derivatives crisis « TheCenterLane.com

Still Wrong After All These Years

June 21st, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 21 2010

Comments Off

June 21, 2010

I’m quite surprised by the fact that people continue to pay serious attention to the musings of Alan Greenspan. On June 18, The Wall Street Journal saw fit to publish an opinion piece by the man referred to as “The Maestro” (although – these days – that expression is commonly used in sarcasm). The former Fed chairman expounded that recent attempts to rein in the federal budget are coming “none too soon”. Near the end of the article, Greenspan made the statement that will earn him a nomination for TheCenterLane.com’s Jackass of the Year Award:

I believe the fears of budget contraction inducing a renewed decline of economic activity are misplaced.

John Mauldin recently provided us with a thorough explanation of why Greenspan’s statement is wrong:

There are loud calls in the US and elsewhere for more fiscal constraints. I am part of that call. Fiscal deficits of 10% of GDP is a prescription for disaster. As we have discussed in previous letters, the book by Rogoff and Reinhart (This Time is Different) clearly shows that at some point, bond investors start to ask for higher rates and then the interest rate becomes a spiral. Think of Greece. So, not dealing with the deficit is simply creating a future crisis even worse than the one we just had.

But cutting the deficit too fast could also throw the country back in a recession. There has to be a balance.

* * *

That deficit reduction will also reduce GDP. That means you collect less taxes which makes the deficits worse which means you have to make more cuts than planned which means lower tax receipts which means etc. Ireland is working hard to reduce its deficits but their GDP has dropped by almost 20%! Latvia and Estonia have seen their nominal GDP drop by almost 30%! That can only be characterized as a depression for them.

Robert Reich’s refutation of Greenspan’s article was right on target:

Contrary to Greenspan, today’s debt is not being driven by new spending initiatives. It’s being driven by policies that Greenspan himself bears major responsibility for.

Greenspan supported George W. Bush’s gigantic tax cut in 2001 (that went mostly to the rich), and uttered no warnings about W’s subsequent spending frenzy on the military and a Medicare drug benefit (corporate welfare for Big Pharma) — all of which contributed massively to today’s debt. Greenspan also lowered short-term interest rates to zero in 2002 but refused to monitor what Wall Street was doing with all this free money. Years before that, he urged Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and he opposed oversight of derivative trading. All this contributed to Wall Street’s implosion in 2008 that led to massive bailout, and a huge contraction of the economy that required the stimulus package. These account for most of the rest of today’s debt.

If there’s a single American more responsible for today’s “federal debt explosion” than Alan Greenspan, I don’t know him.

But we can manage the Greenspan Debt if we get the U.S. economy growing again. The only way to do that when consumers can’t and won’t spend and when corporations won’t invest is for the federal government to pick up the slack.

This brings us back to my initial question of why anyone would still take Alan Greenspan seriously. As far back as April of 2008 – five months before the financial crisis hit the “meltdown” stage — Bernd Debusmann had this to say about The Maestro for Reuters, in a piece entitled, “Alan Greenspan, dented American idol”:

Instead of the fawning praise heaped on Greenspan when the economy was booming, there are now websites portraying him in dark colors. One site is called The Mess That Greenspan Made, another Greenspan’s Body Count. Greenspan’s memoirs, The Age of Turbulence, prompted hedge fund manager William Fleckenstein to write a book entitled Greenspan’s Bubbles, the Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve. It’s in its fourth printing.

The day after Greenspan’s essay appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Howard Gold provided us with this recap of Greenspan’s Fed chairmanship in an article for MarketWatch:

The Fed chairman’s hands-off stance helped the housing bubble morph into a full-blown financial crisis when hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and other unregulated derivatives — backed by subprime mortgages and other dubious instruments — went up in smoke.

Highly leveraged banks that bet on those vehicles soon were insolvent, too, and the Fed, the U.S. Treasury and, of course, taxpayers had to foot the bill. We’re still paying.

But this was not just a case of unregulated markets run amok. Government policies clearly made things much worse — and here, too, Greenspan was the culprit.

The Fed’s manipulation of interest rates in the middle of the last decade laid the groundwork for the most fevered stage of the housing bubble. To this day, Greenspan, using heavy-duty statistical analysis, disputes the role his super-low federal funds rate played in encouraging risky behavior in housing and capital markets.

Among the harsh critiques of Greenspan’s career at the Fed, was Frederick Sheehan’s book, Panderer to Power. Ryan McMaken’s review of the book recently appeared at the LewRockwell.com website – with the title, “The Real Legacy of Alan Greenspan”. Here is some of what McMacken had to say:

. . . Panderer to Power is the story of an economist whose primary skill was self-promotion, and who in the end became increasingly divorced from economic reality. Even as early as April 2008 (before the bust was obvious to all), the L.A. Times, observing Greenspan’s post-retirement speaking tour, noted that “the unseemly, globe-trotting, money-grabbing, legacy-spinning, responsibility-denying tour of Alan Greenspan continues, as relentless as a bad toothache.”

* * *

Although Greenspan had always had a terrible record on perceiving trends in the economy, Sheehan’s story shows a Greenspan who becomes increasingly out to lunch with each passing year as he spun more and more outlandish theories about hidden profits and productivity in the economy that no one else could see. He spoke incessantly on topics like oil and technology while the bubbles grew larger and larger. And finally, in the end, he retired to the lecture circuit where he was forced to defend his tarnished record.

The ugly truth is that America has been in a bear market economy since 2000 (when “The Maestro” was still Fed chair). In stark contrast to what you’ve been hearing from the people on TV, the folks at Comstock Partners put together a list of ten compelling reasons why “the stock market is in a secular (long-term) downtrend that began in early 2000 and still has some time to go.” This essay is a “must read”. Further undermining Greenspan’s recent opinion piece was the conclusion reached in the Comstock article:

The data cited here cover the major indicators of economic activity, and they paint a picture of an economy that has moved up, but only from extremely depressed numbers to a point where they are less depressed. And keep in mind that this is the result of the most massive monetary and fiscal stimulus ever applied to a major economy. In our view the ability of the economy to undergo a sustained recovery without continued massive help is still questionable.

As always, Alan Greenspan is still wrong. Unfortunately, there are still too many people taking him seriously.

Alan Greenspan, American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bernd Debusmann, Bill Fleckenstein, blog, budget contraction, CDOs, centrist, collateralized debt obligations, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Comstock Partners, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, deficit reduction reduces GDP, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives trading, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economic stimulus package, economics, economists, equities markets, Estonia, federal debt explosion, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, Frederick Sheehan, Glass-Steagall Act, government guarantees, Greenspans Body Count, Greenspans Bubbles, housing bubble, Howard Gold, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Ireland, Jackass Of The Year Award, John Burke, John Mauldin, John T Burke Jr, Latvia, LewRockwell, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Panderer to Power, Political, Politics, President of the United States, recession, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Robert Reich, Rogoff and Reinhart, Ryan McMaken, securities, socialized loss and privatized gain, Still Wrong After All These Years, stock markets, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Age of Turbulence, the center lane, the economy, the Greenspan Debt, The Maestro, The Mess That Greenspan Made, The Real Legacy of Alan Greenspan, The White House, thecenterlane, This Time is Different, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unregulated derivatives, Wall Street, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Fleckenstein, zombie banks

The Poisonous Bailout

June 10th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 10 2010

Comments Off

June 10, 2010

The adults in the room have spoken. The Congressional Oversight Panel – headed by Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren – created to oversee the TARP program, has just issued a report disclosing the ugly truth about the bailout of AIG:

The government’s actions in rescuing AIG continue to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace.

Note the present tense in that statement. Not only did the bailout have a poisonous effect on the marketplace at the time –it continues to have a poisonous effect on the marketplace. The 300-page report includes the reason why the AIG bailout continues to have this poisonous effect:

The AIG rescue demonstrated that Treasury and the Federal Reserve would commit taxpayers to pay any price and bear any burden to prevent the collapse of America‘s largest financial institutions and to assure repayment to the creditors doing business with them.

And that, dear readers, is precisely what the concept of “moral hazard” is all about. It is the reason why we should not continue to allow financial institutions to be “too big to fail”. Bad behavior by financial institutions is encouraged by the Federal Reserve and Treasury with assurance that any losses incurred as a result of that risky activity will be borne by the taxpayers rather than the reckless institutions. You might remember the pummeling Senator Jim Bunning gave Ben Bernanke during the Federal Reserve Chairman’s appearance before the Senate Banking Committee for Bernanke’s confirmation hearing on December 3, 2009:

. . . you have decided that just about every large bank, investment bank, insurance company, and even some industrial companies are too big to fail. Rather than making management, shareholders, and debt holders feel the consequences of their risk-taking, you bailed them out. In short, you are the definition of moral hazard.

With particular emphasis on the AIG bailout, this is what Senator Bunning said to Bernanke:

Even if all that were not true, the A.I.G. bailout alone is reason enough to send you back to Princeton. First you told us A.I.G. and its creditors had to be bailed out because they posed a systemic risk, largely because of the credit default swaps portfolio. Those credit default swaps, by the way, are over the counter derivatives that the Fed did not want regulated. Well, according to the TARP Inspector General, it turns out the Fed was not concerned about the financial condition of the credit default swaps partners when you decided to pay them off at par. In fact, the Inspector General makes it clear that no serious efforts were made to get the partners to take haircuts, and one bank’s offer to take a haircut was declined. I can only think of two possible reasons you would not make then-New York Fed President Geithner try to save the taxpayers some money by seriously negotiating or at least take up U.B.S. on their offer of a haircut. Sadly, those two reasons are incompetence or a desire to secretly funnel more money to a few select firms, most notably Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and a handful of large European banks.

Hugh Son of Bloomberg BusinessWeek explained how the Congressional Oversight Panel’s latest report does not have a particularly optimistic view of AIG’s ability to repay the bailout:

The bailout includes a $60 billion Fed credit line, an investment of as much as $69.8 billion from the Treasury Department and up to $52.5 billion to buy mortgage-linked assets owned or backed by the insurer through swaps or securities lending.

AIG owes about $26.6 billion on the credit line and $49 billion to the Treasury. The company returned to profit in the first quarter, posting net income of $1.45 billion.

‘Strong, Vibrant Company’

“I’m confident you’ll get your money, plus a profit,” AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche told the panel in Washington on May 26. “We are a strong, vibrant company.”

The panel said in the report that the government’s prospects for recovering funds depends partly on the ability of AIG to find buyers for its units and on investors’ willingness to purchase shares if the Treasury Department sells its holdings. AIG turned over a stake of almost 80 percent as part of the bailout and the Treasury holds additional preferred shares from subsequent investments.

“While the potential for the Treasury to realize a positive return on its significant assistance to AIG has improved over the past 12 months, it still appears more likely than not that some loss is inevitable,” the panel said.

Simmi Aujla of the Politico reported on Elizabeth Warren’s contention that Treasury and Federal Reserve officials should have attempted to save AIG without using taxpayer money:

“The negotiations would have been difficult and they might have failed,” she said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters. “But the benefits of crafting a private or even a joint public-private solution were so superior to the cost of a complete government bailout that they should have been pursued as vigorously as humanly possible.”

The Treasury and Federal Reserve are now in “damage control” mode, issuing statements that basically reiterate Bernanke’s “panic” excuse referenced in the above-quoted remarks by Jim Bunning.

The release of this report is well-timed, considering the fact that the toothless, so-called “financial reform” bill is now going through the reconciliation stage. Now that Blanche Lincoln is officially the Democratic candidate to retain her Senate seat representing Arkansas – will the derivatives reform provisions disappear from the bill? In light of the information contained in the Congressional Oversight Panel’s report, a responsible – honest – government would not only crack down on derivatives trading but would also ban the trading of “naked” swaps. In other words: No betting on defaults if you don’t have a potential loss you are hedging – or as Phil Angelides explained it: No buying fire insurance on your neighbor’s house. Of course, we will probably never see such regulation enacted – until after he next financial crisis.

AIG, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Oversight Panel, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Hugh Son, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Merrill Lynch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, naked credit default swaps, New York Fed, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, over-the-counter derivatives, Phil Angelides, Political, Politico, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Benmosche, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate Banking Committee, Senator Jim Bunning, Simmi Aujla, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, TARP Inspector General, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The Poisonous Bailout, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Living Up To A Title

June 7th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 07 2010

Comments Off

June 7, 2010

It was back on April 9, 2009 – before President Obama had completed his third month in office – when I first referred to him as the “Disappointer-in-Chief”. I concluded that piece with this gloomy prediction:

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.

Just two weeks earlier — on March 23, 2009 – I had been discussing the widespread apprehension over Obama’s planned bailout of the largest banks (the so-called “Financial Stability Plan” which later morphed into the PPIP). At that point, Frank Rich of The New York Times made a premature use of the term “Obama’s Katrina moment”.

With the arrival of Obama’s real “Katrina moment” — by way of the Deepwater Horizon blowout – we are again hearing a chorus of criticism directed against the Obama administration, not unlike what we heard during those first few months. Now that our new President has established a track record of bad decisions, let’s take a look at some reactions from people the Fox News will insist are loyal Obama supporters. First we had Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, who delivered a one-two punch to the man she has called “Barry” (when mad at him) on May 29 and June 1:

In the campaign, Obama’s fight flagged to the point that his donors openly upbraided him. In the Oval, he waited too long to express outrage and offer leadership on A.I.G., the banks, the bonuses, the job loss and mortgage fears, the Christmas underwear bomber, the death panel scare tactics, the ugly name-calling of Tea Party protesters.

Too often it feels as though Barry is watching from a balcony, reluctant to enter the fray until the clamor of the crowd forces him to come down. The pattern is perverse. The man whose presidency is rooted in his ability to inspire withholds that inspiration when it is most needed.

Ouch! If that weren’t enough, Ms. Dowd’s June 1 punch had to hurt:

This president has made it clear that he’s not comfortable outside whatever domain he’s defined. But unless he wants his story to be marred by a pattern of passivity, detachment, acquiescence and compromise, he’d better seize control of the story line of his White House years. Woe-is-me is not an attractive narrative.

Also at The New York Times, Frank Rich expressed his impatience with the President – now that the real “Katrina moment” has arrived:

We still want to believe that Obama is on our side, willing to fight those bad corporate actors who cut corners and gambled recklessly while regulators slept, Congress raked in contributions, and we got stuck with the wreckage and the bills. But his leadership style keeps sowing confusion about his loyalties, puncturing holes in the powerful tale he could tell.

* * *

No high-powered White House meetings or risk analyses were needed to discern how treacherous it was to trust BP this time. An intern could have figured it out. But the credulous attitude toward BP is no anomaly for the administration. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs was praised by the president as a “savvy” businessman two months before the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Goldman. Well before then, there had been a flood of journalistic indicators that Goldman under Blankfein may have gamed the crash and the bailout.

It’s this misplaced trust in elites both outside the White House and within it that seems to prevent Obama from realizing the moment that history has handed to him. Americans are still seething at the bonus-grabbing titans of the bubble and at the public and private institutions that failed to police them. But rather than embrace a unifying vision that could ignite his presidency, Obama shies away from connecting the dots as forcefully and relentlessly as the facts and Americans’ anger demand.

Back on December 14, I pointed out how the so-called “race card” has not been a free pass for the Disappointer-in-Chief:

As we approach the conclusion of Obama’s first year in the White House, it has become apparent that the Disappointer-in-Chief has not only alienated the Democratic Party’s liberal base, but he has also let down a demographic he thought he could take for granted: the African-American voters. At this point, Obama has “transcended race” with his ability to dishearten loyal black voters just as deftly as he has chagrined loyal supporters from all ethnic groups.

The most recent example of this phenomenon appeared in the form of an opinion piece by Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Here is some of what Mr. Norman had to say:

At a Memorial Day dinner I attended, there wasn’t just disappointment with Mr. Obama’s inability to find his inner Huey Long — there was an undercurrent of genuine anger.

It went far beyond the handling of the BP crisis. As far as anyone can tell, there isn’t much to distinguish Mr. Obama’s policies in Afghanistan and Iraq from his predecessor’s.

Beyond the Deepwater Horizon, Mr. Obama has been a disappointment on civil liberties, banking reform, military spending, the drug war, Middle East policy, immigration and the environment. Political gamesmanship and calculation of the rankest kind continue. Even his latest Supreme Court nominee shows every indication of being as colorless as the president has proven to be in recent months. It’s too much to expect this president to champion a progressive Supreme Court candidate.

Meanwhile, the corrupt culture of Wall Street continues to set the agenda, thanks to cowardly Democrats and nihilistic Republicans. Accountability is as much a dirty word for Mr. Obama as it was for President George W. Bush.

* * *

Honestly, other than the particularities of the historical record, it no longer makes sense to blame Mr. Bush for much when Mr. Obama has done little — other than improvise a less belligerent foreign policy — to distinguish himself from the 43rd president.

I won’t spoil the rest of Mr. Norman’s article. Just be sure to read it. (Hint: It includes some nice speculation about how the new President was likely pulled aside by some members of the plutocracy, who gave him “The Talk”.)

Meanwhile, the Presidential disappointments continue. It appears as though we are going to wait for God to stop the oil from gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. Since we have left it to God to do the wetlands protection and the clean-up, this shouldn’t be too surprising. I’m beginning to suspect that President Obama’s religious ideas are even more far-out than those of President Bush. – It’s just that President Obama doesn’t talk about them.

AIG, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, BP, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Deepwater Horizon, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Disappointer-In-Chief, economic crisis, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, Frank Rich, Geithner-Summers plan, George W Bush, government guarantees, Gulf of Mexico, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, Living Up To A Title, Lloyd Blankfein, lobbyists, Maureen Dowd, moral hazard, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Obamas Katrina Moment, Opinion, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Political, Politics, PPIP, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, taxpayers, Tea Party, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Tony Norman, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, wetlands protection, zombie banks

Delaying A Tough Decision

June 3rd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 03 2010

Comments Off

June 3, 2010

A recent article by David Lightman for the McClatchy Newspapers bemoaned the fact that the Senate took off for a ten-day break without voting on the “Jobs Bill” passed by the House of Representatives (H.R.4213). Mr. Lightman’s piece expressed particular concern about the fact that a summer jobs program for approximately 330,000 “at-risk youths” has been hanging in the balance between deficit distress and economic recovery efforts. Of particular concern is the fact that time is of the essence for keeping the youth jobs program alive for this summer:

The longer the wait, the less the program can reduce joblessness among the nation’s most vulnerable population. Unemployment among 16- to 19-year-olds was 25.4 percent in April.

“Summer’s only so long, and it is a summer youth program,” said Mark Mattke, the work force strategy and planning director at the Spokane Area Workforce Development Council. More than 5,700 people in Washington state got summer jobs through government programs last year.

Financial expert, Janet Tavakoli, recently wrote an essay for The Huffington Post, discussing the cause-and-effect relationship between hard economic times and the crime rate. With municipal budget cutbacks reducing the ranks of our nation’s law enforcement personnel, a failure to extend unemployment benefits, as provided by the Jobs Bill, could be a dangerous experiment. Ms. Tavakoli discussed how the current recession has precipitated an increase in Chicago’s street crime:

Last summer gang violence ruled the night at Leland and Sheridan, a neighborhood in the process of gentrifying.

In the upscale Lincoln Park area, just a little further south of this unrest, men alone at night were accosted by groups of three to six men and severely beaten, robbed, and hospitalized. Seven muggings occurred in a five-day period from July 30 to August 4, 2009.

This kind of activity was unusual for these areas of Chicago until last summer.

Current Escalating Violent Crime and Chicago’s Prime Lakefront Areas

Shootings are way up in Chicago, and ordinary citizens — along with shorthanded police — are angry. Chicago has a gun ban, yet on Wednesday, May 19, Thomas Wortham IV, a Chicago police officer and Iraq War veteran, was shot when four gang members attempted to steal the new motorcycle the officer had brought to show his father, a retired police officer. Shots were fired, and his father saw the skirmish, ran for his gun, and managed to get off a few rounds. Two gang members were shot while two sped away dragging his fallen son’s body some distance in the process.

Nine people were shot on Sunday night (May 24), and Chicago is currently in the grips of a massive crime wave that has overwhelmed our under funded police force.

Gangland violence and shootings now occur up and down Chicago’s lakefront.

* * *

This escalation and geographical spread of violence is new, and I believe it is related to our Great Recession and budget issues. I don’t believe that Chicago is alone in its budget problems. If new patterns in Recession-related-violence have not yet affected other major cities in the U.S. the way they have affected Chicago, they may affect them soon. It is also likely that crime is being underreported as crime-fighting budgets are cut.

Given the current momentum for deficit hawkishness, the Senate’s break before the vote on this bill could be advantageous. After all, the bill barely passed in the House. Our Senators need to carefully consider the consequences of the failure to pass this bill. David Leonhardt of The New York Times presented a reasoned argument to his readers from the Senate on June 1, recommending passage of the Jobs Bill:

It would still add about $54 billion to the deficit over the next decade. On the other hand, it could also do some good. Among other things, it would cut taxes for businesses, expand summer jobs programs and temporarily extend jobless benefits for some of today’s 15 million unemployed workers.

* * *

Including the jobs bill, the deficit is projected to grow to about $1.3 trillion next year (and that’s assuming the White House can persuade Congress to make some proposed spending cuts and repeal the Bush tax cuts for the affluent). To be at a level that economists consider sustainable, the deficit needs to be closer to $400 billion. Only then would normal economic growth be able to pay it off.

So Congress would need to find almost $900 billion in savings. By voting down the jobs bill, it would save more than $50 billion by 2015 and get 7 percent of the way to the goal. That’s not nothing. In a nutshell, it’s the case against the bill.

* * *

Of course, even if the bill is not very expensive, it is worth passing only if it will make a difference. And economists say it will.

Last year’s big stimulus program certainly did. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 1.4 million to 3.4 million people now working would be unemployed were it not for the stimulus. Private economists have made similar estimates.

There are two arguments for more stimulus today. The first is that, however hopeful the economic signs, the risk of a double-dip recession remains. Financial crises often bring bumpy recoveries. The recent troubles in Europe surely won’t help.

The second argument is that the economy has a terribly long way to go before it can be considered healthy. Here is a sobering way to think about the situation: If the next four years were to bring job growth as fast as the job growth during the best four years of the 1990s boom — which isn’t likely — the unemployment rate would still be higher in 2014 than when the recession began in late 2007.

Voters may not like deficits, but they really do not like unemployment.

Looking at the problem this way makes the jobs bill seem like less of a tough call. Luckily, the country’s two big economic problems — the budget deficit and the job market — are not on the same timeline. The unemployment rate is near a 27-year high right now. Deficit reduction can wait a bit, given that lenders continue to show confidence in Washington’s ability to repay the debt.

Remember that by way of Maiden Lane III, “Turbo” Tim Geithner, as president of the New York Fed, gave away $30 billion of taxpayer money to the counterparties of AIG – even though most of them didn’t need it. A “clawback” of that money from those banks (including Goldman Sachs – a $19 billion recipient) could pay for more than half the cost of the Jobs Bill. If the $30 billion wasted on Maiden Lane III can be so easily forgotten – why not spend $54 billion to avoid a “double-dip” recession and a hellish increase in street crime?

AIG, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, blog, centrist, Chicago street crime, Commentary, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Budget Office, conservative, crime rate, crony capitalism, David Leonhardt, David Lightman, Delaying A Tough Decision, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, double-dip recession, economic crisis, economic stimulus, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve of New York, financial crisis, financial reform, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, HR 4213, Huffington Post, insolvent banks, investment banks, Janet Tavakoli, Jobs Bill, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Maiden Lane III, McClatchy Newspapers, moral hazard, New York Fed, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Treasury Department, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

Your Sleazy Government At Work

May 31st, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 31 2010

Comments Off

May 31, 2010

Although the cartoon above appeared in my local paper, it came to my attention only because Barry Ritholtz posted it on his website, The Big Picture. Congratulations to Jim Morin of The Miami Herald for creating one of those pictures that’s worth well over a thousand words.

Forget about all that oil floating in the Gulf of Mexico. President Obama, Harry Reid and “Countrywide Chris” Dodd are too busy indulging in an orgy of self-congratulation over the Senate’s passage of a so-called “financial reform” bill (S. 3217) to be bothered with “the fishermen’s buzzkill”. Meanwhile, many commentators are expressing their disappointment and disgust at the fact that the banking lobby has succeeded in making sure that the taxpayers will continue to pick up the tab when the banks go broke trading unregulated derivatives.

Matt Taibbi has written a fantastic essay for Rolling Stone, documenting the creepy battle over financial reform in the Senate. The folks at Rolling Stone are sure getting their money’s worth out of Taibbi, after his landmark smackdown of Goldman Sachs and his revealing article exposing the way banks such as JP Morgan Chase fleeced Jefferson County, Alabama. In his latest “must read” essay, Taibbi provides his readers with an understandable discussion of what is wrong with derivatives trading and Wall Street’s efforts to preserve the status quo:

Imagine a world where there’s no New York Stock Exchange, no NASDAQ or Nikkei: no open exchanges at all, and all stocks traded in the dark. Nobody has a clue how much a share of IBM costs or how many of them are being traded. In that world, the giant broker-dealer who trades thousands of IBM shares a day, and who knows which of its big clients are selling what and when, will have a hell of a lot more information than the day-trader schmuck sitting at home in his underwear, guessing at the prices of stocks via the Internet.

That world exists. It’s called the over-the-counter derivatives market. Five of the country’s biggest banks, the Goldmans and JP Morgans and Morgan Stanleys, account for more than 90 percent of the market, where swaps of all shapes and sizes are traded more or less completely in the dark. If you want to know how Greece finds itself bankrupted by swaps, or some town in Alabama overpaid by $93 million for deals to fund a sewer system, this is the explanation: Nobody outside a handful of big swap dealers really has a clue about how much any of this shit costs, which means they can rip off their customers at will.

This insane outgrowth of jungle capitalism has spun completely out of control since 2000, when Congress deregulated the derivatives market. That market is now roughly 100 times bigger than the federal budget and 20 times larger than both the stock market and the GDP. Unregulated derivative deals sank AIG, Lehman Brothers and Greece, and helped blow up the global economy in 2008. Reining in derivatives is the key battle in the War for Finance Reform. Without regulation of this critical market, Wall Street could explode another mushroom cloud of nuclear leverage and risk over the planet at any time.

At The New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson de-mystified how both the Senate’s “financial reform” bill and the bill passed by the House require standardized derivatives to be traded on an exchange or a “swap execution facility”. Although these proposals create the illusion of reform – it’s important to keep in mind that old maxim about gambling: “The house always wins.” In this case, the ability to “front-run” the chumps gives the house the power to keep winning:

But the devil is always in the details — hence, two 1,500-page bills — and problems arise in how the proposals define what constitutes a swap execution facility, and who can own one.

Big banks want to create and own the venues where swaps are traded, because such control has many benefits. First, it gives the dealers extremely valuable pretrade information from customers wishing to buy or sell these instruments. Second, depending on how these facilities are designed, they may let dealers limit information about pricing when transactions take place — and if an array of prices is not readily available, customers can’t comparison-shop and the banks get to keep prices much higher than they might be on an exchange.

* * *

Finally, lawmakers who are charged with consolidating the two bills are talking about eliminating language that would bar derivatives facilities from receiving taxpayer bailouts if they get into trouble. That means a federal rescue of an imperiled derivatives trading facility could occur. (Again, think A.I.G.)

Surely, we beleaguered taxpayers do not need to backstop any more institutions than we do now. According to Jeffrey M. Lacker, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Va., only 18 percent of the nation’s financial sector was covered by implied federal guarantees in 1999. By the end of 2008, his bank’s research shows, the federal safety net covered 59 percent of the financial sector.

In a speech last week, Mr. Lacker said that he feared we were going to perpetuate the cycle of financial crises followed by taxpayer bailouts, in spite of Congressional reform efforts.

“Arguably, we will not break the cycle of regulation, bypass, crisis and rescue,” Mr. Lacker said, “until we are willing to clarify the limits to government support, and incur the short-term costs of confirming those limits, in the interest of building a stronger and durable foundation for our financial system. Measured against this gauge, my early assessment is that progress thus far has been negligible.”

Negligible progress, 3,000 pages notwithstanding.

When one considers what this legislation was intended to address, the dangers posed by failing to extinguish those systemic threats to the economy and what the Senate bill is being claimed to remedy — it’s actually just a huge, sleazy disgrace. Matt Taibbi’s concluding words on the subject underscore the fact that not only do we still need real financial reform, we also need campaign finance reform:

Whatever the final outcome, the War for Finance Reform serves as a sweeping demonstration of how power in the Senate can be easily concentrated in the hands of just a few people. Senators in the majority party – Brown, Kaufman, Merkley, even a committee chairman like Lincoln – took a back seat to Reid and Dodd, who tinkered with amendments on all four fronts of the war just enough to keep many of them from having real teeth. “They’re working to come up with a bill that Wall Street can live with, which by definition makes it a bad bill,” one Democratic aid eexplained in the final, frantic days of negotiation.

On the plus side, the bill will rein in some forms of predatory lending, and contains a historic decision to audit the Fed. But the larger, more important stuff – breaking up banks that grow Too Big to Fail, requiring financial giants to pay upfront for their own bailouts, forcing the derivatives market into the light of day – probably won’t happen in any meaningful way. The Senate is designed to function as a kind of ongoing negotiation between public sentiment and large financial interests, an endless tug of war in which senators maneuver to strike a delicate mathematical balance between votes and access to campaign cash. The problem is that sometimes, when things get really broken, the very concept of a middle ground between real people and corrupt special interests becomes a grotesque fallacy. In times like this, we need our politicians not to bridge a gap but to choose sides and fight. In this historic battle over finance reform, when we had a once-in-a-generation chance to halt the worst abuses on Wall Street, many senators made the right choice. In the end, however, the ones who mattered most picked wrong – and a war that once looked winnable will continue to drag on for years, creating more havoc and destroying more lives before it is over.

The sleazy antics by the Democrats who undermined financial reform (while pretending to advance it) will not be forgotten by the voters. The real question is whether any independent candidates can step up to oppose the tools of Wall Street, relying on the nickels and dimes from “the little people” to wage a battle against the kleptocracy.

AIG, Audit the Fed, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, blog, campaign finance reform, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Countrywide Chris Dodd, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives trading, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, financial crisis, financial reform, front-runing, frontrunning, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Gretchen Morgenson, Gulf of Mexico oil rig disaster, Harry Reid, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jeffrey M Lacker, Jim Morin, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, jungle capitalism, kleptocracy, Lehman Brothers, liberal, lobbyists, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, Morgan Stanley, mortgage-backed securities, New York Stock Exchange, New York Times, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, predatory lending, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Rolling Stone, S 3217, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, standardized derivatives, stock markets, swap execution facility, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Big Picture, the center lane, the economy, the fishermen’s buzzkill, the little people, The Miami Herald, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Too Pig To Fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Your Sleazy Government At Work, zombie banks

Moment Of Truth

May 24th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 24 2010

Comments Off

May 24, 2010

Now that the Senate has passed its own version of a financial reform bill (S. 3217), the legislation must be reconciled with the House version before the bill can be signed into law by the President. At this point, there is one big problem: the President doesn’t like the bill because it actually has more teeth than an inbred, moonshine-drinking, meth head. One especially objectionable provision in the eyes of the Administration and its kindred of the kleptocracy, Ben Bernanke, concerns the restrictions on derivatives trading introduced by Senator Blanche Lincoln.

Eric Lichtblau and Edward Wyatt of The New York Times wrote an article describing the current game plan of financial industry lobbyists to remove those few teeth from the financial reform bill to make sure that what the President signs is all gums:

The biggest flash point for many Wall Street firms is the tough restrictions on the trading of derivatives imposed in the Senate bill approved Thursday night. Derivatives are securities whose value is based on the price of other assets like corn, soybeans or company stock.

The financial industry was confident that a provision that would force banks to spin off their derivatives businesses would be stripped out, but in the final rush to pass the bill, that did not happen.

The opposition comes not just from the financial industry. The chairman of the Federal Reserve and other senior banking regulators opposed the provision, and top Obama administration officials have said they would continue to push for it to be removed.

And Wall Street lobbyists are mounting an 11th-hour effort to remove it when House and Senate conferees begin meeting, perhaps this week, to reconcile their two bills. Lobbyists say they are already considering the possible makeup of the conference panel to focus on office visits and potential fund-raising.

The article discussed an analysis provided to The New York Times by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan group:

The group’s analysis found that the 14 freshmen who serve on the House Financial Services Committee raised 56 percent more in campaign contributions than other freshmen. And most freshmen on the panel, the analysis found, are now in competitive re-election fights.

“It’s definitely not accidental,” said Melanie Sloan, the director of the ethics group. “It appears that Congressional leaders are deliberately placing vulnerable freshmen on the Financial Services Committee to increase their ability to raise money.”

Take Representative John Adler, Democrat of New Jersey. Mr. Adler is a freshman in Congress with no real national profile, yet he has managed to raise more than $2 million for his re-election, more than any other freshman, the analysis found.

That is due in large part, political analysts say, to his spot on the Financial Services Committee.

An opinion piece from the May 24 Wall Street Journal provided an equally-sobering outlook on this legislation:

The unifying theme of the Senate bill that passed last week and the House bill of last year is to hand even more discretion and authority to the same regulators who failed to foresee and in many cases created the last crisis. The Democrats who wrote the bill are selling it as new discipline for Wall Street, but Wall Street knows better. The biggest banks support the bill, and the parts they don’t like they will lobby furiously to change or water down.

Big Finance will more than hold its own with Big Government, as it always does, while politicians will have more power to exact even more campaign tribute. The losers are the overall economy, as financial costs rise, and taxpayers when the next bailout arrives.

At The Huffington Post, Mary Bottari discussed the backstory on Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives reform proposal and the opposition it faces from both lobbyists and the administration:

The Obama Administration Wants to Kill the Best Provisions

Lincoln’s proposal has come under fire from all fronts. Big bank lobbyists went ballistic of course and they will admit that getting her language pulled from the bill is still their top priority. Behind the scenes, it is also the top priority of the administration and the Federal Reserve. Believe it or not the administration is fighting to preserve its ability to bailout any financial institutions that gets in trouble, not just commercial banks. Yep that is right. Instead of clamping down Wall Street gambling, the administration wants to keep reckless institutions on the teat of the Federal Reserve.

The battle lines are drawn. The biggest threat to the Lincoln language now is the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve. There will no doubt be a move to strip out the strong Lincoln language in conference committee where the House and Senate versions of the bank reform bill now go to be aligned.

Meanwhile, President Obama continues to pose as the champion of the taxpayers, asserting his bragging rights for the Senate’s passage of the bill. Jim Kuhnhenn of MSNBC made note of Obama’s remark, which exhibited the Executive Spin:

The financial industry, Obama said, had tried to stop the new regulations “with hordes of lobbyists and millions of dollars in ads.”

In fact, the lobbyists have just begun to fight and Obama is right in their corner, along with Ben Bernanke.

asset bubble, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Blanche Lincoln, blog, campaign contributions, centrist, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives trading, economic crisis, economics, economists, Edward Wyatt, equities markets, Eric Lichtblau, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, House Financial Services Committee, Huffington Post, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jim Kuhnhenn, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, kleptocracy, liberal, lobbyists, Mary Bottari, Melanie Sloan, Moment Of Truth, moral hazard, MSNBC, New York Stock Exchange, New York Times, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Representative John Adler, Republican, Republican Party, S 3217, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

Doctor Doom Writes A Prescription

May 6th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 06 2010

Comments Off

May 6, 2010

As I discussed on April 26, expectations for serious financial reform are pretty low. Worse yet, Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs) felt confident enough to make this announcement, during a conference call with private wealth management clients:

“We will be among the biggest beneficiaries of reform.”

So how effective could “financial reform” possibly be if Lloyd Bankfiend expects to benefit from it? Allan Sloan of Fortune suggested following the old Wall Street maxim of “what they promise you isn’t necessarily what you get” when examining the plans to reform Wall Street:

President Obama talks about “a common sense, reasonable, nonideological approach to target the root problems that led to the turmoil in our financial sector and ultimately in our entire economy.” But what we’ll get from the actual legislation isn’t necessarily what we hear from the Salesman-in-Chief.

Sloan offered an alternative by providing “Six Simple Steps” to help fix the financial system. He wasn’t alone in providing suggestions overlooked by our legislators.

Nouriel Roubini (often referred to as “Doctor Doom” because he was one of the few economists to anticipate the scale of the financial crisis) has written a new book with Stephen Mihm entitled, Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance. (Mihm is a professor of economic history and a New York Times Magazine writer.) An excerpt from the book recently appeared in The Telegraph. The idea of fixing our “sub-prime financial system” was introduced this way:

Even though they have suffered the worst financial crisis in generations, many countries have shown a remarkable reluctance to inaugurate the sort of wholesale reform necessary to bring the financial system to heel. Instead, people talk of tinkering with the financial system, as if what just happened was caused by a few bad mortgages.

* * *

Since its founding, the United States has suffered from brutal banking crises and other financial disasters on a regular basis. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, crippling panics and depressions hit the nation again and again. The crisis was less a function of sub-prime mortgages than of a sub-prime financial system. Thanks to everything from warped compensation structures to corrupt ratings agencies, the global financial system rotted from the inside out. The financial crisis merely ripped the sleek and shiny skin off what had become, over the years, a gangrenous mess.

Roubini and Mihm had nothing favorable to say about CDOs, which they referred to as “Chernobyl Death Obligations”. Beyond that, the authors called for more transparency in derivatives trading:

Equally comprehensive reforms must be imposed on the kinds of deadly derivatives that blew up in the recent crisis. So-called over-the-counter derivatives — better described as under-the-table — must be hauled into the light of day, put on central clearing houses and exchanges and registered in databases; their use must be appropriately restricted. Moreover, the regulation of derivatives should be consolidated under a single regulator.

Although derivatives trading reform has been advanced by Senators Maria Cantwell and Blanche Lincoln, inclusion of such a proposal in the financial reform bill faces an uphill battle. As Ezra Klein of The Washington Post reported:

The administration, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and even the FDIC are lockstep against it.

The administration, Treasury and the Fed are also fighting hard against a bipartisan effort to include an amendment in the financial reform bill that would compel a full audit of the Federal Reserve. I’m intrigued by the possibility that President Obama could veto the financial reform bill if it includes a provision to audit the Fed.

Jordan Fabian of The Hill discussed Congressman Alan Grayson’s theory about why Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner opposes a Fed audit:

But Grayson, who is known for his tough broadsides against opponents, indicated Geithner may have had a role in enacting “secret bailouts and loan guarantees” to large corporations, while New York Fed chairman during the Bush administration.

“It’s one of the biggest conflict of interests I have ever seen,” he said.

With the Senate and the administration resisting various elements of financial reform, the recent tragedy in Nashville provides us with a reminder of how history often repeats itself. The concluding remarks from the Roubini – Mihm piece in The Telegraph include this timely warning:

If we strengthen the levees that surround our financial system, we can weather crises in the coming years. Though the waters may rise, we will remain dry. But if we fail to prepare for the inevitable hurricanes — if we delude ourselves, thinking that our antiquated defences will never be breached again — we face the prospect of many future floods.

The issue of whether our government will take the necessary steps to prevent another financial crisis continues to remain in doubt.

Allan Sloan, American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Blanche Lincoln, blog, CDOs as Chernobyl Death Obligations, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Alan Grayson, conservative, credit default swaps, Crisis Economics A Crash Course in the Future of Finance, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives trading, Doctor Doom, Doctor Doom Writes A Prescription, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, Ezra Klein, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve audit, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, foreclosures, Fortune, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Jordan Fabian, liberal, Lloyd Bankfiend, Lloyd Blankfein, lobbyists, Maria Cantwell, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New York Stock Exchange, News, Nouriel Roubini, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, our sub-prime financial system, over-the-counter derivatives, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, SEC scandals, secret bailouts and loan guarantees, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Six Simple Steps, socialized loss and privatized gain, Stephen Mihm, stock markets, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The Hill, the Telegraph, The White House, thecenterlane, 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, Washington Post, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Too Cute By Half

April 29th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 29 2010

Comments Off

April 29, 2010

On April 15, I discussed the disappointing performance of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC). The vapid FCIC hearings have featured softball questions with no follow-up to the self-serving answers provided by the CEOs of those too-big–to-fail financial institutions.

In stark contrast to the FCIC hearings, Tuesday brought us the bipartisan assault on Goldman Sachs by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Goldman’s most memorable representatives from that event were the four men described by Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post as “The Fab Four”, apparently because the group’s most notorious member, Fabrice “Fabulous Fab” Tourre, has become the central focus of the SEC’s fraud suit against Goldman. Tourre’s fellow panel members were Daniel Sparks (former partner in charge of the mortgage department), Joshua Birnbaum (former managing director of Structured Products Group trading) and Michael Swenson (current managing director of Structured Products Group trading). The panel members were obviously over-prepared by their attorneys. Their obvious efforts at obfuscation turned the hearing into a public relations disaster for Goldman, destined to become a Saturday Night Live sketch. Although these guys were proud of their evasiveness, most commentators considered them too cute by half. The viewing public could not have been favorably impressed. Both The Washington Post’s Steven Pearlstein as well as Tunku Varadarajan of The Daily Beast provided negative critiques of the group’s testimony. On the other hand, it was a pleasure to see the Senators on the Subcommittee doing their job so well, cross-examining the hell out of those guys and not letting them get away with their rehearsed non-answers.

A frequently-repeated theme from all the Goldman witnesses who testified on Tuesday (including CEO Lloyd Bankfiend and CFO David Viniar) was that Goldman had been acting only as a “market maker” and therefore had no duty to inform its customers that Goldman had short positions on its own products, such as the Abacus-2007AC1 CDO. This assertion is completely disingenuous. When Goldman creates a product and sells it to its own customers, its role is not limited to that of “market-maker”. The “market-maker defense” was apparently created last summer, when Goldman was defending its “high-frequency trading” (HFT) activities on stock exchanges. In those situations, Goldman would be paid a small “rebate” (approximately one-half cent per trade) by the exchanges themselves to buy and sell stocks. The purpose of paying Goldman to make such trades (often selling a stock for the same price they paid for it) was to provide liquidity for the markets. As a result, retail (Ma and Pa) investors would not have to worry about getting stuck in a “roach motel” – not being able to get out once they got in – after buying a stock. That type of market-making bears no resemblance to the situations which were the focus of Tuesday’s hearing.

Coincidentally, Goldman’s involvement in high-frequency trading resulted in allegations that the firm was “front-running” its own customers. It was claimed that when a Goldman customer would send out a limit order, Goldman’s proprietary trading desk would buy the stock first, then resell it to the client at the high limit of the order. (Of course, Goldman denied front-running its clients.) The Zero Hedge website focused on the language of the disclaimer Goldman posted on its “GS360” portal. Zero Hedge found some language in the GS360 disclaimer which could arguably have been exploited to support an argument that the customer consented to Goldman’s front-running of the customer’s orders.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the Goldman witnesses were repeatedly questioned as to what, if any, duty the firm owed its clients who bought synthetic CDOs, such as Abacus. Alistair Barr of MarketWatch contended that the contradictory answers provided by the witnesses on that issue exposed internal disagreement at Goldman as to what duty the firm owed its customers. Kurt Brouwer of MarketWatch looked at the problem this way :

This distinction is of fundamental importance to anyone who is a client of a Wall Street firm. These are often very large and diverse financial services firms that have — wittingly or unwittingly — blurred the distinction between the standard of responsibility a firm has as a broker versus the requirements of an investment advisor. These firms like to tout their brilliant and objective advisory capabilities in marketing brochures, but when pressed in a hearing, they tend to fall back on the much looser standards required of a brokerage firm, which could be expressed like this:

Well, the firm made money and the traders made money. Two out of three ain’t bad, right?

The third party referred to indirectly would be the clients who, all too frequently, are left out of the equation.

A more useful approach could involve looking at the language of the brokerage agreements in effect between Goldman and its clients. How did those contracts define Goldman’s duty to its own customers who purchased the synthetic CDOs that Goldman itself created? The answer to that question could reveal that Goldman Sachs might have more lawsuits to fear than the one brought by the SEC.

Abacus-2007AC1 CDO, Alistair Barr, American capitalism, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Daniel Sparks, David Viniar, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, Fabrice Tourre, fabulous Fab, FCIC, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, financial reform, fraud, front-running, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, GS360, HFT, High Frequency Trading, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joshua Birnbaum, Kurt Brouwer, lawsuits, legacy assets, liberal, Lloyd Bankfiend, Lloyd Blankfein, lobbyists, market maker, market-maker defense, MarketWatch, Michael Swenson, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steven Pearlstein, stock markets, stress tests, synthetic CDOs, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, The Daily Beast, the economy, The Fab Four, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Too Cute By Half, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Tunku Varadarajan, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Washington Post, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Zero Hedge, zombie banks

Failed Financial Reform And Failed Justice

April 26th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 26 2010

Comments Off

April 26, 2010

As the long-awaited financial reform legislation finally seems to be headed toward enactment, the groans of disappointment are loud and clear. My favorite reporter at The New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson, did a fine job of exposing the shortcomings destined for inclusion in this lame bill:

Unfortunately, the leading proposals would do little to cure the epidemic unleashed on American taxpayers by the lords of finance and their bailout partners. The central problem is that neither the Senate nor House bills would chop down big banks to a more manageable and less threatening size. The bills also don’t eliminate the prospect of future bailouts of interconnected and powerful companies.

Too big to fail is alive and well, alas. Indeed, several aspects of the legislative proposals sanction and codify the special status conferred on institutions that are seen as systemically important. Instead of reducing the number of behemoth firms assigned this special status, the bills would encourage smaller companies to grow large and dangerous so that they, too, could have a seat at the bailout buffet.

* * *

It is disappointing that none of the current proposals call for breaking up institutions that are now too big or on their way there. Such is the view of Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

“The social costs associated with these big financial institutions are much greater than any benefits they may provide,” Mr. Fisher said in an interview last week. “We need to find some international convention to limit their size.”

* * *

Edward Kane, a finance professor at Boston College and an authority on financial institutions and regulators, said that it was not surprising that substantive changes for both groups are not on the table. After all, powerful banks want to maintain their ability to privatize gains and socialize losses.

“To understand why defects in in solvency detection and resolution persist, analysts must acknowledge that large financial institutions invest in building and exercising political clout,” Mr.Kane writes in an article, titled “Defining and Controlling Systemic Risk,” that he is scheduled to present next month at a Federal Reserve conference.

But regulators, eager to avoid being blamed for missteps in oversight, also have an interest in the status quo, Mr. Kane argues. “As in a long-running poker game in which one player (here, the taxpayer) is a perennial and relatively clueless loser,” he writes, “other players see little reason to disturb the equilibrium.”

At Forbes, Robert Lenzner focused on the human failings responsible for the bad behavior of the big banks with his emphasis on the notion that “a fish stinks from the head”:

No well-intentioned reform bill that will pass Congress can prevent the mind-blowing stupidity, hubris and denial utilized by the big fish of Wall Street from stinking from the head.

* * *

Transparency won’t help if the Obama plan does not absolutely require all derivatives to be registered at the Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s an invitation for abuse as five major market making banks like JPMorgan Chase account for 95% of all derivatives transactions and a very large share of their profits. We haven’t seen evidence that they police themselves satisfactorily.

Derivatives expert Janet Tavakoli recently expressed her disgust over the disingenuousness of the current version of this legislation:

Our proposed “financial reform” bill is a sham, and the health of our society and our economy is at stake.

Ms. Tavakoli referred to the recent Huffington Post article by Dan Froomkin, which highlighted the criticism of the financial reform legislation provided by Professor William Black (the former prosecutor from the Savings and Loan crisis, whose execution was called for by Charles Keating). Froomkin embraced the logic of economist James Galbraith, who emphasized that rather than relying on the expertise of economists to shape financial reform, we should be looking to the assistance of criminologists. William Black reinforced this idea:

Criminologists, Black said, are trained to identify the environments that produce epidemics of fraud — and in the case of the financial crisis, the culprit is obvious.

“We’re looking at incentive structures,” he told HuffPost. “Not people suddenly becoming evil. Not people suddenly becoming crazy. But people reacting to perverse incentive structures.”

CEOs can’t send out a memo telling their front-line professionals to commit fraud, “but you can send the same message with your compensations system, and you can do it without going to jail,” Black said.

Criminologists ask “fundamentally different types of question” than the ones being asked.

Back at The New York Times, Frank Rich provided us with a rare example of mainstream media outrage over the lack of interest in prosecuting the fraudsters responsible for the financial disaster that put eight million people out of work:

That no one at Lehman Brothers has yet been held liable for its Enronesque bookkeeping deceit is appalling. That we still haven’t seen the e-mail and documents that would illuminate A.I.G.’s machinations with Goldman and the rest of its counterparties amounts to a cover-up. That investigative journalists have consistently been way ahead of the authorities, the S.E.C. included, in uncovering Wall Street’s foul play is a scandal. If this culture remains in place, the whole crisis will have gone to waste.

Unfortunately, the likelihood that any significant financial reform will be enacted as a result of the financial crisis is about the same as the likelihood that we will see anyone doing a “perp walk” for the fraudulent behavior that caused the meltdown. Don’t expect serious reform and don’t expect justice.

AIG, American capitalism, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bill Black, blog, Boston College, centrist, Charles Keating, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, Criminologists, crony capitalism, Dan Froomkin, Defining and Controlling Systemic Risk, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Edward Kane, Failed Financial Reform And Failed Justice, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, Forbes, Frank Rich, government guarantees, Gretchen Morgenson, Huffington Post, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Galbraith, Janet Tavakoli, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, liberal, lobbyists, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New York Stock Exchange, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Professor William Black, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Richard W Fisher, Robert Lenzner, Savings and Loan crisis, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Unrealistic Expectations

April 22nd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Apr, 22 2010

Comments Off

April 22, 2010

Newsweek’s Daniel Gross is back at it again. His cover story for Newsweek’s April 9 issue is another attempt to make a preemptive strike at writing history. You may remember his cover story for the magazine’s July 25 issue, entitled: “The Recession Is Over”. During the eight months since the publication of that article, the sober-minded National Bureau of Economic Research, or NBER — which is charged with making the determination that a recession has ended – has yet to make such a proclamation.

The most recent cover story by Daniel Gross, “The Comeback Country” has drawn plenty of criticism. (The magazine cover used the headline “America’s Back” to introduce the piece.) At The Huffington Post, Dan Dorfman discussed the article with Olivier Garret, the CEO of Casey Research, an economic and investment consulting firm. Garret described the Newsweek cover story as “fantasy journalism” and he shared a number of observations with Dan Dorfman:

“You know when a magazine like Newsweek touts a bullish economic recovery on its cover, just the opposite is likely to be the case,” he says. “It sees superficial signs of improvement, but it’s ignoring the big picture.”

* * *

Meanwhile, Garret sees additional signs of economic anguish. Among them: More foreclosures and delinquencies of real estate properties will plague construction spending; banks haven’t yet cleaned up their balance sheets; private debt is no longer going down as it did in 2009; both short and long term rates should be headed higher, and many companies, he says, tell him they’re reluctant to invest and hire.

He also sees some major corporate bankruptcies, worries about the country’s ability to repay its debt, looks for rising cost of capital, which should further slow the economy, and expects a spreading sovereign debt crisis.

* * *

Many economists are projecting GDP growth in the range of 3% to 4% in the first quarter and similar growth for the entire year. Much too optimistic, Garret tells me. His outlook (which would clobber the stock market if he’s right): up 0.4%-0.5% in the first quarter after revisions and between 0% and 1% for all of 2010.

“Fantasy economies only work in the mind, not in real life,” he says.

Given his bleak economic outlook, Garret expects a major market adjustment, say about a 10% to 20% decline in stock prices over the next six months. He figures it could be triggered by one event, such as as an extension of the sovereign debt crisis.

David Cottle of The Wall Street Journal had this reaction to the Newsweek article:

Therefore, when you see a cover such as Newsweek’s recent effort, yelling “America’s Back” in no uncertain terms, it’s quite tempting to stock up on bonds, cash, tinned goods and ammunition.

Now, in fairness to the author, Daniel Goss, he makes the good point that the U.S. economy is growing at a clip that has consistently surprised gloomy forecasters. It is. The turnaround we’ve seen since Lehman Brothers imploded has been remarkable, if not entirely satisfying, he says, and he is quite right. At the very least, U.S. growth is all-too-predictably leaving the European version in the dust. Goss is also pretty upfront about the corners of the U.S. economy that have so far failed to keep up: job creation and the housing market being the most obvious.

However, the problem with all these ‘back to normal’ pieces, and Goss’s is only one of many creeping out as the sky resolutely fails to fall in, is that the ‘normal’ they want to go back to was, in reality, anything but.

The financial sector remains unreformed, the global economy remains dangerously unbalanced. The perilous highways that brought us to 2007 have not been sealed off in favor of straighter, if slower, roads. Of course it would be great for us all if America were ‘back’ and so we must hope Newsweek’s cover doesn’t join the ranks of those which cruel history renders unintentionally hilarious .

But back where? That’s the real question.

Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center has turned to Americans themselves to find out just how “back” America really is. This report from April 20 didn’t seem to resonate so well with the rosy picture painted by Daniel Gross:

Americans are united in the belief that the economy is in bad shape (92% give it a negative rating), and for many the repercussions are hitting close to home. Fully 70% of Americans say they have faced one or more job or financial-related problems in the past year, up from 59% in February 2009. Jobs have become difficult to find in local communities for 85% of Americans. A majority now says that someone in their household has been without a job or looking for work (54%); just 39% said this in February 2009. Only a quarter reports receiving a pay raise or a better job in the past year (24%), while almost an equal number say they have been laid off or lost a job (21%).

As economic conditions continue to deteriorate for middle-class Americans, the first few months of 2009 are already looking like “the good old days”. The “comeback” isn’t looking too good.

American capitalism, Americas Back, asset bubble, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Casey Research, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Dan Dorfman, Daniel Gross, David Cottle, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, fantasy journalism, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, foreclosures, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, legacy assets, Lehman Brothers, liberal, lobbyists, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, New York Stock Exchange, News, Newsweek, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Olivier Garret, one trillion dollars, Opinion, Pew Research Center, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, stress tests, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, The Comeback Country, the economy, The Huffington Post, The Recession Is Over, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Unrealistic Expectations, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Still Wrong After All These Years

The Poisonous Bailout

Living Up To A Title

Delaying A Tough Decision

Your Sleazy Government At Work

Moment Of Truth

Doctor Doom Writes A Prescription

Too Cute By Half

Failed Financial Reform And Failed Justice

Unrealistic Expectations

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com