The New York Times « TheCenterLane.com

Call Him The Dimon Dog

November 16th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 16 2009

Comments Off

November 16, 2009

It seems as though once an individual rises to a significant level of influence and authority, that person becomes “too big for straight talk”. We’ve seen it happen with politicians, prominent business people and others caught-up in the “leadership” racket. Influential people are well aware of the unforeseen consequences resulting from a candid, direct response to a simple question. Mindful of those hazards, a rhetorical technique employing equivocation, qualification and obfuscation is cultivated in order to avoid responsibility for what could eventually become exposed as a brain fart.

Since last year’s financial crisis began, we have heard plenty of debate over the concept of “too big to fail” — the idea that a bank is so large and interconnected with other important financial institutions that its failure could pose a threat to the entire financial system. Recent efforts at financial reform have targeted the “too big to fail” (TBTF) concept, with differing approaches toward downsizing or breaking up those institutions with “systemic risk” potential. Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner was the first to use doublespeak as a weapon against those attempting to eliminate TBTF status. When he testified before the House Financial Services Committee on September 23 to explain his planned financial reform agenda, Geithner attempted to create the illusion that his plan would resolve the “too big to fail” problem:

First, we cannot allow firms to reap the benefits of explicit or implicit government subsidies without very strong government oversight. We must substantially reduce the moral hazard created by the perception that these subsidies exist; address their corrosive effects on market discipline; and minimize their encouragement of risk-taking.

So, in other words … the government subsidies to those institutions will continue, but only if the recipients get “very strong government oversight”. In his next sentence, Geithner expressed his belief that the moral hazard was created “by the perception that these subsidies exist” rather than the FACT that they exist. At a subsequent House Financial Services Committee hearing on October 29, Geithner again tried to trick his audience into believing that the administration’s latest reform plan was opposed to TBTF status. As Jim Kuhnhenn and Anne Flaherty reported for The Huffington Post, representatives from both sides of the isle saw right through Geithner’s smokescreen:

Others argue that by singling out financial firms important to the economy, the government could inevitably set itself up to bail them out, and that even dismantling rather than rescuing them would take taxpayer money.

“Apparently, the ‘too big to fail’ model is too hard to kill,” quipped Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., called the bill “TARP on steroids,” referring to the government’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund.

On Friday the 13th, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, stole the spotlight in this debate with an opinion piece published by The Washington Post. Dimon pretended to be opposed to the TBTF concept and quoted from his fellow double-talker, Turbo Tim. Dimon then made this assertion: “The term ‘too big to fail’ must be excised from our vocabulary.” He followed with the qualification that ending TBTF “does not mean that we must somehow cap the size of financial-services firms.” Dimon proceeded to argue against the creation of “artificial limits” on the size of financial institutions. In other words: Dimon would like to see Congress enact a law that could never be applied because it would contain no metric for its own applicability.

Criticism of Dimon’s Washington Post piece was immediate and widespread, especially considering the fact that his own JP Morgan is a TBTF All Star. David Weidner explained it for MarketWatch this way:

In other words, Dimon favors a regulatory system for unwinding failing institutions — he believes no bank should be too big to fail — but doesn’t seem to like the global effort, endorsed by the G-20, to encourage smaller, less-connected institutions. He wants to let big institutions be big.

The best criticism of Dimon’s article came from my blogging buddy, Adrienne Gonzalez, a/k/a Jr Deputy Accountant. She pointed out that the report for the first quarter of 2009 by the Office of the Currency Comptroller revealed that JP Morgan Chase holds 81 trillion dollars’ worth of derivatives contracts, putting it in first place on the OCC list of what she called “derivatives offenders”. After quoting the passage in Dimon’s piece concerning the procedure for winding-down “a large financial institution”, Adrienne made this point:

Interesting and a great read but useless in practical application. Does Dimon really believe this? With $81 TRILLION in notional derivatives exposure, I don’t see how an FDIC for investment banks could possibly unwind such a tangled mess in an orderly fashion. He’s joking, right?

For an interesting portrayal of The Dimon Dog, you might want to take a look at an article by Paul Barrett, entitled “I, Banker”. It was actually a book review Barrett wrote for The New York Times concerning a biography of Dimon by Duff McDonald, entitled The Last Man Standing. I haven’t read the book and after reading Barrett’s review, I have no intention of doing so — since Barrett made the book appear to be the work of a fawning sycophant in awe of Dimon. In criticizing the book, Paul Barrett gave us some of his own useful insights about Dimon:

The Dimon of “Last Man Standing” emerges as a brilliant but flawed winner, one whose long and psychologically tangled apprenticeship to another legendary money man, Sanford Weill, helped lay the groundwork for the crisis of 2008. In recent days, Dimon’s conduct suggests he is someone who puts the interests of his company ahead of those of society at large, which will be surprising only to those who naively look to modern Wall Street for statesmanship.

* * *

JPMorgan under Dimon’s leadership allowed home buyers to borrow without having to prove their income. The bank did business with sleazy mortgage brokers who would lend to anyone with a heartbeat. These habits ended only in 2008, when it was too late. McDonald lauds Dimon for cleverly unloading huge volumes of the toxic subprime mortgages JPMorgan originated. But that’s like praising a corporate polluter for trucking his poisonous sludge into the next state. It doesn’t solve the problem; it merely moves it elsewhere.

Paul Barrett’s book review gave us a useful perspective on The Dimon Dog’s support of the administration’s financial reform agenda:

McDonald notes that the C.E.O. publicly endorses certain financial regulatory changes proposed by the Obama administration. But critics point out that lobbyists employed by “Dimon and his team are actually stonewalling derivatives reform in order to protect the outsize margins the business generates” for JPMorgan. The derivatives in question include “credit default swaps,” transactions akin to insurance policies that lenders can buy to buffer against loans that go bad. In the wrong hands, credit derivatives become a form of gambling that can lead to ruin. They need to be checked, and Dimon’s self-interested resistance isn’t helping matters.

Dimon may be the best of his breed, but when it comes to public-spirited leaders, today’s Wall Street isn’t a promising recruiting ground.

Well said!

Adrienne Gonzalez, American capitalism, Anne Flaherty, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Call Him The Dimon Dog, centrist, Citigroup, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, David Weidner, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, derivatives offenders, Dow Jones industrial average, Duff McDonald, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, foreclosures, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, I Banker, investment banks, Jamie Dimon, Jim Kuhnhenn, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase, Jr Deputy Accountant, liberal, lobbyists, MarketWatch, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Office of the Currency Comptroller, Opinion, Paul Barrett, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Representative Brad Sherman, Representative Ed Royce, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, Sanford Weill, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, TARP on steroids, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Dimon Dog, the economy, The Huffington Post, The Last Man Standing, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, unscrupulous lenders, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

The Weakest Link

November 2nd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 02 2009

Comments Off

November 2, 2009

Everything was supposed to be getting “back to normal” by now. Since late July, we’ve been hearing that the recession is over. When the Gross Domestic Product number for the third quarter was released on Thursday, we again heard the ejaculations of enthusiasm from those insisting that the recession has ended. Investors were willing to overlook the most recent estimate that another 531,000 jobs were lost during the month of October, so the stock market got a boost. Nevertheless, as was widely reported, the Cash for Clunkers program added 1.66 percent to the 3.5 percent Gross Domestic Product annualized rate increase. Since Cash for Clunkers was a short-lived event, something else will be necessary to fill its place, stimulating economic activity. Once that sobering aspect of the story was absorbed, Friday morning’s news informed us that consumer spending had dropped for the first time in five months. The Associated Press provided this report:

Economists worry that the recovery could falter in coming months if households cut back on spending to cope with rising unemployment, heavy debt loads and tight credit conditions.

“With incomes so soft, increased spending will be a struggle,” Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S.economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote in a note to clients.

The Commerce Department said Friday that spending dropped 0.5% in September, the first decline in five months. Personal incomes were unchanged as workers contend with rising unemployment. Wages and salaries fell 0.2%, erasing a 0.2% gain in August.

Another report showed that employers face little pressure to raise pay, even as the economy recovers. The weak labor market makes it difficult for people with jobs to demand higher pay and benefits.

* * *

. . . some economists believe that consumer spending will slow sharply in the current quarter, lowering GDP growth to perhaps 1.5%. Analysts said the risk of a double-dip recession cannot be ruled out over the next year.

With unemployment as bad as it is, those who have jobs need to be mindful of the Sword of Damocles, as it hangs perilously over their heads. As the AP report indicated, employers are now in an ideal position to exploit their work force. Worse yet, as Mish pointed out:

Personal income decreased $15.5 billion (0.5 percent), while real disposable personal income decreased 3.4 percent, in contrast to an increase of 3.8 percent last quarter. Those are horrible numbers.

The war on the American consumer finally bit Wall Street in the ass on Friday when the S&P 500 index took a 2.8 percent nosedive. When mass layoffs become the magic solution to make dismal corporate earnings reports appear positive, when the consumer is treated as a chump by regulatory agencies, lobbyists and government leaders, the consumer stops fulfilling the designated role of consuming. When that happens, the economy stands still. As Renae Merle reported for The Washington Post:

“The government handed the ball off to the consumer and the consumer fell on it,” said Robert G. Smith, chairman of Smith Affiliated Capital in New York. “This is a function of there being no jobs and wages going lower.”

The sell-off on the stock market also reflected a report released Friday showing a decline in consumer sentiment this month, analysts said. The Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index fell to 70.6 in October, compared with 73.5 in September.

Rich Miller of Bloomberg News discussed the resulting apprehension experienced by investors:

Only 31 percent of respondents to a poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers in the U.S., Europe and Asia see investment opportunities, down from 35 percent in the previous survey in July. Almost 40 percent in the latest quarterly survey, the Bloomberg Global Poll, say they are still hunkering down. U.S. investors are even more cautious, with more than 50 percent saying they are in a defensive crouch.

* * *

Worldwide, investors and analysts now view the U.S. as the weak link in the global economy, with its markets seen as among the riskiest by a plurality of those surveyed. One in four respondents expects an unemployment rate of 11 percent or more a year from now, compared with a U.S. administration forecast of 9.7 percent. The jobless rate now is 9.8 percent, a 26-year high.

Even before the release of “good news” on Thursday followed by Friday’s bad news, stock analysts who base their trading decisions primarily on reading charts, could detect indications of continuing market decline, as Michael Kahn explained for Barron’s last Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis continues to generate criticism from across the political spectrum while breeding dissent from within. As I said last month, the administration’s current strategy is a clear breach of candidate Obama’s campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics”. The widespread opposition to the administration’s proposed legislation to regulate (read that: placate) large financial companies was discussed by Stephen Labaton for The New York Times:

Senior regulators and some lawmakers clashed once again with the Obama administration on Thursday, finding fault with central elements of the White House’s latest plan to unwind large financial companies when their troubles imperil the financial system.

The Times article focused on criticism of the administration’s plan, expressed by Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. As Mr.Labaton noted, shortly after Mr. Obama was elected President, Turbo Tim Geithner began an unsuccessful campaign to have Ms. Bair replaced.

On Friday, economist James K. Galbraith was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Here’s what Professor Galbraith had to say about the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis:

They made a start, and certainly in the stimulus package, there were important initiatives. But the stimulus package is framed as a stimulus, as something which is temporary, which will go away after a couple of years. And that is not the way to proceed here. The overwhelming emphasis, in the administration’s program, I think, has been to return things to a condition of normalcy, to use a 1920s word, that prevailed five and ten years ago. That is to say, we’re back to a world in which Wall Street and the major banks are leading, and setting the path–

* * *

. . . they’ve largely been preoccupied with keeping the existing system from collapsing. And the government is powerful. It has substantially succeeded at that, but you really have to think about, do you want to have a financial sector dominated by a small number of very large institutions, very difficult to manage, practically impossible to regulate, and ruled by, essentially, the same people and the same culture that caused the crisis in the first place.

BILL MOYERS: Well, that’s what we’re getting, because after all of the mergers, shakedowns, losses of the last year, you have five monster financial institutions really driving the system, right?

JAMES GALBRAITH: And they’re highly profitable, and they are already paying, in some cases, extraordinary bonuses. And you have an enormous problem, as the public sees very clearly that a very small number of people really have been kept afloat by public action . And yet there is no visible benefit to people who are looking for jobs or people who are looking to try and save their houses or to somehow get out of a catastrophic personal debt situation that they’re in.

This is just another illustration of how “trickle down economics” doesn’t work. President Obama knows better. He told us that he would not follow that path. Yet, here we are: a country viewed as the weak link in the global economy because the well-being of those institutions considered “too big to fail” is the paramount concern of this administration.

Affiliated Capital, American capitalism, Associated Press, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Barrons, Ben Bernanke, Bill Moyers, blog, Bloomberg, Cash for Clunkers, centrist, centrist blog, Commentary, Commerce Department, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Congress, conservative, consumer spending, crony capitalism, current events opinion, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, GDP, GOP, government guarantees, Gross Domestic Product, High Frequency Economics, House of Representatives, huge financial institutions, Ian Shepherdson, investment banks, James K Galbraith, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, Michael Shedlock, Mish, moral hazard, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, political blog, political commentary blog, Politics, Presidency, President, President Barack Obama, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Renae Merle, Republican, Republican Party, Rich Miller, Robert G Smith, S&P 500 index, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate, Sheila Bair, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, Stephen Labaton, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Weakest Link, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, trickle down economics, Turbo Tim Geithner, unbiased news, United States as weak link in global economy, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer

Bait And Switch

October 19th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 19 2009

Comments Off

October 19, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

Simon Johnson In The Spotlight

October 12th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 12 2009

Comments Off

October 12, 2009

An ever-increasing number of people are paying close attention to a gentleman named Simon Johnson. Mr. Johnson, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, now works at MIT as Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Sloan School of Management. His Baseline Scenario website is focused on the financial and economic crises. At the Washington Post website, he runs a blog with James Kwak called The Hearing. Last spring, Johnson turned more than a few heads with his article from the May 2009 issue of The Atlantic, “The Quiet Coup”, in which he explained that what happened in America during last year’s financial crisis and what is currently happening with our economic predicament is “shockingly reminiscent” of events experienced during financial crises in emerging market nations (i.e. banana republics and proto-capitalist regimes).

On October 9, Joe Nocera of The New York Times began his column by asking Professor Johnson what he thought the Wall Street banks owed America after receiving trillions of dollars in bailouts. Johnson’s response turned to Wednesday’s upcoming fight before the House Financial Services Committee concerning the financial reforms proposed by the Obama administration:

“They can’t pay what they owe!” he began angrily. Then he paused, collected his thoughts and started over: “Tim Geithner saved them on terms extremely favorable to the banks. They should support all of his proposed reforms.”

Mr. Johnson continued, “What gets me is that the banks have continued to oppose consumer protection. How can they be opposed to consumer protection as defined by a man who is the most favorable Treasury Secretary they have had in a generation? If he has decided that this is what they need, what moral right do they have to oppose it? It is unconscionable.”

This week’s battle over financial reform has been brewing for quite a while. Back on May 31, Gretchen Morgenson and Dan Van Natta wrote a piece for The New York Times entitled, “In Crisis, Banks Dig In for Fight Against Rules”:

Hotly contested legislative wars are traditional fare in Washington, of course, and bills are often shaped by the push and pull of lobbyists — representing a cornucopia of special interests — working with politicians and government agencies.

What makes this fight different, say Wall Street critics and legislative leaders, is that financiers are aggressively seeking to fend off regulation of the very products and practices that directly contributed to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In contrast, after the savings-and-loan debacle of the 1980s, the clout of the financial lobby diminished significantly.

In case you might be looking for a handy scorecard to see which members of Congress are being “lobbied” by the financial industry and to what extent those palms are being greased, The Wall Street Journal was kind enough to provide us with an interactive chart. Just slide the cursor next to the name of any member of the House Financial Services Committee and you will be able to see how much generosity that member received just during the first quarter of 2009 from an entity to be affected by this legislation. The bars next to the committee members’ names are color-coded, with different colors used to identify specific sources, whose names are displayed as you pass over that section of the bar. This thing is a wonderful invention. I call it “The Graft Graph”.

On October 9, Simon Johnson appeared with Representative Marcy Kaptur (D – Ohio) on the PBS program, Bill Moyers Journal. At one point during the interview, Professor Johnson expressed grave doubts about our government’s ability to implement financial reform:

And yet, the opportunity for real reform has already passed. And there is not going to be — not only is there not going to be change, but I’ll go further. I’ll say it’s going to be worse, what comes out of this, in terms of the financial system, its power, and what it can get away with.

* * *

BILL MOYERS: Why have we not had the reform that we all knew was being — was needed and being demanded a year ago?

SIMON JOHNSON: I think the opportunity — the short term opportunity was missed. There was an opportunity that the Obama Administration had. President Obama campaigned on a message of change. I voted for him. I supported him. And I believed in this message. And I thought that the time for change, for the financial sector, was absolutely upon us. This was abundantly apparent by the inauguration in January of this year.

SIMON JOHNSON: And Rahm Emanuel, the President’s Chief of Staff has a saying. He’s widely known for saying, ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’. Well, the crisis is over, Bill. The crisis in the financial sector, not for people who own homes, but the crisis for the big banks is substantially over. And it was completely wasted. The Administration refused to break the power of the big banks, when they had the opportunity, earlier this year. And the regulatory reforms they are now pursuing will turn out to be, in my opinion, and I do follow this day to day, you know. These reforms will turn out to be essentially meaningless.

Sound familiar? If you change the topic to healthcare reform, you end up with the same bottom line: “These reforms will turn out to be essentially meaningless.” The inevitable watering down of both legislative efforts can be blamed on weak, compromised leadership. It’s one thing to make grand promises on the campaign trail — yet quite another to look a lobbyist in the eye and say: “Thanks, but no thanks.” Toward the end of the televised interview, Bill Moyers had this exchange with Representative Kaptur:

BILL MOYERS: How do we get Congress back? How do we get Congress to do what it’s supposed to do? Oversight. Real reform. Challenge the powers that be.

MARCY KAPTUR: We have to take the money out. We have to get rid of the constant fundraising that happens inside the Congress. Before political parties used to raise money; now individual members are raising money through the DCCC and the RCCC. It is absolutely corrupt.

As we all know, our system of legalized graft goes beyond the halls of Congress. During his Presidential campaign, Barack Obama received nearly $995,000 in contributions from the people at Goldman Sachs. The gang at 85 Broad Street is obviously getting its money’s worth.

85 Broad Street, American capitalism, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Baseline Scenario, Ben Bernanke, Bill Moyers Journal, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Dan Van Natta, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, Financial Stability Plan, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, Gretchen Morgenson, Hank Paulson, healthcare reform, Henry Paulson, House Financial Services Committee, IMF, In Crisis Banks Dig In for Fight Against Rules, insolvent banks, interactive chart, International Monetary Fund, investment banks, James Kwak, Joe Nocera, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, legalized graft, liberal, lobbyists, MIT, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, never let a good crisis go to waste, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Ohio, one trillion dollars, Opinion, PBS, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Rahm Emanuel, regulatory capture, Representative Marcy Kaptur, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, Simon Johnson, Simon Johnson In The Spotlight, Sloan School of Management, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Atlantic, the banks, the center lane, the economy, the graft graph, The Hearing, The New York Times, The Quiet Coup, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, weak leadership, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Kill The Whales

October 8th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 08 2009

Comments Off

October 8, 2009

Those whales are back in the news again — this time due to calls for their slaughter. In case you’re wondering what kind of person would advocate the killing of whales, I would like to identify two people who recently spoke out in favor of such action. The first of these individuals is one of my favorite columnists at The New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for her “trenchant and incisive” coverage of Wall Street. The second is the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair. Two women want to have whales killed? Yes. However, the “whales” in question are those infamous financial institutions considered “too big to fail”. On October 3, Gretchen Morgenson wrote a piece for The New York Times, entitled: “The Cost of Saving These Whales” in which she defined “to big to fail” institutions as “banks that are so big and interconnected that their very existence threatens the world”. She discussed the problems caused by the continued existence of those whales with this explanation:

During the credit bust, our leaders embraced the too-big-to-fail policy, reluctantly bailing out large institutions to save the system from collapse, they said. Yet even as the crisis has abated, these policy makers have shown little interest in cutting financial monsters down to size. This is especially disturbing given that some institutions have grown even larger as a result of the mess.

It is perverse, of course, to reward big banks’ mistakes with bailouts financed by beleaguered taxpayers. But the too-big-to-fail doctrine benefits the banks in other ways as well: the implication that an institution will not be allowed to fall gives it significant cost advantages over smaller, perhaps more responsible competitors.

On October 4, Sheila Bair of the FDIC gave a speech before the International Institute of Finance at their annual meeting in Istanbul, Turkey. At the outset, she pointed out that “the first task” in creating “a more resilient, transparent, and better-regulated financial system” would be to scrap the “too big to fail” doctrine. She went on to explain how to go about killing those whales:

To do this we need a resolution regime that provides for the orderly wind-down of banking and other financial enterprises without imposing costs on the taxpayers.

The solution must involve a practical and effective mechanism for the orderly resolution of these institutions similar to that used for FDIC-insured banks.

This new regime would not permit taxpayer funds to be used to prop up a firm or its management. Instead, senior management would be replaced, and losses would be borne by the stockholders and creditors.

On September 23, 2009 Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner testified before the House Financial Services Committee to explain his planned financial reform agenda. Here’s what Turbo Tim had to say about the plan for dealing with the “too big to fail” problem:

First, we cannot allow firms to reap the benefits of explicit or implicit government subsidies without very strong government oversight. We must substantially reduce the moral hazard created by the perception that these subsidies exist; address their corrosive effects on market discipline; and minimize their encouragement of risk-taking.

So, in other words … the government subsidies to these institutions will continue, but only if the recipients get “very strong government oversight”. In his next sentence Geithner expressed his belief that the moral hazard was created “by the perception that these subsidies exist” rather than the FACT that they exist. Geithner’s scheme of continued corporate welfare for the biggest financial institutions is consistent with what we learned about him from Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson in their New York Times article back on April 26. That essay gave us some great insight about Turbo Tim’s blindness to moral hazard:

Last June, with a financial hurricane gathering force, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. convened the nation’s economic stewards for a brainstorming session. What emergency powers might the government want at its disposal to confront the crisis? he asked.

Timothy F. Geithner, who as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank oversaw many of the nation’s most powerful financial institutions, stunned the group with the audacity of his answer. He proposed asking Congress to give the president broad power to guarantee all the debt in the banking system, according to two participants, including Michele Davis, then an assistant Treasury secretary.

The proposal quickly died amid protests that it was politically untenable because it could put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars.

“People thought, ‘Wow, that’s kind of out there,’” said John C. Dugan, the comptroller of the currency, who heard about the idea afterward. Mr. Geithner says, “I don’t remember a serious discussion on that proposal then.”

But in the 10 months since then, the government has in many ways embraced his blue-sky prescription. Step by step, through an array of new programs, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have assumed an unprecedented role in the banking system, using unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money, to try to save the nation’s financiers from their own mistakes.

And more often than not, Mr. Geithner has been a leading architect of those bailouts, the activist at the head of the pack. He was the federal regulator most willing to “push the envelope,” said H. Rodgin Cohen, a prominent Wall Street lawyer who spoke frequently with Mr. Geithner.

Geithner’s objective of putting the prosperity of the banks ahead of any concern for the taxpayers was again demonstrated in this AFP report from October 6:

On proposed changes to the financial system, Geithner said it was “legitimate” for banks to be influential and admitted that reform could “pose risks to financial innovation.”

Nevertheless, he stressed that “the most important issue is that if stability (of financial institutions) is not guaranteed, it will become harder to raise capital.”

On October 6, Newsweek published an interview conducted by Nancy Cook with William Black, a former federal regulator during the Savings & Loan crisis and a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City. The interview included a discussion of the government’s response to the financial crisis. One remark made by Mr. Black reinforced my opinion about Turbo Tim:

“Some of the things Bernanke did were very bad, but he is in sharp contrast to Geithner who has been wrong about everything in his career. When Geithner was once answering a question in response to Ron Paul, he said, ‘I’ve never been a regulator.’ He was then the President of the New York Federal Reserve, and he purports that he was never a regulator? That is a demonstration of what is wrong with the Federal Reserve banks if the head of the unit doesn’t think he’s a regulator. He’s a disaster.”

It should come as no surprise that Richard Carnell, a Professor at Fordham Law School and former Assistant Treasury Secretary for President Clinton, would have this to say about Geithner’s financial reform agenda, when asked for his comments by Kim Thai of Fortune:

The plan includes useful reforms. But it’s also naive, timid, misguided, politically inept, and intellectually dishonest.

It places naive faith in regulation. Yet regulation failed disastrously over the past decade. Bank regulators had ample powers to keep banks safe but did too little, too late. They let banks use $12-13 in borrowed money for every $1 in shareholders’ money. The administration’s response? Give regulators more powers.

[The plan] preserves a preposterous tangle of overlapping regulators. And it didn’t arrive until June, seven months after the election. By then the crisis had faded and special interest politics had come roaring back.

It entrenches bailouts for large financial institutions. Voters know that’s rotten policy. It makes firms like General Electric divest their banks. That serves no purpose. It’s like trying to ward off the Mexican Mafia by fortifying the Canadian border. Small wonder voters remain skeptical.

It appears as though Turbo Tim is not up to the job of killing those whales. Perhaps the President should find someone who is.

AIG, American capitalism, American International Group, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Fordham Law School, Fortune Magazine, government guarantees, government subsidies, Gretchen Morgenson, H Rodgin Cohen, Hank Paulson, Henry Paulson, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, International Institute of Finance, investment banks, Istanbul, Jo Becker, John Burke, John C Dugan, John T Burke Jr, Kill The Whales, Kim Thai, legacy assets, liberal, lobbyists, Michele Davis, moral hazard, Nancy Cook, New York Federal Reserve Bank, News, Newsweek, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President Clinton, President of the United States, Pulitzer Prize, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Richard Carnell, Ron Paul, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, Sheila Bair, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Cost of Saving These Whales, the economy, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, Turkey, United States Senate, United States Treasury, University of Missouri Kansas City, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Black, zombie banks

The Next Big Fight

October 1st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 01 2009

Comments Off

October 1, 2009

On Tuesday September 29, H. David Kotz, Inspector General of the Securities and Exchange Commission, issued two reports, recommending 58 changes to improve the way the agency investigates and enforces violations of securities laws, as a result of the SEC’s failure to investigate the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. The reports exposed a shocking degree of ineptitude at the SEC. On September 10, Mr. Kotz testified before the Senate Banking Committee. You can find the prepared testimony here. (I suggest starting at page 8.) Having read that testimony, I wasn’t too shocked at what Mr. Kotz had to say in Tuesday’s reports. Nevertheless, as Zachery Kouwe explained in The New York Times, the level of bureaucratic incompetence at the SEC was underestimated:

Many on Wall Street and in Washington were surprised that some of Mr. Kotz’s proposals, like recording interviews with witnesses and creating a database for tips and complaints, were not already part of the S.E.C.’s standard practice.

The extent of dysfunction at the SEC has been well-documented. Back on January 5, I wrote a piece entitled: “Clean-Up Time On Wall Street”, expressing my hope that the incoming Obama administration might initiate some serious financial reforms. I quoted from Steven Labaton’s New York Times report concerning other SEC scandals investigated by Mr. Kotz last year. My posting also included a quote from a Times piece by Michael Lewis (author of Liar’s Poker) and David Einhorn, which is particularly relevant to the recent disclosures by Inspector General Kotz:

Indeed, one of the great social benefits of the Madoff scandal may be to finally reveal the S.E.C. for what it has become.

Created to protect investors from financial predators, the commission has somehow evolved into a mechanism for protecting financial predators with political clout from investors.

This sentiment was echoed on Tuesday by Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture website:

The agency is supposed to be an investor’s advocate, the chief law enforcement agency for the markets. But that has hardly been how they have been managed, funded and operated in recent years.

Essentially the largest prosecutor’s office in the country, the SEC has been undercut at every turn: Their staffing was far too small to handle their jurisdiction — Wall Street and public Corporations. Their budgets have been sliced, and they were unable to keep up with the explosion in corporate criminality. Many key positions were left unfilled, and morale was severely damaged. A series of disastrous SEC chairs were appointed — to be “kinder and gentler.” Not only did they fail to maintain SEC funding (via fines), but they allowed the worst corporate offenders to go unpunished.

Gee, go figure that under those circumstances, they sucked at their jobs.

* * *

The bottom line of the SEC is this: If we are serious about corporate fraud, about violations of the SEC laws, about a level playing field, then we fund the agency adequately, hire enough lawyers to prosecute the crimes, and prevent Congress critters from interfering with the SEC doing its job.

To be blunt: So far, there is no evidence we are sincere about making the SEC a serious watchdog with teeth.

Congress sure hasn’t been. Staffing levels have been ignored, budgeting has been cut over the years. And it’s the sort of administrative issue that does not lend itself to bumper sticker aphorisms or tea party slogans.

Financial expert Janet Tavakoli explained in a presentation to the International Monetary Fund last week, that regulatory failures in the United States helped create an even larger Ponzi scam than the Madoff ruse — the massive racket involving the trading of residential mortgage-backed securities:

Wall Street disguised these toxic “investments” with new value-destroying securitizations and derivatives.

Meanwhile, collapsing mortgage lenders paid high dividends to shareholders (old investors) and interest on credit lines to Wall Street (old investors) with money raised from new investors in doomed securities. New money allowed Wall Street to temporarily hide losses and pay enormous bonuses. This is a classic Ponzi scheme.

* * *

Had regulators done their jobs, they would have shut down Wall Street’s financial meth labs, and the Ponzi scheme would have quickly choked to death from lack of monetary oxygen.

After the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980’s, there were more than 1,000 felony indictments of senior officers. Recent fraud is much more widespread and costly. The consequences are much greater. Congress needs to fund investigations. Regulators need to get tough on crime.

As Simon Johnson and James Kwak explained in The Washington Post, the upcoming battle over financial reform will be hard-fought by the banking industry and its lobbyists:

The next couple of months will be crucial in determining the shape of the financial system for decades to come. And so far, the signs are not encouraging.

* * *

Even back in April, the industry was able to kill Obama’s request for legislation allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages. Five months of profits later, the big banks are only stronger. Is Obama up for this fight?

Our new President must know by now, that sinking a three-point shot is much easier than the juggling act he has undertaken with health care reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as his recent quest to help Chicago win the bid for the 2016 Olympics. If Mr. Obama can’t beat the health insurance lobby with both the Senate and Congress under Democratic control — how will the voters feel if he drops another ball in the fight for financial reform? Thanks to Harry Truman, the American public knows where “the buck stops”. The previously-quoted Washington Post commentary looked even further back in history to explain this burden of leadership:

During the reign of Louis XIV, when the common people complained of some oppressive government policy, they would say, “If only the king knew . . . .” Occasionally people will make similar statements about Barack Obama, blaming the policies they don’t like on his lieutenants.

But Barack Obama, like Louis XIV before him, knows exactly what is going on. Now is the time for him to show what his priorities are and how hard he is willing to fight for them. Elections have consequences, people used to say. This election brought in a popular Democratic president with reasonably large majorities in both houses of Congress. The financial crisis exposed the worst side of the financial services industry to the bright light of day. If we cannot get meaningful financial regulatory reform this year, we can’t blame it all on the banking lobby.

Let the games begin!

2016 Olympics in Chicago, AIG, American capitalism, American International Group, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, Ben Bernanke, Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, blog, centrist, Clean-Up Time On Wall Street, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, David Einhorn, David Kotz, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial reform, government guarantees, Hank Paulson, Harry Truman, Henry Paulson, IMF, insolvent banks, Inspector General of the Securities and Exchange Commission, International Monetary Fund, investment banks, James Kwak, Janet Tavakoli, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Liar's Poker, liberal, lobbyists, Louis XIV, Michael Lewis, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate Banking Committee, Simon Johnson, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steven Labaton, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, The Big Picture, the center lane, the economy, The New York Times, The Next Big Fight, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Zachery Kouwe, zombie banks

The Longest Year

September 14th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 14 2009

Comments Off

September 14, 2009

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

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

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

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

Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi

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

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

$5,000 PAC
$2,400 Individual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

The Forgotten Urgency Of Financial Reform

September 10th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 10 2009

Comments Off

September 10, 2009

With all the fighting over healthcare reform and the many exciting controversies envisioned by its opponents, such as: death panels, state-sponsored abortions and illegal aliens’ coming to America for free breast implants, the formerly-urgent need for financial reform his slipped away from public concern. Alan Blinder recently wrote a piece for The New York Times, lamenting how the subject of financial reform has disappeared from the Congressional radar:

After all we’ve been through, and with so much anger still directed at financial miscreants, the political indifference toward financial reform is somewhere between maddening and tragic. Why is the pulse of reform so faint?

Blinder then discussed five reasons why. My favorite concerned lobbying:

Almost everything becomes lobbied to death in Washington. In the case of financial reform, the money at stake is mind-boggling, and one financial industry after another will go to the mat to fight any provision that might hurt it.

Mr. Blinder expressed concern that these three important changes would be left out of any financial reform legislation: a) resolving the problem of having financial institutions that are “too big to fail”, b) cleaning up the derivatives mess and c) creating a “systemic risk regulator”. (All right — I rearranged the order.)

In case you’re wondering just what the hell a “systemic risk regulator” is, Blinder provided the readers with a link to one of his earlier articles, which said this:

The main task of a systemic-risk regulator is to serve as an early-warning-and-prevention system, on the prowl for looming risks that extend across traditional boundaries and are becoming large enough to have systemic consequences.

* * *

Suppose such a regulator had been in place in 2005. Because the market for residential mortgages and the mountain of securities built on them constituted the largest financial market in the world, that regulator probably would have kept a watchful eye on it. If so, it would have seen what the banking agencies apparently missed: lots of dodgy mortgages being granted by nonbank lenders with no federal supervision.

If the regulator saw those mortgages, it might then have looked into the securities being built on them. That investigation might have turned up the questionable triple-A ratings being showered on these securities, and it certainly should have uncovered the huge risk concentrations both on and off of banks’ balance sheets. And, unless it was totally incompetent, the regulator would have been alarmed to learn that a single company, American International Group, stood behind an inordinate share of all the credit-default swaps — essentially insurance policies against default — that had been issued.

Blinder shares the view, expressed by Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner, that the Federal Reserve should serve as systemic risk regulator, because “there is no other alternative”. Unfortunately, President Obama is also in favor of such an approach. The drawback to empowering the Fed with such additional responsibility was acknowledged by Mr. Blinder:

On the other hand, some members of Congress are grumbling that the Fed has already overreached, usurping Congressional authority. Others contend that it has performed so poorly as a regulator that it hardly deserves more power.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke discussed this issue himself back on March 5, in a speech entitled: “Financial Reform to Address Systemic Risk”. Near the end of this speech, Bernanke discussed the subject objectively, although he concluded with a pitch to get this authority for his own realm:

Some commentators have proposed that the Federal Reserve take on the role of systemic risk authority; others have expressed concern that adding this responsibility would overburden the central bank. The extent to which this new responsibility might be a good match for the Federal Reserve depends a great deal on precisely how the Congress defines the role and responsibilities of the authority, as well as on how the necessary resources and expertise complement those employed by the Federal Reserve in the pursuit of its long-established core missions.

It seems to me that we should keep our minds open on these questions. We have been discussing them a good deal within the Federal Reserve System, and their importance warrants careful consideration by legislators and other policymakers. As a practical matter, however, effectively identifying and addressing systemic risks would seem to require the involvement of the Federal Reserve in some capacity, even if not in the lead role. . . . The Federal Reserve plays such a key role in part because it serves as liquidity provider of last resort, a power that has proved critical in financial crises throughout history. In addition, the Federal Reserve has broad expertise derived from its wide range of activities, including its role as umbrella supervisor for bank and financial holding companies and its active monitoring of capital markets in support of its monetary policy and financial stability objectives.

This rationale leads me to suspect that Mr. Bernanke might be planning to use his super powers as: “liquidity provider of last resort” to money-print away any systemic risks that might arise on his watch in such a capacity. This is reminiscent of how comedian Steve Smith always suggests the use of duct tape to solve just about any problem that might arise in life.

In the September 8 edition of The Wall Street Journal, Peter Wallison wrote an article entitled: “The Fed Can’t Monitor ‘Systemic Risk’”. More important was the subtitle: That’s like asking a thief to police himself. Wallison begins with the point that President Obama’s inclusion of granting such powers to the Fed as the centerpiece of his financial regulatory reform agenda “is a serious error.” Wallison seemed to share my concern about Bernanke’s “duct tape” panacea:

The problem is the Fed itself can create systemic risk. Many scholars, for example, have argued that by keeping interest rates too low for too long the Fed created the housing bubble that gave us the current mortgage meltdown, financial crisis and recession.

Vesting such authority in the Fed creates an inherent conflict of interest. Mr. Wallison explained this quite well:

Tasking the Fed with that responsibility would bury it among many other inconsistent roles and give the agency incentives to ignore warning signals that an independent body would be likely to spot.

Unlike balancing its current competing assignments — price stability and promoting full employment — detecting systemic risk would require the Fed to see the subtle flaws in its own policies. Errors that are small at first could grow into major problems. It is simply too much to expect any human institution to step outside of itself and see the error of its ways when it can plausibly ignore those errors in the short run. If we are going to have a systemic-risk monitor, it should be an independent council of regulators.

When the dust finally settles on the healthcare reform debate, perhaps Congress can approach the subject of financial reform . . . if it’s not too late by that point.

AIG, Alan Blinder, American capitalism, American International Group, bank holding company, bank stocks, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, comedian Steve Smith, Commentary, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, controlling the markets, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, duct tape, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, Financial Reform to Address Systemic Risk, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, healthcare reform, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, like asking a thief to police himself, liquidity provider of last resort, lobbyists, market manipulation, money printing, moral hazard, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Peter Wallison, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, S&P 500 index, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Fed Cant Monitor Systemic Risk, The Forgotten Urgency Of Financial Reform, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

The Big Lie Gets Some Blowback

September 3rd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 03 2009

Comments Off

September 3, 2009

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

The SEC Is Out To Lunch

August 27th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 27 2009

Comments Off

August 27, 2009

Back on January 5, I wrote a piece entitled: “Clean-Up Time On Wall Street” in which I pondered whether our new President-elect and his administration would really “crack down on the unregulated activities on Wall Street that helped bring about the current economic crisis”. I quoted from a December 15 article by Stephen Labaton of The New York Times, examining the failures of the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the environment at the SEC that facilitated such breakdowns. Some of the highlights from the Times piece included these points:

. . . H. David Kotz, the commission’s new inspector general, has documented several major botched investigations. He has told lawmakers of one case in which the commission’s enforcement chief improperly tipped off a private lawyer about an insider-trading inquiry.

* * *

There are other difficulties plaguing the agency. A recent report to Congress by Mr. Kotz is a catalog of major and minor problems, including an investigation into accusations that several S.E.C. employees have engaged in illegal insider trading and falsified financial disclosure forms.

I then questioned the wisdom of Barack Obama’s appointment of Mary Schapiro as the new Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, quoting from an article by Randall Smith and Kara Scannell of The Wall Street Journal concerning Schapiro’s track record as chair of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA):

Robert Banks, a director of the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, an industry group for plaintiff lawyers . . . said that under Ms. Schapiro, “Finra has not put much of a dent in fraud,” and the entire system needs an overhaul. “The government needs to treat regulation seriously, and for the past eight years we have not had real securities regulation in this country,” Mr. Banks said.

* * *

In 2001 she appointed Mark Madoff, son of disgraced financier Bernard Madoff, to the board of the National Adjudicatory Council, the national committee that reviews initial decisions rendered in Finra disciplinary and membership proceedings.

I also quoted from a two-part op-ed piece for the January 3 New York Times, written by Michael Lewis, author of Liar’s Poker, and David Einhorn. Here’s what they had to say about the SEC:

Created to protect investors from financial predators, the commission has somehow evolved into a mechanism for protecting financial predators with political clout from investors. (The task it has performed most diligently during this crisis has been to question, intimidate and impose rules on short-sellers — the only market players who have a financial incentive to expose fraud and abuse.)

Keeping all of this in mind, let’s have a look at the current lawsuit brought by the SEC against Bank of America, pending before Judge Jed S. Rakoff of The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The matter was succinctly described by Louise Story of The New York Times:

The case centers on $3.6 billion bonuses that were paid out by Merrill Lynch late last year, just before that firm was merged with Bank of America. Neither company disclosed the bonuses to shareholders, and the S.E.C. has charged that the companies’ proxy statement about the merger were misleading in their description of the bonuses.

To make a long story short, Bank of America agreed to settle the case for a mere $33 million, despite its insistence that it properly disclosed to its shareholders, the bonuses it authorized for Merrill Lynch & Co employees. The mis-handling of this case by the SEC was best described by Rolfe Winkler of Reuters. The moral outrage over this entire matter was best expressed by Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker. Denninger’s bottom line was this:

It is time for the damn gloves to come off. Our economy cannot recover until the scam street games are stopped, the fraudsters are removed from the executive suites (and if necessary from Washington) and the underlying frauds – particularly including the games played with the so-called “value” of assets on the balance sheets of various firms are all flushed out.

On a similarly disappointing note, there is the not-so-small matter of: “Where did all the TARP money go?” You may have read about Elizabeth Warren and you may have seen her on television, discussing her role as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, tasked with scrutinizing the TARP bank bailouts. Neil Barofsky was appointed Special Investigator General of TARP (SIGTARP). Why did all of this become necessary? Let’s take another look back to last January. At that time, a number of Democratic Senators, including: Russ Feingold (Wisconsin), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Maria Cantwell (Washington) voted to oppose the immediate distribution of the second $350 billion in TARP funds. The vote actually concerned a “resolution of disapproval” to block distribution of the TARP money, so that those voting in favor of the resolution were actually voting against releasing the funds. Barack Obama had threatened to veto this resolution if it passed. The resolution was defeated with 52 votes (contrasted with 42 votes in favor of it). At that time, Obama was engaged in a game of “trust me”, assuring those in doubt that the second $350 billion would not be squandered in the same undocumented manner as the first $350 billion. As Jeremy Pelofsky reported for Reuters on January 15:

To win approval, Obama and his team made extensive promises to Democrats and Republicans that the funds would be used to better address the deepening mortgage foreclosure crisis and that tighter accounting standards would be enforced.

“My pledge is to change the way this plan is implemented and keep faith with the American taxpayer by placing strict conditions on CEO pay and providing more loans to small businesses,” Obama said in a statement, adding there would be more transparency and “more sensible regulations.”

Although it was a nice-sounding pledge, the new President never lived up to it. Worse yet, we now have to rely on Congress, to insist on getting to the bottom of where all the money went. Although Elizabeth Warren was able to pressure “Turbo” Tim Geithner into providing some measure of disclosure, there are still lots of questions that remain unanswered. I’m sure many people, including Turbo Tim, are uncomfortable with the fact that Neil Barofsky is doing “too good” of a job as SIGTARP. This is probably why Congress has now thrown a “human monkey wrench” into the works, with its addition of former SEC commissioner Paul Atkins to the Congressional Oversight Panel. Expressing his disgust over this development, David Reilly wrote a piece for Bloomberg News, entitled: “Wall Street Fox Beds Down in Taxpayer Henhouse”. He discussed the cynical appointment of Atkins with this explanation:

Atkins was named last week to be one of two Republicans on the five-member TARP panel headed by Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren. He replaces former Senator John Sununu, who stepped down in July.

* * *

And while a power-broker within the commission, Atkins was also seen as the sharp tip of the deregulatory spear during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Atkins didn’t waver from his hands-off position, even as the credit crunch intensified. Speaking less than two months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Atkins in one of his last speeches at the SEC warned against calls for a “new regulatory order.”

He added, “We must not immediately jump to the conclusion that failures of firms in the marketplace or the unavailability of credit in the marketplace is caused by market failure, or indeed regulatory failure.”

When I spoke with him yesterday, Atkins hadn’t changed his tune. “If the takeaway by some people is that deregulation is the thing that led to problems in the marketplace, that’s completely wrong,” he said. “The problems happened in the most heavily regulated areas of the financial-services industry.”

Regulated by whom?

American capitalism, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Bernard Madoff, Bernie Madoff, blog, Bloomberg news, centrist, Clean-Up Time On Wall Street, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Oversight Panel, conservative, crony capitalism, David Einhorn, David Reilly, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, equities markets, Evan Bayh, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, financial predators, FINRA, H David Kotz, human monkey wrench, investment banks, Jeanne Shaheen, Jeremy Pelofsky, John Burke, John Sununu, John T Burke Jr, Judge Jed S Rakoff, Kara Scannell, Karl Denninger, Lehman Brothers, Liar's Poker, liberal, Louise Story, Maria Cantwell, Mark Madoff, market manipulation, Mary Schapiro, Merrill Lynch, Michael Lewis, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, National Adjudicatory Council, Neil Barofsky, New York Stock Exchange, New York Times, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Paul Atkins, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, Randall Smith, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Robert Banks, Rolfe Winkler, Russ Feingold, S&P 500 index, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, SIGTARP, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, Stephen Labaton, stock markets, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Market Ticker, The New York Times, The SEC Is Out To Lunch, The Wall Street Journal, The White House, thecenterlane, Tim Geithner, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street Fox Beds Down in Taxpayer Henhouse, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Call Him The Dimon Dog

The Weakest Link

Bait And Switch

Simon Johnson In The Spotlight

Kill The Whales

The Next Big Fight

The Longest Year

The Forgotten Urgency Of Financial Reform

The Big Lie Gets Some Blowback

The SEC Is Out To Lunch

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com