TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Home

Turning Point

November 1st, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 01 2010

Comments Off

As we approach Election Day, many commentators are confirming an observation used as the theme of my posting from September 6:

The steps taken by the Obama administration during its first few months have released massive, long-lasting fallout, destroying the re-election hopes of Democrats in the Senate and House.

Too many people whom the President thought he could count among his supporters have become his biggest critics. One might expect that after eight years of outrage over the antics of the Bush administration, Maureen Dowd would be thrilled about the work done by the Obama White House. Nevertheless, her most recent discussion of Obama’s performance was less than flattering:

In 2008, the message was him. The promise was him. And that’s why 2010 is a referendum on him.

With his coalition and governing majority shattering around him, President Obama will have to summon political skills — starting Wednesday — that he has not yet shown he has.

* * *

With the exception of Obama, most Americans seemed to agree that the “right” thing to do until the economy recovered was to focus on jobs instead of getting the Congress mired for months in making over health insurance and energy policy. And the “right” thing to do was to come down harder on the big banks for spending on bonuses instead of lending to small businesses that don’t get bailouts.

Contrary to the President’s expectations, the voting public has not overlooked the administration’s refusal to heed the advice of Bill Black, Robert Reich, and the roster of economists that included Adam Posen and Matthew Richardson advocating the use of the so-called “Swedish solution” of putting the zombie banks through temporary receivership. To the dismay of everyone in the world (outside of Obama’s inner circle) the new President chose to follow the advice of Larry Summers and put the welfare (as in corporate welfare) of those insolvent, too-big-to-fail banks ahead of the nation’s economic health. When President Obama appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on October 27, Stewart began the discussion by asking Obama to explain the rationale underlying his appointment of Larry Summers (a retread from the Clinton administration) as director of the National Economic Council. President Obama fell back on his two-year-old claim that to follow any course other than that recommended by Summers, would have resulted in the failure of at least 100 banks. Obama’s claim that the cost of the financial crisis was less than 1% of GDP did not slip past Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism website. Ms. Smith (who voted for Obama in 2008) didn’t pull any punches in refuting that claim:

I’m so offended by the latest Obama canard, that the financial crisis of 2007-2008 cost less than 1% of GDP, that I barely know where to begin. Not only does this Administration lie on a routine basis, it doesn’t even bother to tell credible lies. And this one came directly from the top, not via minions. It’s not that this misrepresentation is earth-shaking, but that it epitomizes why the Obama Administration is well on its way to being an abject failure.

* * *

The reason Obama makes such baldfacedly phony statements is twofold: first, his pattern of seeing PR as the preferred solution to all problems, and second, his resulting slavish devotion to smoke and mirrors over sound policy.

* * *

But Team Obama is no doubt rationalizing this chicanery: if they can keep from recognizing losses until the recovery takes place, then the ultimate damage will be lower. But Japan’s post bubble record shows that doesn’t work. You simply don’t get a recovery with a diseased financial system. You need to purge the bad assets, only then will meaningful growth resume.

Financial risk management guru, Chris Whalen, recently expressed his anguish over the administration’s unwillingness to restructure the zombie banks:

The reluctance comes partly from what truths restructuring will reveal. As a result, these same large zombie banks and the U.S. economy will continue to shrink under the weight of bad debt, public and private. Remember that the Dodd-Frank legislation was not so much about financial reform as protecting the housing GSEs.

Because President Barack Obama and the leaders of both political parties are unwilling to address the housing crisis and the wasting effects on the largest banks, there will be no growth and no net job creation in the U.S. for the next several years. And because the Obama White House is content to ignore the crisis facing millions of American homeowners, who are deep underwater and will eventually default on their loans, the efforts by the Fed to reflate the U.S. economy and particularly consumer spending will be futile.

The idea that Obama sees “PR as the preferred solution to all problems” surfaced again in a great piece by Peter Baker of The New York Times, which included this observation:

Rather than entertaining the possibility that the program they have pursued is genuinely and even legitimately unpopular, the White House and its allies have concluded that their political troubles amount to mainly a message and image problem.

Baker’s article focused on the most recent gripe made by Obama at another one of his highbrow fundraisers. Remember the blowback from the President’s recent diatribe at a fundraiser hosted by the appropriately-named Rich Richman? Well, something similar happened again. The setting this time was a $15,200-per-ticket affair for doctors at the home of a wealthy hospital executive in Boston. While addressing this audience, the President explained that the reason why the voters have not embraced the Democrats during this election cycle is because the voters are having trouble thinking clearly, as they are “scared”. Not surprisingly, this re-ignited the controversy focused on Obama’s elitism.

The Tea Party spokespeople aren’t the only ones who are accusing President Obama of elitism. The Progressive-oriented TruthDig website, recently published an interesting essay by Chris Hedges, author of Death of the Liberal Class. Hedges points out that elitism is exactly the problem afflicting not only Obama, but the entire group, referred to as “the liberal class”. Consider his argument:

The liberal class, which once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible, functioned traditionally as a safety valve. During the Great Depression, with the collapse of capitalism, it made possible the New Deal. During the turmoil of the 1960s, it provided legitimate channels within the system to express the discontent of African-Americans and the anti-war movement. But the liberal class, in our age of neo-feudalism, is now powerless. It offers nothing but empty rhetoric. It refuses to concede that power has been wrested so efficiently from the hands of citizens by corporations that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty are irrelevant. It does not act to mitigate the suffering of tens of millions of Americans who now make up a growing and desperate permanent underclass. And the disparity between the rhetoric of liberal values and the rapacious system of inverted totalitarianism the liberal class serves makes liberal elites, including Barack Obama, a legitimate source of public ridicule. The liberal class, whether in universities, the press or the Democratic Party, insists on clinging to its privileges and comforts even if this forces it to serve as an apologist for the expanding cruelty and exploitation carried out by the corporate state.

* * *
As long as the liberal class had even limited influence, whether through the press or the legislative process, liberals were tolerated and even respected. But once the liberal class lost all influence it became a class of parasites. The liberal class, like the déclassé French aristocracy, has no real function within the power elite. And the rising right-wing populists, correctly, ask why liberals should be tolerated when their rhetoric bears no relation to reality and their presence has no influence on power.

As Maureen Dowd pointed out, Wednesday is going to be a big day. If President Obama thought he had his hands full going into this election . . . wait until the aftermath.

2008 campaign, 2010 election, Adam Posen, bad assets, bad debt, bailouts, big banks, Bill Black, Boston hospital executive fundraiser, Bush Administration, Chris Hedges, Chris Whalen, Clinton administration, Congressional Democrats, corporate welfare, cost of financial crisis, Death of the Liberal Class, Dodd-Frank legislation, elitism, financial recovery, GDP, health insurance, housing crisis, housing GSEs, insolvent banks, Japanese recession, job creation, Jon Stewart, Larry Summers, lies, loan defaults, Matthew Richardson, Maureen Dowd, misrepresentation, Naked Capitalism, National Economic Council, Obama Administration, Obama White House, Peter Baker, phony statements, power elite, President Obama, restructure zombie banks, Rich Richman, right-wing populists, Robert Reich, scared voters not thinking clearly, Senate Democrats, Swedish solution, Tea Party, temporary receivership, The Daily Show, The New York Times, too-big-to-fail banks, Truthdig, Turning Point, Yves Smith, zombie banks

A Shocking Decision

September 23rd, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 23 2010

Comments Off

September 23, 2010

Nobody seems too surprised about the resignation of Larry Summers from his position as Director of the National Economic Council. Although each commentator seems to have a unique theory for Summers’ departure, the event is unanimously described as “expected”.

When Peter Orszag resigned from his post as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the gossip mill focused on his rather complicated love life. According to The New York Post, the nerdy-looking number cruncher announced his engagement to Bianna Golodryga of ABC News just six weeks after his ex-girlfriend, shipping heiress Claire Milonas, gave birth to their love child, Tatiana. That news was so surprising, few publications could resist having some fun with it. Politics Daily ran a story entitled, “Peter Orszag: Good with Budgets, Good with Babes”. Mark Leibovich of The New York Times pointed out that the event “gave birth” to a fan blog called Orszagasm.com. Mr. Leibovich posed a rhetorical question at the end of the piece that was apparently answered with Orszag’s resignation:

This goes to another obvious — and recurring — question: whether someone whose personal life has become so complicated is really fit to tackle one of the most demanding, important and stressful jobs in the universe. “Frankly I don’t see how Orszag can balance three families and the national budget,” wrote Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post.

The shocking nature of the Orszag love triangle was dwarfed by President Obama’s nomination of Orszag’s replacement: Jacob “Jack” Lew. Lew is a retread from the Clinton administration, at which point (May 1998 – January 2001) he held that same position: OMB Director. That crucial time frame brought us two important laws that deregulated the financial industry: the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (which legalized proprietary trading by the Wall Street banks) and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which completely deregulated derivatives trading, eventually giving rise to such “financial weapons of mass destruction” as naked credit default swaps. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that Lew does not believe that deregulation of the financial industry was a proximate cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Lew’s testimony at his September 16 confirmation hearing before the Senate Budget Committee was discussed by Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington Post:

Lew, a former OMB chief for President Bill Clinton, told the panel that “the problems in the financial industry preceded deregulation,” and after discussing those issues, added that he didn’t “personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I don’t believe that deregulation was the proximate cause.”

Experts and policymakers, including U.S. Senators, commissioners at the Securities and Exchange Commission, top leaders in Congress, former financial regulators and even Obama himself have pointed to the deregulatory zeal of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations as a major cause of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

During 2009, Lew was working for Citigroup, a TARP beneficiary. Between the TARP bailout and the Federal Reserve’s purchase of mortgage-backed securities from that zombie bank, Citi was able to give Mr. Lew a fat bonus of $950,000 – in addition to the other millions he made there from 2006 until January of 2009 (at which point Hillary Clinton found a place for him in her State Department).

The sabotage capabilities Lew will enjoy as OMB Director become apparent when revisiting my June 28 piece, “Financial Reform Bill Exposed As Hoax”:

Another victory for the lobbyists came in their sabotage of the prohibition on proprietary trading (when banks trade with their own money, for their own benefit). The bill provides that federal financial regulators shall study the measure, then issue rules implementing it, based on the results of that study. The rules might ultimately ban proprietary trading or they may allow for what Jim Jubak of MSN calls the “de minimus” (trading with minimal amounts) exemption to the ban. Jubak considers the use of the de minimus exemption to the so-called ban as the likely outcome. Many commentators failed to realize how the lobbyists worked their magic here, reporting that the prop trading ban (referred to as the “Volcker rule”) survived reconciliation intact. Jim Jubak exposed the strategy employed by the lobbyists:

But lobbying Congress is only part of the game. Congress writes the laws, but it leaves it up to regulators to write the rules. In a mid-June review of the text of the financial-reform legislation, the Chamber of Commerce counted 399 rule-makings and 47 studies required by lawmakers.

Each one of these, like the proposed de minimus exemption of the Volcker rule, would be settled by regulators operating by and large out of the public eye and with minimal public input. But the financial-industry lobbyists who once worked at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. know how to put in a word with those writing the rules. Need help understanding a complex issue? A regulator has the name of a former colleague now working as a lobbyist in an e-mail address book. Want to share an industry point of view with a rule-maker? Odds are a lobbyist knows whom to call to get a few minutes of face time.

You have one guess as to what agency will be authorized to make sure those new rules comport with the intent of the financial “reform” bill . . . Yep: the OMB (see OIRA).

President Obama’s nomination of Jacob Lew is just the latest example of a decision-making process that seems incomprehensible to his former supporters as well as his critics. Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism refuses to let Obama’s antics go unnoticed:

The Obama Administration, again and again, has taken the side of the financial services industry, with the occasional sops to unhappy taxpayers and some infrequent scolding of the industry to improve the optics.

Ms. Smith has developed some keen insight about the leadership style of our President:

The last thing Obama, who has been astonishingly accommodating to corporate interests, needs to do is signal weakness. But he has made the cardinal mistake of trying to please everyone and has succeeded in having no one happy with his policies. Past Presidents whose policies rankled special interests, such as Roosevelt, Johnson, and Reagan, were tenacious and not ruffled by noise. Obama, by contrast, announces bold-sounding initiatives, and any real change will break eggs and alienate some parties, then retreats. So he creates opponents, yet fails to deliver for his allies.

Yes, the Disappointer-In-Chief has failed to deliver for his allies once again – reinforcing my belief that he has no intention of running for a second term.

A Shocking Decision, ABC News, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bianna Golodryga, Bill Clinton, blog, centrist, Citigroup, Clinton administration, Commentary, Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, comprehensive bank bailout plan, confirmation hearing, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, de minimus exemption, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, deregulation, derivatives trading, Disappointer-In-Chief, economic crisis, economics, economists, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, financial reform bill, Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, financial weapons of mass destruction, government guarantees, Hillary Clinton, Huffington Post, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jack Lew, Jacob Lew, Jim Jubak, Joel Achenbach, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Larry Summers, liberal, lobbyists, love child, Mark Leibovich, moral hazard, msn, Naked Capitalism, naked credit default swaps, National Economic Council, New York Post, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Office of Management and Budget, OIRA, OMB, OMB Director, Opinion, Orszagasm com, Peter Orszag, Political, Politics, Politics Daily, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, securities, self-dealing insiders, Senate Budget Committee, Shahien Nasiripour, socialized loss and privatized gain, State Department, 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, Volcker Rule, Wall Street, Wall Street Banks, Wall Street lobbyists, Washington Post, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

The Smell Of Rotting TARP

September 16th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 16 2010

Comments Off

September 16, 2010

I never liked the TARP program. As we approach the second anniversary of its having been signed into law by President Bush, we are getting a better look at how really ugly it has been. Marshall Auerback picked up a law degree from Corpus Christi College, Oxford University in 1983 and currently serves as a consulting strategist for RAB Capital Plc in addition to being an economic consultant to PIMCO. Mr. Auerback recently wrote a piece for the Naked Capitalism website in response to a posting by Ben Smith at Politico. Smith’s piece touted the TARP program as a big success, with such statements as:

The consensus of economists and policymakers at the time of the original TARP was that the U.S. government couldn’t afford to experiment with an economic collapse. That view in mainstream economic circles has, if anything, only hardened with the program’s success in recouping the federal spending.

Marshall Auerback’s essay, rebutting Ben Smith’s piece, was entitled, “TARP Was Not a Success — It Simply Institutionalized Fraud”. Mr. Auerback began his argument this way:

Indeed, the only way to call TARP a winner is by defining government sanctioned financial fraud as the main metric of results. The finance leaders who are guilty of wrecking much of the global economy remain in power – while growing extraordinarily wealthy in the process. They know that their primary means of destruction was accounting “control fraud”, a term coined by Professor Bill Black, who argued that “Control frauds occur when those that control a seemingly legitimate entity use it as a ‘weapon’ to defraud.” TARP did nothing to address this abuse; indeed, it perpetuates it. Are we now using lying and fraud as the measure of success for financial reform?

After pointing out that “Congress adopted unprincipled accounting principles that permit banks to lie about asset values in order to hide their massive losses on loans and investments”, Mr. Auerback concluded by enumerating the steps followed to create an illusion of viability for those “zombie banks”:

Both the Bush and Obama administration followed a three-part strategy towards our zombie banks: (1) cover up the losses through (legalized) accounting fraud, (2) launch an “everything is great” propaganda campaign (the faux stress tests were key to this tactic and Ben Smith perpetuates this nonsense in his latest piece on TARP), and (3) provide a host of secret taxpayer subsidies to the systemically dangerous institutions (the so-called “too big to fail” banks). This strategy is the opposite of what the Swedes and Norwegians did during their banking crisis in the 1990s, which remains the template on a true financial success.

Despite this sleight-of-hand by our government, the Moment of Truth has arrived. Alistair Barr reported for MarketWatch that it has finally become necessary for the Treasury Department to face reality and crack down on the deadbeat banks that are not paying back what they owe as a result of receiving TARP bailouts. That’s right. Despite what you’ve heard about what a great “investment” the TARP program supposedly has been, there is quite a long list of banks that cannot boast of having paid back the government for their TARP bailouts. (Don’t forget that although Goldman Sachs claims that it repaid the government for what it received from TARP, Goldman never repaid the $13 billion it received by way of Maiden Lane III.) The MarketWatch report provided us with this bad news:

In August, 123 financial institutions missed dividend payments on securities they sold to the Treasury Department under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. That’s up from 55 in November 2009, according to Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.

More important — of those 123 financial institutions, seven have never made any TARP dividend payments on securities they sold to the Treasury. Those seven institutions are: Anchor Bancorp Wisconsin, Blue Valley Ban Corp, Seacoast Banking Corp., Lone Star Bank, OneUnited Bank, Saigon National Bank and United American Bank. The report included this point:

Saigon National is the only institution to have missed seven consecutive quarterly TARP dividend payments. The other six have missed six consecutive payments, KBW noted.

The following statement from the MarketWatch piece further undermined Ben Smith’s claim that the TARP program was a great success:

Most of the big banks have repaid the TARP money they got and the Treasury has collected about $10 billion in dividend payments from the effort. However, the rising number of smaller banks that are struggling to meet dividend payments shows the program hasn’t been a complete success.

Of course, the TARP program’s success (or lack thereof) will be debated for a long time. At this point, it is important to take a look at the final words from the “Conclusion” section (at page 108) of a document entitled, September Oversight Report (Assessing the TARP on the Eve of its Expiration), prepared by the Congressional Oversight Panel. (You remember the COP – it was created to oversee the TARP program.) That parting shot came after this observation at page 106:

Both now and in the future, however, any evaluation must begin with an understanding of what the TARP was intended to do. Congress authorized Treasury to use the TARP in a manner that “protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings; preserves home ownership and promotes jobs and economic growth; [and] maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States.” But weaknesses persist. Since EESA was signed into law in October 2008, home values nationwide have fallen. More than seven million homeowners have received foreclosure notices. Many Americans’ most significant investments for college and retirement have yet to recover their value. At the peak of the crisis, in its most significant acts and consistent with its mandate in EESA, the TARP provided critical support at a time in which confidence in the financial system was in freefall. The acute crisis was quelled. But as the Panel has discussed in the past, and as the continued economic weakness shows, the TARP’s effectiveness at pursuing its broader statutory goals was far more limited.

The above-quoted passage, as well as these final words from the Congressional Oversight Panel’s report, provide a greater degree of candor than what can be seen in Ben Smith’s article:

The TARP program is today so widely unpopular that Treasury has expressed concern that banks avoided participating in the CPP program due to stigma, and the legislation proposing the Small Business Lending Fund, a program outside the TARP, specifically provided an assurance that it was not a TARP program. Popular anger against taxpayer dollars going to the largest banks, especially when the economy continues to struggle, remains high. The program’s unpopularity may mean that unless it can be convincingly demonstrated that the TARP was effective, the government will not authorize similar policy responses in the future. Thus, the greatest consequence of the TARP may be that the government has lost some of its ability to respond to financial crises in the future.

No doubt.

Alistair Barr, Anchor Bancorp Wisconsin, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Smith, blog, Blue Valley Ban Corp, Bruyette and Woods, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Oversight Panel, control fraud, crony capitalism, Democrat, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, EESA, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial fraud, financial meltdown, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, foreclosures, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, Institutionalized Fraud, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Keefe, lobbyists, Lone Star Bank, Maiden Lane III, MarketWatch, Marshall Auerback, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, OneUnited Bank, Opinion, Pimco, Political, Politico, Politics, President Bush, President of the United States, Professor Bill Black, regulatory capture, Republican, Saigon National Bank, Seacoast Banking Corp, securities, self-dealing insiders, September Oversight Report, socialized loss and privatized gain, stress tests, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The Smell Of Rotting TARP, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United American Bank, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Geithner Watch

August 19th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 19 2010

Comments Off

August 19, 2010

It’s that time once again. The Treasury Department has launched another “charm offensive” – and not a moment too soon. “Turbo” Tim Geithner got some really bad publicity at the Daily Beast website by way of a piece by Philip Shenon. The story concerned the fact that a man named Daniel Zelikow — while in between revolving door spins at JP Morgan Chase — let Geithner live rent-free in Zelikow’s $3.5 million Washington townhouse, during Geithner’s first eight months as Treasury Secretary. Zelikow (who had previously worked for JP Morgan Chase from 1999 until 2007) was working at the Inter-American Development Bank at the time. The Daily Beast described the situation this way:

At that time, Geithner was overseeing the bailout of several huge Wall Street banks, including JPMorgan, which received $25 billion in federal rescue funds from the TARP program.

Zelikow, a friend of Geithner’s since they were classmates at Dartmouth College in the early 1980s, begins work this month running JPMorgan’s new 12-member International Public Sector Group, which will develop foreign governments as clients.

* * *

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who is a specialist in government ethics and author of a leading textbook on legal ethics, described Geithner’s original decision to move in with Zelikow last year as “just awful” — given the conflict-of-interest problems it seemed to create.

He tells The Daily Beast that Geithner now needs to avoid even the appearance of assisting JPMorgan in any way that suggested a “thank-you note” to Zelikow in exchange for last year’s free rent.

“He needs to be purer than Caesar’s wife — purer than Caesar’s whole family,” Gillers said of the Treasury secretary.

The Daily Beast story came right on the heels of Matt Taibbi’s superlative article in Rolling Stone, exposing the skullduggery involved in removing all the teeth from the financial “reform” bill. Taibbi did not speak kindly of Geithner:

If Obama’s team had had their way, last month’s debate over the Volcker rule would never have happened. When the original version of the finance-reform bill passed the House last fall – heavily influenced by treasury secretary and noted pencil-necked Wall Street stooge Timothy Geithner – it contained no attempt to ban banks with federally insured deposits from engaging in prop trading.

Just when it became clear that Geithner needed to make some new friends in the blogosphere, another conclave with financial bloggers took place on Monday, August 16. The first such event took place last November. I reviewed several accounts of the November meeting in a piece entitled “Avoiding The Kool -Aid”. Since that time, Treasury has decided to conduct such meetings 4 – 6 times per year. The conferences follow an “open discussion” format, led by individual senior Treasury officials (including Turbo Tim himself) with three presenters, each leading a 45-minute session. A small number of financial bloggers are invited to attend. Some of the bloggers who were unable to attend last November’s session were sorry they missed it. The August 16 meeting was the first one I’d heard about since the November event. The following bloggers attended the August 16 session: Phil Davis of Phil’s Stock World, Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism, John Lounsbury for Ed Harrison’s Credit Writedowns, Michael Konczal of Rortybomb, Steve Waldman of Interfluidity, as well as Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution. As of this writing, Alex Tabarrok and John Lounsbury were the only attendees to have written about the event. You can expect to see something soon from Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism.

At this juncture, the effort appears to have worked to Geithner’s advantage, since he made a favorable impression on Alex Tabarrok, just as he had done last November with Tabarrok’s partner at Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen:

As Tyler said after an earlier visit, Geithner is smart and deep. Geithner took questions on any topic. Bear in mind that taking questions from people like Mike Konczal, Tyler, or Interfluidity is not like taking questions from the press. Geithner quickly identified the heart of every question and responded in a way that showed a command of both theory and fact. We went way over scheduled time. He seemed to be having fun.

It will be interesting to see whether the upcoming accounts of the meeting continue to provide Geithner with the image makeover he so desperately needs.

Alex Tabarrok, American capitalism, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Credit Writedowns, crony capitalism, Daniel Zelikow, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, financial bloggers, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, Geithner Watch, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, image makeover, insolvent banks, Interfluidity, investment banks, John Burke, John Lounsbury, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, liberal, lobbyists, Marginal Revolution, Matt Taibbi, Michael Konczal, moral hazard, Naked Capitalism, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Phil Davis, Phil's Stock World, Philip Shenon, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Rolling Stone, Rortybomb, securities, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Stephen Gillers, Steve Waldman, stock markets, stress tests, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, The Daily Beast, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Timothy Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Turbo Tim Geithner, Tyler Cowen, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Financial Reform Bill Exposed As Hoax

June 28th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 28 2010

Comments Off

June 28, 2010

You don’t have to look too far to find damning criticism of the so-called financial “reform” bill. Once the Kaufman-Brown amendment was subverted (thanks to the Obama administration), the efforts to solve the problem of financial institutions’ growth to a state of being “too big to fail” (TBTF) became a lost cause. Dylan Ratigan, who had been fuming for a while about the financial reform charade, had this to say about the product that emerged from reconciliation on Friday morning:

It means that the same people who brought you these horrible changes — rising wealth discrepancy, massive unemployment and a crumbling infrastructure – have now further institutionalized the policies that will keep the causes of these problems firmly in place.

The best trashing of this bill came from Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge:

Congrats, middle class, once again you get raped by Wall Street, which is off to the races to yet again rapidly blow itself up courtesy of 30x leverage, unlimited discount window usage, trillions in excess reserves, quadrillions in unregulated derivatives, a TBTF framework that has been untouched and will need a rescue in under a year, non-existent accounting rules, a culture of unmitigated greed, and all of Congress and Senate on its payroll. And, sorry, you can’t even vote some of the idiots that passed this garbage out: after all there is a retiring lame duck in charge of it all. We can only hope his annual Wall Street (i.e. taxpayer funded) annuity will satisfy his conscience for destroying any hope America could have of a credible financial system.

* * *

In other words, the greatest theatrical production of the past few months is now over, it has achieved nothing, it will prevent nothing, and ultimately the financial markets will blow up yet again, but not before the Teleprompter in Chief pummels the idiot public with address after address how he singlehandedly was bribed, pardon, achieved a historic event of being the only president to completely crumble under Wall Street’s pressure on every item that was supposed to reign in the greatest risktaking generation (with Other People’s Money) in history.

Robert Lenzner of Forbes focused his criticism of the bill on the fact that nothing was done to limit the absurd leverage used by the banks to borrow against their capital. After all, at the January 13 hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Lloyd Bankfiend of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan’s Dimon Dog admitted that excessive leverage was a key problem in causing the financial crisis. As I discussed in “Lev Is The Drug”:

Lloyd Blankfein repeatedly expressed pride in the fact that Goldman Sachs has always been leveraged to “only” a 23-to-1 ratio. The Dimon Dog’s theme was something like: “We did everything right . . . except that we were overleveraged”.

At Forbes, Robert Lenzner discussed the ugly truth about how the limits on leverage were excised from this bill:

The capitulation on this matter of leverage is extraordinary evidence of Wall Street’s power to influence Congress through its lobbying dollars. It is another example of the public servants serving the agents of finance capitalism. After pumping in gobs of sovereign credit to replace the credit that had been wiped out and replace the supply of credit to the economic system, a weak reform bill will just be an invitation to drum up the leverage that caused the crisis in the first place.

Another victory for the lobbyists came in their sabotage of the prohibition on proprietary trading (when banks trade with their own money, for their own benefit). The bill provides that federal financial regulators shall study the measure, then issue rules implementing it, based on the results of that study. The rules might ultimately ban proprietary trading or they may allow for what Jim Jubak of MSN calls the “de minimus” (trading with minimal amounts) exemption to the ban. Jubak considers the use of the de minimus exemption to the so-called ban as the likely outcome. Many commentators failed to realize how the lobbyists worked their magic here, reporting that the prop trading ban (referred to as the “Volcker rule”) survived reconciliation intact. Jim Jubak exposed the strategy employed by the lobbyists:

But lobbying Congress is only part of the game. Congress writes the laws, but it leaves it up to regulators to write the rules. In a mid-June review of the text of the financial-reform legislation, the Chamber of Commerce counted 399 rule-makings and 47 studies required by lawmakers.

Each one of these, like the proposed de minimus exemption of the Volcker rule, would be settled by regulators operating by and large out of the public eye and with minimal public input. But the financial-industry lobbyists who once worked at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. know how to put in a word with those writing the rules. Need help understanding a complex issue? A regulator has the name of a former colleague now working as a lobbyist in an e-mail address book. Want to share an industry point of view with a rule-maker? Odds are a lobbyist knows whom to call to get a few minutes of face time.

At the Naked Capitalism website, Yves Smith served up some more negative reactions to the bill, along with her own cutting commentary:

I want the word “reform” back. Between health care “reform” and financial services “reform,” Obama, his operatives, and media cheerleaders are trying to depict both initiatives as being far more salutary and far-reaching than they are. This abuse of language is yet another case of the Obama Administration using branding to cover up substantive shortcomings. In the short run it might fool quite a few people, just as BP’s efforts to position itself as an environmentally responsible company did.

* * *

So what does the bill accomplish? It inconveniences banks around the margin while failing to reduce the odds of a recurrence of a major financial crisis.

The only two measures I see as genuine accomplishments, the Audit the Fed provisions, and the creation of a consumer financial product bureau, do not address systemic risks. And the consumer protection authority was substantially watered down. Recall a crucial provision, that banks be required to offer plain vanilla variants of products, was axed early on.

So there you have it. The bill that is supposed to save us from another financial crisis does nothing to accomplish that objective. Once this 2,000-page farce is signed into law, watch for the reactions. It will be interesting to sort out the clear-thinkers from the Kool-Aid drinkers.

American capitalism, asset bubble, Audit the Fed, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, BP, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, consumer financial protection, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, de minimus exemption, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dimon Dog, Dylan Ratigan, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, excessive leverage, FCIC, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, financial meltdown, financial reform, Financial Reform Bill Exposed As Hoax, Forbes, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jamie Dimon, Jim Jubak, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JPMorgan Chase, Kaufman-Brown amendment, Kool-Aid drinkers, Lev Is The Drug, liberal, Lloyd Bankfiend, Lloyd Blankfein, lobbyists, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, msn, Naked Capitalism, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, prop trading ban, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Robert Lenzner, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, TBTF, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Tyler Durden, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unregulated derivatives, Volcker Rule, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, Zero Hedge, zombie banks

Ignoring The Root Cause

June 17th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 17 2010

Comments Off

June 17, 2010

The predominant criticism of the so-called “financial reform” bill is its failure to address the problems caused by the existence of financial institutions considered “too big to fail”. In an essay entitled, “Creating the Next Crisis” economist Simon Johnson discussed the consequences of this legislative let-down:

On the critical dimension of excessive bank size and what it implies for systemic risk, there was a concerted effort by Senators Ted Kaufman and Sherrod Brown to impose a size cap on the largest banks – very much in accordance with the spirit of the original “Volcker Rule” proposed in January 2010 by Obama himself. In an almost unbelievable volte face, for reasons that remain somewhat mysterious, Obama’s administration itself shot down this approach. “If enacted, Brown-Kaufman would have broken up the six biggest banks in America,” a senior Treasury official said. “If we’d been for it, it probably would have happened. But we weren’t, so it didn’t.”

* * *

The US financial sector received an unconditional bailout – and is not now facing any kind of meaningful re-regulation. We are setting ourselves up, without question, for another boom based on excessive and reckless risk-taking at the heart of the world’s financial system. This can end only one way: badly.

One would assume that an important lesson learned from the 2008 financial crisis was the idea that a corporation shouldn’t be permitted to blackmail the country with threats that its own financial collapse would have such a dire impact on society-at-large that the corporation should be bailed out by the taxpayers. The resulting problem is called “moral hazard” because such businesses are encouraged to act irresponsibly by virtue of the certainty that they will be bailed out if their activities prove self-destructive.

Gonzalo Lira wrote a piece for the Naked Capitalism blog, explaining how the moral hazard resulting from the “too big to fail” doctrine is facilitating a state of corporate anarchy:

In a nutshell, in this era of corporate anarchy, corporations do not have to abide by any rules — none at all. Legal, moral, ethical, even financial rules are irrelevant. They have all been rescinded in the pursuit of profit — literally nothing else matters.

As a result, corporations currently exist in a state of almost pure anarchy — but an anarchy directly related to their size: The larger the corporation, the greater its absolute freedom to do and act as it pleases. That’s why so many medium-sized corporations are hell-bent on growth over profits: The biggest of them all, like BP and Goldman Sachs, live in a positively Hobbesian State of Nature, free to do as they please, with nary a consequence.

Good-old British Petroleum – the latest beneficiary of the “too big to fail doctrine” — can rely on its size to avoid any sanctions it considers unacceptable because too many “small people” might lose their jobs if BP can’t stay fat and happy. Gonzalo Lira’s analysis went a step further:

Worst of all, BP realizes that, if it finally cannot get a handle on the oil spill disaster, they can simply fob it off on the U.S. Government — in other words, the people of the United States will wind up cleaning BP’s mess. BP knows that no one will hold it accountable — BP knows that it will get away with it.

* * *

This era of corporate anarchy is reaching a crisis point — we can all sense it. Yet the leadership in the United States and Europe is making no effort to solve the root problem. Perhaps they don’t see the problem. Perhaps they are beholden to corporate masters. Whatever the case, in his speech, President Obama made ridiculous references to “clean energy” while ignoring the cause of the BP oil spill disaster, the cause of the financial crisis, the cause of the spiralling health-care costs — the corporate anarchy that underlines them all.

This era of corporate anarchy is wrecking the world — literally, if you’ve been tuning in to images of the oil billowing out a mile down in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Lira discussed how a leadership void has been helping corporate anarchy overtake democratic capitalism:

Obama is a corporatist — he’s one of Them. So there’ll be more bullshit talk about “clean energy” and “energy independence”, while the root cause — corporate anarchy — is left undisturbed.

The failure of President Obama to take advantage of the opportunity to address this “root cause” in his Oval Office address concerning the Deepwater Horizon disaster, inspired Robert Reich to make this comment:

Whether it’s Wall Street or health insurers or oil companies, we are approaching a turning point. The top executives of powerful corporations are pursuing profits in ways that menace the nation. We have not seen the likes not since the late nineteenth century when the “robber barons” of finance, oil, and the giant trusts ran roughshod over America. Now, as then, they are using their wealth and influence to buy off legislators and intimidate the regions that depend on them for jobs. Now, as then, they are threatening the safety and security of our people.

One of my favorite commentators, Paul Farrell of MarketWatch, recently warned us about the consequences of allowing corporate anarchy to destroy democratic capitalism:

The rise of uncontrolled corporate greed killed the “Invisible Hand,” the “soul” of capitalism that Adam Smith saw in 1776 as a divine force serving “the common good.” Today the system has no moral compass. Wall Street’s insatiable greed has destroyed capitalism from within, turning America’s economy into a soulless zombie.

The “Invisible Hand” Adam Smith saw as essential to capitalism in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” died in endless battles fought by 261,000 lobbyists each wanting a bigger piece of the $1.7 trillion federal budget pie plus favorable laws protecting, vesting and increasing the power and wealth of their special interest clients. Future historians will call this ideological battle replacing democracy the new “American Capitalists Anarchy.”

* * *

As a New York Times reviewer put it: Nations like “China and Russia are using what he calls ‘state capitalism’ to advance the interests of their companies at the expense of their American rivals.” Global pandemic?

Unfortunately while America wastes trillions to bail out inefficient too-stupid-to-fail banks, our competition is bankrolling healthy state-controlled corporations to destroy us . . .

If we ever reach the point when the watered-down “financial reform” bill finally becomes law, the taxpayers should insist that their government move on to address the “root cause” of corporate anarchy by taking up campaign finance reform. That should be one hell of a fight!

Adam Smith, American capitalism, bank bailout, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, BP, British Petroleum, Brown-Kaufman, campaign finance reform, centrist, Commentary, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, corporate anarchy, Creating the Next Crisis, crony capitalism, Deepwater Horizon, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, financial crisis, financial reform, Goldman Sachs, Gonzalo Lira, government guarantees, Ignoring The Root Cause, investment banks, Invisible Hand, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, moral hazard, Naked Capitalism, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Oval Office address, Paul Farrell, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, robber barons, Robert Reich, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Sherrod Brown, Simon Johnson, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, Ted Kaufman, the center lane, the economy, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Volcker Rule, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

ObamaWatch

June 14th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jun, 14 2010

Comments Off

June 14, 2010

Last week, I highlighted some criticism of Barack Obama’s presidency, which came from such unlikely sources as Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich of The New York Times, as well as Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The man whom I described as the “Disappointer-in-Chief” during his third month in office, has continued to draw harsh criticism from unlikely sources. At this point, the subject pondered by many commentators concerns whether any of this dissatisfaction will stick long enough to have an impact on the mid-term elections and beyond.

If the President read Tim Dickenson’s recent essay for Rolling Stone, “The Spill, The Scandal and the President”, it must have been painful. Mr. Dickenson didn’t pull any punches while explaining Mr. Obama’s role in the Deepwater Horizon disaster:

Like the attacks by Al Qaeda, the disaster in the Gulf was preceded by ample warnings – yet the administration had ignored them. Instead of cracking down on MMS, as he had vowed to do even before taking office, Obama left in place many of the top officials who oversaw the agency’s culture of corruption. He permitted it to rubber-stamp dangerous drilling operations by BP – a firm with the worst safety record of any oil company – with virtually no environmental safeguards, using industry-friendly regulations drafted during the Bush years. He calibrated his response to the Gulf spill based on flawed and misleading estimates from BP – and then deployed his top aides to lowball the flow rate at a laughable 5,000 barrels a day, long after the best science made clear this catastrophe would eclipse the Exxon Valdez.

At the Naked Capitalism website, Yves Smith summed up a good number of the Obama Administration’s shortcomings in the first paragraph of her June 11 piece about the BP mess:

As readers may know, I’ve been consistently disappointed by the Obama Administration: its faux progressive packaging versus its corporatist posture, its half-hearted, halting reforms which are noisily trumpeted as the real thing, its deep seated belief that public antipathy to its initiatives means it needs to work harder on selling its message, when it really needs a new strategy.

But the escalating disaster of the Gulf oil spill, and the unique constellation it presents, namely, a big, rich, isolated, foreign perp, which is largely if not solely responsible for the mess, in close proximity to contested mid-term elections, might actually rouse Obama to do something uncharacteristic, namely get tough.

This is by no means a likely outcome, but we are seeing some novel behaviors. First is that Obama finally may have succeeded in getting someone important afraid of him. This is a critically important lesson; Machiavelli told his prince it was much more important to be feared than loved. Mere anger is often negotiation posturing or a manifestation of CEO Derangement Syndrome; fear is much harder to fake. And BP is finally starting to get rattled.

In case you are wondering whether the President is still popular in Hollywood, The Hill recently turned to a couple of southern California bloggers to provide some insight as to whether Mr. Obama has begun to lose his sparkle in Tinsel Town. John Nolte of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood blog expressed the belief that the President’s supporters in Hollywood have been keeping the faith:

If anything, Hollywood is worried about and for Obama. Worried about the upcoming mid-terms, his re-election chances, his sliding poll numbers, and his gilded ship sailing off course and landing in Carter-ita-ville instead of Mt. Rushmore.

From the more left-leaning perspective, Deborah White of The Liberal OC blog gave us the impression that the President’s Hollywood supporters are becoming increasingly disappointed, although not yet disgruntled:

As of now, President Obama has not lost the support of most Hollywood liberals. But Democrats in Hollywood are also no longer lavishing praise on Obama as they did in hopeful droves before his triumphant election.

Hollywood liberals no longer view Barack Obama as someone they blindly “want to follow… somewhere, anywhere” as pal George Clooney famously told Charlie Rose in early 2008.

Meanwhile, Maureen Dowd has continued with her unrestrained criticism of the President. Her June 11 column must have irritated more than a few people on Pennsylvania Avenue:

The press traveling with Obama on the campaign never had a lovey-dovey relationship with him. He treated us with aloof correctness, and occasional spurts of irritation. Like many Democrats, he thinks the press is supposed to be on his side.

The patrician George Bush senior was always gracious with reporters while conveying the sense that what we do for a living was rude.

The former constitutional lawyer now in the White House understands that the press has a role in the democracy. But he is an elitist, too, as well as thin-skinned and controlling. So he ends up regarding scribes as intrusive, conveying a distaste for what he sees as the fundamental unseriousness of a press driven by blog-around-the-clock deadlines.

During the Presidential election campaign, Mr. Obama was often described as a “Rorschach test” — people saw in him whatever they imagined. Now that the President has been able to disappoint his supporters, the criticism is gradually becoming increasingly harsh. As frustration over the BP crisis, unemployment and the economy continues to build — the criticism voiced by those who voted for him is likely to become more caustic.

Barack Obama, Big Hollywood, blog, BP, centrist, Charlie Rose, Commentary, Congress, conservative, Deborah White, Deepwater Horizon, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Disappointer-In-Chief, economics, Frank Rich, George Bush senior, George Clooney, Hollywood liberals, John Burke, John Nolte, John T Burke Jr, liberal, Maureen Dowd, MMS, Naked Capitalism, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama as Rorschach test, Obama Presidency, ObamaWatch, Opinion, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Rolling Stone, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The Hill, The Liberal OC, The Spill The Scandal and the President, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Dickenson, Tony Norman, unemployment, United States Senate, Wall Street, Yves Smith

Banking Lobby Tools In Senate Subvert Reform

May 20th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

May, 20 2010

Comments Off

May 20. 2010

The financial pseudo-reform bill is being exposed as a farce. Thanks to its tools in the Senate, the banking lobby is on the way toward defeating any significant financial reform. Although Democrats in the Senate (and the President himself) have been posing as reformers who stand up to those “fat cat bankers”, their actions are speaking much louder than their words. What follows is a list of the Senate Democrats who voted against both the Kaufman – Brown amendment (to prevent financial institutions from being “too big to fail”) as well as the amendment calling for more Federal Reserve transparency (sponsored by Republican David Vitter to comport with Congressman Ron Paul’s original “Audit the Fed” proposal – H.R. 1207 – which was replaced by the watered-down S. 3217 ):

Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Bennet (D-CO), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND), Dodd (D-CT), Feinstein (D-CA), Gillibrand (D-NY), Hagan (D-NC), Inouye (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (ID-CT), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reed (D-RI), Schumer (D-NY), Shaheen (D-NH), Tester (D-MT), Udall (D-CO) and Mark Warner (D-VA).

I wasn’t surprised to see Senator Chuck Schumer on this list because, after all, Wall Street is located in his state. But how about Senator Claire McCaskill? Remember her performance at the April 27 hearing before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations? She really went after those banksters – didn’t she? Why would she suddenly turn around and support the banks in opposing those two amendments? I suppose the securities and investment industry is entitled to a little payback, after having given her campaign committee $265,750.

I was quite disappointed to see Senator Amy Klobuchar on that list. Back on June 19, 2008, I included her in a piece entitled “Women to Watch”. Now, almost exactly two years later, we are watching her serve as a tool for the securities and investment industry, which has given her campaign committee $224,325. On the other hand, another female Senator whom I discussed in that same piece, Maria Cantwell of Washington, has been standing firm in opposing attempts to leave some giant loopholes in Senator Blanche Lincoln’s amendment concerning derivatives trading reform. The Huffington Post described how Harry Reid attempted to use cloture to push the financial reform bill to a vote before any further amendments could have been added to strengthen the bill. Notice how “the usual suspects” – Reid, Chuck Schumer and “Countrywide Chris” Dodd tried to close in on Cantwell and force her capitulation to the will of the kleptocracy:

There were some unusually Johnsonian moments of wrangling on the floor during the nearly hour-long vote. Reid pressed his case hard on Snowe, the lone holdout vote present, with Bob Corker and Mitch McConnell at her side. After finding Brown, he put his arm around him and shook his head, then found Cantwell seated alone at the opposite end of the floor. He and New York’s Chuck Schumer encircled her, Reid leaning over her with his right arm on the back of her chair and Schumer leaning in with his left hand on her desk. Cantwell stared straight ahead, not looking at the men even as she spoke. Schumer called in Chris Dodd, who was unable to sway her. Feingold hadn’t stuck around. Cantwell, according to a spokesman, wanted a guarantee on an amendment that would fix a gaping hole in the derivatives section of the bill, which requires the trades to be cleared, but applies no penalty to trades that aren’t, making Blanche Lincoln’s reform package little better than a list of suggestions.

* * *

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to cut off good consumer amendments because of cloture,” said Cantwell on Tuesday night.

Other amendments offered by Democrats would ban banks from proprietary trading, cap ATM fees at 50 cents, impose new limits on the payday lending industry, prohibit naked credit default swaps and reinstate Glass-Steagall regulations that prohibit banks from owning investment firms.

“We need to eliminate the risk posed to our economy by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms and to reinstate the protective firewalls between Main Street banks and Wall Street firms,” said Feingold in a statement after the vote. Feingold supported the amendment to reinstate Glass-Steagall, among others.

“Unfortunately, these key reforms are not included in the bill,” he said. “The test for this legislation is a simple one — whether it will prevent another financial crisis. As the bill stands, it fails that test. Ending debate on the bill is finishing before the job is done.”

Russ Feingold’s criticisms of the bill were consistent with those voiced by economist Nouriel Roubini (often referred to as “Doctor Doom” because he was one of the few economists to anticipate the scale of the financial crisis). Barbara Stcherbatcheff of CNBC began her report on Dr. Roubini’s May 18 speech with this statement:

Current efforts to reform financial regulation are “cosmetic” and won’t prevent another crisis, economist Nouriel Roubini told an audience on Tuesday at the London School of Economics.

The current mid-term primary battles have fueled a never-ending stream of commentary following the same narrative: The wrath of the anti-incumbency movement shall be felt in Washington. Nevertheless, Dylan Ratigan seems to be the only television commentator willing to include “opposition to financial reform” as a political liability for Congressional incumbents. Yves Smith raised the issue on her Naked Capitalism website with an interesting essay focused on this theme:

Why have political commentators been hesitant to connect the dots between the “no incumbent left standing” movement and the lack of meaningful financial reform?

Her must-read analysis of the “head fakes” going on within the financial reform wrangling concludes with this thought:

So despite the theatrics in Washington, I recommend lowering your expectations greatly for the result of financial reform efforts. There have been a few wins (for instance, the partial success of the Audit the Fed push), but other measures have for the most part been announced with fanfare and later blunted or excised. Even though the firestorm of Goldman-related press stiffened the spines of some Senators and produced a late-in-process flurry of amendments, don’t let a blip distract you from the trend line, that as the legislative process proceeds apace, the banks will be able to achieve an outcome that leaves their dubious business models and most important, the rich pay to industry incumbents, largely intact.

As always, it’s up to the voting public with the short memory to unseat those tools of the banking lobby. Our only alternative is to prepare for the next financial crisis.

Amy Klobuchar, asset bubble, Audit the Fed, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking lobby, Banking Lobby Tools In Senate Subvert Reform, Barack Obama, Barbara Stcherbatcheff, Blanche Lincoln, blog, centrist, Chuck Schumer, Claire McCaskill, cloture, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Countrywide Chris Dodd, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, David Vitter, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Doctor Doom, Dylan Ratigan, economics, economists, equities markets, fat cat bankers, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial reform, Glass-Steagall, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Harry Reid, HR 1207, Huffington Post, huge financial institutions, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Kaufman – Brown amendment, kleptocracy, liberal, lobbyists, London School of Economics, Maria Cantwell, moral hazard, Naked Capitalism, New York Stock Exchange, News, Nouriel Roubini, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Ron Paul, Russ Feingold, S 3217, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 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 lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Women To Watch, Yves Smith

Everyone Knew About Lehman Brothers

March 19th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 19 2010

Comments Off

March 19, 2010

A March 18 report by Henny Sender at the Financial Times revealed that former officials from Merrill Lynch had contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the Federal Reserve of New York to complain that Lehman Brothers had been incorrectly calculating a key measure of its financial health. The regulators received this warning several months before Lehman filed for bankruptcy in September of 2008. Apparently Lehman’s reports of robust financial health were making Merrill look bad:

Former Merrill Lynch officials said they contacted regulators about the way Lehman measured its liquidity position for competitive reasons. The Merrill officials said they were coming under pressure from their trading partners and investors, who feared that Merrill was less liquid than Lehman.

*   *   *

In the account given by the Merrill officials, the SEC, the lead regulator, and the New York Federal Reserve were given warnings about Lehman’s balance sheet calculations as far back as March 2008.

*   *   *

The former Merrill officials said they contacted the regulators after Lehman released an estimate of its liquidity position in the first quarter of 2008. Lehman touted its results to its counterparties and its investors as proof that it was sounder than some of its rivals, including Merrill, these people said.

*   *   *

“We started getting calls from our counterparties and investors in our debt. Since we didn’t believe the Lehman numbers and thought their calculations were aggressive, we called the regulators,” says one former Merrill banker, now at another big bank.

Could the people at Merrill Lynch have expected the New York Fed to intervene and prevent the accounting chicanery at Lehman? After all, Lehman’s CEO, Richard Fuld, was also a class B director of the New York Fed. Would any FRBNY investigator really want to make trouble for one of the directors of his or her employer? This type of conflict of interest is endemic to the self-regulatory milieu presided over by the Federal Reserve. When people talk about protecting “Fed independence”, I guess this is what they mean.

The Financial Times report inspired Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism to emphasize that the New York Fed’s failure to do its job, having been given this additional information from Merrill officials, underscores the ineptitude of the New York Fed’s president at the time — Tim Geithner:

The fact that Merrill, with a little digging, could see that Lehman’s assertions about its financial health were bogus says other firms were likely to figure it out sooner rather than later. That in turn meant that the Lehman was extremely vulnerable to a run. Bear was brought down in a mere ten days. Having just been through the Bear implosion, the warning should have put the authorities in emergency preparedness overdrive. Instead, they went into “Mission Accomplished” mode.

This Financial Times story provides yet more confirmation that Geithner is not fit to serve as a regulator and should resign as Treasury Secretary. But it may take Congress forcing a release of the Lehman-related e-mails and other correspondence by the New York Fed to bring about that outcome.

Those “Lehman-related e-mails” should be really interesting. If Richard Fuld was a party to any of those, it will be interesting to note whether his e-mail address was “@LehmanBros”, “@FRBNY” or both.

The Lehman scandal has come to light at precisely the time when Ben Bernanke is struggling to maintain as much power for the Federal Reserve as he can — in addition to getting control over the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. One would think that Bernanke is pursuing a lost cause, given the circumstances and the timing. Nevertheless, as Jesse of Jesse’s Cafe Americain points out — Bernanke may win this fight:

The Fed is the last place that should receive additional power over the banking system, showing itself to be a bureaucracy incapable of exercising the kind of occasionally stern judgment, the tough love, that wayward bankers require. And the mere thought of putting Consumer Protection under their purview makes one’s skin crawl with fear and the gall of injustice.

They may get it, this more power, not because it is deserved, but because politicians themselves wish to have more power and money, and this is one way to obtain it.

The next time the financial system crashes, the torches and pitchforks will come out of the barns and there will be a serious reform, and some tar and feathering in congressional committees, and a few virtual lynchings. The damage to the people of the middle class will be an American tragedy. But this too shall pass.

It’s beginning to appear as though it really will require another financial crisis before our graft-hungry politicians will make any serious effort at financial reform. If economist Randall Wray is correct, that day may be coming sooner than most people expect:

Another financial crisis is nearly certain to hit in coming months — probably before summer. The belief that together Geithner and Bernanke have resolved the crisis and that they have put the economy on a path to recovery will be exposed as wishful thinking.

Although that may sound a bit scary, we have to look at the bright side: at least we will finally be on a path toward serious financial reform.

accounting fraud, accounting tricks, American capitalism, another financial crisis, Anton Valukas, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bear Stearns, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, collapse of Bear Stearns, collapse of Lehman Brothers, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Everyone Knew About Lehman Brothers, Fed independence, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Reserve of New York, Federal Reserve transparency, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Times, FRBNY, Fuld as director of New York Fed, government guarantees, Henny Sender, huge financial institutions, inflated asset values, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jesses Cafe Americain, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, lack of oversight, Lehman Brothers scandal, liberal, lobbyists, Merrill Lynch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, New York Fed, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Randall Wray, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Richard Fuld, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-regulation, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, too-big-to-fail financial institutions, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Valukas report, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

The Lehman Fallout

March 16th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Mar, 16 2010

Comments Off

March 16, 2010

Everyone is speculating about what will happen next. The shock waves resulting from the release of the report by bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas, pinpointing the causes of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, have left the blogosphere’s commentators with plenty to discuss. Unfortunately, the mainstream media isn’t giving this story very much traction. On March 15, the Columbia Journalism Review published an essay by Ryan Chittum, decrying the lack of mainstream media attention given to the Lehman scandal. Here is some of what he said:

Look, I know that Lehman collapsed a year and a half ago, but this is a major story — one that finally gets awfully close to putting the crimes in the crisis. I’ll go ahead and say it: If you’ve wanted to know about the Valukas report and its implications, you’ve been better served by reading Zero Hedge and Naked Capitalism than you have The Wall Street Journal or New York Times. This on the biggest financial news story of the week — and one of the biggest of the year. These papers have hundreds of journalists at their disposal. The blogs have one non-professional writer and a handful of sometime non-pro-journalist contributors.

I’m hardly the only one who has noticed this. James Kwak of Baseline Scenario wrote this earlier today:

Overall, I’m surprised by how little interest the report has gotten in the media, given its depth and the surprising nature of some of its findings.

At the Zero Hedge website, Tyler Durden reacted to the Columbia Journalism Review piece this way:

Only a few days have passed since its release, and already the Mainstream Media has forgotten all about the Lehman Examiner Report, with barely an occasional mention. As the CJR points out, this unquestionably massive story of corruption and vice, is being covered up by powered interests controlling all the major news outlets, because just like in the Galleon case, the stench goes not only to the top, (in this case the NewYork Fed and the SEC), but very likely to various corporations that have vested interests in the conglomerates controlling America’s key media organizations.

One probable reason why the Lehman story is being buried is because its timing dovetails so well with the unveiling of Senator “Countrywide Chris” Dodd’s financial reform plan. The fact that Dodd’s plan includes the inane idea of expanding the powers of the Federal Reserve was not to be ignored by John Carney of The Business Insider website:

Why do we think these are such bad ideas? At the most basic level, it’s hard to see how the expansion of the scope of the Federal Reserve’s authority to cover any large financial institution makes sense. The Federal Reserve was not able to prevent disaster at the firms it was already charged with overseeing. What reason is there to think it will do a better job at regulating a wider universe of firms?

More concretely, the Federal Reserve had regulators in place inside of Lehman Brothers following the collapse of Bear Stearns. These in-house regulators did not realize that Lehman’s management was rebuking market demands for reduced risk and covering up its rebuke with accounting sleight-of-hand. When Lehman actually came looking for a bailout, officials were reportedly surprised at how bad things were at the firm. A similar situation unfolded at Merrill Lynch. The regulators proved inadequate to the task.

Just think: It was only one week ago when we were reading those fawning, sycophantic stories in The New Yorker and The Atlantic about what a great guy “Turbo” Tim Geithner is. This week brought us a great essay by Professor Randall Wray, which raised the question of whether Geithner helped Lehman hide its accounting tricks. Beyond that, Professor Wray emphasized how this scandal underscores the need for Federal Reserve transparency, which has been so ardently resisted by Ben Bernanke. (Remember the lawsuit by the late Mark Pittman of Bloomberg News?) Among the great points made by Professor Wray were these:

Not only did the NY Fed fail to blow the whistle on flagrant accounting tricks, it also helped to hide Lehman’s illiquid assets on the Fed’s balance sheet to make its position look better. Note that the NY Fed had increased its supervision to the point that it was going over Lehman’s books daily; further, it continued to take trash off the books of Lehman right up to the bitter end, helping to perpetuate the fraud that was designed to maintain the pretense that Lehman was not massively insolvent. (see here)

Geithner told Congress that he has never been a regulator. (see here) That is a quite honest assessment of his job performance, although it is completely inaccurate as a description of his duties as President of the NY Fed.

* * *

More generally, this revelation drives home three related points. First, the scandal is on-going and it is huge. President Obama must hold Geithner accountable. He must determine what did Geithner know, and when did he know it. All internal documents and emails related to the AIG bailout and the attempt to keep Lehman afloat need to be released. Further, Obama must ask what has Geithner done to favor his clients on Wall Street? It now looks like even the Fed BOG, not just the NY Fed, is involved in the cover-up. It is in the interest of the Obama administration to come clean. It is hard to believe that it does not already have sufficient cause to fire Geithner. In terms of dollar costs to the government, this is surely the biggest scandal in US history. In terms of sheer sleaze does it rank with Watergate? I suppose that depends on whether you believe that political hit lists and spying that had no real impact on the outcome of an election is as bad as a wholesale handing-over of government and the economy to Wall Street.

It remains to be seen whether anyone in the mainstream media will be hitting this story so hard. One possible reason for the lack of significant coverage may exist in this disturbing point at the conclusion of Wray’s piece:

Of greater importance is the recognition that all of the big banks are probably insolvent. Another financial crisis is nearly certain to hit in coming months — probably before summer. The belief that together Geithner and Bernanke have resolved the crisis and that they have put the economy on a path to recovery will be exposed as wishful thinking.

Oh, boy! Not good! Not good at all! We’d better change the subject to March Madness, American Idol or Rielle Hunter! Anything but this!

accounting tricks, American capitalism, Anton Valukas, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Baseline Scenario, Bear Stearns, blog, Bloomberg news, centrist, collapse of Lehman Brothers, Columbia Journalism Review, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Countrywide Chris Dodd, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dodd financial reform plan, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve of New York, Federal Reserve transparency, financial crisis, financial meltdown, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Kwak, John Burke, John Carney, John T Burke Jr, lawsuit by Mark Pittman, liberal, mainstream media, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, New York Fed, New York Times, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Randall Wray, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Ryan Chittum, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Atlantic, The Business Insider, the center lane, the economy, The Lehman Fallout, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, Treasury Department, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, Tyler Durden, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Zero Hedge, zombie banks

About TheCenterLane.com

TheCenterLane.com offers opinion, news and commentary on politics, the economy, finance and other random events that either find their way into the news or are ignored by the news reporting business. As the name suggests, our focus will be on what seems to be happening in The Center Lane of American politics and what the view from the Center reveals about the events in the left and right lanes. Your Host, John T. Burke, Jr., earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston College with a double major in Speech Communications and Philosophy. He earned his law degree (Juris Doctor) from the Illinois Institute of Technology / Chicago-Kent College of Law.

© 2024 TheCenterLane.com

proSlate Theme by Pro WP Themes