opacity « TheCenterLane.com

The Federal Reserve Is On The Ropes

November 23rd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 23 2009

Comments Off

November 23, 2009

Last February, Republican Congressman Ron Paul introduced HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, by which the Government Accountability Office would be granted authority to audit the Federal Reserve and present a report to Congress by the end of 2010. On May 21, Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, wrote to his Democratic colleagues in the House, asking them to co-sponsor the bill. The bill eventually gained over 300 co-sponsors. By October 30, Congressman Mel Watt, a Democrat from North Carolina, basically “gutted” the bill according to Congressman Paul, in an interview with Bob Ivry of Bloomberg News. Watt subsequently proposed a competing measure, which was aided by the circulation of a letter by eight academics, who were described as a “political cross-section of prominent economists”. Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post disclosed on November 18 that the purportedly diverse, independent economists were actually paid stooges of the Federal Reserve:

But far from a broad cross-section, the “prominent economists” lobbying on behalf of the Watt bill are in fact deeply involved with the Federal Reserve. Seven of the eight are either currently on the Fed’s payroll or have been in the past.

After HR 1207 had been undermined by Watt, an amendment calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve was added as amendment 69B to HR3996, the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009. The House Finance Committee voted to approve that amendment on November 19. This event was not only a big win for Congressmen Paul and Grayson — it also gave The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim the opportunity for a “victory lap”:

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

* * *

“Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy,” a victorious Grayson said afterwards.

Scott Lanman of Bloomberg News pointed out that this battle was just one of many legislative onslaughts against the Fed:

The Fed’s powers and rate-setting independence are under threat on several fronts in Congress. Separately yesterday, the Senate Banking Committee began debate on legislation that would strip the Fed of bank-supervision powers and give lawmakers greater say in naming the officials who vote on monetary policy.

* * *

Paul and other lawmakers have accused the Fed of lax oversight of banks and failing to avert the financial crisis.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is feeling even more heat because the Senate Banking Committee will begin hearings concerning Bernanke’s reappointment as Fed Chair. The hearings will begin on December 3, the same day as President Obama’s jobs summit. Senate Banking Committee chair, Chris Dodd, revealed to videoblogger Mike Stark that Bernanke’s reappointment is “not necessarily” a foregone conclusion.

Let’s face it: the public has finally caught on to the fact that the mission of the Fed is to protect the banking industry and if that is to be accomplished at the public’s expense — then so be it. Back at The Huffington Post, Tom Raum explained how this heightened awareness of the Fed’s activities has resulted in some Congressional pushback:

Many lawmakers question whether the Fed’s money machine has mainly benefited financial markets and not the broader economy. Lawmakers are also peeved that the central bank acted without congressional involvement when it brokered the 2008 sale of failed investment bank Bear Stearns and engineered the rescue of insurer American International Group.

Tom Raum echoed concern about the how the current increase in “anti-Fed” sentiment might affect the Bernanke confirmation hearings:

Should Bernanke be worried?

“Not only should be worried, he’s clearly ratcheted up his game in terms of his communications with Congress,” said Norman Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Ornstein said the Fed bashing this time is different from before, with “a broader base of support. And it’s coming from people who in the past would not have hit the Fed. There’s a lot of populist anger out there — on the left, in the center and on the right. And politicians are responsive to that.”

Populist anger with the Fed will certainly change the way history will regard former Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. Fred Sheehan’s new book: Panderer to Power: The True Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession, could not have been released at a better time. At his blog, Sheehan responded to five questions about Greenspan, providing us with a taste of what to expect in the new book. Here is one of the interesting points, demonstrating how Greenspan helped create our current crisis:

The American economy’s recovery from the early 1990s was financial. This was a first. The recovery was a product of banks borrowing, leveraging and lending to hedge funds. The banks were also creating and selling complicated and very profitable derivative products. Greenspan needed the banks to grow until they became too-big-to-fail. It was evident the “real” economy — businesses that make tires and sell shoes — no longer drove the economy. Thus, finance was given every advantage to expand, no matter how badly it performed. Financial firms that should have died were revived with large injections of money pumped by the Federal Reserve into the banking system.

It’s great to see Congress step up to the task of exposing the antics of the Federal Reserve. Let’s just hope these efforts meet with continued success.

Alan Grayson, Alan Greenspan, amendment 69B HR 3996, American Enterprise Institute, American International Group, anti-Fed sentiment, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Bear Stearns, Ben Bernanke, bipartisan victory against the Federal Reserve, blog, Bloomberg news, Bob Ivy, centrist, Chris Dodd, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Mel Watt, conservative, crony capitalism, cross-section of prominent economists, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, Fred Sheehan, GAO, Government Accountability Office, government guarantees, House Finance Committee, House Financial Services Committee, HR 1207, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Mike Stark, money printing, moral hazard, News, Norman Ornstein, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Panderer to Power The True Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Ron Paul, Ryan Grim, Scott Lanman, Senate Banking Committee, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Federal Reserve Is On The Ropes, The Huffington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, Tom Raum, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Avoiding The Kool-Aid

November 5th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 05 2009

Comments Off

November 5, 2009

Ask NOT what your country can do for you —

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

— “Turbo” Tim

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

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

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

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

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

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

*   *   *

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

*   *   *

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

*   *   *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— and then it was all downhill from there.

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

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

Bait And Switch

October 19th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 19 2009

Comments Off

October 19, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

More Heat For The Federal Reserve

October 5th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 05 2009

Comments Off

October 5, 2009

On Thursday, October 1, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the House Financial Services Committee. That event demonstrated how the Fed has fallen into the crosshairs of critics from both ends of the political spectrum. A report in Friday’s Los Angeles Times by Jim Puzzanghera began with the point that the Obama administration has proposed controversial legislation that would expand the Fed’s authority, despite bipartisan opposition in a Congress that is more interested in restricting the Fed’s influence:

Worried about the increased power of the complex and mysterious Fed, and upset it did not do more to prevent the deep recession, Capitol Hill has focused its anger over the financial crisis and its aftermath on the central bank. The Fed finds itself at the center of a collision of traditional political concerns – conservatives’ fears of heavy-handed government intervention in free markets, and liberals’ complaints of regulators who favor corporate executives over average Americans.

More than two-thirds of the House of Representatives has signed on to a bill that would subject the central bank to increased congressional oversight through expanded audits. A key senator wants to strip the Fed of its authority to regulate banks. And the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee wants to rein in the Fed’s emergency lending power, which it used to help engineer the sale of Bear Stearns Cos. and bailout American International Group Inc.

The article noted the observation of Jaret Seiberg, a financial policy analyst with Concept Capital’s Washington Research Group:

“The Fed is running into unprecedented opposition on Capitol Hill,” he said.

“In the Senate, there’s open hostility toward any expansion of the Federal Reserve’s authority. And in the House, you certainly have Republicans looking to focus the Fed solely on monetary policy and strip it of any larger role in financial regulation.”

Mr. Puzzanghera’s report underscored how the Fed’s interventions in the economy during the past year, which involved making loans (of unspecified amounts) and backing commercial transactions, have drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. The idea of expanding the Fed’s authority to the extent that it would become a “systemic risk regulator” has been criticized both in Congress and by a former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors:

House Republicans want to scale back the Fed’s power so the bank focuses on monetary policy. And many have opposed the administration’s proposal to give the Fed the new role of supervising large financial institutions, such as AIG, that are not traditional banks but pose a risk to the economy if they fail.

“I’m not alone with my concerns about the Fed as a systemic regulator,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.). Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has similar concerns, as do others on his panel. In fact, Dodd has proposed stripping the Fed of all of its bank oversight functions as part of his plan for creating a single banking regulatory agency.

Former Fed Gov. Alice M. Rivlin also said it would be a mistake to increase the Fed’s regulatory powers because it would distract from the central bank’s monetary policy role.

“Do we want to augment the regulatory authority of the Fed? . . . My answer is no,” said Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “My sense is many people would be nervous about that augmentation.”

The colorful Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, recently published a report card on the committee’s website, criticizing the Fed’s poor record on consumer protection. The report card contrasted what Congressional Democrats had done to address various issues (categorized under the heading: “Democrats Act”) with what the Fed has or has or has not done in dealing with those same problems.

Meanwhile, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, is making the rounds, promoting his new book: End The Fed. A recent posting at The Daily Bail website includes a YouTube video of Ron Paul at a book signing in New York, which resulted in a small parade over to the New York Fed. Although the Daily Bail piece reported that Paul’s book had broken into the top ten on Amazon’s list of bestsellers — as I write this, End The Fed is number 15. I would like to see that book continue to gain popularity. Perhaps next time Chairman Bernanke testifies before a committee, he will know that something more than his own job is on the line. It would be nice to see him make history as the last Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

AIG, Alice M Rivlin, Amazon books, American capitalism, American International Group, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Ben Bernanke, blog, Brookings Institution, centrist, Christopher Dodd, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Concept Capital, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, consumer protection, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Daily Bail, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, End The Fed, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Transparency Act, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, government guarantees, House Financial Services Committee, HR1207, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jaret Seiberg, Jim Puzzanghera, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, last chairman of the Federal Reserve, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, lobbyists, Los Angeles Times, money printing, moral hazard, More Heat For The Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Ron Paul, Scott Garrett, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, YouTube, zombie banks

The Longest Year

September 14th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 14 2009

Comments Off

September 14, 2009

As I write this, President Obama is preparing another fine-sounding, yet empty speech. His subject this time is financial reform. You may recall last week’s lofty address to the joint session of Congress, promoting his latest, somewhat-less-nebulous approach to healthcare reform. He assured the audience that the so-called “public option” (wherein a government-created entity competes with private sector healthcare insurers) would be an integral part of the plan. Within a week, two pieces of political toast from the Democratic Party (Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) set about undermining that aspect of the healthcare reform agenda. This is just one reason why, on November 2, 2010, the people who elected Democrats in 2006 and 2008 will be taking a “voters’ holiday”, paving the way for Republican majorities in the Senate and House. The moral lapse involving the public option was documented by David Sirota for Danny Schechter’s NewsDissector blog:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the first time yesterday suggested she may be backing off her support of the public option – the government-run health plan that the private insurance industry is desperately trying to kill. According to CNN, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “said they would support any provision that increases competition and accessibility for health insurance – whether or not it is the public option favored by most Democrats.”

This announcement came just hours before Steve Elmendorf, a registered UnitedHealth lobbyist and the head of UnitedHealth’s lobbying firm Elmendorf Strategies, blasted this email invitation throughout Washington, D.C. I just happened to get my hands on a copy of the invitation from a source – check it out:

From: Steve Elmendorf [mailto:steve@elmendorfstrategies.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:31 AM
Subject: event with Speaker Pelosi at my home
You are cordially invited to a reception with

Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi

Thursday, September 24, 2009
6:30pm ~ 8:00pm

At the home of
Steve Elmendorf
2301 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 7B
Washington, D.C.

$5,000 PAC
$2,400 Individual

Again, Elmendorf is a registered lobbyist for UnitedHealth, and his firm’s website brags about its work for UnitedHealth on its website.

The sequencing here is important: Pelosi makes her announcement and then just hours later, the fundraising invitation goes out. Coincidental? I’m guessing no – these things rarely ever are.

I wrote a book a few years ago called Hostile Takeover whose premise was that corruption and legalized bribery has become so widespread that nobody in Washington even tries to hide it. This is about as good an example of that truism as I’ve ever seen.

Whatever President Obama proposes to accomplish in terms of financial reform will surely be met with a similar fate. Worse yet, his appointment of “Turbo” Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary and his nomination of Ben Bernanke to a second term as Federal Reserve chairman are the best signals of the President’s true intention: Preservation of the status quo, regardless of the cost to the taxpayers.

On this first anniversary of the demise of Lehman Brothers and the acknowledgment of the financial crisis, many commentators have noted the keen observations by Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, published in the May, 2009 issue of The Atlantic. The theme of Johnson’s article, “The Quiet Coup” was that the current economic and financial crisis in the United States is “shockingly reminiscent” of those experienced in emerging markets (i.e. banana republics and proto-capitalist regimes). The devil behind all the details in setting these systems upright after a financial crisis is the age-old concept of moral hazard or more simply: sleaze. In making the comparison of the United States to the emerging market countries he encountered at the IMF, Mr. Johnson began this way:

But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests — financiers, in the case of the U.S. — played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

Here are a few more passages from “The Quiet Coup” that our political leaders would be well-advised to consider:

Even leaving aside fairness to taxpayers, the government’s velvet-glove approach with the banks is deeply troubling, for one simple reason: it is inadequate to change the behavior of a financial sector accustomed to doing business on its own terms, at a time when that behavior must change. As an unnamed senior bank official said to The New York Times last fall, “It doesn’t matter how much Hank Paulson gives us, no one is going to lend a nickel until the economy turns.” But there’s the rub: the economy can’t recover until the banks are healthy and willing to lend.

* * *

The second problem the U.S. faces—the power of the oligarchy— is just as important as the immediate crisis of lending. And the advice from the IMF on this front would again be simple: break the oligarchy.

Oversize institutions disproportionately influence public policy; the major banks we have today draw much of their power from being too big to fail. Nationalization and re-privatization would not change that; while the replacement of the bank executives who got us into this crisis would be just and sensible, ultimately, the swapping-out of one set of powerful managers for another would change only the names of the oligarchs.

Ideally, big banks should be sold in medium-size pieces, divided regionally or by type of business. Where this proves impractical—since we’ll want to sell the banks quickly— they could be sold whole, but with the requirement of being broken up within a short time. Banks that remain in private hands should also be subject to size limitations.

Mr. Johnson pointed out the need to overhaul our current antitrust laws – not because any single institution controls so much market share as to influence prices – but because the failure of any one “to big to fail” bank could collapse the entire financial system.

One of my favorite reporters at The New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson, observed the anniversary of the Lehman Brothers failure with an essay that focused, in large part, on a recent paper by Edward Kane, a finance professor at Boston College, who created the expression: “zombie bank” in 1987. This month, the Networks Financial Institute at Indiana State University published a policy brief by Dr. Kane on the subject of financial regulation. In her article: “But Who Is Watching Regulators?”, Ms. Morgenson summed up Professor Kane’s paper in the following way:

This ugly financial episode we’ve all had to live through makes clear, Mr. Kane says, that taxpayers must protect themselves against two things: the corrupting influence of bureaucratic self-interest among regulators and the political clout wielded by the large institutions they are supposed to police. Finally, he argues, taxpayers must demand that the government publicize the costs of efforts taken to save the financial system from itself.

Although you may have seen widely-publicized news reports about an “overwhelming number” of academicians opposing the current efforts to require transparency from the Federal Reserve, Professor Kane provides a strong argument in favor of Fed transparency as well as scrutiny of the Treasury and the other government entities enmeshed the complex system of bailouts created within the past year.

At thirty-eight pages, his paper is quite a deep read. Nevertheless, it’s packed with great criticism of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. We need more of this and when someone of Professor Kane’s stature provides it, there had better be people in high places taking it very seriously. The following are just a few of the many astute observations made by Dr. Kane:

Agency elitism would be evidenced by the extent to which its leaders use crises to establish interpretations and precedents that cover up its mistakes, inflate its powers, expand its discretion, and extend its jurisdiction. According to this standard, Fed efforts to use the crisis as a platform for self-congratulation and for securing enlarged systemic-risk authority sidetracks rather than promotes effective reform.

* * *

A financial institution’s incentive to disobey, circumvent or lobby against a particular rule increases with the opportunity cost of compliance. This means that, to sort out the welfare consequences of any regulatory program, we must assess not only the costs and benefits of compliance, but include the costs and benefits of circumvention as well.

* * *

Realistically, every government-managed program of disaster relief is a strongly lobbied and nontransparent tax-transfer scheme for redistributing wealth and shifting risk away from the disaster’s immediate victims. A financial crisis externalizes – in margin and other collateral calls, in depositor runs, and in bank and borrower pleas for government assistance – a political and economic struggle over when and how losses accumulated in corporate balance sheets and in the portfolios of insolvent financial institutions are to be unwound and reallocated across society. At the same time, insolvent firms and government rescuers share a common interest in mischaracterizing the size and nature of the redistribution so as to minimize taxpayer unrest.

In principle, lenders and investors that voluntarily assume real and financial risks should reap the gains and bear the losses their risk exposures generate. However, in crises, losers pressure government officials to rescue them and to induce other parties to share their pain.

The advocates of crony capitalism and their tools (our politicians and regulatory bureaucrats) need to know that we are on to them. If the current administration is willing to facilitate more of the same, then it’s time for some new candidates to step forward.

agency elitism, American capitalism, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, Boston College, But Who Is Watching Regulators, centrist, CNN, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, controlling the markets, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Danny Schechter, David Sirota, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Elmendorf Strategies, enlarged systemic risk authority for the Fed, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve transparency, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Gretchen Morgenson, Harry Reid, healthcare reform, Hostile Takeover, huge financial institutions, IMF, Indiana State University, insolvent banks, International Monetary Fund, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, legalized bribery, Lehman Brothers, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, market manipulation, money printing, moral hazard, Nancy Pelosi, NASDAQ 100 index, Networks Financial Institute, New York Stock Exchange, News, NewsDissector, November 2 2010, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, preservation of the status quo, President of the United States, Professor Edward Kane, proto-capitalist regimes, public option, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Simon Johnson, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, Steve Elmendorf, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Atlantic, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Longest Year, The New York Times, The Quiet Coup, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Turbo Tim Geithner, two pieces of political toast from the Democratic Party, United States Senate, United States Treasury, UnitedHealth, voters holiday on November 2 2010, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie bank, zombie banks

Just In Time For Labor Day

September 7th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 07 2009

Comments Off

September 7, 2009

Friday’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, concerning non-farm payrolls for the month of August, left many people squirming. The “green shoots” crowd usually has no trouble cherry-picking through the monthly BLS reports for something they can spin into happy-sounding news, utilizing the “not as bad as expected” approach. Nevertheless, the August BLS report portrayed unpleasant conditions, not only for the unemployed but for those currently working full-time in the labor force, as well.

The current unemployment level is a living nightmare for the unemployed individuals and their families. It also brings some degree of discomfort (although less significant) to those people with money to invest, who are waiting for signs of a sustainable economic upturn before heading back out from the sidelines and into the equities markets. Both groups got an unvarnished look at the latest BLS data from Dave Rosenberg, Chief Economist at Gluskin Sheff in Toronto. His September 4 economic commentary: Lunch with Dave, gave us a thorough analysis of the BLS report:

While the Obama economics team is pulling rabbits out of the hat to revive autos and housing, there is nothing they can really do about employment; barring legislation that would prevent companies from continuing to adjust their staffing requirements to the new world order of credit contraction. While nonfarm payrolls were basically in line with the consensus, declining 216,000 in August, there were downward revisions of 49,000 and the details were simply awful. The fact that 65% of companies are still in the process of cutting their staff loads is quite disturbing — even manufacturing employment fell 63,000 in August, to its lowest level since April 1941 (!), despite the inventory replenishment in the automotive sector and all the excitement over the recent 50+ print in the ballyhooed ISM index. The fact that temp agency employment is still declining, albeit at a slower pace, alongside the flat workweek and jobless claims stuck at 570,000, are all foreshadowing continued weakness in the labour market ahead. Until we see signs of a sustained turnaround in the jobs market all bets are off over the sustainability of any economic recovery.

Looking at the details of the Household Survey, Rosenberg found “a rather alarming picture” of what is happening in the labor market:

First, employment in this survey showed a plunge of 392,000, but that number was flattered by a surge in self-employment (whether these newly minted consultants were making any money is another story) as wage & salary workers (the ones that work at companies, big and small) plunged 637,000 — the largest decline since March (when the stock market was testing its lows for the cycle). As an aside, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also publishes a number from the Household survey that is comparable to the nonfarm survey (dubbed the population and payroll-adjusted Household number), and on this basis, employment sank — brace yourself — by over 1 million, which is unprecedented. We shall see if the nattering nabobs of positivity discuss that particular statistic in their post-payroll assessments; we are not exactly holding our breath.

Second, the unemployment rate jumped to 9.7% from 9.4% in July, the highest since June 1983 and at the pace it is rising, it will pierce the post-WWII high of 10.8% in time for next year’s midterm election. And, this has nothing to do with a swelling labour force, which normally accompanies a turnaround in the jobs market — the ranks of the unemployed surged 466,000 last month.

The language of the BLS report itself on this subject demonstrates how the current unemployment crisis is not an “equal opportunity” phenomenon:

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.1 percent), whites (8.9 percent), and Hispanics (13.0 percent) rose in August. The jobless rates for adult women (7.6 percent), teenagers (25.5 percent), and blacks (15.1 percent) were little changed over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)The civilian labor force participation rate remained at 65.5 percent in August. The employment population ratio, at 59.2 percent, edged down over the month and has declined by 3.5 percentage points since the recession began in December 2007.

Dave Rosenberg added the painful reminder that the unemployment picture always lags behind the end of a recession. How far behind? Look at this:

Jobless claims started off August at 554k and closed the month at 570k. So it seems as though we enter September with the prospect of yet another month of declining payrolls because claims have to break decisively below 500k before jobs stop vanishing and below 400k before the unemployment rate stops rising. Remember, in the early 1990s credit crunch the recession ended in March 1991 and yet the unemployment rate did not peak until June 1992; and in the last cycle, which was an asset deflation phase, the recession ended in November 2001 and yet the jobless rate did not peak until June 2003. So in the last two cycles, it took 15-20 months for the unemployment rate to peak even after the economic downturn officially ended.

At least Mr. Rosenberg had some constructive criticism for the current administration’s efforts at job creation. It’s one thing to just yell: “FAIL” and yet, quite another to put some thought into what needs to be done:

Our advice to the Obama team would be to create and nurture a fiscal backdrop that tackles this jobs crisis with some permanent solutions rather than recurring populist short-term fiscal goodies that are only inducing households to add to their burdensome debt loads with no long-term multiplier impacts. The problem is not that we have an insufficient number of vehicles on the road or homes on the market; the problem is that we have insufficient labour demand.

As for those who are still in the labor force, the situation is also deteriorating, rather than improving. A report by Carlos Torres for Bloomberg News noted that the “real number” for unemployment is 16.8 percent. Beyond that, the work week for factory employees is currently 39.8 hours. It will have to reach 41 hours before we even get a chance to see some changes:

The index of total hours worked, which takes into account changes in payrolls and the workweek, fell 0.3 percent last month to the lowest level since 2003.

“It tells us payrolls aren’t turning positive any time soon,” Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York, said on a conference call yesterday, referring to the workweek figures. “This wasn’t a friendly report.”

A measure of unemployment, which includes the part-time workers who would prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking, reached 16.8 percent last month, the highest level in data going back to 1994.

The workweek for factory employees, which held at 39.8 hours last month, leads total payrolls by about three months, LaVorgna said. Once it reaches at least 41 hours and once payrolls for temporary workers stabilize, then an increase in total employment can be expected months later, he said.

Payrolls for temporary workers started turning down in January 2007, 11 months before the recession began. They dropped by another 6,500 workers in August, the government’s report showed yesterday.

In other words, the decline in temporary worker payrolls preceded the recession by 11 months! Worse yet, the payrolls for temporary workers must stabilize before an increase in total employment comes along “months later”.

Meanwhile, at the Financial Times, Sarah O’Connor reports that many people who have jobs must still rely on food stamps to survive:

The number of working Americans turning to free government food stamps has surged as their hours and wages erode, in a stark sign that the recession is inflicting pain on the employed as well as the newly jobless.

* * *

The food stamp data suggest that “the labour market problems are more significant than you would expect, given just the unemployment rate”, said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. “For me it suggests the consumer is not going to rebound or contribute to economic growth for the next year, as the consumer would in a traditional economic recovery.”

Consumer spending has traditionally been the engine of the US economy, making up about two thirds of GDP. Economists fear that people may be unwilling to resume that role.

That conclusion is exactly what the “green shoots” enthusiasts don’t seem to understand. Those who are well-off enough to pay for their groceries with real money will be focused on paying down their credit cards and saving money before they go out to buy another television or jet ski. If these people have little or no “discretionary income”, then the High Frequency Trading computers on Wall Street can talk to each other all they want — but the stock values will not go up.

Happy Labor Day!

American capitalism, August 2009, August BLS Report, bad publicity, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, Bloomberg news, BLS, BLS Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Lies and Statistics, Carlos Torres, centrist, Commentary, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, consumer spending and GDP, crony capitalism, Dave Rosenberg, declining payrolls, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Deutsche Bank Securities in New York, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economics, economist David Rosenberg, economists, Employment Situation Report, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, Financial Times, Gluskin Sheff, green shoots, High Frequency Trading, High Frequency Trading computers on Wall Street, Household Survey, John Burke, John Silvia, John T Burke Jr, Joseph LaVorgna, Just In Time For Labor Day, lack of discretionary income, liberal, Lunch with Dave, market manipulation, moral hazard, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, not as bad as expected, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, people with jobs who rely on food stamps, Plunge Protection Team, Political, Politics, PPT, President of the United States, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, Sarah O Connor, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, Wells Fargo

The Big Lie Gets Some Blowback

September 3rd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 03 2009

Comments Off

September 3, 2009

My favorite “blowback” story of the week resulted from the ill-advised decisions by people at The New York Times and the Financial Times to trumpet talking points apparently “Fed” (pun intended) to them by the Federal Reserve. Both publications asserted that the TARP program has already returned profits for the Untied States government. The Financial Times claimed the profit so far has been $14 billion. The New York Times, reporting the amount as $18 billion, claimed that “taxpayers have begun seeing profits from the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid that many critics thought might never be seen again.” So where is my check? Anyone with a reasonable degree of intelligence, who bothered to completely read through either of these articles, could quickly recognize yet another rendition of The Big Lie. The blowback against these articles was swift and harsh. Matt Taibbi’s critique was short and sweet:

This is sort of like calculating the returns on a mutual fund by only counting the stocks in the fund that have gone up. Forgetting for a moment that TARP is only slightly relevant in the entire bailout scheme — more on that in a moment — the TARP calculations are a joke, apparently leaving out huge future losses from AIG and Citigroup and others in the red. Since only a small portion of the debt has been put down by the best borrowers, and since the borrowers in the worst shape haven’t retired their obligations yet, it’s crazy to make any conclusions about TARP, pure sophistry.

* * *

The other reason for that is that it’s only a tiny sliver of the whole bailout picture. The real burden carried by the government and the Fed comes from the various anonymous bailout facilities — the TALF, the PPIP, the Maiden Lanes, and so on. . . .

And there are untold trillions more the Fed has loaned out in the last 18 months and which we are not likely to find out much about, unless the recent court ruling green-lighting Bloomberg’s FOIA request for those records actually goes through.

Over at The Business Insider, John Carney also quoted Matt Taibbi’s piece, adding that:

We simply don’t know how to value the mortgage backed securities the Fed bought. We don’t know how much the government will wind up paying on the backstops of Citi and Bear Stearns assets. And we don’t know how much more money might have to be pumped into the system to keep it afloat.

At another centrist website called The Moderate Voice, Michael Silverstein pointed out that any news reporter with a conscience ought to feel a bit of shame for participating in such a propaganda effort:

I’ve been an economics and financial writer for 30 years. I used to enjoy my work. I used to take pride in it. The markets were kinky, sure, but that made the writing more fun.

* * *

That’s not true anymore. Reportage about the economy and the markets — at least in most mainstream media — now largely consists of parroting press releases from experts of various stripes or government spokespeople. And the result is not just infuriating for a long-term professional in this field, but outright embarrassing.

A perfect example was yesterday’s “good news” supposedly showing that our economic masters were every bit as smart as they think they are. A few banks have repaid their TARP loans, part of the $4 trillion that government has sunk into our black hole banking system.

* * *

The $74 billion the government has been repaid is less than two percent of the $4 trillion the government has borrowed or printed to keep incompetent lenders from going down. Less than two percent! Even this piddling sum was generated by a manipulated stock market rally that allowed banks shares to soar, bringing a lot of money into bank coffers, almost all of which they added to reserves before paying back a few billion to the government.

Rolfe Winkler at Reuters joined the chorus criticizing the sycophantic cheerleading for these claims of TARP profitability:

A very dangerous misconception is taking root in the press, that in addition to saving the world financial system, the bank bailout is making taxpayers money.

“As big banks repay bailout, U.S.sees profit” read the headline in the New York Times on Monday. The story was parroted on evening newscasts.

* * *

Taxpayers should keep that in mind whenever they see misguided reports that they are making money from bailouts. The truth is that the biggest banks are still insolvent and, ultimately, their losses are likely to be absorbed by taxpayers.

As the above-quoted sources have reported, the ugly truth goes beyond the fact that the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have been manipulating the stock markets by pumping them to the stratosphere — there is also a coordinated “happy talk” propaganda campaign to reinforce the “bull market” fantasy. Despite the efforts of many news outlets to enable this cause, it’s nice to know that there are some honest sources willing to speak the truth. The unpleasant reality is exposed regularly and ignored constantly. Tragically, there just aren’t enough mainstream media outlets willing to pass along the type of wisdom we can find from Chris Whalen and company at The Institutional Risk Analyst:

Plain fact is that the Fed and Treasury spent all the available liquidity propping up Wall Street’s toxic asset waste pile and the banks that created it, so now Main Street employers and private investors, and the relatively smaller banks that support them both, must go begging for capital and liquidity in a market where government is the only player left. The notion that the Fed can even contemplate reversing the massive bailout for the OTC markets, this to restore normalcy to the monetary models that supposedly inform the central bank’s deliberations, is ridiculous in view of the capital shortfall in the banking sector and the private sector economy more generally.

Somebody ought to write that on a cake and send it over to Ben Bernanke, while he celebrates his nomination to a second term as Federal Reserve chairman.

AIG, American capitalism, bad publicity, bank bailout, banking crisis, banksters, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, black hole banking system, blog, bull market fantasy, centrist, Chris Whalen, Citi, Citigroup, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve talking points, financial crisis, Financial Stability Plan, Financial Times, FOIA request by Bloomberg, green shoots, happy talk propaganda campaign, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John Carney, John T Burke Jr, liberal, Maiden Lane, manipulating the stock markets, market manipulation, Matt Taibbi, Michael Silverstein, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, PPIP, President of the United States, quantitative easing, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Rolfe Winkler, S&P 500 index, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, TALF, TARP, TARP bailout, TARP profitability, TARP profits, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, The Big Lie, The Big Lie Gets Some Blowback, The Business Insider, the center lane, the economy, The Institutional Risk Analyst, The Moderate Voice, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

A Helluva Read

August 31st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 31 2009

Comments Off

August 31, 2009

We are constantly being bombarded with predictions and opinions about where the economy is headed. Since last fall’s financial crisis, people have seen their home values reduced to shocking levels; they’ve seen their investments take a nosedive and they’ve watched our government attempt to respond to crises on several fronts. There have been numerous programs including TARP, TALF, PPIP and quantitative easing, that some of us have tried to understand and that others find too overwhelming to approach. When one attempts to gain an appreciation of what caused this crisis, it quickly becomes apparent that there are a number of different theories being espoused, depending upon which pundit is doing the talking. One of my favorite explanations of what caused the financial crisis came from William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law. In his lecture: The Great American Bank Robbery (which can be seen here) Black explains that we have a culture of corruption at the highest levels of our government, which, combined with ineptitude, allowed some of the sleaziest people on Wall Street to nearly destroy our entire financial system.

William Black recently participated in a conference with a group of experts associated with the Economists for Peace and Security and the Initiative for Rethinking the Economy. The panel included authorities from all over the world and met in Paris on June 15 – 16. A report on the meeting was prepared by Professor James K. Galbraith and was published by The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. The paper, entitled Financial and Monetary Issues as the Crisis Unfolds, is available here. At 16 pages, the document goes into great detail about what has been going wrong and how to address it, in terms that are understandable to the layperson. Here’s how the report was summarized in the Preface:

Despite some success in averting a catastrophic collapse of liquidity and a decline in output, the group was pessimistic that there would be sustained economic recovery and a return of high employment. There was general consensus among the group that the pre-crisis financial system should not be restored, that reviving the financial sector first was not the way to revive the economy, and that governments should not pursue exit strategies that permit a return to the status quo. Rather, the crisis exposes the need for profound reform to meet a range of physical and social objectives.

As to the question of where we are now, at the current stage of the economic crisis, Professor Galbraith recalled one panel member’s analogy to the eye of a hurricane:

The first wall of the storm has passed over us: the collapse of the banking system, which engendered panic and a massive public sector rescue effort. At rest in the eye, we face the second: the bankruptcy of states, provinces, cities, and even some national governments, from California, USA, to Belgium. Since this is a slower process involving weaker players, complicated questions of politics, fairness, and solidarity, and more diffused system risk, there is no assurance that the response by capable actors at the national or transnational level will be either timely or sufficient, either in the United States or in Europe.

There is plenty to quote from in this document, especially in light of the fact that it provides a good deal of sound, constructive criticism of our government’s response to the crisis. Additionally, the panel offered solutions you’re not likely to hear from politicians, most of whom are in the habit of repeating talking points, written by lobbyists.

Focusing on the situation here in the United States, the report gave us some refreshing criticism, especially in the current climate where commentators are stumbling over each other to congratulate Ben Bernanke on his nomination to a second term as Federal Reserve chairman:

American participants were almost equally skeptical of the effectiveness of the U.S.approach to date. As one put it, “Diabetes is a metabolic disease.” Elements of a metabolic disease can be treated (here, “stimulus” plays the role of insulin), but the key to success is to deal with the underlying metabolic problem. In the economic sphere, that problem lies essentially with the transfer of resources and power to the top and the dismantling of effective taxing power over those at the top of the system. (The speaker noted that the effective corporate tax rate for the top 20 firms in the United States is under 2 percent.) The effect of this is to create a “trained professional class of retainers” who devote themselves to preserving the existing (unstable) system. Further, there were massive frauds in the origination of mortgages, in the ratings processes that led to securitization, and in the credit default swaps that were supposed to insure against loss. In the policy approach so far, there is a consistent failure to address, analyze, remedy, and prosecute these frauds.

* * *

Meanwhile, major legislation from health care to bank reform continues to be written in consultation with the lobbies; as one speaker noted, legislation on credit default swaps was being prepared by “Jamie Dimon and his lobbyists.”

One of the gravest dangers to economic recovery, finally, lies precisely in the crisis-fatigue of the political classes, in their lack of patience with a deep and intractable problem, and with their inflexible commitment to the preceding economic order. This feeds denial of the problem, a deep desire to move back to familiar rhetorical and political ground, and the urge to declare victory, groundlessly and prematurely. As one speaker argued, the U.S.discussion of “green shoots” amounts to little more than politically inspired wishful thinking — a substitute for action, at least so far as hopes for the recovery of employment are concerned.

Lest I go on, quoting the whole damned thing, I’ll simply urge you to take a look at it. At the conclusion of the paper was the unpleasant point that some of the damage from this crisis has been irreversible. There was an admonition that before undertaking reconstruction of the damage, some careful planning should be done, inclusive of the necessary safeguards to make it possible to move forward.

Whether or not anyone in Washington will pay serious attention to these findings is another issue altogether. Our system of legalized graft in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions, guarantees an uphill battle for anyone attempting to change the status quo.

A Helluva Read, American capitalism, bad publicity, bailout king, bank bailout, banking crisis, banksters, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economics, economists, Economists for Peace and Security and the Initiative for Rethinking the Economy, equities markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, green shoots, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James K Galbraith, Jamie Dimon, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, legacy assets, legalized graft in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions, liberal, market manipulation, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, PPIP, President of the United States, quantitative easing, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, TALF, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Great American Bank Robbery, The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, The White House, thecenterlane, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William K Black, zombie banks

Invoking Thomas Paine

August 24th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 24 2009

Comments Off

August 24, 2009

In January of 1776, Thomas Paine wrote a 48-page pamphlet, entitled: Common Sense, in which he argued the case that the American colonies should be independent from Britain. He published the pamphlet anonymously, providing only a hint of authorship with the statement: “Written by an Englishman”. This aspect of Paine’s pamphlet brings to mind the debate over the issue of anonymity in the blogosphere, which became quite heated-up this past weekend. As it turned out, a writer for one of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, who uses the surname “Whitehouse”, targeted the Zero Hedge website, accusing its publisher (who uses the pseudonym: Tyler Durden — i.e. Brad Pitt’s character from the movie Fight Club) of being a fellow who was “banned from the securities industry” for making $780 on an “insider” trade. For whatever reason, Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith (whose real name is Susan Webber) saw fit to write a posting (now removed from the site) critical of the “messianic zeal and strident tone” of the material at Zero Hedge, despite the fact that Tyler Durden has written many guest posts for her own Naked Capitalism site. She also criticized the use of pseudonyms by bloggers, particularly at financial sites — because the practice “raises questions about credibility”. She differentiated her own situation with the explanation that her true identity could be ascertained with only “a modicum of digging”. Making a point more supportive of Zero Hedge, she shared her suspicion about the motive behind the attempt to identify Tyler Durden as a disgraced trader:

. . . this story is appearing now precisely because Durden is getting to close to some even more damaging stories than he has provided thus far.

Ms. Smith (or Webber) believes that “Tyler Durden” is actually a pseudonym used by a number of writers at Zero Hedge.

As a result of that posting, Naked Capitalism lost one of its best contributors: Leo Kolivakis of Pension Pulse, whose final contribution to Naked Capitalism can be found here. Mr. Kolivakis then immediately joined the team at Zero Hedge, providing this explanation. When reading his posting, be sure to read the comments, which are always entertaining at Zero Hedge.

I enjoy both Naked Capitalism and Zero Hedge and I will continue to keep them both on my blogroll, despite this dust-up. In response to the intrigue concerning the identity of Tyler Durden, his cohort, Marla Singer submitted this proposed op-ed piece to The New York Times, reminding readers of the anonymous writings by Thomas Paine.

This past weekend brought us another invocation of Thomas Paine, with the publication of a piece entitled: “Common Sense 2009”, which appeared in The Huffington Post. The author did not conceal his identity, since he has made a point of generating controversy about himself throughout his life. He was none other than Larry Flynt. Flynt began with the explanation that last fall’s financial crisis was caused by the fact that “the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929”. He rightfully criticized President Obama for attempting to lay part of the blame for this disaster on “Main Street”. Beyond that, he noted how Obama continues to facilitate the same bad behavior that started this mess:

To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.

Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.

Obama’s failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.

Larry Flynt then offered a bold solution to break the hold of the plutocracy that has been controlling our country for too long:

I’m calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.

Let’s set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn’t effective — if the politicians ignore us — we do it again. And again. And again.

This initiative is a much more effective and constructive use of populist rage than what saw at recent “town hall” meetings and “teabagging” events. Besides: If anyone knows what can and cannot be accomplished by “teabagging” – it’s Larry Flint.

American capitalism, anonymity in the blogosphere, bad publicity, bank bailout, banking crisis, banksters, Barack Obama, blog, Brad Pitt, campaign finance reform, centrist, Commentary, Common Sense, Common Sense 2009, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, Federal Reserve, Fight Club, financial crisis, financial meltdown, insolvent banks, investment banks, Invoking Thomas Paine, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Leo Kolivakis, liberal, market manipulation, Marla Singer, moral hazard, Naked Capitalism, NASDAQ 100 index, national strike, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Pension Pulse, Plunge Protection Team, Political, Politics, populist rage, PPT, President of the United States, Republican, Republican Party, restrictions on lobbying, Rupert Murdoch newspaper, S&P 500 index, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, Susan Webber, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, teabagging events, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, Thomas Paine, town hall meetings, Treasury Department, Tyler Durden, United States Senate, United States Treasury, use of pseudonyms by bloggers, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Whitehouse, Yves Smith, Zero Hedge

Searching For A Port In A Storm Of Bad Behavior

August 20th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 20 2009

Comments Off

August 20, 2009

Since I began complaining about manipulation of the stock markets back on December 18, I’ve been comforted by the fact that a number of bloggers have voiced similar concerns. At such websites as Naked Capitalism, Zero Hedge, The Market Ticker and others too numerous to mention — a common theme keeps popping up: some portion of the extraordinary amounts of money disseminated by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve is obviously being used to manipulate the equities markets. One paper, released by Precision Capital Management, analyzed the correlation between those days when the Federal Reserve bought back Treasury securities from investment banks and “tape painting” during the final minutes of those trading days on the stock markets.

Eliot “Socks” Spitzer recently wrote a piece for Slate, warning the “small investor” about a “rigged” system, as well as the additional hazards encountered due to routine breaches of the fiduciary duties owed by investment firms to their clients:

Recent rebounds notwithstanding, most people now are asking whether the system is fundamentally rigged. It’s not just that they have an understandable aversion to losing their life savings when the market crashes; it’s that each of the scandals and crises has a common pattern: The small investor was taken advantage of by the piranhas that hide in the rapidly moving currents. And underlying this pattern is a simple theme: conflicts of interest that violated the duty the market players had to their supposed clients.

The natural reaction of the retail investor to these hazards and scandals often involves seeking refuge in professionally-managed mutual funds. Nevertheless, as Spitzer pointed out, the mutual fund alternative has dangers of its own:

Mutual funds charge exorbitant fees that investors have to absorb — fees that dramatically reduce any possibility of outperforming the market and that are set by captive boards of captive management companies, not one of which has been replaced for inadequate performance, violating their duty to guard the interests of the fund investors for whom they supposedly work.

Worse yet, is the fact that mutual funds are now increasing their fees and, in effect, punishing their customers for the poor performance of those funds during the past year. Financial planner Allan Roth, had this to say at CBS MoneyWatch.com:

After one of the most awful years in the history of the mutual fund industry, when the average U.S. stock fund and international fund fell by 39 percent and 46 percent respectively, you might expect fund companies would give investors a break and lower their fees. But just the opposite is true.

An exclusive analysis for MoneyWatch.com by investment research firm Morningstar shows that over the past year, fund fees have risen in nearly every category. For stock funds, the fees shot up by roughly 5 percent.

* * *

Every penny you pay in fees, of course, lowers your return. In fact, my research indicates that each additional 0.25 percent in annual fees pushes back your financial independence goal by a year.

What’s more, the only factor that is predictive of a fund’s relative performance against similar funds is fees. A low-cost domestic stock fund is likely to outperform an equivalent high-cost fund, just as a low-cost bond fund is likely to outperform an equivalent high-cost fund. . . . As fund fees increase, performance decreases. In fact, fees explained nearly 60 percent of the U.S. stock fund family performance ratings given by Morningstar. Numerous studies done to predict mutual fund performance indicate that neither the Morningstar rating nor the track record of the fund manager were indicative of future performance.

Another questionable practice in the mutual fund industry — the hiring of “rookies” to manage the funds — was recently placed under the spotlight by Ken Kam for the MSN TopStocks blog:

In this market, it’s going to take skill to make back last year’s losses. After a 40% loss, it takes a 67% gain just to get back to even. You would think that mutual funds would put their most experienced managers and analysts to work right now. But according to Morningstar, the managers of 28 out of 48 unique healthcare funds, almost 60%, (see data) have less than five years with their fund. I think you need to see at least a five-year track record before you can even begin to judge a manager’s worth.

I’m willing to pay for good management that will do something to protect me if the market crashes again. But I want to see some evidence that I am getting a good manager before I trust them with my money. I want to see at least a five-year track record. If I paid for good management and I got a rookie manager with no track record instead, I would be more than a little upset.

Beyond that, John Authers of Morningstar recently wrote an article for the Financial Times, explaining that investors will obtain better results investing in a stock index fund, rather than an “actively managed” equity mutual fund, whether or not that manager is a rookie:

For decades, retail savers have invested in stocks via mutual funds that are actively managed to try to beat an index. The funds hold about 100 stocks, and can raise or lower their cash holdings, but cannot bet on stocks to go down by selling them short.

This model has, it appears, been savaged by a flock of sheep.

Index investing, which cuts costs by replicating an index rather than trying to beat it, has been gaining in popularity.

Active managers argued that they could raise cash, or move to defensive stocks, in a downturn. Passive funds would track their index over the edge of the cliff.

But active managers, in aggregate, failed to do better than their indices in 2008.

So … if you have become too frustrated to continue investing in stocks, be mindful of the fact that equity-based mutual funds have problems of their own.

As for other alternatives: Ian Wyatt recently wrote a favorable piece about the advantages of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for SmallCapInvestor.com. Nevertheless, if the stocks comprising those ETFs (and the ETFs themselves) are being traded in a “rigged” market, you’re back to square one. Happy investing!

DISCLAIMER: NOTHING CONTAINED ANYWHERE ON THIS SITE CONSTITUTES ANY INVESTING ADVICE OR RECOMMENDATION. ANY PURCHASES OR SALES OF SECURITIES OR OTHER INVESTMENTS ARE SOLELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE READER.

A Grand Unified Theory of Market Manipulation, Allan Roth, American capitalism, bad publicity, banksters, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, breaches of fiduciary duties, CBS MoneyWatch, centrist, Commentary, conflict of interest, conflicts of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, economics, Eliot Socks Spitzer, Eliot Spitzer, equities markets, ETF, exchange-traded funds, Federal Reserve, Financial Times, FRNY, Ian Wyatt, index funds, investment banks, John Authers, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Ken Kam, liberal, market correction, market manipulation, market manipulators, moral hazard, Morningstar, MSN TopStocks, mutual fund fee increases, Naked Capitalism, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Painting The Tape, Plunge Protection Team, Political, Politics, POMO, PPT, Precision Capital Management, President of the United States, professionally-managed mutual funds, Republican, Republican Party, retail investor, rookie fund managers, S&P 500 index, Searching For A Port In A Storm Of Bad Behavior, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Slate, small investor, SmallCapInvestor, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, tape painting, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The Market Ticker, The White House, thecenterlane, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Ben Bernanke, Treasury securities, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, Zero Hedge

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

The Federal Reserve Is On The Ropes

Avoiding The Kool-Aid

Bait And Switch

More Heat For The Federal Reserve

The Longest Year

Just In Time For Labor Day

The Big Lie Gets Some Blowback

A Helluva Read

Invoking Thomas Paine

Searching For A Port In A Storm Of Bad Behavior

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com