|
wall stress cut nearly 2/3rds of their staff and restricted their business to the profitable enterprises, which largely means borrowing virtually free government money and lending it out only to very strong businesses. some are lending to marginal businesses at very high spreads over treasuries. relatively low risk, high profit.
then there's the proprietary trading business, in which they take advantage of their market knowledge and technology to make a profit nearly every time. volatility in the market means big opportunities for trading, whether up or down. you just have to know which side to be on, and when you're in the business of seeing the balance sheets of a huge portion of the s&p 500 and talking to the big money, it's pretty easy to consistently be on the right side.
the economy is NOT doing so badly AS A WHOLE. the problem is that "as a whole" thing. the economy is working swell for the companies and individuals who have oodles of cash. they can get cheap capital from the government, cheap labor overseas, and middle-class demand for their products overseas. that doesn't help the rest of america much, but what do they care.
the economy is NOT working well for the rest of us. it's simply misleading to lump these two economies together.
imho, the bush/obama bailouts were necessary, but they both neglected to extract a pound of flesh from the banks. it was inexcusible not to make them agree to resume reasonably normal lending, to write off their bad debts within 6 months, to accept considerably less than par for the toxic assets, etc., or else agree to go into receivership (my understanding is that the government couldn't legally force them into receivership at the time, but they could threaten to not help any bank that refused to accept reasonable terms).
|