China's Extreme Real Estate Bubble: Globalization Is a Fraud, a Castle Built On Sand

Quite a few people know about this, but they really do not understand it.  It is a fraud that surpasses by far any in history, including the South Sea and Mississippi bubbles.

China is an extreme bubble fueled by artificially low wages and an autocratic industrial policy that is distorting the economy of the entire world.

The monied interests of the West have been riding the trend of deregulation and globalization to their personal enrichment and benefit.  But it is an empire of illusion, with a foundation of sand, held in place by the corrupting power of money.

There are some ways out of this that the Chinese leadership might take, but I suspect that their powerful oligarchs will be caught in the same credibility trap that has kept Western leaders from taking the appropriate policy actions for the good of their own people.

This is a story of betrayal, powers and principalities, of the rulers of darkness in this world, and evil in high places.   And the Anglo-American establishment has played a key part in it.

Sorry for the commercials, but the video is worth watching because it carries a visual impact that words alone do not quite capture.

China's richest woman says in a related interview not included on the aired program that the 'Chinese people are craving for democracy.'

So are the Arabic people, and the people of Europe and the Americas, who often have the illusion of choice, from amongst a series of choices allowed by technocrats acting for a ruling elite.

Strangers Among Us: The Fatal Allure of False Premises and Unstable Systems - I Am Fishead

People tend to think other people are like them: imperfect, but generally striving to be good.  Faithful in the important things, but weak and error prone in the small.  Our self-view itself is probably a bit of a self-serving self-delusion, but that is a topic for another conversation on some other day. But it does illustrate the need for some external standard, and the rigor of self-examination against it.

As you may have heard or observed, most people tend to write their own faults in water, and carve the failings of others in large letters written in marble.

But there are strangers among us, people who are quite different from most in how they approach things. In fact, the variance amongst people is greater than most will allow in their thinking. Not all people are constructed in the same way.

There are those who are not at all self-regulating in the rational way in which we would like to think we all are.   They may be different genetically, or from the way in which they grew up in their formative years, and most often a combination of both. 

But as in so many cases,  generalizations can lead to convenient assumptions, and those can often prove dangerous.  This can cause us individual problems, as anyone who has dealt with a family member or associate who has a serious problem will know.

But the greatest source of mischief, and too often tragedy, is when we design social constructs and commercial organizations that, for the well-intentioned sake of simplicity, assume that people are rational and reliably good, except for a small and easily identifiable minority of physical criminals.

This may sound obvious enough, but in fact such mistaken assumptions can and do happen.  Certain financial and economic formulations of risk for example, are laughable in their assumptions, but nevertheless obtained widespread acceptance and recognition, before it failed miserably.  Why? For a number of reasons, most of which have to do with practical convenience of thought that gets carried too far.

 People thinking in groups tend to eschew individual common sense, relying instead on a sort of shorthand 'group think' that substitutes for experience and the hard work of individual reason.   We are both emotional and thinking beings, and have our roots in pack behaviour and tribalism. 

The 'tell' for this phenomenon is that when confronted with contrary evidence from real life, they either studiously ignore it, citing largely irrelevant counter examples from biased and carefully chosen sources, or merely brush it aside, falling back on generalizations and above all slogans. And when harsh reality inevitably intrudes, it is met with shock, stubborn resistance, and disbelief.

So, and this is the point of this essay, when thinking about social or corporate organization, bear in mind that there are a small but potentially powerfully focused set of people who will not fall into your neatly reasoned assumptions. And this fact may cause your system to be founded on sand, on a fatal flaw, that may even be promoted by those who view it to their advantage in undermining and abusing that system for their own ends.   This is why they prefer to redesign and reorganize completely instead of reform.  It provides a greater opportunity to construct new loopholes for their own benefit.

No one can make a reliable diagnosis at a distance. We tend to distort and project when observing others. And people operate from a variety of motives and intentions. But that is not the point.

The point is that systems must be designed to be, what Taleb has called, 'anti-fragile,' that is, not so reliant on certain assumed norms to be vulnerable to corruption and collapse. In system design we used to call an effective system that was even incidentally reliable at the stated extremes to be 'robust.'

I believe quite strongly that the story of our own crisis is the failure to remember the lessons from the past, that there are people whom it would be fair to call evil amongst us, an that although they may be intelligent and superficially charming, they are every bit as dangerous, and probably even more, than the killer who wields a knife or a gun. And more than anything else, we have ceased to love the truth, for the sake of winning.

“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.

And having no respect he ceases to love.”

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

And that is the descent into Hell.

Here is a brief excerpt from an essay put out by Aftermath, the group founded in part by Robert Hare to assist the victims of psychopathy. It is not intended as a diagnostic tool, because without years of specific training one is not capable of performing such a procedure reliably. But it is educative, to help us to understand that not everyone is the same, not like 'us' if such an 'us' really exists except in broad abstractions.

Below that, for your holiday viewing, I reprise the documentary film, I am Fishead.

Enjoy, and plan accordingly.

"There is a class of individuals who have been around forever and who are found in every race, culture, society and walk of life. Everybody has met these people, been deceived and manipulated by them, and forced to live with or repair the damage they have wrought.

These often charming, but always deadly, individuals have a clinical name: psychopaths. Their hallmark is a stunning lack of conscience; their game is self-gratification at the other person’s expense. Many spend time in prison, but many do not. All take far more than they give.

The most obvious expressions of psychopathy, but not the only ones, involve the flagrant violation of society’s rules. Not surprisingly, many psychopaths are criminals, but many others manage to remain out of prison, using their charm and chameleon-like coloration to cut a wide swathe through society, leaving a wake of ruined lives behind


Key Symptoms of Psychopathy

Interpersonal Emotional	Social Deviance
Glib and superficial	Impulsive
Egocentric and grandiose	Poor behavior controls
Lack of remorse or guilt	Need for excitement
Lack of empathy	Lack of responsibility
Deceitful and manipulative	Early behavior problems
Shallow emotions	Adult antisocial behavior

Glib and Superficial

Psychopaths are often voluble and verbally facile. They can be amusing and entertaining conversationalists, ready with a clever comeback, and are able to tell unlikely but convincing stories that cast themselves in a good light. They can be very effective in presenting themselves well and are often very likable and charming...

Egocentric and Grandiose

Psychopaths have a narcissistic and grossly inflated view of their own self-worth and importance, a truly astounding egocentricity and sense of entitlement, and see themselves as the center of the universe, justified in living according to their own rules...

Psychopaths often claim to have specific goals but show little appreciation regarding the qualifications required-they have no idea of how to achieve them and little or no chance of attaining these goals, given their track record and lack of sustained interest in formal education...

Lack of Remorse or Guilt

Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern for the effects their actions have on others, no matter how devastating these might be. They may appear completely forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, are not sorry for the ensuing pain, and that there is no reason now to be concerned...Their lack of remorse or guilt is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior, to shrug off personal responsibility for actions that cause family, friends, and others to reel with shock and disappointment. They usually have handy excuses for their behavior, and in some cases deny that it happened at all.

Lack of Empathy

Many of the characteristics displayed by psychopaths are closely associated with a profound lack of empathy and inability to construct a mental and emotional “facsimile” of another person. They seem completely unable to “get into the skin” of others, except in a purely intellectual sense. They are completely indifferent to the rights and suffering of family and strangers alike. If they do maintain ties, it is only because they see family members as possessions...

Deceitful and Manipulative

With their powers of imagination in gear and beamed on themselves, psychopaths appear amazingly unfazed by the possibility, or even by the certainty, of being found out. When caught in a lie or challenged with the truth, they seldom appear perplexed or embarrassed-they simply change their stories or attempt to rework the facts so they appear to be consistent with the lie. The result is a series of contradictory statements and a thoroughly confused listener. And psychopaths seem proud of their ability to lie...

Shallow Emotions

Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty that limits the range and depth of their feelings. At times they appear to be cold and unemotional while nevertheless being prone to dramatic, shallow, and short-lived displays of feeling. Careful observers are left with the impression they are playacting and little is going on below the surface. A psychopath in our research said that he didn’t really understand what others meant by fear.

Impulsive

Psychopaths are unlikely to spend much time weighing the pros and cons of a course of action or considering the possible consequences. “I did it because I felt like it,” is a common response. These impulsive acts often result from an aim that plays a central role in most of the psychopath’s behavior: to achieve immediate satisfaction, pleasure, or relief.

So family members, relatives, employers, and coworkers typically find themselves standing around asking themselves what happened-jobs are quit, relationships broken off, plans changed, houses ransacked, people hurt, often for what appears as little more than a whim...

Poor Behavior Controls

Besides being impulsive, psychopaths are highly reactive to perceived insults or slights. Most of us have powerful inhibitory controls over our behavior; even if we would like to respond aggressively we are usually able to “keep the lid on.” In psychopaths, these inhibitory controls are weak, and the slightest provocation is sufficient to overcome them. As a result, psychopaths are short-tempered or hotheaded and tend to respond to frustration, failure, discipline, and criticism with sudden violence, threats or verbal abuse. But their outbursts, extreme as they may be, are often short-lived, and they quickly act as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened...Although psychopaths have a “hair trigger,” their aggressive displays are “cold”; they lack the intense arousal experienced when other individuals lose their temper.

A Need for Excitement

Psychopaths have an ongoing and excessive need for excitement-they long to live in the fast lane or “on the edge,” where the action is. In many cases the action involves the breaking of rules. Many psychopaths describe “doing crime” for excitement or thrills... The flip side of this yen for excitement is an inability to tolerate routine or monotony. Psychopaths are easily bored and are not likely to engage in activities that are dull, repetitive, or require intense concentration over long periods.

Lack of Responsibility

Obligations and commitments mean nothing to psychopaths. Their good intentions-”I’ll never cheat on you again”-are promises written on the wind. Horrendous credit histories, for example, reveal the lightly taken debt, the loan shrugged off, the empty pledge to contribute to a child’s support. Their performance on the job is erratic, with frequent absences, misuse of company resources, violations of company policy, and general untrustworthiness. They do not honor formal or implied commitments to people, organizations, or principles. Psychopaths are not deterred by the possibility that their actions mean hardship or risk for others.

Early Behavior Problems

Most psychopaths begin to exhibit serious behavioral problems at an early age. These might include persistent lying, cheating, theft, arson, truancy, substance abuse, vandalism, and/or precocious sexuality. Because many children exhibit some of these behaviors at one time or another-especially children raised in violent neighborhoods or in disrupted or abusive families-it is important to emphasize that the psychopath’s history of such behaviors is more extensive and serious than most, even when compared with that of siblings and friends raised in similar settings...

Adult Antisocial Behavior

Psychopaths see the rules and expectations of society as inconvenient and unreasonable impediments to their own behavioral expression. They make their own rules, both as children and as adults. Many of the antisocial acts of psychopaths lead to criminal charges and convictions. Even within the criminal population, psychopaths stand out, largely because the antisocial and illegal activities of psychopaths are more varied and frequent than are those of other criminals. Psychopaths tend to have no particular affinity, or “specialty,” for one particular type of crime but tend to try everything. But not all psychopaths end up in jail. Many of the things they do escape detection or prosecution, or are on “the shady side of the law.” For them, antisocial behavior may consist of phony stock promotions, questionable business practices, spouse or child abuse, and so forth. Many others do things that, though not necessarily illegal, are nevertheless unethical, immoral, or harmful to others: philandering or cheating on a spouse to name a few..."

The Charming Psychopath: How to Spot Social Predators Before They Attack

Blaming the Victim and Other Biases and Their Use by the Predator Class To Subvert the Unwary

It is an occasional human fault to get pulled into the habit of 'blaming the victim.'

Most people do not do it regularly, except in the case of some uninformed prejudice or in response to misinformation.

But some people seem to do it more often and sometimes habitually. Why is that?

As we might imagine, nothing can make a certain type of person feel better about themselves than attributing the misfortune of another to foolishness or stupidity. Since a similar misfortune has not happened to them, they must therefore be a superior type of person, and not the ordinary person that they fear they might be who just happened to get lucky.

In my experience this 'distancing' of oneself from the rest of humanity is at the root of much of the bad behaviour that can become institutionalized into the corruption of an organizational structure that eats at the fabric of society.

Sometimes people do engage in serial risky behaviour that leads them into trouble.  It seems as though everyone knows at least one person who gets themselves into a bad situation by acting foolishly and recklessly. Sometimes it is caused by mental illness, alcoholism or some other negative influence. Everyone can think of someone who 'brought it on themselves.' And our imaginations can extend that instance quite easily and broadly.

We can use these few anecdotal examples to blame the victims unjustly on a more general and uninformed level. And we often fall into this bias on the prompting of con men and sociopaths of the predator class who use it to justify their own criminal actions and personal injustice. They are not burdened with empathy for their victims, and even delight in their misfortune. But they must find ways to make their actions more acceptable to society as a whole that normally does have such concerns for equity and justice.

Personal exceptionalism is rooted in pride, and is the antithesis of the old saying, 'There but for the grace of God go I.'

Those MF global customers? They had it coming because they should have known better. Those people who lost money in the stock market? Well, no one MADE them buy those fraudulent paper assets that professionals recommended to them. That family who lost their home to foreclosure because the father was severely injured by sickness or accident? They should have planned better and taken more precautions.

In its extreme example, the subornation of human caring becomes a form of madness, the 'demonization of the other.' That whole group/class/race/nation of people who are being mistreated, brutalized, cheated, starved, and even murdered? It is unfortunate of course, but they are lazy/cheap/stupid/dirty/sneaky/different/subhuman and so they had it coming. But we are not like that so we are doing well and even prospering.

But these are just thoughts from my own direct experience.  Here is a systematic and more thorough analysis that I found to be interesting.

Blaming the victim – why do we do it? For example, are rape victims responsible for what happens to them? Are victims of car crashes or other accidents responsible for what happened to them? These are the kinds of questions we examine as we look at the strange human tendency to blame the victim.

Here is the concept map for the biases discussed in this show:

Download Podcast here.

Source: Blaming the Victim and Other Biases

Attribution Map Quiz

1: Fundamental Attribution Error
•“people do what they do because of the kind of people that they are, not because of the situation they are in”
•“people tend to underestimate external influences when explaining other people’s behavior”

2: Actor/Observer (bias) Difference
•“Whereas we are very likely to find internal causes for other people’s behavior, we tend to look …to the situation to explain our own behavior”
•Example: in a murder trial, the prosecution will call the person a murderer, defense will focus on the difficulty of the person’s life at the time or their childhood, characteristics of the person murdered. “That person drove my client to do what he/she did”

3. Self-serving Attribution (bias): while we tend to take credit for our successes (attribute success to internal causes), we blame our failures on external causes
•I earned an A, my professor gave me a C
•Why? Because it threatens our self esteem to think that failures were caused by something about ourselves
•Example: sports – when a team wins, they attribute it to talent or skill, when they lose, they attribute it to bad luck, poor playing conditions, bad calls from the umpires rather than “I didn’t train hard/study hard enough”, “Our team wasn’t as good”
•It feels bad to attribute our failures to ourselves

4. Optimism bias: “good things are more likely to happen to oneself than to others and bad things are less likely to happen to oneself”
•A kind of “defensive attribution”
•Why do we tend to hold this belief? Because the world is a scary, unpredictable place and that makes us feel anxious. The only way to feel a little better is to believe that it couldn’t happen to me. “I would have acted differently”, “That wouldn’t happen to me because…”I would make different decisions”

5. Belief in a Just World: bad things happen to bad people, “or at least to people who make mistakes, poor choices, etc.” thus, bad things won’t happen to me because I wouldn’t make those mistakes.
•“the belief in a just world keeps anxiety-provoking thoughts about one’s own safety at bay” Aronson, et. al.
•when the world seems chaotic or dangerous, this is anxiety provoking. so we attempt to reassure ourselves by blaming the victim

Bill Moyers & Company: Reckoning With Torture

"Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary."

David H. Petraeus, Commander, U.S. Central Command

“The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Admiral Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence

"If it were up to me I would close Guantánamo not tomorrow but this afternoon...Essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system...and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get from it."

Colin Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State

"I have been hard pressed to find a situation where anybody can tell me that they've ever encountered the ticking-bomb scenario... a show like 24...makes all of us believe that this is real--it's not. Throw that stuff out, it doesn't happen."

Jack Cloonan, FBI special agent from 1977 - 2002

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current [G.W. Bush] administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Major General Antonio M. Taguba, US Army Retired

"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people...I lie awake worrying about this every night."

Major Robert Preston, former prosecutor, US military commissions

Source

US Corporate Taxes As a Percent of Corporate Profits

"Once upon a time, the corporate income tax generated a significant share of tax revenues; now, it’s bumping along in the 2%-of-GDP range. Yes, the marginal rate of corporate income tax is high, at 35%. But US companies are extremely good at not paying that.

But at least we know the aggregate amount that corporations pay in taxes. What we don’t know — because they won’t say, and no one’s forcing them to say — is how much any given public company pays.

Allan Sloan has a very good column on this today. Companies already report 16 different tax metrics; they should simply be required to add a 17th — the amount they pay the IRS in taxes — which in many ways is most important. The companies already file tax returns; the number’s right there, on lines 31 and 32. They just refuse to say what it is."

Charts of the day, Corporate Income-tax Edition, Felix Salmon

One thing that is true is that the US has a high 'headline' corporate tax rate at 35%. This was used to justify the distribution of corporate profits as dividends that were made tax free.

But like most things in America, the headline numbers are one thing, and the reality behind the headlines is a very different picture. Some of the loopholes that allow 'offshoring profits' are eating like acid into the real economy. Why is this? As Jack Abramoff recently admitted, Congress is a willing vassal to the monied interests.

"During my years as a lobbyist, I saw scores of congressional staff members become the willing vassals of K Street firms before soon decamping for K Street employment themselves. It was a dirty little secret. And it is a source of major corruption in Congress."

And nothing will make this more clear than the discussions about the US budget. All politicians will work for tips and favors and campaign funds. But if you cannot spot who is on the full-time payroll of the 1 percent, then you might need to change your news channel.

The corporate propagandists do a good job of managing the American people. As one of the more pre-eminent of the pigmen once privately told me: 'Old people are the easiest to handle. You just scare them.'

Greed draws people in, and fear keeps them in line. Its a well-worn script. It is the basis for most ponzi schemes and financial frauds. It is the well-spring of a credibility trap.

The reporting on NYC financial TV was particularly repugnant this morning, as they called the OWS movement over, with nothing left but a few professional agitators.

They contrasted its lack of strict purpose and organized ideology with the much more compliant Tea Party Movement, that allowed itself to be reorganized around corporate advertising principles. It morphed from a financial reform movement into obedient lobbyists for the Koch Brothers and the monied interests.

And it angers the Wall Street demimonde that the loose organization of OWS does not permit an easy foothold with a few influential leaders that can be easily bought and scripted.

American Psycho Redux

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

Charles Mackay

The US is remarkable, not for any unusual distribution of psychopaths amongst its people, but rather for the high regard and admiration in which the more articulate and successful psychopaths and sociopaths among their ranks are held by the public, their natural prey.

The problem is not that there are disturbed and destructive people in a society. The problem is when they are able to subvert a culture to satisfy their goals, when their animalistic cunning and heartlessness becomes fashionable, imitated, and even respected.

It is surely the greatest triumph of madness over common sense since the self-destruction of nations in the 20th century. Whole peoples surrendered themselves to ruthless leaders, thrilled to be ravaged by power without weakness. They drank deeply from the cup of madness and danced with the culture of death. And that is what it is to be without boundaries or constraints, free as gods on earth.

"He may have destroyed men, women, and children, and condemned thousands of families to homelessness and despair, but he never wavered in his resolve and conviction while doing it. He amassed great power and fortune, and he never got caught. He believed in himself, and he's a winner."

"The manipulative con-man. The guy who lies to your face, even when he doesn’t have to. The child who tortures animals. The cold-blooded killer. Psychopaths are characterised by an absence of empathy and poor impulse control, with a total lack of conscience.

About 1% of the total population can be defined as psychopaths, according to a detailed psychological profile checklist. They tend to be egocentric, callous, manipulative, deceptive, superficial, irresponsible and parasitic, even predatory.

The majority of psychopaths are not violent and many do very well in jobs where their personality traits are advantageous and their social tendencies tolerated. However, some have a predisposition to calculated, “instrumental” violence; violence that is cold-blooded, planned and goal-directed.

Psychopaths are vastly over-represented among criminals; it is estimated they make up about 20% of the inmates of most prisons. They commit over half of all violent crimes and are 3-4 times more likely to re-offend. They are almost entirely refractory to rehabilitation. These are not nice people.

So how did they get that way? Is it an innate biological condition, a result of social experience, or an interaction between these factors?

Longitudinal studies have shown that the personality traits associated with psychopathy are highly stable over time. Early warning signs including “callous-unemotional traits” and antisocial behaviour can be identified in childhood and are highly predictive of future psychopathy.

Large-scale twin studies have shown that these traits are highly heritable – identical twins, who share 100% of their genes, are much more similar to each other in this trait than fraternal twins, who share only 50% of their genes. In one study, over 80% of the variation in the callous-unemotional trait across the population was due to genetic differences. In contrast, the effect of a shared family environment was almost nil.

Psychopathy seems to be a lifelong trait, or combination of traits, which are heavily influenced by genes and hardly at all by social upbringing.

The two defining characteristics of psychopaths, blunted emotional response to negative stimuli, coupled with poor impulse control, can both be measured in psychological and neuroimaging experiments...They do not seem to process heavily loaded emotional words, like “rape”, for example, any differently from how they process neutral words, like “table”.

This lack of response to negative stimuli can be measured in other ways, such as the failure to induce a galvanic skin response (heightened skin conduction due to sweating) when faced with an impending electrical shock...

The psychopath really just doesn’t care. In this, psychopaths differ from many people who are prone to sudden, impulsive violence, in that those people tend to have a hypersensitive negative emotional response to what would otherwise be relatively innocuous stimuli."

Craig, M., Catani, M., Deeley, Q., Latham, R., Daly, E., Kanaan, R., Picchioni, M., McGuire, P., Fahy, T., & Murphy, D. (2009). Altered connections on the road to psychopathy Molecular Psychiatry, 14 (10), 946-953 DOI: 10.1038/mp.2009.40

Ten Year Note Yield

While a steeper yield curve is good for the financial sector and those other folks who borrow short and lend longer term, it does no good if those higher rates choke off growth in the real economy. that is an overlooked detail in the Bankers' grand plans for financially engineering a recovery. This is a nation by the Banks, for the Banks, and of the Banks and their demimonde in Washington and the media.

It reminds this blogger of days gone by, when Jesse was a boy programmer writing assembler level code for IBM mainframes and other tedious tasks befitting his junior status.

A group of systems guys had been working long hours to bring up a large mainframe running VM 360 including the operating system, the peripherals, the FEP and coms, storage for a major university.

When they finally got all the bugs worked out and the system was up they quite seriously celebrated their success, saying: "Now if only we could keep the users off the machine all our problems would be solved."

Indeed. Watch the consumer along with the bond and the dollar, for those are the weakest links. From where we sit, the consumer has rolled over and won't be getting up anytime soon ahead of a rising median wage or some other sort of income increasing faster than their expenses and debt servicing.

And the rest of the world appears to be gorged on US debt and their reserve currency, at least the non-official segments that still care about spending and profit in the real world.

Purchase Accounting Rules Set to Deliver $29 Billion Profit Windfall to JP Morgan and Other Banks

"It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes."
Josef Stalin

One of the many benefits of being a leading citizen of the Potemkin economy and a silent partner with the Treasury and Federal Reserve.

There is an analog to this in the tech sector, in which some companies may choose to write down the value of their components and subassembly inventories in fat quarters, and then take them as an improvement to their Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) in lean quarters, to boost EPS even as the top line revenues are flat to down.

And as for merger accounting, there are several companies showing excellent and consistent results using that rolling paintbrush of accounting embellishments.

Things are not always as they appear, especially when viewed through magic lantern of Wall Street.


RTTNews
JPMorgan likely to reap $29 Bln windfall on WaMu bad loans purchase
5/26/2009 8:29 AM ET

(RTTNews) - JPMorgan Chase & Co. stands to reap a $29 billion windfall due to an accounting rule that lets JPMorgan transform bad loans it purchased from Washington Mutual Inc. into income, the Bloomberg reported Tuesday.

Last year, the Seattle-based Washington Mutual, or WaMu, collapsed after it faced $19 billion of losses on soured mortgage loans and its credit rating was slashed, leaving it with insufficient liquidity to meet its obligations.

On September 25, 2008, JPMorgan Chase & Co. acquired all deposits, assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual Inc. for about $1.9 billion from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC.

The New York-based JPMorgan reportedly has used purchase accounting, which allows it to record impaired loans at fair value, marking down $118.2 billion of assets by 25%. JPMorgan took a $29.4 billion write down on WaMu's holdings, mostly for option adjustable-rate mortgages and home equity loans.

The purchase-accounting rule provides banks with an incentive to mark down loans they acquire as aggressively as possible. One of the benefits of purchase accounting is after marking down the assets, one can accrete them back in, which is said to be favorable over the long run.

Now, as borrowers pay their debts, the bank reportedly says it may gain $29.1 billion over the life of the loans in pretax income before taxes and expenses.

JPMorgan aside, Wells Fargo, PNC Financial Services Group Inc., and Bank of America Corp. are also poised to benefit from taking over home lenders Wachovia Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp. and National City Corp., the report said citing regulatory filings.

Nasdaq 100 Futures at 2:45 PM

“The terrible, cold, cruel part is Wall Street. Rivers of gold flow there from all over the earth, and death comes with it. There, as nowhere else, you feel a total absence of the spirit: herds of men who cannot count past three, herds more who cannot get past six, scorn for pure science and demoniacal respect for the present. And the terrible thing is that the crowd that fills the street believes that the world will always be the same and that it is their duty to keep that huge machine running, day and night, forever." Federico Garcia Lorca

A short term counter trend rally today helped stocks to recover from the recent lows, and continue the intermediate term rally off the lows from earlier this year.

The London office of Goldman Sachs apparently triggered this rally with some upgrades in the banking sector, and a vicious bear raid in the precious metals. The bond also sold off as investors are enticed to buy US equities.

The earnings results of Lowe's were trumpeted heavily by the demimonde of Wall Street, but it is most likely the natural reaction of consumers to seek to improve their infrastructure as they hunker down and cut back on discretionary purchases. It by no means contradicts the overwhelming economic evidence.

Wall Street has a few IPOs it wishes to bring out this week to test the waters for a larger IPO from AIG of one of its units. And of course the banks continue to sell secondary offerings.

If something looks like bait, and smells like bait, it probably has a hook in it somewhere.

The notion of trading in markets against market makers and insiders trading for their own trading profits heavily equipped with zero cost government funds and advantageous information would be almost laughable if it was not such a tragic abuse of productive capitalism and free markets.

Keep that in mind when you trade the short term, or try to interpret the daily actions of the markets. Most short term movements have nothing to do with the fundamentals, and everything to do with the dealers and shills peeking into your hand and running bluffs against the small traders and the funds and institutions.

Most investors have no business trading options or forex or futures at any time.

Everyone's situation is different, but overal this looks like an especially treacherous bear market, made doubly difficult by the actions of the Treasury and the Fed in bankrolling malinvestment, imbalances and corrupted price discovery.

When in doubt, get out. Don't get hooked by greed. And don't step in front of a market operation to run prices up or down. Wait for the longer term trends to assert themselves, and avoid the trap of calling tops and bottoms and attempting to be 'the first' in ahead of a market move.

This rally 'could' have some legs if it becomes a determined effort to reflate the credit bubble supported by the power of the Treasury and the Fed, as we saw in 2003-6, which was a reckless and disgraceful abuse of the Fed's economic responsibilities.

We doubt they can do it again, but never underestimate the power of greed and fear over memory and prudence.

RIP - L. William "Bill" Seidman

Former FDIC Chairman and CNBC Chief Commentator L. William "Bill" Seidman died Wednesday in Albuquerque, N.M., after a brief illness. He was 88.

In a recent public appearance, Bill continued to tell it as he saw it, without mincing too many words. He was also a frequent commentator on Bloomberg Television. His perspective will be missed.


William Seidman on culprits of the financial crisis
By George White
November 10, 2008 at 4:50 PM

L. William Seidman, former chairman of the FDIC and the Resolution Trust Corp., was the lunch speaker at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Summit on the Troubled Asset Relief Program Monday afternoon. As chair of the FDIC during the last financial crisis, Seidman started off by reassuring the audience that the crisis would pass, but he quickly focused on the seriousness of the situation.

"These things do go by," he said, "but that's not to take away from the fact that this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. In one sense it's worse than the Great Depression, since it's far more complicated for governments to handle." (Hey didn't Greenspan call a bottom last week? LOL - Jesse)

Seidman then went on to list the main reasons (in no particular order) for the crisis:

1. The Securities and Exchange Commission for loosening capital requirements
2. Fannie Mae for entering into subprime lending
3. Rating agencies for rating paper with which they had no experience
4. Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan, who went to bat to prevent the commodities exchange from regulating derivatives (add Phil Gramm and wife here)
5. The Federal Reserve for increasing the money in the system and refusing to regulate mortgage brokers
6. Securitization and himself

"The nuclear weapon of this situation has been securitization. This was invented by myself and the RTC, so I add my name to this list as well," Seidman said. "The exception is that we kept a piece of it ourselves back then; that part was lost when others started doing it."

Bill is being far too humble and self-effacing by naming himself for merely developing the concept of securitization as part of his work at the Resolution Trust Corporation during the S&L crisis. Taking the blame for what followed at the turn of the century is like blaming the inventor of television for CNBC. Wall Street is capable of perverting almost anything into a vehicle for financial chicanery and fraud.

Don't Ask Why, Just Buy

The message on Bloomberg Television this morning is loud and clear: "Don't ask why, just buy."

The chief message carrier was a Mr. Brian Belski of Oppenheimer, who suggested that trying to analyze the markets for yourself is a waste of time. Just listen to the experts.

We have a new bull market. Who cares whether it is cyclical or secular. Let's just be happy that the worst is now behind us, and frankly, just buy.

Brian is representing the notion that any sort of gain over 20% is a new bull market.

Well Brian, here's your new bull market. Maybe it will become one. But from this perspective it is just a typical bounce within a powerful bear market. It must prove itself.

So far this looks like hot money from the public (taxes) trying to push up the shell of the Ponzi credit bubble while the insiders continue to hit the exits.

And we do not care what anyone says, the fundamentals are rotten. They are just not falling apart as quickly now after a precipitous revelation of the truth behind the facade of statistical manipulation. There are no green shoots, and there is no recovery.

There has been little or no reform. Just a fresh smear of lipstick on the same old pig, applied by the swineherds of Wall Street and Washington.




And in the meantime, let's buy some gold, silver, food, critical supplies, and party on...








Burn your credit cards, honor your family and friends friends, give to God what is His, live within your means.

Friedman Resigns as NY Fed Chairman, Had Been Buying Goldman Stock in 2008-9

It just keeps getting more blatant and more brazen.

"And, with respect to Steve’s purchases of Goldman shares in December of 2008 and January of 2009, which have been the object of some attention lately, it is my view that these purchases did not violate any Federal Reserve statute, rule or policy."

Let's see, it is perfectly all right for a Fed Chairman to buy shares in one of the banks he is 'regulating' especially when he is helping to make critical policy decisions directly involving them.

Who writes the Fed's conflicts of interest policy, Alberto Gonzalez?

Yes the Fed would certainly make a very good systemic regulator...

Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Stephen Friedman Resigns as Chairman of the New York Fed’s Board of Directors
May 7, 2009

NEW YORK—The Federal Reserve Bank of New York announced today that Stephen Friedman, chairman of the board of directors of the New York Fed, has informed William C. Dudley, president and chief executive officer of the New York Fed, and the Board of Governors of his decision to resign effective immediately. Consistent with the Federal Reserve Act, Denis M. Hughes, deputy chair of the board, will exercise the powers and duties of the chair.

“My colleagues and I appreciate Steve’s vital service to the Bank during this time of great economic stress,” said Mr. Hughes. “We value his contributions and I know the Bank’s leadership acknowledges his unique perspectives on the economy and his financial market expertise. We all join in thanking him for his service and leadership.” Mr. Hughes added, “This is a remarkable organization at the center of helping the nation through the most difficult economic period since the 1930s. I have watched as the people of the Fed managed the unprecedented financial storms with creativity, energy and integrity.”

Thomas C. Baxter, Jr., executive vice president and general counsel, said, “There is no doubt that 2008 was one of the most challenging years in the New York Fed’s history. We were fortunate to have Steve as our chairman during that time, especially in view of Mr. Geithner’s decision to accept President Obama’s nomination to become Secretary of the Treasury. When the President announced his decision to nominate now-Secretary Geithner on November 24, 2008, Steve immediately stepped into action and formed a search committee of the New York Fed’s board of directors.

During the committee’s often intense deliberations over the next two months, I was privileged to observe closely Steve’s dedication, professionalism and work ethic. He was extraordinary. And, with respect to Steve’s purchases of Goldman shares in December of 2008 and January of 2009, which have been the object of some attention lately, it is my view that these purchases did not violate any Federal Reserve statute, rule or policy. I enjoyed working with Steve, and will miss his contributions in the boardroom.”

“I would like to thank Steve Friedman and his fellow directors on the New York Fed’s board for their service,” said Donald L. Kohn, vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. “I particularly appreciate the very rigorous process Steve established to select the new president of the New York Fed.”

New York, NY 10022
May 7, 2009
Mr. Wiliam C. Dudley
President
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
33 Libert Street
New York, NY 10045

Dear Bill:

By copy of this letter to Chairman Bernanke, I hereby resign as a Class C Director and
Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, effective immediately.
Last Fall, after Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. became a bank holding company, I agreed to
remain on the Board, pursuant to the waiver authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, to provide continuity durng a time of financial market instability. Today,
although I have been in compliance with the rules, my public service motivated continuation on
the Reserve Bank Board is being mischaracterized as improper. The Federal Reserve System has
importnt work to do and does not need this distraction.

Please convey my appreciation and respect to my fellow Directors and the Reserve Bank
staff for their cooperation and their service. It has been a pleasure to work with you, your
predecessor, and our distinguished Board, as well as the dedicated, hard-working men and
women of the New York Fed. The New York Fed plays an extraordinary and vital role in
restoring stability to the financial system durng this very critical period, and it has been an honor
to be part of the institution's effort. I also am grateful to Chairman Bernanke and the other
Members and staff of the Board of Governors for their advice and support in connection with the
search for a new Chief Executive Officer for the New York Fed.


Stephen Friedman


cc: The Honorable Ben S. Bernane
Chairman
Federal Reserve Board of Govemors
Federal Reserve System
Washington, DC 20551

The Problem With Our Regulatory Process

There have been and still are three obvious problems with our regulatory structure.

1. Influence Peddling

2. Conflicts of Interest

3. Corruption

Reorganizing to more fully centralize the regulatory process is exactly the wrong thing to do.

It was often individuals and the individual States, standing against the pressure of federal regulators, which exposed unethical and illegal practices.

And as for the idea that the Fed can take on more of these functions, just remember what will happen the next time a Greenspan gets in that position.

The Fed is a private organization owned by the banks, too often opaque, and with a highly questionable independence and objectivity.

Reorganization to centralize bad decision making and conflicts of interests is right out of the 1990's corporate playbook.


If Obama has a pair of his own he will appoint someone like Eliot Spitzer, Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich as the new Chairman of the SEC or the CFTC.

The Cause of the Financial Crisis

Jamie Galbraith leaves out a couple of key component of the ramp up to this crisis.

The corruption of the political process, increasingly dependent on large campaign contributions, by the large corporate interests set the stage for the erosion of public regulation of markets and the rule of the law.

And of course, Alan Greenspan, without whom this disaster would almost certainly have not been possible.

Dr. Greenspan, at the Federal Reserve, with a bully pulpit and a printing press.


Texas Observer
Causes of the Crisis
James K. Galbraith
May 01, 2009

...This is a panel on the crisis. Mr. Moderator, you ask what is the root cause? My reply is in three parts.

First, an idea.

The idea that capitalism, for all its considerable virtues, is inherently self-stabilizing, that government and private business are adversaries rather than partners...; the idea that regulation, in financial matters especially, can be dispensed with. We tried it, and we see the result.

Second, a person.

It would not be right to blame any single person for these events, but if I had to choose one to name it would be... former Senator Phil Gramm. I’d cite specifically the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act—the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act—in 1999, after which it took less than a decade to reproduce all the pathologies that Glass-Steagall had been enacted to deal with in 1933.

I’d also cite the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, slipped into an 11,000-page appropriations bill in December 2000 as Congress was adjourning following Bush v. Gore. This measure deregulated energy futures trading, enabling Enron and legitimating credit-default swaps, and creating a massive vector for the transmission of financial risk throughout the global system. ...

Third, a policy.

This was the abandonment of state responsibility for financial regulation... This abandonment was not subtle: The first head of the Office of Thrift Supervision in the George W. Bush administration came to a press conference on one occasion with a stack of copies of the Federal Register and a chainsaw. A chainsaw. The message was clear. And it led to the explosion of liars’ loans, neutron loans (which destroy people but leave buildings intact), and toxic waste. That these were terms of art in finance tells you what you need to know. ...

The consequence ... is a collapse of trust, a collapse of asset values, and a collapse of the financial system. That is what has happened, and what we have to deal with now.

Can “stimulus” get us out?

As a matter of economics, public spending substitutes for private spending. ... But it is not self-sustaining in the absence of a viable private credit system. The idea that we will be on the road to full recovery and returning to high employment in a year or so therefore seems to me to be an illusion.

And for this reason, the emphasis on short-term, “shovel-ready” projects in the expansion package, while understandable, was a mistake. As in the New Deal, we need both the Works Progress Administration ... to provide employment, and the Public Works Administration ... to rebuild the country. ...

The risk we run, in public policy, is not inflation. It is lack of persistence, a premature reversal of direction, and of course the fear of large numbers. If deficits in the trillions and public debt in the tens of trillions scare you, this is not a line of work you should be in.

The ultimate goals of policy are not measured by deficits or debt. They are measured by the performance of the economy itself. Here Leader Armey and I agree. He spoke with approval, in his remarks, of the goals of 3 percent unemployment and 4 percent inflation embodied in the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978. Which, as a 24-year-old member of the staff of the House Banking Committee in 1976, I drafted.

Cracking Down on Naked Short Selling of Treasuries

The 'fails to deliver' statistics on debt instruments is almost as interesting, and a bit less opaque, than the naked short selling of equity instruments.

A "fail to deliver" occurs when someone sells an asset such as a Treasury note to another party and then does not deliver it within a reasonable period of time.

As you can see from the chart, this had become a pandemic fraud recently as investors flocked to Treasuries as a safe haven and the usual front running hedges started falling apart.

Let's see how this works, and if the 'financial charge' is more than a wristslap to the hedge funds and banks who engage in these practices.

Now, if someone could kindly turn some attention to the obvious naked short selling in commodities and equities, other than when their banking friends are in trouble, we might see a return to markets based on some reasonable approximation of the fundamentals and price discovery of value, rather than blatant manipulation of nearly everything as facilitated by the demimondes of Wall Street.

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, before there can be any sustained recovery in the real economy.


New York Fed Applauds Implementation of the TMPG's Fails Charge Recommendation
May 1, 2009

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York welcomes today’s implementation of the Treasury Market Practices Group’s (TMPG) recommendation that settlement fails in U.S. Treasury securities transactions be subject to a financial charge when short-term rates are low. The TMPG worked with both buy- and sell-side market participants to address a weakness in market practices that became apparent last fall when short-term market interest rates neared zero.

The New York Fed has adopted this new trading practice in its own market operations and continues to encourage its adoption by all market participants. (The New York Fed was frontrunning Treasuries and selling them naked short? LOL Maybe they were getting tired of the abusive insider trading since they were now in a position to support the bonds. - Jesse)

"We applaud the dedicated efforts of the TMPG in spearheading the development and implementation of this targeted solution to the settlement fails problem," said New York Fed President William Dudley. "This significant milestone in the evolution of Treasury market practice demonstrates that groups, such as the TMPG, are effective in addressing deficiencies in market functioning and facilitating market best practices."

The New York Fed acknowledges all of the market participants who joined this effort to develop this new trading practice guidance. In particular, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Treasury Department have provided critical support and guidance throughout this process.

The Insiders Are Selling Into This Rally.... Heavily

Do you need to buy a vowel?

Again?

Keep the possibility of a significant monetary inflation in mind, with no advance in real terms but a handsome nominal rally.

Yes, they are that desperate and reckless and short-sighted. That's what they did in 2003 in creating the housing bubble to save Wall Street and the financial markets.

But the greater probability remains that this is an engineered short squeeze that will fail about this level and fall back to the bottom of the trend channel.

Bloomberg
Insider Selling Jumps to Highest Level Since ‘07 as Stocks Gain
By Michael Tsang and Eric Martin

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Executives and insiders at U.S. companies are taking advantage of the steepest stock market gains since 1938 to unload shares at the fastest pace since the start of the bear market.

... While the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index climbed 26 percent from a 12-year low on March 9, CEOs, directors and senior officers at U.S. companies sold $353 million of equities this month, or 8.3 times more than they bought, data compiled by Washington Service, a Bethesda, Maryland-based research firm, show. That’s a warning sign because insiders usually have more information about their companies’ prospects than anyone else, according to William Stone at PNC Financial Services Group Inc.

“They should know more than outsiders would, so you could take it as a signal that there is something wrong if they’re selling,” said Stone, chief investment strategist at PNC’s wealth management unit, which oversees $110 billion in Philadelphia. “Whether it’s a sustainable rebound is still in question. I’d prefer they were buying.”

Insiders Sell

Insiders from New York Stock Exchange-listed companies sold $8.32 worth of stock for every dollar bought in the first three weeks of April, according to Washington Service, which analyzes stock transactions of corporate insiders for more than 500 mostly institutional clients.

That’s the fastest rate of selling since October 2007, when U.S. stocks peaked and the 17-month bear market that wiped out more than half the market value of U.S. companies began. The $42.5 million in insider purchases through April 20 would represent the smallest amount for a full month since July 1992, data going back more than 20 years show. That drop preceded a 2.4 percent slide in the S&P 500 in August 1992....

The S&P 500 has rallied 26 percent over 32 trading days, the sharpest rally since 1938, as speculation increased that the longest contraction since World War II will soon end....

Break The Big Banks Up, and Let the Insolvent Parts Fail

This advice from Simon Johnson, Joe Stiglitz, and Thomas Hoenig can almost be characterized as common sense, apparent to almost any objective and informed observer.

So why is it not happening? It is not happening because it is not in the narrow interest of a few Wall Street Banks who are dominating the discussion in this country and in our Congress.

This is the kind of betrayal by an oligarchy that we saw in the USSR after their financial crisis and breakup.

With all the conflicts of interests and million dollar payments how can we not assume that the decision makers in the Obama administration have been bought, and that we are being betrayed?



Bloomberg
Fed's Hoenig: Let insolvent financial firms fail
By Alister Bull
Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:31pm BST


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Insolvent financial firms must be allowed to fail regardless of size, a top Federal Reserve official said on Tuesday, as two prominent economists urged Congress to break up the biggest U.S. banks.

In blunt criticism of the government Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig told Congress' Joint Economic Committee that the design of a $700 billion bank bailout last year sowed uncertainty and slowed recovery.

Citing the costs of the economic crisis, Nobel economic laureate Joseph Stiglitz and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson also told the panel that it was in the interest of taxpayers to dissolve the largest U.S. financial institutions.

"The United States currently faces economic turmoil related directly to a loss of confidence in our largest financial institutions because policymakers accepted the idea that some firms are just 'too big to fail.' I do not," Hoenig said.

"Yes, these institutions are systemically important, but we all know that in a market system, insolvent firms must be allowed to fail regardless of their size, market position or the complexity of operations," said Hoenig, who will be a voter on the Fed's policy-setting committee next year.

U.S. anti-trust rules should be used to break up the biggest banks to safeguard the economy, said Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He added the costs of the financial crisis already dwarf the damage done by industrial monopolies in the last century.

"The use of anti-trust (laws) to break up the largest banks will be essential," he said. "This is a very serious, imminent danger that needs to be addressed."

Stiglitz made a similar point, arguing that the American people had not received anything like sufficient benefits from allowing such large financial firms to grow, versus with the costs of the crisis.

"They should be broken up unless a compelling case can be made not to that," Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor, told the committee.

The biggest 19 U.S. banks are being subjected to a battery of so-called stress tests to restore confidence in their soundness, with guidelines on the process due on Friday and the results on May 4.

Stocks fell sharply on Monday amid fear that some of them still face massive losses, as the severe U.S. recession forces loan default rates to continue rising.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has signaled that no firms will 'fail' the stress tests, but Hoenig said this would be a mistake.

"Actions that strive to protect our largest institutions from failure risk prolonging the crisis and increasing its cost," Hoenig said.

"Of particular concern to me is the fact that the financial support provided to firms considered "too big to fail" provides them a competitive advantage over other firms and subsidizes their growth and profit with taxpayer funds," he said.

Nodding to anger among ordinary Americans over multi-billion dollar bailouts for rich bankers, Hoenig said some of these firms were simply too complicated, and too well-connected in Washington, for the good of the country.

"These "too big to fail" institutions are not only too big, they are too complex and too politically influential to supervise on a sustained basis without a clear set of rules constraining their actions. When the recession ends, old habits will reemerge," he said.

Hoenig also criticized the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was also separately chided on Tuesday by the Treasury's watchdog.

"In the rush to find stability, no clear process was used to allocate TARP funds among the largest firms. This created further uncertainty and is impeding recovery," Hoenig said.

Geithner: "Vast Majority" of US Banks Have More Capital Than Needed

This morning before Congress Treasury Secretary Turbo Tax Tim said that the stress test results show that the 'vast majority' of US banks have more capital than they need.

Right. Most real banks, who do banking, have sufficient capital and have been well managed.

Its only the five or six largest money center banks that have trillions in bad debt and toxic derivatives that threaten to soak up all the available capital in the real economy.

Its the vast majority of banks who have been sound in their credit expansion and risk management who are paying the price through higher FDIC fees, along with the taxpayers, as Tim and Larry support the Wall Street oligarchs.

The action in the equity markets ahead of Tim's remarks was about as blatant as it gets. This is getting to be disgusting.

Market manipulation and rampant financial speculation with public funds will continue until we are confident that the economy has improved. When the electricity fails because of malinvestment in the real world economy, the Obama people can have public service community organizers deliver pamphlets door to door telling us how good things are becoming.


April 21 (Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressional panel that the “vast majority” of U.S. banks have more capital than needed.

He also said there are signs of thawing in credit markets and some indication that confidence is beginning to return.

“Indicators on interbank lending, corporate issuance and credit spreads generally suggest improvements in confidence in the stability of the system and some thawing in credit markets,” Geithner said in prepared testimony to the committee overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Earlier today, Geithner said the program has enough money for bank rescues even under “conservative” estimates.

Geithner reiterated the Treasury’s view that about $135 billion is still available for bank rescues, out of $700 billion originally authorized by Congress.

The total includes about $590 billion that has been allocated so far for various TARP activities, leaving $110 billion remaining. Also, the Treasury expects $25 billion in repayments this year, leading to the total projection of $135 billion available.

“We believe that even under the conservative estimate of available funds described here, we have the resources to move forward implementing all aspects of our Financial Stability Plan,” Geithner said in a letter to Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

May Have More

The Treasury first put forward these estimates in late March. In the letter, Geithner said it’s possible the Treasury may have even more money remaining, depending on how many banks repay TARP and whether the housing program uses its full allocation.

“Our projections anticipate only $25 billion will be repaid” over the next year, Geithner said. This figure is “lower than many private analysts expect,” he said.

Geithner’s letter comes on the same day as a separate report on the rescue program prepared by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP. Barofsky said his office has six audits underway about various elements of the program.

One of these inquiries is looking into federal assistance to Bank of America, which has benefited from three different bank rescue programs, and Treasury’s decision to extend aid in connection with Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch. The audit was expanded to include the other eight large banks that received TARP funding in October 2008, the report said.

The reporters on this story: Rebecca Christie in Washington

Crony Capitalism and Incompetence Doom Obama Economic Plans Says Nobel Laureate

Nothing you have not heard here before, and frequently.

But this is a Nobel Prize winner in Economics saying it, and a Democratic appointee to boot.

"The people who designed the plans are either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent."

That sounds like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in a nutshell to us.

Joe Stiglitz is assuming that Crew Obama really WANT to fix the economy and serve their nation. It seems possible that, being out of power for so many years, the Democratic leaders are handing out favors to their campaign contributors and feathering their nests for the future.

Then they'll worry about the public welfare. Political reform, Chicago-style.

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system must be reformed, before there can be any meaningful recovery in the real economy.


Bloomberg
Stiglitz Says Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue
By Michael McKee and Matthew Benjamin

April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s bank rescue efforts will probably fail because the programs have been designed to help Wall Street rather than create a viable financial system, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.

“All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing ingredients,” Stiglitz said in an interview yesterday. The people who designed the plans are “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent.” (That pretty much covers Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, respectively - Jesse)

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, isn’t large enough to recapitalize the banking system, and the administration hasn’t been direct in addressing that shortfall, he said. Stiglitz said there are conflicts of interest at the White House because some of Obama’s advisers have close ties to Wall Street.

“We don’t have enough money, they don’t want to go back to Congress, and they don’t want to do it in an open way and they don’t want to get control” of the banks, a set of constraints that will guarantee failure, Stiglitz said.

The return to taxpayers from the TARP is as low as 25 cents on the dollar, he said. “The bank restructuring has been an absolute mess.”

Rather than continually buying small stakes in banks, the government should put weaker banks through a receivership where the shareholders of the banks are wiped out and the bondholders become the shareholders, using taxpayer money to keep the institutions functioning, he said. (Personally I'd give the bondholders a very high and tight haircut - Jesse)

Nobel Prize

Stiglitz, 66, won the Nobel in 2001 for showing that markets are inefficient when all parties in a transaction don’t have equal access to critical information, which is most of the time. His work is cited in more economic papers than that of any of his peers, according to a February ranking by Research Papers in Economics, an international database....

Bailing Out Investors

“You’re really bailing out the shareholders and the bondholders,” he said. “Some of the people likely to be involved in this, like Pimco, are big bondholders,” he said, referring to Pacific Investment Management Co., a bond investment firm in Newport Beach, California.

Stiglitz said taxpayer losses are likely to be much larger than bank profits from the PPIP program even though Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair has said the agency expects no losses.

“The statement from Sheila Bair that there’s no risk is absurd,” he said, because losses from the PPIP will be borne by the FDIC, which is funded by member banks.

Andrew Gray, an FDIC spokesman, said Bair never said there would be no risk, only that the agency had “zero expected cost” from the program.

Redistribution

“We’re going to be asking all the banks, including presumably some healthy banks, to pay for the losses of the bad banks,” Stiglitz said. “It’s a real redistribution and a tax on all American savers.”

Stiglitz was also concerned about the links between White House advisers and Wall Street. Hedge fund D.E. Shaw & Co. paid National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, a managing director of the firm, more than $5 million in salary and other compensation in the 16 months before he joined the administration. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

“America has had a revolving door. People go from Wall Street to Treasury and back to Wall Street,” he said. “Even if there is no quid pro quo, that is not the issue. The issue is the mindset.”
Stiglitz was head of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton before serving from 1997 to 2000 as chief economist at the World Bank. He resigned from that post in 2000 after repeatedly clashing with the White House over economic policies it supported at the International Monetary Fund. He is now a professor at Columbia University.

Critical of Stimulus

Stiglitz was also critical of Obama’s other economic rescue programs.

He called the $787 billion stimulus program necessary but “flawed” because too much spending comes after 2009, and because it devotes too much of the money to tax cuts “which aren’t likely to work very effectively.”

“It’s really a peculiar policy, I think,” he said. (Peculiar? Perhaps he meant the odor. - Jesse)

The $75 billion mortgage relief program, meanwhile, doesn’t do enough to help Americans who can’t afford to make their monthly payments, he said. It doesn’t reduce principal, doesn’t make changes in bankruptcy law that would help people work out debts, and doesn’t change the incentive to simply stop making payments once a mortgage is greater than the value of a house.

Stiglitz said the Fed, while it’s done almost all it can to bring the country back from the worst recession since 1982, can’t revive the economy on its own.

Relying on low interest rates to help put a floor under housing prices is a variation on the policies that created the housing bubble in the first place, Stiglitz said. (You got that right Joe - Jesse)

Recreating Bubble

“This is a strategy trying to recreate that bubble,” he said. “That’s not likely to provide a long-run solution. It’s a solution that says let’s kick the can down the road a little bit.” (They have been kicking this cow pie down the road for so long we're almost at the edge of the world - Jesse)

While the strategy might put a floor under housing prices, it won’t do anything to speed the recovery, he said. “It’s a recipe for Japanese-style malaise.”

Even with rates low, banks may not lend because they remain wary of market or borrower risk, and in the current environment “there’s still a lot of risk.” That’s why even with all of the programs the Fed and the administration have opened, lending is still very limited, Stiglitz said.

“They haven’t thought enough about the determinants of the flow of credit and lending.”

Goldman Sachs Buries Losses to Beat the Estimates

That canny crew at Goldman Sachs does it again.

Last night in a surprise move Goldman announced their earnings early, showing a surprising profit of $1.8 billion, beating the Street estimate handily. The bulk of their profit purportedly came from speculative trading for their own accounts, using 'cheap FDIC guaranteed funds.'

Goldman also took the opportunity to announce a new stock issue designed to allow shareholders to help them pay back their government TARP funds. Since Goldman is putting aside 50% of its profits for employee bonuses even now, while they are still holding government subsidies, the reasons for this are obvious.

What was not reported last night is that Goldman had changed their reporting periods to begin the 1st quarter in January 2009 when they declared themselves to be a bank holding company. Prior to that, their fiscal 2008 year ended on November 30.

This made the month of December 2008 an 'orphan month' that was ignored in the financial headlines.

Goldman took this opportunity to realize some hefty writedowns in that December one month report, to the tune of approximately $1.3 Billion in pre-tax losses.

So, to earn an impressive $1.8 Billion in the first quarter, Goldman disposed of their losses in a largely ignored December filing. This facilitated their share offering with the 'wonderful earnings news' which Matt Miller of Bloomberg referred to approximately every five minutes as "blowing away their numbers."

However, this morning, Matt did mumble something about Goldman "maybe not blowing away their numbers."

Goldman did nothing illegal in their management of their earnings, both in the way in which they parsed the losses into a 'stub month' which was ignored, or in their decision to time an early announcement of 'exceptional profits' with a stock offering. But the financial press handled this badly, and considering the huge debt and forebearance Goldman owes to the government and the public it was not befitting a major institution with strong ties to the Obama administration.

The only thing getting blown away around here are the shareholders, taxpayers, and anyone else who buys what Wall Street in general is selling these days.

The banks must be restrained and the financial system reformed before we can have a genuine economic recovery.