estate or not. Those loans not backed by real estate are looking more promising. Read Recent Trends in Small Business Lending here .
  • The Economic Crisis Backstory, Animated

    Here's a short animated video out of Europe from filmmaker Denis van Waerebeke . It is another simple explanation of one of the story-lines of the global economic crisis. Ecoland - Bubble story from Denis van Waerebeke on Vimeo . (Hat tip Barry Ritholtz )
  • COP December Report Gives Treasury and TARP Mixed Grade

    The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has an extension. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced yesterday that Treasury is extending the bailout program through next October. TARP was slated to end on December 31 if Geithner didn't trigger the extension. This decision is sure to spur a new round of debates between those who believe TARP helped stave off economic calamity, those who think it is a waste of federal dollars, and those who believe it worked but now funds should go elsewhere. When TARP was launched 14 months ago, Congress tasked the Congressional Oversight Panel with closely watching the use of TARP funds. And in the latest COP monthly report, the panels' members weigh in on the effectiveness of the program. And the panel concluded that the data they studied shows that, in the end, the Treasury's actions were "decisive enough to stop the panic and restore confidence among key financial institutions and actors." But they find it hard to give TARP much credit for fixing any core structural problems in the financial system that may have been responsible for the crisis: While strong government action helped prevent a worse crisis, it may have done so at a significant long run cost to the performance of our market economy. Implicit government guarantees pose the most difficult long-term problem to emerge from the crisis. Looking ahead, there is no consensus among experts or policymakers as to how to prevent financial institutions from taking risks that are so large as to threaten the functioning of the nation‘s economy. Congress is currently grappling with this issue as it considers how to respond legislatively to the financial crisis. It is clear that a failure to address the moral hazard issue will only lead to more severe crises in the future. Since its inception, the TARP has gone through several different incarnations. It began as a program designed to purchase toxic assets from troubled banks but quickly morphed into a means of bolstering bank capital levels. It was later put to use as a source of funds to restart the securitization markets, rescue domestic automakers, and modify home mortgages. The evolving nature of the TARP, as well as Treasury‘s relative lack of fixed goals and measures of success for the program, make it hard to provide an overall evaluation. But the Panel remains convinced, as it has been since its inception, that Treasury should make both its decision-making and its actions more transparent. Despite the difficult circumstances under which many decisions have been made, those decisions must be explained to the American people, and the officials who make them must be held accountable for their actions. Transparency and accountability may be painful in the short run, but in the long run they will help restore market functions and earn the confidence of the American people. COP Chair Elizabeth Warren explains some of the key findings in the December report in this short video: Read the full report here . Go to page 120 for a dissenting view from panel member Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX).
  • The weak get weaker: Corporate liquidity, asset sales, and the extensive use of bank lines of credit at lower-rated firms

    Each quarter the Duke University / CFO Magazine Global Business Outlook Survey polls thousands of chief financial officers around the world. The most recent survey concluded February 27 and reflects the views of 1,268 CFOs in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. This entry by John R. Graham of Duke University's Fuqua School of Business draws on the February 2009 and November 2008 surveys. The credit crisis of late 2008 has spilled into 2009, and the lack of funding has hampered the ability of many corporations to make the ideal operating and investment choices. We recently completed an in-depth study of how tight credit is affecting corporate activity. When a company is able to invest in positive net present value (NPV) projects, this means that the project returns more than the company's cost of capital, thereby increasing firm value in the long run. When credit is tight, as it is now, companies are not always able to obtain the necessary financing to pursue positive NPV projects. Due to the current credit crunch, more than half (55 percent) of U.S. companies tell us that they have recently had to cancel or postpone positive NPV projects. European and Asian companies are in a similar situation. This is bad for the economy in the long run because it spreads the effects of the current credit crisis into the future - less cash flow will be produced one or two years from now due to the cancellation of good projects today. Limited liquidity can hurt any company, but the problems are most acute among firms with poor credit ratings. For these firms, credit markets have nearly shut down. When external borrowing is limited, a company must rely more on internal funds, such as profits, asset sales, or cash on the balance sheet. For low-rated firms, profits are often poor, further limiting options. In our analysis, we found that struggling U.S. firms started 2008 with cash and marketable securities on the balance sheet equal to about 15 percent of total assets but ended the year with cash and marketable securities amounting to only 12 percent of assets. These financially constrained firms burned through a startling one-fifth of their cash holdings in just one year's time. Again, similar patterns are observed in Europe and in Asia. On the bright side, companies that are stronger financially were able to maintain cash of about 15 percent of asset value. Ironically, this indicates that most financially strong firms should not need to borrow extensively from credit markets, even though these are the only firms for which credit markets remain fairly open. In contrast, low-rated firms are burning through their internal reserves, while at the same time finding limited access to external sources of funding. What can a poorly performing firm do if it has limited profits, shrinking cash reserves, and little access to external capital? One option is to sell assets in order to obtain funds. Among firms that tell us they have experienced problems accessing credit markets, an astounding 56 percent indicate that they have sold assets in order to free up funds for other uses. While it is possible that some companies are finally shedding underperforming divisions (which would be a good thing), when you consider the depressed state of asset markets, it is likely that many of these recent asset sales have occurred at fire sale prices. Thus, asset sales have provided little relief. Firms that are struggling to access new capital can also rely on previously established lines of credit. Normally, credit lines are used for temporary "bridge" loans or as a short term substitute for cash. Today, we find evidence that lines of credit are instead serving as a "last resort" source of funds. U.S. firms have lines of credit with maximum borrowing capacity equal to about 23 percent of total asset value on average. We also find evidence that credit lines do in fact substitute for cash in that firms that have less cash on the books have a tendency to maintain larger credit line capacity. What is most astonishing about our credit line analysis is the degree to which they are currently drawn down. The typical U.S. company has drawn about 38 percent of the maximum allowable borrowing on its credit line. Companies with credit ratings of A or higher have drawn down less than 30 percent of maximum on average, while companies rated BBB or BB have drawn nearly 40 percent of the maximum allowed by their credit lines. Notably, companies rated B or lower have drawn nearly 70 percent of their line of credit capacity. This is alarming because it indicates that poorly rated firms have nearly used all available debt capacity. This draw down on credit lines among poorly rated firms has been exacerbated by a "just in case" phenomenon at some companies. That is, many poorly rated companies are drawing on their credit lines now as a precaution, fearing that their banks will eliminate their credit lines in the future (if, for example, the...