huge financial institutions « TheCenterLane.com

An Early Favorite For 2010

February 11th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Feb, 11 2010

Comments Off

February 11, 2010

It appears as though the runner-up for TheCenterLane.com’s 2009 Jackass of the Year Award is well on his way to winning the title for 2010. After reading an op-ed piece by Ross Douthat of The New York Times, I decided that as of December 31, 2009, it was too early to determine whether our new President was worthy of such a title.

Since Wednesday morning, we have been bombarded with reactions to a story from Bloomberg News, concerning an interview Obama had with Bloomberg BusinessWeek in the Oval Office. In case you haven’t seen it, here is the controversial passage from the beginning of that article:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”

Many commentators have expounded upon what this tells us about our President. I’d like to quote the reactions from a couple of my favorite bloggers. Here’s what Yves Smith had to say at Naked Capitalism:

There are only two, not mutually exclusive, conclusions one can reach from reading this tripe: that Obama is a lackey of the financiers, and putting the best spin he can on their looting, or he is a fool.

The salient fact is that, their protests to the contrary, the wealth of those at the apex of the money machine was not the result of the operation of “free markets” or any neutral system. The banking industry for the better part of two decades has fought hard to create a playing field skewed in their favor, with it permissible to sell complex products with hidden bad features to customers often incapable of understanding them. By contrast, one of the factors that needs to be in place for markets to produce desirable outcomes is for buyers and sellers to have the same information about the product and the objectives of the seller.

Similarly, the concentrated capital flows, often too-low interest rates, and asymmetrical Federal Reserve actions (cutting rates fast when markets look rocky, being very slow to raise rates and telegraphing that intent well in advance) that are the most visible manifestations of two decades of bank-favoring policies, are the equivalent of massive subsidies.

And that’s before we get to the elephant in the room, the massive subsidies to the banksters that took place during the crisis and continue today.

We have just been through the greatest looting of the public purse in history, and Obama tries to pass it off as meritocracy in action.

Obama is beyond redemption.

At his Credit Writedowns website, Edward Harrison made this observation:

The problem is not that we have free markets in America, but rather that we have bailouts and crony capitalism. So Americans actually do begrudge people this kind of monetary reward. It has been obvious to me that the bailouts are a large part of why Obama’s poll numbers have been sinking. It’s not just the economy here — so unless the President can demonstrate he understands this, he is unlikely to win back a very large number of voters who see this issue as central to their loss of confidence in Obama.

Is it just me or does this sound like Obama just doesn’t get it?

Victoria McGrane of Politico gave us a little background on Obama’s longstanding relationship with The Dimon Dog:

Dimon is seen as one of the Wall Street executives who enjoys the closest relationship with the president, along with Robert Wolf, head of the American division of Swiss bank UBS. A longtime Democratic donor, Dimon first met Obama in Chicago, where Dimon lived and worked from the late 1990s until 2007.

And both Dimon and Blankfein have met with the president several times. In their most recent meeting, Obama invited Dimon to Washington for lunch right before the State of the Union, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

Some commentators have expressed the view that Obama is making a transparent attempt to curry favor with the banking lobby in time to get those contributions flowing to Democratic candidates in the mid-term elections. Nevertheless, for Obama, this latest example of trying to please both sides of a debate will prove to be yet another “lose/lose” situation. As Victoria McGrane pointed out:

But relations between most Democrats and Wall Street donors aren’t as warm this cycle as the financial industry chafes against the harsh rhetoric and policy prescriptions lawmakers have aimed at them.

As for those members of the electorate who usually vote Democratic, you can rest assured that a large percentage will see this as yet another act of betrayal. They saw it happen with the healthcare reform debacle and they’re watching it happen again in the Senate, as the badly-compromised financial reform bill passed by the House (HR 4173) is being completely defanged. A bad showing by the Democrats on November 2, 2010 will surely be blamed on Obama.

As of February 11, we already have a “favorite” in contention for the 2010 Jackass of the Year Award. It’s time for the competition to step forward!

17 million dollar bonus awarded to Jamie Dimon, 2009 Jackass Of The Year Award, 2010 mid-term elections, 9 million dollar bonus issued to Lloyd Blankfein, American capitalism, An Early Favorite For 2010, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Bloomberg news, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Credit Writedowns, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economics, economists, Edward Harrison, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, HR 4173, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, loopholes in proposed financial reform legislation, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politico, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Ross Douthat, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Dimon Dog, the economy, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Victoria McGrane, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

The Battle Over Bernanke

January 25th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jan, 25 2010

Comments Off

January 25, 2010

Ben Bernanke’s four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve ends on January 31. There is presently no vote scheduled to confirm President Obama’s nomination of Bernanke to that post because four Senators (Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C. and David Vitter, R-La.) have placed holds on Bernanke’s nomination. In order for the Senate to proceed to a vote on the nomination, 60 votes will be required. At this point, there is a serious question as to whether the pro-Bernanke faction can produce those 60 votes. A number of commentators have described last week’s win by Scott Brown as a “chill factor” for those Senators considering whether to vote for confirmation. Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post put it this way:

Opposition to the reconfirmation of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is growing in the Senate in the wake of a Republican Scott Brown’s victory, fueled by populist rage, in the Massachusetts Senate race.

James Pethokoukis of Reuters explained the situation in these terms:

Liberals in Congress want him gone. Then again, they want pretty much the whole Obama economic team gone. But Geithner and Summers aren’t up for a Senate vote. Bernanke is. And if Dems start bailing, don’t expect Republicans to save him. No politician in America gains anything by voting for Bernanke. A “no” vote is a free vote. Wall Street still loves him, though. Geithner, too.

At The Hill, Tony Romm reported:

Bernanke has taken heat as Wall Street’s profits have soared while unemployment has become stuck in double digits, and the wave of economic populism soaring through Washington in the wake of a stunning Democratic loss in the Massachusetts Senate races comes at a bad time for his confirmation.

If Bernanke is not confirmed, he will continue to sit on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors because each Fed Governor is appointed to a 14-year term. Donald Kohn, the vice chairman, would serve as the interim chairman until Bernanke’s successor is nominated and confirmed.

The forces pushing for Bernanke’s confirmation have now resorted to scare tactics, warning that dire consequences will result from a failure to re-confirm Bernanke. Senator “Countrywide Chris” Dodd warned that if Bernanke is not confirmed, the economy will go into a “tailspin”. An Associated Press report, written by Jennine Aversa and carried by The Washington Post, warned that a failure to confirm Bernanke could raise the risk of a double-dip recession. At The Atlantic, Megan McArdle exploited widespread concern over already-depleted retirement savings:

Spiking his nomination may have grim effects on 401(k)s throughout the land.

Not to be outdone, Judge Richard Posner issued this warning from his perch at The Atlantic:

If he is not confirmed, the independence of the Fed will take a terrible hit, because the next nominee will have to make outright promises to Congress of bank bashing, and of keeping interest rates way down regardless of inflation risk, in order to be confirmed.

I guess that these people forgot to mention that if Bernanke is not confirmed:

A plague of locusts shall be visited upon us,

The earth will be struck by a Texas-sized asteroid,

An incurable venereal disease will be spread via toilet seats,

The Internet will vanish, and . . .

Osama bin Laden will become the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

At the Think Progress website, Matthew Yglesias pondered the issue:

What happens if Ben Bernanke isn’t reconfirmed? Well, some folks seem to think it will send markets into a tailspin. But it’s worth emphasizing that in literal terms almost nothing will happen.

Beyond that, as Sudeep Reddy and Damian Paletta explained in The Wall Street Journal:

The Federal Open Market Committee — which consists of the presidentially appointed Fed governors in Washington and the presidents of the regional Fed banks — meets Jan. 26-27 and traditionally elects a chairman and vice chairman at its first meeting of the year. The committee, which makes monetary policy decisions, is set to elect Mr. Bernanke as its chairman at that meeting, a move that doesn’t require approval of the White House or the Senate.

Min Zeng of The Wall Street Journal filled us in as to what else we can expect from the FOMC this week:

Next week, the two-day FOMC meeting will end Wednesday afternoon with a statement on an interest-rate decision and policymakers’ latest outlook on the economy and inflation.

The FOMC is widely expected by market participants to keep its main policy rate — the fed-funds target rate — at ultra-low levels near zero as recent data haven’t demonstrated a persistent and strong economic recovery, with a jobless rate still hovering around the highest level in more than two decades.

Fed policymakers are also likely to stick to their plan to end the $1.25 trillion mortgage-backed securities purchases program at the end of March. The central bank should also reiterate its plan to let some emergency lending programs expire Feb. 1.

The Fed could soon hike the rate it charges on emergency loans, known as the discount rate, but that would largely be symbolic now that banks have been borrowing less and less from it as financial markets stabilized.

Meanwhile, the battle against the Bernanke confirmation continues. Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish) has urged his readers to contact the “undecided” Senators and voice opposition to Bernanke. Mish has also provided the names and contact information for those Senators, as well as the names of those Senators who are currently on record as either supporting or opposing Bernanke.

I’d like to see Bernanke lose, regardless of the consequences. The rationale for this opinion was superbly articulated by Senator Jim Bunning during the confirmation hearing on December 3. If you’re not familiar with it — give it a read. Here is Senator Bunning’s conclusion to those remarks, delivered directly to Bernanke:

From monetary policy to regulation, consumer protection, transparency, and independence, your time as Fed Chairman has been a failure. You stated time and again during the housing bubble that there was no bubble. After the bubble burst, you repeatedly claimed the fallout would be small. And you clearly did not spot the systemic risks that you claim the Fed was supposed to be looking out for. Where I come from we punish failure, not reward it. That is certainly the way it was when I played baseball, and the way it is all across America. Judging by the current Treasury Secretary, some may think Washington does reward failure, but that should not be the case. I will do everything I can to stop your nomination and drag out the process as long as possible. We must put an end to your and the Fed’s failures, and there is no better time than now.

Amen.

American capitalism, Associated Press, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Bernanke confirmation hearing, Bernie Sanders, blog, centrist, chill factor, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Countrywide Chris, Countrywide Chris Dodd, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Damian Paletta, David Vitter, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, double-dip recession risk, economic crisis, economics, economists, Federal Open Market Committee, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial reform, FOMC, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Pethokoukis, Jennine Aversa, Jim Bunning, Jim DeMint, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Judge Richard Posner, liberal, Massachusetts senatorial race, Matt Yglesias, Megan McArdle, Mike Shedlock, Min Zeng, Mish, money printing, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Ryan Grim, Scott Brown, securities, Senator Jim Bunning, socialized loss and privatized gain, Sudeep Reddy, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Atlantic, the banks, The Battle Over Bernanke, the center lane, the economy, The Hill, The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, Think Progress, Tony Romm, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Lev Is The Drug

January 14th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jan, 14 2010

Comments Off

January 14, 2010

The first day of hearings conducted by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) was as entertaining as I expected. The stars of the show: Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, John Mack of Morgan Stanley, “The Dimon Dog” of JP Morgan Chase and Brian Moynihan from Bank of America presented themselves as likeable guys. However, in the case of Blankfein, whenever he wasn’t talking he would sit there with that squinting, perplexed look on his face that seemed to mime the question: “WTF?” A large segment of the viewing public has already been primed to view these gentlemen as “The Four Horsemen of The Financial Apocalypse”. Nevertheless, there were four more Horsemen absent from the “stage” on Wednesday: Messrs. Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner. Beyond that, Brian Moynihan didn’t really belong there, since he was not such a significant “player” as the other panel members, in events of 2008. In fact, history may yet view his predecessor, Ken Lewis, as more of a victim in this drama, due to the fact that he was apparently coerced by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke into buying Merrill Lynch with instructions to remain silent about Merrill’s shabby financial status. I would have preferred to see Vikram Pandit of Citigroup in that seat.

As I watched the show, I tried to imagine what actors would be cast to play which characters on the panel in a movie about the financial crisis. Mike Myers would be the obvious choice to portray Lloyd Blankfein. Myers could simply don his Dr. Evil regalia and it would be an easy gig. The Dimon Dog should be played by George Clooney because he came off as a “regular guy”, lacking the highly-polished, slick presentation one might expect from someone in that position. Brian Moynihan could be portrayed by Robin Williams, in one of his rare, serious roles. John Mack should be portrayed by Nicholas Cage, if only because Cage needs the money.

Although many reports have described their demeanor as “contrite”, the four members of the first panel gave largely self-serving presentations, characterizing their firms in the most favorable light. Blankfein emphasized that Goldman Sachs still believes in marking its assets to market. As expected, his theme of “if we knew then what we knew now . . .” got heavier rotation than a Donna Summer record at a party for Richard Simmons. John Mack, who was more candid and perhaps the most contrite panel member, made a point of mentioning that some assets cannot be “marked to market” because there really is no market for them. Excuse me . . . but isn’t that the definition of the term, “worthless”?

Throughout the session, the panel discussed the myriad causes that contributed to the onset of the financial crisis. Despite that, nobody seemed interested in implicating the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy as a factor. “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you” was the order of the day. All four panelists described the primary cause of the crisis as excessive leverage. They acted as a chorus, singing “Lev Is The Drug”. Lloyd Blankfein repeatedly expressed pride in the fact that Goldman Sachs has always been leveraged to “only” a 23-to-1 ratio. The Dimon Dog’s theme was something like: “We did everything right . . . except that we were overleveraged”. Dimon went on to make the specious claim that overleveraging by consumers was a contributing element in causing the crisis. Although many commentators whom I respect have made the same point, I just don’t buy it. Why blame people who were led to believe that their homes would continue to print money for them until they died? Dimon himself admitted at the hearing that no consideration was ever given to the possibility that home values would slump. Worse yet, for a producer or purveyor of the so-called “financial weapons of mass-destruction” to implicate overleveraged consumers as sharing a role in precipitating this mess is simply absurd.

The second panel from Wednesday’s hearing was equally, if not more entertaining. Michael Mayo of Calyon Securities seemed awfully proud of himself. After all, he did a great job on his opening statement and he knew it. Later on, he refocused his pride with an homage to his brother, who is currently serving in Iraq. Nevertheless, the star witness from the second panel was Kyle Bass of Hayman Advisors, who gave the most impressive performance of the day. Bass made a point of emphasizing (in so many words) that Lloyd Blankfein’s 23-to-1 leverage ratio was nearly 100 percent higher than what prudence should allow. If you choose to watch the testimony of just one witness from Wednesday’s hearing, make sure it’s Kyle Bass.

I didn’t bother to watch the third panel for much longer than a few minutes. The first two acts were tough to follow. Shortly into the opening statement by Mark Zandy of Moody’s, I decided that I had seen enough for the day. Besides, Thursday’s show would hold the promise of some excitement with the testimony of Sheila Bair of the FDIC. I wondered whether someone might ask her: “Any hints as to what banks are going to fail tomorrow?” On the other hand, I had been expecting the testimony of Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless to help cure me of the insomnia caused by too much Cuban coffee.

The Commissioners themselves have done great work with all of the witnesses. Phil Angelides has a great style, combining a pleasant affect with incisive questioning and good witness control. Doug Holtz-Eakin and Brooksley Born have been batting 1000. Heather Murren is more than a little easy on the eyes, bringing another element of “star quality” to the show.

Who knows? This commission could really end up making a difference in effectuating financial reform. They’re certainly headed in that direction.

AIG, Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, American International Group, Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless, bank bailout, Bank of America, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, Brooksley Born, Calyon Securities, centrist, Citigroup, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit crisis, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Doctor Evil, Donna Summer, Doug Holtz-Eakin, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, FCIC, FCIC hearings, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, financial reform, financial reform bill, Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, George Clooney, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, Hank Paulson, Hayman Advisors, Heather Murren, Henry Paulson, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jamie Dimon, John Burke, John Mack, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, Ken Lewis, Kyle Bass, Lev Is The Drug, liberal, liquidity crisis, Lloyd Blankfein, mark to market, Mark Zandy, Merrill Lynch, Michael Mayo, Mike Myers, Moodys, moral hazard, Morgan Stanley, mortgage-backed securities, New York Fed, New York Federal Reserve, News, Nicholas Cage, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Phil Angelides, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Richard Simmons, Robin Williams, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, Sheila Bair, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Dimon Dog, the economy, The Four Horsemen of The Financial Apocalypse, 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, Vikram Pandit, Wall Street, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

More Fun Hearings

January 11th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jan, 11 2010

Comments Off

January 11, 2010

In my last posting, I discussed the need for a 9/11-type of commission to investigate and provide an accounting of the Federal Reserve’s role in causing the financial crisis. A more broad-based inquiry into the causes of the financial crisis is being conducted by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, led by former California State Treasurer, Phil Angelides. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) was created by section 5 of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (or FERA) which was signed into law on May 20, 2009. The ten-member Commission has been modeled after the Pecora Commission of the early 1930s, which investigated the causes of the Great Depression, and ultimately provided a basis for reforms of Wall Street and the banking industry. Like the Pecora Commission, the FCIC has subpoena power.

On Wednesday, January 13, the FCIC will hold its first public hearing which will include testimony from some interesting witnesses. The witnesses will appear in panels, with three panels being heard on Wednesday and two more panels appearing on Thursday. The witness list and schedule appear at The Huffington Post website. Wednesday’s first panel is comprised of the following financial institution CEOs: Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs (who unknowingly appeared as Dr. Evil on several humorous, internet-based Christmas cards), Jamie Dimon (a/k/a “The Dimon Dog”) of JP Morgan Chase, John Mack of Morgan Stanley and Brian Moynihan of Bank of America. Curiously, Vikram Pandit of Citigroup was not invited.

Frank Rich of The New York Times spoke highly of FCIC chairman Phil Angelides in his most recent column. Nevertheless, as Mr. Rich pointed out, given the fact that the banking lobby has so much influence over both political parties, there is a serious question as to whether the FCIC will have as much impact on banking reform as did the Pecora Commission:

Though bad history shows every sign of repeating itself on Wall Street, it will take a near-miracle for Angelides to repeat Pecora’s triumph. Our zoo of financial skullduggery is far more complex, with many more moving pieces, than that of the 1920s. The new inquiry does have subpoena power, but its entire budget, a mere $8 million, doesn’t even match the lobbying expenditures for just three banks (Citi, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America) in the first nine months of 2009. The firms under scrutiny can pay for as many lawyers as they need to stall between now and Dec. 15, deadline day for the commission’s report.

More daunting still is the inquiry’s duty to reach into high places in the public sector as well as the private. The mystery of exactly what happened as TARP fell into place in the fateful fall of 2008 thickens by the day — especially the behind-closed-door machinations surrounding the government rescue of A.I.G. and its counterparties.

A similar degree of skepticism was apparent in a recent article by Binyamin Appelbaum of The Washington Post. Mr. Appelbaum also made note of the fact that the relatively small, $8 million budget — for an investigation that has until December 15 to prepare its report — will likely be much less than the amount spent by the banks under investigation. Appelbaum pointed out that FCIC vice chairman, William Thomas, a retired Republican congressman from California, felt that the commission would benefit from its instructions to focus on understanding the crisis rather than providing policy recommendations. Nevertheless, both Angelides and Thomas expressed concern about the December 15 deadline:

The tight timetable also makes it impossible to produce a comprehensive account of the crisis, both men said. Instead, the commission will focus its work on particular topics, perhaps producing a series of case studies, Angelides said.

* * *

Both Angelides and Thomas acknowledged that the commission is off to a slow start, having waited more than a year since the peak of the crisis to hold its first hearing. Thomas said that a lot of work already was happening behind the scenes and that the hearing next week could be compared to a rocket lifting off after a lengthy construction process.

Even as books and speeches about the crisis pile up, Thomas expressed confidence that the committee’s work could still make a difference.

“There are a lot of people who still haven’t learned the lessons,” he said.

One of those people who still has not learned his lesson is Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner, who is currently facing a chorus of calls for his resignation or firing. Economist Randall Wray, in a piece entitled, “Fire Geithner Now!” shared my sentiment that Turbo Tim is not the only one who needs to go:

There is a growing consensus that it is time for President Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. While he is at it, he needs to clean house by firing Larry Summers, by banning Robert Rubin from Washington, and by appointing a replacement for Chairman Bernanke. It is time for a fresh start.

Geithner is facing renewed scrutiny due to his questionable actions while at the NYFed. As reported on Bloomberg and in the NYT, secret emails show that the NYFed under Geithner’s command prohibited AIG from reporting that it was passing government bail-out funds directly to counterparties, including Goldman Sachs.

Beyond that, Professor Wray emphasized that Obama’s new economic team should be able to recognize the following four principles (which I have abbreviated):

1. Banks do not face a liquidity crisis, rather they are massively insolvent. Reported profits are due entirely to trading activities – which amount to nothing more than a game of Old Maid, with institutions selling bad assets to each other at inflated prices on a quid-pro-quo basis. As such, they need to be shut down and resolved. …

2. Saving financial institutions does not save the economy. …

3. As such, all of the bail-outs and guarantees provided to financial institutions (over $20 trillion) need to be unwound. Not because we cannot “afford” them but because they are dangerous. Unfortunately, Congress has come to see all of these trillions of dollars committed to Wall Street as a barrier to spending more on Main street. …

4. Finally, we need an economic team that understands government finance. The current team is hopelessly confused, led and misguided by Robert Rubin. …

At The Business Insider website, Henry Blodget gave a four-minute, video presentation, citing five reasons why Geithner should resign. The text version of this discussion appears at The Huffington Post. Nevertheless, at The Business Insider’s Clusterstock blog, John Carney expressed his belief that Geithner would not quit or be forced to leave office until after the mid-term elections in November:

We would like to see Geithner go now.

* * *

But there’s little chance this will happen. The Obama administration cannot afford to show weakness. If it caved to Congressional critics of Geithner, lawmakers would be further emboldened to chip away at the president’s authority. Senate Republicans would likely turn the confirmation hearing of Geithner’s replacement into a brawl — one that would not reflect well on the White House or Democrat Congressional leadership.

There’s also little political upside to getting rid of Geithner now. It will not save Congressional Democrats any seats in the mid-term election. Obama’s popularity ratings won’t rise. None of the administration’s priorities will be furthered by firing Geithner.

All of this changes following the midterm elections, when Democrats will likely lose seats in Congress. At that point, the administration will be looking for a fall guy. Geithner will make an attractive fall guy.

Although there may not be much hope that the hard work of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will result in any significant financial reform legislation, at least we can look forward to the resignations of Turbo Tim and Larry Summers before the commission’s report is due on December 15.

AIG, American capitalism, American International Group, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Binyamin Appelbaum, blog, centrist, Citigroup, Clusterstock, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit crisis, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Doctor Evil, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, FCIC, FCIC hearings, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, financial reform, financial reform bill, Fire Geithner Now, Frank Rich, Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Hank Paulson, Henry Blodget, Henry Paulson, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jamie Dimon, John Burke, John Carney, John Mack, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, Larry Summers, liberal, liquidity crisis, Lloyd Blankfein, lobbyists, money printing, moral hazard, More Fun Hearings, Morgan Stanley, mortgage-backed securities, New York Fed, New York Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Pecora Commission, Phil Angelides, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, Randall Wray, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Rubin, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, The Business Insider, the center lane, The Dimon Dog, the economy, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Vikram Pandit, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Thomas, zombie banks

This Fight Is Far From Over

December 24th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 24 2009

Comments Off

December 24, 2009

On November 26, I mentioned how apologists for controversial Wall Street giant, Goldman Sachs, were attempting to characterize Goldman’s critics as “conspiracy theorists” in the apparent hope that the use of such a term would discourage continued scrutiny of that firm’s role in causing the financial crisis. The name-calling tactic didn’t work. Since that time, my favorite reporter for The New York Times — Pulitzer Prize winner, Gretchen Morgenson — has continued to dig down into a dirty, sickening story about how Goldman Sachs (as well as some other firms) through their deliberate bets against their own financial products, known as Collateralized Debt Obligations (or CDOs) caused the financial crisis and ruined the lives of most Americans. Ms. Morgenson had previously discussed the opinion of derivatives expert, Janet Tavakoli, who argued that Goldman Sachs “should refund the money it received in the bailout and take back the toxic C.D.O.’s now residing on the Fed’s books”. Although the Goldman apologists have been quick to point out that the firm repaid the bailout money it received under TARP, the $13 billion received by Goldman Sachs as an AIG counterparty by way of Maiden Lane III, has not been repaid.

On December 23, The New York Times published the latest report written by Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story revealing how Goldman and other firms created those Collateralized Debt Obligations, sold them to their own customers and then used a new Wall Street index, called the ABX (a way to invest in the direction of mortgage securities) to bet that those same CDOs would fail. Here’s a passage from the beginning of that superb Morgenson/Story article:

Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

Wait a minute! Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on that. “Turbo” Tim Geithner has retained a “special counselor” whose responsibilities included oversight of Tricadia’s parent company. Tricadia has the dubious honor of having helped cause the financial crisis by creating CDOs and then betting against them. What’s wrong with this picture? Our President apparently sees nothing wrong with it. At this point, that’s not too surprising.

Anyway . . . Let’s get back to the Times article:

How these disastrously performing securities were devised is now the subject of scrutiny by investigators in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, according to people briefed on the investigations. Those involved with the inquiries declined to comment.

While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.

We can only hope that the investigations by Congress, the SEC and FINRA might result in some type of sanctions. At this juncture, that sort of accountability just seems like a wild fantasy.

Janet Tavakoli did a follow-up piece of her own for The Huffington Post on December 22. She is now more critical of the November 17 report prepared by the Special Inspector General of Tarp (SIGTARP) and she continues to demand that Goldman should pay back the billions it received as an AIG counterparty:

The TARP Inspector General’s November 17 report missed the most damaging facts. Intentionally or otherwise, it was evasive action or just plain whitewash. The report failed to clarify Goldman’s role in AIG’s near collapse, and that of all the settlement deals, the U.S.taxpayers’ was by far the worst.

* * *

Goldman paid mega bonuses in past years subsidized by selling hot air. Now it proposes to again pay billions in bonuses based on earnings made possible by taxpayer dollars.

Now that the crisis is over, we should ask Goldman Sachs — and all of AIG’s other trading partners involved in these trades — to buy back these mortgage assets at full price. Alternatively, we can impose a special tax. Instead of calling it a windfall profits tax, we might label it a “hot air” profits tax.

It was refreshing to read the opinion of someone who felt that Janet Tavakoli was holding back on her criticism of Goldman Sachs in the above-quoted piece. Thomas Adams is a banking law attorney at Paykin, Kreig and Adams, LLP as well a former managing director of Ambac Financial Group, a bond insurer that is managing to crawl its way out from under the rubble of the CDO catastrophe. Mr. Adams obviously has no warm spot in his heart for Goldman Sachs. I continue to take delight in the visual image of a Goldman apologist, blue-faced with smoke coming out of his ears while reading the essay Mr. Adams wrote for Naked Capitalism:

. . . Ms. Tavakoli stops short of telling the whole story. While she is very knowledgeable of this market, perhaps she is unaware of the full extent of the wrongdoings Goldman committed by getting themselves paid on the AIG bailout. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury aided and abetted Goldman Sachs in committing financial and ethical crimes at an astounding level.

* * *

But Ms. Tavakoli fails to note that the collapse of the CDO bonds and the collapse of AIG were a deliberate strategy by Goldman. To realize on their bet against the housing market, Goldman needed the CDO bonds to collapse in value, which would cause AIG to be downgraded and lead to AIG posting collateral and Goldman getting paid for their bet. I am confident that Goldman Sachs did not reveal to AIG that they were betting on the housing market collapse.

* * *

Goldman goes quite a few steps further into despicable territory with their other actions and the body count from Goldman’s actions is so enormous that it crosses over into criminal territory, morally and legally, by getting taxpayer money for their predation.

Goldman made a huge bet that the housing market would collapse. They profited, on paper, from the tremendous pain suffered by homeowners, investors and taxpayers across the country, they helped make it worse. Their bet only succeeded because they were able to force the government into bailing out AIG.

In addition, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, by helping Goldman Sachs to profit from homeowner and investor losses, conceal their misrepresentations to shareholders, destroy insurers by stuffing them with toxic bonds that they marketed as AAA, and escape from the consequences of making a risky bet, committed a grave injustice and, very likely, financial crimes. Since the bailout, they have actively concealed their actions and mislead the public. Goldman, the Fed and the Treasury should be investigated for fraud, securities law violations and misappropriation of taxpayer funds. Based on what I have laid out here, I am confident that they will find ample evidence.

The backlash against the repugnant activities of Goldman Sachs has come a long way from Matt Taibbi’s metaphor describing Goldman as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” With three investigations underway, the widely-despised icon of Wall Street greed might have more to worry about than its public image.

ABX, AIG, AIG counterparty, Ambac Financial Group, American capitalism, American Insurance Group, American International Group, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, CDOs, centrist, collateralized debt obligations, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, conspiracy theorists, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Deutsche Bank, 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, FINRA, foreclosures, FRBNY, giant vampire squid, Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs apologists, government guarantees, Government Sachs, great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, Gretchen Morgenson, huge financial institutions, investment banks, Janet Tavakoli, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joint Economic Committee, Lewis A Sachs, liberal, Louise Story, Maiden Lane III, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, Morgan Stanley, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, Neil Barofsky, New York Federal Reserve, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Paykin Kreig and Adams, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Pulitzer Prize, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, SIGTARP report, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, Tavakoli Structured Finance, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, This Fight Is Far From Over, Thomas Adams, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Tricadia Inc, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

Turning Up The Heat

December 21st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 21 2009

Comments Off

December 21, 2009

By now you should be aware of the fact that for his 56th birthday, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year”. Were the folks at Time so arrogant as to believe that this honor would insure the confirmation of Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve? More than a few commentators expressed the view that Time’s “Person of the Year” award might actually jeopardize Bernanke’s chance at confirmation. For example, take a look at what Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish) had to say:

That Bernanke is on the cover of Time Magazine means one thing “Bernanke’s Time Is Limited” He is on his way out. And that is good news.

* * *

The quicker this blows up, the quicker we can recover. And knowing what we know about Time Magazine, Central Banking will blow up sooner rather than later. Moreover, Bernanke will not be part of the solution, and that is a good thing.

I thank Time Magazine for the information and their kiss of death warning. However, I must also remind readers that Stalin made the cover twice, so immediate results just might be expecting too much.

When Bernanke was grilled by the Senate Banking Committee during the confirmation hearing on December 3, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky gave him a magnificent pummeling, most notable for the assertion: “You are the definition of a moral hazard!” My only criticism of Bunning’s diatribe was that he should have said: “You are the personification of a moral hazard” or “You are the epitome of a moral hazard” — otherwise, it was perfect. If that weren’t enough, Senator Bunning demanded that Bernanke answer seventy written questions submitted by Bunning himself. Those of you who have ever been a party to a lawsuit might recall having to provide signed answers to written interrogatories. Most jurisdictions place a limit on the number of such interrogatories to the extent of approximately 35. Senator Bunning propounded twice that many to Bernanke and the nominee answered all of them. Don Luskin of Smart Money analyzed one of these answers in a way that underscored the necessity of removing Bernanke from the Fed chairmanship.

On December 18, Victoria McGrane reported for Politico that the Bernanke nomination “could be in more trouble than previously thought”. Although the Senate Banking Committee voted to confirm the nomination, ultimately the entire Seante must vote on the matter. The fact that six Republicans and one Democrat from the Banking Committee voted against the nomination was portrayed as an ominous signal, casting doubt on the likelihood of confirmation. Ms. McGrane discussed the reaction to the confirmation hearings expressed by Brian Gardner, a bank analyst for Keefe, Bruyette and Woods:

Two aspects of the two-hour debate that preceded the committee vote struck Gardner as worrisome for Bernanke: the unenthusiastic — even apologetic — tone from some of the senators who voted yes and a dispute over the Fed’s refusal to release documents about the bailout of insurance giant American International Group to senators on the committee.

The article explained that the AIG bailout documents were available for review by “some banking committee staffers” although the documents have been withheld by the Fed from individual senators and the public, based on the Fed’s claim that the documents are “protected”.

This is apparently an assertion by the Fed that there is some sort of privilege protecting the AIG bailout documents from disclosure. Nevertheless, if the fight over these records ever gets before a court, it is likely that production of the documents would be compelled, since any claim of privilege was waived once the Fed allowed the “banking committee staffers” to review the items.

The Politico report noted the significance of this matter:

That spat could have legs, Gardner said, and if it resonates with a public already fuming at the Fed, it could sway the votes of yes-leaning senators.

The battle over the AIG bailout documents was also the subject of an opinion piece in the December 19 edition of The New York Times, written by Eliot Spitzer, Frank Partnoy and William Black. Here’s some of what they had to say:

No doubt, some of the e-mail messages contain privileged conversations among lawyers. Others probably include private information that is irrelevant to A.I.G.’s role in the crisis. But the vast majority of these documents could be made public without legal concern. So why haven’t the Treasury and the Federal Reserve already made sure the public could see this information? Do they want to protect A.I.G., or do they worry about shining too much sunlight on their own performance leading up to and during the crisis?

What will these e-mails reveal about the actions of Ben Bernanke and “Turbo” Tim Geithner during the AIG bailout phase of the financial crisis? Were laws violated or do they simply exhibit some poor decision-making and cronyism?

Most of us are now getting ready for the coldest month of the year – but for Ben Bernanke, the heat is being turned up — full blast.

AIG, AIG bailout documents, AIG bailout e-mail messages, American capitalism, American International Group, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Bernanke confirmation hearing, blog, Brian Gardner, Bruyette and Woods, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Don Luskin, economic crisis, economics, economists, Eliot Spitzer, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial reform, Frank Partnoy, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Keefe, liberal, Mike Shedlock, Mish, money printing, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Person of the Year, Political, Politico, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, securities, Senate Banking Committee, Senator Jim Bunning, Smart Money, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, Time magazine, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Turbo Tim Geithner, Turning Up The Heat, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Victoria McGrane, waiver of privilege, Wall Street, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Black, zombie banks

A Look Ahead

December 7th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 07 2009

Comments Off

December 7, 2009

As 2010 approaches, expect the usual bombardment of prognostications from the stars of the info-tainment industry, concerning everything from celebrity divorces to the nuclear ambitions of Iran. Meanwhile, those of us preferring quality news reporting must increasingly rely on internet-based venues to seek out the views of more trustworthy sources on the many serious subjects confronting the world. On October 29, I discussed the most recent GMO Quarterly Newsletter from financial wizard Jeremy Grantham and his expectation that the stock market will undergo a

“correction” or drop of approximately 20 percent next year. Grantham’s paper inspired others to ponder the future of the troubled American economy and the overheated stock market. Mark Hulbert, editor of The Hulbert Financial Digest, wrote a piece for the December 5 edition of The New York Times, picking up on Jeremy Grantham’s stock performance expectations. Hulbert noted Grantham’s continuing emphasis on “high-quality, blue chip” stocks as the most likely to perform well in the coming year. Grantham’s rationale is based on the fact that the recent stock market rally was excessively biased in favor of junk stocks, rather than the higher-quality “blue chips”, such as Wal-Mart. Hulbert noted how Wal-mart shares gained only 14 percent since March 9, while the shares of the debt-laden electronics services firm, Sanmina-SCI, have risen more than 600 percent during that same period. Hulbert pointed out that the conclusion to be reached from this information should be pretty obvious:

As an unintended consequence, Mr. Grantham said, high-quality stocks today are about as cheap as they have ever been relative to shares of firms with weaker finances.

It’s almost a certain bet that high-quality blue chips will outperform lower-quality stocks over the longer term,” he said.

My favorite reaction to Jeremy Grantham’s newsletter came from Paul Farrell of MarketWatch, who emphasized Grantham’s broader view for the economy as a whole, rather than taking a limited focus on stock performance. Farrell targeted President Obama’s “predictably irrational” economic policies by presenting us with a handy outline of Grantham’s criticism of those policies. Farrell prefaced his outline with this statement:

So please listen closely to his 14-point analysis of the rampant irrationality at the highest level of American government today, because what he is also predicting is another catastrophic meltdown dead ahead.

At the first point in the outline, Farrell made this observation:

If Grantham ever was a fan, he’s clearly disillusioned with the president. His 14 points expose the extremely irrational behavior of Obama breaking promises by turning Washington over to Wall Street, a blunder that will trigger the Great Depression 2.

Farrell’s discussion included a reference to the latest article by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone, entitled “Obama’s Big Sellout”. The Rolling Stone website described Taibbi’s latest essay in these terms:

In “Obama’s Big Sellout”, Matt Taibbi argues that President Obama has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway. Rather than keeping his progressive campaign advisers on board, Taibbi says Obama gave key economic positions in the White House to the very people who caused the economic crisis in the first place. Taibbi also points to the ties Obama’s appointees have to one main in particular: Bob Rubin, the former Goldman Sachs co-chairman who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton.

Since the article is not available online yet, you will have to purchase the latest issue of Rolling Stone or wait patiently for the release of their next issue, at which time “Obama’s Big Sellout” should be online. In the mean time, they have provided this brief video of Matt Taibbi’s discussion of the piece.

The new year will also bring us a new book by Danny Schecter, entitled The Crime of Our Time. Mr. Schecter recently discussed this book in a live interview with Max Keiser. (The interview begins at 16:55 into the video.) In discussing the book, Schecter explained how “the financial industry essentially de-regulated its own marketplace. They got rid of the laws that required disclosure and accountability …” and created a “shadow banking system”. Shechter’s previous book, Plunder, has now become a film that will be released soon. In Plunder, he described how the subprime mortgage crisis nearly destroyed the American economy. The interview by Max Keiser contains a short clip from the upcoming film. Danny also directed the movie based on (and named after) his 2006 book, In Debt We Trust, wherein he predicted the bursting of the credit bubble.

It was right at this point last year when Danny’s father died. The event is easy for me to remember because my own father died one week later. At that time, I was comforted by reading Danny’s eloquent piece about his father’s death. Danny was kind enough to respond to the e-mail I had sent him since, as an old fan from his days at WBCN radio in Boston, during the early 1970s, my friends and I tried our best to provide Danny with any leads we came across. These days, it’s good to see that Danny Schechter “The News Dissector” is still at it with the same vigor he demonstrated more than thirty-five years ago. I look forward to his new book and the new film.

A Look Ahead, American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Bernanke confirmation hearing, Bill Clinton, blog, Bob Rubin, centrist, Citigroup, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, controlling the markets, credit bubble, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Danny Schecter, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, efforts to audit the Federal Reserve, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, foreclosures, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, housing bubble, huge financial institutions, In Debt We Trust, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jeremy Grantham, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Mark Hulbert, MarketWatch, Matt Taibbi, Max Keiser, money printing, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Obamas Big Sellout, opacity, Opinion, Paul Farrell, Plunder, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Rolling Stone, S&P 500 index, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, stress tests, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Crime of Our Time, the economy, the Fed, The Hulbert Financial Digest, The New York Times, The News Dissector, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, WBCN radio, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

The Legacy Of Mark Pittman

December 3rd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 03 2009

Comments Off

December 3, 2009

Just a week before the Senate banking committee was to begin confirmation hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, one of the most important watchdogs of the Fed died at the age of 52. Mark Pittman was the reporter at Bloomberg News whose work was responsible for the lawsuit, brought under the Freedom of Information Act, against the Federal Reserve, seeking disclosure of the identities of those financial firms benefiting from the Fed’s eleven emergency lending programs. The suit, Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York) resulted in a ruling last August by Judge Loretta Preska, who rejected the Fed’s defense that disclosure would adversely affect the ability of those institutions to compete for business. The suit also sought disclosure of the amounts loaned to those institutions as well as the assets put up as collateral under the Fed’s eleven lending programs, created in response to the financial crisis. The Federal Reserve is pursuing an appeal of that decision.

Since September of 2008, we have been overexposed to the specious claims by politicians, regulators and other federal officials, that the financial crisis was “unforeseeable”. The veracity of such statements is undercut by the fact that on June 29 of 2007, Mark Pittman provided us with this ominous warning from his desk at Bloomberg News:

The subprime meltdown is sending shock waves through the capital markets in part because mortgage bonds are the world’s biggest debt market, according to the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association.

Pittman’s groundbreaking work on the havoc created by the subprime mortgage-backed securities market resulted in his receiving the Gerald Loeb Award in 2008, which he shared with his fellow Bloomberg reporters, Bob Ivry and Kathleen Howley, for a five-part series entitled “Wall Street’s Faustian Bargain”.

On November 30, Bob Ivry wrote what many have described as the “definitive obituary” for Mark Pittman. Ivry disclosed that although the actual cause of death was not yet known, Pittman had suffered from “heart-related illnesses”. In addition to providing us with his colleague’s impressive biography, Ivry shared the reactions to Pittman’s death, expressed by several prominent individuals:

“He was one of the great financial journalists of our time,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York and the winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize for economics. “His death is shocking.”

* * *

“Who sues the Fed? One reporter on the planet,” said Emma Moody, a Wall Street Journal editor who worked with Pittman at Bloomberg News. “The more complex the issue, the more he wanted to dig into it. Years ago, he forced us to learn what a credit- default swap was. He dragged us kicking and screaming.”

* * *

“He’s been on this crisis since before the crisis,” said Gretchen Morgenson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning financial columnist for the NewYork Times. “He was the best at burrowing into the most complex securities Wall Street could come up with and explaining the implications of them to readers of all levels of sophistication. His investigative work during the crisis set the standard for other reporters everywhere. He was a giant.”

Congressman Brad Miller of North Carolina wrote an informative remembrance of Pittman for The Huffington Post. This statement is one of the highlights from that piece:

The financial crisis is a result of a failure of every institution of our democracy. Regulators failed. Congress failed. And the financial press failed abysmally. Mark was an exception. Mark’s irreverence allowed him to see the crisis coming when other financial reporters accepted uncritically what the industry said. Mark’s irreverence was what made him a great reporter.

Mark Pittman was featured in the recent film American Casino, a documentary which analyzed the subprime mortgage catastrophe and the resulting financial crisis. In September of 2008, when the crisis had most people in the world scratching their heads in confusion, Pittman provided a roadmap to the initial bailouts, shortly after they were distributed.

The interview with Mark Pittman, conducted by Ryan Chittum for the Columbia Journalism Review in February of 2009, gave Pittman the opportunity to share his experiences during the onset of the financial crisis. The interview is especially informative as to what we can expect to find out about this mess in the future, as the investigations begin to unfold. Passages like these reveal the magnitude of the loss resulting from Pittman’s death:

TA: Does there need to be regulation just to simplify things to where it makes sense to more people?

MP: If it was all transparent the complexity wouldn’t matter. If the CDO market had had publicly available prospectuses with the contents of the CDO disclosed, we wouldn’t have this issue, because Bloomberg probably would have made fun of anybody who bought anything like this. But there was this enormous shadow banking system going on. We did a series about that, too. A lot of times people don’t see what we do.

* * *

The thing that people don’t realize is that the Fed is now the “bad bank.” That’s just something that people don’t understand. They’ve taken collateral, and they refuse to tell us how they valued it …

We have numerous banks — dozens, maybe hundreds that are insolvent. And they become more insolvent every day because more people quit paying their mortgage loans, and more guys move out of the shopping center, and more people quit paying their credit cards. But nobody wants to have the adult conversation. We need to be honest about what the problem is here, how big it is, and how we’re going forward to clean it up, and who’s going to pay for it.

* * *

Hopefully, we will be able to inform the people enough to know how badly we’re getting screwed (laughs). We need to know how to prevent it from happening again, and we need to know who did it. There’s renewed energy on this front because we’ve staffed up the people who cover banks, the securities firms. We have a lot more people going at real estate and a bunch of different areas that this involves. That was a conscious move from meetings we started having in 2007. We hired people and we moved people from one area to another area.

Pittman’s final statement during the interview underscores the fact that one of the greatest fighters for an informed public has been lost:

This is a big deal and it’s going to be going on — I swear to God I’m going to retire on this story, because it’s just going to keep happening.

Tragically, Mark Pittman was forced to “retire” on terms that were not satisfactory to any of us. We can only hope that others will be inspired by his work and follow his lead.

08-CV-9595, American capitalism, American Casino, asset bubble, bad bank, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Bernanke confirmation hearing, blog, Bloomberg LP v Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Bloomberg news, Bob Ivry, CDO market, centrist, Columbia Journalism Review, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Brad Miller, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, District Court, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, efforts to audit the Federal Reserve, emergency lending programs, Emma Moody, equities markets, Fed watchdog, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Gerald Loeb Award, government guarantees, Gretchen Morgenson, housing bubble, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Stiglitz, Judge Loretta Preska, Kathleen Howley, legacy assets, liberal, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Pulitzer Prize, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Ryan Chittum, securities, Securities Industry Financial Markets Association, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Southern District of New York, stock markets, stress tests, subprime meltdown, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, temporary receivership, the banks, the center lane, the economy, the Fed, The Huffington Post, The Legacy Of Mark Pittman, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street meltdown, Wall Streets Faustian Bargain, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

The Pushback Against Bernanke

November 30th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 30 2009

Comments Off

November 30, 2009

This week brings us the confirmation hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Ben Bernanke to a second four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. The recent progress in Congressional efforts to audit the Federal Reserve will certainly spice up the confirmation hearings. If that weren’t enough, Bernanke saw fit to write a commentary piece for Sunday’s edition of The Washington Post, expressing his opposition to any attempts to limit the Fed’s power and subject it to an audit. Here is some of what he had to say in that column:

These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States. The Fed played a major part in arresting the crisis, and we should be seeking to preserve, not degrade, the institution’s ability to foster financial stability and to promote economic recovery without inflation.

Well, he should have known what would be coming next . . . the avalanche of criticism pointing out how the Fed played a major role in causing the crisis. As you will see below, that response was swift. Worse yet, Bernanke’s theme of “we learned our lesson” will surely inspire harsh interrogation at the confirmation hearings:

The Federal Reserve, like other regulators around the world, did not do all that it could have to constrain excessive risk-taking in the financial sector in the period leading up to the crisis. We have extensively reviewed our performance and moved aggressively to fix the problems.

Dean Baker did not waste any time before ripping into Bernanke’s essay. Baker’s Beat the Press blog at The American Prospect website regularly upbraids Bernanke for his responsibility in causing the economic crisis. Baker’s retort to the Washington Post piece was published at the Talking Points Memo website. The final paragraph of Baker’s essay reflected his outrage that the Post would publish Bernanke’s rant without an opposing response:

The arrogance of this column is almost beyond belief. This man is incredibly lucky to still have his job at time when millions of other workers have lost theirs as a direct result of his incompetence. A serious news outlet would not have printed such a ridiculously self-serving piece without at least securing an opposing opinion. Of course, Bernanke’s piece appeared in the Washington Post.

Dean Baker’s primary criticism of Bernanke is based on the Fed chair’s failure to control the 8-trillion-dollar housing bubble before it burst, nearly destroying the entire economy:

We had further losses in demand associated with the bursting of a bubble in non-residential real estate. In total, the loss in bubble-driven demand was well over $1 trillion a year. All of it an entirely predictable outcome of the collapse of a housing bubble.

The simple reality is that there is nothing in the Fed’s bag of tricks that will allow it to easily replace over $1 trillion in annual demand. In short, the bubble guaranteed the economic disaster that we are now experiencing, end of story.

At the Naked Capitalism website, Yves Smith dealt a hefty load of thorough criticism on the Bernanke article. She began with the verdict against Bernanke and built an impressive argument supporting her opinion:

What is interesting is how much the tables have turned. The Obama effort to make the Fed into the uber bank regulator has become a rout, with decent odds that the Fed will have its powers reduced, and an increasing possibility that Bernanke might not be reconfirmed (which is frankly the right outcome, no CEO who presided over a similar disaster would still be in charge).

Smith did not restrict her criticism to the Fed’s failure to control the housing bubble. Here are some of her points:

For instance, the Fed was the architect of the “let a thousand flowers bloom” policy towards derivatives, and made inadequate (one might say no) effort to understand new financial technology. Bernanke himself rationalized burgeoning consumer debt, claiming that consumer balance sheets were in good shape. Hun? This is Japan circa 1989 thinking.

* * *

Yes, I am told the Fed is now making all the banks disclose their derivatives positions to them, but the Fed lacks the analytical capacity to do much with this information (and I am further told the Fed staff understands that too). So that does not fit my notion of “tougher oversight.” And the rest is just empty promises.

In response to Bernanke’s claim that Congressional efforts to rein-in the authority of the Fed are “very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks,” Ms. Smith pounced:

Notice how Bernanke invokes a “global consensus,” which is wonderfully vague and ignores the fact that the pre-crisis “global consensus” of minimally regulated markets and financial institutions, is precisely what caused the crisis. Moreover, even if the Fed’s mandate in theory was appropriate, its governance structure is not. The Bank of England and the ECB are not peculiar largely private institutions, accountable to almost no one, as the Fed now is. The Fed’s insistence on secrecy regarding many of its emergency operations is unwarranted and deeply troubling. And “the Fed played a major role in arresting the crisis” ignores the fact that the Fed played a major role in creating it, namely, via negative real interest rates for a protracted period. And he is declaring the Fed’s policies to be successful when the jury is still out.

Brenanke’s claim that the idiotic bank stress tests “marked a turning point in public confidence in the banking system” invited a well-deserved attack. Here’s how Yves Smith handled it:

The worst is the folks at the Fed clearly believe the bogus stress tests were a meaningful exercise. That alone should disqualify them from getting a bigger role in bank supervision. And if you read their pronouncements, they plan to continue to use them, and have the process run by … monetary economists! Pray tell, what do they know about bank operations? Help me! And some of the help the Fed has enlisted in the stress test exercise includes the consulting firm McKinsey, which has the biggest banking practice in the consulting industry. Think McKinsey is going to devise anything that might be rough on its biggest meal tickets?

Remember that these negative reactions to the Bernanke article are just what appeared on Sunday. By the time the confirmation hearings begin on December 3, you can be sure that Bernanke’s own words from the Post column will be used against him. We may find that his decision to write this piece was a crucial turning point leading to a decision against his confirmation.

American capitalism, bank bailout, bank stocks, bank stress tests, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Beat the Press, Ben Bernanke, Bernanke confirmation hearing, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Dean Baker, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economics, economists, efforts to audit the Federal Reserve, equities markets, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, global consensus, government guarantees, housing bubble, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, money printing, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, stress tests, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, Talking Points Memo, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The American Prospect, the banks, the center lane, the economy, the Fed, The Pushback Against Bernanke, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Compare And Contrast

November 26th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 26 2009

Comments Off

November 26, 2009

We have seen and heard so much discussion during the past week concerning the dismal performance of Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner while testifying before the Joint Economic Committee — I won’t repeat it. At this point, there appears to be a consensus that Turbo Tim has to go. The scary part comes when pundits start tossing around names for a possible replacement. One would expect that President Obama might be wise enough to avoid the appointment of another “Wall Street insider” as Treasury Secretary. Rumors are circulating that The Dimon Dog (Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase) is being considered for the post. This buzz gained more traction when bank analyst, Dick Bove, recently voiced support for Dimon as Treasury Secretary. The handful of Geithner supporters deny that Turbo Tim ever was a “Wall Street insider”. This assertion is contradicted by the fact that Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve at the time of the financial crisis, when he served as architect of the more-than-generous bailouts of those “too big to fail” financial institutions — at taxpayer expense.

These days, the most vilified beneficiary of government largesse resulting from the financial crisis is the widely-despised investment bank, Goldman Sachs — often referred to as the “giant vampire squid” — thanks to Matt Taibbi’s metaphor, describing Goldman as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

For whatever reason, a number of commentators have chosen to help defend Goldman Sachs against what they consider to be unfair criticism. A recent example came to us from James Stewart of The New Yorker. Stewart had previously written a 25-page essay for that magazine, entitled “Eight Days” — a dramatic chronology of the financial crisis as it unfolded during September of 2008. Last week, Stewart seized upon the release of the recent SIGTARP report to defend Goldman with a blog posting which characterized the report as supportive of the argument that Goldman owes the taxpayers nothing as a result of the government bailouts resulting from that near-meltdown. (In case you don’t know, a former Assistant U.S. District Attorney from New York named Neil Barofsky was nominated by President Bush as the Special Investigator General of the TARP program. The acronym for that job title is SIGTARP.) In his blog posting, James Stewart began by characterizing Goldman’s detractors as “conspiracy theorists”. That was a pretty weak start. Stewart went on to imply that the SIGTARP report refutes the claims by critics that, despite Goldman’s repayment of the TARP bailout, it did not repay the government the billions it received as a counterparty to AIG’s collateralized debt obligations. Stewart referred to language in the SIGTARP report to support the spin that because “Goldman was fully hedged on its exposure both to a failure by A.I.G. and to the deterioration of value in its collateralized debt obligations” and that “(i)t repaid its TARP loans with interest, bought back the government’s warrants at a nice profit to the Treasury” Goldman therefore owes the government nothing — other than “a special debt of gratitude”. One important passage from page 22 of the SIGTARP report that Stewart conveniently ignored, concerned the money received by Goldman Sachs as an AIG counterparty by way of Maiden Lane III, at which point those credit default obligations (of questionable value) were purchased at an excessive price by the government. Here’s that passage from the SIGTARP report:

When FRBNY authorized the creation of Maiden Lane III in November 2008, it lent approximately $24.6 billion to the newly formed limited liability company, and AIG provided Maiden Lane III approximately $5 billion in equity. These funds were used to purchase CDOs from AIG counterparties worth an estimated fair value of $29.6 billion at the time of the purchases, which were done in three stages on November 25, 2008, December 18, 2008, and December 22, 2008. AIGFP’s counterparties were paid $27.1 billion, and AIGFP was paid $2.5 billion per an agreement between AIGFP and FRBNY. The $2.5 billion represented the amount of collateral that AIGFP had previously paid to the counterparties that was in excess of the actual decline in the fair value as of October 31, 2008.

FRBNY’s loan to Maiden Lane III is secured by the CDOs as the underlying assets. After the loan has been repaid in full plus interest, and, to the extent that there are sufficient remaining cash proceeds, AIG will be entitled to repayment of the $5 billion that the company contributed in equity, plus accrued interest. After repayment in full of the loan and the equity contribution (each including accrued interest), any remaining proceeds will be split 67 percent to FRBNY and 33 percent to AIG.

On November 21, one of my favorite reporters for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winner Gretchen Morgenson, wrote an informative piece concerning the recent SIGTARP Report. Compare and contrast Ms. Morgenson’s discussion of the report’s disclosures, with the spin provided by James Stewart. Here is some of what Ms. Morgenson had to say:

The Fed, under Mr. Geithner’s direction, caved in to A.I.G.’s counterparties, giving them 100 cents on the dollar for positions that would have been worth far less if A.I.G. had defaulted. Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale and other banks were in the group that got full value for their contracts when many others were accepting fire-sale prices.

On the question of whether this payout was what the report describes as a “backdoor bailout” of A.I.G.’s counterparties, Mr. Barofsky concluded: “The very design of the federal assistance to A.I.G. was that tens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to A.I.G.’s counterparties.” The report noted that this was money the banks might not otherwise have received had A.I.G. gone belly-up.

*   *   *

Finally, Mr. Barofsky pokes holes in arguments made repeatedly over the past 14 months by Goldman Sachs, A.I.G.’s largest trading partner and recipient of $12.9 billion in taxpayer money in the bailout, that it had faced no material risk in an A.I.G. default — that, in effect, had A.I.G. cratered, Goldman wouldn’t have suffered damage.

*   *   *

Rather than forcing the banks to accept a steep discount, or “haircut,” the Fed gave the banks $27 billion in taxpayer cash and allowed them to keep an additional $35 billion in collateral already posted by A.I.G. That amounted to about $62 billion for the contracts, which the report describes as “far above their market value at the time.”

* *   *

As Goldman prepares to pay out nearly $17 billion in bonuses to its employees in one of its most profitable years ever, it is important that an authoritative, independent voice like Mr. Barofsky’s reminds us how the taxpayer bailout of A.I.G. benefited Goldman.

* *   *

The inspector noted in his report that Goldman made several arguments for why it believed it was not materially at risk in an A.I.G. default, but he is skeptical of the firm’s reasoning.

So is Janet Tavakoli, an expert in derivatives at Tavakoli Structured Finance, a consulting firm.

*   *   *

Ms. Tavakoli argues that Goldman should refund the money it received in the bailout and take back the toxic C.D.O.’s now residing on the Fed’s books — and to do so before it begins showering bonuses on its taxpayer-protected employees.

“A.I.G., a sophisticated investor, foolishly took this risk,” she said. “But the U.S. taxpayer never agreed to be the victim of investments that should undergo a rigorous audit.”

After reading James Stewart’s November 19 blog posting and Gretchen Morgenson’s November 21 article from The New York Times, ask yourself this: Are Gretchen Morgenson and Janet Tavakoli “conspiracy theorists” . . . or is James Stewart just a tool?

17 billion in bonuses, AIG, AIG counterparty, American capitalism, American Insurance Group, American International Group, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, CDOs, centrist, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, collateralized debt obligations, Commentary, Compare And Contrast, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, conspiracy theorists, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dick Bove, economic crisis, economics, economists, Eight Days, equities markets, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, FRBNY, giant vampire squid, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, Gretchen Morgenson, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Stewart, Jamie Dimon, Janet Tavakoli, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joint Economic Committee, liberal, Maiden Lane III, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Neil Barofsky, New York Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President Bush, President of the United States, Pulitzer Prize, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, SIGTARP report, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, Tavakoli Structured Finance, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Dimon Dog, the economy, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street insider, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

An Early Favorite For 2010

The Battle Over Bernanke

Lev Is The Drug

More Fun Hearings

This Fight Is Far From Over

Turning Up The Heat

A Look Ahead

The Legacy Of Mark Pittman

The Pushback Against Bernanke

Compare And Contrast

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com