Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Gallup Polls Show Years of Stagnation in Job Creation, Unemployment, Consumer Spending; Bank Stocks Signal Financial Recovery is Over

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Gallup Polls Show Years of Stagnation in Job Creation, Unemployment, Consumer Spending; Bank Stocks Signal Financial Recovery is Over

Recent Gallup polls show that Three Years After Crisis, Little Sign of Economic Relief in U.S.

1. There has been no improvement in underemployment (counting part-time workers) from a year ago
2. Job creation has been in a narrow range since October 2010
3. Consumer spending has been stagnant since January 2009
4. Economic confidence is near the lows seen at the depth of the depression

click on any chart for sharper image

Economic Confidence: Back at Recessionary Levels

Americans' confidence in the U.S. economy is now at its lowest point since February 2009 -- near the conclusion of the recession that officially ended in June 2009. Gallup's Economic Confidence Index was -52 in August, above its financial crisis lows, but much lower than the -21 to -35 range measured from June 2009 to June 2011.

Americans' current level of economic confidence -- which represents their views on the current state and future direction of the nation's economy -- is decidedly negative. Seventy-seven percent said the economy was getting worse in August, the highest -- by far -- since February 2009, the month in which Congress passed a $787 billion stimulus bill in hopes of lifting the U.S. economy out the depths of the recession.

Job Creation: Improved From 2009-2010 Lows, but Far From Early 2008 Levels

The +13 Job Creation Index for August falls into the +10 to +15 range Gallup has measured since October 2010. The good news is that for nearly a year, Gallup has found consistently higher rates of net new job creation (the difference between hiring and letting go) than it did for the first two years after the global economic collapse. The not-so-good news is that the current rate of job creation is still just half of the +26 score Gallup found when it began tracking this metric in January 2008, when the nation was already technically in a recession.

Currently, 32% of workers say their employer is hiring and 19% say their employer is letting workers go, compared with 40% and 14%, respectively, in January 2008.

Underemployment and Employment: Stuck at Year-Ago Levels

Gallup found 18.5% of workers underemployed, including 9.1% unemployed, in August 2011. These figures are based on Gallup's measure of employment, which is not seasonally adjusted. Both of the current figures are statistically similar to what they were a year ago, meaning the employment situation in the U.S. is no better now than it was at that time.

Consumer Spending: Nowhere Near 2008 Levels

Americans' spending has remained essentially stagnant since it fell dramatically in January 2009. Spending in stores, restaurants, gas stations, and online has averaged $66 per day so far in 2011 -- similar to the $65 is 2010 and $64 in 2009. This compares with an average of $96 per day in 2008. That year, Americans' daily spending ranged from $81 to $114 per day in monthly averages. Since 2009, monthly spending averages have ranged between $58 and $75.

No Real Recovery

Clearly there has been no real recovery from the point of view of consumers. There was a financial recovery that is now crumbling, led by bank stocks.

BAC Bank of America



$BKX Banking Index



C Citigroup



Banks Stock fueled the decline in 2008 and have done so this year as well.

There was never a recovery in the real economy and now bank stocks signal the financial recovery is over as well.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Is It Time For The Financial World To Panic? 25 Reasons Why The Answer May Be Yes

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/31/2011 16:49 -0400
Zero Hedge

Every now and then it is easy to forget that the one or two "better than expected" data points blasted by flashing headlines do nothing that merely mask what is an otherwise quite deplorable and deteriorating reality. For the disconnect between America and the rest of the world look no further than this chart showing the dramatic divergence between the DJIA, which has just gone positive for the year, and every other major global stock market. Yet for those who require a narrative to go with their numbers, here is The Economic Collapse with the latest of their traditionally comprehensive bulletins, this time summarizing the "25 signs that the financial world is about to hit the big red panic button."

From The Economic Collapse:

The following are 25 signs that the financial world is about to hit the big red panic button....

#1 According to a new study just released by Merrill Lynch, the U.S. economy has an 80% chance of going into another recession.

#2 Will Bank of America be the next Lehman Brothers?  Shares of Bank of America have fallenmore than 40% over the past couple of months.  Even though Warren Buffet recently stepped in with 5 billion dollars, the reality is that the problems for Bank of America are far from over.  In fact, one analyst is projecting that Bank of America is going to need to raise 40 or 50 billion dollars in new capital.

#3 European bank stocks have gotten absolutely hammered in recent weeks.

#4 So far, major international banks have announced layoffs of more than 60,000 workers, and more layoff announcements are expected this fall.  A recent article in the New York Times detailed some of the carnage....

A new wave of layoffs is emblematic of this shift as nearly every major bank undertakes a cost-cutting initiative, some with names like Project Compass. UBS has announced 3,500 layoffs, 5 percent of its staff, and Citigroup is quietly cutting dozens of traders. Bank of America could cut as many as 10,000 jobs, or 3.5 percent of its work force. ABN Amro, Barclays, Bank of New York Mellon, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Lloyds, State Street and Wells Fargo have in recent months all announced plans to cut jobs — tens of thousands all told.

#5 Credit markets are really drying up.  Do you remember what happened in 2008 when that happened?  Many are now warning that we are getting very close to a repeat of that.

#6 The Conference Board has announced that the U.S. Consumer Confidence Index fell from 59.2 in July to 44.5 in August.  That is the lowest reading that we have seen since the last recession ended.

#7 The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index has fallen by almost 20 points over the last three months.  This index is now the lowest it has been in 30 years. 

#8 The Philadelphia Fed's latest survey of regional manufacturing activity was absolutely nightmarish....

The survey’s broadest measure of manufacturing conditions, the diffusion index of current activity, decreased from a slightly positive reading of 3.2 in July to -30.7 in August. The index is now at its lowest level since March 2009 

#9 According to Bloomberg, since World War II almost every time that the year over year change in real GDP has fallen below 2% the U.S. economy has fallen into a recession....

Since 1948, every time the four-quarter change has fallen below 2 percent, the economy has entered a recession. It’s hard to argue against an indicator with such a long history of accuracy.

#10 Economic sentiment is falling in Europe as well.  The following is from a recent Reuters article....

A monthly European Commission survey showed economic sentiment in the 17 countries using the euro, a good indication of future economic activity, fell to 98.3 in August from a revised 103 in July with optimism declining in all sectors.

#11 The yield on 2 year Greek bonds is now an astronomical 42.47%.

#12 As I wrote about recently, the European Central Bank has stepped into the marketplace and is buying up huge amounts of sovereign debt from troubled nations such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy.  As a result, the ECB is also massively overleveraged at this point.

#13 Most of the major banks in Europe are also leveraged to the hilt and have tremendous exposure to European sovereign debt.

#14 Political wrangling in Europe is threatening to unravel the Greek bailout package.  In a recent article, Satyajit Das described what has been going on behind the scenes in the EU....

The sticking point is a demand for collateral for the second bailout package. Finland demanded and got Euro 500 million in cash as security against their Euro 1,400 million share of the second bailout package. Hearing of the ill-advised side deal between Greece and Finland, Austria, the Netherlands and Slovakia also are now demanding collateral, arguing that their banks were less exposed to Greece than their counterparts in Germany and France entitling them to special treatment. At least, one German parliamentarian has also asked the logical question, why Germany is not receiving similar collateral.

#15 German Chancellor Angela Merkel is trying to hold the Greek bailout deal together, but a wave of anti-bailout "hysteria" is sweeping Germany, and now according to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard it looks like Merkel may not have enough votes to approve the latest bailout package....

German media reported that the latest tally of votes in the Bundestag shows that 23 members from Mrs Merkel's own coalition plan to vote against the package, including twelve of the 44 members of Bavaria's Social Christians (CSU). This may force the Chancellor to rely on opposition votes, risking a government collapse.

#16 Polish finance minister Jacek Rostowski is warning that the status quo in Europe will lead to "collapse".  According to Rostowski, if the EU does not choose the path of much deeper economic integration the eurozone simply is not going to survive much longer....

"The choice is: much deeper macroeconomic integration in the eurozone or its collapse. There is no third way."

#17 German voters are against the introduction of "Eurobonds" by about a 5 to 1 margin, so deeper economic integration in Europe does not look real promising at this point.

#18 If something goes wrong with the Greek bailout, Greece is financially doomed.  Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article by Puru Saxena....

In Greece, government debt now represents almost 160% of GDP and the average yield on Greek debt is around 15%. Thus, if Greece’s debt is rolled over without restructuring, its interest costs alone will amount to approximately 24% of GDP. In other words, if debt pardoning does not occur, nearly a quarter of Greece’s economic output will be gobbled up by interest repayments!

#19 The global banking system has a total of 2 trillion dollars of exposure to Greek, Irish, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian debt.  Considering how much the global banking system is leveraged, this amount of exposure could end up wiping out a lot of major financial institutions.

#20 The head of the IMF, Christine Largarde, recently warned that European banks are in need of "urgent recapitalization".

#21 Once the European crisis unravels, things could move very rapidly downhill.  In a recent article, John Mauldin put it this way....

It is only a matter of time until Europe has a true crisis, which will happen faster – BANG! – than any of us can now imagine. Think Lehman on steroids. The U.S. gave Europe our subprime woes. Europe gets to repay the favor with an even more severe banking crisis that, given that the U.S. is at best at stall speed, will tip us into a long and serious recession. Stay tuned.

#22 The U.S. housing market is still a complete and total mess.  According to a recently released report, U.S. home prices fell 5.9% in the second quarter compared to a year earlier.  That was the biggest decline that we have seen since 2009.  But even with lower prices very few people are buying.  According to the National Association of Realtors, sales of previously owned homes dropped 3.5 percent during July.  That was the third decline in the last four months.  Sales of previously owned homes are even lagging behind last year's pathetic pace.

#23 According to John Lohman, the decline in U.S. economic data over the past three months has beenabsolutely unprecedented.

#24 Morgan Stanley now says that the U.S. and Europe are "hovering dangerously close to a recession" and that there is a good chance we could enter one at some point in the next 6 to 12 months.

#25 Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota says that he is so alarmed about the state of the economy that he may drop his opposition to more monetary easing.  Could more quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve soon be on the way?

And the conclusion which is, as usual, spot on:

Things have not looked this bad for global financial markets since 2008.  Unless someone rides in on a white horse with trillions of dollars (or euros) of easy credit, it looks like we are headed for a massive credit crunch.

What we witnessed back in 2008 was absolutely horrifying.  Very few people want to see a repeat of that.  But as things in the U.S. and Europe continue to unravel, it appears increasingly likely that the next wave of the financial crisis could hit us sooner rather than later.

None of the fundamental problems that caused the crisis of 2008 have been fixed.  The world financial system is still one gigantic mountain of debt, leverage and risk.

Authorities around the globe will certainly do all they can to keep things stable, but in the end it is inevitable that the house of cards is going to come crashing down.

Let us hope for the best, but let us also prepare for the worst.

FHFA Sues 17 firms (banks) to recover losses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release Contact: Corinne Russell (202) 414-6921
September 2, 2011 Stefanie Johnson (202) 414-6376

FHFA Sues 17 Firms to Recover Losses to
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Washington, DC -- The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), as conservator for Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), today filed lawsuits against 17 financial institutions,
certain of their officers and various unaffiliated lead underwriters.  The suits allege violations of
federal securities laws and common law in the sale of residential private-label mortgage-backed
securities (PLS) to the Enterprises.
Complaints have been filed against the following lead defendants, in alphabetical order:
1. Ally Financial Inc. f/k/a GMAC, LLC
2. Bank of America Corporation
3. Barclays Bank PLC
4. Citigroup, Inc.
5. Countrywide Financial Corporation
6. Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc.
7. Deutsche Bank AG
8. First Horizon National Corporation
9. General Electric Company
10. Goldman Sachs & Co.
11. HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.
12. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
13. Merrill Lynch & Co. / First Franklin Financial Corp.
14. Morgan Stanley
15. Nomura Holding America Inc.
16. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
17. Société Générale

These complaints were filed in federal or state court in New York or the federal court in
Connecticut.  The complaints seek damages and civil penalties under the Securities Act of 1933,
similar in content to the complaint FHFA filed against UBS Americas, Inc. on July 27, 2011.  In
addition, each complaint seeks compensatory damages for negligent misrepresentation.
Certain complaints also allege state securities law violations or common law fraud.



As conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FHFA is charged with preserving and
conserving these companies’ assets and does so on behalf of taxpayers. The complaints filed
today reflect FHFA’s conclusion that some portion of the losses that Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac incurred on private-label mortgage-backed securities (PLS) are attributable to
misrepresentations and other improper actions by the firms and individuals named in these
filings. Based on our review, FHFA alleges that the loans had different and more risky
characteristics than the descriptions contained in the marketing and sales materials provided to
the Enterprises for those securities.

FHFA filed the complaints under the broad authority granted to it by the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008.  The U.S. legal system provides for addressing such alleged
misrepresentations through the nation’s securities laws and traditional common law.  FHFA is
following those legal remedies in filing these complaints and seeks to recover on losses to the
Enterprises that are the legal responsibilities of others.

Discussions regarding these matters have taken place with several of the firms receiving
complaints and, where constructive, they will continue.

Link to FHFA filings in PLS cases
###
The Federal Housing Finance Agency regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks.
These government-sponsored enterprises provide more than $5.7 trillion in funding for the U.S. mortgage markets and financial institutions.

Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth | | AlterNet

Meet the Global Financial Elites Controlling $46 Trillion In Wealth | | AlterNet

The economic elite have at least $46 trillion in wealth – but who are they? We look at the people and the industries picking the pockets of the working class.

August 11, 2011 |

The following is an adapted excerpt from David DeGraw’s new report on the financial destruction of the United States. The full report can be read here: Analysis of Financial Terrorism in America.


“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class,
the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
– Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway
How Much Wealth Do The Economic Elite Have?

While 68.3 million Americans struggle to get enough food to eat and wages are declining for 90 percent of the population, US millionaire household wealth has reached an unprecedented level. According to an extensive study by auditing and financial advisory firm Deloitte, US millionaire households now have $38.6 trillion in wealth. On top of the $38.6 trillion this study reveals, they have an estimated $6.3 trillion hidden in offshore accounts.

In total, US millionaire households have at least $45.9 trillion in wealth, the majority of this wealth is held within the upper one-tenth of one percent of the population.
f all this isn’t obscene enough, to further demonstrate how the global economy has now been completely rigged, Deloitte’s analysis predicated, based on current trends, that US millionaire households will see a 225 percent increase in wealth to $87.1 trillion by 2020. Accounting for wealth hidden in offshore accounts, they are projected to have over $100 trillion in total within the next decade.

Most people cannot even comprehend how much $1 trillion is, let alone $46 trillion. One trillion is equal to 1000 billion, or $1,000,000,000,000. To put it in perspective, last year the entire cost of feeding all 40 million Americans on food stamps was $65 billion.

Now consider, according to the latest IRS data, only 0.076 percent of the population, less than one-tenth of one percent, earned over $1 million in 2009.

The graph below, based on data from the Tax Policy Center, shows how much income is earned by a household at any given percentile in income distribution:



The highest bracket for annual income is $50 million or more. Only 74 Americans are in this elite group. The average income within this category was $91.2 million in 2008. As astonishing as that is, in 2009 they averaged $518.8 million each, or about $10 million per week. This means, in the depths of the recession, the richest 74 Americans increased their income by more than five times within this one year. These 74 people made more money than 19 million workers combined.

In context, overall, the richest 400 people in the US have as much wealth as 154 million Americans combined, that’s 50 percent of the entire country. The top economic 1 percent of the US population now has a record 40 pecent of all wealth, and have more wealth than 90 percent of the population combined.

Who Rules America? Revealing The Economic Top 0.1 Percent

Here is an analysis from an investment manager with mega-wealthy clients breaking down the economic top 0.5 percent of the population, recently published by William Domhoff, sociology professor and author of Who Rules America?:

“Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the US. They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business opportunities, and many other benefits.

Folks in the top 0.1% come from many backgrounds but it’s infrequent to meet one whose wealth wasn’t acquired through direct or indirect participation in the financial and banking industries…. Most of the serious economic damage the US is struggling with today was done by the top 0.1% and they benefited greatly from it…. For example, in Q1 of 2011, America’s top corporations reported 31% profit growth and a 31% reduction in taxes, the latter due to profit outsourcing to low tax rate countries…. The year 2010 was a record year for compensation on Wall Street, while corporate CEO compensation rose by over 30%.…

In 2010 a dozen major companies, including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Fed Ex paid US tax rates between -0.7% and -9.2%. Production, employment, profits, and taxes have all been outsourced….

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex and largely discrete set of laws and exemptions from laws has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the US financial system. It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the US political and legislative processes.

They have real power and real wealth. Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top 0.5%, much less the top 0.1%….

… the American dream of striking it rich is merely a well-marketed fantasy that keeps the bottom 99.5% hoping for better and prevents social and political instability. The odds of getting into that top 0.5% are very slim and the door is kept firmly shut by those within it.”

To get into the top economic 0.01 percent (one-hundredth of one percent) of the population, you have to have a household income of over $27 million per year.

If you look at some of the central players who caused this economic crisis, you will see that they are among this Economic Elite group.

Former Goldman Sachs CEO and Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had already amassed at least $700 million prior to moving to the US Treasury in 2006. Current Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and a few other top executives at Goldman Sachs just received $111.3 million in bonuses. Blankfein just took home $24.3 million, as part of a $67.9 million bonus he was awarded. Goldman’s President Gary Cohn took home $24 million, as part of a $66.9 million bonus he was awarded. Goldman’s CFO David Viniar and former co-president Jon Winkelried both took home over $20 million in bonuses.

Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit just took home $80 million, in what may eventually total more than $200 million in compensation and bonuses. Coming in at the top of the list is JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who just took home $90 million.

If you think people in this income level don’t control the US political process, you are not paying attention. After they caused this economic crisis, they got the government to give them trillions of dollars in taxpayer support, and then, after taking our tax dollars, they gave themselves all-time record-breaking bonuses. 2009 was an all-time record-breaking year for Wall Street executives bringing in a total of $145 billion. And then, in 2010, they raised the bar even higher, breaking the all-time record set the year before by pulling in another $149 billion. The audacity of it all is stunning.

Finding people more grotesquely greedy than Wall Street executives would seem to be impossible. However, health insurance CEOs are giving them a run for their money. As the LA Times reported:

“Leaders of Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealth, WellPoint and Aetna received nearly $200 million in compensation in 2009, according to a report, while the companies sought rate increases as high as 39%….

H. Edward Hanway, former chief executive of Philadelphia-based Cigna, topped the list of high-paid executives, thanks to a retirement package worth $110.9 million. Cigna paid Hanway and his successor, David Cordani, a total of $136.3 million last year….

Ron Williams, the CEO of Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna Inc., earned nearly $18.2 million in total compensation, down from $24.4 million in 2008.”

Aetna CEO Ron Williams has recovered from hisdownyear in 2009 by making $72 million in 2010.

Given this level of obscene profiteering within the health care industry, it is not surprising that Americans pay more for medical care than any other nation in the world. In fact, Americans are forced to pay twice as much as most nations, and get lower quality care in return. As health insurance companies admitted, they have been reaping windfall profits because peoplewith health insurance plansstill cannot afford to go to the doctors and have stopped going unless it is an absolute emergency. With well over 50 million people unable to afford health insurance and the skyrocketing costs, it is not surprising that over 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies are the result of medical bills. In fact, 75 percent of the medical bankruptcies filed are from people whohave health insurance.

Within this Economic Elite group, you also have the war profiteering oil companies, which themselves are in large part owned by the big Wall Street banks. The biggest five oil companies, while gas prices have been skyrocketing, reaped $36 billion in profit last quarter. These companies also receive an average of $6 billion per year in tax subsidies.

Tax Breaks For The Rich, Budget Cuts For The Rest Of Us

To further demonstrate how the mega-wealthy have seized control of our political process, consider that the richest 400 Americans paid 30 percent of their income in taxes in 1995, but they now pay only 18 percent.

In fact, 1,470 Americans earned over $1 million in 2009 and didn’t pay any taxes.

The average tax rate for millionaires was 22.4 percent in 2009, down from 30.4 percent in 1995. The average millionaire saves $136,000 a year due to reduced tax rates.

Looking at the tax rate from a long-term perspective, the amount of money the richest people and most profitable corporations pay in taxes has fallen dramatically since 1955. Corporate tax accounted for 27.3 percent of federal revenue in 1955. In 2010, corporate tax accounted for only 8.9 percent of federal revenue. Corporate taxes accounted for 4.3 percent of overall GDP in 1955, in 2010 they accounted for only 1.3 percent.

Deliberate Systemic Attacks

The dramatic increase in economic inequality and poverty, along with the unprecedented rise in wealth within the topone-tenth of one percentof the population has not happened by mistake. It is the designed result of deliberate governmental and economic policy. It is the result of the richest people in the world, and the “too big to fail” banks, using the campaign finance and lobbying system to buy off politicians who implement policies designed to exploit 99.9 percent of the population for their financial gain. To call what is happening a “financial terrorist attack” on the United States, is not using hyperbole, it is the technical term for what is currently occurring.

Once Unthinkable, Breakup of Big Banks Now Seems Feasible

by Jesse Eisinger
ProPublica, July 27, 2011, 3:50 p.m

Note: The Trade is not subject to our Creative Commons license.

What was made can be unmade.

JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo may have venerable names, but they and the pseudo-venerable Citigroup and Bank of America are all products of countless mergers and agglomerations.

About The Trade

In this column, co-published with New York Times' DealBook, I monitor the financial markets to hold companies, executives and government officials accountable for their actions. Tips? Praise? Contact me atjesse@propublica.org

There is no rule of markets that requires a financial system dominated by four cobbled-together, lumbering behemoths.

Lawmakers and regulators have failed to remake our system with smaller, safer institutions. What about investors?

Big bank stocks have been persistently weak, making breakups that seemed politically impossible no longer unthinkable.

Bank of America’s recent quarterly earnings were so weak that investors and commentators wondered whether the bank should sell off Merrill Lynch, the investment bank for which it foolishly overpaid at the height of the crisis. Bank of America trades at half of its book value (the stated value of its assets minus its liabilities), an indication that investors view its asset quality and prospects just a notch below abominable, as Jonathan Weil of Bloomberg News pointed out last week.

For Bank of America, the question is whether it will have to raise capital. Selling shares at such depressed prices would be costly. Regulators won’t push for it. They just gave stress tests to the biggest banks and merely restricted the bank from paying out a dividend. The logical solution is that Bank of America shed business lines in a bid to improve its prospects in the eyes of Wall Street.

Citigroup’s stock, revenue and earnings have lagged for a decade.

“Look, if you can’t compete in the major leagues for over a decade, it’s time to go back to the minors,” said the always outspoken Mike Mayo, an analyst with CLSA. His chronicle of ruffling bank management feathers, “Exile on Wall Street” (Wiley), will be published in the fall.

JPMorgan Chase is as well managed as any gargantuan bank can be. But if you look at its businesses, it’s hard to see any area where it is clearly the best, something even its own executives concede. Not in credit cards, where the premier name is American Express. Not in money management, where you might offer up T. Rowe Price. Investment banking—Goldman Sachs (the last quarter notwithstanding). Back-office transactions, State Street.

Yet even JPMorgan is merely trading at book value. Put another way, the market regards the value that JPMorgan provides as a financial services conglomerate as zilch. How well do all of JPMorgan’s divisions work together? In presentations to investors, JPMorgan executives show how much revenue they gain from existing clients. But these measures are hardly unbiased. Executives have an incentive to defend their empires. Who is to say that a certain division of JPMorgan wouldn’t have won that business anyway? And nobody measures how much a bank loses through conflicts of interest.

Even in the face of investor pressure, there are forces that would hold bank breakups back. Mainly pay.

“The biggest motivation for not breaking up is that top managers would earn less,” Mayo said. “That is part of the breakdown in the owner/manager relationship. That’s a breakdown in capitalism.”

Institutional investors—the major owners of the banks—are passive and conflicted. They don’t like to go public with complaints. They have extensive business ties with the banks. The few hedge fund activist investors who aren’t cowed would most likely balk at taking on such an enormous target.

Also, there are reasons to think that smaller banks wouldn’t necessarily make the system safer. A wave of small bank failures can have systemic effects, as was the case in the Great Depression. Focused companies like Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns failed in the recent crisis, worsening it.

Making a nuanced argument, John Hempton, a blogger, investor and former regulator in Australia, says that it’s better for shareholders—and societies—to have large banks with lots of market power. That makes them more profitable and leads them to take less risk, making them safer and more enticing for investors.

Another oft-trotted-out argument against breakups: The United States needs global banks to service its giant, multinational corporations and to preserve our position in world markets.

Color me unconvinced. When a giant corporation wants to do a major bond offering or a big company goes public, the banks, despite their size, don’t want to shoulder all the risk themselves, preferring to share the responsibility.

If the stocks continue to lag for quarters upon years, these arguments will seem less convincing, while institutional reluctance will begin to erode.

Investors don’t care about size, they care about performance. It’s undeniable that smaller banks are easier to manage. And they are easier for regulators to unwind—and therefore less terrifying to trading partners—when they fail.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the debate about overhauling the financial system after the great crisis was the absence of serious contemplation of breaking up the largest banks.

It’s not a perfect solution. Banks responding to investor pressure would react haphazardly. But it’s a good start.