banking crisis « TheCenterLane.com

Financial Reform Bill Exposed As Hoax

June 28th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 28 2010

Comments Off

June 28, 2010

You don’t have to look too far to find damning criticism of the so-called financial “reform” bill. Once the Kaufman-Brown amendment was subverted (thanks to the Obama administration), the efforts to solve the problem of financial institutions’ growth to a state of being “too big to fail” (TBTF) became a lost cause. Dylan Ratigan, who had been fuming for a while about the financial reform charade, had this to say about the product that emerged from reconciliation on Friday morning:

It means that the same people who brought you these horrible changes — rising wealth discrepancy, massive unemployment and a crumbling infrastructure – have now further institutionalized the policies that will keep the causes of these problems firmly in place.

The best trashing of this bill came from Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge:

Congrats, middle class, once again you get raped by Wall Street, which is off to the races to yet again rapidly blow itself up courtesy of 30x leverage, unlimited discount window usage, trillions in excess reserves, quadrillions in unregulated derivatives, a TBTF framework that has been untouched and will need a rescue in under a year, non-existent accounting rules, a culture of unmitigated greed, and all of Congress and Senate on its payroll. And, sorry, you can’t even vote some of the idiots that passed this garbage out: after all there is a retiring lame duck in charge of it all. We can only hope his annual Wall Street (i.e. taxpayer funded) annuity will satisfy his conscience for destroying any hope America could have of a credible financial system.

* * *

In other words, the greatest theatrical production of the past few months is now over, it has achieved nothing, it will prevent nothing, and ultimately the financial markets will blow up yet again, but not before the Teleprompter in Chief pummels the idiot public with address after address how he singlehandedly was bribed, pardon, achieved a historic event of being the only president to completely crumble under Wall Street’s pressure on every item that was supposed to reign in the greatest risktaking generation (with Other People’s Money) in history.

Robert Lenzner of Forbes focused his criticism of the bill on the fact that nothing was done to limit the absurd leverage used by the banks to borrow against their capital. After all, at the January 13 hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Lloyd Bankfiend of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan’s Dimon Dog admitted that excessive leverage was a key problem in causing the financial crisis. As I discussed in “Lev Is The Drug”:

Lloyd Blankfein repeatedly expressed pride in the fact that Goldman Sachs has always been leveraged to “only” a 23-to-1 ratio. The Dimon Dog’s theme was something like: “We did everything right . . . except that we were overleveraged”.

At Forbes, Robert Lenzner discussed the ugly truth about how the limits on leverage were excised from this bill:

The capitulation on this matter of leverage is extraordinary evidence of Wall Street’s power to influence Congress through its lobbying dollars. It is another example of the public servants serving the agents of finance capitalism. After pumping in gobs of sovereign credit to replace the credit that had been wiped out and replace the supply of credit to the economic system, a weak reform bill will just be an invitation to drum up the leverage that caused the crisis in the first place.

Another victory for the lobbyists came in their sabotage of the prohibition on proprietary trading (when banks trade with their own money, for their own benefit). The bill provides that federal financial regulators shall study the measure, then issue rules implementing it, based on the results of that study. The rules might ultimately ban proprietary trading or they may allow for what Jim Jubak of MSN calls the “de minimus” (trading with minimal amounts) exemption to the ban. Jubak considers the use of the de minimus exemption to the so-called ban as the likely outcome. Many commentators failed to realize how the lobbyists worked their magic here, reporting that the prop trading ban (referred to as the “Volcker rule”) survived reconciliation intact. Jim Jubak exposed the strategy employed by the lobbyists:

But lobbying Congress is only part of the game. Congress writes the laws, but it leaves it up to regulators to write the rules. In a mid-June review of the text of the financial-reform legislation, the Chamber of Commerce counted 399 rule-makings and 47 studies required by lawmakers.

Each one of these, like the proposed de minimus exemption of the Volcker rule, would be settled by regulators operating by and large out of the public eye and with minimal public input. But the financial-industry lobbyists who once worked at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. know how to put in a word with those writing the rules. Need help understanding a complex issue? A regulator has the name of a former colleague now working as a lobbyist in an e-mail address book. Want to share an industry point of view with a rule-maker? Odds are a lobbyist knows whom to call to get a few minutes of face time.

At the Naked Capitalism website, Yves Smith served up some more negative reactions to the bill, along with her own cutting commentary:

I want the word “reform” back. Between health care “reform” and financial services “reform,” Obama, his operatives, and media cheerleaders are trying to depict both initiatives as being far more salutary and far-reaching than they are. This abuse of language is yet another case of the Obama Administration using branding to cover up substantive shortcomings. In the short run it might fool quite a few people, just as BP’s efforts to position itself as an environmentally responsible company did.

* * *

So what does the bill accomplish? It inconveniences banks around the margin while failing to reduce the odds of a recurrence of a major financial crisis.

The only two measures I see as genuine accomplishments, the Audit the Fed provisions, and the creation of a consumer financial product bureau, do not address systemic risks. And the consumer protection authority was substantially watered down. Recall a crucial provision, that banks be required to offer plain vanilla variants of products, was axed early on.

So there you have it. The bill that is supposed to save us from another financial crisis does nothing to accomplish that objective. Once this 2,000-page farce is signed into law, watch for the reactions. It will be interesting to sort out the clear-thinkers from the Kool-Aid drinkers.

American capitalism, asset bubble, Audit the Fed, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, BP, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, consumer financial protection, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, de minimus exemption, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dimon Dog, Dylan Ratigan, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, excessive leverage, FCIC, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, financial meltdown, financial reform, Financial Reform Bill Exposed As Hoax, Forbes, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jamie Dimon, Jim Jubak, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JPMorgan Chase, Kaufman-Brown amendment, Kool-Aid drinkers, Lev Is The Drug, liberal, Lloyd Bankfiend, Lloyd Blankfein, lobbyists, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, msn, Naked Capitalism, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, prop trading ban, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Lenzner, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, TBTF, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Tyler Durden, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unregulated derivatives, Volcker Rule, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, Zero Hedge, zombie banks

Demolition Derby

June 24th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 24 2010

Comments Off

June 24, 2010

They’re at the starting line, getting ready to trash the economy and turn our “great recession” into a full-on Great Depression II (to steal an expression from Paul Farrell). Barry Ritholtz calls them the “deficit chicken hawks”. The Reformed Broker recently wrote a clever piece which incorporated a moniker coined by Mark Thoma, the “Austerians”, in reference to that same (deficit chicken hawk) group. The Reformed Broker described them this way:

. . . this gang has found a sudden (upcoming election-related) pang of concern over deficits and our ability to finance them. Critics say the Austerians’ premature tightness will send the economy off a cliff, a la the 1930’s.

Count me among those who believe that the Austerians are about to send the economy off a cliff – or as I see it: into a Demolition Derby. The first smash-up in this derby was to sabotage any potential recovery in the job market. Economist Scott Brown made this observation at the Seeking Alpha website:

One issue in deficit spending is deciding how much is enough to carry us through. Removing fiscal stimulus too soon risks derailing the recovery. Anti-deficit sentiment has already hampered a push for further stimulus to support job growth. Across the Atlantic, austerity moves threaten to dampen European economic growth in 2011. Long term, deficit reduction is important, but short term, it’s just foolish.

The second event in the Demolition Derby is to deny the extension of unemployment benefits. Because the unemployed don’t have any money to bribe legislators, they make a great target. David Herszenhorn of The New York Times discussed the despair expressed by Senator Patty Murray of Washington after the Senate’s failure to pass legislation extending unemployment compensation:

“This is a critical piece of legislation for thousands of families in our country, who want to know whether their United States Senate and Congress is on their side or is going to turn their back on them, right at a critical time when our economy is just starting to get around the corner,” Mrs. Murray said.

The deficit chicken hawk group isn’t just from the Republican side of the aisle. You can count Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe “The Tool” Lieberman among their ranks.

David Leonhardt of The New York Times lamented Fed chairman Ben Bernanke’s preference for maintaining “the markets’ confidence in Washington” at the expense of the unemployed:

Look around at the American economy today. Unemployment is 9.7 percent. Inflation in recent months has been zero. States are cutting their budgets. Congress is balking at spending the money to prevent state layoffs. The Fed is standing pat, too. Bond investors, fickle as they may be, show no signs of panicking.

Which seems to be the greater risk: too much action or too little?

The Demolition Derby is not limited to exacerbating the unemployment crisis. It involves sabotaging the economic recovery as well. In my last posting, I discussed a recent report by Comstock Partners, highlighting ten reasons why the so-called economic rebound from the financial crisis has been quite weak. The report’s conclusion emphasized the necessity of additional fiscal stimulus:

The data cited here cover the major indicators of economic activity, and they paint a picture of an economy that has moved up, but only from extremely depressed numbers to a point where they are less depressed. And keep in mind that this is the result of the most massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ever applied to a major economy. In our view the ability of the economy to undergo a sustained recovery without continued massive help is still questionable.

In a recent essay, John Mauldin provided a detailed explanation of how premature deficit reduction efforts can impair economic recovery:

In the US, we must start to get our fiscal house in order. But if we cut the deficit by 2% of GDP a year, that is going to be a drag on growth in what I think is going to be a slow growth environment to begin with. If you raise taxes by 1% combined with 1% cuts (of GDP) that will have a minimum effect of reducing GDP by around 2% initially. And when you combine those cuts at the national level with tax increases and spending cuts of more than 1% of GDP at state and local levels you have even further drags on growth.

Those who accept Robert Prechter’s Elliott Wave Theory for analyzing stock market charts to make predictions of long-term financial trends, already see it coming: a cataclysmic crash. As Peter Brimelow recently discussed at MarketWatch, Prechter expects to see the Dow Jones Industrial Average to drop below 1,000:

The clearest statement comes from the Elliott Wave Theorist, discussing a numerological technical theory with which it supplements the Wave Theory’s complex patterns: “The only way for the developing configuration to satisfy a perfect set of Fibonacci time relationships is for the stock market to fall over the next six years and bottom in 2016.”

* * *

There will be a short-term rally at some point, thinks Prechter, but it will be a trap: “The 7.25-year and 20-year cycles are both scheduled to top in 2012, suggesting that 2012 will mark the last vestiges of self-destructive hope. Then the final years of decline will usher in capitulation and finally despair.”

So it is written. The Demolition Derby shall end in disaster.

Anti-deficit sentiment, asset bubble, Austerians, austerity, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, David Herszenhorn, David Leonhardt, deficit chicken hawks, deficit spending, deficits, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Demolition Derby, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, Economist Scott Brown, economists, Elliott Wave Theory, equities markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, fiscal stimulus, GDP, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Great Depression II, great recession, insolvent banks, investment banks, job growth, Joe The Tool Lieberman, John Burke, John Mauldin, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Mark Thoma, MarketWatch, moral hazard, New York Stock Exchange, New York Times, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Farrell, Peter Brimelow, Political, Politics, premature deficit reduction efforts, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Prechter, securities, Seeking Alpha, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Patty Murray, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The Reformed Broker, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Treasury Department, unemployment benefits, unemployment crisis, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

Still Wrong After All These Years

June 21st, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 21 2010

Comments Off

June 21, 2010

I’m quite surprised by the fact that people continue to pay serious attention to the musings of Alan Greenspan. On June 18, The Wall Street Journal saw fit to publish an opinion piece by the man referred to as “The Maestro” (although – these days – that expression is commonly used in sarcasm). The former Fed chairman expounded that recent attempts to rein in the federal budget are coming “none too soon”. Near the end of the article, Greenspan made the statement that will earn him a nomination for TheCenterLane.com’s Jackass of the Year Award:

I believe the fears of budget contraction inducing a renewed decline of economic activity are misplaced.

John Mauldin recently provided us with a thorough explanation of why Greenspan’s statement is wrong:

There are loud calls in the US and elsewhere for more fiscal constraints. I am part of that call. Fiscal deficits of 10% of GDP is a prescription for disaster. As we have discussed in previous letters, the book by Rogoff and Reinhart (This Time is Different) clearly shows that at some point, bond investors start to ask for higher rates and then the interest rate becomes a spiral. Think of Greece. So, not dealing with the deficit is simply creating a future crisis even worse than the one we just had.

But cutting the deficit too fast could also throw the country back in a recession. There has to be a balance.

* * *

That deficit reduction will also reduce GDP. That means you collect less taxes which makes the deficits worse which means you have to make more cuts than planned which means lower tax receipts which means etc. Ireland is working hard to reduce its deficits but their GDP has dropped by almost 20%! Latvia and Estonia have seen their nominal GDP drop by almost 30%! That can only be characterized as a depression for them.

Robert Reich’s refutation of Greenspan’s article was right on target:

Contrary to Greenspan, today’s debt is not being driven by new spending initiatives. It’s being driven by policies that Greenspan himself bears major responsibility for.

Greenspan supported George W. Bush’s gigantic tax cut in 2001 (that went mostly to the rich), and uttered no warnings about W’s subsequent spending frenzy on the military and a Medicare drug benefit (corporate welfare for Big Pharma) — all of which contributed massively to today’s debt. Greenspan also lowered short-term interest rates to zero in 2002 but refused to monitor what Wall Street was doing with all this free money. Years before that, he urged Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and he opposed oversight of derivative trading. All this contributed to Wall Street’s implosion in 2008 that led to massive bailout, and a huge contraction of the economy that required the stimulus package. These account for most of the rest of today’s debt.

If there’s a single American more responsible for today’s “federal debt explosion” than Alan Greenspan, I don’t know him.

But we can manage the Greenspan Debt if we get the U.S. economy growing again. The only way to do that when consumers can’t and won’t spend and when corporations won’t invest is for the federal government to pick up the slack.

This brings us back to my initial question of why anyone would still take Alan Greenspan seriously. As far back as April of 2008 – five months before the financial crisis hit the “meltdown” stage — Bernd Debusmann had this to say about The Maestro for Reuters, in a piece entitled, “Alan Greenspan, dented American idol”:

Instead of the fawning praise heaped on Greenspan when the economy was booming, there are now websites portraying him in dark colors. One site is called The Mess That Greenspan Made, another Greenspan’s Body Count. Greenspan’s memoirs, The Age of Turbulence, prompted hedge fund manager William Fleckenstein to write a book entitled Greenspan’s Bubbles, the Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve. It’s in its fourth printing.

The day after Greenspan’s essay appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Howard Gold provided us with this recap of Greenspan’s Fed chairmanship in an article for MarketWatch:

The Fed chairman’s hands-off stance helped the housing bubble morph into a full-blown financial crisis when hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and other unregulated derivatives — backed by subprime mortgages and other dubious instruments — went up in smoke.

Highly leveraged banks that bet on those vehicles soon were insolvent, too, and the Fed, the U.S. Treasury and, of course, taxpayers had to foot the bill. We’re still paying.

But this was not just a case of unregulated markets run amok. Government policies clearly made things much worse — and here, too, Greenspan was the culprit.

The Fed’s manipulation of interest rates in the middle of the last decade laid the groundwork for the most fevered stage of the housing bubble. To this day, Greenspan, using heavy-duty statistical analysis, disputes the role his super-low federal funds rate played in encouraging risky behavior in housing and capital markets.

Among the harsh critiques of Greenspan’s career at the Fed, was Frederick Sheehan’s book, Panderer to Power. Ryan McMaken’s review of the book recently appeared at the LewRockwell.com website – with the title, “The Real Legacy of Alan Greenspan”. Here is some of what McMacken had to say:

. . . Panderer to Power is the story of an economist whose primary skill was self-promotion, and who in the end became increasingly divorced from economic reality. Even as early as April 2008 (before the bust was obvious to all), the L.A. Times, observing Greenspan’s post-retirement speaking tour, noted that “the unseemly, globe-trotting, money-grabbing, legacy-spinning, responsibility-denying tour of Alan Greenspan continues, as relentless as a bad toothache.”

* * *

Although Greenspan had always had a terrible record on perceiving trends in the economy, Sheehan’s story shows a Greenspan who becomes increasingly out to lunch with each passing year as he spun more and more outlandish theories about hidden profits and productivity in the economy that no one else could see. He spoke incessantly on topics like oil and technology while the bubbles grew larger and larger. And finally, in the end, he retired to the lecture circuit where he was forced to defend his tarnished record.

The ugly truth is that America has been in a bear market economy since 2000 (when “The Maestro” was still Fed chair). In stark contrast to what you’ve been hearing from the people on TV, the folks at Comstock Partners put together a list of ten compelling reasons why “the stock market is in a secular (long-term) downtrend that began in early 2000 and still has some time to go.” This essay is a “must read”. Further undermining Greenspan’s recent opinion piece was the conclusion reached in the Comstock article:

The data cited here cover the major indicators of economic activity, and they paint a picture of an economy that has moved up, but only from extremely depressed numbers to a point where they are less depressed. And keep in mind that this is the result of the most massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ever applied to a major economy. In our view the ability of the economy to undergo a sustained recovery without continued massive help is still questionable.

As always, Alan Greenspan is still wrong. Unfortunately, there are still too many people taking him seriously.

Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bernd Debusmann, Bill Fleckenstein, blog, budget contraction, CDOs, centrist, collateralized debt obligations, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Comstock Partners, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, deficit reduction reduces GDP, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives trading, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economic stimulus package, economics, economists, equities markets, Estonia, federal debt explosion, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, Frederick Sheehan, Glass-Steagall Act, government guarantees, Greenspans Body Count, Greenspans Bubbles, housing bubble, Howard Gold, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Ireland, Jackass Of The Year Award, John Burke, John Mauldin, John T Burke Jr, Latvia, LewRockwell, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Panderer to Power, Political, Politics, President of the United States, recession, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Robert Reich, Rogoff and Reinhart, Ryan McMaken, securities, socialized loss and privatized gain, Still Wrong After All These Years, stock markets, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Age of Turbulence, the center lane, the economy, the Greenspan Debt, The Maestro, The Mess That Greenspan Made, The Real Legacy of Alan Greenspan, The White House, thecenterlane, This Time is Different, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unregulated derivatives, Wall Street, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Fleckenstein, zombie banks

The Poisonous Bailout

June 10th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 10 2010

Comments Off

June 10, 2010

The adults in the room have spoken. The Congressional Oversight Panel – headed by Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren – created to oversee the TARP program, has just issued a report disclosing the ugly truth about the bailout of AIG:

The government’s actions in rescuing AIG continue to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace.

Note the present tense in that statement. Not only did the bailout have a poisonous effect on the marketplace at the time –it continues to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace. The 300-page report includes the reason why the AIG bailout continues to have this poisonous effect:

The AIG rescue demonstrated that Treasury and the Federal Reserve would commit taxpayers to pay any price and bear any burden to prevent the collapse of America‘s largest financial institutions and to assure repayment to the creditors doing business with them.

And that, dear readers, is precisely what the concept of “moral hazard” is all about. It is the reason why we should not continue to allow financial institutions to be “too big to fail”. Bad behavior by financial institutions is encouraged by the Federal Reserve and Treasury with assurance that any losses incurred as a result of that risky activity will be borne by the taxpayers rather than the reckless institutions. You might remember the pummeling Senator Jim Bunning gave Ben Bernanke during the Federal Reserve Chairman’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee for Bernanke’s confirmation hearing on December 3, 2009:

. . . you have decided that just about every large bank, investment bank, insurance company, and even some industrial companies are too big to fail. Rather than making management, shareholders, and debt holders feel the consequences of their risk-taking, you bailed them out. In short, you are the definition of moral hazard.

With particular emphasis on the AIG bailout, this is what Senator Bunning said to Bernanke:

Even if all that were not true, the A.I.G. bailout alone is reason enough to send you back to Princeton. First you told us A.I.G. and its creditors had to be bailed out because they posed a systemic risk, largely because of the credit default swaps portfolio. Those credit default swaps, by the way, are over the counter derivatives that the Fed did not want regulated. Well, according to the TARP Inspector General, it turns out the Fed was not concerned about the financial condition of the credit default swaps partners when you decided to pay them off at par. In fact, the Inspector General makes it clear that no serious efforts were made to get the partners to take haircuts, and one bank’s offer to take a haircut was declined. I can only think of two possible reasons you would not make then-New York Fed President Geithner try to save the taxpayers some money by seriously negotiating or at least take up U.B.S. on their offer of a haircut. Sadly, those two reasons are incompetence or a desire to secretly funnel more money to a few select firms, most notably Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and a handful of large European banks.

Hugh Son of Bloomberg BusinessWeek explained how the Congressional Oversight Panel’s latest report does not have a particularly optimistic view of AIG’s ability to repay the bailout:

The bailout includes a $60 billion Fed credit line, an investment of as much as $69.8 billion from the Treasury Department and up to $52.5 billion to buy mortgage-linked assets owned or backed by the insurer through swaps or securities lending.

AIG owes about $26.6 billion on the credit line and $49 billion to the Treasury. The company returned to profit in the first quarter, posting net income of $1.45 billion.

‘Strong, Vibrant Company’

“I’m confident you’ll get your money, plus a profit,” AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche told the panel in Washington on May 26. “We are a strong, vibrant company.”

The panel said in the report that the government’s prospects for recovering funds depends partly on the ability of AIG to find buyers for its units and on investors’ willingness to purchase shares if the Treasury Department sells its holdings. AIG turned over a stake of almost 80 percent as part of the bailout and the Treasury holds additional preferred shares from subsequent investments.

“While the potential for the Treasury to realize a positive return on its significant assistance to AIG has improved over the past 12 months, it still appears more likely than not that some loss is inevitable,” the panel said.

Simmi Aujla of the Politico reported on Elizabeth Warren’s contention that Treasury and Federal Reserve officials should have attempted to save AIG without using taxpayer money:

“The negotiations would have been difficult and they might have failed,” she said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. “But the benefits of crafting a private or even a joint public-private solution were so superior to the cost of a complete government bailout that they should have been pursued as vigorously as humanly possible.”

The Treasury and Federal Reserve are now in “damage control” mode, issuing statements that basically reiterate Bernanke’s “panic” excuse referenced in the above-quoted remarks by Jim Bunning.

The release of this report is well-timed, considering the fact that the toothless, so-called “financial reform” bill is now going through the reconciliation stage. Now that Blanche Lincoln is officially the Democratic candidate to retain her Senate seat representing Arkansas – will the derivatives reform provisions disappear from the bill? In light of the information contained in the Congressional Oversight Panel’s report, a responsible – honest – government would not only crack down on derivatives trading but would also ban the trading of “naked” swaps. In other words: No betting on defaults if you don’t have a potential loss you are hedging – or as Phil Angelides explained it: No buying fire insurance on your neighbor’s house. Of course, we will probably never see such regulation enacted – until after he next financial crisis.

AIG, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Oversight Panel, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Hugh Son, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Merrill Lynch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, naked credit default swaps, New York Fed, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, over-the-counter derivatives, Phil Angelides, Political, Politico, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Benmosche, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate Banking Committee, Senator Jim Bunning, Simmi Aujla, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, TARP Inspector General, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The Poisonous Bailout, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Living Up To A Title

June 7th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 07 2010

Comments Off

June 7, 2010

It was back on April 9, 2009 – before President Obama had completed his third month in office – when I first referred to him as the “Disappointer-in-Chief”. I concluded that piece with this gloomy prediction:

If President Obama does not change course and deviate from the Geithner-Summers plan before it’s too late, his legacy will be a ten-year recession rather than a two-year recession without the PPIP. Worse yet, the toughest criticism and the most pressure against his administration are coming from people he has considered his supporters. At least he has the people at Fox News to provide some laughable “decoy” reports to keep his hard-core adversaries otherwise occupied.

Just two weeks earlier — on March 23, 2009 – I had been discussing the widespread apprehension over Obama’s planned bailout of the largest banks (the so-called “Financial Stability Plan” which later morphed into the PPIP). At that point, Frank Rich of The New York Times made a premature use of the term “Obama’s Katrina moment”.

With the arrival of Obama’s real “Katrina moment” — by way of the Deepwater Horizon blowout – we are again hearing a chorus of criticism directed against the Obama administration, not unlike what we heard during those first few months. Now that our new President has established a track record of bad decisions, let’s take a look at some reactions from people the Fox News will insist are loyal Obama supporters. First we had Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, who delivered a one-two punch to the man she has called “Barry” (when mad at him) on May 29 and June 1:

In the campaign, Obama’s fight flagged to the point that his donors openly upbraided him. In the Oval, he waited too long to express outrage and offer leadership on A.I.G., the banks, the bonuses, the job loss and mortgage fears, the Christmas underwear bomber, the death panel scare tactics, the ugly name-calling of Tea Party protesters.

Too often it feels as though Barry is watching from a balcony, reluctant to enter the fray until the clamor of the crowd forces him to come down. The pattern is perverse. The man whose presidency is rooted in his ability to inspire withholds that inspiration when it is most needed.

Ouch! If that weren’t enough, Ms. Dowd’s June 1 punch had to hurt:

This president has made it clear that he’s not comfortable outside whatever domain he’s defined. But unless he wants his story to be marred by a pattern of passivity, detachment, acquiescence and compromise, he’d better seize control of the story line of his White House years. Woe-is-me is not an attractive narrative.

Also at The New York Times, Frank Rich expressed his impatience with the President – now that the real “Katrina moment” has arrived:

We still want to believe that Obama is on our side, willing to fight those bad corporate actors who cut corners and gambled recklessly while regulators slept, Congress raked in contributions, and we got stuck with the wreckage and the bills. But his leadership style keeps sowing confusion about his loyalties, puncturing holes in the powerful tale he could tell.

* * *

No high-powered White House meetings or risk analyses were needed to discern how treacherous it was to trust BP this time. An intern could have figured it out. But the credulous attitude toward BP is no anomaly for the administration. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs was praised by the president as a “savvy” businessman two months before the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman. Well before then, there had been a flood of journalistic indicators that Goldman under Blankfein may have gamed the crash and the bailout.

It’s this misplaced trust in elites both outside the White House and within it that seems to prevent Obama from realizing the moment that history has handed to him. Americans are still seething at the bonus-grabbing titans of the bubble and at the public and private institutions that failed to police them. But rather than embrace a unifying vision that could ignite his presidency, Obama shies away from connecting the dots as forcefully and relentlessly as the facts and Americans’ anger demand.

Back on December 14, I pointed out how the so-called “race card” has not been a free pass for the Disappointer-in-Chief:

As we approach the conclusion of Obama’s first year in the White House, it has become apparent that the Disappointer-in-Chief has not only alienated the Democratic Party’s liberal base, but he has also let down a demographic he thought he could take for granted: the African-American voters. At this point, Obama has “transcended race” with his ability to dishearten loyal black voters just as deftly as he has chagrined loyal supporters from all ethnic groups.

The most recent example of this phenomenon appeared in the form of an opinion piece by Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Here is some of what Mr. Norman had to say:

At a Memorial Day dinner I attended, there wasn’t just disappointment with Mr. Obama’s inability to find his inner Huey Long — there was an undercurrent of genuine anger.

It went far beyond the handling of the BP crisis. As far as anyone can tell, there isn’t much to distinguish Mr. Obama’s policies in Afghanistan and Iraq from his predecessor’s.

Beyond the Deepwater Horizon, Mr. Obama has been a disappointment on civil liberties, banking reform, military spending, the drug war, Middle East policy, immigration and the environment. Political gamesmanship and calculation of the rankest kind continue. Even his latest Supreme Court nominee shows every indication of being as colorless as the president has proven to be in recent months. It’s too much to expect this president to champion a progressive Supreme Court candidate.

Meanwhile, the corrupt culture of Wall Street continues to set the agenda, thanks to cowardly Democrats and nihilistic Republicans. Accountability is as much a dirty word for Mr. Obama as it was for President George W. Bush.

* * *

Honestly, other than the particularities of the historical record, it no longer makes sense to blame Mr. Bush for much when Mr. Obama has done little — other than improvise a less belligerent foreign policy — to distinguish himself from the 43rd president.

I won’t spoil the rest of Mr. Norman’s article. Just be sure to read it. (Hint: It includes some nice speculation about how the new President was likely pulled aside by some members of the plutocracy, who gave him “The Talk”.)

Meanwhile, the Presidential disappointments continue. It appears as though we are going to wait for God to stop the oil from gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. Since we have left it to God to do the wetlands protection and the clean-up, this shouldn’t be too surprising. I’m beginning to suspect that President Obama’s religious ideas are even more far-out than those of President Bush. – It’s just that President Obama doesn’t talk about them.

AIG, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, BP, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Deepwater Horizon, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Disappointer-In-Chief, economic crisis, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, Frank Rich, Geithner-Summers plan, George W Bush, government guarantees, Gulf of Mexico, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, Living Up To A Title, Lloyd Blankfein, lobbyists, Maureen Dowd, moral hazard, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Obamas Katrina Moment, Opinion, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Political, Politics, PPIP, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, taxpayers, Tea Party, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Tony Norman, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, wetlands protection, zombie banks

Delaying A Tough Decision

June 3rd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 03 2010

Comments Off

June 3, 2010

A recent article by David Lightman for the McClatchy Newspapers bemoaned the fact that the Senate took off for a ten-day break without voting on the “Jobs Bill” passed by the House of Representatives (H.R.4213). Mr. Lightman’s piece expressed particular concern about the fact that a summer jobs program for approximately 330,000 “at-risk youths” has been hanging in the balance between deficit distress and economic recovery efforts. Of particular concern is the fact that time is of the essence for keeping the youth jobs program alive for this summer:

The longer the wait, the less the program can reduce joblessness among the nation’s most vulnerable population. Unemployment among 16- to 19-year-olds was 25.4 percent in April.

“Summer’s only so long, and it is a summer youth program,” said Mark Mattke, the work force strategy and planning director at the Spokane Area Workforce Development Council. More than 5,700 people in Washington state got summer jobs through government programs last year.

Financial expert, Janet Tavakoli, recently wrote an essay for The Huffington Post, discussing the cause-and-effect relationship between hard economic times and the crime rate. With municipal budget cutbacks reducing the ranks of our nation’s law enforcement personnel, a failure to extend unemployment benefits, as provided by the Jobs Bill, could be a dangerous experiment. Ms. Tavakoli discussed how the current recession has precipitated an increase in Chicago’s street crime:

Last summer gang violence ruled the night at Leland and Sheridan, a neighborhood in the process of gentrifying.

In the upscale Lincoln Park area, just a little further south of this unrest, men alone at night were accosted by groups of three to six men and severely beaten, robbed, and hospitalized. Seven muggings occurred in a five-day period from July 30 to August 4, 2009.

This kind of activity was unusual for these areas of Chicago until last summer.

Current Escalating Violent Crime and Chicago’s Prime Lakefront Areas

Shootings are way up in Chicago, and ordinary citizens — along with shorthanded police — are angry. Chicago has a gun ban, yet on Wednesday, May 19, Thomas Wortham IV, a Chicago police officer and Iraq War veteran, was shot when four gang members attempted to steal the new motorcycle the officer had brought to show his father, a retired police officer. Shots were fired, and his father saw the skirmish, ran for his gun, and managed to get off a few rounds. Two gang members were shot while two sped away dragging his fallen son’s body some distance in the process.

Nine people were shot on Sunday night (May 24), and Chicago is currently in the grips of a massive crime wave that has overwhelmed our under funded police force.

Gangland violence and shootings now occur up and down Chicago’s lakefront.

* * *

This escalation and geographical spread of violence is new, and I believe it is related to our Great Recession and budget issues. I don’t believe that Chicago is alone in its budget problems. If new patterns in Recession-related-violence have not yet affected other major cities in the U.S. the way they have affected Chicago, they may affect them soon. It is also likely that crime is being underreported as crime-fighting budgets are cut.

Given the current momentum for deficit hawkishness, the Senate’s break before the vote on this bill could be advantageous. After all, the bill barely passed in the House. Our Senators need to carefully consider the consequences of the failure to pass this bill. David Leonhardt of The New York Times presented a reasoned argument to his readers from the Senate on June 1, recommending passage of the Jobs Bill:

It would still add about $54 billion to the deficit over the next decade. On the other hand, it could also do some good. Among other things, it would cut taxes for businesses, expand summer jobs programs and temporarily extend jobless benefits for some of today’s 15 million unemployed workers.

* * *

Including the jobs bill, the deficit is projected to grow to about $1.3 trillion next year (and that’s assuming the White House can persuade Congress to make some proposed spending cuts and repeal the Bush tax cuts for the affluent). To be at a level that economists consider sustainable, the deficit needs to be closer to $400 billion. Only then would normal economic growth be able to pay it off.

So Congress would need to find almost $900 billion in savings. By voting down the jobs bill, it would save more than $50 billion by 2015 and get 7 percent of the way to the goal. That’s not nothing. In a nutshell, it’s the case against the bill.

* * *

Of course, even if the bill is not very expensive, it is worth passing only if it will make a difference. And economists say it will.

Last year’s big stimulus program certainly did. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 1.4 million to 3.4 million people now working would be unemployed were it not for the stimulus. Private economists have made similar estimates.

There are two arguments for more stimulus today. The first is that, however hopeful the economic signs, the risk of a double-dip recession remains. Financial crises often bring bumpy recoveries. The recent troubles in Europe surely won’t help.

The second argument is that the economy has a terribly long way to go before it can be considered healthy. Here is a sobering way to think about the situation: If the next four years were to bring job growth as fast as the job growth during the best four years of the 1990s boom — which isn’t likely — the unemployment rate would still be higher in 2014 than when the recession began in late 2007.

Voters may not like deficits, but they really do not like unemployment.

Looking at the problem this way makes the jobs bill seem like less of a tough call. Luckily, the country’s two big economic problems — the budget deficit and the job market — are not on the same timeline. The unemployment rate is near a 27-year high right now. Deficit reduction can wait a bit, given that lenders continue to show confidence in Washington’s ability to repay the debt.

Remember that by way of Maiden Lane III, “Turbo” Tim Geithner, as president of the New York Fed, gave away $30 billion of taxpayer money to the counterparties of AIG – even though most of them didn’t need it. A “clawback” of that money from those banks (including Goldman Sachs – a $19 billion recipient) could pay for more than half the cost of the Jobs Bill. If the $30 billion wasted on Maiden Lane III can be so easily forgotten – why not spend $54 billion to avoid a “double-dip” recession and a hellish increase in street crime?

AIG, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, centrist, Chicago street crime, Commentary, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, conservative, crime rate, crony capitalism, David Leonhardt, David Lightman, Delaying A Tough Decision, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, double-dip recession, economic crisis, economic stimulus, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve of New York, financial crisis, financial reform, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, HR 4213, Huffington Post, insolvent banks, investment banks, Janet Tavakoli, Jobs Bill, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Maiden Lane III, McClatchy Newspapers, moral hazard, New York Fed, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Treasury Department, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

Your Sleazy Government At Work

May 31st, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 31 2010

Comments Off

May 31, 2010

Although the cartoon above appeared in my local paper, it came to my attention only because Barry Ritholtz posted it on his website, The Big Picture. Congratulations to Jim Morin of The Miami Herald for creating one of those pictures that’s worth well over a thousand words.

Forget about all that oil floating in the Gulf of Mexico. President Obama, Harry Reid and “Countrywide Chris” Dodd are too busy indulging in an orgy of self-congratulation over the Senate’s passage of a so-called “financial reform” bill (S. 3217) to be bothered with “the fishermen’s buzzkill”. Meanwhile, many commentators are expressing their disappointment and disgust at the fact that the banking lobby has succeeded in making sure that the taxpayers will continue to pick up the tab when the banks go broke trading unregulated derivatives.

Matt Taibbi has written a fantastic essay for Rolling Stone, documenting the creepy battle over financial reform in the Senate. The folks at Rolling Stone are sure getting their money’s worth out of Taibbi, after his landmark smackdown of Goldman Sachs and his revealing article exposing the way banks such as JP Morgan Chase fleeced Jefferson County, Alabama. In his latest “must read” essay, Taibbi provides his readers with an understandable discussion of what is wrong with derivatives trading and Wall Street’s efforts to preserve the status quo:

Imagine a world where there’s no New York Stock Exchange, no NASDAQ or Nikkei: no open exchanges at all, and all stocks traded in the dark. Nobody has a clue how much a share of IBM costs or how many of them are being traded. In that world, the giant broker-dealer who trades thousands of IBM shares a day, and who knows which of its big clients are selling what and when, will have a hell of a lot more information than the day-trader schmuck sitting at home in his underwear, guessing at the prices of stocks via the Internet.

That world exists. It’s called the over-the-counter derivatives market. Five of the country’s biggest banks, the Goldmans and JP Morgans and Morgan Stanleys, account for more than 90 percent of the market, where swaps of all shapes and sizes are traded more or less completely in the dark. If you want to know how Greece finds itself bankrupted by swaps, or some town in Alabama overpaid by $93 million for deals to fund a sewer system, this is the explanation: Nobody outside a handful of big swap dealers really has a clue about how much any of this shit costs, which means they can rip off their customers at will.

This insane outgrowth of jungle capitalism has spun completely out of control since 2000, when Congress deregulated the derivatives market. That market is now roughly 100 times bigger than the federal budget and 20 times larger than both the stock market and the GDP. Unregulated derivative deals sank AIG, Lehman Brothers and Greece, and helped blow up the global economy in 2008. Reining in derivatives is the key battle in the War for Finance Reform. Without regulation of this critical market, Wall Street could explode another mushroom cloud of nuclear leverage and risk over the planet at any time.

At The New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson de-mystified how both the Senate’s “financial reform” bill and the bill passed by the House require standardized derivatives to be traded on an exchange or a “swap execution facility”. Although these proposals create the illusion of reform – it’s important to keep in mind that old maxim about gambling: “The house always wins.” In this case, the ability to “front-run” the chumps gives the house the power to keep winning:

But the devil is always in the details — hence, two 1,500-page bills — and problems arise in how the proposals define what constitutes a swap execution facility, and who can own one.

Big banks want to create and own the venues where swaps are traded, because such control has many benefits. First, it gives the dealers extremely valuable pretrade information from customers wishing to buy or sell these instruments. Second, depending on how these facilities are designed, they may let dealers limit information about pricing when transactions take place — and if an array of prices is not readily available, customers can’t comparison-shop and the banks get to keep prices much higher than they might be on an exchange.

* * *

Finally, lawmakers who are charged with consolidating the two bills are talking about eliminating language that would bar derivatives facilities from receiving taxpayer bailouts if they get into trouble. That means a federal rescue of an imperiled derivatives trading facility could occur. (Again, think A.I.G.)

Surely, we beleaguered taxpayers do not need to backstop any more institutions than we do now. According to Jeffrey M. Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Va., only 18 percent of the nation’s financial sector was covered by implied federal guarantees in 1999. By the end of 2008, his bank’s research shows, the federal safety net covered 59 percent of the financial sector.

In a speech last week, Mr. Lacker said that he feared we were going to perpetuate the cycle of financial crises followed by taxpayer bailouts, in spite of Congressional reform efforts.

“Arguably, we will not break the cycle of regulation, bypass, crisis and rescue,” Mr. Lacker said, “until we are willing to clarify the limits to government support, and incur the short-term costs of confirming those limits, in the interest of building a stronger and durable foundation for our financial system. Measured against this gauge, my early assessment is that progress thus far has been negligible.”

Negligible progress, 3,000 pages notwithstanding.

When one considers what this legislation was intended to address, the dangers posed by failing to extinguish those systemic threats to the economy and what the Senate bill is being claimed to remedy — it’s actually just a huge, sleazy disgrace. Matt Taibbi’s concluding words on the subject underscore the fact that not only do we still need real financial reform, we also need campaign finance reform:

Whatever the final outcome, the War for Finance Reform serves as a sweeping demonstration of how power in the Senate can be easily concentrated in the hands of just a few people. Senators in the majority party – Brown, Kaufman, Merkley, even a committee chairman like Lincoln – took a back seat to Reid and Dodd, who tinkered with amendments on all four fronts of the war just enough to keep many of them from having real teeth. “They’re working to come up with a bill that Wall Street can live with, which by definition makes it a bad bill,” one Democratic aid eexplained in the final, frantic days of negotiation.

On the plus side, the bill will rein in some forms of predatory lending, and contains a historic decision to audit the Fed. But the larger, more important stuff – breaking up banks that grow Too Big to Fail, requiring financial giants to pay upfront for their own bailouts, forcing the derivatives market into the light of day – probably won’t happen in any meaningful way. The Senate is designed to function as a kind of ongoing negotiation between public sentiment and large financial interests, an endless tug of war in which senators maneuver to strike a delicate mathematical balance between votes and access to campaign cash. The problem is that sometimes, when things get really broken, the very concept of a middle ground between real people and corrupt special interests becomes a grotesque fallacy. In times like this, we need our politicians not to bridge a gap but to choose sides and fight. In this historic battle over finance reform, when we had a once-in-a-generation chance to halt the worst abuses on Wall Street, many senators made the right choice. In the end, however, the ones who mattered most picked wrong – and a war that once looked winnable will continue to drag on for years, creating more havoc and destroying more lives before it is over.

The sleazy antics by the Democrats who undermined financial reform (while pretending to advance it) will not be forgotten by the voters. The real question is whether any independent candidates can step up to oppose the tools of Wall Street, relying on the nickels and dimes from “the little people” to wage a battle against the kleptocracy.

AIG, Audit the Fed, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, blog, campaign finance reform, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Countrywide Chris Dodd, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives trading, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, financial crisis, financial reform, front-runing, frontrunning, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Gretchen Morgenson, Gulf of Mexico oil rig disaster, Harry Reid, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jeffrey M Lacker, Jim Morin, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, jungle capitalism, kleptocracy, Lehman Brothers, liberal, lobbyists, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, Morgan Stanley, mortgage-backed securities, New York Stock Exchange, New York Times, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, predatory lending, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Rolling Stone, S 3217, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, standardized derivatives, stock markets, swap execution facility, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Big Picture, the center lane, the economy, the fishermen’s buzzkill, the little people, The Miami Herald, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Too Pig To Fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Your Sleazy Government At Work, zombie banks

I Knew This Would Happen

May 27th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 27 2010

Comments Off

May 27, 2010

It was almost a year ago when I predicted that President Obama would eventually announce the need for a “second stimulus”. Once the decision was made to drink the Keynesian Kool-Aid with the implementation of last year’s economic stimulus package, we were faced with the question of how much to drink. As I expected, our President took the half-assed, yet “moderate” approach of limiting the stimulus effort to less than what was admitted as the cost of the TARP program, as well as approving the waste of stimulus funds on “pork” projects, ill-suited to stimulate economic recovery. In that July 9, 2009 piece, I discussed the fact that liberal economist, Paul Krugman, was not alone in claiming that $787 billion would not be an adequate amount to jump-start the economy back to firing on all cylinders. I pointed out that a survey of economists conducted by Bloomberg News in February of 2009 revealed a consensus opinion that an $800 billion stimulus would prove to be inadequate. The February 12, 2009 Bloomberg article by Timothy Homan and Alex Tanzi revealed that:

Even as Obama aims to create 3.5 million jobs with a stimulus plan, economists foresee an unemployment rate exceeding 8 percent through next year.

As we now reach the mid-point of that “next year”, the unemployment rate is at 9.9 percent. Those economists were right. Beyond that, some highly-respected economists, including Robert Shiller, are discussing the risk of our experiencing a “double-dip” recession. As a result, Larry Summers, Director of the President’s National Economic Council, is advocating the passage of a new set of spending measures, referred to as the “second stimulus”. To help offset the expense, the President has asked Congress to grant him powers to cut unnecessary spending, as would be accomplished with a “line item veto”. The Financial Times described the situation this way :

The combined announcements were made amid rising concern that centrist Democrats, or those representing marginal districts, might vote against the spending measures, which include more loans for small businesses, an extension of unemployment insurance and aid to states to prevent hundreds of thousands more teachers from being laid off.

* * *

Taken together, Mr Summers’s speech and Mr Obama’s announcement show an administration walking a fine line between the need to signal strong medium-term fiscal discipline and not jeopardising what they fear may be a fragile recovery.

Because they couldn’t get it right the first time, the President and his administration have placed themselves in the position of seeking piecemeal stimulus measures. If they had done it right, we would probably be enjoying economic recovery and a boost in the ranks of the employed at this point. As a result, this half-assed, piecemeal approach will likely prove more costly than doing it right on the first try. With mid-term elections approaching, deficit hawks have their knives sharpened for anything that can be described as an “entitlement” (unless that entitlement inures to the benefit of a favored Wall Street institution). Harold Meyerson of The Washington Post challenged the logic of the deficit hawks with this argument:

Those who oppose the jobs bills in the House and Senate this week should be compelled to answer some questions, starting with: Absent more stimulus, what do they see as the plausible engine of economic recovery? What effect will laying off as many as 300,000 teachers have on the education of American children? And, more elementally, don’t they know there’s a recession on?

Marshall Auerback of the Roosevelt Institute picked up where Harold Meyerson left off, as this recent posting at the New Deal 2.0 website demonstrates:

In fact, full employment is also the best “financial stability” reform we could implement, because with jobs growth comes higher income growth and a corresponding ability to service debt. That means less write-offs for banks and a correspondingly smaller need to provide government bailouts.

Fiscal austerity, by contrast, won’t cut it. Our elites seem think that you can cut “wasteful government spending” (that is, reduce private demand further) and cut wages and hence private incomes and not expect major multiplier effects to make things significantly worse. Of course, that “wasteful”, “unsustainable” spending never seems to apply to the Department of Defense, where we always seem to be able to appropriate a few billion, whenever necessary. “Affordability” principles never extend to the Pentagon, it appears.

The fact that we are still in the midst of a severe recession (rather than a robust economic recovery as is often claimed) accounts for the rationale asserted by Larry Summers in advocating a second stimulus amounting to approximately $200 billion in spending measures. Here’s how Summers explained the proposal in a May 24 speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies:

It has in recent years been essential for the federal deficit to increase as the economy has gone into recession and has been severely constrained by demand.

And I cannot agree with those who suggest that it somehow threatens the future to provide truly temporary, high-bang-for-the-buck jobs and growth measures.

Rather, assuring as rapid a recovery as possible strengthens our future economy, our future prosperity, with many benefits, including a greater ability to manage our debts.

On the other hand, those who recognize the fiscal and growth benefits of strong expansionary policies must also recognize that it is simultaneously desirable to provide confidence that deficits will come down to sustainable levels as recovery is achieved. Such confidence both spurs recovery by reducing capital costs and reduces the risk of financial accidents.

To put the point differently: It is not possible to imagine sound budgets in the absence of economic growth and solid economic performance.

*   * *

It is important to recognize that the ultimate consequences of stimulus for indebtedness depend critically on the macroeconomic conditions. When the economy is demand constrained, the impact of a dollar of tax cuts or expansionary investment will be at its highest and the impact on deficits at its lowest.
*   *   *

In areas where the government has a significant opportunity for impact, it would be pennywise and pound foolish not to take advantage of our capacity to encourage near-term job creation.   This explains the logic of the Recovery Act’s success and the rationale for taking additional targeted actions to increase confidence in our economic recovery.

Consider the package currently under consideration in Congress to extend unemployment and health benefits to those out of work and support to states to avoid budget cuts as a case in point.

It would be an act of fiscal shortsightedness to break from the longstanding practice of extending these provisions at a moment when sustained economic recovery is so crucial to our medium-term fiscal prospects.

So, here we are at the introduction of the second stimulus plan. Despite the denial by President Obama that he would seek a second stimulus, he has Larry Summers doing just that. Last year, the public and the Congress had the will – not to mention the sense of urgency – to approve such measures. This time around, it might not happen and that would be due to the leadership flaw I observed last year:

President Obama should have done it right the first time. His penchant for compromise — simply for the sake of compromise itself — is bound to bite him in the ass on this issue, as it surely will on health care reform — should he abandon the “public option”. The new President made the mistake of assuming that if he established a reputation for being flexible, his opposition would be flexible in return. The voting public will perceive this as weak leadership. As a result, President Obama will need to re-invent this aspect of his public image before he can even consider presenting a second economic stimulus proposal.

At this point, Obama’s “flexibility” is often viewed by the voting public as a lack of existential authenticity, sincerity or — worse yet — credibility. As a result, I would expect to see more articles like the recent piece by Carol Lee at Politico, entitled, “Obama: Day for ‘partnership’ passed”.

Here comes the makeover!

Alex Tanzi, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Bloomberg news, Carol Lee, centrist, centrist Democrats, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, deficit hawks, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Department of Defense, double-dip recession, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economic recovery, economics, economists, equities markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, Financial Times, Fiscal austerity, government guarantees, Harold Meyerson, huge financial institutions, I Knew This Would Happen, insolvent banks, investment banks, jobs growth, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Larry Summers, liberal, line item veto, Marshall Auerback, moral hazard, National Economic Council, New Deal 2 0 website, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Krugman, piecemeal approach, Political, Politico, Politics, President of the United States, Recovery Act, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Shiller, Roosevelt Institute, second stimulus, securities, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, survey of economists, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Timothy Homan, Treasury Department, Troubled Assets Relief Program, unemployment, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Washington Post, wealth transfer, zombie banks

Ron Paul Criticizes Fed Audit Compromise

May 13th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 13 2010

Comments Off

May 13, 2010

The Federal Reserve had two big wins this week. At least their most recent win made some sense. Bloomberg BusinessWeek put it this way:

U.S. senators voted 90-9 yesterday to void a provision in regulatory-overhaul legislation that would have stripped the Fed of oversight of 5,000 banks with less than $50 billion in assets. A day earlier, senators rejected a measure to allow continuous congressional audits of Fed policies.

* * *

Bernanke may now have a freer hand to decide when and how fast to unwind record monetary stimulus begun during the financial crisis, while being less vulnerable to criticism that the Fed favors large Wall Street financial institutions. The Senate votes also removed a threat to the 12 regional Fed banks from a provision that would have limited the supervision of many of them to a few banks or none at all.

The amendment to the financial reform bill allowing the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks to maintain oversight of banks with less than $50 billion in assets was a bipartisan effort by Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Amy Klobuchar (D- Minnesota). The downside to the passage of this amendment is that it has provided the Fed with back-to-back legislative victories. One day earlier, Congressman Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” amendment was replaced by a rewritten, compromise amendment, sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders is now being criticized for caving in to pressure exerted by President Obama, who opposed ongoing scrutiny of the Federal Reserve, under the pretext that continuous audits would interfere with the Fed’s purported “independence” in setting monetary policy. The Sanders compromise proposed a one-time audit of the Fed to uncover information including the loans made to financial institutions by the Fed in response to the financial crisis of 2008. The Sanders amendment was passed in a 96-0 vote. Subsequently, Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) proposed an amendment (#3760) containing the stronger language of Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207, allowing for repeated audits of the Fed. The Vitter amendment was defeated by 62 Senators opposing the measure, with only 37 Senators supporting it. You can see how each Senator voted here. Ultimately, the complete financial reform bill — S. 3217 (Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010) — will be subject to approval by the Senate and reconciliation with the House version (H.R. 4173) before it can be signed into law by the President.

On May 11, Congressman Ron Paul expressed his displeasure with the Sanders compromise in a statement from the floor of the House of Representatives. The New American website has the video and text of Congressman Paul’s statement here. Ron Paul emphasized that the Fed’s use of currency swaps to facilitate the bailout fund for the sovereign debt crisis in the European Union, has provided the latest example of the need for a continuous audit of the Fed’s activities:

The reason this is so disturbing is because of the current events going on in the financial markets. We are right now involved in bailing out Europe and especially bailing out Greece, and we’re doing this through the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does this with currency swaps and they do this literally by giving loans and guarantees to other central banks, and they can even give loans to governments. So this is placing the burden on American taxpayers — not by direct taxation, but by expanding the money supply this is a tax on the American people because this will bring economic hardship to this country. And because we’ve been doing this for so many years the economic hardship is already here [and] we’ve been suffering from it.

But the problem comes that once you have a system of money where you can create it out of thin air there’s no restraint whatsoever on the spending in the Congress. And then the debt piles up and they get into debt problems as they are in Greece and other countries in Europe. And how they want to bail them out? With more debt. But what is so outrageous is that the Federal Reserve can literally deal in trillions of dollars. They don’t get the money authorized, they don’t get the money appropriated, they just create it and they get involved in bailing out their friends, as they have been doing for the last two years, and now they’re doing it in Europe. So, my contention is that they deserve oversight. Actually they deserve to be reined in where they can’t do what they’re doing.

* * *

Now, what has this led to? It has led to tremendous pressure on the dollar. The dollar is the reserve currency of the world; we bail out all the banks and all the corporations. We’ve been doing it for the last couple years to the tune of trillions of dollars….

The real truth is that the dollar is very, very weak, because the only true measurement of the value of a currency is its relationship to gold. … In the last ten years, our dollar has been devalued 80 percent in terms of gold. That means, literally, that just means that we have printed way too much money, and right now we’re just hanging on, the world is hanging on to the fact that the dollar is still usable. …

So we face a very serious crisis. To me it is very unfortunate that we are not going to have this audit the Fed bill in the Senate. It has passed in the House, possibly we can salvage it in conference and make sure this occurs. But since the Federal Reserve is responsible for the business cycle and the inflation and for all the problems we have it is vital that we stand up and say, you know, its time for us to assume the responsibility because it is the Congress under the Constitution that has been authorized to be responsible for the value of the currency.

At the Financial Times, John Taylor pointed out that not only is the Fed’s decision to provide currency swaps a bad idea – it might actually aggravate the EU’s problems:

Making matters worse for the future of monetary policy is the Fed’s active participation in the European bail-out. The US central bank agreed to provide loans – technically called swaps – to the ECB so that the ECB can more easily make dollar loans in the European markets. In order to loan dollars to the ECB, the Fed will have to increase the size of its own balance sheet. Such swap loans were made to the ECB back in December 2007, but they did not help end the crisis or prevent the panic of autumn 2008. Instead, they merely delayed inevitable action to deal with deteriorating bank balance sheets, thereby making the panic worse.

Was it necessary for the Fed to participate in the European bail-out? At least as evidenced by quantitative measures such as the spread between 3-month Libor and the overnight index swap (OIS), the funding problem in the interbank markets is far less severe now than in December 2007. The international loans also raise questions about the Fed’s independence at a time when many in Congress are calling for a complete audit of the Fed. Even though monetary policy does not warrant such an audit, extraordinary measures such as the loans to the ECB do. By taking these extraordinary measures, the Fed is losing some of its independence as well as adding to the perception that the ECB is losing its independence.

At some point, everyone will be forced to admit that “Fed independence” is a myth.

Amy Klobuchar, Audit the Fed, bailout of Greece, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, blog, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Ron Paul, conservative, crony capitalism, currency swaps for EU bailout, David Vitter, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, dollar weakness, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve oversight of community banks, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Times, government guarantees, HR 1207, HR 1473, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, John Taylor, Kay Bailey Hutchison, liberal, moral hazard, myth of Fed independence, New American, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, Ron Paul Criticizes Fed Audit Compromise, S 3217, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Vitter amendment, Wall Street, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Doctor Doom Writes A Prescription

May 6th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 06 2010

Comments Off

May 6, 2010

As I discussed on April 26, expectations for serious financial reform are pretty low. Worse yet, Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs) felt confident enough to make this announcement, during a conference call with private wealth management clients:

“We will be among the biggest beneficiaries of reform.”

So how effective could “financial reform” possibly be if Lloyd Bankfiend expects to benefit from it? Allan Sloan of Fortune suggested following the old Wall Street maxim of “what they promise you isn’t necessarily what you get” when examining the plans to reform Wall Street:

President Obama talks about “a common sense, reasonable, nonideological approach to target the root problems that led to the turmoil in our financial sector and ultimately in our entire economy.” But what we’ll get from the actual legislation isn’t necessarily what we hear from the Salesman-in-Chief.

Sloan offered an alternative by providing “Six Simple Steps” to help fix the financial system. He wasn’t alone in providing suggestions overlooked by our legislators.

Nouriel Roubini (often referred to as “Doctor Doom” because he was one of the few economists to anticipate the scale of the financial crisis) has written a new book with Stephen Mihm entitled, Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance. (Mihm is a professor of economic history and a New York Times Magazine writer.) An excerpt from the book recently appeared in The Telegraph. The idea of fixing our “sub-prime financial system” was introduced this way:

Even though they have suffered the worst financial crisis in generations, many countries have shown a remarkable reluctance to inaugurate the sort of wholesale reform necessary to bring the financial system to heel. Instead, people talk of tinkering with the financial system, as if what just happened was caused by a few bad mortgages.

* * *

Since its founding, the United States has suffered from brutal banking crises and other financial disasters on a regular basis. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, crippling panics and depressions hit the nation again and again. The crisis was less a function of sub-prime mortgages than of a sub-prime financial system. Thanks to everything from warped compensation structures to corrupt ratings agencies, the global financial system rotted from the inside out. The financial crisis merely ripped the sleek and shiny skin off what had become, over the years, a gangrenous mess.

Roubini and Mihm had nothing favorable to say about CDOs, which they referred to as “Chernobyl Death Obligations”. Beyond that, the authors called for more transparency in derivatives trading:

Equally comprehensive reforms must be imposed on the kinds of deadly derivatives that blew up in the recent crisis. So-called over-the-counter derivatives — better described as under-the-table — must be hauled into the light of day, put on central clearing houses and exchanges and registered in databases; their use must be appropriately restricted. Moreover, the regulation of derivatives should be consolidated under a single regulator.

Although derivatives trading reform has been advanced by Senators Maria Cantwell and Blanche Lincoln, inclusion of such a proposal in the financial reform bill faces an uphill battle. As Ezra Klein of The Washington Post reported:

The administration, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and even the FDIC are lockstep against it.

The administration, Treasury and the Fed are also fighting hard against a bipartisan effort to include an amendment in the financial reform bill that would compel a full audit of the Federal Reserve. I’m intrigued by the possibility that President Obama could veto the financial reform bill if it includes a provision to audit the Fed.

Jordan Fabian of The Hill discussed Congressman Alan Grayson’s theory about why Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner opposes a Fed audit:

But Grayson, who is known for his tough broadsides against opponents, indicated Geithner may have had a role in enacting “secret bailouts and loan guarantees” to large corporations, while New York Fed chairman during the Bush administration.

“It’s one of the biggest conflict of interests I have ever seen,” he said.

With the Senate and the administration resisting various elements of financial reform, the recent tragedy in Nashville provides us with a reminder of how history often repeats itself. The concluding remarks from the Roubini – Mihm piece in The Telegraph include this timely warning:

If we strengthen the levees that surround our financial system, we can weather crises in the coming years. Though the waters may rise, we will remain dry. But if we fail to prepare for the inevitable hurricanes — if we delude ourselves, thinking that our antiquated defences will never be breached again — we face the prospect of many future floods.

The issue of whether our government will take the necessary steps to prevent another financial crisis continues to remain in doubt.

Allan Sloan, American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Blanche Lincoln, blog, CDOs as Chernobyl Death Obligations, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Alan Grayson, conservative, credit default swaps, Crisis Economics A Crash Course in the Future of Finance, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives trading, Doctor Doom, Doctor Doom Writes A Prescription, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, Ezra Klein, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve audit, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, foreclosures, Fortune, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Jordan Fabian, liberal, Lloyd Bankfiend, Lloyd Blankfein, lobbyists, Maria Cantwell, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New York Stock Exchange, News, Nouriel Roubini, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, our sub-prime financial system, over-the-counter derivatives, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, SEC scandals, secret bailouts and loan guarantees, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Six Simple Steps, socialized loss and privatized gain, Stephen Mihm, stock markets, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The Hill, the Telegraph, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Washington Post, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Financial Reform Bill Exposed As Hoax

Demolition Derby

Still Wrong After All These Years

The Poisonous Bailout

Living Up To A Title

Delaying A Tough Decision

Your Sleazy Government At Work

I Knew This Would Happen

Ron Paul Criticizes Fed Audit Compromise

Doctor Doom Writes A Prescription

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com