Money, Banking, Saving, and Investing
Money, Banking, Saving, and Investing
MONEY, BANKING, SAVING,
AND INVESTING
HOW SHOULD YOU SPEND, SAVE, AND INEST YOUR MONEY?
Objectives:
Identify the roles of money, banking, and financial institutions in the U.S. economy.
Evaluate the consequences of individual financial decisions.
Analyze the risks and returns of various saving and investment options
Develop strategies for earning, spending, saving, and investing resources.
WHAT MAKES MONEY…MONEY?
Money has three basic functions:
A medium of exchange
A standard of value
A store of value
Money has six main characteristics
Acceptability
Scarcity
Portability
Durability
Divisibility
Uniformity
Commodity money was used for thousands of years before the creation of banks. Banknotes replaced commodity money and were eventually replaced by fiat money.
The money supply is made of these assets:
Currency
Checkable deposits
Traveler’s Checks
Credit cards and debit cards can be used to make purchases, but they are not part of the money supply.
FYI:
DEBT IS BAD FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
HOW DOES THE BANKING SYSTEM WORK?
Saving is any form of putting money aside for later use.
Banks are financial institutions that provide two main services: receiving deposits from savers and making loans to borrowers. Banks charge interest on the loan principal. They profit by charging more interest on loans than they pay on deposits.
Banks are required to keep a fraction of deposits in reserve and can make loans with the rest. The Federal Reserve System regulates and manages the nation’s banks.
HOW IS SAVING IMPORTANT TO THE ECONOMY - - - AND YOU?
Saving helps the economy grow by supplying the funds that financial institutions lend out for business investment.
Putting money aside today can help one:
reach future goals
weather hard times
fund retirement
Retirement is often funded by three sources of money:
Social Security
Company retirement plans
These include both traditional defined pension plans and 401K’s (company sponsored plans based on voluntary employee contributions)
personal savings
HOW DO AMERICANS INVEST THEIR SAVINGS?
Investing involves using money that has been saved to earn more money, usually through compounding.
Investment options have different risks and returns.
Government bonds: low risk, low rate of return
Corporate bonds: higher risk and rate of return than government bonds
Stocks: historically high rate of return (over the long term!), with high risk
Mutual funds: diversification keeps risk lower than with individual stocks or bonds, with a relatively high rate of return
What went wrong?
Global Financial Crisis 2008:
In the fall of 2008, the World financial markets went into catastrophic meltdown. The crisis was so severe, it threatened the stability of economies all around the world. Capitalism itself, as we know it, was at the brink of collapse.
What went wrong? What caused such a sudden, steep, and severe financial crisis? And why was it (and still is) a global phenomenon?
Traditionally, asset allocation involves dividing the assets in a portfolio among different types of investments. This diversification of investments involves balancing various investments to hedge (avoid) losses. For most of the 20th century, this simple strategy was used by individuals, corporations, and governments to avoid risk (losses).
In the late 80’s and early 90’s, there were many changes in the investment world. First, the banking and financial industry was de-regulated with the Finance Modernization Act of 2000. It repealed the Glass-Stegal Act which had regulated the industry since the New Deal. Second, derivatives (equities that represent a combination of pieces of various stocks) became wide-spread. Third, a new kind of investor became major players in the market. ..hedge funds.
Hedge funds are open-ended investment companies organized as limited partnerships for the sole purpose of investing clients money to obtain large profits. Hedge funds often use use high-risk speculative methods and “risk management” formulas to maximize rate of return. Huge profits are made with small margins and large margins (debt). This strategy was extremely successful. Great wealth was made by a few without any real value being added to the economy.
The strategy became a catastrophe when C.D.O.’s (collateralized debt obligations), whose real risk was not accounted for began to default. Hedge funds were forced to satisfy their enormous margins, selling off perfectly good equities (in such large quantities), stock prices went into a free fall across the national and global markets. Thus a crisis was born. The ripple effects of the financial markets meltdown spread quickly. The effects of “Wall Street” were quickly felt on “Main Street”
Moral hazard is more like saying that one acts differently in risky situations when they know they are safe guarded, than they would if they didn't have the safe guard there.
|
The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Financial Crisis
Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act
By WILLIAM KAUFMAN
If you're looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."
The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain's chief economic advisor.
But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism -- fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's idea of a tribune of "change"--if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.
This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here's the complete roll call of shame:
REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner. DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden.
REPUBLICANS AGAINST(1): Shelby.
DEMOCRATS AGAINST(7): Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski and Wellstone.
NOT VOTING: 2 REPUBLICANS (2): Fitzgerald (voted present) and McCain.
The House Democrats were no less enthusiastic in their endorsement of this invitation to plunder--the repeal passed there by a margin of 343-86, with the Donkey Party favoring the measure by a two-to-one margin, 138-69. Current House speaker Nancy Pelosi managed not to register a vote on this one, so great was her fear of offending her party's corporate paymasters even though she knew passage was a sure thing.
According to Wikipedia, many economists "have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the 'finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors [in 1999]. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, ' according to the Center for Responsive Politics. ' These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act. ' "
This lust for banking largesse is as wanton among Democrats as Republicans--right up to the current presidential campaign. According to the Phoenix Business Journal,
Obama and McCain . . . have accepted a substantial amount of campaign money from Wall Street bankers, investment and securities firms and their executives during this election cycle.
Investment firms have donated $9.9 million to Obama and $6.9 million to McCain this campaign thus far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Commercial banks have given Obama $2.1 million and McCain $1.9 million. Private equity firms and hedge funds have given Obama $2 million and McCain $1.4 million, according to CFRP.
Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Co., UBS and heavyweight law firm DLA Piper are among Obama's top contributors. JP Morgan acquired Bear Stearns with the federal government taking on as much as $30 billion Bear assets as part of the deal. McCain's top donor sources include Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Blank Rome and Greenberg Traurig LLP law firms.
So . . . the next time a mass-media-lulled Democrat ridicules Ralph Nader for arguing that there are few significant differences between the two major parties on the truly important issues, you might refer them to this atrocity, along with all the other ones.
William Kaufman can be reached at kman484@earthlink.net