huge financial institutions « TheCenterLane.com

Dumping On Alan Greenspan

March 22nd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 22 2010

Comments Off

March 22, 2010

On Friday, March 19, former Federal Reserve chair, Alan Greenspan appeared before the Brookings Institution to present his 48-page paper entitled, “The Crisis”. The obvious subject of the paper concerned the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. With this document, Greenspan attempted to add his own spin to history, for the sake of restoring his tattered public image. The man once known as “The Maestro” had fallen into the orchestra pit and was struggling to preserve his prestige. After the release of his paper on Friday, there has been no shortage of criticism, despite Greenspan’s “enlightened” change of attitude concerning bank regulation. Greenspan’s refusal to admit the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy had anything to do with causing the crisis has placed him directly in the crosshairs of more than a few critics.

Sewell Chan of The New York Times provided this summary of Greenspan’s paper:

Mr. Greenspan, who has long argued that the market is often a more effective regulator than the government, has now adopted a more expansive view of the proper role of the state.

He argues that regulators should enforce collateral and capital requirements, limit or ban certain kinds of concentrated bank lending, and even compel financial companies to develop “living wills” that specify how they are to be liquidated in an orderly way.

* * *

. . . Mr. Greenspan warned that “megabanks” formed through mergers created the potential for “unusually large systemic risks” should they fail.

Mr. Greenspan added: “Regrettably, we did little to address the problem.”

That is as close as Greenspan came to admitting that the Federal Reserve had a role in helping to cause the financial crisis. Nevertheless, these magic words from page 39 of “The Crisis” are what got everybody jumping:

To my knowledge, that lowering of the federal funds rate nearly a decade ago was not considered a key factor in the housing bubble.

The best retort to this denial of reality came from Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation. His essay entitled, “Explaining the Impact of Ultra-Low Rates to Greenspan” is a must read. Here’s how Ritholtz concluded the piece:

The lack of regulatory enforcement was a huge factor in allowing the credit bubble to inflate, and set the stage for the entire credit crisis. But it was intricately interwoven with the ultra low rates Alan Greenspan set as Fed Chair.

So while he is correct in pointing out that his own failures as a bank regulator are in part to blame, he needs to also recognize that his failures in setting monetary policy was also a major factor.

In other words, his incompetence as a regulator made his incompetence as a central banker even worse.

Paul La Monica wrote an interesting post for CNN Money’s The Buzz blog entitled, “Greenspan and Bernanke still don’t get it”. He was similarly unimpressed with Greenspan’s denial that Fed monetary policy helped cause the crisis:

This argument is getting tiresome. Keeping rates so low helped inflate the bubble.

* * *

“The Fed wasn’t the sole culprit. But if not for an artificially steep yield curve, we probably would not have had a global financial crisis,” said John Norris, managing director of wealth management with Oakworth Capital Bank in Birmingham, Ala.

“Greenspan and Bernanke are missing the point. It all stems from monetary policy,” Norris added. “If you give bankers an inducement to lend more than they ordinarily would they are going to do so.”

From across the pond, Stephen Foley wrote a great article for The Independent entitled, “For the wrong answers, turn to Greenspan”. He began the piece this way:

The former US Federal Reserve chairman, the wizened wiseman of laissez-faire economics, shocked us all — and probably himself — when he told a congressional panel in 2008 that he had found “a flaw in the model I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak”. He meant that he had realised banks cannot be trusted to manage their own risks, and that markets do not smoothly self-correct.

But instead of taking that revelation and helping to point the way to a new, post-crisis financial world, he has shuddered to an intellectual halt. It is the same intellectual stop sign that Wall Street’s bankers are at. The failure to move forward is regrettable, dangerous and more than a little self-serving.

These reactions to Greenspan’s paper are surely just the beginning of an overwhelming backlash. The Economist has already weighed in and before too long, we might even see a movie documenting the Fed’s responsibility for helping to cause The Great Recession.

Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, artificially steep yield curve, asset bubble, Bailout Nation, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, Ben Bernanke, blog, Brookings Institution, capital requirements, centrist, CNN Money, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dumping On Alan Greenspan, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, Explaining the Impact of Ultra-Low Rates to Greenspan, Fed monetary policy, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve monetary policy, financial crisis, financial meltdown, For the wrong answers turn to Greenspan, government guarantees, Greenspan and Bernanke still dont get it, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John Norris, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lowering of the federal funds rate, megabanks, money printing, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Oakworth Capital Bank, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Paul La Monica, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, securities, Sewell Chan, socialized loss and privatized gain, Stephen Foley, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, The Buzz, the center lane, The Crisis, The Economist, the economy, The Great Recession, The Independent, The Maestro, The New York Times, 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, unusually large systemic risks, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Everyone Knew About Lehman Brothers

March 19th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 19 2010

Comments Off

March 19, 2010

A March 18 report by Henny Sender at the Financial Times revealed that former officials from Merrill Lynch had contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the Federal Reserve of New York to complain that Lehman Brothers had been incorrectly calculating a key measure of its financial health. The regulators received this warning several months before Lehman filed for bankruptcy in September of 2008. Apparently Lehman’s reports of robust financial health were making Merrill look bad:

Former Merrill Lynch officials said they contacted regulators about the way Lehman measured its liquidity position for competitive reasons. The Merrill officials said they were coming under pressure from their trading partners and investors, who feared that Merrill was less liquid than Lehman.

*   *   *

In the account given by the Merrill officials, the SEC, the lead regulator, and the New York Federal Reserve were given warnings about Lehman’s balance sheet calculations as far back as March 2008.

*   *   *

The former Merrill officials said they contacted the regulators after Lehman released an estimate of its liquidity position in the first quarter of 2008. Lehman touted its results to its counterparties and its investors as proof that it was sounder than some of its rivals, including Merrill, these people said.

*   *   *

“We started getting calls from our counterparties and investors in our debt. Since we didn’t believe the Lehman numbers and thought their calculations were aggressive, we called the regulators,” says one former Merrill banker, now at another big bank.

Could the people at Merrill Lynch have expected the New York Fed to intervene and prevent the accounting chicanery at Lehman? After all, Lehman’s CEO, Richard Fuld, was also a class B director of the New York Fed. Would any FRBNY investigator really want to make trouble for one of the directors of his or her employer? This type of conflict of interest is endemic to the self-regulatory milieu presided over by the Federal Reserve. When people talk about protecting “Fed independence”, I guess this is what they mean.

The Financial Times report inspired Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism to emphasize that the New York Fed’s failure to do its job, having been given this additional information from Merrill officials, underscores the ineptitude of the New York Fed’s president at the time — Tim Geithner:

The fact that Merrill, with a little digging, could see that Lehman’s assertions about its financial health were bogus says other firms were likely to figure it out sooner rather than later. That in turn meant that the Lehman was extremely vulnerable to a run. Bear was brought down in a mere ten days. Having just been through the Bear implosion, the warning should have put the authorities in emergency preparedness overdrive. Instead, they went into “Mission Accomplished” mode.

This Financial Times story provides yet more confirmation that Geithner is not fit to serve as a regulator and should resign as Treasury Secretary. But it may take Congress forcing a release of the Lehman-related e-mails and other correspondence by the New York Fed to bring about that outcome.

Those “Lehman-related e-mails” should be really interesting. If Richard Fuld was a party to any of those, it will be interesting to note whether his e-mail address was “@LehmanBros”, “@FRBNY” or both.

The Lehman scandal has come to light at precisely the time when Ben Bernanke is struggling to maintain as much power for the Federal Reserve as he can — in addition to getting control over the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. One would think that Bernanke is pursuing a lost cause, given the circumstances and the timing. Nevertheless, as Jesse of Jesse’s Cafe Americain points out — Bernanke may win this fight:

The Fed is the last place that should receive additional power over the banking system, showing itself to be a bureaucracy incapable of exercising the kind of occasionally stern judgment, the tough love, that wayward bankers require. And the mere thought of putting Consumer Protection under their purview makes one’s skin crawl with fear and the gall of injustice.

They may get it, this more power, not because it is deserved, but because politicians themselves wish to have more power and money, and this is one way to obtain it.

The next time the financial system crashes, the torches and pitchforks will come out of the barns and there will be a serious reform, and some tar and feathering in congressional committees, and a few virtual lynchings. The damage to the people of the middle class will be an American tragedy. But this too shall pass.

It’s beginning to appear as though it really will require another financial crisis before our graft-hungry politicians will make any serious effort at financial reform. If economist Randall Wray is correct, that day may be coming sooner than most people expect:

Another financial crisis is nearly certain to hit in coming months — probably before summer. The belief that together Geithner and Bernanke have resolved the crisis and that they have put the economy on a path to recovery will be exposed as wishful thinking.

Although that may sound a bit scary, we have to look at the bright side: at least we will finally be on a path toward serious financial reform.

accounting fraud, accounting tricks, American capitalism, another financial crisis, Anton Valukas, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bear Stearns, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, collapse of Bear Stearns, collapse of Lehman Brothers, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Everyone Knew About Lehman Brothers, Fed independence, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Reserve of New York, Federal Reserve transparency, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Times, FRBNY, Fuld as director of New York Fed, government guarantees, Henny Sender, huge financial institutions, inflated asset values, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jesses Cafe Americain, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, lack of oversight, Lehman Brothers scandal, liberal, lobbyists, Merrill Lynch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, New York Fed, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Randall Wray, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Richard Fuld, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-regulation, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, too-big-to-fail financial institutions, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Valukas report, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Deceptive Oversight

March 17th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 17 2010

Comments Off

March 17, 2010

March 16 brought us a few more provocative essays about the Lehman Brothers scandal. The most prominent subject discussed in the reactions to the Valukas Report has been the complete lack of oversight by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — the entity with investigators in place inside of Lehman Brothers after the collapse of Bear Stearns. The FRBNY had the perfect vantage point to conduct effective oversight of Lehman. Not only did the FRBNY fail to do so — it actually helped Lehman maintain a false image of being financially solvent. It is important to keep in mind that Lehman CEO Richard Fuld was a class B director of the FRBNY during this period. Does that sound like a conflict of interest to anyone besides me? The Securities and Exchange Commission (under the direction of Christopher Cox at the time) has become another subject of scrutiny for its own dubious semblance of oversight.

Eliot Spitzer and William Black (a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City) recently posted a great article at the New Deal 2.0 website. Among the memorable points from that piece is the assertion that accounting is “the weapon of choice” for financial deception. The Valukas Report has exposed such extensive accounting fraud at Lehman, it will be impossible for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to feign ignorance of that activity. Another memorable aspect of the Spitzer – Black piece is its reference to those “too big to fail” financial institutions as “SDIs” or systemically dangerous institutions. Here is some of what Spitzer and Black had to say about how the FRBNY became enmeshed in Lehman’s sleazy accounting tactics:

The FRBNY knew that Lehman was engaged in smoke and mirrors designed to overstate its liquidity and, therefore, was unwilling to lend as much money to Lehman. The FRBNY did not, however, inform the SEC, the public, or the OTS (which regulated an S&L that Lehman owned) of what should have been viewed by all as ongoing misrepresentations.

The Fed’s behavior made it clear that officials didn’t believe they needed to do more with this information. The FRBNY remained willing to lend to an institution with misleading accounting and neither remedied the accounting nor notified other regulators who may have had the opportunity to do so.

* * *

The FRBNY acted shamefully in covering up Lehman’s inflated asset values and liquidity.

The consequences of the New York Fed’s involvement in this scam were discussed in an article by Andrew Ross Sorkin from the March 16 edition of The New York Times. (You may recall that Andrew Ross Sorkin is the author of the book, Too Big To Fail.) He pointed out that the consequences of the Lehman scandal could be very far-reaching:

Indeed, it now appears that the federal government itself either didn’t appreciate the significance of what it saw (we’ve seen that movie before with regulators waving off tips about Bernard L. Madoff). Or perhaps they did appreciate the significance and blessed the now-suspect accounting anyway.

* * *

There’s a lot riding on the government’s oversight of these accounting shenanigans. If Lehman Brothers executives are sued civilly or prosecuted criminally, they may actually have a powerful defense: a raft of government officials from the S.E.C. and Fed vetted virtually everything they did.

On top of that, Lehman’s outside auditor, Ernst &Young, and a law firm, Linklaters, signed off on the transactions.

The problems at Lehman raise even larger questions about the vigilance of the SEC and Fed in overseeing the other Wall Street banks as well.

The question as to whether similar accounting tricks were being performed at “other Wall Street banks as well” opens a very huge can of worms. It’s time for the government to step back and assess the larger picture of what the systemic problem really is. In a speech before the Senate, Delaware Senator Ted Kaufman emphasized that the government needs to return the rule of law to Wall Street:

We all understood that to restore the public’s faith in our financial markets and the rule of law, we must identify, prosecute, and send to prison the participants in those markets who broke the law. Their fraudulent conduct has severely damaged our economy, caused devastating and sustained harm to countless hard-working Americans, and contributed to the widespread view that Wall Street does not play by the same rules as Main Street.

* * *

Many have said we should not seek to “punish” anyone, as all of Wall Street was in a delirium of profit-making and almost no one foresaw the sub-prime crisis caused by the dramatic decline in housing values. But this is not about retribution. This is about addressing the continuum of behavior that took place — some of it fraudulent and illegal — and in the process addressing what Wall Street and the legal and regulatory system underlying its behavior have become.

As part of that effort, we must ensure that the legal system tackles financial crimes with the same gravity as other crimes.

The nagging suspicion that those nefarious activities at Lehman Brothers could be taking place “at other banks as well” became a key point in Senator Kaufman’s speech:

Mr. President, I’m concerned that the revelations about Lehman Brothers are just the tip of the iceberg. We have no reason to believe that the conduct detailed last week is somehow isolated or unique. Indeed, this sort of behavior is hardly novel. Enron engaged in similar deceit with some of its assets. And while we don’t have the benefit of an examiner’s report for other firms with a business model like Lehman’s, law enforcement authorities should be well on their way in conducting investigations of whether others used similar “accounting gimmicks” to hide dangerous risk from investors and the public.

We can only hope that a continued investigation into the Lehman scandal will result in a very bright light directed on those privileged plutocrats who consider themselves above the law.

accounting fraud, accounting tricks, American capitalism, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Anton Valukas, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Bear Stearns, blog, centrist, Christopher Cox, collapse of Bear Stearns, collapse of Lehman Brothers, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Deceptive Oversight, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Eliot Spitzer, Ernst & Young, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Reserve of New York, Federal Reserve transparency, financial crisis, financial meltdown, FRBNY, Fuld as director of New York Fed, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, inflated asset values, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, lack of oversight, Lehman Brothers scandal, liberal, Linklaters, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New Deal 2 0, New York Fed, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, privileged plutocrats, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Richard Fuld, SDI, SEC scandals, securities, Senator Ted Kaufman, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, Systemically Dangerous Institutions, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, too-big-to-fail financial institutions, toxic assets, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Valukas report, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Black, zombie banks

The Lehman Fallout

March 16th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 16 2010

Comments Off

March 16, 2010

Everyone is speculating about what will happen next. The shock waves resulting from the release of the report by bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas, pinpointing the causes of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, have left the blogosphere’s commentators with plenty to discuss. Unfortunately, the mainstream media isn’t giving this story very much traction. On March 15, the Columbia Journalism Review published an essay by Ryan Chittum, decrying the lack of mainstream media attention given to the Lehman scandal. Here is some of what he said:

Look, I know that Lehman collapsed a year and a half ago, but this is a major story — one that finally gets awfully close to putting the crimes in the crisis. I’ll go ahead and say it: If you’ve wanted to know about the Valukas report and its implications, you’ve been better served by reading Zero Hedge and Naked Capitalism than you have The Wall Street Journal or New York Times. This on the biggest financial news story of the week — and one of the biggest of the year. These papers have hundreds of journalists at their disposal. The blogs have one non-professional writer and a handful of sometime non-pro-journalist contributors.

I’m hardly the only one who has noticed this. James Kwak of Baseline Scenario wrote this earlier today:

Overall, I’m surprised by how little interest the report has gotten in the media, given its depth and the surprising nature of some of its findings.

At the Zero Hedge website, Tyler Durden reacted to the Columbia Journalism Review piece this way:

Only a few days have passed since its release, and already the Mainstream Media has forgotten all about the Lehman Examiner Report, with barely an occasional mention. As the CJR points out, this unquestionably massive story of corruption and vice, is being covered up by powered interests controlling all the major news outlets, because just like in the Galleon case, the stench goes not only to the top, (in this case the NewYork Fed and the SEC), but very likely to various corporations that have vested interests in the conglomerates controlling America’s key media organizations.

One probable reason why the Lehman story is being buried is because its timing dovetails so well with the unveiling of Senator “Countrywide Chris” Dodd’s financial reform plan. The fact that Dodd’s plan includes the inane idea of expanding the powers of the Federal Reserve was not to be ignored by John Carney of The Business Insider website:

Why do we think these are such bad ideas? At the most basic level, it’s hard to see how the expansion of the scope of the Federal Reserve’s authority to cover any large financial institution makes sense. The Federal Reserve was not able to prevent disaster at the firms it was already charged with overseeing. What reason is there to think it will do a better job at regulating a wider universe of firms?

More concretely, the Federal Reserve had regulators in place inside of Lehman Brothers following the collapse of Bear Stearns. These in-house regulators did not realize that Lehman’s management was rebuking market demands for reduced risk and covering up its rebuke with accounting sleight-of-hand. When Lehman actually came looking for a bailout, officials were reportedly surprised at how bad things were at the firm. A similar situation unfolded at Merrill Lynch. The regulators proved inadequate to the task.

Just think: It was only one week ago when we were reading those fawning, sycophantic stories in The New Yorker and The Atlantic about what a great guy “Turbo” Tim Geithner is. This week brought us a great essay by Professor Randall Wray, which raised the question of whether Geithner helped Lehman hide its accounting tricks. Beyond that, Professor Wray emphasized how this scandal underscores the need for Federal Reserve transparency, which has been so ardently resisted by Ben Bernanke. (Remember the lawsuit by the late Mark Pittman of Bloomberg News?) Among the great points made by Professor Wray were these:

Not only did the NY Fed fail to blow the whistle on flagrant accounting tricks, it also helped to hide Lehman’s illiquid assets on the Fed’s balance sheet to make its position look better. Note that the NY Fed had increased its supervision to the point that it was going over Lehman’s books daily; further, it continued to take trash off the books of Lehman right up to the bitter end, helping to perpetuate the fraud that was designed to maintain the pretense that Lehman was not massively insolvent. (see here)

Geithner told Congress that he has never been a regulator. (see here) That is a quite honest assessment of his job performance, although it is completely inaccurate as a description of his duties as President of the NY Fed.

* * *

More generally, this revelation drives home three related points. First, the scandal is on-going and it is huge. President Obama must hold Geithner accountable. He must determine what did Geithner know, and when did he know it. All internal documents and emails related to the AIG bailout and the attempt to keep Lehman afloat need to be released. Further, Obama must ask what has Geithner done to favor his clients on Wall Street? It now looks like even the Fed BOG, not just the NY Fed, is involved in the cover-up. It is in the interest of the Obama administration to come clean. It is hard to believe that it does not already have sufficient cause to fire Geithner. In terms of dollar costs to the government, this is surely the biggest scandal in US history. In terms of sheer sleaze does it rank with Watergate? I suppose that depends on whether you believe that political hit lists and spying that had no real impact on the outcome of an election is as bad as a wholesale handing-over of government and the economy to Wall Street.

It remains to be seen whether anyone in the mainstream media will be hitting this story so hard. One possible reason for the lack of significant coverage may exist in this disturbing point at the conclusion of Wray’s piece:

Of greater importance is the recognition that all of the big banks are probably insolvent. Another financial crisis is nearly certain to hit in coming months — probably before summer. The belief that together Geithner and Bernanke have resolved the crisis and that they have put the economy on a path to recovery will be exposed as wishful thinking.

Oh, boy! Not good! Not good at all! We’d better change the subject to March Madness, American Idol or Rielle Hunter! Anything but this!

accounting tricks, American capitalism, Anton Valukas, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Baseline Scenario, Bear Stearns, blog, Bloomberg news, centrist, collapse of Lehman Brothers, Columbia Journalism Review, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Countrywide Chris Dodd, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dodd financial reform plan, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve of New York, Federal Reserve transparency, financial crisis, financial meltdown, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Kwak, John Burke, John Carney, John T Burke Jr, lawsuit by Mark Pittman, liberal, mainstream media, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, New York Fed, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Randall Wray, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Ryan Chittum, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Atlantic, The Business Insider, the center lane, the economy, The Lehman Fallout, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, Tyler Durden, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Zero Hedge, zombie banks

More Damned Lies Than You Can Count

March 15th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 15 2010

Comments Off

March 15, 2010

Thanks to the great work of Anton Valukas, as court-appointed bankruptcy examiner investigating the collapse of Lehman Brothers, people are finally beginning to realize how significant a role fraud plays on Wall Street. It turned out that the Enron scandal wasn’t the once-in-a-lifetime event people thought it was. Accounting fraud occurs on a regular basis, as does fraudulent stock price manipulation. The 2200-page report prepared by Valukas and his team at Jenner & Block has everyone talking. It’s about time.

Other lies are getting more exposure as well. President Obama justified the bank bailouts with the rationale that giving the money to the banks creates a “money multiplier” effect because banks can loan out 8-10 dollars for every bailout dollar they get, giving the economy more bang for the bailout buck. As I pointed out on September 21, 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 helped cause 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:

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.

Now that Australia’s economy is beginning to recover, they have already found it necessary to begin raising interest rates. As I pointed out last September:

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.

Michael Shedlock (“Mish”) recently referred to Professor Keen’s debunking of the money multiplier myth in a fantastic essay:

However, conventional wisdom regarding the money multiplier is wrong. Australian economist Steve Keen notes that in a debt based society, expansion of credit comes first and reserves come later.

Indeed, this is easy to conceptualize: Banks lent more than they should have, and those loans are going bad at a phenomenal rate. In response, the Fed has engaged in a huge swap-o-rama party with various banks (swapping treasuries for collateral of dubious value) in addition to turning on the printing presses.

This was done so that banks would remain “well capitalized”. The reality is those excess reserves are a mirage. Banks need those reserves for credit losses coming down the pike, as unemployment rises, foreclosures mount, and credit card defaults soar.

Banks are not well capitalized, they are insolvent, unwilling and unable to lend.

Blogger George Washington recently wrote an extensive, thought-provoking piece about public banking and other potential alternatives to resolve the economic crisis, which appeared at the Naked Capitalism website. The essay began with a discussion of Steve Keen’s work in exposing the “money multiplier” as a sham.

Speaking of shams, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently wrote a great essay entitled, “The Sham Recovery”. Reich has exposed the propagandists touting the imaginary economic recovery in his unique, clear style:

Business cheerleaders naturally want to emphasize the positive. They assume the economy runs on optimism and that if average consumers think the economy is getting better, they’ll empty their wallets more readily and — presto! — the economy will get better. The cheerleaders fail to understand that regardless of how people feel, they won’t spend if they don’t have the money.

It’s always nice when a big lie gets exposed. It’s even better that we are now learning that the true cause of the financial crisis was plain, old sleaze.

accounting fraud, American capitalism, Anton Valukas, Australia, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Blogger George Washington, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Enron scandal, equities markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, fraud, fraudulent stock price manipulation, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jenner and Block, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Lehman Brothers, liberal, lobbyists, Michael Shedlock, Mish, money multiplier, money multiplier myth, moral hazard, More Damned Lies Than You Can Count, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, neoclassical economics, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, private debt, proprietary trading, public banking, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Reich, securities, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steve Keen, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, the Great Depression, The Sham Recovery, 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, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Head For The Hills

March 12th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 12 2010

Comments Off

March 12, 2010

When a stranger in a tinfoil hat tells me that the sky is falling, I don’t pay attention to him. On the other hand, when credible sources warn of an upcoming economic collapse as a result of our government’s financial ignorance — I listen.

Simon Johnson is a professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. From 2007-2008, he was chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. He recently co-authored an article for CenterPiece with Peter Boone entitled, “The Doomsday Cycle”. Their essay began with this observation:

Each time the system runs into problems, the Federal Reserve quickly lowers interest rates to revive it. These crises appear to be getting worse and worse — and their impact is increasingly global. Not only are interest rates near zero around the world, but many countries are on fiscal trajectories that require major changes to avoid eventual financial collapse.

What will happen when the next shock hits? We believe we may be nearing the stage where the answer will be — just as it was in the Great Depression — a calamitous global collapse. The root problem is that we have let a “doomsday cycle” infiltrate our economic system . . .

The essay contains a number of proposals for correcting this problem. One of them involves tripling the requirement for core capital at major banks to 15-20% of assets. They concluded with this warning:

Last year, we came remarkably close to collapse. Next time, it may be worse. The threat of the doomsday cycle remains strong and growing.

Of course, the fact that scares me is that our government doesn’t give a damn. We aren’t likely to see any changes in capital requirements or anything else that was suggested in that article.

Niall Ferguson is a professor of economic history at Harvard. He recently wrote an article entitled, “Complexity and Collapse — Empires on the Edge of Chaos”. It was published in the March/April 2010 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. The piece began with this summary:

Imperial collapse may come much more suddenly than many historians imagine. A combination of fiscal deficits and military overstretch suggests that the United States may be the next empire on the precipice.

Niall Ferguson’s essay inspired Paul Farrell of MarketWatch to write a commentary on Ferguson’s piece, summarizing the highlights, while driving home this message:

Dismiss his warning at your peril. Everything you learned, everything you believe and everything driving our political leaders is based on a misleading, outdated theory of history. The American Empire is at the edge of a dangerous precipice, at risk of a sudden, rapid collapse.

* * *

His message negates all the happy talk you’re hearing in today’s news — about economic recovery and new bull markets, about “hope,” about a return to “American greatness” — from Washington politicians and Wall Street bankers.

* * *

“The Consummation of Empire” focuses us on Ferguson’s core message: At the very peak of their power, affluence and glory, leaders arise, run amok with imperial visions and sabotage themselves, their people and their nation. They have it all.

Fortunately, Mr. Farrell included some advice for those of us who are wondering about how to survive an economic collapse: Head for the hills. Here’s what he had to say:

At this point, investors are asking themselves: How can I prepare for the destruction and collapse of the American Empire? There is no solution in the Cole-Ferguson scenario, only an acceptance of fate, of destiny, of history’s inevitable cycles.

But there is one in “Wealth, War and Wisdom” by hedge fund manager Barton Biggs, Morgan Stanley’s former chief global strategist who warns us of the “possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure,” advising us to buy a farm in the mountains.

“Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food … well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson.” And when they come looting, fire “a few rounds over the approaching brigands’ heads.”

A reading of Paul Farrell’s article about Barton Biggs from July of 2009, reveals a more comfortable assessment of a crisis which may be 40 or 50 years in the future. Professor Ferguson’s essay has apparently given Mr. Farrell a greater sense of urgency about the disaster ahead. Here’s the assessment Mr. Farrell gave last summer:

But how to invest for the “End of Civilization” coming around 2050? The next 40 years will be confusing: Accelerating struggles between aging populations and disenchanted youth, soaring commodity prices, global warming, peak oil, food shortages, famine, blackouts, rationing, civil disorder, increasing crime, worldwide jihads, riots, anarchy and other dark scenarios of a tomorrow with “warfare defining human life.”

Compare and contrast that view with the concluding remark from Mr. Farrell’s recent piece:

You are forewarned: If the peak of America’s glory was the leadership handoff from Clinton to Bush, then we have already triggered the countdown to collapse, the decade from 2010 until 2020 … tick … tick … tick …

You have just read the views of some intelligent men who are warning us that a huge disaster may lie just around the corner. Yikes!

American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Barton Biggs, blog, breakdown of the civilized infrastructure, CenterPiece, centrist, Commentary, Complexity and Collapse -- Empires on the Edge of Chaos, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, financial collapse, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Foreign Affairs magazine, government guarantees, Harvard, Head For The Hills, huge financial institutions, IMF, imperial collapse, insolvent banks, International Monetary Fund, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, moral hazard, Morgan Stanley, mortgage-backed securities, News, Niall Ferguson, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Farrell, Peter Boone, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, safe haven, Simon Johnson, Sloan School of Management, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, Swiss Family Robinson, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, The Consummation of Empire, The doomsday cycle, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, upcoming economic collapse, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, Wealth War and Wisdom, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Elizabeth Warren To The Rescue

March 4th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 04 2010

Comments Off

March 4, 2010

We reached the point where serious financial reform began to look like a lost cause. Nothing has been done to address the problems that caused the financial crisis. Economists have been warning that we could be facing another financial crisis, requiring another round of bank bailouts. The watered-down financial reform bill passed by the House of Representatives, HR 4173, is about to become completely defanged by the Senate.

The most hotly-contested aspect of the proposed financial reform bill — the establishment of an independent, stand-alone, Consumer Financial Protection Agency — is now in the hands of “Countrywide Chris” Dodd, who is being forced into retirement because the people of Connecticut are fed up with him. As a result, this is his last chance to get some more “perks” from his position as Senate Banking Committee chairman. Back on January 18, Elizabeth Warren (Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel and the person likely to be appointed to head the CFPA) explained to Reuters that banking lobbyists might succeed in “gutting” the proposed agency:

“The CFPA is the best indicator of whether Congress will reform Wall Street or whether it will continue to give Wall Street whatever it wants,” she told Reuters in an interview.

* * *

Consumer protection is relatively simple and could easily be fixed, she said. The statutes, for the most part, already exist, but enforcement is in the hands of the wrong people, such as the Federal Reserve, which does not consider it central to its main task of maintaining economic stability, she said.

The latest effort to sabotage the proposed CFPA involves placing it under the control of the Federal Reserve. As Craig Torres and Yalman Onaran explained for Bloomberg News:

Putting it inside the Fed, instead of creating a standalone bureau, was a compromise proposed by Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, and Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

* * *

Banking lobbyists say the Fed’s knowledge of the banking system makes it well-suited to coordinate rules on credit cards and other consumer financial products.

* * *

The financial-services industry has lobbied lawmakers to defeat the plan for a consumer agency. JP Morgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon called the agency “just a whole new bureaucracy” on a December conference call with analysts.

Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation, recently discussed the importance of having an independent CFPA:

Currently, there are several proposals floating around to change the basic concept of a consumer protection agency. For the most part, these proposals are meaningless, watered down foolishness, bordering on idiotic. Let the Fed do it? They were already charged with doing this, and under Greenspan, committed Nonfeasance — they failed to do their duty.

The Fed is the wrong agency for this.

In an interview with Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post, Congressman Barney Frank expressed a noteworthy reaction to the idea:

“It’s like making me the chief judge of the Miss America contest,” Frank said.

On Tuesday, March 2, Elizabeth Warren spent the day on the phone with reform advocates, members of Congress and administration officials, as she explained in an interview with Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington Post. The key point she stressed in that interview was the message: “Pass a strong bill or nothing at all.” It sounds as though she is afraid that the financial reform bill could suffer the same fate as the healthcare reform bill. That notion was reinforced by the following comments:

My first choice is a strong consumer agency . . . My second choice is no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.

* * *

“The lobbyists would like nothing better than for the story to be the [proposed] agency has died and everyone has given up,” Warren said. “The lobbyists’ closest friends in the Senate would like nothing better than passing an agency that has a good name but no real impact so they have something good to say to the voters — and something even better to say to the lobbyists.”

Congratulations, Professor Warren! At last, someone with some cajones is taking charge of this fight!

On Wednesday, March 3, the Associated Press reported that the Obama administration was getting involved in the financial reform negotiations, with Treasury Secretary Geithner leading the charge for an independent Consumer Financial Protection agency. I suspect that President Obama must have seen the “Ex-Presidents” sketch from the FunnyOrDie.com website, featuring the actors from Saturday Night Live portraying former Presidents (and ghosts of ex-Presidents) in a joint effort toward motivating Obama to make sure the CFPA becomes a reality. When Dan Aykroyd and Chevy Chase reunited, joining Dana Carvey, Will Ferrell and Darryl Hammond in promoting this cause, Obama could not have turned them down.

American capitalism, Associated Press, Bailout Nation, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Barry Ritholtz, Ben Bernanke, blog, Bloomberg news, centrist, CFPA, Chevy Chase, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Oversight Panel, conservative, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Countrywide Chris Dodd, Craig Torres, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Dan Aykroyd, Dana Carvey, Darryl Hammond, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren To The Rescue, equities markets, ex-presidents sketch, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, financial reform bill, Financial Stability Plan, FunnyOrDie website, government guarantees, healthcare reform bill, HR 4173, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jamie Dimon, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, legacy assets, liberal, lobbyists, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, one trillion dollars, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, presidential reunion sketch, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, revolving door, Ryan Grim, Saturday Night Live, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate Banking Committee, Senator Bob Corker, Shahien Nasiripour, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, 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 White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Will Ferrell, Yalman Onaran, zombie banks

A Wary Eye On The Indicators

March 1st, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 01 2010

Comments Off

March 1, 2010

The past few days brought us some observations by a number of financial commentators, who expressed concern about how our economic recovery is coming along. Although none of the following three are ready to start sounding alarms, they all seem to share a similar tone of discouragement.

Don Luskin of The Wall Street Journal ’s Smart Money blog began his February 26 piece with an explanation of how proud he used to be about the accuracy of his May, 2009 declaration that the recession had ended. Although he still believes that he made the right call back then, the most recent economic indicators have muddied the picture:

I made my recession end call in May because of an entirely different set of statistics, designed to be predictive rather than merely to recognize what has already happened. What worries me is that these statistics have all started to get a little worse recently.

Luskin explained that although initial unemployment claims reached their peak in early April, the four-week moving average has risen 7 percent from where it was a few weeks ago.

Over history, upticks like that have no predictive value. There have been many of them, and very few have led to recessions. Still, 7% is a big reversal. In May when I got excited about the drop in claims, that drop was only about 4%!

Luskin found another disappointing trend in the fact that earnings expectations for the S&P 500 are now growing at a much slower pace than they were in April. Two other trends concerned him as well. The fact that the dollar has rallied ten percent in the last couple of months raises the question whether “the fear that gripped world markets in 2008 and 2009” could be returning. Finally, the fact that the credit spread between Treasuries and “junk bonds” is now at six percent after having been below 5%, brings a little discomfort simply because of a move in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, Luskin is still optimistic, although his perspective is tempered with realism:

So is the economic recovery over? I don’t think so. I think it’s just being tested. None of the indicators I use to detect the onset of recession are giving signals. But it’s haunting, nevertheless. After the horrific global recession we went through, you’d think we ought to come roaring back. We’re back, but we’re not exactly roaring.

In Sunday’s Washington Post, Frank Ahrens wrote an article discussing three indicators that “spell trouble for the recovery”. Here’s how he explained them:

— On Wednesday, the Commerce Department reported that January new-home sales dropped 11.2 percent from December, plunging to their lowest level in nearly 50 years.

— On Tuesday, the Conference Board reported that February consumer confidence fell sharply from January, driven down by the survey’s “present situation index” — how confident consumers feel right now — which hit its lowest mark since the 1983 recession. On Friday, the Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey also showed a falloff from January to February.

— On Thursday, the government’s report on new jobless claims filed during the previous week shot up 22,000, which was exactly opposite of what economists predicted. Forecasters expected new jobless claims to drop by about 20,000.

Taken together, what do these reports tell us?

We’ve got a long way to go to get out of this economic mess, and we may be actually losing a little ground.

At the conclusion of that piece, Mr. Ahrens added that another factor holding back recovery is the current state of activity in the stock market. Investors seem to be exhibiting caution, uncertainty and “a hard-to-shake sense that we haven’t hit bottom yet”.

As I frequently point out, one of my favorite financial gurus is Jeremy Grantham of GMO. The February 26 issue of Bloomberg Business Week featured an article by Charles Stein concerning Grantham’s career. In the section of the piece discussing Grantham’s current outlook, we see yet another view toward a very lean, slow recovery process:

Grantham’s favorite asset class today is high-quality U.S.stocks, companies defined by high, stable returns and low debt. The allocation fund had 31 percent of its money in that category at year-end, sometimes called blue chips, according to the GMO Web site. In the interview, he said he expects such stocks to return an average of 6.8 percent a year over the next seven years, compared with 1.3 percent for all large-cap U.S. stocks.

Emerging-market stocks may rise about 4 percent annually in the next seven years, as investor enthusiasm for economic growth in developing countries carries the stocks to unsustainable levels, Grantham said.

“Why not go along for the ride?” he said. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index returned an average of 22 percent in the past seven years, compared with a gain of 5.5 percent by the S&P 500 index.

U.S.government bonds will return 1.1 percent a year over the seven-year period, according to the latest GMO forecast. The Bank of America Merrill Lynch U.S. Treasury Master Index rose 4.3 percent from 2003 through 2009.

Grantham said he expects a difficult, not disastrous, period for the economy and investments.

“It will feel like the 1970s,” he said. “One step forward, one step back.”

None of the three gentlemen whom I have quoted here are seeing visions of rainbows and unicorns in our economic future — at least not for the next few years. Be sure to keep the opinions of these experts in mind if the cheerleading by some perma-bull, TV pundit motivates you to “get in on the ground floor of the next stock market rally”. You could save yourself a lot of money and even more pain.

A Wary Eye On The Indicators, American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, Bloomberg Business Week, centrist, Charles Stein, Commentary, Commerce Department, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Conference Board, Congress, conservative, consumer confidence index, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Don Luskin, economic crisis, economic indicators, economic meltdown, economic recovery, economics, economists, end of the recession, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, foreclosures, Frank Ahrens, global recession, GMO, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jeremy Grantham, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, mortgage-backed securities, MSCI Emerging Markets Index, new home sales, new jobless claims, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, present situation index, President of the United States, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, Smart Money, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, the center lane, the economy, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, trouble for the recovery, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, zombie banks

Three New Books For March

February 24th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Feb, 24 2010

Comments Off

February 24, 2010

The month of March brings us three new books about the financial crisis. The authors are not out to make apologies for anyone. To the contrary, they point directly at the villains and expose the systemic flaws that were exploited by those who still may yet destroy the world economy. All three of these books are available at the Amazon widget on the sidebar at the left side of this page.

Regular fans of the Naked Capitalism blog have been following the progress of Yves Smith on her new book, ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism. It will be released on March 2. Here is some information about the book from the product description at the Amazon website:

ECONned is the first book to examine the unquestioned role of economists as policy-makers, and how they helped create an unmitigated economic disaster.

Here, Yves Smith looks at how economists in key policy positions put doctrine before hard evidence, ignoring the deteriorating conditions and rising dangers that eventually led them, and us, off the cliff and into financial meltdown. Intelligently written for the layman, Smith takes us on a terrifying investigation of the financial realm over the last twenty-five years of misrepresentations, naive interpretations of economic conditions, rationalizations of bad outcomes, and rejection of clear signs of growing instability.

In eConned (sic), author Yves Smith reveals:

–why the measures taken by the Obama Administration are mere palliatives and are unlikely to pave the way for a solid recovery

–how economists have come to play a profoundly anti-democratic role in policy

–how financial models and concepts that were discredited more than thirty years ago are still widely used by banks, regulators, and investors

–how management and employees of major financial firms looted them, enriching themselves and leaving the mess to taxpayers

–how financial regulation enabled predatory behavior by Wall Street towards investors

–how economics has no theory of financial systems, yet economists fearlessly prescribe how to manage them

Michael Lewis is the author of the wildly-popular book, Liar’s Poker, based on his experience as a bond trader for Solomon Brothers in the mid-80s. His new book, The BigShort: Inside the Doomsday Machine, will be released on March 15. Here is some of what Amazon’s product description says about it:

A brilliant account — character-rich and darkly humorous — of how the U.S. economy was driven over the cliff.

* * *

Michael Lewis’s splendid cast of characters includes villains, a few heroes, and a lot of people who look very, very foolish: high government officials, including the watchdogs; heads of major investment banks (some overlap here with previous category); perhaps even the face in your mirror. In this trenchant, raucous, irresistible narrative, Lewis writes of the goats and of the few who saw what the emperor was wearing, and gives them, most memorably, what they deserve. He proves yet again that he is the finest and funniest chronicler of our times.

Our third author, Simon Johnson, recently co-authored an article for CenterPiece with Peter Boone entitled, “The Doomsday Cycle” which explains how “we have let a ‘doomsday cycle’ infiltrate our economic system”. The essay contains a number of proposals for correcting this problem. Here is one of them:

We believe that the best route to creating a safer system is to have very large and robust capital requirements, which are legislated and difficult to circumvent or revise. If we triple core capital at major banks to15-25% of assets, and err on the side of requiring too much capital for derivatives and other complicated financial structures, we will create a much safer system with less scope for “gaming” the rules.

Simon Johnson is a professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. From 2007-2008, he was chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. With James Kwak, he is the co-publisher of The Baseline Scenario website. Johnson and Kwak have written a new book entitled, 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. Although this book won’t be released until March 30, the Amazon website has already quoted from reviews by the following people: Bill Bradley, Robert Reich, Arianna Huffington, Bill Moyers, Alan Grayson, Brad Miller, Elizabeth Warren and others. Professor Warren must be a Democrat, based on the affiliation of nearly everyone else who reviewed the book.

Here is some of what can be found in Amazon’s product description:

. . . a wide-ranging, meticulous, and bracing account of recent U.S. financial history within the context of previous showdowns between American democracy and Big Finance: from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson, from Theodore Roosevelt to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They convincingly show why our future is imperiled by the ideology of finance (finance is good, unregulated finance is better, unfettered finance run amok is best) and by Wall Street’s political control of government policy pertaining to it.

As these authors make the talk show circuit to promote their books during the coming weeks, the American public will hearing repeated pleas to demand that our elected officials take action to stop the mercenary financial behemoths from destroying the world. Perhaps the message will finally hit home.

If you are interested in any of these three books, they’re available on the right side of this page.

13 Bankers The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, Alan Grayson, Amazon books, Amazon website, American capitalism, Arianna Huffington, asset bubble, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bill Bradley, Bill Moyers, blog, Brad Miller, CenterPiece, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, ECONned, ECONned How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism, 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, Financial Stability Plan, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, IMF, insolvent banks, International Monetary Fund, investment banks, James Kwak, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Liar's Poker, liberal, lobbyists, Michael Lewis, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Peter Boone, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Robert Reich, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Simon Johnson, Sloan School of Management, socialized loss and privatized gain, Solomon Brothers, stock markets, stress tests, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Baseline Scenario, The Big Short Inside the Doomsday Machine, the center lane, The doomsday cycle, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Three New Books For March, 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, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Rethinking The Stimulus

February 22nd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Feb, 22 2010

Comments Off

February 22, 2010

On the anniversary of the stimulus law (a/k/a the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — Public Law 111-5) there has been quite a bit of debate concerning the number of jobs actually created by the stimulus as opposed to the claims made by Democratic politicians. For their part, the Democrats take pride in the fact that John Makin of the conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, recently published this statement at the AEI website:

Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S.growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

A few months ago, I had a discussion with an old friend and the subject of the stimulus came up. My beefs about the stimulus were that it did not offer the necessary degree of immediate relief and that a good chunk of it should have gone directly into the hands of the taxpayers.

I recently read a blog posting by Keith Hennessey, the former director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush, which expressed some opinions similar to my own on what the stimulus should have offered. Although Mr. Hennessey preferred the traditional panacea of tax cuts as the primary means for economic stimulus, he made a number of other important points. With so much fear being expressed about the possibility of a “double-dip” recession, our government could find itself in the uncomfortable position of considering another stimulus bill. If that day comes, we have all the more reason to look back at what was right and what was wrong with the 2009 stimulus.

Keith Hennessy began with this statement:

Unlike many critics of the stimulus law, I think that fiscal policy can increase short-term economic growth, especially when the economy is in a deep recession. In other words, I think that fiscal stimulus is a valid concept. This does not mean that I think that every increase in government spending, or every tax cut, (a) increases short-term economic growth or (b) is good policy.

At the end of his second paragraph, he got to the part that was music to my ears:

If the Administration had instead put $862 B directly into people’s hands, you would have seen more immediate spending and economic growth than we did, even if people had saved most of it.

In contrast, government spending is powerful but painfully slow. If the government spends $1 on building a road, eventually that entire $1 will enter the economy and increase GDP growth. Your bang-for-the-deficit-buck is extremely high. The problem is that bang-for-the-buck doesn’t help us if that bang occurs two or three or four years from now.

* * *

I would instead prefer that people be allowed to spend and save the money how they best see fit. My preferred path also has less waste and bureaucracy.

A bit later in the piece, Hennessey said some things that probably caused a good number of the CPAC conventioneers reach for the Tums:

I agree with the Administration that last year’s stimulus law increased economic growth above what it otherwise would have been. I agree that employment is higher than it would have been without a stimulus.

Of course, Hennessey complained that “The law was poorly designed and inefficient” — in part because the money was funneled through federal and state bureaucracies — another valid point. Then, he got to the important issue:

Given a decision last year to do a big fiscal stimulus, I would have preferred, in this order:

1. putting all the money into a permanent reduction in income and capital taxes;

2. putting all the money into a temporary reduction in income and capital taxes;

3. putting all the money into transfer payments;

4. what Congress and the President did.

Given the policy preferences of the President, his team’s big policy mistake last year was to let Congress turn a reasonable macroeconomic fiscal policy goal into a Congressional spending toga party. Given his policy preferences, the President should have insisted that Congress put all the money into (2) and (3) above. He would have had a bigger macro stimulus bang earlier.

In case you’re wondering what “transfer payments” are — you need to think in terms of “wealth transfer”. In this case, it concerns situations where the government gives away money to people who aren’t rich. A good example of this was the stimulus program that took place under President Bush. Individuals with incomes of less than $75,000 received a $300 “stimulus check” and households with joint incomes under $150,000 got $600.

My own stimulus idea would involve a “tax rebate” program, wherein the taxpayers receive a number of $50 vouchers based on the amount of income tax they paid the previous year. The recipients would then be instructed to go out and buy stuff with the vouchers. So what if they spent it on imported merchandise? The American retailers and shipping companies would still make money, finding it necessary to hire people. The vouchers would display the person’s name and address. In order to use the vouchers, identification would be needed, so as to prevent resale. The maximum amount of cash change one could get back from a voucher-funded purchase would be $10.

Hopefully, we won’t need another stimulus program. However, if we do, I suggest that the government simply give us vouchers and send us shopping.

2009 stimulus, American Enterprise Institute, another stimulus bill, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, Bush stimulus, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, conservative, CPAC conventioneers, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, double-dip recession, economic crisis, economic meltdown, Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, job creation, John Burke, John Makin, John T Burke Jr, Keith Hennessey, liberal, mortgage-backed securities, National Economic Council, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President George W Bush, President of the United States, Public Law 111-5, Republican, Republican Party, Rethinking The Stimulus, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, stimulus check, stimulus law, TARP, TARP bailout, tax cuts, tax rebate program, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, toxic assets, transfer payments, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, vouchers, Wall Street, wealth transfer, zombie banks

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Dumping On Alan Greenspan

Everyone Knew About Lehman Brothers

Deceptive Oversight

The Lehman Fallout

More Damned Lies Than You Can Count

Head For The Hills

Elizabeth Warren To The Rescue

A Wary Eye On The Indicators

Three New Books For March

Rethinking The Stimulus

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com