financial institutions as too big to fail

Preparing For The Worst

November 19th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 19 2009

Comments Off

November 19, 2009

In the November 18 edition of The Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard revealed that the French investment bank, Societe Generale “has advised its clients to be ready for a possible ‘global economic collapse’ over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction”. That gloomy outlook was the theme of a report entitled: “Worst-case Debt Scenario” in which the bank warned that a new set of problems had been created by government rescue programs, which simply transferred private debt liabilities onto already “sagging sovereign shoulders”:

“As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse,” said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of the dangers, not a forecast.

Under the French bank’s “Bear Case” scenario, the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.

* * *

The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. “High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt,” it said.

Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.

If so, gold would go “up, and up, and up” as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.

To make matters worse, America still has an unemployment problem that just won’t abate. A recent essay by Charles Hugh Smith for The Business Insider took a view beyond the “happy talk” propaganda to the actual unpleasant statistics. Mr. Smith also called our attention to what can be seen by anyone willing to face reality, while walking around in any urban area or airport:

The divergence between the reality easily observed in the real world and the heavily touted hype that “the recession is over because GDP rose 3.5%” is growing. It’s obvious that another 7 million jobs which are currently hanging by threads will be slashed in the next year or two.

By this point, most Americans are painfully aware of the massive bailouts afforded to those financial institutions considered “too big to fail”. The thought of transferring private debt liabilities onto already “sagging sovereign shoulders” immediately reminds people of TARP and the as-yet-undisclosed assistance provided by the Federal Reserve to some of those same, TARP-enabled institutions.

As Kevin Drawbaugh reported for Reuters, the European Union has already taken action to break up those institutions whose failure could create a risk to the entire financial system:

EU regulators are set to turn the spotlight on 28 European banks bailed out by governments for possible mandated divestitures, officials said on Wednesday.

The EU executive has already approved restructuring plans for British lender Lloyds Banking (LLOY.L), Dutch financial group ING Groep NV (ING.AS) and Belgian group KBC (KBC.BR).

Giving break-up power to regulators would be “a good thing,” said Paul Miller, a policy analyst at investment firm FBR Capital Markets, on Wednesday.

Big banks in general are bad for the economy because they do not allocate credit well, especially to small businesses, he said. “Eventually the big banks get broken up in one way or another,” Miller said at the Reuters Global Finance Summit.

Meanwhile in the United States, the House Financial Services Committee approved a measure that would grant federal regulators the authority to break up financial institutions that would threaten the entire system if they were to fail. Needless to say, this proposal does have its opponents, as the Reuters article pointed out:

In both the House and the Senate, “financial lobbyists will continue to try to water down this new and intrusive federal regulatory power,” said Joseph Engelhard, policy analyst at investment firm Capital Alpha Partners.

If a new break-up power does survive the legislative process, Engelhard said, it is unlikely a “council of numerous financial regulators would be able to agree on such a radical step as breaking up a large bank, except in the most unusual circumstances, and that the Treasury Secretary … would have the ability to veto any imprudent use of such power.”

When I first read this, I immediately realized that Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner would consider any use of such power as imprudent and he would likely veto any attempt to break up a large bank. Nevertheless, my concerns about the “Geithner factor” began to fade after I read some other encouraging news stories. In The Huffington Post, Sam Stein disclosed that Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio (a Democrat) had called for the firing of White House economic advisor Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary “Timmy Geithner” during an interview with MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. Mr. Stein provided the following recap of that discussion:

“We think it is time, maybe, that we turn our focus to Main Street — we reclaim some of the unspent [TARP] funds, we reclaim some of the funds that are being paid back, which will not be paid back in full, and we use it to put people back to work. Rebuilding America’s infrastructure is a tried and true way to put people back to work,” said DeFazio.

“Unfortunately, the President has an adviser from Wall Street, Larry Summers, and a Treasury Secretary from Wall Street, Timmy Geithner, who don’t like that idea,” he added. “They want to keep the TARP money either to continue to bail out Wall Street … or to pay down the deficit. That’s absurd.”

Asked specifically whether Geithner should stay in his job, DeFazio replied: “No.”

“Especially if you look back at the AIG scandal,” he added, “and Goldman and others who got their bets paid off in full … with taxpayer money through AIG. We channeled the money through them. Geithner would not answer my question when I said, ‘Were those naked credit default swaps by Goldman or were they a counter-party?’ He would not answer that question.”

DeFazio said that among he and others in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, there was a growing consensus that Geithner needed to be removed. He added that some lawmakers were “considering questions regarding him and other economic advisers” — though a petition calling for the Treasury Secretary’s removal had not been drafted, he said.

Another glimmer of hope for the possible removal of Turbo Tim came from Jeff Madrick at The Daily Beast. Madrick’s piece provided us with a brief history of Geithner’s unusually fast rise to power (he was 42 when he was appointed president of the New York Federal Reserve) along with a reference to the fantastic discourse about Geithner by Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson, which appeared in The New York Times last April. Mr. Madrick demonstrated that what we have learned about Geithner since April, has affirmed those early doubts:

Recall that few thought Geithner was seasoned enough to be Treasury secretary when Obama picked him. Rubin wasn’t ready to be Treasury secretary when Clinton was elected and he had run Goldman Sachs. Was Geithner’s main attraction that he could easily be controlled by Summers and the White House political advisers? It’s a good bet. A better strategy, some argued, would have been to name Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, for a year’s worth of service and give Geithner as his deputy time to grow. But Volcker would have been far harder to control by the White House.

But now the president needs a Treasury Secretary who is respected enough to stand up to Wall Street, restabilize the world’s trade flows and currencies, and persuade Congress to join a battle to get the economic recovery on a strong path. He also needs someone with enough economic understanding to be a counterweight to the White House advisers, led by Summers, who have consistently been behind the curve, except for the $800 billion stimulus. And now that is looking like it was too little. The best guess is that Geithner is not telling the president anything that the president does not know or doesn’t hear from someone down the hall.

The problem for Geithner and his boss, is that the stakes if anything are higher than ever.

As the rest of the world prepares for worsening economic conditions, the United States should do the same. Keeping Tim Geithner in charge of the Treasury makes less sense than it did last April.

AIG, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, American capitalism, American International Group, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Capital Alpha Partners, centrist, Charles Hugh Smith, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Daniel Fermon, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Ed Schultz, equities markets, European Union, FBR Capital Markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Geithner factor, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Gretchen Morgenson, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, investment banks, Jeff Madrick, Jo Becker, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Engelhard, Kevin Drawbaugh, Larry Summers, liberal, lobbyists, moral hazard, MSNBC, New York Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, Paul Miller, Paul Volcker, Political, Politics, Preparing For The Worst, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Sam Stein, SEC scandals, securities, socialized loss and privatized gain, Societe Generale, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, The Business Insider, the center lane, The Daily Beast, the economy, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, the Telegraph, The White House, thecenterlane, Timmy Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, unemployment, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, Worst-case Debt Scenario

Call Him The Dimon Dog

November 16th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 16 2009

Comments Off

November 16, 2009

It seems as though once an individual rises to a significant level of influence and authority, that person becomes “too big for straight talk”. We’ve seen it happen with politicians, prominent business people and others caught-up in the “leadership” racket. Influential people are well aware of the unforeseen consequences resulting from a candid, direct response to a simple question. Mindful of those hazards, a rhetorical technique employing equivocation, qualification and obfuscation is cultivated in order to avoid responsibility for what could eventually become exposed as a brain fart.

Since last year’s financial crisis began, we have heard plenty of debate over the concept of “too big to fail” — the idea that a bank is so large and interconnected with other important financial institutions that its failure could pose a threat to the entire financial system. Recent efforts at financial reform have targeted the “too big to fail” (TBTF) concept, with differing approaches toward downsizing or breaking up those institutions with “systemic risk” potential. Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner was the first to use doublespeak as a weapon against those attempting to eliminate TBTF status. When he testified before the House Financial Services Committee on September 23 to explain his planned financial reform agenda, Geithner attempted to create the illusion that his plan would resolve the “too big to fail” problem:

First, we cannot allow firms to reap the benefits of explicit or implicit government subsidies without very strong government oversight. We must substantially reduce the moral hazard created by the perception that these subsidies exist; address their corrosive effects on market discipline; and minimize their encouragement of risk-taking.

So, in other words … the government subsidies to those institutions will continue, but only if the recipients get “very strong government oversight”. In his next sentence, Geithner expressed his belief that the moral hazard was created “by the perception that these subsidies exist” rather than the FACT that they exist. At a subsequent House Financial Services Committee hearing on October 29, Geithner again tried to trick his audience into believing that the administration’s latest reform plan was opposed to TBTF status. As Jim Kuhnhenn and Anne Flaherty reported for The Huffington Post, representatives from both sides of the isle saw right through Geithner’s smokescreen:

Others argue that by singling out financial firms important to the economy, the government could inevitably set itself up to bail them out, and that even dismantling rather than rescuing them would take taxpayer money.

“Apparently, the ‘too big to fail’ model is too hard to kill,” quipped Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., called the bill “TARP on steroids,” referring to the government’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund.

On Friday the 13th, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, stole the spotlight in this debate with an opinion piece published by The Washington Post. Dimon pretended to be opposed to the TBTF concept and quoted from his fellow double-talker, Turbo Tim. Dimon then made this assertion: “The term ‘too big to fail’ must be excised from our vocabulary.” He followed with the qualification that ending TBTF “does not mean that we must somehow cap the size of financial-services firms.” Dimon proceeded to argue against the creation of “artificial limits” on the size of financial institutions. In other words: Dimon would like to see Congress enact a law that could never be applied because it would contain no metric for its own applicability.

Criticism of Dimon’s Washington Post piece was immediate and widespread, especially considering the fact that his own JP Morgan is a TBTF All Star. David Weidner explained it for MarketWatch this way:

In other words, Dimon favors a regulatory system for unwinding failing institutions — he believes no bank should be too big to fail — but doesn’t seem to like the global effort, endorsed by the G-20, to encourage smaller, less-connected institutions. He wants to let big institutions be big.

The best criticism of Dimon’s article came from my blogging buddy, Adrienne Gonzalez, a/k/a Jr Deputy Accountant. She pointed out that the report for the first quarter of 2009 by the Office of the Currency Comptroller revealed that JP Morgan Chase holds 81 trillion dollars’ worth of derivatives contracts, putting it in first place on the OCC list of what she called “derivatives offenders”. After quoting the passage in Dimon’s piece concerning the procedure for winding-down “a large financial institution”, Adrienne made this point:

Interesting and a great read but useless in practical application. Does Dimon really believe this? With $81 TRILLION in notional derivatives exposure, I don’t see how an FDIC for investment banks could possibly unwind such a tangled mess in an orderly fashion. He’s joking, right?

For an interesting portrayal of The Dimon Dog, you might want to take a look at an article by Paul Barrett, entitled “I, Banker”. It was actually a book review Barrett wrote for The New York Times concerning a biography of Dimon by Duff McDonald, entitled The Last Man Standing. I haven’t read the book and after reading Barrett’s review, I have no intention of doing so — since Barrett made the book appear to be the work of a fawning sycophant in awe of Dimon. In criticizing the book, Paul Barrett gave us some of his own useful insights about Dimon:

The Dimon of “Last Man Standing” emerges as a brilliant but flawed winner, one whose long and psychologically tangled apprenticeship to another legendary money man, Sanford Weill, helped lay the groundwork for the crisis of 2008. In recent days, Dimon’s conduct suggests he is someone who puts the interests of his company ahead of those of society at large, which will be surprising only to those who naively look to modern Wall Street for statesmanship.

* * *

JPMorgan under Dimon’s leadership allowed home buyers to borrow without having to prove their income. The bank did business with sleazy mortgage brokers who would lend to anyone with a heartbeat. These habits ended only in 2008, when it was too late. McDonald lauds Dimon for cleverly unloading huge volumes of the toxic subprime mortgages JPMorgan originated. But that’s like praising a corporate polluter for trucking his poisonous sludge into the next state. It doesn’t solve the problem; it merely moves it elsewhere.

Paul Barrett’s book review gave us a useful perspective on The Dimon Dog’s support of the administration’s financial reform agenda:

McDonald notes that the C.E.O. publicly endorses certain financial regulatory changes proposed by the Obama administration. But critics point out that lobbyists employed by “Dimon and his team are actually stonewalling derivatives reform in order to protect the outsize margins the business generates” for JPMorgan. The derivatives in question include “credit default swaps,” transactions akin to insurance policies that lenders can buy to buffer against loans that go bad. In the wrong hands, credit derivatives become a form of gambling that can lead to ruin. They need to be checked, and Dimon’s self-interested resistance isn’t helping matters.

Dimon may be the best of his breed, but when it comes to public-spirited leaders, today’s Wall Street isn’t a promising recruiting ground.

Well said!

Adrienne Gonzalez, American capitalism, Anne Flaherty, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Call Him The Dimon Dog, centrist, Citigroup, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, David Weidner, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives offenders, Dow Jones industrial average, Duff McDonald, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, foreclosures, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, I Banker, investment banks, Jamie Dimon, Jim Kuhnhenn, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, Jr Deputy Accountant, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Office of the Currency Comptroller, Opinion, Paul Barrett, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Representative Brad Sherman, Representative Ed Royce, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, Sanford Weill, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, TARP on steroids, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Dimon Dog, the economy, The Huffington Post, The Last Man Standing, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

Avoiding The Kool-Aid

November 5th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 05 2009

Comments Off

November 5, 2009

Ask NOT what your country can do for you —

But ask what your country can do for its largest banks.

— “Turbo” Tim

All right . . . “Turbo” Tim Geithner didn’t really say that (yet) but we’ve all seen how his actions affirm that doctrine. Former federal banking regulator, Professor William Black, recently criticized Geithner for not protecting the taxpayers when Turbo Tim bailed out CIT Group to the tune of 2.4 billion dollars this past summer. CIT has now filed for bankruptcy. Henry Blodget of The Business Insider described Professor Black’s outrage over this situation:

The government was in no way obligated to lend the struggling CIT money and, in fact, initially refused to provide it bailout funds. More importantly, being the lender of last resort, the government should have guaranteed we’d be the first to get paid if CIT eventually filed Chapter 11. By failing to do so, “it’s like he [Geithner] burned billions of dollars again in government money, our money, gratuitously,” says Black.

After Tuesday’s election defeats for the Democrats in two gubernatorial races, the subject of “bailout fatigue” has been getting more attention.

Acting under the pretext of “transparency” the Obama administration has developed a strategy of holding meetings for people and groups with whom the administration knows it is losing credibility. Jane Hamsher of FiredogLake.com has written about the Obama team’s efforts to keep the disaffected Left under control by corralling these groups into what Hamsher calls “the veal pen”. She described one meeting wherein Rahm Emanuel used the expression “f**king stupid” in reference to the critics of those Democrats opposing the public option in proposed healthcare reform legislation.

A different format was followed at what appeared to be a “message control” conference, held on Monday at the Treasury Department. This time, the guest list was comprised of a politically diverse group of financial bloggers. One attendee, Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism, described the meeting as “curious”:

None of us knew in advance how many attendees there would be; there were eight of us at a two-hour session, Interfluidity, Marginal Revolution, Kid Dynamite’s World, Across the Curve, Financial Armageddon, Accrued Interest, and Aleph (and of course, others may have been invited who had scheduling conflicts).

*   *   *

It wasn’t obvious what the objective of the meeting was (aside the obvious idea that if they were nice to us we might reciprocate. Unfortunately, some of us are not housebroken). I will give them credit for having the session be almost entirely a Q&A, not much in the way of presentation. One official made some remarks about the state of financial institutions; later another said a few things about regulatory reform. The funniest moment was when, right after the spiel on regulatory reform, Steve Waldman said, “I’ve read your bill and I think it’s terrible.” They did offer to go over it with him. It will be interesting to see if that happens.

*   *   *

My bottom line is that the people we met are very cognitively captured, assuming one can take their remarks at face value. Although they kept stressing all the things that had changed or they were planning to change, the polite pushback from pretty all the attendees was that what Treasury thought of as major progress was insufficient.

*   *   *

Several of us raised questions about whether what their vision for the industry’s structure was and that the objective seemed to be to restore the financial system that got us in trouble in the first place.

Michael Panzner of Financial Armageddon and When Giants Fall adopted Ms. Smith’s description of the event, adding a few observations of his own:

. . . it wasn’t clear that there was a “plan B” in place if things do not recover in 2010 as many mainstream analysts expect. In fact, the suggestion from one official was that the tenure of the current crisis would likely be nearer the shorter end of expectations.

There was also a bit of a disconnect between the remarks various Treasury officials have made in public forums and what was said at the meeting. … Yesterday, however, a number of those present clearly acknowledged that things could (still) go wrong and said such fears kept them awake at night. While that is not unusual in and of itself, at the very least it adds to doubts I and others have expressed about the true state of the financial system and the economy.

Finally, the meeting seemed to confirm the strong grip that Wall Street has on the levers of legislative power.

The most informative rendition of the events at the conclave came from Kid Dynamite, whose two-part narrative began with a look at how Michael Panzner interrupted a Treasury official who was describing the Treasury’s current focus “on reducing the footprint of economic intervention cautiously, quickly and prudently”:

Michael Panzner jumped right in, addressing a concept I’ve written about previously – that of “extend and pretend,” or “delay and pray” – the concept of attempting to avoid recognizing actual losses and or insolvencies, and growing out of them after enough time. Panzner called it “fake it ‘till you make it.” I mentioned that I felt like we were undergoing a “Ponzi scheme of confidence” – but that confidence mattered less than ever in the current environment where, contrary to perhaps the prior 10 years, confidence can no longer be “spent.”

Kid Dynamite’s report contained too many great passages for me to quote here without running on excessively. Just be sure to read his entire report, including Part II (which should be posted by the time you read this).

David Merkel of The Aleph Blog also submitted a two-part report (so far — with more to come) although Part 2 is more informative. Here are some highlights:

As all bloggers there will note, those from the Treasury were kind, intelligent, funny … they were real people, unlike the common tendency to demonize those in DC.

* * *

To the Treasury I would say, “Markets are inherently unstable, and that is a good thing.” They often have to adjust to severe changes in the human condition, and governmental attempts to tame markets may result in calm for a time, and a tsunami thereafter.

* * *

As for the bank stress-testing, one can look at it two ways: 1) the way I looked at it at the time — short on details, many generalities, not trusting the results. (Remember, I have done many such analyses myself for insurers.) or, 2) something that gave confidence to the markets when they were in an oversold state. Duh, but I was dumb — the oversold market rallied when it learned that the Treasury had its back.

John Jansen from Across The Curve included his report on the meeting within his usual morning posting concerning the bond market on November 4. In a subsequent posting that afternoon, he referred his readers to the Kid Dynamite report. Here’s what Mr. Jansen did say about the event:

. . . those officials expressed real concern about the downside risks to the economy (as did blogger Michael Panzner of Financial Armageddon) and since I think that the relationship between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve has morphed into something somewhat incestuous I suspect that the Federal Reserve will not jump off the reservation and take the first baby steps to exiting its easy money policy.

The report at the Accrued Interest blog drew some hostile comments from readers who seemed convinced that Accrued was the only blogger there who actually drank the Kool-Aid being served by the Treasury. Their reaction was easily understandable after reading this remark (which followed a breach of protocol with the admission that Turbo Tim was there in the flesh):

It was a fascinating experience and I have to admit, it was just plain cool to be within the bowels of power like that.

Huh? All I can say is: If you like being in powerful bowels, just take a cruise over to duPont Circle. Actually — it was at his next statement where he lost me:

I am also on record as saying that Geithner was a good choice for Treasury secretary.

— and then it was all downhill from there.

The administration’s “charm offensive” has moved to the dicey issue of financial reform, where it is drawing criticism from across the political spectrum. Given the fact that they have all but admitted to a strategy of simply reading The Secret and willing everything to get better by their positive thoughts — Michael Panzner might as well start writing Financial Armageddon — The Sequel.

Accrued Interest, Across the Curve, American capitalism, bailout fatigue, bank bailout, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, CIT bailout, CIT Group, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, David Merkel, delay and pray, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, duPont Circle, economic crisis, economic intervention, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, extend and pretend, fake it till you make it, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Financial Armageddon, Financial Armageddon -The Sequel, financial bloggers, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Firedoglake, government guarantees, Henry Blodget, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, Interfluidity, investment banks, Jane Hamsher, John Burke, John Jansen, John T Burke Jr, Kid Dynamites World, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, lobbyists, Marginal Revolution, message control, Michael Panzner, moral hazard, Naked Capatilism, News, Obama Administration, Obama administration charm offensive, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, Ponzi scheme of confidence, President of the United States, pretext of transparency, Rahm Emanuel, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steve Waldman, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Aleph Blog, the banks, The Business Insider, the center lane, the economy, The Secret, the veal pen, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, When Giants Fall, William Black, Yves Smith, zombie banks

The Weakest Link

November 2nd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 02 2009

Comments Off

November 2, 2009

Everything was supposed to be getting “back to normal” by now. Since late July, we’ve been hearing that the recession is over. When the Gross Domestic Product number for the third quarter was released on Thursday, we again heard the ejaculations of enthusiasm from those insisting that the recession has ended. Investors were willing to overlook the most recent estimate that another 531,000 jobs were lost during the month of October, so the stock market got a boost. Nevertheless, as was widely reported, the Cash for Clunkers program added 1.66 percent to the 3.5 percent Gross Domestic Product annualized rate increase. Since Cash for Clunkers was a short-lived event, something else will be necessary to fill its place, stimulating economic activity. Once that sobering aspect of the story was absorbed, Friday morning’s news informed us that consumer spending had dropped for the first time in five months. The Associated Press provided this report:

Economists worry that the recovery could falter in coming months if households cut back on spending to cope with rising unemployment, heavy debt loads and tight credit conditions.

“With incomes so soft, increased spending will be a struggle,” Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S.economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote in a note to clients.

The Commerce Department said Friday that spending dropped 0.5% in September, the first decline in five months. Personal incomes were unchanged as workers contend with rising unemployment. Wages and salaries fell 0.2%, erasing a 0.2% gain in August.

Another report showed that employers face little pressure to raise pay, even as the economy recovers. The weak labor market makes it difficult for people with jobs to demand higher pay and benefits.

* * *

. . . some economists believe that consumer spending will slow sharply in the current quarter, lowering GDP growth to perhaps 1.5%. Analysts said the risk of a double-dip recession cannot be ruled out over the next year.

With unemployment as bad as it is, those who have jobs need to be mindful of the Sword of Damocles, as it hangs perilously over their heads. As the AP report indicated, employers are now in an ideal position to exploit their work force. Worse yet, as Mish pointed out:

Personal income decreased $15.5 billion (0.5 percent), while real disposable personal income decreased 3.4 percent, in contrast to an increase of 3.8 percent last quarter. Those are horrible numbers.

The war on the American consumer finally bit Wall Street in the ass on Friday when the S&P 500 index took a 2.8 percent nosedive. When mass layoffs become the magic solution to make dismal corporate earnings reports appear positive, when the consumer is treated as a chump by regulatory agencies, lobbyists and government leaders, the consumer stops fulfilling the designated role of consuming. When that happens, the economy stands still. As Renae Merle reported for The Washington Post:

“The government handed the ball off to the consumer and the consumer fell on it,” said Robert G. Smith, chairman of Smith Affiliated Capital in New York. “This is a function of there being no jobs and wages going lower.”

The sell-off on the stock market also reflected a report released Friday showing a decline in consumer sentiment this month, analysts said. The Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index fell to 70.6 in October, compared with 73.5 in September.

Rich Miller of Bloomberg News discussed the resulting apprehension experienced by investors:

Only 31 percent of respondents to a poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers in the U.S., Europe and Asia see investment opportunities, down from 35 percent in the previous survey in July. Almost 40 percent in the latest quarterly survey, the Bloomberg Global Poll, say they are still hunkering down. U.S. investors are even more cautious, with more than 50 percent saying they are in a defensive crouch.

* * *

Worldwide, investors and analysts now view the U.S. as the weak link in the global economy, with its markets seen as among the riskiest by a plurality of those surveyed. One in four respondents expects an unemployment rate of 11 percent or more a year from now, compared with a U.S. administration forecast of 9.7 percent. The jobless rate now is 9.8 percent, a 26-year high.

Even before the release of “good news” on Thursday followed by Friday’s bad news, stock analysts who base their trading decisions primarily on reading charts, could detect indications of continuing market decline, as Michael Kahn explained for Barron’s last Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis continues to generate criticism from across the political spectrum while breeding dissent from within. As I said last month, the administration’s current strategy is a clear breach of candidate Obama’s campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics”. The widespread opposition to the administration’s proposed legislation to regulate (read that: placate) large financial companies was discussed by Stephen Labaton for The New York Times:

Senior regulators and some lawmakers clashed once again with the Obama administration on Thursday, finding fault with central elements of the White House’s latest plan to unwind large financial companies when their troubles imperil the financial system.

The Times article focused on criticism of the administration’s plan, expressed by Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. As Mr.Labaton noted, shortly after Mr. Obama was elected President, Turbo Tim Geithner began an unsuccessful campaign to have Ms. Bair replaced.

On Friday, economist James K. Galbraith was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Here’s what Professor Galbraith had to say about the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis:

They made a start, and certainly in the stimulus package, there were important initiatives. But the stimulus package is framed as a stimulus, as something which is temporary, which will go away after a couple of years. And that is not the way to proceed here. The overwhelming emphasis, in the administration’s program, I think, has been to return things to a condition of normalcy, to use a 1920s word, that prevailed five and ten years ago. That is to say, we’re back to a world in which Wall Street and the major banks are leading, and setting the path–

* * *

. . . they’ve largely been preoccupied with keeping the existing system from collapsing. And the government is powerful. It has substantially succeeded at that, but you really have to think about, do you want to have a financial sector dominated by a small number of very large institutions, very difficult to manage, practically impossible to regulate, and ruled by, essentially, the same people and the same culture that caused the crisis in the first place.

BILL MOYERS: Well, that’s what we’re getting, because after all of the mergers, shakedowns, losses of the last year, you have five monster financial institutions really driving the system, right?

JAMES GALBRAITH: And they’re highly profitable, and they are already paying, in some cases, extraordinary bonuses. And you have an enormous problem, as the public sees very clearly that a very small number of people really have been kept afloat by public action . And yet there is no visible benefit to people who are looking for jobs or people who are looking to try and save their houses or to somehow get out of a catastrophic personal debt situation that they’re in.

This is just another illustration of how “trickle down economics” doesn’t work. President Obama knows better. He told us that he would not follow that path. Yet, here we are: a country viewed as the weak link in the global economy because the well-being of those institutions considered “too big to fail” is the paramount concern of this administration.

Affiliated Capital, American capitalism, Associated Press, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Barrons, Ben Bernanke, Bill Moyers, blog, Bloomberg, Cash for Clunkers, centrist, centrist blog, Commentary, Commerce Department, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, conservative, consumer spending, crony capitalism, current events opinion, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, GDP, GOP, government guarantees, Gross Domestic Product, High Frequency Economics, House of Representatives, huge financial institutions, Ian Shepherdson, investment banks, James K Galbraith, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, Michael Shedlock, Mish, moral hazard, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, political blog, political commentary blog, Politics, Presidency, President, President Barack Obama, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Renae Merle, Republican, Republican Party, Rich Miller, Robert G Smith, S&P 500 index, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate, Sheila Bair, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, Stephen Labaton, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Weakest Link, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, trickle down economics, Turbo Tim Geithner, unbiased news, United States as weak link in global economy, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer

Watching For Storm Clouds

October 26th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 26 2009

Comments Off

October 26, 2009

As the economy continues to flounder along, one need not look very far to find enthusiastic cheerleaders embracing any seemingly positive information to reinforce the belief that this catastrophic chapter in history is about to reach an end. Meanwhile, others are watching out for signs of more trouble. The recent celebrations over the return of the Dow Jones Industrial Average to the 10,000 level gave some sensible commentators the opportunity to point out that this may simply be evidence that we are experiencing an “asset bubble” which could burst at any moment.

October 21 brought the latest Quarterly Report from SIGTARP, the Special Investigator General for TARP, who is a gentleman named Neil Barofsky. Since the report is 256 pages long, it made more sense for Mr. Barofsky to submit to a few television interviews and simply explain to us, the latest results of his investigatory work. In a discussion with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on that date, Mr. Barofsky voiced his concern about the potential consequences that could arise because those bailed-out banks, considered “too big to fail” have continued to grow, due to government-approved mergers:

“These banks that were too big to fail are now bigger,” Barofsky said. “Government has sponsored and supported several mergers that made them larger and that guarantee, that implicit guarantee of moral hazard, the idea that the government is not going to let these banks fail, which was implicit a year ago, is now explicit, we’ve said it. So if anything, not only have there not been any meaningful regulatory reform to make it less likely, in a lot of ways, the government has made such problems more likely.

“Potentially we could be in more danger now than we were a year ago,” he added.

In comparing where the economy is now, as opposed to this time last year, we haven’t seen much in the way of increased lending by the oversized banks. In fact, we’ve only seen more hubris and bullying on their part. Julian Delasantellis expressed it this way in his October 22 essay for the Asia Times:

Now, a year later, things have turned out exactly as expected – except that the roles are reversed. The rulemakers have not disciplined the corrupted; it’s more accurate to say that the corrupted have abased the rulemakers. If the intention was that the big investment banks would settle down into a sort of quiet, reserved suburban lifestyle, the reality has been that they’ve acted more like former gangsters placed into the US government’s witness protection program, taking over the numbers racket on the Saturday pee-wee soccer fields.

* * *

Obviously, there can’t be any inflation, or any real long-term earnings growth for consumer and business-oriented banks for that matter, as long as the economic crisis continues to destroy capital faster than Obama can ask Bernanke to print it.

These issues are of little concern to operations such as Goldman and Morgan, with their trading strategies and profit profiles essentially divorced from the real economy. But down here on planetary level, as the little league baseball fields don’t get maintained because the businesses who funded the work go out of business after having their loans called, after elderly people with chest pains have to wait longer for one of the few ambulances on station after rescue service cutbacks, life is changing, changing for the long term, and it sure isn’t pretty.

“Proprietary trading” by banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, forms an important part of their business model. This practice involves trading by those banks, on their own accounts, rather than the accounts of customers. The possibility of earning lavish bonus payments helps to incentivize risk taking by the traders working on the “prop desks” of those institutions. Gillian Tett wrote a report for the Financial Times on October 22, wherein she discussed an e-mail she received from a recently-retired banker, who stays in touch with his former colleagues — all of whom remain actively trading the markets. Ms. Tett observed that this man was “feeling deeply shocked” when he shared his observations with her:

“Forget about the events of the past 12 months … the punters are back punting as aggressively as ever,” he wrote. “Highly leveraged short-term trades are back in vogue as players … jostle to load up on everything from Reits [real estate investment trusts] and commercial property, commodities, emerging markets and regular stocks and bonds.

“Oh, I am sure the banks’ public relations people will talk about the subdued atmosphere in banking, but don’t you believe it,” he continued bitterly, noting that when money is virtually free — or, at least, at 0.5 per cent — traders feel stupid if they don’t leverage up.

“Any sense of control is being chucked out of the window. After the dotcom boom and bust it took a good few years for the market to get its collective mojo back [but] this time it has taken just a few months,” he added. He finished with a despairing question: “Was October 2008 just a dress rehearsal for the crash when this latest bubble bursts?”

* * *

Yet, if you talk at length to traders — or senior bankers — it seems that few truly believe that fundamentals alone explain this pattern. Instead, the real trigger is the amount of money that central bankers have poured into the system that is frantically seeking a home, because most banks simply do not want to use that cash to make loans. Hence, the fact that the prices of almost all risk assets are rallying — even as non-risky assets such as Treasuries bounce too.

Now, some western policymakers like to argue — or hope –that this striking rally could be beneficial, in a way, even if it is not initially based on fundamentals. After all, the argument goes, if markets rebound sharply, that should boost animal spirits in a way that could eventually seep through to the “real” economy.

On this interpretation, the current rally could turn out to be akin to the firelighter that one uses to start a blaze in a pile of damp wood.

* * *

So I, like my e-mail correspondent, am growing uneasy. Perhaps, the optimistic “firelighter-igniting-the-damp-wood” scenario will yet come to play; but we will probably not really know whether the optimists are correct for at least another six months.

Gillian Tett’s “give it six months” approach seems much more sober and rational than what we hear from many of the exuberant commentators appearing on television. Beyond that, she reminds us that our current situation involves a more important issue than the question of whether our economy can experience sustained growth: The continued use of leveraged risk-taking by TARP beneficiaries invites the possibility of a return to last year’s crisis-level conditions. As long as those banks know that the taxpayers will be back to bail them out again, there is every reason to assume that we are all headed for more trouble.

American capitalism, Asia Times, asset bubble, bad publicity, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, CNN, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, controlling the markets, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, Financial Times, Gillian Tett, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, Julian Delasantellis, liberal, market manipulation, moral hazard, NASDAQ 100 index, Neil Barofsky, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, SIGTARP, socialized loss and privatized gain, Special Investigator General for TARP, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, 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, Watching For Storm Clouds, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Wolf Blitzer, zombie banks

Offering Solutions

October 22nd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 22 2009

Comments Off

October 22, 2009

Many of us are familiar with the old maxim asserting that “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” During the past year we’ve been exposed to plenty of hand-wringing by info-tainers from various mainstream media outlets decrying the financial crisis and our current economic predicament. Very few of these people ever seem to offer any significant insight on such interesting topics as: what really caused the meltdown, how to prevent it from happening again, whether any laws were broken that caused this catastrophe, whether any prosecutions might be warranted or how to solve our nation’s continuing economic ills, which seem to be immune to all the attempted cures. The painful thorn in the side of Goldman Sachs, Matt Taibbi, recently raised an important question, reminding people to again scrutinize the vapid media coverage of this pressing crisis:

It’s literally amazing to me that our press corps hasn’t yet managed to draw a distinction between good news on Wall Street for companies like Goldman, and good news in reality.

* * *

In fact the dichotomy between the economic health of ordinary people and the traditional “market indicators” is not merely a non-story, it is a sort of taboo — unmentionable in major news coverage.

That quote inspired Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism to write a superb essay about how “access journalism” has created a controlled press. What follows is just a small nugget of the great analysis in that piece:

So what do we have? A media that predominantly bases its stories on what it is fed because it has to. Ever-leaner staffing, compressed news cycles, and access journalism all conspire to drive reporters to focus on the “must cover” news, which is to a large degree influenced by the parties that initiate the story. And that means they are increasingly in an echo chamber, spending so much time with the influential sources they feel they must cover that they start to be swayed by them.

* * *

The message, quite overly, is: if you are pissed, you are in a minority. The country has moved on. Things are getting better, get with the program. Now I saw the polar opposite today. There is a group of varying sizes, depending on the topic, that e-mails among itself, mainly professional investors, analysts, economists (I’m usually on the periphery but sometimes chime in). I never saw such an angry, active, and large thread about the Goldman BS fest today. Now if people who have not suffered much, and are presumably benefitting from the market recovery are furious, it isn’t hard to imagine that what looks like complacency in the heartlands may simply be contained rage looking for an outlet.

Fortunately, one television news reporter has broken the silence concerning the impact on America’s middle class, caused by Wall Street’s massive Ponzi scam and our government’s response – which he calls “corporate communism”. I’m talking about MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan. On Wednesday’s edition of his program, Morning Meeting, he decried the fact that the taxpayers have been forced to subsidize the “parlor game” played by Goldman Sachs and other firms involved in proprietary trading on our coin. Mr. Ratigan then proceeded to offer a number of solutions available to ordinary people, who would like to fight back against those pampered institutions considered “too big to fail”. Some of these measures involve: moving accounts from one of those enshrined banks to a local bank or credit union; paying with cash whenever possible and contacting your lawmakers to insist upon financial reform.

My favorite lawmaker in the battle for financial reform is Congressman Alan Grayson, whose district happens to include Disney World. His fantastic interrogation of Federal Reserve general counsel, Scott Alvarez, about whether the Fed tries to manipulate the stock markets, was a great event. Grayson has now co-sponsored a “Financial Autopsy” amendment to the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill. This amendment is intended to accomplish the following:

– Requires the CFPA conduct a “Financial Autopsy” of each state’s bankruptcies and foreclosures (a scientific sampling), and identify financial products that systematically led to a large number of bankruptcies and foreclosures.
– Requires the CFPA report to Congress annually on the top financial products (the companies and individuals that originated the products) that caused consumer bankruptcies and foreclosures.
– Requires the CFPA take corrective action to eliminate or restrict those deceptive products to prevent future bankruptcies and corrections

– The bottom line is to highlight destructive products based on if they are making people “broke”.

From his website, The Market Ticker, Karl Denninger offered his own contributions to this amendment:

This sort of “feel good” legislative amendment will of course be resisted, but it simply isn’t enough. The basic principle of equity (better said as “fairness under the law”) puts forward the premise that one cannot cheat and be allowed to keep the fruits of one’s outrageous behavior.

So while I like the direction of this amendment, I would put forward the premise that the entirety of the gains “earned” from such toxic products, when found, are clawed back and distributed to the consumers so harmed, and that to the extent this does not fully compensate for that harm such a finding should give rise to a private, civil cause of action for the consumers who are bankrupted or foreclosed.

It’s nice to know that bloggers are no longer the only voices insisting on financial reform. Ed Wallace of Business Week recently warned against the consequences of unchecked speculation on oil futures:

Is today’s stock market divorced from economic reality? Probably. It is a certainty that oil is. We know that because those in the market are still putting out the same tired and incorrect logic that they used successfully last year to push oil to $147 a barrel while demand was plummeting.

Because oil is not carrying a market price that fairly reflects economic conditions and demand inventories, overpriced energy is siphoning off funds that could be used for corporate expansion, increased consumerism and, in time, the recreation of jobs in America.

Did you think that the “Enron Loophole” was closed by the enactment of the 2008 Farm Bill? It wasn’t. The Farm Bill simply gave more authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate futures contracts that had been exempted by the loophole. In case you’re wondering about the person placed in charge of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by President Obama — his name is Gary Gensler and he used to work for … You guessed it: Goldman Sachs.

2008 Farm Bill, access journalism, American capitalism, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Business Week, centrist, CFPA, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Alan Grayson, conservative, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, controlling the markets, corporate communism, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, Dylan Ratigan, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Ed Wallace, Enron loophole, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Financial Autopsy amendment, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Gary Gensler, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, huge financial institutions, info-tainers, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Karl Denninger, liberal, market manipulation, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, Morning Meeting, mortgage-backed securities, MSNBC, Naked Capitalism, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Offering Solutions, oil futures, Opinion, Political, Politics, Ponzi scam, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, Scott Alvarez, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Market Ticker, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Bait And Switch

October 19th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 19 2009

Comments Off

October 19, 2009

On Friday, October 16, Aaron Task interviewed Elizabeth Warren for his online TV show, Tech Ticker. In case you don’t remember, Ms. Warren is the Harvard law professor, appointed to chair the Congressional Oversight Panel which has attempted to trace the money thrown into the infamous slush fund known as TARP — the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Mr. Task questioned Professor Warren as to whether, after all this time, we can expect a full accounting as to where the TARP money went. Professor Warren responded: “No. I think there is no chance that we will get a full accounting of it.” She explained the reason for this is because former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson never asked for an explanation “on the front end” (when the TARP bailout program began) concerning what the recipients planned to do with this money, nor was any documentation of expenditures requested. As an aside, the folks at The New York Times were kind enough to put together this TARP scorecard, for keeping track of which institutions pay back the money they received. Of course, these amounts do not include all the loans, “backstopping” and other largesse provided to Wall Street by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Treasury. For that information, we can look to this Bailout Tally Report, prepared by Nomi Prins for her book: It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses,and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street.

During the interview with Aaron Task, Elizabeth Warren expressed particular concern over the fact that former Treasury Secretary Paulson failed to put any restrictions on the use of the TARP bailout funds prior to their dispersal, despite the explanation to the taxpayers that this money would be used to remove the “toxic assets” from the banks’ balance sheets. Worse yet, as she explained: “The toxic assets are still there, by and large” because the TARP money was used by the Wall Street banks to “make bets”. The bait-and-switch tactic used by Secretary Paulson was exposed by Professor Warren when she criticized how the banks used that money:

My biggest complaint would be: That was not how Secretary Paulsen described what was going to happen with American taxpayer dollars. . . . He said we are going to put money into the banks to increase lending — specifically to increase small business lending because that is the engine of our economy . . . I have a real problem when we describe to taxpayers their money will be taken and used one way and in fact it’s used another way.

Professor Warren also noted that nothing had been done to contain “systemic risk” after the financial crisis because those institutions requiring bailouts as they were considered “too big to fail” have grown even larger. This subject was addressed by Rolfe Winkler of Reuters, who questioned whether these institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, are really indispensable:

Many of us didn’t like it — we thought banks like Goldman should have been recapitalized the right way, by wiping out shareholders and forcing subordinated creditors to eat their share of losses. But that ship has sailed. We socialized the risk while privatizing the profit because we were told we had no other choice: The government had to guarantee the biggest banks’ liabilities because they were too unstable to survive bankruptcy or FDIC receivership.

If that’s true, why haven’t we seen any substantial reforms to reduce systemic risk? Congress is kicking around new resolution authority to help resolve failed systemically-important banks. But the goal should be reducing systemic risk to begin with. Yet serious reform of the derivatives market — something that would reduce its size significantly — is nowhere on the radar.

Indeed, Goldman’s trading results suggest that market is coming back with a vengeance. It’s playing in very risky markets with a capital structure that remains vulnerable yet is guaranteed by taxpayers.

* * *

Wall Street and its protectors at the Fed and Treasury tell us the bailout was necessary to protect the financial system, to protect Main Street. That may be. But Main Street still owns much of the risk while Wall Street gets all of the profit.

Elizabeth Warren’s reaction to the issue of what has been done with those profits — the huge, record-breaking bonuses paid to the people at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, was to describe the situation as so inappropriate as to leave her “speechless”. Fortunately this sentiment is shared by a number of people who are already taking action in the absence of any responsible government activity. The Gawker website has announced its initiation of what it calls the “Goldman Project” as a way of pushing back against this atrocity:

But what makes it eye-stabbingly, brain-searingly blood-boiling is the fact that Goldman’s employees are personally reaping the benefits of these subsidies to the tune of an average of $700,000 per staffer. Being unjustifiably wealthy in boom times is not enough — when market forces of their own creation brought their company low, they turned to the taxpayers both to rescue the firm and prop up their obscenely acquisitive lifestyles.

* * *

. . . we’re launching the Goldman Project, an ongoing attempt to track and publicize the multi-million second homes, $50,000 cars, $500 bottles of wine, and ostentatious living that we are subsidizing. And we need your help: Are you Facebook friends with a Goldmanite who just posted photos of his lavish bachelor party? Post them to our fancy new tag page, #GoldmanProject, or e-mail them to us. Are you a realtor who just sold a $4 million duplex a Goldman banker? Is your ex-boyfriend Goldman banker planning a year-end trip to Cabo to blow his bonus wad? Shoot us an e-mail. Likewise, if you catch any references to Goldman employees living large in the media, post them to #GoldmanProject to keep a running clipfile.

The folks at Gawker aren’t the only ones taking action. When the American Bankers Association holds its annual meeting in Chicago on October 25-26, it will be confronted with a (hopefully) large protest led by a coalition of labor, community and consumer groups, called the “Showdown in Chicago”. Visit their website and do whatever you can to help make this event a success. The arrogant influence peddlers in Washington need to get the message: Clean things up or get thrown out.

Aaron Task, AIG, American Bankers Association, American capitalism, American International Group, Bailout Tally Report, Bait And Switch, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Citigroup, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Oversight Panel, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, Gawker, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, Hank Paulson, Harvard Law School, Henry Paulson, influence peddlers, insolvent banks, investment banks, It Takes a Pillage -- Behind the Bailouts Bonuses and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan, liberal, lobbyists, moral hazard, New York Stock Exchange, News, Nomi Prins, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, revolving door, Rolfe Winkler, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Showdown in Chicago, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, TARP scorecard, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, Tech Ticker, the banks, the center lane, the economy, the Goldman Project, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

Pay More Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain

October 15th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 15 2009

Comments Off

October 15, 2009

Reading the news these days can cause so much aggravation, I’m surprised more people haven’t pulled out all of their hair. Regardless of one’s political perspective, there is an inevitable degree of outrage experienced from revelations concerning the role of government malfeasnace in causing and reacting to the financial crisis. We have come to rely on satire to soothe our anger. (For a good laugh, be sure to read this.) Fortunately, an increasing number of commentators are not only exposing the systemic problems that created this catastrophe – they’re actually suggesting some good solutions.

Robert Scheer, editor of Truthdig, recently considered the idea that the debate over healthcare reform might just be a distraction from the more urgent need for financial reform:

The health care issue should never even have been brought up at a time when the economy is reeling and we are running such immense deficits to shore up the banks. Instead of fixing the economy by saving Americans’ homes and jobs, we are preoccupied with pie-in-the-sky rhetoric on a hot issue that should have been addressed in calmer times. It came up now because, despite all the hoary partisan posturing, it is a safer subject than the more pressing issue of what to do with Citigroup, AIG and General Motors, which the taxpayers happen to own but do not control. While Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner plots in secret with the top bankers who got us into this mess, we are focused on the perennial circus of so-called health care reform.

There is an odd disconnect between the furious public debate over health care reform, with its emphasis on the cost of an increased government role, and the nonexistent discussion about the far more expensive and largely secretive government program to bail out Wall Street. Why the agitation over the government spending $83 billion a year on health care when at least 20 times that amount has been thrown at the creators of the ongoing financial crisis without any serious public accountability? On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that employees of the financial industry that we taxpayers saved are slated to be paid a record $140 billion this year.

Remember, taxpayers: That $140 billion is your money. The bailed-out institutions may claim to have repaid their TARP obligations, but they also received trillions in loans from the Federal Reserve — and Ben Bernanke refuses to disclose which institutions received how much.

William Greider wrote a superb essay for the October 26 issue of The Nation, emphasizing the importance of the work undertaken by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, led by Phil Angelides, as well as the investigation being done by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Even if Congress manages to act this fall, the debate will not end. Obama’s plan does not begin to get at the rot in the financial system. Wall Street’s most notorious practices continue to flourish, and if unemployment rates keep rising through 2010, the public will not set aside its anger. The Angelides investigators could put the story back on the front page.

* * *

Beyond Ponzi schemes and deceitful mortgage lending, a far larger crime may lurk at the center of the crisis — wholesale securities fraud. “Risk models” reassured unwitting investors who bought millions of bundled mortgage securities and derivatives like credit-default swaps. But as Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics has testified, many of the models lacked real-life markets where they could be tested and verified. “Clearly, we have now many examples where a model or the pretense of a model was used as a vehicle for creating risk and hiding it,” Whalen said. “More important, however, is the role of financial models for creating opportunities for deliberate acts of securities fraud.” That’s what investigators can examine. What did the Wall Street firms know about the reliability of these models when they sold the securities? And what did they tell the buyers?

* * *

Surely the political system itself is a root cause of the financial crisis. The swollen influence of financial interests pushed Congress and presidents to repeal regulation and look the other way as reckless excesses developed. Efforts to restore a more reliable representative democracy can start with Congress. The power of money could be curbed by new rules prohibiting members of key committees from accepting contributions from the sectors they oversee. Regulatory agencies, likewise, need internal designs to protect them from capture by the industries they regulate.

The Federal Reserve, having failed in its obligations so profoundly, should be reconstituted as an accountable federal agency, shorn of the excessive secrecy and insider privileges accorded to bankers. The Constitution gives Congress, not the executive branch, the responsibility for managing money and credit. Congress must reassert this responsibility and learn how to provide adequate oversight and policy critique.

Reforming the financial system, in other words, can be the prelude to reviving representative democracy.

At The Huffington Post, Robert Borosage warned that the financial industry is waging a huge lobbying battle to derail any attempts at financial reform. Beyond that, the banking lobbyists will re-write any legislation to make it more favorable to their own objectives:

The banking lobby is nothing if not shameless. They hope to use the reforms to WEAKEN current law. They are pushing to make the federal standard the ceiling on reform, stripping the power of states to have higher standards. Basically, they are hoping to find a way to shut down the independent investigations of state attorneys general like New York’s Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo or Illinois’ Lisa Madigan.

* * *

Historically, the banks, as Senator Dick Durbin decried in disgust, “own the place.” And they’ve succeeded thus far in frustrating reform, even while pocketing literally hundreds of billions in support from taxpayers.

* * *

But this time it could be different. Backroom deals are no longer safe. Americans have been fleeced of trillions in the value of their homes and their savings because of Wall Street’s reckless excesses. Then as taxpayers, they were extorted to ante up literally trillions more to forestall economic collapse by bailing out the banking sector. Insult was added to that injury when the Federal Reserve refused to tell the Congress who got the money and on what terms.

Legislators would be well advised to understand the cozy old ways of doing business are no longer acceptable. Americans are livid and paying attention. Legislators who rely on Wall Street to finance their campaigns and then lead the effort to block or dilute reforms will discover that their constituents know what they have been up to. Organizations like my own Campaign for America’s Future, the Sunlight Foundation, Americans for Financial Reform, Huffington Post bloggers will make certain the word gets out. Legislators may discover that Wall Street’s money is a burden, not a blessing.

The most encouraging article I have seen came from Dan Gerstein of Forbes. His perspective matched my sentiments exactly. Looking through President Obama’s empty rhetoric, Mr. Gerstein helped provide direction and encouragement to those of us who are losing hope that our dysfunctional government could do anything close to addressing our nation’s financial ills:

The Changer-in-Chief long ago gave up on the idea of dismantling and remaking the crazy-quilt regulatory system that Wall Street (along with its Washington enablers) rigged for its own enrichment at everyone else’s expense.

*  * *

Instead, Team Obama opted to move around the deck chairs within the existing bureaucracy, daftly hoping this conformist approach would be enough to prevent another titanic meltdown.

*  * *

In the end, though, the key to success will be countering Wall Street’s influence and putting the politicians’ feet to the ire. Members of Congress need to know there will be consequences for sticking with the status quo.      . . . Make clear to every incumbent: Endorse our plan and we’ll give you money and public support; back the banks, and we will run ads against you telling voters you are for corrupt capitalism.

As I have said before, this is all about power. Right now, Wall Street has the political playing field to itself; it has the money, the access it buys and the fear it implies. And the public is on the outside, looking incredulous that this rigged system is still in place more than a year after it was exposed. But if the frustrated middle can organize and mobilize a focused, non-partisan revolt of the revolted — as opposed to the inchoate and polarizing tea party movement — that whole dynamic will quickly change. And so too, I’m confident, will the voting habits of our elected officials.

Fortunately, individuals like Dan Gerstein are motivating people to stand up and let our elected officials know that they work for the people and not the lobbyists. Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, has just written a new book: Whores: Why And How I Came To Fight The Establishment. The timing of the book’s release could not have been better.

AIG, American capitalism, American International Group, bad publicity, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Christopher Whalen, Citigroup, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Dan Gerstein, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, Forbes, government guarantees, Hank Paulson, healthcare reform, Henry Paulson, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, insolvent banks, Institutional Risk Analytics, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Judicial Watch, Larry Klayman, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, market manipulation, money printing, moral hazard, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Pay More Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain, Phil Angelides, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Borosage, Robert Scheer, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Huffington Post, The Nation, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Troubled Asset Relief Program, Truthdig, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Whores -- Why And How I Came To Fight The Establishment, William Greider

Kill The Whales

October 8th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 08 2009

Comments Off

October 8, 2009

Those whales are back in the news again — this time due to calls for their slaughter. In case you’re wondering what kind of person would advocate the killing of whales, I would like to identify two people who recently spoke out in favor of such action. The first of these individuals is one of my favorite columnists at The New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for her “trenchant and incisive” coverage of Wall Street. The second is the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair. Two women want to have whales killed? Yes. However, the “whales” in question are those infamous financial institutions considered “too big to fail”. On October 3, Gretchen Morgenson wrote a piece for The New York Times, entitled: “The Cost of Saving These Whales” in which she defined “to big to fail” institutions as “banks that are so big and interconnected that their very existence threatens the world”. She discussed the problems caused by the continued existence of those whales with this explanation:

During the credit bust, our leaders embraced the too-big-to-fail policy, reluctantly bailing out large institutions to save the system from collapse, they said. Yet even as the crisis has abated, these policy makers have shown little interest in cutting financial monsters down to size. This is especially disturbing given that some institutions have grown even larger as a result of the mess.

It is perverse, of course, to reward big banks’ mistakes with bailouts financed by beleaguered taxpayers. But the too-big-to-fail doctrine benefits the banks in other ways as well: the implication that an institution will not be allowed to fall gives it significant cost advantages over smaller, perhaps more responsible competitors.

On October 4, Sheila Bair of the FDIC gave a speech before the International Institute of Finance at their annual meeting in Istanbul, Turkey. At the outset, she pointed out that “the first task” in creating “a more resilient, transparent, and better-regulated financial system” would be to scrap the “too big to fail” doctrine. She went on to explain how to go about killing those whales:

To do this we need a resolution regime that provides for the orderly wind-down of banking and other financial enterprises without imposing costs on the taxpayers.

The solution must involve a practical and effective mechanism for the orderly resolution of these institutions similar to that used for FDIC-insured banks.

This new regime would not permit taxpayer funds to be used to prop up a firm or its management. Instead, senior management would be replaced, and losses would be borne by the stockholders and creditors.

On September 23, 2009 Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner testified before the House Financial Services Committee to explain his planned financial reform agenda. Here’s what Turbo Tim had to say about the plan for dealing with the “too big to fail” problem:

First, we cannot allow firms to reap the benefits of explicit or implicit government subsidies without very strong government oversight. We must substantially reduce the moral hazard created by the perception that these subsidies exist; address their corrosive effects on market discipline; and minimize their encouragement of risk-taking.

So, in other words … the government subsidies to these institutions will continue, but only if the recipients get “very strong government oversight”. In his next sentence Geithner expressed his belief that the moral hazard was created “by the perception that these subsidies exist” rather than the FACT that they exist. Geithner’s scheme of continued corporate welfare for the biggest financial institutions is consistent with what we learned about him from Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson in their New York Times article back on April 26. That essay gave us some great insight about Turbo Tim’s blindness to moral hazard:

Last June, with a financial hurricane gathering force, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. convened the nation’s economic stewards for a brainstorming session. What emergency powers might the government want at its disposal to confront the crisis? he asked.

Timothy F. Geithner, who as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank oversaw many of the nation’s most powerful financial institutions, stunned the group with the audacity of his answer. He proposed asking Congress to give the president broad power to guarantee all the debt in the banking system, according to two participants, including Michele Davis, then an assistant Treasury secretary.

The proposal quickly died amid protests that it was politically untenable because it could put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars.

“People thought, ‘Wow, that’s kind of out there,’” said John C. Dugan, the comptroller of the currency, who heard about the idea afterward. Mr. Geithner says, “I don’t remember a serious discussion on that proposal then.”

But in the 10 months since then, the government has in many ways embraced his blue-sky prescription. Step by step, through an array of new programs, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have assumed an unprecedented role in the banking system, using unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money, to try to save the nation’s financiers from their own mistakes.

And more often than not, Mr. Geithner has been a leading architect of those bailouts, the activist at the head of the pack. He was the federal regulator most willing to “push the envelope,” said H. Rodgin Cohen, a prominent Wall Street lawyer who spoke frequently with Mr. Geithner.

Geithner’s objective of putting the prosperity of the banks ahead of any concern for the taxpayers was again demonstrated in this AFP report from October 6:

On proposed changes to the financial system, Geithner said it was “legitimate” for banks to be influential and admitted that reform could “pose risks to financial innovation.”

Nevertheless, he stressed that “the most important issue is that if stability (of financial institutions) is not guaranteed, it will become harder to raise capital.”

On October 6, Newsweek published an interview conducted by Nancy Cook with William Black, a former federal regulator during the Savings & Loan crisis and a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City. The interview included a discussion of the government’s response to the financial crisis. One remark made by Mr. Black reinforced my opinion about Turbo Tim:

“Some of the things Bernanke did were very bad, but he is in sharp contrast to Geithner who has been wrong about everything in his career. When Geithner was once answering a question in response to Ron Paul, he said, ‘I’ve never been a regulator.’ He was then the President of the New York Federal Reserve, and he purports that he was never a regulator? That is a demonstration of what is wrong with the Federal Reserve banks if the head of the unit doesn’t think he’s a regulator. He’s a disaster.”

It should come as no surprise that Richard Carnell, a Professor at Fordham Law School and former Assistant Treasury Secretary for President Clinton, would have this to say about Geithner’s financial reform agenda, when asked for his comments by Kim Thai of Fortune:

The plan includes useful reforms. But it’s also naive, timid, misguided, politically inept, and intellectually dishonest.

It places naive faith in regulation. Yet regulation failed disastrously over the past decade. Bank regulators had ample powers to keep banks safe but did too little, too late. They let banks use $12-13 in borrowed money for every $1 in shareholders’ money. The administration’s response? Give regulators more powers.

[The plan] preserves a preposterous tangle of overlapping regulators. And it didn’t arrive until June, seven months after the election. By then the crisis had faded and special interest politics had come roaring back.

It entrenches bailouts for large financial institutions. Voters know that’s rotten policy. It makes firms like General Electric divest their banks. That serves no purpose. It’s like trying to ward off the Mexican Mafia by fortifying the Canadian border. Small wonder voters remain skeptical.

It appears as though Turbo Tim is not up to the job of killing those whales. Perhaps the President should find someone who is.

AIG, American capitalism, American International Group, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Fordham Law School, Fortune Magazine, government guarantees, government subsidies, Gretchen Morgenson, H Rodgin Cohen, Hank Paulson, Henry Paulson, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, International Institute of Finance, investment banks, Istanbul, Jo Becker, John Burke, John C Dugan, John T Burke Jr, Kill The Whales, Kim Thai, legacy assets, liberal, lobbyists, Michele Davis, moral hazard, Nancy Cook, New York Federal Reserve Bank, News, Newsweek, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President Clinton, President of the United States, Pulitzer Prize, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Richard Carnell, Ron Paul, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, Sheila Bair, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Cost of Saving These Whales, the economy, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, Turkey, United States Senate, United States Treasury, University of Missouri Kansas City, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Black, zombie banks

The Broken Promise

September 21st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 21 2009

Comments Off

September 21, 2009

We expect those politicians aiming for re-election, to make a point of keeping their campaign promises. Many elected officials break those promises and manage to win another term anyway. That fact might explain the reasoning used by so many pols who decide to go the latter route — they believe they can get away with it. Nevertheless, many leaders who break their campaign promises often face crushing defeat on the next Election Day. A good example of this situation arose during the Presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush, who assured America: “Read my lips: No new taxes!” in his acceptance speech (written by Peggy Noonan) at the 1988 Republican National Convention. Although he didn’t enact any new taxes during his sole term in office, he also promised the voters that he would not raise existing taxes after telling everyone to read his lips. When he broke that promise after becoming President, he was confronted with the “read my lips” quote by everyone from Pat Buchanan to Bill Clinton.

Back on July 15, 2008 and throughout the Presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised the voters that if he were elected, there would be “no more trickle-down economics”. Nevertheless, his administration’s continuing bailouts of the banking sector have become the worst examples of trickle-down economics in American history — not just because of their massive size and scope, but because they will probably fail to achieve their intended result. Although the Treasury Department is starting to “come clean” to Congressional Oversight chair Elizabeth Warren, we can’t even be sure about the amount of money infused into the financial sector by one means or another because of the lack of transparency and accountability at the Federal Reserve. (I seem to remember the word “transparency” being used by Candidate Obama.) Although we are all well-aware of the $750 billion TARP slush fund that benefited the banks to some degree, speculation as to the amount given (or “loaned”) to the banks by the Federal Reserve runs from $2 trillion to as high as $6 trillion. So far, the Fed has managed to thwart efforts by some news organizations to learn the ugly truth. As Pat Choate reported for The Huffington Post:

Bloomberg News filed a federal lawsuit in November 2008 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) challenging that stonewalling and won the case. Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska on August 24 ruled that the Fed had “improperly withheld agency records” giving it a week to disclose daily reports on its loans to banks and other financial institutions.

Three days later, Federal Reserve lawyers asked the courts for a delay so that they could make an expedited appeal of her decision. Several major banks, operating through an organization named “The Clearing House,” filed a supporting brief with the appeals court, claiming that the Federal Reserve had provided its members emergency funds under an agreement not to identify the recipients or the loan terms.

The Clearing House brief described its members as, “[T]he most important participants in the international banking and payments systems and among the world’s largest intermediaries in interbank funds transfers.” They include ABN Amro Bank, N.V. (Dutch), Bank of America, The Bank of New York Mellon, Citibank, Deutsche Bank Trust (Germany), JP MorganChase Bank, UBS (Switzerland), and Wells Fargo.

* * *

Why are the Fed and the banks fighting so hard to keep the loan details secret? Congress and taxpayers cannot know until they have the information the Federal Reserve is keeping from them, but several plausible explanations exist.

One is that the Fed has taken a great deal of worthless collateral and is propping up failed companies and banks. A second is that the information will make the issue of paying out huge Wall Street bonuses in 2009 politically radioactive, particularly if it turns out the payments are dependent on these federal loans.

Finally, the Federal Reserve probably does not want that information to be part of the forthcoming Senate hearings on the re-confirmation of Ben Bernanke, current Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

President Obama’s failure to keep his campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics” is rooted in his decision to rely on the very same individuals who caused the financial crisis — to somehow cure the nation’s economic ills. These people (Larry Summers, “Turbo” Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke) have convinced Mr. Obama that “trickle-down economics” (i.e. bailing out the banks, rather than distressed businesses or the taxpayers themselves) would be the best solution.

On Saturday, Australian economist Steve Keen published a fantastic report from his website, explaining how the “money multiplier” myth, fed to Obama by the very people who caused the crisis, was the wrong paradigm to be starting from in attempting to save the economy. Here’s some of what Professor Keen had to say:

While economic outsiders like myself, Michael Hudson, Niall Ferguson and Nassim Taleb argue that the only way to restart the economic engine is to clear it of debt, the government response, has been to attempt to replace the now defunct private debt economic turbocharger with a public one.

In the immediate term, the stupendous size of the stimulus has worked, so that debt in total is still boosting aggregate demand. But what will happen when the government stops turbocharging the economy, and waits anxiously for the private system to once again splutter into life?

I am afraid that all it will do is splutter.

This is especially so since, following the advice of neoclassical economists, Obama has got not a bang but a whimper out of the many bucks he has thrown at the financial system.

In explaining his recovery program in April, PresidentObama noted that:

“there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks – ‘where’s our bailout?,’ they ask”.

He justified giving the money to the lenders, rather than to the debtors, on the basis of “the multiplier effect” from bank lending:

the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth. (page 3 of the speech)

This argument comes straight out of the neoclassical economics textbook. Fortunately, due to the clear manner in which Obama enunciates it, the flaw in this textbook argument is vividly apparent in his speech.

This “multiplier effect” will only work if American families and businesses are willing to take on yet more debt: “a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans”.

So the only way the roughly US$1 trillion of money that the Federal Reserve has injected into the banks will result in additional spending is if American families and businesses take out another US$8-10 trillion in loans.

* *   *

If the money multiplier was going to “ride to the rescue”, private debt would need to rise from its current level of US$41.5 trillion to about US$50 trillion, and this ratio would rise to about 375% — more than twice the level that ushered in the Great Depression.

This is a rescue? It’s a “hair of the dog” cure: having booze for breakfast to overcome the feelings of a hangover from last night’s binge. It is the road to debt alcoholism, not the road to teetotalism and recovery.

Fortunately, it’s a “cure” that is also highly unlikely to work, because the model of money creation that Obama’s economic advisers have sold him was shown to be empirically false over three decades ago.

*    *    *

I’ve recently developed a genuinely monetary, credit-driven model of the economy, and one of its first insights is that Obama has been sold a pup on the right way to stimulate the economy: he would have got far more bang for his buck by giving the stimulus to the debtors rather than the creditors.

* * *

The model shows that you get far more “bang for your buck” by giving the money to firms, rather than banks. Unemployment falls in both case below the level that would have applied in the absence of the stimulus, but the reduction in unemployment is far greater when the firms get the stimulus, not the banks: unemployment peaks at over 18 percent without the stimulus, just over 13 percent with the stimulus going to the banks, but under11 percent with the stimulus being given to the firms.

*    * *

So giving the stimulus to the debtors is a more potent way of reducing the impact of a credit crunch — the opposite of the advice given to Obama by his neoclassical advisers.

This could also be one reason that the Australian experience has been better than the USA’s: the stimulus in Australia has emphasized funding the public rather than the banks (and the model shows the same impact from giving money to the workers as from giving it to the firms — and for the same reason, that workers have to spend, so that the money injected into the economy circulates more rapidly.

*    * *

Obama has been sold a pup by neoclassical economics: not only did neoclassical theory help cause the crisis, by championing the growth of private debt and the asset bubbles it financed; it also is undermining efforts to reduce the severity of the crisis.

This is unfortunately the good news: the bad news is that this model only considers an economy undergoing a “credit crunch”, and not also one suffering from a serious debt overhang that only a direct reduction in debt can tackle. That is our actual problem, and while a stimulus will work for awhile, the drag from debt-deleveraging is still present. The economy will therefore lapse back into recession soon after the stimulus is removed.

You can be sure that if we head into a “double-dip” recession as Professor Keen expects, the President will never hear the end of it. If only Mr. Obama had stuck with his campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics”, we wouldn’t have so many people wishing they lived in Australia.

1988 Republican National Convention, ABN Amro Bank, American capitalism, Australia, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Bill Clinton, blog, Bloomberg news, campaign promises, centrist, Citibank, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Deutsche Bank Trust, economic crisis, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, George H W Bush, government guarantees, hair of the dog, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Judge Loretta Preska, Larry Summers, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, Michael Hudson, money printing, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Nassim Taleb, neoclassical economics, New York Stock Exchange, News, Niall Ferguson, no more trickle down economics, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, one trillion dollars, Opinion, Pat Buchanan, Pat Choate, Peggy Noonan, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Read my lips No new taxes, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steve Keen, stock markets, stress tests, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Bank of New York Mellon, the banks, The Broken Promise, the center lane, The Clearing House, the economy, The Huffington Post, the money multiplier myth, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, UBS, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Wells Fargo, zombie banks

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Preparing For The Worst

Call Him The Dimon Dog

Avoiding The Kool-Aid

The Weakest Link

Watching For Storm Clouds

Offering Solutions

Bait And Switch

Pay More Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain

Kill The Whales

The Broken Promise

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com