Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner « TheCenterLane.com

Lacking Reform

January 4th, 2010 Posted in Uncategorized

Jan, 04 2010

Comments Off

January 4, 2010

David Reilly of Bloomberg News did us all a favor by reading through the entire, 1,270-page financial reform bill that was recently passed by the House of Representatives. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (HR 4173) was described by Reilly this way:

The baby of Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the House bill is meant to address everything from too-big-to-fail banks to asleep-at-the-switch credit-ratings companies to the protection of consumers from greedy lenders.

After reading the bill, David Reilly wrote a commentary piece for Bloomberg entitled: “Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift from Barney Frank”. Reilly seemed surprised that banks opposed this legislation, emphasizing that “they should cheer for its passage by the full Congress in the New Year” because of the bill’s huge giveaways to the banking industry and Wall Street. Here are some of Reilly’s observations on what this bill provides:

— For all its heft, the bill doesn’t once mention the words “too-big-to-fail,” the main issue confronting the financial system. Admitting you have a problem, as any 12-stepper knows, is the crucial first step toward recovery.

— Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.

— Oh, hold on, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Secretary can’t authorize these funds unless “there is at least a 99 percent likelihood that all funds and interest will be paid back.” Too bad the same models used to foresee the housing meltdown probably will be used to predict this likelihood as well.

More Bailouts

— The bill also allows the government, in a crisis, to back financial firms’ debts. Bondholders can sleep easy — there are more bailouts to come.

— The legislation does create a council of regulators to spot risks to the financial system and big financial firms. Unfortunately this group is made up of folks who missed the problems that led to the current crisis.

— Don’t worry, this time regulators will have better tools. Six months after being created, the council will report to Congress on “whether setting up an electronic database” would be a help. Maybe they’ll even get to use that Internet thingy.

— This group, among its many powers, can restrict the ability of a financial firm to trade for its own account. Perhaps this section should be entitled, “Yes, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., we’re looking at you.”

My favorite passage from Reilly’s essay concerned the proposal for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency:

— The bill isn’t all bad, though. It creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, currently head of a panel overseeing TARP. And the first director gets the cool job of designing a seal for the new agency. My suggestion: Warren riding a fiery chariot while hurling lightning bolts at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The cover story for the December 30 edition of Business Week explained how this bill became so badly compromised. Alison Vekshin and Dawn Kopecki wrote the piece, explaining how the New Democrat Coalition, which “has 68 fiscally conservative, pro-business members who fill 15 of the party’s 42 seats on the House Financial Services Committee” reshaped this bill. The New Democrats fought off proposed changes to derivatives trading and included an amendment to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency legislation giving federal regulators more discretion to override state consumer protection laws than what was initially proposed. Beyond that, “non-financial” companies such as real estate agencies and automobile dealerships will not be subject to the authority of the new agency. The proposed requirement for banks to offer “plain-vanilla” credit-card and mortgage contracts was also abandoned.

One of my pet peeves involves Democrats’ claiming to be “centrists” or “moderates” simply because they enjoy taking money from lobbyists. Too many people are left with the impression that a centrist is someone who lacks a moral compass. The Business Week story provided some insight about how the New Democrat Coalition gets … uh … “moderated”:

Since the start of the 2008 election cycle, the financial industry has donated $24.9 million to members of the New Democrats, some 14% of the total funds the lawmakers have collected, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Representative Melissa Bean of Illinois, who has led the Coalition’s efforts on regulatory reform, was the top beneficiary, with donations of $1.4 million.

As the financial reform bill is being considered by the Senate, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stepped up its battle against the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The Business Week article concluded with one lawmaker’s perspective:

“My greatest fear for the last year has been an economic collapse,” says Representative Brad Miller (D-N.C), who sits on Frank’s House Financial Services Committee. “My second greatest fear was that the economy would stabilize and the financial industry would have the clout to defeat the fundamental reforms that our nation desperately needs. My greatest fear seems less likely … but my second greatest fear seems more likely every day.”

The dysfunction that preserves this unhealthy status quo was best summed up by Chris Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics:

The big banks pay the big money in Washington, the members of Congress pass new laws to enable the theft from the public purse, and the servile Fed prints money to keep the game going for another day.

As long as Congress is going through the motions of passing “reform” legislation, they should do us all a favor and take on the subject of lobbying reform. Of course, the chances of that ever happening are slim to none.

Alison Vekshin, American capitalism, bank bailout, Bankers Get $4 Trillion Gift from Barney Frank, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Ben Bernanke, blog, Bloomberg news, Brad Miller, Business Week, centrist, CFPA, Chris Whalen, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, David Reilly, Dawn Kopecki, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Democrats claiming to be centrists, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial reform, financial reform bill, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, House Financial Services Committee, HR 4173, insolvent banks, Institutional Risk Analytics, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Lacking Reform, liberal, lobbying reform, lobbyists, Melissa Bean, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, New Democrat Coalition, New Democrats, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senate Banking Committee, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, 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, US Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

A Closer Look

December 28th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 28 2009

Comments Off

December 28, 2009

As the year and the decade come to a close, we are being bombarded with a slew of retrospectives about what was “important” during this crazy time. Those of us who are capable of directing our attention to intellectually stimulating subjects, have found the increasing availability of information from internet-based sources to be life-changing. Now that we are no longer stuck with a focus on the handful of news stories deemed “important” by mainstream media outlets, we have familiarized ourselves with the ever-expanding marketplace of ideas to be found online. We all have our favorite websites, where we go first when we want to find out the latest and most attention-grabbing news events of the day. From there, many of us take a closer look at a particular topic by going to a more specialized, subject-oriented website. I keep a blogroll at the left side of this page, which is offered as a diverse aggregation of sources and perspectives on subjects usually covered in this blog. Lately, I’ve found myself spending more and more time reading the great material by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns. As a result, I’ve added a link to that site on my blogroll.

Edward Harrison explained the reason why he chose such a gloomy name for his website:

I named my blog “Credit Writedowns” because I anticipated an historic wave of credit writedowns in the global banking system which would lead to a wave of deleveraging, systemic risk, and bank failures — in short, a massive financial and economic bust to rival the Great Depression.

Mr. Harrison has an MBA degree in Finance from Columbia University and he works as a banking and finance specialist for Global Macro Advisors. One of his noteworthy efforts from the first year of Credit Writedowns came about on September 24, 2008, when he published “The Dummy’s Guide to the US Banking Crisis”.

I have been particularly impressed by the “year in review” series, presently underway at Credit Writedowns. On December 23, Mr. Harrison published a great essay about how “kleptocracy” (rule by thieves) has become the status quo. The premise for this piece was originally included in one of Harrison’s early postings on Credit Writedowns, from March 24, 2008. At that time, he explained the subject this way:

First, let’s use a theory from Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond as the center-piece for this little theory. In Chapter 14, entitled “From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy,” Diamond postulates that more stratified societies are by definition less egalitarian, but more efficient and are, thus, able to eradicate or conquer more egalitarian, less stratified societies. Thus, all “advanced” societies with high levels of GDP are complex and hierarchical.

The problem is: these more stratified, more complex societies are in essence Kleptocracies, where those in power re-distribute societal wealth to themselves. Those at the bottom of the society’s pyramid accept this unequal, non-egalitarian state of affairs because they too benefit from their society’s relative advancement. It’s a case of a rising tide lifting all boats.

Back in March of 2008, Edward Harrison was one of just a small handful of thinkers capable of facing up to the ugly reality of where the credit bubble brought us:

The United States has been living beyond its means for some time. Since the 1960s, we have run up a massive federal debt and current account deficit, while debt levels have doubled on a percentage of GDP basis. Our present levels of consumption are simply not justified by our current levels of productivity, if we want to maintain our present standard of living in the future.

* * *

The fact is our day of reckoning is upon us. We will soon realize that our massive debt and an outsized credit bubble have not only saddled us with debt, but it has also misallocated capital so that we are less productive than we believed. We have built miles and miles of telecom dark fibre when we could have invested in schools. We have built massive numbers of new homes, when we could have repaired our bridges and roads. The last 35 years have been an illusion of extreme productivity and wealth because we have artificially pulled forward demand by misallocating resources in order to consume today, what could have been consumed tomorrow. In essence, we are consuming today, while unwittingly making it more difficult to consume tomorrow because we believe we are wealthier than we truly are.

The recent sneaky move by Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner on Christmas Eve, lifting the $400 billion restriction on bailouts to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (sidestepping the need for Congressional approval because it was done before the end of the year) is drawing attention to the kleptocracy’s strategy of relying on distraction of public attention in order to get away with skullduggery. Harrison’s point from the December 23 posting: that the kleptocracy anesthetizes the public with television, which has become “our own modern-day agent of mental anesthesia”, struck a chord with me.

The latest entry in the “year in review” series at Credit Writedowns concerns the subject of crony capitalism. Here’s how Edward Harrison described the piece:

In this post, I want to talk about Obama’s economic policies in the context of what I perceive as a crony capitalism which is now endemic in Washington. As I see it, Americans are angry because the economy is still quite fragile and the personal financial situation for many ordinary Americans is still quite dire. Yet, the so-called fat cats seem more pigs eating at the trough of government largesse. This juxtaposition is galling and undermines any success that the Obama Administration has achieved.

A key theme of that essay is expressed in this passage:

The evidence, therefore, tends to demonstrate that we have witnessed an orchestrated campaign by the Bush and Obama Administrations to recapitalize too big to fail institutions by hook or by crook, bypassing Congressional approval if necessary. And when it comes to healthcare, both Congress and the White House have bent over backwards to keep the lobbyists onside. As I see it, our government has favored special interests in the past year of Obama’s tenure to our detriment.

As more economists voice agreement with the opinion expressed by Joseph Stiglitz, that there will likely be further economic contraction in the second half of 2010, the inevitability of a dreaded “double-dip” recession will become more apparent. Mr. Harrison pointed out that this scenario could result in some disdain for President Obama, which might impact the 2010 election results. Perhaps President Obama should start reading Credit Writedowns — and stop listening to Larry Summers.

2010 elections, A Closer Look, American capitalism, asset bubble, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Columbia University, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, Credit Writedowns, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, double-dip recession, economic crisis, economics, economists, Edward Harrison, Fannie Mae, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial reform, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, Global Macro Advisors, Guns Germs and Steel, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jared Diamond, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Stiglitz, kleptocracy, Larry Summers, liberal, lobbyists, moral hazard, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Dummys Guide to the US Banking Crisis, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Turbo Tim Geithner, unemployment, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, year in review, zombie banks

This Fight Is Far From Over

December 24th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 24 2009

Comments Off

December 24, 2009

On November 26, I mentioned how apologists for controversial Wall Street giant, Goldman Sachs, were attempting to characterize Goldman’s critics as “conspiracy theorists” in the apparent hope that the use of such a term would discourage continued scrutiny of that firm’s role in causing the financial crisis. The name-calling tactic didn’t work. Since that time, my favorite reporter for The New York Times — Pulitzer Prize winner, Gretchen Morgenson — has continued to dig down into a dirty, sickening story about how Goldman Sachs (as well as some other firms) through their deliberate bets against their own financial products, known as Collateralized Debt Obligations (or CDOs) caused the financial crisis and ruined the lives of most Americans. Ms. Morgenson had previously discussed the opinion of derivatives expert, Janet Tavakoli, who argued that Goldman Sachs “should refund the money it received in the bailout and take back the toxic C.D.O.’s now residing on the Fed’s books”. Although the Goldman apologists have been quick to point out that the firm repaid the bailout money it received under TARP, the $13 billion received by Goldman Sachs as an AIG counterparty by way of Maiden Lane III, has not been repaid.

On December 23, The New York Times published the latest report written by Gretchen Morgenson and Louise Story revealing how Goldman and other firms created those Collateralized Debt Obligations, sold them to their own customers and then used a new Wall Street index, called the ABX (a way to invest in the direction of mortgage securities) to bet that those same CDOs would fail. Here’s a passage from the beginning of that superb Morgenson/Story article:

Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

Wait a minute! Let’s pause for a moment and reflect on that. “Turbo” Tim Geithner has retained a “special counselor” whose responsibilities included oversight of Tricadia’s parent company. Tricadia has the dubious honor of having helped cause the financial crisis by creating CDOs and then betting against them. What’s wrong with this picture? Our President apparently sees nothing wrong with it. At this point, that’s not too surprising.

Anyway . . . Let’s get back to the Times article:

How these disastrously performing securities were devised is now the subject of scrutiny by investigators in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, according to people briefed on the investigations. Those involved with the inquiries declined to comment.

While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.

We can only hope that the investigations by Congress, the SEC and FINRA might result in some type of sanctions. At this juncture, that sort of accountability just seems like a wild fantasy.

Janet Tavakoli did a follow-up piece of her own for The Huffington Post on December 22. She is now more critical of the November 17 report prepared by the Special Inspector General of Tarp (SIGTARP) and she continues to demand that Goldman should pay back the billions it received as an AIG counterparty:

The TARP Inspector General’s November 17 report missed the most damaging facts. Intentionally or otherwise, it was evasive action or just plain whitewash. The report failed to clarify Goldman’s role in AIG’s near collapse, and that of all the settlement deals, the U.S.taxpayers’ was by far the worst.

* * *

Goldman paid mega bonuses in past years subsidized by selling hot air. Now it proposes to again pay billions in bonuses based on earnings made possible by taxpayer dollars.

Now that the crisis is over, we should ask Goldman Sachs — and all of AIG’s other trading partners involved in these trades — to buy back these mortgage assets at full price. Alternatively, we can impose a special tax. Instead of calling it a windfall profits tax, we might label it a “hot air” profits tax.

It was refreshing to read the opinion of someone who felt that Janet Tavakoli was holding back on her criticism of Goldman Sachs in the above-quoted piece. Thomas Adams is a banking law attorney at Paykin, Kreig and Adams, LLP as well a former managing director of Ambac Financial Group, a bond insurer that is managing to crawl its way out from under the rubble of the CDO catastrophe. Mr. Adams obviously has no warm spot in his heart for Goldman Sachs. I continue to take delight in the visual image of a Goldman apologist, blue-faced with smoke coming out of his ears while reading the essay Mr. Adams wrote for Naked Capitalism:

. . . Ms. Tavakoli stops short of telling the whole story. While she is very knowledgeable of this market, perhaps she is unaware of the full extent of the wrongdoings Goldman committed by getting themselves paid on the AIG bailout. The Federal Reserve and the Treasury aided and abetted Goldman Sachs in committing financial and ethical crimes at an astounding level.

* * *

But Ms. Tavakoli fails to note that the collapse of the CDO bonds and the collapse of AIG were a deliberate strategy by Goldman. To realize on their bet against the housing market, Goldman needed the CDO bonds to collapse in value, which would cause AIG to be downgraded and lead to AIG posting collateral and Goldman getting paid for their bet. I am confident that Goldman Sachs did not reveal to AIG that they were betting on the housing market collapse.

* * *

Goldman goes quite a few steps further into despicable territory with their other actions and the body count from Goldman’s actions is so enormous that it crosses over into criminal territory, morally and legally, by getting taxpayer money for their predation.

Goldman made a huge bet that the housing market would collapse. They profited, on paper, from the tremendous pain suffered by homeowners, investors and taxpayers across the country, they helped make it worse. Their bet only succeeded because they were able to force the government into bailing out AIG.

In addition, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, by helping Goldman Sachs to profit from homeowner and investor losses, conceal their misrepresentations to shareholders, destroy insurers by stuffing them with toxic bonds that they marketed as AAA, and escape from the consequences of making a risky bet, committed a grave injustice and, very likely, financial crimes. Since the bailout, they have actively concealed their actions and mislead the public. Goldman, the Fed and the Treasury should be investigated for fraud, securities law violations and misappropriation of taxpayer funds. Based on what I have laid out here, I am confident that they will find ample evidence.

The backlash against the repugnant activities of Goldman Sachs has come a long way from Matt Taibbi’s metaphor describing Goldman as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” With three investigations underway, the widely-despised icon of Wall Street greed might have more to worry about than its public image.

ABX, AIG, AIG counterparty, Ambac Financial Group, American capitalism, American Insurance Group, American International Group, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, CDOs, centrist, collateralized debt obligations, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, conspiracy theorists, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Deutsche Bank, economic crisis, economics, economists, 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, FINRA, foreclosures, FRBNY, giant vampire squid, Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs apologists, government guarantees, Government Sachs, great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, Gretchen Morgenson, huge financial institutions, investment banks, Janet Tavakoli, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joint Economic Committee, Lewis A Sachs, liberal, Louise Story, Maiden Lane III, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, Morgan Stanley, mortgage-backed securities, Naked Capitalism, Neil Barofsky, New York Federal Reserve, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Paykin Kreig and Adams, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Pulitzer Prize, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, SIGTARP report, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, Tavakoli Structured Finance, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, This Fight Is Far From Over, Thomas Adams, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Tricadia Inc, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

Turning Up The Heat

December 21st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 21 2009

Comments Off

December 21, 2009

By now you should be aware of the fact that for his 56th birthday, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year”. Were the folks at Time so arrogant as to believe that this honor would insure the confirmation of Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve? More than a few commentators expressed the view that Time’s “Person of the Year” award might actually jeopardize Bernanke’s chance at confirmation. For example, take a look at what Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish) had to say:

That Bernanke is on the cover of Time Magazine means one thing “Bernanke’s Time Is Limited” He is on his way out. And that is good news.

* * *

The quicker this blows up, the quicker we can recover. And knowing what we know about Time Magazine, Central Banking will blow up sooner rather than later. Moreover, Bernanke will not be part of the solution, and that is a good thing.

I thank Time Magazine for the information and their kiss of death warning. However, I must also remind readers that Stalin made the cover twice, so immediate results just might be expecting too much.

When Bernanke was grilled by the Senate Banking Committee during the confirmation hearing on December 3, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky gave him a magnificent pummeling, most notable for the assertion: “You are the definition of a moral hazard!” My only criticism of Bunning’s diatribe was that he should have said: “You are the personification of a moral hazard” or “You are the epitome of a moral hazard” — otherwise, it was perfect. If that weren’t enough, Senator Bunning demanded that Bernanke answer seventy written questions submitted by Bunning himself. Those of you who have ever been a party to a lawsuit might recall having to provide signed answers to written interrogatories. Most jurisdictions place a limit on the number of such interrogatories to the extent of approximately 35. Senator Bunning propounded twice that many to Bernanke and the nominee answered all of them. Don Luskin of Smart Money analyzed one of these answers in a way that underscored the necessity of removing Bernanke from the Fed chairmanship.

On December 18, Victoria McGrane reported for Politico that the Bernanke nomination “could be in more trouble than previously thought”. Although the Senate Banking Committee voted to confirm the nomination, ultimately the entire Seante must vote on the matter. The fact that six Republicans and one Democrat from the Banking Committee voted against the nomination was portrayed as an ominous signal, casting doubt on the likelihood of confirmation. Ms. McGrane discussed the reaction to the confirmation hearings expressed by Brian Gardner, a bank analyst for Keefe, Bruyette and Woods:

Two aspects of the two-hour debate that preceded the committee vote struck Gardner as worrisome for Bernanke: the unenthusiastic — even apologetic — tone from some of the senators who voted yes and a dispute over the Fed’s refusal to release documents about the bailout of insurance giant American International Group to senators on the committee.

The article explained that the AIG bailout documents were available for review by “some banking committee staffers” although the documents have been withheld by the Fed from individual senators and the public, based on the Fed’s claim that the documents are “protected”.

This is apparently an assertion by the Fed that there is some sort of privilege protecting the AIG bailout documents from disclosure. Nevertheless, if the fight over these records ever gets before a court, it is likely that production of the documents would be compelled, since any claim of privilege was waived once the Fed allowed the “banking committee staffers” to review the items.

The Politico report noted the significance of this matter:

That spat could have legs, Gardner said, and if it resonates with a public already fuming at the Fed, it could sway the votes of yes-leaning senators.

The battle over the AIG bailout documents was also the subject of an opinion piece in the December 19 edition of The New York Times, written by Eliot Spitzer, Frank Partnoy and William Black. Here’s some of what they had to say:

No doubt, some of the e-mail messages contain privileged conversations among lawyers. Others probably include private information that is irrelevant to A.I.G.’s role in the crisis. But the vast majority of these documents could be made public without legal concern. So why haven’t the Treasury and the Federal Reserve already made sure the public could see this information? Do they want to protect A.I.G., or do they worry about shining too much sunlight on their own performance leading up to and during the crisis?

What will these e-mails reveal about the actions of Ben Bernanke and “Turbo” Tim Geithner during the AIG bailout phase of the financial crisis? Were laws violated or do they simply exhibit some poor decision-making and cronyism?

Most of us are now getting ready for the coldest month of the year – but for Ben Bernanke, the heat is being turned up — full blast.

AIG, AIG bailout documents, AIG bailout e-mail messages, American capitalism, American International Group, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Bernanke confirmation hearing, blog, Brian Gardner, Bruyette and Woods, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Don Luskin, economic crisis, economics, economists, Eliot Spitzer, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial reform, Frank Partnoy, government guarantees, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Keefe, liberal, Mike Shedlock, Mish, money printing, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Person of the Year, Political, Politico, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, securities, Senate Banking Committee, Senator Jim Bunning, Smart Money, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, Time magazine, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Turbo Tim Geithner, Turning Up The Heat, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Victoria McGrane, waiver of privilege, Wall Street, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Black, zombie banks

Damage Control

December 17th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 17 2009

Comments Off

December 17, 2009

Matt Taibbi hit another grand slam with his recent Rolling Stone article: “Obama’s Big Sellout”. It was another classic work in his unique style. The ugly truth it drove home was that Barack Obama used a “bait and switch” tactic in his Presidential campaign: promising to reform Wall Street — until the day after he got elected — at which time he immediately jumped into bed with the culprits of the financial crisis. The reaction of the Obama apologists to the Rolling Stone piece involved the usual tactic of attacking the messenger (in this case: Taibbi himself). It didn’t work. The best way to see how this played out should begin with a reading of Taibbi’s retort to a critique appearing in The American Prospect — a feeble attempt to demonstrate that Taibbi got his facts wrong. A neutral judge, Felix Salmon of Reuters, then stepped in and ruled in favor of Taibbi. The online responses to Felix Salmon’s essay are a great read. At the Open Left website, David Sirota upbraided Taibbi’s critics, who spanned the political spectrum — many of whom expressed condescension at the “naïve” decision of an outside-the-beltway reporter to expose the breach of a campaign promise:

It’s certainly true that a lot of politicians’ words mean nothing – but if reporters start treating that as a non-newsworthy assumption in their coverage, then the whole journalistic system becomes a joke – a miasma of personality profiles and puff pieces that assumes that the only thing that must be valued in politics is personal intangibles like “charisma” and “charm” and “toughness” and all those other incessant cliches. And what a joke that makes of our democracy. In a republic where we only get to vote our politicians in or out every few years, all we have to go on are their promises. If we now must assume their promises aren’t true, and attack people for being “naïve” for daring to try to hold them to their promises, then we’ve made a joke of our whole political system.

Matt Taibbi’s article immediately forced the White House into a damage control mode. Another softball interview was immediately set up with Steve Croft of 60 Minutes, wherein Obama attempted to redeem his false image as an adversary of the Wall Street investment banks. The President took advantage of that opportunity to present himself as an antagonist of those he described as “fat cats”. On the following day, Obama held a meeting in the White House cabinet room with some banking representatives who found the event important enough to attend. Immediately afterward, Charlie Gasparino revealed the backstory behind Obama’s meeting with the bankers. After informing us that the administration provided the bankers with Obama’s “talking points” in advance of the meeting, Gasparino disclosed this:

. . . people with first-hand knowledge of the sitdown said, it was a heavily scripted affair — with none of the fireworks Obama displays in public.

* * *

Said one CEO who attended: “I expected to be taken to the woodshed, but the tone was quite the opposite.”

Said another senior exec with knowledge of the meeting: “The whole thing was so telegraphed that not much was accomplished, other than giving Obama a PR stunt. . . . He might have sounded mean on ‘60 Minutes,’ but during the meeting he was a hell of a lot nicer.”

Many commentators were quick to point out that by the time Obama started talking tough about “fat cats”, he had already given them all they wanted by allowing them to pay back their TARP loans on an expedited basis. As Henry Blodget explained for The Business Insider:

And in case you missed what is really going on here, the banks that repaid TARP are now getting all the benefits of government help with none of the drawbacks. They just ditched the bad stuff — namely, pay caps — and kept the good stuff (implicit bond guarantees, subsidized super-low interest rates, no obligation to do anything for anyone). Obama can jawbone all he wants about “fat cats,” but that’s all he can do.

At The Washington Post, Steven Pearlstein bemoaned the fact that the TARP beneficiaries had been “let off their leash”. Pearlstein expressed concern that this move created the potential for more problems in the future:

By rushing to cash in their chips, however, the administration not only gave up political leverage and additional profit, but took the risk that one or more of the banks may find that it can’t make it on its own. While the financial system has rebounded faster than anyone could have imagined, potential threats still loom — a further collapse of commercial real estate, for example, or a string of sovereign debt defaults. And bank profits, while having rebounded, remain significantly dependent on the availability of cheap funding from the Federal Reserve and other central banks that cannot be expected to last indefinitely.

The administration’s damage control effort turned out to be worthless. With his centerpiece healthcare reform effort floundering in the Senate, Obama the President is appearing to be significantly less effective than Obama the candidate. The President’s critics have been quick to pounce. George Will noted that Obama has “seen his job approval vary inversely with his ubiquity”. The New York Post’s Michael Goodwin alleged that Obama “doesn’t look like he cares that big chunks of the country, left, right and center, are giving up on him.” However, the best analysis of the confidence crisis afflicting the Obama Presidency came from Dan Gerstein of Forbes.com. Gerstein observed that the new Preisdent’s leadership style was to blame — something Gerstein described as “the Reverse Roosevelt: Talk boldly and carry a toothpick.” While debunking the administration’s claim that it had lost the leverage it had over Wall Street with the TARP paybacks, Gerstein argued that such an excuse “doesn’t pass the laugh test” because the banking industry is the most regulated industry in the country. The task Obama faces is to cultivate a leadership style that will be useful in confronting the challenges he undertook when he assumed office:

For those center dwellers, the issue is not that Obama is too liberal or too pragmatic (the chief complaints of the noisemakers on the left and right), but that he is not effective enough. They question whether he has what it takes to get results: to find the right balance on health care, to admit and fix the inadequacies of the stimulus, to begin taming the deficit without impeding growth. It is a crisis of confidence that at its heart is, as Brookings scholar and former Clinton adviser Bill Galston points out, a crisis of competence.

* * *

But regardless of the reasons, Obama signed up for these missions, and his ability to succeed in them will largely hinge on whether he can grow as a leader. Can he overcome his inhibitions, whatever their cause, and learn from the legacies of our most effective presidents about how to wield the full power of his office? He clearly knows how to don the velvet glove (often with substantial impact) — will he come to understand when to unleash the iron fist?

Obama’s pattern so far is far from encouraging. But I would not give up hope for growth.

It appears as though we are back to the themes of “hope” and “change”. This time we’re hoping that Obama will change.

60 Minutes, American capitalism, Bait And Switch, bank bailout, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Bill Galston, blog, broken campaign promises, centrist, Charlie Gasparino, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Damage Control, Dan Gerstein, David Sirota, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, Felix Salmon, financial crisis, financial reform, Forbes, George Will, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Henry Blodget, hope and change, investment banks, job creation, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Matt Taibbi, Michael Goodwin, moral hazard, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Obamas Big Sellout, Open Left, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Rolling Stone, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steve Croft, Steven Pearlstein, stress tests, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, TARP payback, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The American Prospect, the banks, The Business Insider, the center lane, the economy, the New York Post, the Reverse Roosevelt, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, unemployment, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street fat cats, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

No Free Pass For The Disappointer-In-Chief

December 14th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 14 2009

Comments Off

December 14, 2009

The election of Barack Obama to the Presidency was hailed by many as an event that “transcended race”. Ever since Obama’s primary election victory in lily-white Iowa, the pundits couldn’t stop talking about the candidate’s unique ability to vault the racial barrier before Hillary Clinton could break through the glass ceiling. As we approach the conclusion of Obama’s first year in the White House, it has become apparent that the Disappointer-in-Chief has not only alienated the Democratic Party’s liberal base, but he has also let down a demographic he thought he could take for granted: the African-American voters. At this point, Obama has “transcended race” with his ability to dishearten loyal black voters just as deftly as he has chagrined loyal supporters from all ethnic groups.

Charles Blow’s recent opinion piece for the December 4 edition of The New York Times, entitled: “Black in the Age of Obama” shed some light on the racist backlash against the black population as a result of the election of our nation’s first African-American President. Mr. Blow then focused on Obama’s approach to his sinking poll numbers:

This means that Obama can get away with doing almost nothing to specifically address issues important to African-Americans and instead focus on the white voters he’s losing in droves. This has not gone unnoticed. In the Nov. 9 Gallup poll, the number of blacks who felt that Obama would not go far enough in promoting efforts to aid the black community jumped 60 percent from last summer to now.

* * *

The Age of Obama, so far at least, seems less about Obama as a black community game-changer than as a White House gamesman. It’s unclear if there will be a positive Obama Effect, but an Obama Backlash is increasingly apparent. Meanwhile, black people are also living a tale of two actions: grin and bear it.

As Silla Brush reported for The Hill on December 2, ten members of the Congressional Black Caucus had threatened to withhold their votes on the financial reform bill, because the President had not been “doing enough to help African-Americans through the bleak economy”.

It has been easy to understand the dissatisfaction with Obama expressed by the Democratic Party’s liberal base. In a piece entitled “The Winter of Liberal Discontent”, Louis Proyect incorporated the umbrage expressed by such notables as Tom Hayden and Michael Moore, while providing a thorough assessment of Obama’s abandonment of the Left. He concluded the piece with a quoted passage from an essay written for The Huffington Post by Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional TARP Oversight Panel. Mr. Proyect quoted Ms. Warren’s reference to some brutally unpleasant statistics, raising the question of whether America will continue to have a middle class. The theme of Mr. Proyect’s discussion was based on this point:

The chorus of disapproval is louder than any I have heard from liberal quarters since 1967 when another very popular Democrat did an about-face once he was in office. When LBJ ran as a peace candidate, very few people — except unrepentant Marxists — would have anticipated a massive escalation in Vietnam. It was well understood a year ago that Obama was committed to escalating the war in Afghanistan, but the liberal base of the Democratic Party was too mesmerized by the mantras of “hope” and “change” to believe that their candidate would actually carry out his promise.

There is a tendency to regard right-wing Republican presidents being replaced by idealistic-appearing Democrats who betray their supporters, thus enabling a new Republican candidate to take over the White House, as a kind of Western version of karma. We are compelled by universal law in some way to undergo an endless cycle of suffering without hope of redemption short of Enlightenment.

The criticism of Obama expressed by African-American commentators underscores the President’s unique ability to alienate those who might support him on the basis of ethnic solidarity, just as thoroughly as he can antagonize the melanin-deficient “limousine liberals” of Park Avenue. On December 11, Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns made a point of letting us know that the complete text of Matt Taibbi’s recent Rolling Stone article, “Obama’s Big Sellout” is now available online. Before quoting some of the discussion in Matt Taibbi’s essay, Mr. Harrison provided some hard-hitting criticism of the Obama administration’s financial and economic policy shortcomings. You may note that the administration’s abandonment of the African-American base was not discussed. It wouldn’t do justice to Mr. Harrison’s great work to quote a snippet of this because it’s too good. I have to give you the whole thing:

As you probably know, I have been quite disappointed with this Administration’s leadership on financial reform. While I think they ‘get it,’ it is plain they lack either the courage or conviction to put forward a set of ideas that gets at the heart of what caused this crisis.

It was clear to many by this time last year that the President may not have been serious about reform when he picked Tim Geithner and Larry Summers as the leaders of his economic team. As smart and qualified as these two are, they are rightfully seen as allied with Wall Street and the anti-regulatory movement.

At a minimum, the picks of Geithner and Summers were a signal to Wall Street that the Obama Administration would be friendly to their interests. It is sort of like Ronald Reagan going to Philadelphia, Mississippi as a first stop in the 1980 election campaign to let southerners know that he was friendly to their interests.

I reserved judgment because one has to judge based on actions. But last November I did ask Is Obama really “Change we can believe in?” because his Administration was being stacked with Washington insiders and agents of the status quo.

Since that time it is obvious that two things have occurred as a result of this ‘Washington insider’ bias. First, there has been no real reform. Insiders are likely to defend the status quo for the simple reason that they and those with whom they associate are the ones who represent the status quo in the first place. What happens when a company is nationalized or declared bankrupt is instructive; here, new management must be installed to prevent the old management from covering up past mistakes or perpetuating errors that led to the firm’s demise. The same is true in government.

That no ‘real’ reform was coming was obvious, even by June when I wrote a brief note on the fake reform agenda. It is even more obvious with the passage of time and the lack of any substantive reform in health care.

Second, Obama’s stacking his administration with insiders has been very detrimental to his party. I imagine he did this as a way to overcome any worries about his own inexperience and to break with what was seen as a major factor in Bill Clinton’s initial failings. While I am an independent, I still have enough political antennae to know that taking established politicians out of incumbent positions (Joe Biden, Janet Napolitano, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Kathleen Sebelius or Tim Kaine) jeopardizes their seat. So, the strategy of stacking his administration has not only created a status quo bias, but it has also weakened his party.

The magic of the Obama candidacy has vanished with the disappointments of the Obama Presidency. His supporters have learned, the hard way, that talk is cheap. The President’s actions during the next three years will not only impact the viability of his administration — they could undermine the careers of his fellow Democrats.

African-American voters, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Black in the Age of Obama, blog, centrist, Change We Can Believe In, Charles Blow, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional TARP Oversight Panel, conservative, Credit Writedowns, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Disappointer-In-Chief, economic crisis, economics, Edward Harrison, Elizabeth Warren, financial crisis, financial reform, Hillary Clinton, investment banks, job creation, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Larry Summers, liberal, liberal base of Democratic Party, lobbyists, Louis Proyect, Matt Taibbi, melanin-deficient limousine liberals, Michael Moore, moral hazard, News, No Free Pass For The Disappointer-In-Chief, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Obama supporters, Obamas Big Sellout, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Rolling Stone, Silla Brush, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Hill, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The White House, The Winter of Liberal Discontent, thecenterlane, Tom Hayden, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, unemployment, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Washington insiders

Compare And Contrast

November 26th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 26 2009

Comments Off

November 26, 2009

We have seen and heard so much discussion during the past week concerning the dismal performance of Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner while testifying before the Joint Economic Committee — I won’t repeat it. At this point, there appears to be a consensus that Turbo Tim has to go. The scary part comes when pundits start tossing around names for a possible replacement. One would expect that President Obama might be wise enough to avoid the appointment of another “Wall Street insider” as Treasury Secretary. Rumors are circulating that The Dimon Dog (Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase) is being considered for the post. This buzz gained more traction when bank analyst, Dick Bove, recently voiced support for Dimon as Treasury Secretary. The handful of Geithner supporters deny that Turbo Tim ever was a “Wall Street insider”. This assertion is contradicted by the fact that Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve at the time of the financial crisis, when he served as architect of the more-than-generous bailouts of those “too big to fail” financial institutions — at taxpayer expense.

These days, the most vilified beneficiary of government largesse resulting from the financial crisis is the widely-despised investment bank, Goldman Sachs — often referred to as the “giant vampire squid” — thanks to Matt Taibbi’s metaphor, describing Goldman as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

For whatever reason, a number of commentators have chosen to help defend Goldman Sachs against what they consider to be unfair criticism. A recent example came to us from James Stewart of The New Yorker. Stewart had previously written a 25-page essay for that magazine, entitled “Eight Days” — a dramatic chronology of the financial crisis as it unfolded during September of 2008. Last week, Stewart seized upon the release of the recent SIGTARP report to defend Goldman with a blog posting which characterized the report as supportive of the argument that Goldman owes the taxpayers nothing as a result of the government bailouts resulting from that near-meltdown. (In case you don’t know, a former Assistant U.S. District Attorney from New York named Neil Barofsky was nominated by President Bush as the Special Investigator General of the TARP program. The acronym for that job title is SIGTARP.) In his blog posting, James Stewart began by characterizing Goldman’s detractors as “conspiracy theorists”. That was a pretty weak start. Stewart went on to imply that the SIGTARP report refutes the claims by critics that, despite Goldman’s repayment of the TARP bailout, it did not repay the government the billions it received as a counterparty to AIG’s collateralized debt obligations. Stewart referred to language in the SIGTARP report to support the spin that because “Goldman was fully hedged on its exposure both to a failure by A.I.G. and to the deterioration of value in its collateralized debt obligations” and that “(i)t repaid its TARP loans with interest, bought back the government’s warrants at a nice profit to the Treasury” Goldman therefore owes the government nothing — other than “a special debt of gratitude”. One important passage from page 22 of the SIGTARP report that Stewart conveniently ignored, concerned the money received by Goldman Sachs as an AIG counterparty by way of Maiden Lane III, at which point those credit default obligations (of questionable value) were purchased at an excessive price by the government. Here’s that passage from the SIGTARP report:

When FRBNY authorized the creation of Maiden Lane III in November 2008, it lent approximately $24.6 billion to the newly formed limited liability company, and AIG provided Maiden Lane III approximately $5 billion in equity. These funds were used to purchase CDOs from AIG counterparties worth an estimated fair value of $29.6 billion at the time of the purchases, which were done in three stages on November 25, 2008, December 18, 2008, and December 22, 2008. AIGFP’s counterparties were paid $27.1 billion, and AIGFP was paid $2.5 billion per an agreement between AIGFP and FRBNY. The $2.5 billion represented the amount of collateral that AIGFP had previously paid to the counterparties that was in excess of the actual decline in the fair value as of October 31, 2008.

FRBNY’s loan to Maiden Lane III is secured by the CDOs as the underlying assets. After the loan has been repaid in full plus interest, and, to the extent that there are sufficient remaining cash proceeds, AIG will be entitled to repayment of the $5 billion that the company contributed in equity, plus accrued interest. After repayment in full of the loan and the equity contribution (each including accrued interest), any remaining proceeds will be split 67 percent to FRBNY and 33 percent to AIG.

On November 21, one of my favorite reporters for The New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winner Gretchen Morgenson, wrote an informative piece concerning the recent SIGTARP Report. Compare and contrast Ms. Morgenson’s discussion of the report’s disclosures, with the spin provided by James Stewart. Here is some of what Ms. Morgenson had to say:

The Fed, under Mr. Geithner’s direction, caved in to A.I.G.’s counterparties, giving them 100 cents on the dollar for positions that would have been worth far less if A.I.G. had defaulted. Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale and other banks were in the group that got full value for their contracts when many others were accepting fire-sale prices.

On the question of whether this payout was what the report describes as a “backdoor bailout” of A.I.G.’s counterparties, Mr. Barofsky concluded: “The very design of the federal assistance to A.I.G. was that tens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to A.I.G.’s counterparties.” The report noted that this was money the banks might not otherwise have received had A.I.G. gone belly-up.

*   *   *

Finally, Mr. Barofsky pokes holes in arguments made repeatedly over the past 14 months by Goldman Sachs, A.I.G.’s largest trading partner and recipient of $12.9 billion in taxpayer money in the bailout, that it had faced no material risk in an A.I.G. default — that, in effect, had A.I.G. cratered, Goldman wouldn’t have suffered damage.

*   *   *

Rather than forcing the banks to accept a steep discount, or “haircut,” the Fed gave the banks $27 billion in taxpayer cash and allowed them to keep an additional $35 billion in collateral already posted by A.I.G. That amounted to about $62 billion for the contracts, which the report describes as “far above their market value at the time.”

* *   *

As Goldman prepares to pay out nearly $17 billion in bonuses to its employees in one of its most profitable years ever, it is important that an authoritative, independent voice like Mr. Barofsky’s reminds us how the taxpayer bailout of A.I.G. benefited Goldman.

* *   *

The inspector noted in his report that Goldman made several arguments for why it believed it was not materially at risk in an A.I.G. default, but he is skeptical of the firm’s reasoning.

So is Janet Tavakoli, an expert in derivatives at Tavakoli Structured Finance, a consulting firm.

*   *   *

Ms. Tavakoli argues that Goldman should refund the money it received in the bailout and take back the toxic C.D.O.’s now residing on the Fed’s books — and to do so before it begins showering bonuses on its taxpayer-protected employees.

“A.I.G., a sophisticated investor, foolishly took this risk,” she said. “But the U.S. taxpayer never agreed to be the victim of investments that should undergo a rigorous audit.”

After reading James Stewart’s November 19 blog posting and Gretchen Morgenson’s November 21 article from The New York Times, ask yourself this: Are Gretchen Morgenson and Janet Tavakoli “conspiracy theorists” . . . or is James Stewart just a tool?

17 billion in bonuses, AIG, AIG counterparty, American capitalism, American Insurance Group, American International Group, bank bailout, bank holding company, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, CDOs, centrist, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, collateralized debt obligations, Commentary, Compare And Contrast, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, conspiracy theorists, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dick Bove, economic crisis, economics, economists, Eight Days, equities markets, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, FRBNY, giant vampire squid, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, Gretchen Morgenson, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Stewart, Jamie Dimon, Janet Tavakoli, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joint Economic Committee, liberal, Maiden Lane III, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Neil Barofsky, New York Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President Bush, President of the United States, Pulitzer Prize, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, SIGTARP report, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, Tavakoli Structured Finance, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Dimon Dog, the economy, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street insider, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

The Federal Reserve Is On The Ropes

November 23rd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 23 2009

Comments Off

November 23, 2009

Last February, Republican Congressman Ron Paul introduced HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, by which the Government Accountability Office would be granted authority to audit the Federal Reserve and present a report to Congress by the end of 2010. On May 21, Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, wrote to his Democratic colleagues in the House, asking them to co-sponsor the bill. The bill eventually gained over 300 co-sponsors. By October 30, Congressman Mel Watt, a Democrat from North Carolina, basically “gutted” the bill according to Congressman Paul, in an interview with Bob Ivry of Bloomberg News. Watt subsequently proposed a competing measure, which was aided by the circulation of a letter by eight academics, who were described as a “political cross-section of prominent economists”. Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post disclosed on November 18 that the purportedly diverse, independent economists were actually paid stooges of the Federal Reserve:

But far from a broad cross-section, the “prominent economists” lobbying on behalf of the Watt bill are in fact deeply involved with the Federal Reserve. Seven of the eight are either currently on the Fed’s payroll or have been in the past.

After HR 1207 had been undermined by Watt, an amendment calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve was added as amendment 69B to HR3996, the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009. The House Finance Committee voted to approve that amendment on November 19. This event was not only a big win for Congressmen Paul and Grayson — it also gave The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim the opportunity for a “victory lap”:

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

* * *

“Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy,” a victorious Grayson said afterwards.

Scott Lanman of Bloomberg News pointed out that this battle was just one of many legislative onslaughts against the Fed:

The Fed’s powers and rate-setting independence are under threat on several fronts in Congress. Separately yesterday, the Senate Banking Committee began debate on legislation that would strip the Fed of bank-supervision powers and give lawmakers greater say in naming the officials who vote on monetary policy.

* * *

Paul and other lawmakers have accused the Fed of lax oversight of banks and failing to avert the financial crisis.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is feeling even more heat because the Senate Banking Committee will begin hearings concerning Bernanke’s reappointment as Fed Chair. The hearings will begin on December 3, the same day as President Obama’s jobs summit. Senate Banking Committee chair, Chris Dodd, revealed to videoblogger Mike Stark that Bernanke’s reappointment is “not necessarily” a foregone conclusion.

Let’s face it: the public has finally caught on to the fact that the mission of the Fed is to protect the banking industry and if that is to be accomplished at the public’s expense — then so be it. Back at The Huffington Post, Tom Raum explained how this heightened awareness of the Fed’s activities has resulted in some Congressional pushback:

Many lawmakers question whether the Fed’s money machine has mainly benefited financial markets and not the broader economy. Lawmakers are also peeved that the central bank acted without congressional involvement when it brokered the 2008 sale of failed investment bank Bear Stearns and engineered the rescue of insurer American International Group.

Tom Raum echoed concern about the how the current increase in “anti-Fed” sentiment might affect the Bernanke confirmation hearings:

Should Bernanke be worried?

“Not only should be worried, he’s clearly ratcheted up his game in terms of his communications with Congress,” said Norman Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Ornstein said the Fed bashing this time is different from before, with “a broader base of support. And it’s coming from people who in the past would not have hit the Fed. There’s a lot of populist anger out there — on the left, in the center and on the right. And politicians are responsive to that.”

Populist anger with the Fed will certainly change the way history will regard former Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. Fred Sheehan’s new book: Panderer to Power: The True Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession, could not have been released at a better time. At his blog, Sheehan responded to five questions about Greenspan, providing us with a taste of what to expect in the new book. Here is one of the interesting points, demonstrating how Greenspan helped create our current crisis:

The American economy’s recovery from the early 1990s was financial. This was a first. The recovery was a product of banks borrowing, leveraging and lending to hedge funds. The banks were also creating and selling complicated and very profitable derivative products. Greenspan needed the banks to grow until they became too-big-to-fail. It was evident the “real” economy — businesses that make tires and sell shoes — no longer drove the economy. Thus, finance was given every advantage to expand, no matter how badly it performed. Financial firms that should have died were revived with large injections of money pumped by the Federal Reserve into the banking system.

It’s great to see Congress step up to the task of exposing the antics of the Federal Reserve. Let’s just hope these efforts meet with continued success.

Alan Grayson, Alan Greenspan, amendment 69B HR 3996, American Enterprise Institute, American International Group, anti-Fed sentiment, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Bear Stearns, Ben Bernanke, bipartisan victory against the Federal Reserve, blog, Bloomberg news, Bob Ivy, centrist, Chris Dodd, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Mel Watt, conservative, crony capitalism, cross-section of prominent economists, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial reform, Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, Fred Sheehan, GAO, Government Accountability Office, government guarantees, House Finance Committee, House Financial Services Committee, HR 1207, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, liberal, lobbyists, Mike Stark, money printing, moral hazard, News, Norman Ornstein, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Panderer to Power The True Story of How Alan Greenspan Enriched Wall Street and Left a Legacy of Recession, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Ron Paul, Ryan Grim, Scott Lanman, Senate Banking Committee, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Federal Reserve Is On The Ropes, The Huffington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, Tom Raum, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street lobbyists, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, zombie banks

Preparing For The Worst

November 19th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 19 2009

Comments Off

November 19, 2009

In the November 18 edition of The Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard revealed that the French investment bank, Societe Generale “has advised its clients to be ready for a possible ‘global economic collapse’ over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction”. That gloomy outlook was the theme of a report entitled: “Worst-case Debt Scenario” in which the bank warned that a new set of problems had been created by government rescue programs, which simply transferred private debt liabilities onto already “sagging sovereign shoulders”:

“As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse,” said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of the dangers, not a forecast.

Under the French bank’s “Bear Case” scenario, the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.

* * *

The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. “High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt,” it said.

Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.

If so, gold would go “up, and up, and up” as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.

To make matters worse, America still has an unemployment problem that just won’t abate. A recent essay by Charles Hugh Smith for The Business Insider took a view beyond the “happy talk” propaganda to the actual unpleasant statistics. Mr. Smith also called our attention to what can be seen by anyone willing to face reality, while walking around in any urban area or airport:

The divergence between the reality easily observed in the real world and the heavily touted hype that “the recession is over because GDP rose 3.5%” is growing. It’s obvious that another 7 million jobs which are currently hanging by threads will be slashed in the next year or two.

By this point, most Americans are painfully aware of the massive bailouts afforded to those financial institutions considered “too big to fail”. The thought of transferring private debt liabilities onto already “sagging sovereign shoulders” immediately reminds people of TARP and the as-yet-undisclosed assistance provided by the Federal Reserve to some of those same, TARP-enabled institutions.

As Kevin Drawbaugh reported for Reuters, the European Union has already taken action to break up those institutions whose failure could create a risk to the entire financial system:

EU regulators are set to turn the spotlight on 28 European banks bailed out by governments for possible mandated divestitures, officials said on Wednesday.

The EU executive has already approved restructuring plans for British lender Lloyds Banking (LLOY.L), Dutch financial group ING Groep NV (ING.AS) and Belgian group KBC (KBC.BR).

Giving break-up power to regulators would be “a good thing,” said Paul Miller, a policy analyst at investment firm FBR Capital Markets, on Wednesday.

Big banks in general are bad for the economy because they do not allocate credit well, especially to small businesses, he said. “Eventually the big banks get broken up in one way or another,” Miller said at the Reuters Global Finance Summit.

Meanwhile in the United States, the House Financial Services Committee approved a measure that would grant federal regulators the authority to break up financial institutions that would threaten the entire system if they were to fail. Needless to say, this proposal does have its opponents, as the Reuters article pointed out:

In both the House and the Senate, “financial lobbyists will continue to try to water down this new and intrusive federal regulatory power,” said Joseph Engelhard, policy analyst at investment firm Capital Alpha Partners.

If a new break-up power does survive the legislative process, Engelhard said, it is unlikely a “council of numerous financial regulators would be able to agree on such a radical step as breaking up a large bank, except in the most unusual circumstances, and that the Treasury Secretary … would have the ability to veto any imprudent use of such power.”

When I first read this, I immediately realized that Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner would consider any use of such power as imprudent and he would likely veto any attempt to break up a large bank. Nevertheless, my concerns about the “Geithner factor” began to fade after I read some other encouraging news stories. In The Huffington Post, Sam Stein disclosed that Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio (a Democrat) had called for the firing of White House economic advisor Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary “Timmy Geithner” during an interview with MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. Mr. Stein provided the following recap of that discussion:

“We think it is time, maybe, that we turn our focus to Main Street — we reclaim some of the unspent [TARP] funds, we reclaim some of the funds that are being paid back, which will not be paid back in full, and we use it to put people back to work. Rebuilding America’s infrastructure is a tried and true way to put people back to work,” said DeFazio.

“Unfortunately, the President has an adviser from Wall Street, Larry Summers, and a Treasury Secretary from Wall Street, Timmy Geithner, who don’t like that idea,” he added. “They want to keep the TARP money either to continue to bail out Wall Street … or to pay down the deficit. That’s absurd.”

Asked specifically whether Geithner should stay in his job, DeFazio replied: “No.”

“Especially if you look back at the AIG scandal,” he added, “and Goldman and others who got their bets paid off in full … with taxpayer money through AIG. We channeled the money through them. Geithner would not answer my question when I said, ‘Were those naked credit default swaps by Goldman or were they a counter-party?’ He would not answer that question.”

DeFazio said that among he and others in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, there was a growing consensus that Geithner needed to be removed. He added that some lawmakers were “considering questions regarding him and other economic advisers” — though a petition calling for the Treasury Secretary’s removal had not been drafted, he said.

Another glimmer of hope for the possible removal of Turbo Tim came from Jeff Madrick at The Daily Beast. Madrick’s piece provided us with a brief history of Geithner’s unusually fast rise to power (he was 42 when he was appointed president of the New York Federal Reserve) along with a reference to the fantastic discourse about Geithner by Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson, which appeared in The New York Times last April. Mr. Madrick demonstrated that what we have learned about Geithner since April, has affirmed those early doubts:

Recall that few thought Geithner was seasoned enough to be Treasury secretary when Obama picked him. Rubin wasn’t ready to be Treasury secretary when Clinton was elected and he had run Goldman Sachs. Was Geithner’s main attraction that he could easily be controlled by Summers and the White House political advisers? It’s a good bet. A better strategy, some argued, would have been to name Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, for a year’s worth of service and give Geithner as his deputy time to grow. But Volcker would have been far harder to control by the White House.

But now the president needs a Treasury Secretary who is respected enough to stand up to Wall Street, restabilize the world’s trade flows and currencies, and persuade Congress to join a battle to get the economic recovery on a strong path. He also needs someone with enough economic understanding to be a counterweight to the White House advisers, led by Summers, who have consistently been behind the curve, except for the $800 billion stimulus. And now that is looking like it was too little. The best guess is that Geithner is not telling the president anything that the president does not know or doesn’t hear from someone down the hall.

The problem for Geithner and his boss, is that the stakes if anything are higher than ever.

As the rest of the world prepares for worsening economic conditions, the United States should do the same. Keeping Tim Geithner in charge of the Treasury makes less sense than it did last April.

AIG, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, American capitalism, American International Group, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Capital Alpha Partners, centrist, Charles Hugh Smith, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Daniel Fermon, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Ed Schultz, equities markets, European Union, FBR Capital Markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Geithner factor, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Gretchen Morgenson, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, investment banks, Jeff Madrick, Jo Becker, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Engelhard, Kevin Drawbaugh, Larry Summers, liberal, lobbyists, moral hazard, MSNBC, New York Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, Paul Miller, Paul Volcker, Political, Politics, Preparing For The Worst, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Sam Stein, SEC scandals, securities, socialized loss and privatized gain, Societe Generale, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, The Business Insider, the center lane, The Daily Beast, the economy, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, the Telegraph, The White House, thecenterlane, Timmy Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, unemployment, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, Worst-case Debt Scenario

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

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Lacking Reform

A Closer Look

This Fight Is Far From Over

Turning Up The Heat

Damage Control

No Free Pass For The Disappointer-In-Chief

Compare And Contrast

The Federal Reserve Is On The Ropes

Preparing For The Worst

Call Him The Dimon Dog

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com