US Banks v Foreign Branches of US Banks


QUESTION: Marty, finally we decided to open a bank account in the USA which is not part of the CRS. But now we do not know which US-bank is safe enough and where to go! You mentioned that Goldmann Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase have derivative exposure linked back to Deutsche Bank. So those banks are not safe enough. The can fail in a contagion. You said also that Wells Fargo has the least derivative exposure.

In another article you said that the BANK of NEW YORK would be good as a custodian. Would the Bank of New York be safe enough in a contagion? The Bank of New York has a branch in Frankfurt. Could we open an USD-account in Frankfurt and still be outside the CRS? Or would this be a major fault.

Would you please give us a hint how to proceed as this choice is way over our head. Which bank is safe and outside of the CRS at the same time.

Thank you very much for sharing your experience and knowledge with us!
GB

ANSWER: Wells Fargo is a bank that is perhaps more accessible. Bank of New York has a big custodian business. Wells Fargo does not have offices outside of the US that provide services to retail or small business customers. Remember that any branches of US banks outside the United States are not part of the Fed system and are not FDIC insured. If you want a retail type of arrangement then Wells Fargo may be better. Bank of America has probably the best facilities for wiring money internationally online.

If you are dealing with a US branch of any bank, it must be FDIC insured and that is per person, not per account or banks. You do not want any account with a US bank’s branch outside the USA for they would be under the control of the local central bank.


NOTE: I do not receive any referral fees from either Wells Fargo or Bank of New York. We do notaccept any commission from banks or brokers for any referrals whatsoever. We maintain our strict policy of no conflicts or interest.

Banks – Interest Rates – Mortgages


COMMENT: Martin, as an avid follower, I took your advice to heart to try to fix our interest rate for the loan we have on our house. This was the answer I got from our direct advisor: “Have looked at your file, you can still enjoy your low-interest rate until 01/12/2020, in other words refinancing is only recommended at the earliest in November 2020. Your capital will then fall to 37,000 euros outstanding, the interest may already rise to 3 % (then you still benefit in November compared to refinance now!) ? Repocrisis is in the USA, Europe is supported by the ECB, which keeps interest rates low? Or am i wrong?” Isn’t this the perfect example of how well people are informed, even those working at the banks? Or do we already see some intended lingering of banks, trying not to get caught on the wrong side of the risk? Thanks for answering or using this in your private blog as a perfect example…

BL

ANSWER: They may have been instructed from above to keep loans floating because the Repo Crisis is demonstrating that rates are under pressure to rise, not fall!

If you have a mortgage that is floating, lock it in with a fixed rate.

Those looking to buy have a dilemma. On the one hand, real estate prices are high in many regions and you can wait for prices to come down before buying. On the other hand, when prices start to tumble it will be the result of an inability to get long-term fixed loans so prices will fall to where people will be able to get loans or pay cash. The solution may be to buy when you can get a long-term fixed mortgage and then hedge it with eventually shorting rates where there will be a liquid marke

Could the Fed Ever Exit the Repo Market?


It is stunning how after more than three months, the analysis on the repo market is still nowhere close to reality. I believe that those in the trenches are, like me, afraid to really explain what is taking place for fear they will be blamed for creating a financial panic.

The popular explanation in September was repeated by the Wall Street Journal: “For one, Monday marked the deadline for companies to submit their quarterly federal tax payments.” This was standard analysis put out by the countless pundits the press rely upon and they have to come up with some explanation and quick. When analysts spout out their explanations to mainstream media it is because they are trying to get business. People have often asked me why I do not do mainstream media interviews. First, I do not need the business. Secondly, when you have real clients, they prefer to pay for information and do not want it on the front pages of newspapers for free. They appreciate analysis that is exclusive rather than as common as dirt. Hence, the analysis put out in the press about the Repo Crisis is coming from people who have no real clients in the area and lack the expertise in the field to start with.

Not even the central banks understood what was going on because even they tend to be domestically oriented. Despite the obvious fact that we live in a global economy, all the economic theories, analysis, and experience have been domestically focused. Unless someone has been in the trenches globally, they will never see the wildcard coming from external sources. Hence, we get the calls to explain things ONLY because they know all the other major institutions are also coming to us as some sort of the central point of reference.

The question that is now dominating everyone’s inquiries, can the Fed exit the repo market after being the dominant source of liquidity for more than three months? What will it take for the Federal Reserve to withdraw from its daily liquidity operations in this $2.2 trillion market for repurchase agreements (repos)?

All I am prepared to say publicly is that the solution is beyond the powers of all the central banks combined. The solution is not attainable without political concessions, which politically are just off the table. This is going to require a major reform that is unlikely to take place and will not even be recognized until the crisis erupts on a much larger scale

Pension Crisis – Congress is Unable to Act Because of Gridlock


Trump has called the Democrats the do-nothings. All they have been focused on is impeaching Trump for the polls they are looking at behind the curtain all show Trump will beat whoever they put up as their candidate. the motto has been – if you can’t beat him, impeach him. There is no other area where the Democrats have just failed to act with a major crisis looming in 2021 than the spreading of the Pension Crisis.

There are pensions that are multi-employer funds which are perhaps the first to fall in the private sector. The Republicans did slip a rescue package into the massive $1.4 trillion spending bill passed last month. That was all because the United Mine Workers of America pensions would have failed completely and the push from environmentalists against mining and energy only puts pensions in those areas at serious risk after 2020.

The Republicans, interestingly enough, have no problem with the bailout but want to raise premiums that employers must contribute. Conversely, the Democrats who have been backed by such unions have argued for low-interest loans and not to force higher premiums on employees or employers.

The Republicans and Democrats are so deeply divided on how to solve the broader pension crisis problem, that this immediate impasse illustrates what I have been warning about that government is just collapsing incapable of bipartisan solutions. The Democrats simply refuse to act for they fear that Trump would get the credit for solving the pension crisis among unions that traditionally have backed the Democrats.

This entire issue has become not about solving any crisis but who gets credit and thus we have a government incapable of acting for the benefit of the people. As I have said, this is how governments eventually collapse. They become so corrupt and divided, they are incapable of managing the state.