temporary receivership « TheCenterLane.com

Two Years Too Late

October 11th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 11 2010

Comments Off

October 11, 2010

Greg Gordon recently wrote a fantastic article for the McClatchy Newspapers, in which he discussed how former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson failed to take any action to curb risky mortgage lending. It should come as no surprise that Paulson’s nonfeasance in this area worked to the benefit of Goldman Sachs, where Paulson had presided as CEO for the eight years prior to his taking office as Treasury Secretary on July 10, 2006. Greg Gordon’s article provided an interesting timeline to illustrate Paulson’s role in facilitating the subprime mortgage crisis:

In his eight years as Goldman’s chief executive, Paulson had presided over the firm’s plunge into the business of buying up subprime mortgages to marginal borrowers and then repackaging them into securities, overseeing the firm’s huge positions in what became a fraud-infested market.

During Paulson’s first 15 months as the treasury secretary and chief presidential economic adviser, Goldman unloaded more than $30 billion in dicey residential mortgage securities to pension funds, foreign banks and other investors and became the only major Wall Street firm to dramatically cut its losses and exit the housing market safely. Goldman also racked up billions of dollars in profits by secretly betting on a downturn in home mortgage securities.

By now, the rest of that painful story has become a burden for everyone in America and beyond. Paulson tried to undo the damage to Goldman and the other insolvent, “too big to fail” banks at taxpayer expense with the TARP bailouts. When President Obama assumed office in January of 2009, his first order of business was to ignore the advice of Adam Posen (“Temporary Nationalization Is Needed to Save the U.S. Banking System”) and Professor Matthew Richardson. The consequences of Obama’s failure to put those “zombie banks” through temporary receivership were explained by Karen Maley of the Business Spectator website:

Ireland has at least faced up to the consequences of the reckless lending, unlike the United States. The Obama administration has adopted a muddle-through approach, hoping that a recovery in housing prices might mean that the big US banks can avoid recognising crippling property losses.

* * *

Leading US bank analyst, Chris Whalen, co-founder of Institutional Risk Analytics, has warned that the banks are struggling to cope with the mountain of problem home loans and delinquent commercial property loans. Whalen estimates that the big US banks have restructured less than a quarter of their delinquent commercial and residential real estate loans, and the backlog of problem loans is growing.

This is eroding bank profitability, because they are no longer collecting interest on a huge chunk of their loan book. At the same time, they also face higher administration and legal costs as they deal with the problem property loans.

Banks nursing huge portfolios of problem loans become reluctant to make new loans, which chokes off economic activity.

Ultimately, Whalen warns, the US government will have to bow to the inevitable and restructure some of the major US banks. At that point the US banking system will have to recognise hundreds of billions of dollars in losses from the deflation of the US mortgage bubble.

If Whalen is right, Ireland is a template of what lies ahead for the US.

Chris Whalen’s recent presentation, “Pictures of Deflation” is downright scary and I’m amazed that it has not been receiving the attention it deserves. Surprisingly — and ironically – one of the only news sources discussing Whalen’s outlook has been that peerless font of stock market bullishness: CNBC. Whalen was interviewed on CNBC’s Fast Money program on October 8. You can see the video here. The Whalen interview begins at 7 minutes into the clip. John Carney (formerly of The Business Insider website) now runs the NetNet blog for CNBC, which featured this interview by Lori Ann LoRocco with Chris Whalen and Jim Rickards, Senior Managing Director of Market Intelligence at Omnis, Inc. Here are some tidbits from this must-read interview:

LL: Chris, when are you expecting the storm to hit?

CW: When the too big to fail banks can no longer fudge the cost of restructuring their real estate exposures, on and off balance sheet. Q3 earnings may be the catalyst

LL: What banks are most exposed to this tsunami?

CW: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Citigroup among the top four. GMAC. Why do we still refer to the ugly girls — Bank of America, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo in particular — as zombies? Because the avalanche of foreclosures and claims against the too-big-too-fail banks has not even crested.

* * *

LL: How many banks to expect to fail next year because of this?

CW: The better question is how we will deal with the process of restructuring. My view is that the government/FDIC can act as receiver in a government led restructuring of top-four banks. It is time for PIMCO, BlackRock and their bond holder clients to contribute to the restructuring process.

Of course, this restructuring could have and should have been done two years earlier — in February of 2009. Once the dust settles, you can be sure that someone will calculate the cost of kicking this can down the road — especially if it involves another round of bank bailouts. As the saying goes: “He who hesitates is lost.” In this case, President Obama hesitated and we lost. We lost big.

Adam Posen, asset bubble, bank bailout, Bank of America, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Blackrock, blog, Business Spectator, centrist, Chris Whalen, Citigroup, CNBC, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, Fast Money, FDIC, February of 2009, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, foreclosures, GMAC, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, government-led restructuring, Greg Gordon, Hank Paulson, insolvent banks, Institutional Risk Analytics, investment banks, Ireland, Jim Rickards, John Burke, John Carney, John T Burke Jr, JPMorgan, Karen Maley, liberal, lobbyists, Lori Ann LoRocco, McClatchy Newspapers, moral hazard, mortgage bubble, mortgage securities, mortgage-backed securities, NetNet, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Omnis, Opinion, Pictures of Deflation, Pimco, Political, Politics, President of the United States, problem loans, Professor Matthew Richardson, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, risky mortgage lending, SEC scandals, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, stress tests, subprime mortgage crisis, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, Temporary nationalization, temporary receivership, The Business Insider, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Two Years Too Late, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Wells Fargo, zombie banks

We Took The Wrong Turn

October 7th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 07 2010

Comments Off

October 7, 2010

The ugly truth has raised its head once again. We did it wrong and Australia did it right. It was just over a year ago – on September 21, 2009 – when I wrote a piece entitled, “The Broken Promise”. I concluded that posting with this statement:

If only Mr. Obama had stuck with his campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics”, we wouldn’t have so many people wishing they lived in Australia.

I focused that piece on a fantastic report by Australian economist Steve Keen, who explained how the “money multiplier” myth, fed to Obama by the very people who caused the financial crisis, was the wrong paradigm to be starting from in attempting to save the economy.

The trouble began immediately after President Obama assumed office. I wasn’t the only one pulling out my hair in February of 2009, when our new President decided to follow the advice of Larry Summers and “Turbo” Tim Geithner. That decision resulted in a breach of Obama’s now-infamous campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics”. Obama decided to do more for the zombie banks of Wall Street and less for Main Street – by sparing the banks from temporary receivership (also referred to as “temporary nationalization”) while spending less on financial stimulus. Obama ignored the 50 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, who warned that an $800 billion stimulus package would be inadequate. At the Calculated Risk website, Bill McBride lamented Obama’s strident posturing in an interview conducted by Terry Moran of ABC News, when the President actually laughed off the idea of implementing the so-called “Swedish solution” of putting those insolvent banks through temporary receivership.

With the passing of time, it has become painfully obvious that President Obama took the country down the wrong path. The Australian professor (Steve Keen) was right and Team Obama was wrong. Economist Joseph Stiglitz made this observation on August 5, 2010:

Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister when the crisis struck, put in place one of the best-designed Keynesian stimulus packages of any country in the world. He realized that it was important to act early, with money that would be spent quickly, but that there was a risk that the crisis would not be over soon. So the first part of the stimulus was cash grants, followed by investments, which would take longer to put into place.

Rudd’s stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries.

Fast-forward to October 6, 2010. Michael Heath of Bloomberg BusinessWeek provided the latest chapter in the story of how America did it wrong while Australia did it right:

Australian Employers Added 49,500 Jobs in September

Australian employers in September added the most workers in eight months, driving the country’s currency toward a record and bolstering the case for the central bank to resume raising interest rates.

The number of people employed rose 49,500 from August, the seventh straight gain, the statistics bureau said in Sydney today. The figure was more than double the median estimate of a 20,000 increase in a Bloomberg News survey of 25 economists. The jobless rate held at 5.1 percent.

Meanwhile — back in the States — on October 6, ADP released its National Employment Report for September, 2010. It should come as no surprise that our fate is 180 degrees away from that of Australia: Private sector employment in the U.S. decreased by 39,000 from August to September on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the ADP report. Beyond that, October 6 brought us a gloomy forecast from Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist for the ever-popular Goldman Sachs Group. Wes Goodman of Bloomberg News quoted Hatzius as predicting that the United States’ economy will be “fairly bad” or “very bad” over the next six to nine months:

“We see two main scenarios,” analysts led by Jan Hatzius, the New York-based chief U.S. economist at the company, wrote in an e-mail to clients. “A fairly bad one in which the economy grows at a 1 1/2 percent to 2 percent rate through the middle of next year and the unemployment rate rises moderately to 10 percent, and a very bad one in which the economy returns to an outright recession.”

Aren’t we lucky! How wise of President Obama to rely on Larry Summers to the exclusion of most other economists!

Charles Ferguson, director of the new documentary film, Inside Job, recently offered this analysis of the milieu that facilitated the opportunity for Larry Summers to inflict his painful legacy upon us:

Then, after the 2008 financial crisis and its consequent recession, Summers was placed in charge of coordinating U.S. economic policy, deftly marginalizing others who challenged him. Under the stewardship of Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke, the Obama administration adopted policies as favorable toward the financial sector as those of the Clinton and Bush administrations — quite a feat. Never once has Summers publicly apologized or admitted any responsibility for causing the crisis. And now Harvard is welcoming him back.

Summers is unique but not alone. By now we are all familiar with the role of lobbying and campaign contributions, and with the revolving door between industry and government. What few Americans realize is that the revolving door is now a three-way intersection. Summers’ career is the result of an extraordinary and underappreciated scandal in American society: the convergence of academic economics, Wall Street, and political power.

* * *

Now, however, as the national recovery is faltering, Summers is being eased out while Harvard is welcoming him back. How will the academic world receive him? The simple answer: Better than he deserves.

Australia is looking better than ever — especially when you consider that their spring season is just beginning right now . . .

ABC News, ADP National Employment Report, Australia, Australian employers, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Bill McBride, blog, Bloomberg news, Calculated Risk, campaign contributions, campaign promise, centrist, Charles Ferguson, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Harvard, Inside Job, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jan Hatzius, jobless rate, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Stiglitz, Kevin Rudd, Keynesian stimulus, Larry Summers, liberal, lobbying, lobbyists, Main Street, money multiplier myth, moral hazard, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Private sector employment, recession, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, securities, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steve Keen, stock markets, Swedish solution, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, Temporary nationalization, temporary receivership, Terry Moran, The Broken Promise, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, trickle down economics, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, We Took The Wrong Turn, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Wes Goodman, zombie banks

Where Obama Went Wrong

September 27th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 27 2010

Comments Off

September 27, 2010

One could write an 800-page book on this subject. During the past week, we’ve been bombarded with explanations from across the political spectrum, concerning how President Obama has gone from wildly-popular cult hero to radioactive force on the 2010 campaign trail. For many Democrats facing re-election bids in November, the presence of Obama at one of their campaign rallies could be reminiscent of the appearance of William Macy’s character from the movie, The Cooler. Wikipedia’s discussion of the film provided this definition:

In gambling parlance, a “cooler” is an unlucky individual whose presence at the tables results in a streak of bad luck for the other players.

Barack Obama was elected on a wave of emotion, under the banners of “Hope” and “Change”. These days, the emotion consensus has turned against Obama as voters feel more hopeless as a result of Obama’s failure to change anything. His ardent supporters feel as though they have been duped. Instead of having been tricked into voting for a “secret Muslim”, they feel they have elected a “secret Republican”. At the Salon.com website, Glenn Greenwald has documented no less than fifteen examples of Obama’s continuation of the policies of George W. Bush, in breach of his own campaign promises.

One key area of well-deserved outrage against President Obama’s performance concerns the economy. The disappointment about this issue was widely articulated in December of 2009, as I pointed out here. At that time, Matt Taibbi had written an essay for Rolling Stone entitled, “Obama’s Big Sellout”, which inspired such commentators as Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns to write this and this. Beyond the justified criticism, polling by Pew Research has revealed that 46% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans incorrectly believe that the TARP bank bailout was signed into law by Barack Obama rather than George W. Bush. President Obama invited this confusion with his nomination of “Turbo” Tim Geithner to the position of Treasury Secretary. As President of the Federal Reserve of New York, Geithner oversaw the $13 billion gift Goldman Sachs received by way of Maiden Lane III.

The emotional battleground of the 2010 elections provided some fun for conservative pundit, Peggy Noonan this week as a result of the highly-publicized moment at the CNBC town hall meeting on September 20. Velma Hart’s question to the President was emblematic of the plight experienced by many 2008 Obama supporters. Noonan’s article, “The Enraged vs. The Exhausted” characterized the 2010 elections as a battle between those two emotional factions. The “Velma Moment” exposed Obama’s political vulnerability as an aloof leader, lacking the ability to emotionally connect with his supporters:

The president looked relieved when she stood. Perhaps he thought she might lob a sympathetic question that would allow him to hit a reply out of the park. Instead, and in the nicest possible way, Velma Hart lobbed a hand grenade.

“I’m a mother. I’m a wife. I’m an American veteran, and I’m one of your middle-class Americans. And quite frankly I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are.” She said, “The financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family.” She said, “My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot-dogs-and-beans era of our lives. But, quite frankly, it is starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we are headed.”

What a testimony. And this is the president’s base. He got that look public figures adopt when they know they just took one right in the chops on national TV and cannot show their dismay. He could have responded with an engagement and conviction equal to the moment. But this was our president — calm, detached, even-keeled to the point of insensate. He offered a recital of his administration’s achievements: tuition assistance, health care. It seemed so off point. Like his first two years.

Kirsten Powers of The Daily Beast provided the best analysis of how the “Velma Moment” illustrated Obama’s lack of empathy. Where Bill Clinton is The Sorcerer, Barack Obama is The Apprentice:

Does Barack Obama suffer from an “empathy deficit?” Ironically, it was Obama who used the phrase in a 2008 speech when he diagnosed the United States as suffering from the disorder. In a plea for unity, candidate Obama said lack of empathy was “the essential deficit that exists in this country.” He defined it as “an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.”

* * *

And at a 2008 rally in Westerville, Ohio, Obama said, “One of the values that I think men in particular have to pass on is the value of empathy. Not sympathy, empathy. And what that means is standing in somebody else’s shoes, being able to look through their eyes. You know, sometimes we get so caught up in ‘us’ that it’s hard to see that there are other people and that your behavior has an impact on them.”

Yes, President Obama, sometimes that does happen. Take a look in the mirror. Nothing brought this problem into relief like the two Obama supporters who confronted the president at a recent town hall meeting expressing total despair over their economic situation and hopelessness about the future. Rather than expressing empathy, Obama seemed annoyed and proceeded with one of his unhelpful lectures.

* * *

One former Emoter-in-Chief, Bill Clinton, told Politico last week, “[Obama’s] being criticized for being too disengaged, for not caring. So he needs to turn into it. I may be one of the few people that think it’s not bad that that lady said she was getting tired of defending him. He needs to hear it. You need to hear. Embrace people’s anger, including their disappointment at you. And just ask ‘em to not let the anger cloud their judgment. Let it concentrate their judgment. And then make your case.”

Then the kicker: “[Obama has] got to realize that, in the end, it’s not about him. It’s about the American people, and they’re hurting.”

The American people are hurting because their President sold them out immediately after he was elected. When faced with the choice of bailing out the zombie banks or putting those banks through temporary receivership (the “Swedish approach” – wherein the bank shareholders and bondholders would take financial “haircuts”) Obama chose to bail out the banks at taxpayer expense. So here we are . . . in a Japanese-style “lost decade”. In case you don’t remember the debate from early 2009 – peruse this February 10, 2009 posting from the Calculated Risk website. After reading that, try not to cry after looking at this recent piece by Barry Ritholtz of The Big Picture entitled, “We Should Have Gone Swedish . . .” :

The result of the Swedish method? They spent 4% of GDP ($18.3 billion in today’s dollars), to rescue their banks. That is far less than the $trillions we have spent — somewhere between 15-20% of GDP.

Final cost to the Swedes? Less than 2% of G.D.P. (Some officials believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated).

In the US, the final tally is years away from being calculated — and its likely to be many times what Sweden paid in GDP % terms.

It has become apparent that the story of “Where Obama Went Wrong” began during the first month of his Presidency. Whoever undertakes the task of writing that book will be busy for a long time.

2010 campaign, aloof leader, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, Bill Clinton, blog, Calculated Risk website, centrist, CNBC town hall meeting, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Credit Writedowns, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, Edward Harrison, empathy, empathy deficit, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve of New York, financial crisis, financial reform, George W Bush, Glenn Greenwald, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, insolvent banks, investment banks, Japanese-style lost decade, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Kirsten Powers, liberal, lobbyists, Maiden Lane III, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Obamas Big Sellout, Opinion, Peggy Noonan, Pew Research, Political, Politico, Politics, President of the United States, recession, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Rolling Stone, Salon com, secret Muslim, secret Republican, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Swedish approach, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, temporary receivership, The Big Picture, the center lane, The Cooler, The Daily Beast, the economy, The Enraged vs The Exhausted, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Velma Hart, Velma Moment, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, We Should Have Gone Swedish, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Where Obama Went Wrong, William Macy, zombie banks

Those First Steps Have Destroyed Mid-term Democrat Campaigns

September 6th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 06 2010

Comments Off

September 6, 2010

The steps taken by the Obama administration during its first few months have released massive, long-lasting fallout, destroying the re-election hopes of Democrats in the Senate and House. Let’s take a look back at Obama’s missteps during that crucial period.

During the first two weeks of February, 2009 — while the debate was raging as to what should be done about the financial stimulus proposal — the new administration was also faced with making a decision on what should be done about the “zombie” Wall Street banks. Treasury Secretary Geithner had just rolled out his now-defunct “financial stability plan” in a disastrous press conference. Most level-headed people, including Joe Nocera of The New York Times, had been arguing in favor of putting those insolvent banks through temporary receivership – or temporary nationalization – until they could be restored to healthy, functional status. Nevertheless, at this critical time, Obama, Geithner and Fed chair Ben Bernanke had decided to circle their wagons around the Wall Street banks. Here’s how I discussed the situation on February 16, 2009:

Geithner’s resistance to nationalization of insolvent banks represents a stark departure from the recommendations of many economists. While attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last month, Dr. Nouriel Roubini explained (during an interview on CNBC) that the cost of purchasing the toxic assets from banks will never be recouped by selling them in the open market:

At which price do you buy the assets? If you buy them at a high price, you are having a huge fiscal cost. If you buy them at the right market price, the banks are insolvent and you have to take them over. So I think it’s a bad idea. It’s another form of moral hazard and putting on the taxpayers, the cost of the bailout of the financial system.

Dr. Roubini’s solution is to face up to the reality that the banks are insolvent and “do what Sweden did”: take over the banks, clean them up by selling off the bad assets and sell them back to the private sector. On February 15, Dr. Roubini repeated this theme in a Washington Post article he co-wrote with fellow New York University economics professor, Matthew Richardson.

Even after Geithner’s disastrous press conference, President Obama voiced a negative reaction to the Swedish approach during an interview with Terry Moran of ABC News.

Nearly a month later, on March 12, 2009 — I discussed how the administration was still pushing back against common sense on this subject, while attempting to move forward with its grandiose, “big bang” agenda. The administration’s unwillingness to force those zombie banks to face the consequences of their recklessness was still being discussed — yet another month later by Bill Black and Robert Reich. Three months into his Presidency, Obama had established himself as a guardian of the Wall Street status quo.

Even before the stimulus bill was signed into law, the administration had been warned, by way of an article in Bloomberg News, that a survey of fifty economists revealed that the proposed $787 billion stimulus package would be inadequate. Before Obama took office, Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, pointed out for Bloomberg Television back on January 8, 2009, that the President-elect’s proposed stimulus would be inadequate to heal the ailing economy:

“It will boost it,” Stiglitz said. “The real question is — is it large enough and is it designed to address all the problems. The answer is almost surely it is not enough, particularly as he’s had to compromise with the Republicans.”

On January 19, 2009, financier George Soros contended that even an $850 billion stimulus would not be enough:

“The economies of the world are falling off a cliff. This is a situation that is comparable to the1930s. And once you recognize it, you have to recognize the size of the problem is much bigger,” he said.

On February 26, 2009, Economics Professor James Galbarith pointed out in an interview that the stimulus plan was inadequate. Two months earlier, Paul Krugman had pointed out on Face the Nation, that the proposed stimulus package of $775 billion would fall short.

More recently, on September 5, 2010, a CNN poll revealed that only 40 percent of those surveyed voiced approval of the way President Obama has handled the economy. Meanwhile, economist Richard Duncan is making the case for another stimulus package “to back forward-looking technologies that will help the U.S. compete and to shift away from the nation’s dependency on industries vulnerable to being outsourced to low-wage centers abroad”. Chris Oliver of MarketWatch provided us with this glimpse into Duncan’s thinking:

The U.S. is already on track to run up trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits through the next decade, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.

“If the government doesn’t spend this money, we are going to collapse into a depression,” Duncan says. “They are probably going to spend it. . . . It would be much wiser to realize the opportunities that exist to spend the money in a concerted way to advance the goals of our civilization.”

Making the case for more stimulus, Paul Krugman took a look back at the debate concerning Obama’s first stimulus package, to address the inevitable objections against any further stimulus plans:

Those who said the stimulus was too big predicted sharply rising (interest) rates. When rates rose in early 2009, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “The Bond Vigilantes: The disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers return.” The editorial declared that it was all about fear of deficits, and concluded, “When in doubt, bet on the markets.”

But those who said the stimulus was too small argued that temporary deficits weren’t a problem as long as the economy remained depressed; we were awash in savings with nowhere to go. Interest rates, we said, would fluctuate with optimism or pessimism about future growth, not with government borrowing.

When in doubt, bet on the markets. The 10-year bond rate was over 3.7 percent when The Journal published that editorial; it’s under 2.7 percent now.

What about inflation? Amid the inflation hysteria of early 2009, the inadequate-stimulus critics pointed out that inflation always falls during sustained periods of high unemployment, and that this time should be no different. Sure enough, key measures of inflation have fallen from more than 2 percent before the economic crisis to 1 percent or less now, and Japanese-style deflation is looking like a real possibility.

Meanwhile, the timing of recent economic growth strongly supports the notion that stimulus does, indeed, boost the economy: growth accelerated last year, as the stimulus reached its predicted peak impact, but has fallen off — just as some of us feared — as the stimulus has faded.

I believe that Professor Krugman would agree with my contention that if President Obama had done the stimulus right the first time – not only would any further such proposals be unnecessary – but we would likely be enjoying a healthy economy with significant job growth. Nevertheless, the important thing to remember is that President Obama didn’t do the stimulus adequately in early 2009. As a result, his fellow Democrats will be paying the price in November.

2010 elections, ABC News, bailout of financial system, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, big bang agenda, Bill Black, blog, Bloomberg news, Bloomberg survey of 50 economists, Bond Vigilantes, centrist, Chris Oliver, CNN poll, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Democrats, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economist Richard Duncan, economists, equities markets, Face The Nation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, financial stimulus bill, George Soros, government guarantees, inflation, insolvent banks, interest rates, investment banks, James Galbarith, job growth, Joe Nocera, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Stiglitz, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, Matthew Richardson, mid-term elections, moral hazard, New York Times, News, Nouriel Roubini, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Krugman, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Reich, Senate Democrats, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, temporary bank nationalization, temporary receivership, Terry Moran, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Those First Steps Have Destroyed Mid-Term Democrat Campaigns, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street Banks, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street lobbyists, Washington Post, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Getting It Reich

April 8th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 08 2010

Comments Off

April 8, 2010

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, has been hitting more than a few home runs lately. At a time when too many commentators remain in lock-step with their favorite political party, Reich pulls no punches when pointing out the flaws in the Obama administration’s agenda. I particularly enjoyed his reaction to the performance of Larry Summers on ABC television’s This Week on April 4:

I’m in the “green room” at ABC News, waiting to join a roundtable panel discussion on ABC’s weekly Sunday news program, This Week.

*   *   *

Larry Summers was interviewed just before Greenspan. He said the economy is expanding, that the Administration is doing everything it can to bring jobs back, and that the regulatory reform bills moving on the Hill will prevent another financial crisis.

What?

*   *   *

If any three people are most responsible for the failure of financial regulation, they are Greenspan, Larry Summers, and my former colleague, Bob Rubin.

*   *   *

I dislike singling out individuals for blame or praise in a political system as complex as that of the United States but I worry the nation is not on the right economic road, and that these individuals — one of whom advises the President directly and the others who continue to exert substantial influence among policy makers — still don’t get it.

The direction financial reform is taking is not encouraging. Both the bill that emerged from the House and the one emerging from the Senate are filled with loopholes that continue to allow reckless trading of derivatives. Neither bill adequately prevents banks from becoming insolvent because of their reckless trades. Neither limits the size of banks or busts up the big ones. Neither resurrects the Glass-Steagall Act. Neither adequately regulates hedge funds.

More fundamentally, neither bill begins to rectify the basic distortion in the national economy whose rewards and incentives are grotesquely tipped toward Wall Street and financial entrepreneurialism, and away from Main Street and real entrepreneurialism.

Is it because our elected officials just don’t understand what needs to be done to prevent another repeat of the financial crisis – or is the unwillingness to take preventative action the result of pressure from lobbyists? I think they’re just playing dumb while they line their pockets with all of that legalized graft. Meanwhile, Professor Reich continued to function as the only adult in the room, with this follow-up piece:

Needless to say, the danger of an even bigger cost in coming years continues to grow because we still don’t have a new law to prevent what happened from happening again. In fact, now that they know for sure they’ll be bailed out, Wall Street banks – and those who lend to them or invest in them – have every incentive to take even bigger risks. In effect, taxpayers are implicitly subsidizing them to do so.

* * *

But the only way to make sure no bank it too big to fail is to make sure no bank is too big. If Congress and the White House fail to do this, you have every reason to believe it’s because Wall Street has paid them not to.

Reich’s recent criticism of the Federal Reserve was another sorely-needed antidote to Ben Bernanke’s recent rise to media-designated sainthood. In an essay quoting Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Reich transcended the polarized political climate to focus on the fact that the mysterious Fed enjoys inappropriate authority:

The Fed has finally came clean. It now admits it bailed out Bear Stearns – taking on tens of billions of dollars of the bank’s bad loans – in order to smooth Bear Stearns’ takeover by JP Morgan Chase. The secret Fed bailout came months before Congress authorized the government to spend up to $700 billion of taxpayer dollars bailing out the banks, even months before Lehman Brothers collapsed. The Fed also took on billions of dollars worth of AIG securities, also before the official government-sanctioned bailout.

The losses from those deals still total tens of billions, and taxpayers are ultimately on the hook. But the public never knew. There was no congressional oversight. It was all done behind closed doors. And the New York Fed – then run by Tim Geithner – was very much in the center of the action.

* * *

The Fed has a big problem. It acts in secret. That makes it an odd duck in a democracy. As long as it’s merely setting interest rates, its secrecy and political independence can be justified. But once it departs from that role and begins putting billions of dollars of taxpayer money at risk — choosing winners and losers in the capitalist system — its legitimacy is questionable.

You probably thought that Ron Paul was the only one who spoke that way about the Federal Reserve. Fortunately, when people such as Robert Reich speak out concerning the huge economic and financial dysfunction afflicting America, there is a greater likelihood that those with the authority to implement the necessary reforms will do the right thing. We can only hope.

AIG, Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, bad publicity, bailout king, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Bear Stearns, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Citigroup, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve of New York, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, foreclosures, Getting It Reich, Glass-Steagall Act, government guarantees, hedge funds, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, Larry Summers, legacy assets, Lehman Brothers, liberal, Main Street, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Fed, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, one trillion dollars, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President Clinton, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Robert Reich, Robert Rubin, Ron Paul, S&P 500 index, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Senator Jim DeMint, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, temporary receivership, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, This Week on ABC, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Rethinking The Stimulus

February 22nd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Feb, 22 2010

Comments Off

February 22, 2010

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

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

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

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

Keith Hennessy began with this statement:

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. putting all the money into transfer payments;

4. what Congress and the President did.

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

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

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

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

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

The Legacy Of Mark Pittman

December 3rd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 03 2009

Comments Off

December 3, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

An Ominous Drumbeat Gets Louder

August 13th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 13 2009

Comments Off

August 13, 2009

Regular readers of this blog (all four of them) know that I have been very skeptical about the current “bear market rally” in the stock markets. Nevertheless, the rally has continued. However, we are now beginning to hear opinions from experts claiming that not only is this rally about to end — we could be headed for some real trouble.

Some commentators are currently discussing “The September Effect” and looking at how the stock market indices usually drop during the month of September. Brett Arends gave us a detailed history of the September Effect in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Throughout the summer rally, a number of analysts focused on the question of how this rally could be taken seriously with such thin trading volume. When the indices dropped on Monday, many blamed the decline on the fact that it was the lowest volume day for 2009. However, take a look at Kate Gibson’s discussion of this situation for MarketWatch:

One market technician believes trading volume in recent days on the S&P 500 is a sign that the broad market gauge will test last month’s lows, then likely fall under its March low either next month or in October.

The decline in volume started on Friday and suggests the S&P 500 will make a new low beneath its July 8 bottom of 869.32, probably next week, on the way to a test in September or October of its March 6 intraday low of 666.79, said Tony Cherniawski, chief investment officer at Practical Investor, a financial advisory firm.

“In a normal breakout, you get rising volume. In this case, we had rising volume for a while; then it really dropped off last week,” said Cherniawski, who ascribes the recent rise in equities to “a huge short-covering rally.”

The S&P has rallied more than 50 percent from its March lows, briefly slipping in late June and early July.

Friday’s rise on the S&P 500 to a new yearly high was not echoed on the Nasdaq Composite Index, bringing more fodder to the bearish side, Cherniawski said.

“Whenever you have tops not confirmed by another major index, that’s another sign something fishy is going on,” he said.

What impressed me about Mr. Cherniawski’s statement is that, unlike most prognosticators, he gave us a specific time frame of “next week” to observe a 137-point drop in the S&P 500 index, leading to a further decline “in September or October” to the Hadean low of 666.

At CNNMoney.com, the question was raised as to whether the stock market had become the latest bubble created by the Federal Reserve:

The Federal Reserve has spent the past year cleaning up after a housing bubble it helped create. But along the way it may have pumped up another bubble, this time in stocks.

* * *

But while most people take the rise in stocks as a hopeful sign for the economy, some see evidence that the Fed has been financing a speculative mania that could end in another damaging rout.

One important event that gave everyone a really good scare took place on Tuesday’s Morning Joe program on MSNBC. Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (responsible for scrutiny of the TARP bailout program) discussed the fact that the “toxic assets” which had been the focus of last fall’s financial crisis, were still on the books of the banks. Worse yet, “Turbo” Tim Geithner’s PPIP (Public-Private Investment Program) designed to relieve the banks of those toxins, has now morphed into something that will help only the “big” banks (Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, et al.) holding “securitized” mortgages. The banks not considered “too big to fail”, holding non-securitized “whole” loans, will now be left to twist in the wind on Geithner’s watch. The complete interview can be seen here. This disclosure resulted in some criticism of the Obama administration, coming from sources usually supportive of the current administration. Here’s what The Huffington Post had to say:

Warren, who’s been leading the call of late to reconcile the shoddy assets weighing down the bank sector, warned of a looming commercial mortgage crisis. And even though Wall Street has steadied itself in recent weeks, smaller banks will likely need more aid, Warren said.

Roughly half of the $700 billion bailout, Warren added, was “don’t ask, don’t tell money. We didn’t ask how they were going to spend it, and they didn’t tell how they were going to spend it.”

She also took a passing shot at Tim Geithner – at one point, comparing Geithner’s handling of the bailout money to a certain style of casino gambling. Geithner, she said, was throwing smaller portions of bailout money at several economic pressure points.

“He’s doing the sort of $2 bets all over the table in Vegas,” Warren joked.

David Corn, a usually supportive member of the White House press corps, reacted with indignation over Warren’s disclosures in an article entitled: “An Economic Time Bomb Being Mishandled by the Obama Administration?” He pulled no punches:

What’s happened is that accounting changes have made it easier for banks to contend with these assets. But this bad stuff hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s literally been papered over. And it still has the potential to wreak havoc. As the report puts it:

If the economy worsens, especially if unemployment remains elevated or if the commercial real estate market collapses, then defaults will rise and the troubled assets will continue to deteriorate in value. Banks will incur further losses on their troubled assets. The financial system will remain vulnerable to the crisis conditions that TARP was meant to fix.

* * *

In a conference call with a few reporters (myself included), Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor heading the Congressional Oversight Panel, noted that the biggest toxic assets threat to the economy could come not from the behemoth banks but from the “just below big” banks. These institutions have not been the focus of Treasury efforts because their troubled assets are generally “whole loans” (that is, regular loans), not mortgage securities, and these less-than-big banks have been stuck with a lot of the commercial real estate loans likely to default in the next year or two. Given that the smaller institutions are disproportionately responsible for providing credit to small businesses, Warren said, “if they are at risk, that has implications for the stability of the entire banking system and for economic recovery.” Recalling that toxic assets were once the raison d’etre of TARP, she added, “Toxic assets posed a very real threat to our economy and have not yet been resolved.”

Yes, you’ve heard about various government efforts to deal with this mess. With much hype, Secretary Timothy Geithner in March unveiled a private-public plan to buy up this financial waste. But the program has hardly taken off, and it has ignored a big chunk of the problem (those”whole loans”).

* * *

The Congressional Oversight Panel warned that “troubled assets remain a substantial danger” and that this junk–which cannot be adequately valued–“can again become the trigger for instability.” Warren’s panel does propose several steps the Treasury Department can take to reduce the risks. But it’s frightening that Treasury needs to be prodded by Warren and her colleagues, who characterized troubled assets as “the most serious risk to the American financial system.”

On Wednesday morning’s CNBC program, Squawk Box, Nassim Taleb (author of the book, Black Swan — thus earning that moniker as his nickname) had plenty of harsh criticism for the way the financial and economic situations have been mishandled. You can see the interview with him and Nouriel Roubini here, along with CNBC’s discussion of his criticisms:

“It is a matter of risk and responsibility, and I think the risks that were there before, these problems are still there,” he said. “We still have a very high level of debt, we still have leadership that’s literally incompetent …”

“They did not see the problem, they don’t look at the core of problem. There’s an elephant in the room and they did not identify it.”

Pointing his finger directly at Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Obama, Taleb said policymakers need to begin converting debt into equity but instead are continuing the programs that created the financial crisis.

“I don’t think that structural changes have been addressed,” he said. “It doesn’t look like they’re fully aware of the problem, or they’re overlooking it because they don’t want to take hard medicine.”

With Bernanke’s term running out, Taleb said Obama would be making a mistake by reappointing the Fed chairman.

Just in case you aren’t scared yet, I’d like to direct your attention to Aaron Task’s interview with stock market prognosticator, Robert Prechter, on Aaron’s Tech Ticker internet TV show, which can be seen at the Yahoo Finance site. Here’s how some of Prechter’s discussion was summarized:

“The big question is whether the rally is over,” Prechter says, suggesting “countertrend moves can be tricky” to predict. But the veteran market watcher is “quite sure the next wave down is going to be larger than what we’ve already experienced,” and take major averages well below their March 2009 lows.

“Well below” the Hadean low of 666? Now that’s really scary!

Aaron Task, American capitalism, An Economic Time Bomb Being Mishandled by the Obama Administration, An Ominous Drumbeat Gets Louder, bad publicity, bank bailout, banking crisis, banksters, Barack Obama, bear market rally, Ben Bernanke, Black Swan, blog, Brett Arends, centrist, centrist blog, CNBC, CNNMoney, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, current events opinion, David Corn, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, equities markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Goldman Sachs, GOP, House of Representatives, housing bubble, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan, Kate Gibson, liberal, market correction, market manipulation, MarketWatch, moral hazard, Morning Joe, mortgage-backed securities, MSNBC, NASDAQ 100 index, Nassim Taleb, New Bull Market, New York Stock Exchange, News, Nouriel Roubini, NYSE, Obama, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, political blog, political commentary blog, Politics, PPIP, Practical Investor, Presidency, President, President Barack Obama, President of the United States, Public-Private Investment Program, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Prechter, S&P 500 index, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, securitized mortgages, self-dealing insiders, Senate, socialized loss and privatized gain, Squawk Box, Standard and Poors 500, stock market bubble, stock markets, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, temporary receivership, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Huffington Post, The September Effect, The Wall Street Journal, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, Tony Cherniawski, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Ben Bernanke, Treasury securities, Treasury yields, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Turbo Tim Geithner, unbiased news, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, whole loans, Yahoo Finance, zombie banks

How The Democrats Self-Destruct

June 29th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 29 2009

Comments Off

June 29, 2009

For the past few days, we have been inundated with news reports detailing the self-destructive behavior of the late singing sensation, Michael Jackson. Perhaps it is this heightened awareness of self-destruction that is causing people to take a closer look at the self-destructive behavior taking place within the Democratic Party.

Most notable is the behavior of President Obama. As his Inauguration approached, many people were surprised to learn that some principal players selected for Obama’s economic team were the same people responsible for creating this mess during the Clinton years. The most prominent of these is Larry Summers, who is expected to replace Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve in January. On June 24, Robert Scheer, on his Truthdig website, bemoaned the fact that Obama is following the “trickle down” strategy of bailing out the big banks, while doing nothing to really solve the mortgage crisis:

It’s not working. The Bush-Obama strategy of throwing trillions at the banks to solve the mortgage crisis is a huge bust. The financial moguls, while tickled pink to have $1.25 trillion in toxic assets covered by the feds, along with hundreds of billions in direct handouts, are not using that money to turn around the free fall in housing foreclosures.

* * *

Here again the administration, continuing the Bush strategy, is working the wrong end of the problem. Although President Obama was wise enough to at least launch a job stimulus program, a far greater amount of federal funding benefits Wall Street as opposed to Main Street.

* * *

Why was I so naive as to have expected this Democratic president to not do the bidding of the banks when the last president from that party joined the Republicans in giving the moguls everything they wanted? Please, Obama, prove me wrong.

If President Obama doesn’t prove Robert Scheer wrong, Obama might find himself facing some hostile crowds at the “town hall” meetings as 2012 approaches.

The President might also be surprised to encounter large-scale Democratic grassroots disappointment over his proposed “overhaul” of the financial regulatory system. As I pointed out on June 18, President Obama’s financial reform proposal, released on that date, drew immediate criticism for the expanded powers granted to the Federal Reserve. On June 24, The Nation (which prides itself on having a liberal bias) ran a harshly critical piece by William Greider, entitled: “Obama’s False Reform”. In addition to criticizing the expanded powers granted to the Federal Reserve, Greider emphasized that the proposal did not contain any significant measures, or “hard rules”, to reform the financial system. Beyond that, Greider took Obama to task for the false claim that the regulatory system was overwhelmed by “the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st century global economy”. The article emphasized the need to “slow down the rush to weak solutions” by taking the time to find out about the root causes of the breakdown and then to address those causes:

Give subpoena power to Elizabeth Warren the Congressional Oversight Board she chairs. Hire some of those investigative reporters who have no political investment in digging deeper into the mulch. What exactly went wrong? Who has bloody hands? Where are the fundamental reforms? If the economy returns to “normal’ rather soon, the ardor for serious reform might dissipate with much left undone. That is a small risk to take, especially if the alternative is enacting the bankers’ pallid version of reform.

President Obama is now taking pride for the passage in the House of Representatives of the “climate change bill” (H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009). Despite the claim of House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) that the bill’s passage in the House was “a transformative moment”, 44 Democrats voted against the bill. One harsh critic of the bill is Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Here’s some of what Mr. Kucinich had to say:

It won’t address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse. It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out — coal — by giving it record subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense.

* * *

. . . the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030.

Worse yet is the Democrats’ fumbling and bumbling with their efforts at healthcare reform legislation. Polling wiz Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com, did a meta-analysis of the polls conducted to assess public support for the so-called “public option”in healthcare coverage, wherein people have the option to buy health insurance from the government. The insurance companies obviously aren’t interested in that sort of competition and they have launched advertising campaigns portraying it as controversial and flawed. Nevertheless, Nate Silver’s report revealed that five of the six polls analyzed, demonstrated lopsided support for the public option, exceeding 60 percent. Despite the strong popular support for the public option, Mr. Silver pointed out in another posting, how there is a great risk that Democrats might oppose the measure due to payoffs from lobbyists:

Lobbying contributions appear to have the largest marginal impact on middle-of-the-road Democrats. Liberal Democrats are likely to hold firm to the public option unless they receive a lot of remuneration from healthcare PACs. Conservative Democrats may not support the public option in the first place for ideological reasons, although money can certainly push them more firmly against it. But the impact on mainline Democrats appears to be quite large: if a mainline Democrat has received $60,000 from insurance PACs over the past six years, his likelihood of supporting the public option is cut roughly in half from 80 percent to 40 percent.

Awareness of this venality obviously has many commentators expressing outrage. On June 23, Joe Conason wrote such an article for The New York Observer:

If Congress fails to enact health care reform this year –or if it enacts a sham reform designed to bail out corporate medicine while excluding the “public option” — then the public will rightly blame Democrats, who have no excuse for failure except their own cowardice and corruption. The punishment inflicted by angry voters is likely to be reduced majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives — or even the restoration of Republican rule on Capitol Hill.

* * *

The excuses sound different, but all of these lawmakers have something in common — namely, their abject dependence on campaign contributions from the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations fighting against real reform.

* * *

Whenever Democratic politicians are confronted with this conflict between the public interest and their private fund-raising, they take offense at the implied insult. They protest, as a spokesman for Senator Landrieu did, that they make policy decisions based on what is best for the people of their states, “not campaign contributions.” But when health reform fails — or turns into a trough for their contributors, who will believe them? And who will vote for them?

Those Democrats inclined to oppose the public option don’t appear to be too concerned about public indignation over their behavior. Take California Senator Dianne Feinstein for example. Do you really believe she gives a damn about voter outrage? She was re-elected in 2006, despite criticism that as chair of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, she helped her husband, Iraq war profiteer Richard C. Blum, benefit from decisions she made as chair of that subcommittee. So what if MoveOn.org is targeting her for ambivalence about the issue of healthcare reform? MoveOn.org is also targeting other Democrats who are attempting to eliminate the public option. If these officials have so much hubris as to believe that they can get away with scoffing at the public will, they had better start looking for new jobs now . . . because the market isn’t very good.

2012 campaign, accountability of regulators, banking crisis, bankruptcies, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, Bush-Obama strategy, centrist, Clean coal, climate change bill, Clinton administration, coal, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict between public interest and private fundraising, Congress, Congressional Oversight Board, conservative, corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dennis Kucinich, derivatives crisis, Dianne Feinstein, economic crisis, economists, Elizabeth Warren, Enron-style accounting methods, failing financial companies, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman, financial crisis, financial regulatory reform, FiveThirtyEight, foreclosures, health insurance, healthcare PACs, healthcare reform, How The Democrats Self-Destruct, HR 2454, insolvent banks, insurance companies, insurance PACs, Iraq war profiteer, Joe Conason, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Larry Summers, liberal, lobbying contributions, lobbyists, market transparency, Michael Jackson, Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, moral hazard, mortgage crisis, mortgage-backed securities, MoveOn org, Nate Silver, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Obamas False Reform, Obamas financial reform initiative, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, public option, Republican, Republican Party, Richard C Blum, Robert Scheer, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-destruction, self-destructive behavior, Senator Landrieu, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steny Hoyer, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the center lane, The Nation, The New York Observer, The White House, thecenterlane, town hall meetings, toxic assets, Treasury Department, trickle down, troubled assets, Truthdig, United States Senate, unscrupulous lenders, venality, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Greider, zombie banks

Matt Taibbi Deserves An Award

June 25th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 25 2009

Comments Off

June 25, 2009

Like many people, I found out about Matt Taibbi as a result of his frequent appearances on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. Last spring, Matt appeared on Real Time to discuss his research into the global economic crisis and the resulting scheme of numerous bailouts engineered in response to each sub-crisis of this economic catastrophe. My March 26 piece: “Understanding The Creepy Bailouts“, quoted from Matt’s fantastic article for Rolling Stone magazine, entitled: “The Big Takeover”. (At that time, the “Big Takeover” link led to the complete article. Rolling Stone now provides only abbreviated versions of its published articles on line.) One important theme of Matt’s commentary was evident in this passage:

The mistake most people make in looking at the financial crisis is thinking of it in terms of money, a habit that might lead you to look at the unfolding mess as a huge bonus-killing downer for the Wall Street class. But if you look at it in purely Machiavellian terms, what you see is a colossal power grab that threatens to turn the federal government into a kind of giant Enron — a huge, impenetrable black box filled with self-dealing insiders whose scheme is the securing of individual profits at the expense of an ocean of unwitting involuntary shareholders, previously known as taxpayers.

Matt has a unique way of discussing the extremely complicated, technical issues involved in the financial crisis, by breaking them down into understandable, plain-language points. Unfortunately, most mainstream journalists lack either the understanding or the courage (or both) to discuss our financial predicament in such a frank, informative manner. Take for example: Fareed Zakaria’s discussion of the economic catastrophe as it appeared in Newsweek under the title “The Capitalist Manifesto”. Nobody could to a better job of ripping that thing to shreds than Matt Taibbi himself. With his June 24 blog entry, he did just that:

Zakaria works hard to tell the crisis story minus these outrageous details. Then he goes on to argue that, basically, nothing should be done. We mostly just need a “gut check”; we, all of us, need to rediscover that little voice in all of us that says, “if it doesn’t feel right, we shouldn’t be doing it.” I mean, that is actually what he wrote. No one needs to go to jail, we don’t need to worry about who’s to blame, we just need, you know, do a better job using our trusty moral compasses to navigate the seas of life. It’s classic Zakaria in the sense that he attacks ugly political phenomena with tired cliches and hack pablum until you’re almost too bored to keep your eyes open, then in the end reduces it all to a dumbed-down t-shirt that carries us forward to another cycle of political inaction: Laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t rip off people, people rip off people!

Matt’s previous blog entry on June 18, focused on one of my favorite subjects: the hideous monster we have come to know as Goldman Sachs. I had written a piece about that entity on May 21, discussing how Paul Farrell of MarketWatch and John Crudele of the New York Post had been voicing the same suspicions I had been harboring about Goldman. After reading Matt Taibbi’s June 18 article, I enthusiastically sent the link to my friends. This stuff was just too good! Matt was laying it on the line in a way few others had the courage or the skill to do. I doubt whether many in the mainstream media will follow his lead. Here is one of the highlights from that piece:

Any way you slice it, Goldman was responsible for putting tens of billions of toxic mortgages on the market, resulting in mass foreclosures, mass depletion of retirement funds, and a monstrously over-leveraged financial system that we will now all be bailing out for the next half-century or so. All of this so that Goldman could make a few billion bucks acting as the middleman in all of these deadly transactions.

If that weren’t enough, Matt pointed out that the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone would feature another of his reports — this one focused exclusively on Goldman Sachs. That issue (#1082-83, with the Jonas Brothers on the cover) is now on the newsstands. Matt’s article: “The Wall Street Bubble Machine” is best explained in the subtitle:

From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — And they’re about to do it again.

In case you are wondering how they’re going to do it again . . . Matt reports that it will be by way of the “Cap and Trade” program. Goldman has already positioned itself to serve as one of our government’s premier carbon credit pimps. Matt offered this explanation:

Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energy-futures market?

“Oh, it’ll dwarf it,” says a former staffer on the House energy committee.

Matt’s “bottom line” paragraph at the conclusion of the essay underscores what I believe are America’s biggest problems: “lobbying” and “campaign contributions” (our tradition of legalized graft). Our government is not just one of laws . . . it is one of loopholes, exemptions and waivers. Those things cost money. The people who have the money to “invest” in such machinations, usually find themselves rewarded handsomely . . . at the expense of the taxpayers. Here’s how Matt wrapped it up:

But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal, excusing them from homework until the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It’s a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can’t be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we can’t stop it, but we should at least know where it’s all going.

Amen.

American capitalism, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, blog, campaign contributions, Cap and Trade, carbon credit pimps, centrist, Citigroup, Clinton administration, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, controlling the markets, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, energy futures market, Enron, exemptions, Fareed Zakaria, FDIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, Financial Stability Plan, foreclosures, Goldman Conspiracy, Goldman Sachs, Government Sachs, Hank Paulson, HBO, hedge fund managers, hedge funds, Henry Paulson, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John Crudele, John T Burke Jr, Larry Summers, legacy assets, legalized graft, liberal, lobbying, lobbyists, Long Term Capital crisis, loopholes, market manipulation, MarketWatch, Matt Taibbi, Matt Taibbi Deserves An Award, Merrill Lynch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, Newsweek, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Farrell, Plunge Protection Team, Political, Politics, PPT, President of the United States, Real Time, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Robert Rubin, Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone magazine, S&P 500 index, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stress tests, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, temporary receivership, The Big Takeover, The Capitalist Manifesto, the center lane, the economy, the Great Depression, the New York Post, The Wall Street Bubble Machine, The White House, thecenterlane, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Understanding The Creepy Bailouts, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, waivers, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Two Years Too Late

We Took The Wrong Turn

Where Obama Went Wrong

Those First Steps Have Destroyed Mid-term Democrat Campaigns

Getting It Reich

Rethinking The Stimulus

The Legacy Of Mark Pittman

An Ominous Drumbeat Gets Louder

How The Democrats Self-Destruct

Matt Taibbi Deserves An Award

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com