Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Move Will Do Little to Curb Recession

The Bank of England Misses the Point

by PETER MORICI

The Bank of England (BoE) announcement of a 50 billion pound (US$99 billion) lending facility for British banks and building societies (mortgage providers) will do little to open up lending and help the United Kingdom to avoid a recession.

The facility will permit British banks and building societies to borrow against mortgage-backed and other securities for terms of up to one year, and renewable by the BoE for up to three years.

The market for mortgage-backed securities and other collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) has essentially closed, making the extension of new mortgages and credit by banks to worthy homebuyers and businesses in the United States and Britain very difficult.

Unfortunately, the BoE action will, like similar special lending facilities created by the US Federal Reserve in recent months, have limited impact on the present banking crisis.

Over the past two decades, banks have moved from a "deposits into loans model" to a "loans into bonds model". The shift is a good thing because it eliminates the kind of risks banks bear when they borrow short and lend long, which mightily contributed to the US Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. Properly done, the loans to bonds model permits banks to greatly expand their lending capacity.

However, in recent years, banks have created increasingly complex and difficult to understand securities. Banks sold, bought and resold securities, and engaged in credit-default swaps that did not lay off risk in the manner advertised. Insurance companies, pension funds and fixed income investors, having been stuck with risky securities, are no longer willing to finance bank loans in this manner. Banks can no longer sell CDOs to these investors.

These practices did permit banks to earn outsized profits on transactions fees and pay executives much better than in comparable non-financial firms. However, it is simply impossible to borrow at 5% and lend at 7%, the essence of traditional banking, and skim off the kinds of profits and executive bonuses bankers now expect and still provide for loan servicing, insurance and the other costs involved in lending and securitization.

Unfortunately, bankers are not much interested in returning to traditional lending practices and are looking to other lines of business within their larger financial services firms for opportunities that may permit continued outsized incomes.

Central banks, by taking mortgage-backed securities and other CDOs off the books of banks, may temporarily relieve liquidity pressures, but such measures do not resolve fundamental structural problems within contemporary financial conglomerates.

The Bank of England and Federal Reserve would do better to bring banks and fixed income investors together to define the kinds of simple mortgage- and other loan-backed securities that insurance companies, pension funds and the like would accept, and condition access to the discount window on banks making and securitizing loans in such a rebuilt market for collateralized debt obligations.

PETER MORICI is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former Chief Economist at the US International Trade Commission.