The perspective on the Greek crisis, fed to most Americans by way of the megabank-controlled, mainstream news media, has been based on criticism of a “leftist” or “socialist” Greek government. The magic words, leftist and socialist are intended to portray the Greeks as the bad guys in the picture, whereas those characterized as the “good guys” – die Erbsenzähler (led by German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble) are portrayed as patiently leading the petulant Greeks toward the path of financial responsibility.
Nothing could be further from the truth. For starters, Alexis Tsipras of the Syriza party was not elected Prime Minister of Greece until January 26, 2015. His predecessor, Antonis Samaras was a member of the New Democracy party.
Many bloggers and financial writers have been criticizing the European Central Bank’s handling of the Greek financial crisis since 2010. Edward Harrison has written extensively on the subject at his Credit Writedowns blog. On June 29, Mr. Harrison provided a history on the crisis:
First, let’s remember that back in 2010, most of the creditors to Greece were in the private sector, many of them banks in other Eurozone countries. At that time, the fragility of the European and global economy, and of the European banking system was much greater than it is now. And this caused Europe to panic. What’s more is the EU was able to corral the IMF into joining the EU in bailing Greece out, even though doing so broke its own rules and disregarded the analysis of its own economists. This was the original mistake and the whole chain of events since then has been a futile attempt to justify that original decision.
* * *
The most obvious answer is the weak banks. The now deceased former German Central Bank Head Karl Otto Pöhl said at the time that it was all about rescuing weak German and French banks – and rich Greeks too. This is most definitely true. For example, back in 2012, the FT’s James Mackintosh quoted JPMorgan which reckons only 15 billion euros of 410 billion in ‘bailout’ funds actually went to the Greek economy. The rest went to creditors of the Greek government.
The ongoing intransigence of the troubled nation’s troika of creditors (European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union) has drawn harsh criticism from a wide assortment of astute individuals. From here in the States, Mike Shedlock (a/k/a “Mish”) has been a frequent – yet well-reasoned and balanced – critic of the Eurogroup’s stance. Here is what Mish had to say on July 10:
German chancellor Angela Merkel has stated many times recently that Greeks got generous terms on its alleged bailout.
Merkel is either a blatant liar or dumb as a rock. I believe the former. It is the bailed out banks in Germany and France that got generous terms.
To save French and German banks of €60 billion or so in losses on Greek bonds they never should have purchased in the first place, eurozone taxpayers are now on the hook for at least €326 billion.
Draghi’s famous “whatever it takes” speech should have been suffixed with “to save the banks”.
Greek and eurozone taxpayers got the shaft and remain at risk.
The wording of this document makes it clear Germany wants to push Greece out of the eurozone.
Please review the final sentence of the proposal. Here it is again: “In case no agreement could be reached, Greece should be offered swift negotiations on a time-out from the euro area, with possible debt restructuring.”
If Greece turns down the offer, it gets “swift” negotiations on a “temporary time out“, including the possibility of restructuring.
In contrast Greece has no chance of restructuring if it accepts all of the above demands.
Tsipras would be a fool to accept this proposal.
As I have said all along, Greece’s best chance is to default, not pay back a cent, and initiate the reforms it needs to grow over the long haul.
Greece does not need the euro. No country does.
Economist Steve Keen did a wonderful job debunking all of the falsehoods, which have been relied upon to justify the imposition of an absurd austerity regimen on Greece. Dr. Keen also pointed out why the troika – rather than the Greek government – would be at fault in the event of a Grexit. Here is his July 6 BBC interview.
The Eurocrats are pressing their luck too far. If this stupidity persists, we should expect some awful consequences.
For the past few years, a central mission of this blog has been to focus on Washington’s unending efforts to protect, pamper and bail out the Wall Street megabanks at taxpayer expense. From Maiden Lane III to TARP and through countless “backdoor bailouts”, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have been pumping money into businesses which should have gone bankrupt in 2008. Worse yet, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless have expressed no interest in bringing charges against those miscreants responsible for causing the financial crisis. The Federal Reserve’s latest update to its Survey of Consumer Finances for 2010 revealed that during the period of 2007-2010, the median family net worth declined by a whopping thirty-eight percent. Despite the massive extent of wealth destruction caused by the financial crisis, our government is doing nothing about it.
I have always been a fan of economist John Hussman of the Hussman Funds, whose Weekly Market Comment essays are frequently referenced on this website. Professor Hussman’s most recent piece, “The Heart of the Matter” serves as a manifesto of how the financial crisis was caused, why nothing was done about it and why it is happening again both in the United States and in Europe. Beyond that, Professor Hussman offers some suggestions for remedying this unaddressed and unresolved set of circumstances. It is difficult to single out a passage to quote because every word of Hussman’s latest Market Comment is precious. Be sure to read it. What I present here are some hints as to the significance of this important essay:
The ongoing debate about the economy continues along largely partisan lines, with conservatives arguing that taxes just aren’t low enough, and the economy should be freed of regulations, while liberals argue that the economy needs larger government programs and grand stimulus initiatives.
Lost in this debate is any recognition of the problem that lies at the heart of the matter: a warped financial system, both in the U.S. and globally, that directs scarce capital to speculative and unproductive uses, and refuses to restructure debt once that debt has gone bad.
Specifically, over the past 15 years, the global financial system – encouraged by misguided policy and short-sighted monetary interventions – has lost its function of directing scarce capital toward projects that enhance the world’s standard of living. Instead, the financial system has been transformed into a self-serving, grotesque casino that misallocates scarce savings, begs for and encourages speculative bubbles, refuses to restructure bad debt, and demands that the most reckless stewards of capital should be rewarded through bailouts that transfer bad debt from private balance sheets to the public balance sheet.
* * *
By our analysis, the U.S. economy is presently entering a recession. Not next year; not later this year; but now. We expect this to become increasingly evident in the coming months, but through a constant process of denial in which every deterioration is dismissed as transitory, and every positive outlier is celebrated as a resumption of growth. To a large extent, this downturn is a “boomerang” from the credit crisis we experienced several years ago. The chain of events is as follows:
Financial deregulation and monetary negligence -> Housing bubble -> Credit crisis marked by failure to restructure bad debt -> Global recession -> Government deficits in U.S. and globally -> Conflict between single currency and disparate fiscal policies in Europe -> Austerity -> European recession and credit strains -> Global recession.
In effect, we’re going into another recession because we never effectively addressed the problems that produced the first one, leaving us unusually vulnerable to aftershocks. Our economic malaise is the result of a whole chain of bad decisions that have distorted the financial markets in ways that make recurring crisis inevitable.
* * *
Every major bank is funded partially by depositors, but those deposits typically represent only about 60% of the funding. The rest is debt to the bank’s own bondholders, and equity of its stockholders. When a country like Spain goes in to save a failing bank like Bankia – and does so by buying stock in the bank – the government is putting its citizens in a “first loss” position that protects the bondholders at public expense. This has been called “nationalization” because Spain now owns most of the stock, but the rescue has no element of restructuring at all. All of the bank’s liabilities – even to its own bondholders – are protected at public expense. So in order to defend bank bondholders, Spain is increasing the public debt burden of its own citizens. This approach is madness, because Spain’s citizens will ultimately suffer the consequences by eventual budget austerity or risk of government debt default.
The way to restructure a bank is to take it into receivership, write down the bad assets, wipe out the stockholders and much of the subordinated debt, and then recapitalize the remaining entity by selling it back into the private market. Depositors don’t lose a dime. While the U.S. appropriately restructured General Motors – wiping out stock, renegotiating contracts, and subjecting bondholders to haircuts – the banking system was largely untouched.
* * *
If it seems as if the global economy has learned nothing, it is because evidently the global economy has learned nothing. The right thing to do, again, is to take receivership of insolvent banks and wipe out the stock and subordinated debt, using the borrowed funds to protect depositors in the event that the losses run deep enough to eat through the intervening layers of liabilities (which is doubtful), and otherwise using the borrowed funds to stimulate the economy after the restructuring occurs. We’re going to keep having crises until global leaders recognize that short of creating hyperinflation (which also subordinates the public, in this case by destroying the value of currency), there is no substitute for debt restructuring.
For some insight as to why the American megabanks were never taken into temporary receivership, it is useful to look back to February of 2010 when Michael Shedlock (a/k/a“Mish”) provided us with a handy summary of the 224-page Quarterly Report from SIGTARP (the Special Investigator General for TARP — Neil Barofsky). My favorite comment from Mish appeared near the conclusion of his summary:
Clearly TARP was a complete failure, that is assuming the goals of TARP were as stated.
My belief is the benefits of TARP and the entire alphabet soup of lending facilities was not as stated by Bernanke and Geithner, but rather to shift as much responsibility as quickly as possible on to the backs of taxpayers while trumping up nonsensical benefits of doing so. This was done to bail out the banks at any and all cost to the taxpayers.
Was this a huge conspiracy by the Fed and Treasury to benefit the banks at taxpayer expense? Of course it was, and the conspiracy is unraveling as documented in this report and as documented in AIG Coverup Conspiracy Unravels.
On January 29 2010, David Reilly wrote an article for Bloomberg BusinessWeek concerning the previous week’s hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After quoting from Reilly’s article, Mish made this observation:
Most know I am not a big believer in conspiracies. I regularly dismiss them. However, this one was clear from the beginning and like all massive conspiracies, it is now in the light of day.
The idea of secret banking cabals that control the country and global economy are a given among conspiracy theorists who stockpile ammo, bottled water and peanut butter. After this week’s congressional hearing into the bailout of American International Group Inc., you have to wonder if those folks are crazy after all.
Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.
That “secretive group” is The Federal Reserve of New York, whose president at the time of the AIG bailout was “Turbo” Tim Geithner. David Reilly’s disgust at the hearing’s revelations became apparent from the tone of his article:
By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.
At least in the Eurozone there is fear that the taxpayers will never submit to enhanced economic austerity measures, which would force the citizenry into an impoverished existence so that their increased tax burden could pay off the debts incurred by irresponsible bankers. In the United States there is no such concern. The public is much more compliant. Whether that will change is anyone’s guess.
I have never accepted the idea that economic austerity could be at all useful in resolving our unending economic crisis. I posted my rant about this subject on December 19, 2011:
The entire European economy is on its way to hell, thanks to an idiotic, widespread belief that economic austerity measures will serve as a panacea for the sovereign debt crisis. The increasing obviousness of the harm caused by austerity has motivated its proponents to crank-up the “John Maynard Keynes was wrong” propaganda machine. You don’t have to look very far to find examples of that stuff. On any given day, the Real Clear Politics (or Real Clear Markets) website is likely to be listing at least one link to such a piece. Those commentators are simply trying to take advantage of the fact that President Obama botched the 2009 economic stimulus effort. Many of us realized – a long time ago – that Obama’s stimulus measures would prove to be inadequate. In July of 2009, I wrote a piece entitled, “The Second Stimulus”, wherein I pointed out that another stimulus program would be necessary because the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was not going to accomplish its intended objective. Beyond that, it was already becoming apparent that the stimulus program would eventually be used to support the claim that Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Economist Stephanie Kelton anticipated that tactic in a piece she published at the New Economic Perspectives website . . .
It has finally become apparent to most rational thinkers that economic austerity is of no use to any national economy’s attempts to recover from a severe recession. There have been loads of great essays published on the subject this week and I would like to direct you to a few of them.
The “austerity” idea, you’ll remember, was that the huge debt and deficit problem had ushered in a “crisis of confidence” and that, once business-people saw that governments were serious about debt reduction, they’d get confident and start spending again.
That hasn’t worked.
Instead, spending cuts have led to cuts in GDP which has led to greater deficits and the need for more spending cuts. And so on.
With political allies weakened or ousted, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s seat at the head of the European table has become much less comfortable, as a reckoning with Germany’s insistence on lock-step austerity appears to have begun.
“The formula is not working, and everyone is now talking about whether austerity is the only solution,” said Jordi Vaquer i Fanés, a political scientist and director of the Barcelona Center for International Affairs in Spain. “Does this mean that Merkel has lost completely? No. But it does mean that the very nature of the debate about the euro-zone crisis is changing.”
A German-inspired austerity regimen agreed to just last month as the long-term solution to Europe’s sovereign debt crisis has come under increasing strain from the growing pressures of slowing economies, gyrating financial markets and a series of electoral setbacks.
As we wrote this morning, the bad news for Angela Merkel is that the jig is up: There’s almost nobody left who is willing to go along with the German idea that the sole solution forEurope is spending discipline and “reform,” whatever that means.
Those in denial about the demise of economic austerity have found it necessary to ignore the increasing refutations of the policy from conservative economists, which began appearing early this year. The most highly-publicized of these came from Harvard economic historian Niall Ferguson. Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish) criticized the policy on a number of occasions, such as his posting of January 11, 2012:
Austerity measures in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and France combined with escalating trade wars ensures the recession will be long and nasty.
One would think that a consensus of reasonable people, speaking out against this ill-conceived policy, should be enough to convince The Powers That Be to pull the plug on it. In a perfect world . . .
A recession relapse is the last thing Team Obama wants to see during this election year. The President’s State of the Union address featured plenty of “happy talk” about how the economy is improving. Nevertheless, more than a few wise people have expressed their concerns that we might be headed back into another period of at least six months of economic contraction.
The index itself actually ticked down a bit, to 122.8 from 123.3 the week before, but that’s still among the highest readings since this summer.
* * *
That’s still not great, still in negative territory where it has been since the late summer. But it is the best growth rate since September 2.
Whatever that means. It’s hard to say this index is telling us whether a recession is coming or not, because the ECRI’s recession call is based on top-secret longer leading indexes.
Economist John Hussman of the Hussman Funds has been in full agreement with the ECRI’s recession call since it was first published. In his most recent Weekly Market Comment, Dr. Hussman discussed the impact of an increasingly probable recession on deteriorating stock market conditions:
Once again, we now have a set of market conditions that is associated almost exclusively with steeply negative outcomes. In this case, we’re observing an “exhaustion” syndrome that has typically been followed by market losses on the order of 25% over the following 6-7 month period (not a typo). Worse, this is coupled with evidence from leading economic measures that continueto be associated with a very high risk of oncoming recession in the U.S. – despite a modest firming in various lagging and coincident economic indicators, at still-tepid levels. Compound this with unresolved credit strains and an effectively insolvent banking system in Europe, and we face a likely outcome aptly described as a Goat Rodeo.
My concern is that an improbably large number of things will have to go right in order to avoid a major decline in stock market value in the months ahead.
Another fund manager expressing similar concern is bond guru Jeffrey Gundlach of DoubleLine Capital. Daniel Fisher of Forbes recently interviewed Gundlach, who explained that he is more afraid of recession than of higher interest rates.
Many commentators have discussed a new, global recession, sparked by a recession across Europe. Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish), recently emphasized that “without a doubt Europe is already in recession.” It is feared that the recession in Europe – where America exports most of its products – could cause another recession in the United States, as a result of decreased demand for the products we manufacture. The January 24 World Economic Outlook Update issued by the IMF offered this insight:
The euro area economy is now expected to go into a mild recession in 2012 – consistent with what was presented as a downside scenario in the January 2011 WEO Update.
* * *
For the United States, the growth impact of such spillovers is broadly offset by stronger underlying domestic demand dynamics in 2012. Nonetheless, activity slows from the pace reached during the second half of 2011, as higher risk aversion tightens financial conditions and fiscal policy turns more contractionary.
On January 28, Steve Odland of Forbes suggested that the Great Recession, which began in the fourth quarter of 2007, never really ended. Odland emphasized that the continuing drag of the housing market, the lack of liquidity for small businesses to create jobs, despite trillions of dollars in cash on the sidelines, has resulted in an “invisible recovery”.
Conditions at law firms have stabilized since 2009, when the legal industry shed 41,900 positions, according to the Labor Department. Cuts were more moderate last year, with some 2,700 positions eliminated, and recruiters report more opportunities for experienced midlevel associates.
But many elite firms have shrunk their ranks of entry-level lawyers by as much as half from 2008, when market turmoil was at its peak.
Regardless of whether the economic recovery may have been “invisible”, economist Nouriel Roubini (a/k/a Dr. Doom) has consistently described the recovery as “U-shaped” rather than the usual “V-shaped” graph pattern we have seen depicting previous recessions. Today Online reported on a discussion Dr. Roubini held concerning this matter at the World Economic Forum’s meeting in Davos:
Slow growth in advanced economies will likely lead to “a U-shaped recovery rather than a typical V”, and could last up to 10 years if there is too much debt in the public and private sector, he said.
At a panel discussion yesterday, Dr Roubini also said Greece will probably leave Europe’s single currency within 12 months and could soon be followed by Portugal.
“The euro zone is a slow-motion train wreck,” he said. “Not only Greece, other countries as well are insolvent.”
In a December 8 interview conducted by Tom Keene on Bloomberg Television’s “Surveillance Midday”, Lakshman Achuthan, chief operations officer of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, explained his position:
“The downturn we have now is very different than the downturn in 2010, which did not persist. This one is persisting.”
* * *
“If there’s no recession in Q4 or in the first half I’d say of 2012, then we’re wrong. … You’re not going to know whether or not we’re wrong until a year from now.”
I’m afraid that we might know the answer before then.
I find it very amusing that we are being bombarded with so many absurd election year “talking points” and none of them concern the risk of a 2012 economic recession. The entire world seems in denial about a global problem which is about to hit everyone over the head. I’m reminded of the odd brainstorming session in September of 2008, when Presidential candidates Obama and McCain were seated at the same table with a number of econ-honchos, all of whom were scratching their heads in confusion about the financial crisis. Something similar is about to happen again. You might expect our leaders to be smart enough to avoid being blindsided by an adverse economic situation – again – but this is not a perfect world. It’s not even a mediocre world.
After two rounds of quantitative easing, the Kool-Aid drinkers are sipping away, in anticipation of the “2012 bull market”. Even the usually-bearish Doug Kass recently enumerated ten reasons why he expects the stock market to rally “in the near term”. I was more impressed by the reaction posted by a commenter – identified as “Skateman” at the Pragmatic Capitalism blog. Kass’ reason #4 is particularly questionable:
Mispaced preoccupation with Europe: The European situation has improved. . . .
The Europe situation has not improved. There is no escape from ultimate disaster here no matter how the deck chairs are rearranged. Market’s just whistling past the graveyard.
Of particular importance was this recent posting by Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish), wherein he emphasized that “without a doubt Europe is already in recession.” After presenting his readers with the most recent data supporting his claim, Mish concluded with these thoughts:
Telling banks to lend in the midst of a deepening recession with numerous austerity measures yet to kick in is simply absurd. If banks did increase loans, it would add to bank losses. The smart thing for banks to do is exactly what they are doing, parking cash at the ECB.
Austerity measures in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and France combined with escalating trade wars ensures the recession will be long and nasty.
* * *
Don’t expect the US to be immune from a Eurozone recession and a Chinese slowdown. Unlike 2011, it will not happen again.
Back on October 8, Jeff Sommer wrote an article for The New York Times, discussing the Economic Cycle Research Institute’s forecast of another recession:
“If the United States isn’t already in a recession now it’s about to enter one,” says Lakshman Achuthan, the institute’s chief operations officer. It’s just a forecast. But if it’s borne out, the timing will be brutal, and not just for portfolio managers and incumbent politicians. Millions of people who lost their jobs in the 2008-9 recession are still out of work. And the unemployment rate in the United States remained at 9.1 percent in September. More pain is coming, says Mr. Achuthan. He thinks the unemployment rate will certainly go higher. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes back up into double digits,” he says.
Mr. Achuthan’s outlook was echoed by economist John Hussman of the Hussman Funds, who pointed out in his latest Weekly Market Comment that investors have been too easily influenced by recent positive economic data such as payroll reports and Purchasing Managers Indices:
I can understand this view in the sense that the data points are correct – economic data has come in above expectations for several weeks, the Chinese, European and U.S. PMI’s have all ticked higher in the latest reports, new unemployment claims have declined, and December payrolls grew by 200,000.
Unfortunately, in all of these cases, the inference being drawn from these data points is not supported by the data set of economic evidence that is presently available, which is instead historically associated with a much more difficult outcome. Specifically, the data set continues to imply a nearly immediate global economic downturn. Lakshman Achuthan of the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) has noted if the U.S. gets through the second quarter of this year without falling into recession, “then, we’re wrong.” Frankly, I’ll be surprised if the U.S. gets through the first quarter without a downturn.
At the annual strategy seminar held by Société Générale, their head of strategy – Albert Edwards – attracted quite a bit of attention with his grim prognostications. The Economist summarized his remarks this way:
The surprise message for investors is that he feels the US is on the brink of another recession, despite the recent signs of optimism in the data (the non-farm payrolls, for example). The recent temporary boost to consumption is down to a fall in the household savings ratio, which he thinks is not sustainable.
Larry Elliott of The Guardian focused on what Albert Edwards had to say about China and he provided more detail concerning Edwards’ remarks about the United States:
“There is a likelihood of a China hard landing this year. It is hard to think 2013 and onwards will be any worse than this year if China hard-lands.”
* * *
He added that despite the recent run of more upbeat economic news from the United States, the risk of another recession in the world’s biggest economy was “very high”. Growth had slowed to an annual rate of 1.5% in the second and third quarters of 2011, below the “stall speed” that historically led to recession. It was unlikely that the economy would muddle through, Edwards said.
So there you have it. The handwriting is on the wall. Ignore it at your peril.
As we reach the end of 2011, I keep stumbling across loads of important blog postings which deserve more attention. These pieces aren’t really concerned with the usual, “year in review”- type of subject matter. They are simply great items which could get overlooked by people who are too busy during this time of year to set aside the time to browse around for interesting reads. Accordingly, I’d like to bring a few of these to your attention.
The entire European economy is on its way to hell, thanks to an idiotic, widespread belief that economic austerity measures will serve as a panacea for the sovereign debt crisis. The increasing obviousness of the harm caused by austerity has motivated its proponents to crank-up the “John Maynard Keynes was wrong” propaganda machine. You don’t have to look very far to find examples of that stuff. On any given day, the Real Clear Politics (or Real Clear Markets) website is likely to be listing at least one link to such a piece. Those commentators are simply trying to take advantage of the fact that President Obama botched the 2009 economic stimulus effort. Many of us realized – a long time ago – that Obama’s stimulus measures would prove to be inadequate. In July of 2009, I wrote a piece entitled, “The Second Stimulus”, wherein I pointed out that another stimulus program would be necessary because the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was not going to accomplish its intended objective. Beyond that, it was already becoming apparent that the stimulus program would eventually be used to support the claim that Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Economist Stephanie Kelton anticipated that tactic in a piece she published at the New Economic Perspectives website:
Some of us saw this coming. For example, Jamie Galbraith and Robert Reich warned, on a panel I organized in January 2009, that the stimulus package needed to be at least $1.3 trillion in order to create the conditions for a sustainable recovery. Anything shy of that, they worried, would fail to sufficiently improve the economy, making Keynesian economics the subject of ridicule and scorn.
Despite the current “ridicule and scorn” campaign against Keynesian economics, a fantastic, unbiased analysis of the subject has been provided by Henry Blodget of The Business Insider. Blodget’s commentary was written in easy-to-read, layman’s terms and I can’t say enough good things about it. Here’s an example:
The reason austerity doesn’t work to quickly fix the problem is that, when the economy is already struggling, and you cut government spending, you also further damage the economy. And when you further damage the economy, you further reduce tax revenue, which has already been clobbered by the stumbling economy. And when you further reduce tax revenue, you increase the deficit and create the need for more austerity. And that even further clobbers the economy and tax revenue. And so on.
Another “must read” blog posting was provided by Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish). Mish directed our attention to a rather extensive list of “Things to Say Goodbye To”, which was written last year by Clark McClelland and appeared on Jeff Rense’s website. (Clark McClelland is a retired NASA aerospace engineer who has an interesting background. I encourage you to explore McClelland’s website.) Mish pared McClelland’s list down to nine items and included one of his own – loss of free speech:
The final item on my list of “must read” essays is a rebuttal to that often-repeated big lie that “no laws were broken” by the banksters who caused the financial crisis. Bill Black is an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City in the Department of Economics and the School of Law. Black directed litigation for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) from 1984 to 1986 and served as deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) in 1987. Black’s refutation of the “no laws were broken by the financial crisis banksters” meme led up to a clever homage to Dante’s Divine Comedy describing the “ten circles of hell” based on “the scale of ethical depravity by the frauds that drove the ongoing crisis”. Here is Black’s retort to the big lie:
Sixty Minutes’ December 11, 2011 interview of President Obama included a claim by Obama that, unfortunately, did not lead the interviewer to ask the obvious, essential follow-up questions.
I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.
* * *
I offer the following scale of unethical banker behavior related to fraudulent mortgages and mortgage paper (principally collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)) that is illegal and deserved punishment. I write to prompt the rigorous analytical discussion that is essential to expose and end Obama and Bush’s “Presidential Amnesty for Contributors” (PAC) doctrine. The financial industry is the leading campaign contributor to both parties and those contributions come overwhelmingly from the wealthiest officers – the one-tenth of one percent that thrives by being parasites on the 99 percent.
I have explained at length in my blogs and articles why:
• Only fraudulent home lenders made liar’s loans
• Liar’s loans were endemically fraudulent
• Lenders and their agents put the lies in liar’s loans
• Appraisal fraud was endemic and led by lenders and their agents
• Liar’s loans could only be sold through fraudulent reps and warranties
• CDOs “backed” by liar’s loans were inherently fraudulent
• CDOs backed by liar’s loans could only be sold through fraudulent reps and warranties
• Liar’s loans hyper-inflated the bubble
• Liar’s loans became roughly one-third of mortgage originations by 2006
Each of these frauds is a conventional fraud that could be prosecuted under existing laws.
It’s nice to see someone finally take a stand against the “Presidential Amnesty for Contributors” (PAC) doctrine. Every time Obama attempts to invoke that doctrine – he should be called on it. The Apologist-In-Chief needs to learn that the voters are not as stupid as he thinks they are.
Comments Off on Straight Talk On The European Financial Mess
The European sovereign debt crisis has generated an enormous amount of nonsensical coverage by the news media. Most of this coverage appears targeted at American investors, who are regularly assured that a Grand Solution to all of Europe’s financial problems is “just around the corner” thanks to the heroic work of European finance ministers.
Fortunately, a number of commentators have raised some significant objections about all of the misleading “spin” on this subject. Some pointed criticism has come from Michael Shedlock (a/k/a Mish) who recently posted this complaint:
I am tired of nonsensical headlines that have a zero percent chance of happening.
In a subsequent piece, Mish targeted a report from Bloomberg News which bore what he described as a misleading headline: “EU Sees Progress on Banks”. Not surprisingly, clicking on the Bloomberg link will reveal that the story now has a different headline.
For those in search of an easy-to-read explanation of the European financial situation, I recommend an essay by Robert Kuttner, appearing at the Huffington Post. Here are a few highlights:
The deepening European financial crisis is the direct result of the failure of Western leaders to fix the banking system during the first crisis that began in 2007. Barring a miracle of statesmanship, we are in for Financial Crisis II, and it will look more like a depression than a recession.
* * *
Beginning in 2008, the collapse of Bear Stearns revealed the extent of pyramid schemes and interlocking risks that had come to characterize the global banking system. But Western leaders have stuck to the same pro-Wall-Street strategy: throw money at the problem, disguise the true extent of the vulnerability, provide flimsy reassurances to money markets, and don’t require any fundamental changes in the business models of the world’s banks to bring greater simplicity, transparency or insulation from contagion.
As a consequence, we face a repeat of 2008. Precisely the same kinds of off-balance sheet pyramids of debts and interlocking risks that caused Bear Stearns, then AIG, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch to blow up are still in place.
Following Tim Geithner’s playbook, the European authorities conducted “stress tests” and reported in June that the shortfall in the capital of Europe’s banks was only about $100 billion. But nobody believes that rosy scenario.
* * *
But to solely blame Europe and its institutions is to excuse the source of the storms. That is the political power of the banks to block fundamental reform.
The financial system has mutated into a doomsday machine where banks make their money by originating securities and sticking someone else with the risk. None of the reforms, beginning with Dodd-Frank and its European counterparts, has changed that fundamental business model.
As usual, the best analysis of the European financial situation comes from economist John Hussman of the Hussman Funds. Dr. Hussman’s essay explores several dimensions of the European crisis in addition to noting some of the ongoing “shenanigans” employed by American financial institutions. Here are a few of my favorite passages from Hussman’s latest Weekly Market Comment:
Incomprehensibly large bailout figures now get tossed around unexamined in the wake of the 2008-2009 crisis (blessed, of course, by Wall Street), while funding toward NIH, NSF and other essential purposes has been increasingly squeezed. At the urging of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Europe has been encouraged to follow the “big bazooka” approach to the banking system. That global fiscal policy is forced into austere spending cuts for research, education, and social services as a result of financial recklessness, but we’ve become conditioned not to blink, much less wince, at gargantuan bailout figures to defend the bloated financial institutions that made bad investments at 20- 30- and 40-to-1 leverage, is Timothy Geithner’s triumph and humanity’s collective loss.
* * *
A clean solution to the European debt problem does not exist. The road ahead will likely be tortuous.
The way that Europe can be expected to deal with this is as follows. First, European banks will not have their losses limited to the optimistic but unrealistic 21% haircut that they were hoping to sustain. In order to avoid the European Financial Stability Fund from being swallowed whole by a Greek default, leaving next-to-nothing to prevent broader contagion, the probable Greek default will be around 50%-60%. Note that Greek obligations of all maturities, including 1-year notes, are trading at prices about 40 or below, so a 50% haircut would actually be an upgrade. Given the likely time needed to sustainably narrow Greek deficits, a default of that size is also the only way that another later crisis would be prevented (at least for a decade, and hopefully much longer).
* * *
Of course, Europe wouldn’t need to blow all of these public resources or impose depression on Greek citizens if bank stockholders and bondholders were required to absorb the losses that result from the mind-boggling leverage taken by European banks. It’s that leverage (born of inadequate capital requirements and regulation), not simply bad investments or even Greek default per se, that is at the core of the crisis.
Given the fact that the European crisis appears to be reaching an important crossroads, the Occupy Wall Street protest seems well-timed. The need for significant financial reform is frequently highlighted in most commentaries concerning the European situation. Whether our venal politicians will seriously address this situation remains to be seen. I’m not holding my breath.
As soon as I got a look at the March Nonfarm Payrolls Report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on April 1, I knew that the cheerleaders from the “rose-colored glasses” crowd would be trumpeting the onset of some sort of new era, or “golden age”. I wasn’t too far off. My own reaction to the BLS report was similar to that expressed by Bill McBride of Calculated Risk:
The March employment report was another small step in the right direction, but the overall employment situation remains grim: There are 7.25 million fewer payroll jobs now than before the recession started in 2007 with 13.5 million Americans currently unemployed. Another 8.4 million are working part time for economic reasons, and about 4 million more workers have left the labor force. Of those unemployed, 6.1 million have been unemployed for six months or more.
Nevertheless, the opening words of the BLS report, asserting that nonfarm payroll employment increased by 216,000 in March, were all that the cheerleaders wanted to hear. My cynicism about the unjustified enthusiasm was shared by economist Dean Baker:
Okay, this celebration around the jobs report is really getting out of hand. Both the Post and Times had front page pieces touting the good news. The Post gets the award for being the more breathless of the two . . .
Brad DeLong had some fun letting the air out of the party balloons floating around in a brief piece by Gregory Ip of The Economist. Mr. Ip began with this happy thought:
TURN off the alarms. After several weeks when the data pointed to a recovery still struggling to achieve escape velocity, the March employment report provided reassuring evidence that, at a minimum, it is still gaining altitude.
After completely deconstructing Mr. Ip’s essay by emphasizing the painfully not-so-happy undercurrents lurking within the piece (apparently included out of concern that the Federal Reserve might take away the Quantitative Easing crack pipe) Professor DeLong re-visited Ip’s initial statement in the sobering light of day:
There is “recovery” in a sense that the output gap and the employment gap are no longer shrinking — and so that real GDP is growing at the rate of growth of potential output. But this is not reason to “turn off the alarms.” This is not reason to talk about “pieces [of recovery] … falling into place.” And I am not sure I would describe this as “gaining altitude” with respect to the state of the business cycle.
The exploitation of the March Nonfarm Payrolls Report for bolstering claims that economic conditions are better than they really are is just the latest example of how the beauty of a given statistic can exist in the eye of the beholder – depending on the context in which that statistic is presented. Economist David J. Merkel recently wrote an interesting essay, which concluded with this important admonition:
Be wary. Look at a broader range of statistics, and take apart the existing statistics. Don’t just take the pronouncements of our government at face value. They are experts in saying what is technically true, while implying what is false. Be wary.
David Merkel’s posting focused on the positive spin provided by a representative of Morgan Stanley concerning 4th Quarter 2010 Gross Domestic Product. Merkel’s analysis of this statistic included some good advice:
In 4Q 2010 real GDP rose 3.1%, while real Gross Domestic Purchases fell 0.2%. Why? Energy and other import costs rose which depressed the price indexes for GDP versus Gross Domestic Purchases.
Over the long haul, the two series are close to equal, but when they diverge, they tell a story. The current story is that average consumers in the US are doing badly, while those benefiting from high corporate profits, and increasing exports are doing well.
In general, I am not impressed with statistics collected by our government, or how they use them. But it’s useful to understand what they mean — to understand the limitations of the statistics, so that when naive/conniving politicians use them wrongly, one can see through the error.
David Merkel’s point about “understanding the limitations of the statistics” is something that a good commentator should “fess up to” when discussing particular stats. Michael Shedlock’s analysis of the March Nonfarm Payrolls Report provides a refreshing example of that type of candor:
Given the total distortions of reality with respect to not counting people who allegedly dropped out of the work force, it is hard to discuss the numbers.
The official unemployment rate is 8.8%. However, if you start counting all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc., you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is in the last row labeled U-6.
While the “official” unemployment rate is an unacceptable 8.8%, U-6 is much higher at 15.7%.
Things are much worse than the reported numbers would have you believe.
That said, this was a solid jobs report, not as measured by the typical recovery, but one of the better reports we have seen for years.
On the negative side, wages are not keeping up with the CPI, wage growth is skewed to the top end, and full time jobs are hard to come by.
At the current pace, the unemployment number would ordinarily drop, but not fast. However, many of those millions who dropped out of the workforce could start looking if they think jobs may be out there. Should that happen, the unemployment rate could rise, even if the economy adds jobs at this pace. It is very questionable if this pace of jobs keeps up.
In other words, if a significant number of those people the BLS has ignored as having “dropped out of the workforce” prove the BLS wrong by actually applying for new job opportunities as they appear, the BLS will have to reconcile their reporting with that “new reality”. Perhaps many of those “phantom people” were really there all along and the only thing preventing their detection was the absence of job opportunities. As those “workforce dropouts” return to the BLS radar screen by applying for new job opportunities, the BLS will report it as a “rise” in the unemployment rate. In reality, that updated statistic will reflect what the unemployment rate had been all along. An improving job market will just make it easier to face the truth.
Comments Off on Grasping Reality With The Opinions Of Others
In the course of attempting to explain or criticize complex economic and financial issues, it usually becomes necessary to quote from the experts – often at length – to provide an understandable commentary. Nevertheless, it was with great pleasure that I read about a dust-up involving Megan McArdle’s use of a published interview conducted by Bruce Bigelow of Xconomy, without attribution. The incident was recently discussed by Brad DeLong. (If you are a regular reader of Professor DeLong’s blog, you might recognize the title of this posting as a variant on the name of his website.) Before I move on, it will be necessary to expand this moment of schadenfreude, due to the ironic timing of the controversy. On March 7, Time published a list of “The 25 Best Financial Blogs”, with McArdle’s blog as number 15. Aside from the fact that many worthy bloggers were overlooked by Time (including Mish and Simon Johnson) the list drew plenty of criticism for its inclusion of McArdle’s blog. Here are just some of the comments to that effect, which appeared on the Naked Capitalism website:
Megan McArdle? Seriously? I’ve seen so many people rip her to shreds that I’ve completely ignored her.
Is she another example of nepotism? Like Bill Kristol.
Basically yes, although not quite as blatant. Her old man was an inspector of contracting in New York City. He got surprisingly rich. From that he went to starting his own contracting business. He got surprisingly rich. Then he went back to New York City in an even higher level supervisory job. He got surprisingly rich. So Megan went to good schools and had her daddy’s network of influential “friends” to help her with her “job search” when she graduated. Of course, she’s no dummy, and did a professional job of networking with all the “right” people she met at school, too.
For my part, in order to discuss the proposed settlement resulting from the investigation of the five largest banks and mortgage servicers conducted by state attorneys general and federal officials (including the Justice Department, the Treasury and the newly-formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) I will rely on the commentary from some of my favorite financial bloggers. The investigating officials submitted this 27-page proposal as the starting point for what is expected to be a weeks-long negotiation process, possibly resulting in some loan modifications as well as remedies for those who faced foreclosures expedited by the use of “robo-signers” and other questionable practices.
The argument defenders of the deal make are twofold: this really is a good deal (hello?) and it’s as far as the Obama Administration is willing to push the banks, so we have to put a lot of lipstick on this pig and resign ourselves to political necessities. And the reason the Obama camp is trying to declare victory and go home is that it is afraid that any serious effort to deal with the mortgage mess will reveal the insolvency of the banks.
Team Obama had put on a full court press since March 2009 to present the banks as fundamentally sound, and to the extent they needed more dough, the stress tests and resulting capital raising took care of any remaining problems. Timothy Geithner was even doing victory laps last month in Europe. To reverse course now and expose the fact that writedowns on second mortgages held by the four biggest banks and plus the true cost of legal liabilities from the mortgage crisis (putbacks, servicer fraud, chain of title issues) would blow a big hole in the banks’ balance sheets and fatally undermine whatever credibility the officialdom still has.
But the fallacy of their thinking is that addressing and cleaning up this rot would lead to a financial crisis, therefore anything other than cosmetics and making life inconvenient for the banks around the margin is to be avoided at all costs. But these losses exist already. The fallacy lies in the authorities’ delusion that they are avoiding creating losses, when we are in fact talking about who should bear costs that already exist.
The perspective taken by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns focused on the extent to which we can find the fingerprints of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on the settlement proposal. Ed Harrison emphasized the significance of Geithner’s final remarks from an interview conducted last year by Daniel Gross for Slate:
The test is whether you have people willing to do the things that are deeply unpopular, deeply hard to understand, knowing that they’re necessary to do and better than the alternatives.
More than ever, Tim Geithner runs the show for economic policy. He is the last man standing of the Old Obama team. Volcker, Summers, Orszag, and Romer are all gone. So Geithner’s vision of bailouts and settlements is the one that carries the most weight.
When presented with a choice of Japan or Sweden as the model for crisis resolution, the US felt the Japanbanking crisis response was the best historical precedent. It is still unclear whether this was a political or an economic decision.
Using pro-inflationary monetary policy and fiscal stimulus, the U.S. can put this crisis in the rear view mirror. Low interest rates and a steep yield curve combined with bailouts, stress tests, dividend reductions and private capital will allow time to heal all wounds. That is the Geithner view.
I would argue that Tim Geithner believes we are almost at that final stage where the banks are now healthy enough to get bigger and take share in emerging markets. His view is that a more robust regulatory environment will keep things in check and prevent another financial crisis.
I hope this helps to explain why the Obama Administration is keen to get this $20 billion mortgage settlement done. The prevailing view in the Administration is that the U.S. is in a fragile but sustainable recovery. With emerging markets leading the economic recovery and U.S. banks on sounder footing, now is the time to resume the expansion of U.S. financial services. I should also add that given the balance sheet recession in the U.S., the only way banks can expand is via an expansion abroad.
I strongly disagree with this vision of America’s future economic development. But this is the road we are on.
Will those of us who refuse to believe in Tinkerbelle face the blame for the next financial crisis?
In the aftermath of the disclosure concerning the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud suit against Goldman Sachs, we have heard more than a little reverberation of Matt Taibbi’s “vampire squid” metaphor, along with plenty of concern about which other firms might find themselves in the SEC’s crosshairs.
As Wall Street bombshells go, the lawsuit that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is about as big as it gets.
At The Economist, there was a detectable scent of schadenfreude in the discussion, which reminded readers that despite Lloyd Blankfein’s boast of having repaid Goldman’s share of the TARP bailout, not everyone has overlooked Maiden Lane III:
IS THE most powerful and controversial firm on Wall Street about to get the comeuppance that so many think it deserves?
* * *
The charges could hardly come at a worse time for Goldman. The firm has been under fire on a number of fronts, including over the handsome payout it secured from the New York Fed as a derivatives counterparty of American International Group, an insurer that almost failed in 2008. In a string of negative articles over the past year, Goldman has been accused of everything from double-dealing for its own advantage to planting its own people in the Treasury and other agencies to ensure that its interests were looked after.
At this point, those who criticized Matt Taibbi for his tour de force against Goldman (such as Megan McArdle) must be experiencing a bit of remorse. Meanwhile, those of us who wrote items appearing at GoldmanSachs666.com are exercising our bragging rights.
The complaint filed against Goldman by the SEC finally put to rest the tired old lie that nobody saw the financial crisis coming. The e-mails from Goldman VP, Fabrice Tourre, made it perfectly clear that in addition to being aware of the imminent collapse, some Wall Street insiders were actually counting on it. Jonathan Weil’s Bloomberg article provided us with the translated missives from Mr. Tourre:
“More and more leverage in the system. The whole building is about to collapse anytime now,” Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman Sachs vice president who was sued for his role in putting together the deal, wrote on Jan. 23, 2007.
“Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab … standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstruosities!!!”
A few weeks later, Tourre, now 31, e-mailed a top Goldman trader: “the cdo biz is dead we don’t have a lot of time left.” Goldman closed the Abacus offering in April 2007.
Michael Shedlock (a/k/a Mish) has quoted a number of sources reporting that Goldman may soon find itself defending similar suits in Germany and the UK.
Not surprisingly, there is mounting concern over the possibility that other investment firms could find themselves defending similar actions by the SEC. As Anusha Shrivastava reported for The Wall Street Journal, the action in the credit markets on Friday revealed widespread apprehension that other firms could face similar exposure:
Credit markets were shaken Friday by the news as investors tried to figure out whether other firms or other structured finance products will be affected.
Investors are concerned that the SEC’s action may create a domino effect affecting other firms and other structured finance products. There’s also the worry that this regulatory move may rattle the recovery and bring uncertainty back to the market.
“Credit markets are seeing a sizeable impact from the Goldman news,” said Bill Larkin, a portfolio manager at Cabot Money Management, in Salem, Mass. “The question is, has the S.E.C. discovered what may have been a common practice across the industry? Is this the tip of the iceberg?”
* * *
The SEC’s move marks “an escalation in the battle to expose conflicts of interest on Wall Street,” said Chris Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics in a note to clients. “Once upon a time, Wall Street firms protected clients and observed suitability … This litigation exposes the cynical, savage culture of Wall Street that allows a dealer to commit fraud on one customer to benefit another.”
The timing of this suit could not have been better – with the Senate about to consider what (if anything) it will do with financial reform legislation. Bill Black expects that this scandal will provide the necessary boost to get financial reform enacted into law. I hope he’s right.
TheCenterLane.com offers opinion, news and commentary on politics, the economy, finance and other random events that either find their way into the news or are ignored by the news reporting business. As the name suggests, our focus will be on what seems to be happening in The Center Lane of American politics and what the view from the Center reveals about the events in the left and right lanes. Your Host, John T. Burke, Jr., earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston College with a double major in Speech Communications and Philosophy. He earned his law degree (Juris Doctor) from the Illinois Institute of Technology / Chicago-Kent College of Law.