temporary receivership « TheCenterLane.com

Defending Reagan

June 4th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 04 2009

Comments Off

June 4, 2009

In case you’ve wondered whether Nobel laureates ever emit brain farts, Paul Krugman answered that question in the May 31 edition of The New York Times. His column of that date targeted former President Ronald Reagan for causing our current economic crisis:

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.

I was never a big fan of Ronald Reagan. My reaction to his nomination as the Republican Presidential candidate in 1980, conjured up James Coburn’s sarcastic line from the movie In Like Flint: “An actor for President!” Reagan’s legacy was exaggerated — which is why the book, Tear Down This Myth by Will Bunch, is available on this site, under the “Featured Books” section on the left side of this page. I never believed that Reagan deserved all the credit he was given for the collapse of the former Soviet Union. In my opinion, that distinction belongs to Lech Walesa, leader of Solidarity (the former Soviet bloc’s first independent trade union) and his old buddy, Karol Wojtyla, who later became Pope John Paul II. In fact, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev admitted that the demise of the Iron Curtain would have been impossible without John Paul II.

Another literary deflation of that aspect of the Reagan legend can be found in The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War by James Mann. In his review of that book for The Washington Post, Ronald Steel noted how James Mann addressed the claim that Reagan broke up the Soviet Union:

And in 1991 the Soviet Communist Party disintegrated and with it ultimately the Soviet Union itself. Did Reagan make it happen? This would be too strong, Mann insists. The Cold War ended largely because Gorbachev “had abandoned the field.”

Despite my own feelings about the Reagan legacy, upon reading Paul Krugman’s attempt to blame Ronald Reagan for the economic meltdown, I immediately rejected that idea. What became interesting was that in the aftermath of that article, commentators from “left-leaning” news sources voiced objections to the piece. For example, William Greider is the national affairs correspondent for The Nation. On his own blog, Greider wrote an essay entitled: “Krugman Gets His History Wrong”. While upbraiding Krugman, Mr. Greider took care to note the complicity of the Democrats in causing the current economic crisis:

What Krugman leaves out is that financial deregulation actually started two years earlier — before the Gipper got to Washington. A Democratic Congress and Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) enacted the Monetary Control Act of 1980 which removed all remaining controls on interest rates and repealed the federal law prohibiting usury (note that sky-high interest rates and ruinous predatory lending have been with us ever since). It was the 1980 legislation that took the lid off banking and doomed the savings and loan industry, the mainstay that used to provide housing loans and home mortgages. The thrifts were able to raise capital because they were allowed to pay a half percent more in interest to depositors. Bankers wanted them out of the way. The Democratic party obliged.

Robert Scheer is the editor of Truthdig. The columns he writes for Truthdig regularly appear in The Nation. (He is famous for getting Jimmy Carter to admit for Playboy magazine, that Carter often “lusts in his heart for other women”.) Mr. Scheer’s reaction to Krugman’s vilification of Reagan as the saboteur of the economy includes such words as “disingenuous” and “perverse”. Beyond that, Sheer lays blame for this crisis where it properly belongs:

Reagan didn’t do it, but Clinton-era Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, now a top economic adviser in the Obama White House, did. They, along with then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and Republican congressional leaders James Leach and Phil Gramm, blocked any effective regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives that turned into the toxic assets now being paid for with tax dollars.

* * *

How can Krugman ignore the wreckage wrought during the Clinton years by the gang of five? Rubin, who convinced President Clinton to end the New Deal restrictions on the merger of financial entities, went on to help run the too-big-to-fail Citigroup into the ground. Gramm became a top officer at the nefarious UBS bank. Greenspan’s epitaph should be his statement to Congress in July 1998 that “regulation of derivatives transactions that are privately negotiated by professionals is unnecessary.” That same week Summers assured banking lobbyists that the Clinton administration was committed to preventing government regulation of swaps and other derivatives trading.

Thank goodness Eliot “Socks” Spitzer is still around, writing for Slate. His most recent article about the economy not only provides an accurate assessment of the cause of the problem — it also suggests some solutions:

We have had a fundamentally misguided industrial policy over the past decade. Yes, industrial policy is a dirty phrase to many, some of whom would argue that we haven’t had one, and indeed shouldn’t. But the truth is we did have one: to leverage up and guarantee the bets of a financial services sector that has now collapsed and left nothing of value in its wake.

What would be a better approach? A policy to support those sectors that actually create goods and value. Investment in transformational technology and infrastructure are core national needs. So why not start with a government order for 500,000 electric cars, subject to an RFP two years from now, by which time a true electric car prototype will have been developed? It should be open to any manufacturer, as long as 75 percent of the value of the car is domestically produced. I don’t care if the name on the plate is GM or Toyota, as long as the value added is here. (I prefer a “Toyota” produced in Tennessee to a “GM” produced in China. Why struggle to save the shell of a company –GM– that intends to ship jobs overseas anyway?) Guaranteeing an order of 500,000 will give manufacturers the needed scale to generate profits and reassure private customers that service and support will be around for the long haul. And the federal government could also issue an RFP for recharging stations, to be built by private companies, along the interstate highway system, wherever there is a traditional filling station, so that recharging will be possible.

(By the way: An “RFP” is a Request for Proposals, or bids, on a government project — just in case you were thinking it might mean “request for prostitutes”.)

I have always been a fan of Socks Spitzer. His personal story underscores the simple truth that all of us, regardless of our accomplishments, are only human and we all make mistakes — even Nobel Prize winners such as Paul Krugman.

Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, an actor for President, bank bailout, Bank of America, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, centrist, Citigroup, Clinton administration, Clinton-era Treasury Secretaries, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Defending Reagan, demise of the Iron Curtain, demise of the Soviet Union, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, electric cars, Elliot Socks Spitzer, Elliot Spitzer, Fannie Mae, FDIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, GM, Goldman Sachs, Government Sachs, hedge fund managers, hedge funds, huge financial institutions, In Like Flint, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Coburn, James Leach, James Mann, Jimmy Carter, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Karol Wojtyla, Krugman Gets His History Wrong, Larry Summers, Lech Walesa, liberal, lobbyists, Merrill Lynch, Mikhail Gorbachev, Monetary Control Act of 1980, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Krugman, Phil Gramm, Playboy magazine, Political, Politics, Pope John Paul II, President of the United States, Reagan legacy, Reagan legend, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Robert Rubin, Robert Scheer, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Steel, Savings and Loan crisis, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Slate, socialized loss and privatized gain, Socks Spitzer, Solidarity, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, Tear Down This Myth, temporary receivership, the center lane, the economy, The Nation, The New York Times, The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan A History of the End of the Cold War, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, Toyota, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Truthdig, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, usury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Will Bunch, zombie banks

Sign This Petition

May 25th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 25 2009

Comments Off

May 25, 2009

For some reason, the Boston College School of Law invited Federal Reserve Chairman, B.S. Bernanke, to deliver the commencement address to the class of 2009 on May 22. While reading the text of that oration, I found the candor of this remark at the beginning of his speech, to be quite refreshing:

Along those lines, last spring I was nearby in Cambridge, speaking at Harvard University’s Class Day. The speaker at the main event, the Harvard graduation the next day, was J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books. Before my remarks, the student who introduced me took note of the fact that the senior class had chosen as their speakers Ben Bernanke and J. K. Rowling, or, as he put it, “two of the great masters of children’s fantasy fiction.” I will say that I am perfectly happy to be associated, even in such a tenuous way, with Ms. Rowling, who has done more for children’s literacy than any government program I know of.

Meanwhile, that great master of children’s fantasy fiction (and money printing) is now faced with the possibility that someday, someone might actually start looking over his shoulder in attempt to get some vague idea of just what the hell is going on over at the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve’s resistance to transparency has been a favorite topic of many commentators. For example, once Ben Bernanke took over the Fed Chairmanship from Alan Greenspan in 2006, Ralph Nader expressed his high hopes that Bernanke might adopt Nader’s suggested “seven policies of openness”. Dream on, Ralph!

Speaking of children’s fantasy fiction, one expert on that subject is Congressman Alan Grayson. As the Representative of Florida’s Eighth Congressional District, his territory includes Disney World. Thus, it should come as no surprise that back in January of 2009, as a new member of the House Financial Services Committee, he immediately set about cross-examining Federal Reserve Vice-Chairman Donald Kohn about what had been done with the 1.2 trillion dollars in bank bailout money squandered by the Fed after September 1, 2008. Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com provided a five-minute video clip of that testimony along with an audio recording of his 20-minute interview with Congressman Grayson, focusing on the complete lack of transparency at the Federal Reserve.

Better yet was Congressman Grayson’s questioning of Federal Reserve Board Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman on May 7. In one of the classic “WTF Moments” of all time, Ms. Coleman admitted that she had no clue about the “off balance sheet transactions” by the Federal Reserve, reported by Bloomberg News as amounting to over nine trillion dollars in the previous eight months. If you haven’t seen this yet, you can watch it here. After reviewing this video clip, Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism was of the opinion that Coleman was not stonewalling, but instead was “clearly completely clueless”. Ms. Smith pointed out how opacity at the Federal Reserve may be by design, with the apparent motive being obfuscation:

But there is a possibly more important issue at stake. The interview is with the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The programs are actually at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. For reasons I cannot fathom, the Board of Governors is subject to Freedom of Information Act requests, while the Fed of New York has been able to rebuff them.

So I take Coleman’s inability to answer key questions to be a feature, not a bug. The Fed of New York probably can answer Congressional questions, is taking care to limit what it conveys to the Board so as to keep the information from Congress and the public. Note in the questioning the emphasis on “high level reviews”.

In order to shine a bright light on the Federal Reserve, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, (H.R. 1207) which would give the Government Accountability Office the authority to audit the Federal Reserve and its member components, and require a report to Congress by the end of 2010. On May 21, Congressman Alan Grayson wrote to his Democratic colleagues in the House, asking them to co-sponsor the bill. Among the many interesting points made in his letter were the following:

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve has refused multiple inquiries from both the House and the Senate to disclose who is receiving trillions of dollars from the central banking system. The Federal Reserve has redacted the central terms of the no-bid contracts it has issued to Wall Street firms like Blackrock and PIMCO, without disclosure required of the Treasury, and is participating in new and exotic programs like the trillion-dollar TALF to leverage the Treasury’s balance sheet. With discussions of allocating even more power to the Federal Reserve as the “systemic risk regulator” of the credit markets, more oversight over the central bank’s operations is clearly necessary.

The net effect of recent actions has been to isolate financial policy-making entirely from democratic input, and allow the Treasury Department to leverage the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet to spend money it cannot get appropriated from Congress. The public does not know where trillions of its dollars are going, and so has no meaningful control over the currency or this unappropriated “budget”. The extraordinary size of these lending facilities combined, the extreme secrecy, and the private influence is a dangerous seizure of Congress’s constitutional prerogative to appropriate public monies and control the currency.

You can do your part for this cause by signing the on-line petition. Let Congress know that we will no longer tolerate “children’s fantasy fiction” from the Federal Reserve. Demand an audit of the Federal Reserve as well as a report to the public of what that audit reveals.

2009 commencement address, Alan Grayson, Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, audit the Federal Reserve, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Blackrock, blog, Bloomberg news, Boston College School of Law, BS Bernanke, centrist, children’s fantasy fiction, Citigroup, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Ron Paul, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Disney World, economic crisis, economic meltdown, FDIC, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Transparency Act, Federal Reserve Vice-Chairman Donald Kohn, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, Floridas Eighth Congressional District, foreclosures, GAO, Glenn Greenwald, Government Accountability Office, great masters of childrens fantasy fiction, H R 1207, Harvard graduation, Harvard University, hedge fund managers, hedge funds, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman, investment banks, JK Rowling, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, legacy assets, liberal, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, New York Fed, New York Federal Reserve, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, obfuscation, off balance sheet transactions, opacity at the Federal Reserve, Opinion, Pimco, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Ralph Nader, Ralph Naders seven policies of openness, Republican, Republican Party, Salon, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Sign This Petition, socialized loss and privatized gain, TALF, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, the center lane, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, WTF moment, Yves Smith, zombie banks

A Consensus On Conspiracy

May 21st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 21 2009

Comments Off

May 21, 2009

I guess I can throw away my tinfoil hat. I’m not so paranoid, after all.

Back on December 18, after discussing the bank bailout boondoggle, I made this observation about what had been taking place in the equities markets during that time:

Do you care to hazard a guess as to what the next Wall Street scandal might be? I have a pet theory concerning the almost-daily spate of “late-day rallies” in the equities markets. I’ve discussed it with some knowledgeable investors. I suspect that some of the bailout money squandered by Treasury Secretary Paulson has found its way into the hands of some miscreants who are using this money to manipulate the stock markets. I have a hunch that their plan is to run up stock prices at the end of the day, before those numbers have a chance to settle back down to the level where the market would normally have them. The inflated “closing price” for the day is then perceived as the market value of the stock. This plan would be an effort to con investors into believing that the market has pulled out of its slump. Eventually the victims would find themselves hosed once again at the next “market correction”. I don’t believe that SEC Chairman Christopher Cox would likely uncover such a scam, given his track record.

Some people agreed with me, although others considered such a “conspiracy” too far-flung to be workable.

Thanks to Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, my earlier suspicions of market manipulation were confirmed. On Tuesday, May 19, Mr. Durden posted a video clip from an interview with (among others) Dan Schaeffer, president of Schaeffer Asset Management, previously broadcast on the Fox Business Channel on May 14. While discussing the latest “bear market rally”, Dan Schaeffer made this observation:

“Something strange happened during the last 7 or 8 weeks. Doreen, you probably can concur on this — there was a power underneath the market that kept holding it up and trading the futures. I watch the futures every day and every tick, and a tremendous amount of volume came in at several points during the last few weeks, when the market was just about ready to break and shot right up again. Usually toward the end of the day — it happened a week ago Friday, at 7 minutes to 4 o’clock, almost 100,000 S&P futures contracts were traded, and then in the last 5 minutes, up to 4 o’clock, another 100,000 contracts were traded, and lifted the Dow from being down 18 to up over 44 or 50 points in 7 minutes. That is 10 to 20 billion dollars to be able to move the market in such a way. Who has that kind of money to move this market?

“On top of that, the market has rallied up during the stress test uncertainty and moved the bank stocks up, and the bank stocks issues secondary — they issue stock — they raised capital into this rally. It was a perfect text book setup of controlling the markets — now that the stock has been issued …”

Mr. Schaeffer was then interrupted by panel member, Richard Suttmeier of ValuEngine.com.

My fellow foilhats likely had no trouble recognizing this market manipulation as the handiwork of the Plunge Protection Team (also known as the PPT). Many commentators have considered the PPT as nothing more than a myth, with some believing that this “myth” stems from the actual existence of something called The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. For a good read on the history of the PPT, I recommend the article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph. Bear in mind that Evans-Pritchard’s article was written in October of 2006, two years before the global economic meltdown:

Hank Paulson, the market-wise Treasury Secretary who built a $700m fortune at Goldman Sachs, is re-activating the ‘plunge protection team’ (PPT), a shadowy body with powers to support stock index, currency, and credit futures in a crash.

Otherwise known as the working group on financial markets, it was created by Ronald Reagan to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown in October 1987.

Mr Paulson says the group had been allowed to languish over the boom years. Henceforth, it will have a command centre at the US Treasury that will track global markets and serve as an operations base in the next crisis.

* * *

The PPT was once the stuff of dark legends, its existence long denied. But ex-White House strategist George Stephanopoulos admits openly that it was used to support the markets in the Russia/LTCM crisis under Bill Clinton, and almost certainly again after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“They have an informal agreement among major banks to come in and start to buy stock if there appears to be a problem,” he said.

“In 1998, there was the Long Term Capital crisis, a global currency crisis. At the guidance of the Fed, all of the banks got together and propped up the currency markets. And they have plans in place to consider that if the stock markets start to fall,” he said.

The only question is whether it uses taxpayer money to bail out investors directly, or merely co-ordinates action by Wall Street banks as in 1929. The level of moral hazard is subtly different.

John Crudele of the New York Post frequently discusses the PPT, although he is presently of the opinion that it either no longer exists or has gone underground. He has recently considered the possibility that the PPT may have “outsourced” its mission to Goldman Sachs:

Let’s remember something.

First, Goldman Sachs accepted $10 billion in government money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), so it is gambling with taxpayer money.

But the bigger thing to remember is this: The firm may be living up to its nickname – Government Sachs – and might be doing the government’s bidding.

The stock market rally these past seven weeks has certainly made it easier for the Obama administration to do its job. That, plus a little fancy accounting during the first quarter, has calmed peoples’ nerves quite a bit.

Rallies on Wall Street, of course, are good things – unless it turns out that some people know the government is rigging the stock market and you don’t.

That brings me to something called The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, which is commonly referred to as the Plunge Protection Team.

As I wrote in last Thursday’s column, the Team has disappeared.

Try finding The President’s Working Group at the US Treasury and you won’t.

The guys and girls that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson relied on so heavily last year when he was forcing Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch and when he was waterboarding other firms into coming to Wall Street’s rescue has gone underground.

Anybody who has read this column for long enough knows what I think, that the President’s Working Group Plunge Protectors have, in the past, tinkered with the financial markets.

We’ll let interrogators in some future Congressional investigation decide whether or not they did so legally.

But right now, I smell a whiff of Goldman in this market. Breath in deeply, it’s intoxicating – and troubling.

Could Goldman Sachs be involved in a conspiracy to manipulate the stock markets? Paul Farrell of MarketWatch has been writing about the “Goldman Conspiracy” for over a month. You can read about it here and here. In his May 4 article, he set out the plot line for a suggested, thirteen-episode television series called: The Goldman Conspiracy. I am particularly looking forward to the fourth episode in the proposed series:

Episode 4. ‘Goldman Conspiracy’ is manipulating stock market

“Something smells fishy in the market. And the aroma seems to be coming from Goldman Sachs,” says John Crudele in the New York Post. Stocks prices soaring. “So, who’s moving the market?” Not the little guy. “Professional traders, with Goldman Sachs leading the way.” NYSE numbers show “Goldman did twice the number of so-called big program trades during the week of April 13,” over a billion shares, creating “a historic rally despite the fact that the economy continues to be in serious trouble.” Then he tells us why: Because the “Goldman Conspiracy” is using TARP and Fed money, churning the markets. They are “gambling with taxpayer money.”

It’s nice to know that other commentators share my suspicions … and better yet: Some day I could be watching a television series, based on what I once considered my own, sensational conjecture.

A Consensus On Conspiracy, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, American capitalism, bank bailout, bank holding company, Bank of America, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, bear market rally, Bill Clinton, blog, centrist, Christopher Cox, Citigroup, Clinton administration, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, conservative, controlling the markets, crony capitalism, Dan Schaeffer, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, equities markets, Fannie Mae, FDIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, foilhats, foreclosures, Fox Business Channel, Freddie Mac, George Stephanopoulos, Goldman Conspiracy, Goldman Sachs, Government Sachs, Hank Paulson, hedge fund managers, hedge funds, Henry Paulson, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John Crudele, John T Burke Jr, Larry Summers, late-day rallies, legacy assets, liberal, Long Term Capital crisis, MarketWatch, Merrill Lynch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Fed, New York Federal Reserve, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Farrell, Plunge Protection Team, Political, Politics, PPT, President of the United States, Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets, Republican, Republican Party, Richard Suttmeier, Robert Rubin, Ronald Reagan, S&P 500 index, Schaeffer Asset Management, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, Stephen Friedman, stress tests, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, Telegraph UK, temporary receivership, the center lane, the economy, the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, Tyler Durden, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, ValuEngine com, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Zero Hedge, zombie banks

Spinning Away From The Truth

May 14th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 14 2009

Comments Off

May 14, 2009

Wednesday was a rough day on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 184 points (just over two percent) to 8284; the Standard and Poor’s 500 index gave up over 24 points (2.69 percent) closing at 883.92 and the NASDAQ 100 index gave up 51.73 points (3.01 percent). One didn’t have to look very far to find the reason. At The Daily Beast website on Wednesday evening, item number 2 on the Cheat Sheet was a link to an article from The Wall Street Journal by Peter McKay, entitled: “Signs of Consumer Strain Hit Stocks”. The morning’s bad news was described by Mr. McKay in these terms:

The Commerce Department reported that retail sales fell 0.4% in April from the prior month, a steeper decline than the 0.1% gain economists expected. Sales in March were revised down, falling 1.3% instead of 1.2% as previously reported.

The Wall Street Journal also ran an article on this subject by Justin Lahart: “Retail Sales Stall on Consumer Caution”. Mr. Lahart’s piece underscored the message reverberating through the evening’s financial reporting:

Indeed, retail sales rose in January and February after sliding for six straight months. But those hopes were undermined by the 1.3% drop in retail sales in March as well as April’s decline.

The data suggest that a recovery won’t come until the second half of the year, and that when it does arrive it will be sluggish, said Michael Darda, an economist at MKM Partners in Stamford, Conn.

As I scanned through a number of websites to peruse the evening’s news stories, I was quite shocked to see the following headline on the Huffington Post blog, with screaming, bright red, upper-case, oversized font: “BLOOMBERG NEWS: CONSUMERS FEELING ‘INSPIRED’ TO SPEND MORE”. Huh? Just below the headline were three large photos. The photo on the left featured a lineup of luxurious yachts, reminiscent of what can be found along Indian Creek during the Miami Beach Boat Show. The middle picture showed that guy from Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, raising a silver goblet in a toast to the photographer. The photo on the right depicted a headless woman, adorned in enough jewelry to turn Ruth Madoff green with envy. Had someone hacked into the HuffPo website and put this up as a gag? (Later in the evening, I checked back at the site. Although there was a new main headline relating to a different story, the link to the “inspired consumers” story was still there, although down the page.)

Clicking on the “inspired consumers” headline brought me to a story from Bloomberg News, entitled: “‘Good Bad’ Economy Inspires Consumers As Slump Eases”. “Good bad economy”? I had trouble figuring out what that meant because I lost my George Orwell Decoder Ring. Looking at this slice from the story told me enough about what they were trying to say:

Investor Exuberance

A Bloomberg survey of users on six continents showed that confidence in the global economy rose to the highest level in 19 months.

Antarctica and what five other continents?

The Huffington Post‘s BizarroWorld headline struck me as an attempt to imbue readers with a perception of Happy Days in Obamaland. That headline and its incorporated story reminded me of a point recently made by one of my favorite bloggers, Jr. Deputy Accountant:

You know, there are times when I wonder just how difficult it is to keep the PR machine running at full speed and keep the market propped up artificially and massage Goldman’s nuts all at once. Somehow, the powers-that-be are pulling it off, and I imagine that a large part of the dirty work, at least when it comes to PR, is taken care of by our moronic friends in mainstream media who feed up gems like this: Citi using most of TARP capital to make loans.

(As an aside: the reference to “Goldman” is Goldman Sachs, the second largest contributor to President Obama’s election campaign.)

Instead of relying on “the PR machine” to feed me propaganda about the economy, I rely on some of the sources included on this website’s blogroll. Most of the writers for those sites are credentialed professionals, regarded as experts in their field (as opposed to the dilettantes, who cheerlead for Wall Street in the mainstream media). One of these experts is Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism. If you want to keep up with what’s really happening in the financial world, I suggest that you read her blog.

The truth of what the economy has in store for us is not pretty. If you are ready to have a look at it, read Jeremy Grantham’s most recent report. His bottom line is that late this year or early next year there will be a stock market rally, bringing the Standard and Poor’s 500 index near the 1100 range. After that, get ready for seven really lean years:

A large rally here is far more likely to prove a last hurrah — a codicil on the great bullishness we have had since the early 90s or, even in some respects, since the early 80s. The rally, if it occurs, will set us up for a long, drawn-out disappointment not only in the economy, but also in the stock markets of the developed world.

Unfortunately, it’s already too late for President Obama to accept the following rationale from Mr. Grantham’s essay:

We should particularly not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the financial mafia into believing that all of the failing financial companies — or very nearly all — had to be defended at all costs. To take the equivalent dough that was spent on propping up, say, Goldman or related entities like AIG (that were necessary to Goldman’s well being), as well as the many other incompetent banks and spending it instead on really useful, high return infrastructure and energy conservation and oil and coal replacement projects would seem like a real bargain for society. Yes, we would certainly have had a very painful temporary economic hit from financial and other bankruptcies if we had decided to let them go, but given the proven resilience of economies, it would still have seemed a better long-term bet.

After reading Jeremy Grantham’s recent quarterly letter, ask yourself this: Do you feel “inspired” to spend more?

American capitalism, bank bailout, banking crisis, bankruptcies, Barack Obama, BizarroWorld, blog, Bloomberg news, centrist, Citigroup, Commentary, Commerce Department, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, Fannie Mae, FDIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial mafia, financial meltdown, financial reporting, Financial Stability Plan, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, George Orwell Decoder Ring, GMO, Goldman Sachs, Good bad economy, Happy Days in Obamaland, hedge funds, Huffington Post, HuffPo website, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, inspired consumers, investment banks, Investor Exuberance, Jeremy Grantham, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Jr Deputy Accountant, Justin Lahart, legacy assets, liberal, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, Miami Beach Boat Show, Michael Darda, MKM Partners, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, NASDAQ 100 index, News, Obama Administration, Obama election campaign contributors, Obama Presidency, OpenSecrets org, Opinion, Peter McKay, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Republican, Republican Party, retail sales, Retail Sales Stall on Consumer Caution, Ruth Madoff, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, seven lean years, Signs of Consumer Strain Hit Stocks, socialized loss and privatized gain, Spinning Away From The Truth, Standard and Poors 500, stock market rally, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, the center lane, The Daily Beast, the PR machine, The Wall Street Journal, The White House, thecenterlane, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, United States Senate, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Somebody Really Loves Goldman Sachs

May 7th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 07 2009

Comments Off

May 17, 2009

The recent article about Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner by Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson, appearing in the April 26 edition of The New York Times, seems to have helped fan the flames of the current outrage concerning the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Turbo Tim was president of the New York Fed during the five years prior to his appointment as Treasury Secretary. Becker and Morgenson pointed out many of the ways in which “conflict of interest” seems to be one of the cornerstones of that institution:

The New York Fed is, by custom and design, clubby and opaque. It is charged with curbing banks’ risky impulses, yet its president is selected by and reports to a board dominated by the chief executives of some of those same banks. Traditionally, the New York Fed president’s intelligence-gathering role has involved routine consultation with financiers, though Mr. Geithner’s recent predecessors generally did not meet with them unless senior aides were also present, according to the bank’s former general counsel.

By those standards, Mr. Geithner’s reliance on bankers, hedge fund managers and others to assess the market’s health — and provide guidance once it faltered — stood out.

The New York Fed is probably the most important of the nation’s twelve Federal Reserve Banks, since its jurisdiction includes the heart of America’s financial industry. As the Times piece pointed out, this resulted in the same type of “revolving door” opportunities as those enjoyed by members of Congress who became lobbyists and vice versa:

A revolving door has long connected Wall Street and the New York Fed. Mr. Geithner’s predecessors, E. Gerald Corrigan and William J. McDonough, wound up as investment-bank executives. The current president,William C. Dudley, came from Goldman Sachs.

The New York Fed’s current chairman, Stephen Friedman, has become a subject of controversy these days, because of his position as director and shareholder of Goldman Sachs. Goldman sought and received expedited approval to become a “bank holding company” last September, thus coming under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve and becoming eligible for the ten billion dollars in TARP bailout money it eventually received. After Goldman became subject to the New York Fed’s oversight (with Friedman as the New York Fed chairman) the Fed made decisions that impacted Goldman’s financial state. Although this controversy was discussed here and here by The Wall Street Journal, that publication’s new owner, Rupert Murdoch, now requires a $104 annual on-line subscription fee to read his publication over the Internet. Sorry Rupert: Homey don’t play that. Although Slate provided us with an interesting essay on the Friedman controversy by Eliot “Socks” Spitzer, the best read was the commentary by Robert Scheer, editor of Truthdig. Here are some important points from Scheer’s article, “Cashing In on ‘Government Sachs’ “:

When N.Y. Fed Chairman Stephen Friedman bought stock in the company that he once headed, and where he still serves as a director, he was already in violation of Federal Reserve policy and was hoping for a waiver to permit him to hold his existing multi-million-dollar stock stash and to remain on the Goldman board. The waiver was requested last October by Timothy Geithner, then the president of the N.Y. Fed and now Treasury secretary. Yet,without having received that waiver, Friedman went ahead in December and purchased 37,300 additional shares. With shares he added in January, after the waiver was granted, he ended up with 98,600 shares in Goldman Sachs, worth a total of $13,330,720 at the close of trading on Tuesday.

* * *

As Jerry Jordan, former president of the Fed Bank in Cleveland, told the Journal in reference to Friedman’s obvious conflict of interest, “He should have resigned.”

Unfortunately, this was not the view during the reign of Geithner, who argued that Friedman needed to remain chairman of the N.Y. Fed board to find a suitable replacement for Geithner as he moved on to be secretary of the Treasury. Friedman chose a fellow former Goldman Sachs exec for the job.

* * *

Geithner is a protege of former Goldman Sachs chairman Rubin. And it was therefore not surprising when he picked Mark Patterson, a registered lobbyist for Goldman Sachs, to be his chief of staff at the Treasury Department. That appointment was made on the same day that Geithner announced new rules for limiting the influence of registered lobbyists. Need more be said?

Yes, there are a couple more things: Goldman Sachs was the second largest contributor to Barack Obama’s Presidential election campaign, with a total of $980,945 according to OpenSecrets.org. President Obama nominated Gary Gensler of Goldman Sachs to become Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. As Ken Silverstein reported for Harpers, this nomination has stalled, since a “hold” was placed on the nomination by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Mr. Silverstein quoted from the statement released by the office of Senator Sanders concerning the rationale for the hold:

Mr. Gensler worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of A.I.G. and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S.history. He supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which allowed banks like Citigroup to become “too big to fail.” He worked to deregulate electronic energy trading, which led to the downfall of Enron and the spike in energy prices. At this moment in our history, we need an independent leader who will help create a new culture in the financial marketplace and move us away from the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior which has caused so much harm to our economy.

“Change you can believe in”, huh?

Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, bailout king, bank bailout, bank holding company, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, blog, Cashing In on Government Sachs, centrist, Citigroup, Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, Clinton administration, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, E Gerald Corrigan, economic crisis, economic meltdown, Eliot Socks Spitzer, Eliot Spitzer, Enron, Fannie Mae, FDIC, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, Gary Gensler, Goldman Sachs, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Gretchen Morgenson, Harpers, hedge fund managers, hedge funds, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jerry Jordan, Jo Becker, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Ken Silverstein, Larry Summers, legacy assets, liberal, lobbyists, Mark Patterson, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New York Fed, New York Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama election campaign contributors, Obama Presidency, one trillion dollars, opacity, OpenSecrets org, Opinion, Phil Gramm, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Robert Rubin, Robert Scheer, Rupert Murdoch, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Slate, socialized loss and privatized gain, Somebody Really Loves Goldman Sachs, Stephen Friedman, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, the center lane, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Truthdig, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, unscrupulous lenders, Vermont Senator, waiver, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William C Dudley, William J McDonough, zombie banks

Geithner In The Headlights

April 30th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 30 2009

Comments Off

April 30, 2009

Regular readers of this blog know that one of my favorite targets for criticism is Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner. My beef with him concerns his implementation and execution of programs designed to bail out banks at avoidable taxpayer risk and expense. Lately, we have seen a spate of wonderful articles vindicating my attitude about this man. One of my favorites was written by Gary Weiss for what was apparently the final issue of Conde Nast Portfolio. Mr. Weiss began the article discussing what people remember most about Geithner from the first time they saw him on television:

In his worst moments, when the camera lights are burning and the doubt, the contempt, in the Capitol Hill hearing rooms become palpable, Tim Geithner has a look in his eye — at once wary and alarmed, even as he speaks quickly, sometimes interrupting, sometimes repeating his talking points. It has become a look that he owns. It is his. It has made him famous in all the wrong ways. The Geithner Look.

A few paragraphs later, Weiss recalled Geithner’s disastrous February 10 speech, intended to describe what was then known as the Financial Stability Plan — now referred to as the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP or pee-pip). Mr. Weiss recalled one of the reviews of that speech, wherein Geithner was described as having “the eyes of a shoplifter”. I later learned that it was MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle, who came up with that gem.

The most revealing story about Geithner appeared in the April 26 edition of The New York Times. This article, written by Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson, provided an understanding of Geithner’s background and how that has impacted his decisions and activities as Treasury Secretary. This piece has received plenty of attention from a variety of commentators, most notably for the in-depth investigation into Geithner’s “roots”. Becker and Morgenson summed-up their findings this way:

An examination of Mr. Geithner’s five years as president of the New York Fed, an era of unbridled and ultimately disastrous risk-taking by the financial industry, shows that he forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street’s giant financial institutions.

His actions, as a regulator and later a bailout king, often aligned with the industry’s interests and desires, according to interviews with financiers, regulators and analysts and a review of Federal Reserve records.

After a thorough explanation of how Geithner’s social and professional ties have influenced his thinking, the motivation behind Turbo Tim’s creation of the PPIP became clear:

According to a recent report by the inspector general monitoring the bailout, Neil M. Barofsky, Mr. Geithner’s plan to underwrite investors willing to buy the risky mortgage-backed securities still weighing down banks’ books is a boon for private equity and hedge funds but exposes taxpayers to “potential unfairness” by shifting the burden to them.

Becker and Morgenson apparently went to great lengths to avoid characterizing Geithner as venal or corrupt. Nicholas von Hoffman said it best while discussing the Times article in The Nation:

The authors did not have to spell it out for readers to conclude that Geithner, while honest in the narrow sense of the word, has been extremely helpful to his billionaire mentors and protectors.

Mr. von Hoffman was not so restrained while discussing the behavior of the bailed-out banks in an earlier piece he wrote for The Nation. In attempting to figure out why those banks did not get back into the business of lending money after the government-provided capital infusions, von Hoffman pondered over some possible reasons. First, he wondered whether the banks still lacked enough capital to back-up new loans. I liked his second idea better:

Another possibility is that the banks may have found new ways to steal money, which is more profitable than lending it. The banks’ conduct has been so devious, so mendacious, so shifty and so dishonorable that you cannot rule out any kind of sharp practice. You just can’t trust the bastards.

In recent days, some banks have enhanced their reputations by announcing quarterly profits achieved not by business enterprise but by bookkeeping legerdemain.

Renowned journalist Robert Scheer saw fit to praise Becker and Morgenson’s article in a piece he wrote for the Truthdig website (where he serves as editor). His analysis focused on how Geithner’s views were shaped while working for his mentors in the Clinton administration: Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Scheer reminded us that these are the people who created “the policies that Clinton put in place and George W. Bush accelerated”:

The seeds of the current economic chaos were planted in those years, in which Wall Street lobbyists were given everything they wanted in the way of radical deregulation, and hence was born the madcap world of credit swaps and other unregulated derivatives.

Scheer noted how Turbo Tim has kept alive, what President Obama has often described as “the failed policies of the past eight years”:

Geithner has since pushed the Obama administration to approach the banking crisis not in response to the needs of destitute homeowners but rather from the side of the bankers who are seizing their homes. Instead of keeping people in their homes with a freeze on foreclosures, he has rewarded the unscrupulous lenders who conned ordinary folks.

He still wants to give more money to Citigroup, which has just been found woefully short of cash by Treasury’s auditors, and has not stopped Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and some other big banks ostensibly under government influence, and indeed sometimes ownership, from recently ending their temporary moratoriums on housing foreclosures. Geithner has been in the forefront of coddling the banks in the hopes that welfare for the rich will trickle down to suffering homeowners, but that has not happened.

Rather than just complaining about the problem, Mr. Scheer has suggested a solution:

What is involved here is an extreme case of government-condoned “moral hazard” offering outrageous compensation to the superrich for screwing up royally. Where is the socially conscious Obama we voted for? E-mail him and ask.

American capitalism, bank bailout, bank stress tests, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, centrist, Citigroup, Clinton administration, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Conde Nast Portfolio, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, Fannie Mae, FDIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, Gary Weiss, Geithner In The Headlights, George W Bush, Gretchen Morgenson, hedge fund managers, hedge funds, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jo Becker, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Larry Summers, legacy assets, liberal, Mike Barnicle, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, MSNBC, nationalization of banks, Neil Barofsky, New York Fed, New York Federal Reserve, News, Nicholas von Hoffman, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, pee-pip, Political, Politics, PPIP, President of the United States, Public-Private Investment Program, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Rubin, Robert Scheer, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, stress testing of banks, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, the center lane, the eyes of a shoplifter, The Nation, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Truthdig, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Black And Reich

April 16th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 16 2009

Comments Off

April 16, 2009

I guess it’s because I was using TurboTax to work on my income tax return for the past few days, that I was constantly reminded of Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner. Criticism continues to abound concerning the plan by Turbo Tim and Larry Summers for getting the infamous “toxic assets” off the balance sheets of our nation’s banks. It’s known as the Public-Private Investment Program (a/k/a: PPIP or “pee-pip”). I recently read an article by a couple of Economics professors named Laurence J. Kotlikoff (Boston University) and Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University) wherein they referred to this plan as the GASP (Geithner And Summers Plan). Their bottom line:

The Geithner-and-Summers Plan should be scrapped. President Obama should ask his advisors to canvas the economics and legal community to hear the much better ideas that are in wide circulation.

One of the harshest critics of the PPIP is William Black, an Economics professor at the University of Missouri. Professor Black gained recognition during the 1980s while he was deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). During that time, the FSLIC helped block an attempted sale of Charles Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan, which was subsequently seized by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, despite opposition from five United States Senators, who became known as the Keating Five. A recent interview with Professor Black by Jack Willoughby of Barrons revealed that Black’s aversion to the PPIP starts with the fact that it is being implemented by Geithner and Summers:

We have failed bankers giving advice to failed regulators on how to deal with failed assets. How can it result in anything but failure? If they are going to get any truthful investigation, the Democrats picked the wrong financial team. Tim Geithner, the current Secretary of the Treasury, and Larry Summers, chairman of the National Economic Council, were important architects of the problems. Geithner especially represents a failed regulator, having presided over the bailouts of major New York banks.

I particularly enjoyed Black’s characterization of the PPIP’s use of government (i.e. taxpayer) money to back private purchases of the toxic assets:

It is worse than a lie. Geithner has appropriated the language of his critics and of the forthright to support dishonesty. That is what’s so appalling — numbering himself among those who convey tough medicine when he is really pandering to the interests of a select group of banks who are on a first-name basis with Washington politicians.

The current law mandates prompt corrective action, which means speedy resolution of insolvencies. He is flouting the law, in naked violation, in order to pursue the kind of favoritism that the law was designed to prevent. He has introduced the concept of capital insurance, essentially turning the U.S. taxpayer into the sucker who is going to pay for everything. He chose this path because he knew Congress would never authorize a bailout based on crony capitalism.

For the past month or so, I’ve been hearing many stock market commentators bemoan the fact that there is so much money “on the sidelines”. In other words, people with trading accounts are letting their money sit in brokerage money market accounts, rather than risking it in the stock markets. I believe that many of these people are so discouraged by the sleazy environment on Wall Street, they are waiting for things to get cleaned up before they take any more chances in a casino where so many games are rigged. In the Barrons interview, Black made a point that reinforced my opinion:

His (Geithner’s) use of language like “legacy assets” — and channeling the worst aspects of Milton Friedman — is positively Orwellian. Extreme conservatives wrongly assume that the government can’t do anything right. And they wrongly assume that the market will ultimately lead to correct actions. If cheaters prosper, cheaters will dominate. It is like Gresham’s law: Bad money drives out the good. Well, bad behavior drives out good behavior, without good enforcement.

By asking Professor Black a few simple, straightforward questions (in layperson’s language) Jack Willoughby got some fantastic and refreshing information in return (also in layperson’s language) making this article a “must read”. As Black and many others have pointed out, these huge financial institutions must be broken down into smaller businesses. Why isn’t this being undertaken? Professor Black looks to where the buck stops:

Obama, who is doing so well in so many other arenas, appears to be slipping because he trusts Democrats high in the party structure too much.

These Democrats want to maintain America’s pre-eminence in global financial capitalism at any cost. They remain wedded to the bad idea of bigness, the so-called financial supermarket — one-stop shopping for all customers — that has allowed the American financial system to paper the world with subprime debt. Even the managers of these worldwide financial conglomerates testify that they have become so sprawling as to be unmanageable.

Another critic of the Geithner-Summers PPIP is former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich. Reich is now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His April 6 blog entry discussed the fact that the top 25 hedge fund managers earned a total of $11.6 billion last year:

But what causes me severe heartburn is that these are exactly the sort of investors Tim Geithner is trying to lure in to buy troubled assets from banks, with an extraordinary offer financed by you and me and other taxpayers: If it turns out the troubled assets are worth more than these guys pay for them, they could make a fortune. If it turns out the assets are worth less, these guys won’t lose a thing because we taxpayers will bail them out. Plus, they get to pick only the highest-rated of the big banks’ bad assets and can review them carefully before buying.

What a deal. Why can’t you and I get in on this bonanza? Because we’re too small. The government will designate only about five big investor funds — run or owned by the richest of the rich — as potential buyers. Hedge funds fit the bill perfectly.

It’s nice to know that more and more prominent individuals in the world of economics and public policy are taking the ethical stand against a program based on the principle of “socialized loss and privatized gain”. I just hope President Obama doesn’t take too long to realize that these people are right and that the Geithner – Summers team is wrong.

American capitalism, bank bailout, bank stress tests, Barack Obama, Barrons, Black And Reich, blog, Boston University, capital insurance, centrist, Charles Keating, Columbia University, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economics, Economics professors, economists, FDIC, Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Federal Reserve, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, financial supermarket, FSLIC, GASP, Geithner And Summers Plan, Greshams law, hedge fund managers, hedge funds, huge financial institutions, income tax, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jack Willoughby, Jeffrey Sachs, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Keating Five, Larry Summers, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, legacy assets, liberal, Lincoln Savings and Loan, Milton Friedman, mortgage-backed securities, National Economic Council, nationalization of banks, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Orwellian language, pee-pip, Political, Politics, PPIP, President of the United States, Public-Private Investment Program, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Reich, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, stress testing of banks, subprime debt, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, TurboTax, United States Senate, University of California at Berkeley, University of Missouri, Wall Street, wealth transfer, William Black, worldwide financial conglomerates, zombie banks

Disappointer-In-Chief

April 9th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 09 2009

Comments Off

April 9, 2009

President Obama must feel relieved by the cartoonish attacks against him by the likes of Rep. Michelle Bachmann and Fox News character, Sean Hannity. Bachmann’s accusations that Obama is planning “re-education camps” for young people surely brought some comic relief to the new President. Hannity must have caused some thunderous laughter in the White House with his claim that during a speech the President gave in Strasbourg, France, we saw examples of how “Obama attacks America”. These denigration attempts were likely received as a welcome break from criticism being voiced by commentators who are usually supportive of the Obama administration. Take Keith Olbermann for example. He has not been holding back on expressing outrage over the Obama administration’s claim that the Patriot Act provides sovereign immunity to the federal government in civil lawsuits brought by victims of illegal wiretapping conducted by the Bush administration. Another example of a disillusioned Obama supporter is MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who has been fretting over the President’s plan to up the stakes for success in Afghanistan by increasing our troop commitment there and settling in to fight the good fight for as long as it takes.

Nothing has broken the spirits of Obama supporters more than his administration’s latest bank bailout scheme — a/k/a the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP or “pee-pip”). Although Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner has been the guy selling this plan to Congress and the public, the “man behind the curtain” who likely hatched this scam is Larry Summers. Summers is the economist whom Obama named director of the National Economic Council. At the time of that appointment, many commentators expressed dismay, since Summers, as Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, supported repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. It is widely accepted that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act helped bring about the subprime mortgage crisis and our current economic meltdown. On the November 25, 2008 broadcast of the program, Democracy Now, author Naomi Klein made the following remark about Obama’s appointment of Summers: “I think this is really troubling.” She was right. It was recently reported by Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times that Summers earned more than $5 million last year from the hedge fund, D. E. Shaw and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money. Many economists are now voicing opinions that the Geithner-Summers Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) is “really troubling”, as well. Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have been vocal critics of this plan. As James Quinn reported for London’s Telegraph: Professor Stiglitz said that the plan is “very flawed” and “amounts to robbery of the American people.”

Obama supporter George Soros, the billionaire financier and hedge fund manager, had this to say to Saijel Kishan and Kathleen Hays of Bloomberg News about Obama’s performance so far:

“He’s done very well in every area, except in dealing with the recapitalization of the banks and the restructuring of the mortgage market,” said Soros, who has published an updated paperback version of his book “The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means” (Scribe Publications, 2009). “Unfortunately, there’s just a little bit too much continuity with the previous administration.”

The usually Obama-friendly Huffington Post has run a number of critical pieces addressing the Geithner – Summers plan. Sam Stein pointed out how the plan is “facing a new round of withering criticism from economists”:

These critiques have produced a Washington rarity: the re-sparking of a debate that, in the wake of positive reviews from Wall Street, had largely subsided. Just as Geithner seemed to be finding his political footing, the spotlight has been placed right back on his cornerstone proposal, with critics calling into question both his projections and past testimony on the matter.

Jeffrey Sachs, an Economics professor at Columbia University, wrote a follow-up article for The Huffington Post on April 8, affirming earlier criticisms leveled against the bailout proposal with the added realization that “the situation is even potentially more disastrous” than previously described:

Insiders can easily game the system created by Geithner and Summers to cost up to a trillion dollars or more to the taxpayers.

Zachary Goldfarb of The Washington Post took a closer look at Treasury Secretary Geithner’s testimony before Congress last month, to ascertain the viability of some of the proposals Geithner mentioned at that hearing:

The Obama administration’s plan for a sweeping expansion of financial regulations could have unintended consequences that increase the very hazards that these changes are meant to prevent.

Financial experts say the perception that the government will backstop certain losses will actually encourage some firms to take on even greater risks and grow perilously large. While some financial instruments will come under tighter control, others will remain only loosely regulated, creating what some experts say are new loopholes. Still others say the regulation could drive money into questionable investments, shadowy new markets and lightly regulated corners of the globe.

If President Obama does not change course and deviate from the Geithner-Summers plan before it’s too late, his legacy will be a ten-year recession rather than a two year recession without the PPIP. Worse yet, the toughest criticism and the most pressure against his administration are coming from people he has considered his supporters. At least he has the people at Fox News to provide some laughable “decoy” reports to keep his hard-core adversaries otherwise occupied.

Afghanistan, American capitalism, bank bailout, bank stress tests, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, blog, Bloomberg news, centrist, Columbia University, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, Congressional Oversight Panel, conservative, D E Shaw, debt restructuring, Democracy Now, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Disappointer-In-Chief, economic crisis, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, expansion of financial regulations, FDIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, Fox News, Geithner – Summers plan, George Soros, Glass-Steagall Act, hedge fund, Huffington Post, illegal wiretapping by Bush Administration, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Quinn, Jeff Zeleny, Jeffrey Sachs, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Stiglitz, Kathleen Hays, Keith Olbermann, Larry Summers, liberal, Michelle Bachmann, mortgage-backed securities, MSNBC, Naomi Klein, National Economic Council, nationalization of banks, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, oversight of bank bailouts, Patriot Act, Paul Krugman, pee-pip, Political, Politics, PPIP, PPIP amounts to robbery of the American people, President of the United States, Public-Private Investment Program, Rachel Maddow, re-education camps, Republican, Republican Party, Saijel Kishan, Sam Stein, Sean Hannity, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate Finance Committee, sovereign immunity, Strasbourg France, stress testing of banks, subprime mortgage crisis, TALF, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, Telegraph, temporary receivership, ten-year recession, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, the center lane, the economy, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, Wall Street, wealth transfer, Zachary Goldfarb, zombie banks

Geithner Goes Rogue

April 2nd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 02 2009

Comments Off

April 2, 2009

Forget what you’ve heard about “oversight” and “transparency”. What is really going on with the bank bailouts is beginning to scare some pretty level-headed people.

On March 31, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the oversight of TARP (the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a/k/a the $700 billion bank bailout initiated last fall by former Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson). The hearing featured testimony by Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel; Neil Barofsky, Speical Inspector General for TARP and Gene Dodaro of the General Accounting Office. All three testified that the Treasury Department was not cooperating with their efforts to conduct oversight. In other words: They are being stonewalled. Worse yet, Ms. Warren testified that she could not even get the Treasury Department to explain what the hell is its strategy for TARP. As Chris Adams reported for the McClatchy Newspapers:

Noting that TARP passed Congress six months ago, Warren said that her group has repeatedly called on the Treasury Department to provide a clear strategy for the program – and that “the absence of such a vision hampers effective oversight.”

Although she has asked Treasury to explain its strategy, “Congress and the American public have no clear answer to that question.”

That article also included Warren’s testimony that she experienced similar difficulties in obtaining information about the TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility):

TARP is one of several programs the government has launched in recent months to help ailing institutions and even bolster healthy banks. Warren singled out one program, known as TALF, for involving “substantial downside risk and high costs for the American taxpayer” while offering big potential rewards for private interests. She said the public information about that program was “contradictory, promoting substantial confusion.”

Matthew Jaffe of ABC News pointed out that Neil Barofsky, Speical Inspector General for TARP, voiced similar concerns during his testimony. Not surprisingly, the prepared testimony of the GAO’s Gene Dodaro revealed that:

We continue to note the difficulty of measuring the effect of TARP’s activities.

* * *

. . . Treasury has yet to develop a means of regularly and routinely communicating its activities to relevant Congressional committees, members, the public and other critical stakeholders.

The Treasury Department’s inability to account for what the banks have been doing with TARP funds is based on the simple fact that it hasn’t even bothered to ask the banks that question. As Steve Aquino reported for Mother Jones:

Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General of TARP, testified that the Treasury has yet to require TARP recipients to deliver reports disclosing exactly how they are spending taxpayer money. “[C]omplaints that it was impractical or impossible for banks to detail how they used TARP funds were unfounded,” Barofsky said. “While some banks indicated that they had procedures for monitoring their use of TARP money, others did not but were still able to give information on their use of funds.”

Apparently, Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner has adopted a “Don’t Ask — Don’t Tell” policy on the subject of what banks and other financial institutions do with the TARP money they receive. Steve Aquino’s article emphasized how Elizabeth Warren’s testimony raised suspicions about the relationship between the Treasury and AIG — along with its “counterparties” (such as Goldman Sachs):

Congressional Oversight Panel chair Elizabeth Warren — who made news last month when she reported the Treasury had received securities worth $78 billion less than it paid for through TARP — cast more doubt on the Treasury’s relationship with AIG, saying “the opaque nature of the relationship among AIG, its counterparties, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Banks, particuarly the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has substantially hampered oversight of the TARP program by Congress.”

That quote is particularly damning of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, because Warren specifically mentions the New York Fed, which Geithner headed before coming to Washington, and who also organized the first bailout of AIG.

At this point, it is difficult to understand why anyone, especially President Obama, would trust Turbo Tim to solve the “toxic asset” problem, with the scam now known as the Public-Private Investment Program or PPIP (pee-pip). John P. Hussman, PhD, President of Hussman Investment Trust, wrote a superb analysis demonstrating the futility of the PPIP. Here’s his conclusion:

The misguided policy of defending bondholders against losses with public funds has increased uncertainty, crowded out private investment, harmed consumer confidence, and prompted defensive saving against possible adversity. We observe this as a plunge in gross domestic investment that is much broader than just construction and real estate, and a corresponding but misleading “improvement” in the current account deficit as domestic investment plunges.

Aside from a few Nobel economists such as Joseph Stiglitz (who characterized the Treasury policy last week as “robbery of the American people”) and Paul Krugman (who called it “a plan to rearrange the deck chairs and hope that that keeps us from hitting the iceberg”), the recognition that this problem can be addressed without a massive waste of public funds (and that it is both dangerous and wrong to do so) is not even on the radar.

In short, attempting to avoid the need for debt restructuring by wasting trillions in public funds increases the likelihood that the current economic downturn will be prolonged, places a massive claim on our future production in order to transfer our nation’s wealth to the bondholders of mismanaged financial companies, and raises the likelihood that any nascent recovery will be cut short by inflation pressures. We are nowhere near the completion of this deleveraging cycle.

Unfortunately, we are also nowhere near finding someone who has the will or the ability to pull the plug on Turbo Tim’s recipe for disaster.

ABC News, AIG, AIG bonus controversy, AIG debacle, American capitalism, bank bailout, bank stress tests, Barack Obama, blog, centrist, Chris Adams, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, Congressional Oversight Panel, conservative, debt restructuring, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, FDIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, GAO, Geithner Goes Rogue, Gene Dodaro, General Accounting Office, Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, Hussman Investment Trust, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John P Hussman, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Stiglitz, liberal, Matthew Jaffe, McClatchy Newspapers, mortgage-backed securities, Mother Jones, nationalization of banks, Neil Barofsky, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, oversight of bank bailouts, Paul Krugman, pee-pip, Political, Politics, PPIP, President of the United States, Public-Private Investment Program, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate Finance Committee, Steve Aquino, stress testing of banks, TALF, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, Wall Street, wealth transfer, zombie banks

Understanding The Creepy Bailouts

March 26th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 26 2009

Comments Off

March 26, 2009

The voting, taxpaying public had no trouble understanding the outrageousness of AIG’s use of government-supplied, bailout money to pay $165 million in bonuses to its employees. As we all saw, there was a non-stop chorus of outrage, running from letters to the editors of small-town newspapers to death threats against AIG employees and their next-of-kin. However, what most people don’t really understand is how this crisis came about and what the failed solutions have been. Some of us have tried to familiarize ourselves with the alphabet soup of acronyms for those government-created entities, entrusted with the task of solving the most complex financial problems of all time. Nevertheless, we are behind the curve with our own understanding and we will remain behind the curve regardless of how hard we try. It’s no accident. Opacity is the order of the day from the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In other words: You (the “little people”) are not supposed to know what is going on. So just go back to work, pay your taxes and watch the television shows that are intended to tie-up your brain cells and dumb you down.

This week, Wall Street was excited to learn the details of Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner’s latest version of what, last week, was called the Financial Stability Plan. In order to make the unpopular plan sound different, it was given a new name: the PPIP (Public-Private Investment Partnership or “pee-pip”). Those economists who had voiced skepticism about the plan’s earlier incarnations were not impressed with the emperor’s new clothes. As Nobel laureate and Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman explained in The New York Times:

But the real problem with this plan is that it won’t work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus — for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to — will change that fact.

The plan’s supporters now claim that Professor Nouriel Roubini, an advocate for “nationalization” (or more accurately: temporary receivership) of insolvent banks now supports the “new” plan. As one can discern from the New York Daily News op-ed piece by Dr. Roubini and fellow New York University Professor Matthew Richardson, they simply described this plan a “a step in the right direction”. More important were the caveats they included in their article:

But let’s not have any illusions. The government bears the risk if and when the investors take a bath on the taxpayer-provided loans. If the economy gets worse, it could get very ugly, very quickly. The administration should be transparent in making clear that there is still a wealth transfer taking place here – from taxpayers to investors and banks.

* * *

Moreover, there’s the issue of transparency – or lack thereof. No one knows what the loans or securities are worth. Competing investors will help solve this by promoting price discovery. But be careful what you wish for. We might not like the answers.

James K. Galbraith (the son of famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith) has a PhD in Economics from Yale and is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. His reaction to the PPIP appears on The Daily Beast website in an article entitled: “The Geithner Plan Won’t Work”:

The ultimate objective, and in President Obama’s own words, the test of this plan, is whether it will “get credit flowing again.” (I have dealt with that elsewhere.) Short answer: It won’t. Once rescued, banks will sit quietly on the sidelines, biding their time, until borrowers start to reappear. From 1989 to 1994, that took five years. From 1929 to 1935 — you get the picture.

* * *

And the reality is, if the subprime securities are truly trash, most of the big banks are troubled and some are insolvent. The FDIC should put them through receivership, get clean audits, install new management, and begin the necessary shrinkage of the banking system with the big guys, not the small ones. It should not encumber the banking system we need with failed institutions. And it should not be giving CPR to a market for toxic mortgages that never should have been issued, and certainly never securitized, in the first place.

Back in May of 2006, Dr. Galbraith wrote an article for Mother Jones that is particularly relevant to the current economic crisis. Many commentators are now quoting Galbraith’s observations about how “the predator class” is in the process of crushing the rest of us:

Today, the signature of modern American capitalism is neither benign competition, nor class struggle, nor an inclusive middle-class utopia. Instead, predation has become the dominant feature — a system wherein the rich have come to feast on decaying systems built for the middle class. The predatory class is not the whole of the wealthy; it may be opposed by many others of similar wealth. But it is the defining feature, the leading force. And its agents are in full control of the government under which we live.

The validity of Galbraith’s argument becomes apparent after reading Matt Taibbi’s recent article for Rolling Stone, called “The Big Takeover”. Taibbi’s article is a “must read” for anyone attempting to get an understanding of how this mess came about as well as the sinister maneuvers that were made after la mierda hit the fan. It’s not a pretty picture and Matt deserves more than congratulations for his hard work on this project, putting the arcane financial concepts and terminology into plain, easy-to-understand English. Beyond that, he provides the Big Picture, which, for those who read Galbraith’s discourse on predation, is all too familiar:

People are pissed off about this financial crisis, and about this bailout, but they’re not pissed off enough. The reality is that the worldwide economic meltdown and the bailout that followed were together a kind of revolution, a coup d’etat. They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

The crisis was the coup de grace: Given virtually free rein over the economy, these same insiders first wrecked the financial world, then cunningly granted themselves nearly unlimited emergency powers to clean up their own mess. And so the gambling-addict leaders of companies like AIG end up not penniless and in jail, but with an Alien-style death grip on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve — “our partners in the government,” as Liddy put it with a shockingly casual matter-of-factness after the most recent bailout.

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.

Let’s hope I haven’t scared you out of reading Matt’s article. Besides: If you don’t — you are going to feel really stupid when you have to admit that you don’t know what the ABCPMMMFLF is.

ABCPMMMFLF, AIG, AIG bonus controversy, AIG debacle, American capitalism, bank bailout, bank stress tests, Barack Obama, blog, centrist, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, conservative, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Enron, FDIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, insiders, insolvent banks, investment banks, James K Galbraith, John Burke, John Kenneth Galbraith, John T Burke Jr, liberal, Matt Taibbi, mortgage-backed securities, Mother Jones, nationalization of banks, New York Daily News, New York University, News, Nobel laureate, Nouriel Roubini, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, one trillion dollars, opacity, Opinion, Paul Krugman, pee-pip, Political, Politics, PPIP, predation, President of the United States, Princeton University, Professor Matthew Richardson, public outrage, Public-Private Investment Partnership, Republican, Republican Party, Rolling Stone, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, stress testing of banks, TARP bailout, taxpayer anger, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, temporary receivership, the banks, The Big Takeover, the center lane, The Daily Beast, the economy, The Geithner Plan Won’t Work, The New York Times, the predator class, the predatory class, the Treasury, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, toxic assets, transparency, Troubled Asset Relief Program, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, Understanding The Creepy Bailouts, United States Senate, University of Texas at Austin, Wall Street, wealth transfer, Yale, zombie banks

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Defending Reagan

Sign This Petition

A Consensus On Conspiracy

Spinning Away From The Truth

Somebody Really Loves Goldman Sachs

Geithner In The Headlights

Black And Reich

Disappointer-In-Chief

Geithner Goes Rogue

Understanding The Creepy Bailouts

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com