Emergency Unlimited FDIC Coverage Extended to Clearing Accounts Until 2013

Someone brought this to my attention, as I had not heard of it. It is not so much what they are doing, but why now?

With recovery supposedly at hand, and the financial crisis over thanks to Ben and Timmy, I wonder why they would enact unlimited FDIC coverage for what sounds like checking accounts and commercial clearing accounts.

The only thing that occurred to me was that in the event of a bank run, it might be intended to prevent another short term credit seizure such as was experienced in the financial crisis.

But why now? And why use FDIC to do take on this unlimited liability, far in excess of what it was intended to do? I doubt very much that this is designed to protect individuals per se, given the exclusions.

Curious. Perhaps I am missing something here.

Temporary Unlimited Coverage for Noninterest-bearing Transaction Accounts - FDIC

From December 31, 2010 through December 31, 2012, all noninterest-bearing transaction accounts are fully insured, regardless of the balance of the account and the ownership capacity of the funds. This coverage is available to all depositors, including consumers, businesses, and government entities. The unlimited coverage is separate from, and in addition to, the insurance coverage provided for a depositor’s other accounts held at an FDIC-insured bank.

A noninterest-bearing transaction account is a deposit account where:

interest is neither accrued nor paid;
depositors are permitted to make an unlimited number of transfers and withdrawals; and
the bank does not reserve the right to require advance notice of an intended withdrawal.

Note: Money Market Deposit Accounts (MMDAs) and Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW) accounts are not eligible for this temporary unlimited insurance coverage, regardless of the interest rate, even if no interest is paid. (lol)

Later - here is an old description that probably fits the bill:

"The FDIC's action is one aspect of its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP). The full account coverage is aimed primarily at business accounts that need to keep larger balances for covering payrolls and meeting other business needs, but it extends to all non-interest-bearing transaction accounts, whether they are held by businesses or by individuals and households. The FDIC's goal is to help depository institutions retain such accounts, giving small and medium size businesses a reason to keep their balances with their current financial institutions. That would help the institutions maintain their liquidity, and thus enhance their ability to make loans."

Unlimited FDIC Coverage for Checking Accounts - Banking Questions

So it is a measure to prevent another seizure in the credit system in the event of a major bank failure triggering a financial crisis. Do you think it covered JPM's $22 billion bridge loan to AT&T for its purchase of T-Mobile?

Do you think Goldman has a program to sweep all of their funds and their partners' personal money into accounts such as this at the first sign of trouble? Just as GE pays no taxes, expect Wall Street to take no pain, in the very troubles which they have caused.

As an aside, I would have used the FDIC and the government to backstop 100% of all customer money in the banking crisis, and let the banks themselves go through a debt reorganization, taking the executives, bondholders and shareholders to the woodshed, in the manner in which Sweden had dealt with its banking troubles. In the US, UK, and Ireland we saw the opposite approach: save the banks, and the people be damned.

But then again, I am not a major contributor to the campaign coffers of Washington, nor a member of the old boy network, and chances are, neither are you. So there you are.

As bad as this has been, if you think the worst is over you are probably just being wishful, maybe a little naive. There is still some meat on your bones, and the wolves are insatiable.

AGI News
IMF TO SET UP 580 BILLION DOLLAR ANTICRISIS FUND
Chiudi 09:45 25 MAR 2011

(AGI) Washington - The International Monetary Fund will set up, next week, a 580 billion Dollar anticrisis fund. "The greatest concern is the risk of contagion from Portugal," says a well informed source. IMF's top officer, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, will issue the fund, on the basis of the ratification announced on March 11 by the Nab (New Arrangement to Borrow). Last year, the Nab increased 10 times its initial 53 billion Dollars, thanks to the 13 new member countries.

Austerity or Stimulus Without Significant Reform Is Madness; Corporatism Is Fascism

The economy will not 'cure itself' through benign neglect and liquidationism, because it did not get this way by itself. It did not suffer an accident, or an act of God. This is an unfortunate application of the principle of human healing after an injury to the economy.

The market was warped and distorted for many, many years by the neo-liberal forces of crony capitalism. It does not have the natural forces and efficiency for self-organization, and certainly not for self-repair. It is a man-made thing, and requires intelligence and hard work.

To say that the economy can somehow heal itself now is nothing more than an extension of the efficient markets hypothesis. The market will repair itself and get back on the road to recovery if only we will leave it alone, get the government out of the way, and allow the natural goodness and efficiency of traders to flourish, while handing out some additional and unnecessary pain to the victims.

To suggest that by subjecting the economy to harsh austerity measures, but without changing the abuses that caused it to become distorted and unstable with a bloated and intrusive financial sector, and then crash in the first place, is merely to hasten the final collapse, and the tearing of the fabric of society, which some wish to see for their own dark purposes.

This is the failure of those who prescribe austerity, or stimulus, but without significant systemic reform. There are those who wish to bring the economy down, and to institute a command and control form of government.

The austerity without reform being promoted is what the Americans call 'a con.' Here is a decent description of it by my friend, Charles Hugh Smith in his essay, The Con of the Decade part II.

Are austerity and stimulus without reform equivalent? No. Austerity is designed to benefit those who have already benefited unjustly and sometimes immensely by the financial frauds. Stimulus can at least mitigate the suffering of those who are being squeezed by the economic dislocation.

However, and I wish to stress this, the core issue is and has been reform, eliminating the ongoing 'con' in the system that is merely serving to transfer wealth from the many to the few in the form of monopolies, fees, and soft taxes, starting with but not limited to the financial sector.

Corporatism is fascism. And the opportunity and impulse to reform has been co opted by the promotion of a stalking horse, a new Emmanuel Goldstein, into the presidency. Obama's tenure may be remembered as Bush' third term.

Judging from the inane and virulent emails that are circulating, most of which cannot survive a few minutes of common sense or the 'Snopes' test, the American people are being prepared for domination by a 'strong leader.'

Why do people forward such easily debunked rubbish? Why do so many older people get angry when the error, the blatant lie, is pointed out to them? Because they have set aside reason, and the burden of freedom, and taken the easier path to fear, blind hate, and serfdom. And in too many cases, it is working. I would again caution those promoting this campaign that madness has no master.

The banks must be restrained, the financial system reformed, and balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustained recovery.

Survey Says: The Western Financial Institution that Jim Rogers Is Shorting = JP Morgan

Earlier today Clusterstock carried a story that said that Jim Rogers Is Now Shorting A Major Western Financial Firm That Everyone Thinks Is Sound

So, Le Café Américain polled its customers all day, to find out what financial firm that you thought Jimmy Rogers was shorting.

The results are below. The actual results as they appeared in our window are on the left, with a rank ordering of the results on the right.



I have to admit a little surprise to see J. P. Morgan listed as the clear favorite.

If JPM were to fail, I think the NY Fed would have to formalize their relationship and take them over, if it can afford it. (lol). If JPM rolls over, I might be less interested in owning puts and inverse ETFs, and more interested in food, guns, gold, and a bible.

Seriously, I thought Morgan Stanley is the best pick of the better known names. If the PIIGS go under more than half their Tier 1 capital will be obliterated and they will have to be acquired by some larger bank, either Goldman or JP Morgan. What would their new name be, JP Morgan^2?

But it might be a lesser known candidate not even listed here, such as Banco Santander. Or even quixotically, the US Treasury. Who can say, except for the man himself.

Mais, les clients ont parlé.

Jimmy, feel free to email me with the actual name if you wish.

The Financial Crisis: Are We All Responsible?

"Whoever commits a fraud is guilty not only of the particular injury to him who he deceives, but of the diminution of that confidence which constitutes not only the ease, but the very existence of a society." Samuel Johnson

As the hearings and scandals progress, and the revelations and charges start to cut closer to the heart of the credit swindles, inevitably there will be a movement to say, "We are all responsible. Let's allow bygones to be bygones, it was all a misunderstanding. Let's move on to something new. Justice is not important, and cannot be done."

There will be long accountings of how the problems arose, and how changes in the banking laws, broker deregulation, and the erosion of elite privileges compelled the Wall Street banks to take more and greater risks, to violate unspoken understandings about customer relationships, to take great risks, to bend the laws, to use money and influence to suborn perjury and the breaking of oaths, and to generally undermine the fabric of government.

There will be long analyses that suggest that trust has been lost, the trust that binds the social and financial interactions of people. And there will be an effort to regain that trust, to promise change and reform, and of course, justice.

As for justice they will say, but aren't we all responsible? Didn't we all believe the promise that 'greed is good?'

No.

The overwhelming majority of people are hard working, honest in their dealings, more concerned with raising families than ruling others, if anything distracted by their day to day problems. Long suffering, patient to a fault, too willing to the give the Wall Street bankers the benefit of the doubt for the very reason of their own good natures. They could not imagine themselves doing the things of which these men stand accused, so they cannot believe that others would so willingly lie and deceive, cheat and steal, attack the very heart of the nation, while wrapping themselves in a flag of hypocrisy, for a few more dollars that they can hardly need or even personally spend.

And why? Because it feeds their sickened hearts, their pathological egos, and the need to make others suffer loss for their own gains. It sets them apart from a humanity which they hold in contempt enmingled with a nagging self-hate, makes them feel superior and worthwhile, and at the extreme even as gods among men.

So when the fresh public relations spin and propaganda from Wall Street and the financial sector's demimonde starts this week, and seeks to confuse the issues and distort the true nature of the fraud, recall who profited and who lost, who was caught with their hands deep in the pockets of the many, and even now stand arrogantly unrepentant with the ongoing misery of others to their account. And who stood idly by while charged by sworn oaths with protecting the innocent, the unsuspecting many, from the predatory, lawless few.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

Or, in the words of William K. Black and Elliot Spitzer in their essay Questions on the Goldman Scandal at New Deal 2.0:

"We applaud the SEC lawsuit, but it will not solve the problem. Unless our financial system is reformed to put adequate protections and checks and balances in place, we can expect this kind of fraud to continue. Financial executives will continue to take risks they do not understand. Those who control the flow of capital will continue to churn out profits with socially disastrous consequences."

The banks must be restrained, the financial system reformed, the economy brought bank into balance, and justice done though the mighty fall, before there can be any sustained recovery.

Pictures of a Market Crash: Beware the Ides of March, And What Follows After

There are a fair number of private and public forecasters with whom I speak that anticipate a significant market decline in March. As you know I tend to agree to some extent, but with the important caveat that we are in a very different monetary landscape than the last time the Fed engaged in quantitative easing, the early 1930's. In short, I may allow for it, but I am not doing anything different about it -- yet.

The biggest difference is the lack of external standards. This introduces an element of policy decision that has been discussed here on several occasions. In other words, the Fed retains the option, albeit with increasing difficulty, to create another bubble, and levitate stock market prices in the face of deteriorating economic fundamentals.

The dollar was formally devalued by around 40% in 1933. We may yet see that done this time, but more gradually and informally. This is what makes gold controversial today; it exposes the financial engineering. So they feel the need to manage it, to denigrate it as an alternative to their paper. They want to have their cake, and eat it too.

Let's review where we are today.

The Bear Market of 2007-2009, marked by the Crash of 2008, has been a massive decline in equity prices precipitated by the bursting of the credit bubble centered around housing prices and packaged debt obligations of highly questionable valuations. The cause of the bubble was easy Fed monetary policy and the loosened regulation of the financial sector, which reopened the door to old frauds with new names.



Even today, I think most people do not appreciate the sheer magnitude of the decline, and the damage it has done to the real economy. This is the result, I believe, of three factors:

1. An extraordinary expansion of the Monetary Base by the Federal Reserve not seen since the aftermath of the Crash of 1929, and a swath of financial sector support programs from the Fed and the Treasury, resulting in a spectacular fifty percent retracement rally from the stock market bottom. This is the narcotic that permits the country to not notice that a leg is missing.

2. A comprehensive program of perception management by the government in conjunction with the financial sector to sustain consumer confidence and reduce the chance of further panic. In other words, a web of well-intentioned deceit, subject to abuse.

3. An understandable preoccupation by the individual with the details of breaking news, and a short term focus on particular events, diversions, and controversies, bread and circuses, without a true appreciation of the 'big picture,' in part because of some very effective public relations campaigns and a natural human reluctance to face hard problems.

This is resulting in a remarkable case of cognitive dissonance in which some of the victims of a spectacular man-made calamity are opposing remedies and aid as too costly and impractical, even as they walk around amongst the bleeding carnage.

For those who read the contemporary literature in the early Thirties, this is nothing new. In the early Thirties there was no sense, except for a few notable exceptions, of the magnitude of what had so recently happened. There was the sense of life goes on which seems almost eerie now to a modern reader. Indeed, Herbert Hoover could dismiss a delegation of concerned citizens with the advice that they were too late, the crisis was past, and all was well. Sound familiar?



The parallels with the Thirties and the Teens (today) are many, and uncanny.

There is the reformer President, elected to redress the extremely pro-business policies of his Republican predecessor. In the Thirties they had FDR who was a decisive and experienced leader. In the Teens the US has a relatively inexperienced community organizer, more influenced by the Wall Street monied interests, and a past history of 'playing safe,' who is trying to manage through indirection and persuasion.

There is a Republican minority in the Congress which opposes all new programs and actions despite giving lip service in order to delay and debilitate. In the Thirties the Republicans were over-ridden by a powerful, activist President, who created a "New Deal" set of legislation, much of which was later overturned by a Supreme Court which had been largely seated by the previous Republican Administrations.

Indeed, the remaining New Deal programs that were successful, the reforms of Glass-Steagall and the safety net of Social Security, are being overturned or are under attack in an almost bucket list fashion.



So what next?

Another leg down in the economy and the financial markets is a high probability.



Although one cannot see it just yet in the fog of corrupted government statistics, the economy is not improving and the US Consumers are flat on their back, scraping by for the most part, except for the upper percentiles who were made fat by the credit bubble, and are still extracting rents from it through officially sanctioned subsidies.

This was no accident; there is a consciousness behind it.

There are far too many otherwise responsible people who are not taking the situation with the high seriousness it deserves. Some would even like to see the US economy collapse, inflicting serious pain and deprivation because it may:

1.suit their investment positions and feed their egos because they think themselves above it all,
2. satisfy their ideological and emotional needs to see punishment administered, almost always to others, for the excesses of the credit bubble, especially if they are relatively weak, unwitting victims, and
3. the sheer nastiness and immaturity of a portion of the population which wallows in stereotypes, childish behaviour, and disappointment with their own lives. They tend to find and follow demagogues that feed their bitter hatreds.

They know not what they do, until they do it, and see the results. It is often a good bet to assume that people will be irrational, almost to the point of idiocy and self-destruction. And some of them never wake up until they are overrun, and then will not admit their error out of a stubborn sense of pride and embarrassment.

It seems likely that there will be a new leg down in financial asset valuations, as reality overcomes often not-so-subtle propaganda and disinformation. It may start in March, or it may be a 'market break' that provides a subtle warning for a large decline that begins in September 2010, with multi year progression to lows that are, as of now, almost unimaginable, at least in real terms. I cannot stress this issue of nominal versus real enough. As inflation comes, it will initially be in a 'stealth' manner, with the backing of the currency eroding slowly but steadily, and largely unrecognized for some time. It is not enough to try and count the dollars; one also has to consider the value behind them, the quality of the wealth, and its vitality. This is the case for stagflation.

The Fed is acting to mask quite a bit of this. One would hope that they would also not re-enact the policy error of their predecessors and raise rates prematurely out of fear of inflation before the structural healing can occur.

The debt incurred during the credit bubble cannot be paid and must be liquidated. So far we have largely seen transference of debt obligations from insiders to the public. Ironically these same insiders are lobbying to maintain these subsidies and transfers, and also to take a hard line against any further remediation of the consequences of the collapse, which they caused, on the public, to have more for themselves. Their greed and hypocrisy know no bounds.

But the policy error might not be caused by the Fed's direct action, but replicated by a governmental failure to stimulate the economy effectively AND to reform the highly inefficient and impractical financial system. The purpose of stimulus is to provide a cushion for structural reform and healing to occur, after an external shock, or even a period of reckless excess and lawlessness. The natural cycle can be disrupted beyond its ability to repair itself. But stimulus without reform is the road to further deterioration and addiction.

As it stands today the global trade system is a farcical construct that favors national elites and multinational corporations. Public policy discussion has been trumped by a handful of economic myths and legends that, even though disproved every day, nevertheless remain resilient in public discussions and reactions. This is because they have become familiar, and because they are the instruments of deception for certain groups of disreputable economists and policy influencers.

A more serious market crash might cause people to recognize the severity of their problems, and the thinness of the arguments of the monied interests for the status quo which is most clearly unsustainable. But a sizable minority of the population is always highly suggestible; demagogues rely on this.

The eventual outcome for the US is difficult to forecast with any precision now because there are multiple paths that events might take at several key decision points. Some of them might be rather disruptive and upsetting to civil tranquility. Game changers.

But as the dust continues to settle, the probabilities will continue to clarify.

"Suffering can strengthen our endurance. Endurance encourages strength of character. Character supports hope and confidence even during hard times and trials. And hope does not disappoint us in the end, because God has given us the Spirit and filled our hearts with His love." Romans 5:3-5

It is right to be cautious, and it is human to be afraid. But let us not allow our fears and trials to turn us from our genuine humanity in God's grace no matter how dire the day, even if it may drive some of the world once again into the jaws of desperation and madness. And if you stumble, gather yourself up and go forward again without turning from the way. For what is the profit to gain and hold some small and temporary advantage in this world, but to lose your self, forever.

NY Fed Conspired to Hide Details of AIG Bailouts from Public and Congress

“I have to think this train is probably going to leave the station soon and we need to focus our efforts on explaining the story as best we can. There were too many people involved in the deals -- too many counterparties, too many lawyers and advisors, too many people from AIG -- to keep a determined Congress from the information.” James P. Bergin, NY Fed, in an email to his Fed colleagues

'Though it is hard to divine much understanding from the unredacted filing, it has become clear that Goldman had more involvement than previously believed: In addition to the credit default swaps it bought from AIG, the filing shows that Goldman Sachs also originated many of the underlying assets that AIG and the New York Fed bought back from Société Générale.

The American people have the right to know how their tax dollars were spent and who benefited most from this back-door bailout," said Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Issa. "Now that it's public, let's see if the sky really does fall as the New York Fed said it would to justify its coverup."

Other lawmakers believed that the New York Fed was trying to hide its ties to Goldman Sachs.' AIG Reveals the Story - CNN

"Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.

We’re talking about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose role as the most influential part of the federal-reserve system -- apart from the matter of AIG’s bailout -- deserves further congressional scrutiny...

By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.

This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank...

New York Fed staff and outside lawyers from Davis Polk & Wardell edited AIG communications to investors and intervened with the Securities and Exchange Commission to shield details about the buyout transactions, according to a report by Issa.

That the New York Fed, a quasi-governmental body, was able to push around the SEC, an executive-branch agency, deserves a congressional hearing all by itself." Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows - Reilly - Bloomberg

And this is the same Federal Reserve that was proposed by the Obama economic team to be the 'super regulator' with broad powers and consumer protection responsibilities over the entire financial system.

The Fed is a private agency, quasi-governmental, but not subject to discretionary audit or review by the government, except at arms length, through managed testimony. They make a point of demanding secrecy and independence at their own discretion, oversight on their terms.

This is a choice promoted by Geithner and Summers, who are creatures of the Fed and the banking system, almost sure to return to sinecures there after leaving government. And it is tempting choice for a president and congressmen of a weak character. If the Fed bears the responsibility they do not have to budget money and manage the process, and they can point fingers at its every failure. It is a formula for conflicts of interest, soft bribery and corruption. Confidence does matter.

The Fed and Blackrock are becoming to the Obama Administration what Halliburton and KBR were to Bush and Cheney, and the banking crisis -- the new Iraq. Can the handling of it be so inept that it becomes Obama's Watergate as well?

The Fed must be audited, and its power to disburse public money to private banks, except in the normal course of open market operations, curtailed. Only the Congress has the right to tax the people, and the Fed's ability to disburse billions of funds at its own discretion to domestic and foreign banks is a de facto form of taxation, since the Fed operates on a cost plus basis, without budgetary allotment from the Congress. The obligations of the Federal Reserve flow directly from its balance sheet, which is the basis for the national currency.

And despite the arguments from the Financial Times to 'stop snooping' the press and the Congress should delve deeply into the AIG bailout, because enough has already been exposed that it smells to high heaven.

It is remniscent of Watergate and Enron to see Timmy, Ben, and Hank falling all overthemselves in establishing that they had no knowledge or involvement in the payments of billions to AIG.

The truth must come out.

My own suspicion is that Goldman 'set up' AIG for a proper face ripping with its financial arrangements, playing both sides of the deal. There is further evidence of money flowing from Goldman to AIG executives before the bailout occurred. And at the least the major players saw what was happening and turned a blind eye to it, busying themselves with other things and establishing their plausible deniability.

A proper investigation can establish any specific guilt. It is a shocking scandal that the FBI and Justice Department are still not more actively involved in real investigation rather than these staged hearings.

But this incident should make it absolutely clear why the Fed cannot enjoy the expansion of its role as the regulator of the system. It is too conflicted in its mission of monetary independence, and at the same time the creature of the banks, to be a true civil servant fully answerable to the Congress.

Yes I understand the distinctions between the Fed Board of Governors and the NY Fed with regard to FOIA requests, and the appointmet process. What I am saying is that the distinctions obviously do not hold, do not work. The Fed is one organization. These distinctions are remniscent of the banking scandals exposed by then AG Elliot Spitzer. They simply do not work. They are a thin facade.

As Representative Marcy Kaptur told Geithner at the hearing: “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”

One difference I have noted, compared to the English and the Japanese, is that the American officials and CEO's never hesitate to hide behind the incompetency defense, but rarely have the dignity to resign when they do so. This is because they have no shame, no real loyalty to anyone but themselves.

And at the very least Geithner should be fired, if not for complicity, then for sheer inability to do the job.


Timeline of NY Fed Payments and Cover-Up: BusinessWeek

Financial Crisis Ahead - Thomas Donlan - Barron's

Paulson's People Colluded with Goldman to Destroy AIG and Get a Backdoor Bailout - Fiderer - Huffington

Sham Transactions That Led to AIG's Downfall - Fiderer - Huffington


Law: Corporate Counsel
Ssshhh ... E-mails Show Lawyers' Push to Keep AIG Details Hush-Hush
By Sue Reisinger
January 26, 2010

E-mails among in-house lawyers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York show they worked feverishly in early January 2009 to find a way to keep secret the details behind American International Group, Inc.'s $60 billion in payments to counterparties in risky credit default swaps. And, the e-mails show, the lawyers weren't trying to hide the details just from the public but also from Congress.

A Fed spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

The records show that in-house counsel James Bergin wrote to New York Fed general counsel Thomas Baxter Jr. on Jan. 8 that the Securities and Exchange Commission had asked AIG to either disclose the payment schedule, including the counterparties' names and the amount of payments, or file a request for confidentiality. With the request, the SEC requires filers to send the confidential material so it could be reviewed by staff. It also requires the filer to consent to disclosure to Congress and other agencies, he said.

"This requirement is giving us some pause," Bergin wrote to Baxter, "since we haven't otherwise disclosed this information to Congress." Copied were various Fed lawyers, including deputy general counsel Joyce Hansen and banking supervisor Stephanie Heller. Congress had approved AIG's bailout funds, which were used in the payments. Bergin said Fed lawyers were considering their options on the SEC's request.

On the morning of Jan. 13, according to another Bergin e-mail to in-house lawyers, he spoke by phone to SEC staff members who were "receptive" to his request for confidentiality. Included on the call, he said, was Alison Thro, senior counsel for Freedom of Information Act matters at the Fed. The SEC agreed to consider Bergin's request for an alternative procedure for reviewing the schedule — "rather than it [the schedule] becoming an SEC record subject to their FOIA process."

Later that same day Diego Rotsztain, a lawyer then with Davis Polk & Wardwell which was representing the New York Fed, wrote to AIG deputy general counsel Kathleen Shannon about "special SEC procedures." The e-mail said AIG should expect a call from the SEC about delivering the confidential data "via courier to a specific person who will be responsible for ensuring that the letter does not get into the wrong hands and is afforded the appropriate attention."

At 8:46 p.m. that evening, Bergin sent an e-mail updating Baxter, Hansen, and the other in-house attorneys. It said the SEC had agreed to "implement special security procedures for handling of the document," including limiting the reviewing staff to two people, keeping it in a locked safe during the process and, if confidentiality was approved, "providing for its storage in a special area at the SEC where national security related files are kept."

The e-mails are part of some 250,000 documents produced by the New York Fed in response to a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee has scheduled a hearing on the AIG bailout on Wednesday, and among the witnesses testifying will be Baxter and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was Baxter's boss and president of the regional Fed during the bailout crisis.

The committee wants to know why the counterparties were paid nearly 100 cents on the dollar when other banks were negotiating much lower percentages on credit default debt, and why the Fed tried to hide the information.

Elizabeth Warren Explains the Financial Crisis and the Problem with the US Banking System

This is from Elizabeth Warren's 26 January 2010 appearance on The Daily Show.

Brilliant in its simplicity and its honesty. Very tough and straight talk.

Why do we have to see this on the Comedy Central Network, and hear the usual drivel and obfuscation on the mainstream media?




Here is a link if you have trouble viewing this.

No, It Is Not Entirely Different This Time - But It is More Insidious

There are some differences and they are significant.

The US is not on a gold standard, so the devaluation of the dollar does not have to occur in a stepwise function with an official restatement of value. This time the Fed can simply monetize debt and provide more dollars as it wills. That is fiat.

The US is not a net exporter to the world, as it was then. This is why Smoot-Hawley was harmful to the US recovery. The major nations of the world, such as Germany, Italy, and Japan, became engaged in their own domestic industrial recovery including rearmament. Today the US is the consumer for the world's exporting nations. And it also owns the reserve currency.

The New Deal was a bottom up Jobs Program. The Deal this time is a new version of trickle down. The second wave down in the Great Depression caught many of the professionals who had made millions shorting the initial market declines, or at least survived the Great Crash by selling early. The next wave down in the current credit collapse is going to boil the middle class, a few degrees at a time.



Geither: None Would Have Survived - Rolfe Winkler

Going the Way of AIG with Dollar Holders as Patsies

The Guidotti-Greenspan rule states that a nation's reserves should equal short-term (one-year or less maturity) external (foreign) debt, implying a ratio of reserves-to-short term debt of 1. The rationale is that countries should have enough reserves to resist a massive withdrawal of short term foreign capital.

The rule is named after Pablo Guidotti – Argentine former deputy minister of finance – and Alan Greenspan –former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of the United States. Guidotti first stated the rule in a G-33 seminar in 1999, while Greenspan widely publicized it in a speech at the World Bank (Greenspan, 1999).

Guzman Calafell and Padilla del Bosque (2002) found that the ratio of reserves to external debt is a relevant predictor of an external crisis.

This is an interesting application of the Greenspan-Guidotti Rule by Porter Stansberry below because it includes the value of the gold at market prices, as well as the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and all the foreign reserves on the books of the US against the total foreign debt owed in using the Greenspan-Guidotti rule for its default assessment.

Those who argue for a stronger dollar because of deflation due to domestic credit destruction overlook the reality of the yawning imablance of US debt to external creditors, and the need to deal with it without writing it off like a home mortage.

Yes, the US has lots of buildings, and minerals in the ground, and forests and proprietary software, and overpriced financial assets, and tranches of dodgy mortgages to sell. We are discussing AAA liquid assets here, without significant counterparty risk. Those peddling US debt instruments to Asia these days are getting a very cold reception.

What Porter Stansberry says is valid, with the important exception that the US still owns the world's reserve currency. Otherwise it would be well on its way to a hyperinflationary climax.

This is why we do not expect the default to be like the Lehman Brothers over-weekend implosion, nor as dramatic as the crisis in Dubai, or more historically the failure of the post-Soviet Russia. The US is too big to fail.

The dollar will devalue to unexpected lows, not with a bang but a whimper.

More AIG than Lehman, with high profile big-talking executives, self-serving accounting, bonuses to the perpetrators, de facto bailout and subsidies from frightened central bankers, and all that until the rest of the world can adjust. The US will most likely wallow in stagflation until it can get itself together again, barring a global conflict.

There are structural issues for sure. The US is still the consumer of the world's export products, especially manufactured goods. The problem is that they are paying for it with paper that is increasingly worthless. And it is militarily the only remaining superpower.

Do not expect this to be a straightfoward default. The US money center banks are wielding weapons of financial mass destruction, and are not afraid of gooning it up in the markets for real products, as they still exercise significant pricing power.

It may be our currency, but it's your problem.'' John Connolly, Treasury Secretary, in response to European anger at the 1971 US gold default

So, it will take time for the exporting nations to grow their domestic markets, and to find new customers at home and abroad. It will take time for the nations to agree on a new currency regime, as the US has now pulled the rug out from under them once again with the quantitative easing of the dollar. But that adjustment effort is now well underway. With regard to change, "It is not necessary to change. Your survival is not mandatory." - W. Edwards Deming

The downside of structural change after a long decline is that once it occurs, it is difficult to obtain one's prior reputation and position.

"When governments go bankrupt it's called "a default." Currency speculators figured out how to accurately predict when a country would default. Two well-known economists - Alan Greenspan and Pablo Guidotti - published the secret formula in a 1999 academic paper. That's why the formula is called the Greenspan-Guidotti rule.

The rule states: To avoid a default, countries should maintain hard currency reserves equal to at least 100% of their short-term foreign debt maturities. The world's largest money management firm, PIMCO, explains the rule this way: "The minimum benchmark of reserves equal to at least 100% of short-term external debt is known as the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. Greenspan-Guidotti is perhaps the single concept of reserve adequacy that has the most adherents and empirical support."

The principle behind the rule is simple. If you can't pay off all of your foreign debts in the next 12 months, you're a terrible credit risk. Speculators are going to target your bonds and your currency, making it impossible to refinance your debts. A default is assured.

So how does America rank on the Greenspan-Guidotti scale? It's a guaranteed default.

The U.S. holds gold, oil, and foreign currency in reserve. The U.S. has 8,133.5 metric tonnes of gold (it is the world's largest holder). That's 16,267,000 pounds. At current dollar values, it's worth around $300 billion. The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve shows a current total position of 725 million barrels. At current dollar prices, that's roughly $58 billion worth of oil. And according to the IMF, the U.S. has $136 billion in foreign currency reserves. So altogether... that's around $500 billion of reserves. Our short-term foreign debts are far bigger."

Porter Stansberry, The bankruptcy of the United States is now certain

Tim Geithner's $14 Billion Gift of Taxpayer Funds to Goldman Sachs: Crisis Profiteering?

Tim Geithner should be given the option to resign immediately, or be fired. He is either incompetent, too conflicted to do his job with the banks properly, or possibly both.

Stephen Friedman should be investigated for $5.4 million in profits made through potential insider trading. His breach of fiduciary responsibility as chairman of the NY Fed is shocking.

The entire integrity of the Federal Reserve bank should be called into question. There is no place for the Fed to be the primary regulator of the financial system given their penchance for secrecy and cronyism, and their inability to manage their own shop from such scandalous conflicts of interest. They are a private company owned by the banks. The proposal to give them that level of public policy discretion and authority is patently absurd. This trend to outsourcing of responsibility so the politicians can critique the results as outsider observers must stop.

Obama's administration of the financial system, cloaked in secrecy, potential conflicts of interest, and enormous payoffs to campaign contributors demands a Congressional investigation, except those that would be doing the investigating are most likely also involved in the scandal, on both sides of the aisle. Big Finance did not buy the US government overnight.

An appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate the Treasury and Fed bailouts is the decent thing for the Justice Department to do in any presidential adminstration, much less a reform government that had promised transparency and an end to lobbyists running the political process. And some of the lobbyists may actually be on the payroll in key government positions. But since there is no tawdry sexual misconduct involved the Americans may not have a sufficient level of interest to demand it.

From what we can see, Obama appears to be heavily influenced by a cartel of special interests including Big Healthcare and Big Finance, that are heavy campaign contributors of money and people for his administration.

Will we see a new phrase, crisis profiteering, enter the American lexicon? Because it is not too great a leap to say that the relief funds that should be flowing to the American public, from their own debts and taxes, are being waylaid by a small group of financiers and diverted to their own personal bonuses, stocks options, dividends, and profits, and the campaign contributions and lobbyist proceeds being taken by the politicians overseeing the distributions.

Shame. Shame and scandal. And it may yet end in disgrace.


Bloomberg
New York Fed’s Secret Choice to Pay for Swaps Hits Taxpayers
By Richard Teitelbaum and Hugh Son

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- In the months leading up to the September 2008 collapse of giant insurer American International Group Inc., Elias Habayeb and his colleagues worked nights and weekends negotiating with banks that had bought $62 billion of credit-default swaps from AIG, according to a person who has worked with Habayeb.

Habayeb, 37, was chief financial officer for the AIG division that oversaw AIG Financial Products, the unit that had sold the swaps to the banks. One of his goals was to persuade the banks to accept discounts of as much as 40 cents on the dollar, according to people familiar with the matter.

Among AIG’s bank counterparties were New York-based Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co., Paris-based Societe Generale SA and Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG.

By Sept. 16, 2008, AIG, once the world’s largest insurer, was running out of cash, and the U.S. government stepped in with a rescue plan. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the regional Fed office with special responsibility for Wall Street, opened an $85 billion credit line for New York-based AIG. That bought it 77.9 percent of AIG and effective control of the insurer.

The government’s commitment to AIG through credit facilities and investments would eventually add up to $182.3 billion.

Beginning late in the week of Nov. 3, the New York Fed, led by President Timothy Geithner, took over negotiations with the banks from AIG, together with the Treasury Department and Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s Federal Reserve. Geithner’s team circulated a draft term sheet outlining how the New York Fed wanted to deal with the swaps -- insurance-like contracts that backed soured collateralized-debt obligations.

Subprime Mortgages

CDOs are bundles of debt including subprime mortgages and corporate loans sold to investors by banks.

Part of a sentence in the document was crossed out. It contained a blank space that was intended to show the amount of the haircut the banks would take, according to people who saw the term sheet. After less than a week of private negotiations with the banks, the New York Fed instructed AIG to pay them par, or 100 cents on the dollar. The content of its deliberations has never been made public.

The New York Fed’s decision to pay the banks in full cost AIG -- and thus American taxpayers -- at least $13 billion. That’s 40 percent of the $32.5 billion AIG paid to retire the swaps. Under the agreement, the government and its taxpayers became owners of the dubious CDOs, whose face value was $62 billion and for which AIG paid the market price of $29.6 billion. The CDOs were shunted into a Fed-run entity called Maiden Lane III.

Habayeb, who left AIG in May, did not return phone calls and an e-mail.

Goldman Sachs

The deal contributed to the more than $14 billion that over 18 months was handed to Goldman Sachs, whose former chairman, Stephen Friedman, was chairman of the board of directors of the New York Fed when the decision was made. Friedman, 71, resigned in May, days after it was disclosed by the Wall Street Journal that he had bought more than 50,000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock following the takeover of AIG. He declined to comment for this article.

In his resignation letter, Friedman said his continued role as chairman had been mischaracterized as improper. Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment.

AIG paid Societe General $16.5 billion, Deutsche Bank $8.5 billion and Merrill Lynch $6.2 billion.

New York Fed

The New York Fed, one of the 12 regional Reserve Banks that are part of the Federal Reserve System, is unique in that it implements monetary policy through the buying and selling of Treasury securities in the secondary market. It also supervises financial institutions in the New York region.

The New York Fed board, which normally consists of nine directors, in November 2008 included Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Friedman. The directors have no direct role in bank supervision. They’re responsible for advising on regional economic conditions and electing the bank president.

Janet Tavakoli, founder of Chicago-based Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc., a financial consulting firm, says the government squandered billions in the AIG deal.

“There’s no way they should have paid at par,” she says. “AIG was basically bankrupt.”

Citigroup Inc. agreed last year to accept about 60 cents on the dollar from New York-based bond insurer Ambac Financial Group Inc. to retire protection on a $1.4 billion CDO.

Unwinding Derivatives

In March 2009, congressional hearings and public demonstrations targeted AIG after it was disclosed it had paid $165 million in bonuses that month to the employees of AIGFP, which is unwinding billions of dollars in derivatives under the supervision of Gerry Pasciucco, a former Morgan Stanley managing director who joined AIG after the CDS payments were mandated.

Far more money was wasted in paying the banks for their swaps, says Donn Vickrey of financial research firm Gradient Analytics Inc. “In cases like this, the outcome is always along the lines of 50, 60 or 70 cents on the dollar,” Vickrey says.

A spokeswoman for Geithner, now secretary of the Treasury Department, declined to comment. Jack Gutt, a spokesman for the New York Fed, also had no comment.

One reason par was paid was because some counterparties insisted on being paid in full and the New York Fed did not want to negotiate separate deals, says a person close to the transaction. “Some of those banks needed 100 cents on the dollar or they risked failure,” Vickrey says.

A Range of Options

People familiar with the transaction say the New York Fed considered a range of options, including guaranteeing the banks’ CDOs. They say that by buying the securities, AIG got the best deal it could.

According to a quarterly New York Fed report on its holdings, the $29.6 billion in securities held by Maiden Lane III had declined in value by about $7 billion as of June 30.

Edward Grebeck, CEO of Stamford, Connecticut-based debt consulting firm Tempus Advisors, says the most serious breach by the government was to keep the process of approving the bank payments secret.

“It’s inexcusable,” says Grebeck, who teaches a course on CDSs at New York University. “Everybody should be privy to the negotiations that went on. We can’t have bailouts like this happening behind closed doors.”

Secret Deliberations

The deliberations of the New York Fed are not made public. In this case, even the identities of the AIG counterparties weren’t disclosed until March 2009, when U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, head of the Senate Finance Committee, demanded they be made public.

Bloomberg News has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of the term sheets related to AIG’s counterparty payments, along with e-mails and the logs of phone calls and meetings among Geithner, Friedman and other New York Fed and AIG officials. The request is pending.

The Federal Reserve has been reluctant to publish information on its efforts to stabilize the financial system since the crisis began. The Fed has loaned more than $2 trillion, yet it refuses to name the recipients of the loans, or cite the amount they borrowed, saying that doing so may set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders.

Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, sued in November 2008 under the Freedom of Information Act for disclosure of details about 11 Fed lending programs. In August, Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled in Bloomberg’s favor, saying the central bank had to provide details of the loans.

The Fed has appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the data remain secret while the appeal proceeds.

‘Cataclysmic Financial Crisis’

Information on the borrowers is “central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” attorneys for Bloomberg said in the Nov. 7 suit.

Questions about the New York Fed transactions may be answered by Neil Barofsky, inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. He is working on a report, which may be released next month, on whether AIG overpaid the banks. TARP is the vehicle through which the Treasury invested more than $200 billion in some 600 U.S. financial institutions.

William Poole, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, defends the New York Fed’s action. The financial system had suffered through months of crisis at the time, he says. The investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. had been swallowed by JPMorgan; mortgage packagers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been taken over by the government; and the day before AIG was rescued, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. had filed for bankruptcy.

‘Enough Trouble’

“I think the Federal Reserve was trying to stop the spread of fear in the market,” Poole says. “The market was having enough trouble dealing with Lehman. If you add, on top of that, AIG paying off some fraction of its liabilities, a system which is already substantially frozen would freeze rock-solid.”

Still, officials at AIG object to the secrecy that surrounded the transactions. One top AIG executive who asked not to be identified says he was pressured by New York Fed officials not to file documents with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that would divulge details.

“They’d tell us that they don’t think that this or that should be disclosed,” the executive says. “They’d say, ‘Don’t you think your counterparties will be concerned?’ It was much more about protecting the Fed.”

‘An Outrage’

Friedman’s role remains controversial. In December 2008, weeks after the payments to the banks were authorized in November, Friedman bought 37,300 shares of Goldman stock at $80.78 a share, according to SEC filings. On Jan. 22, he bought 15,300 more at $66.61.

Both purchases took place before the payments to Goldman Sachs were publicly disclosed under pressure from Senator Dodd in March. On Oct. 26, Goldman Sachs stock closed at $179.37 a share, meaning Friedman had paper profits of $5.4 million.

Jerry Jordan, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, says Friedman should have resigned from the New York Fed as soon as it became clear that Goldman stood to benefit from its actions.

“It’s an outrage,” Jordan says. “He needed to either resign from the Fed board or from Goldman and proceed to sell his stock.”

98,600 Goldman Shares

Friedman remains a member of Goldman’s board and held a total of 98,600 shares of the firm’s stock as of Jan. 22.

Vickrey says that one reason the New York Fed should have insisted on discounted payments for AIG’s CDSs is that the banks likely had hedges against their insured CDOs or had already written down their value. On March 20, Goldman Sachs CFO David Viniar said in a conference call with investors that Goldman was protected.

“We limited our overall credit exposure to AIG through a combination of collateral and market hedges,” Viniar said. “There would have been no credit losses if AIG had failed.”

In any event, former St. Louis Fed President Poole says the entire process should have been public and transparent. “There should be a high bar against not disclosing,” Poole says. “The taxpayer has every right to understand in detail what happened.”

[Hat tip to Janet Tavakoli et al. for sending this news piece to us. We have been following it for some time. The Friedman scandal was a particular red flag.]

CapMark Eats Its Balance Sheet - Declares Bankruptcy

We are watching a train wreck in slow motion, with the Fed and Treasury putting on a smoke and mirrors show to hide the gory details of perfidy.

Recovery without jobs, solvency, real consumption, or increased manufacturing is not a recovery. This is the corpse of an economy coughing up the remnants of its vitality in response to the Fed's monetary Heimlich maneuver.

And when it is done there will be nothing left, except a pile of markers and an unpayable debt, insolvency and default.

Oh, the dollar will surely stagger for a while, and do some turns and twists to confound the speculators, but its condition is worsening. And what is unthinkable to those who maintain a studied ignorance of history will be a fait accompli... fin du régime, le siècle du dollar.

WSJ
Capmark Seeks Chapter 11
By MIKE SPECTOR, LINGLING WEI AND PETER LATTMAN
October 26, 2009

One of the nation's largest commercial-real-estate lenders filed for bankruptcy protection in Delaware, the latest sign that problems in that market are far from over.

Capmark Financial Group Inc. has been one of the biggest lenders to U.S. investors and developers of office towers, strip malls, hotels and other commercial properties. An independent company that used to be the commercial lending unit of GMAC LLC, a financing affiliate of General Motors Co., it has been in financial straits for months and warned in September that it might have to file for Chapter 11 reorganization.

In its bankruptcy filing, Capmark listed assets of $20.1 billion and liabilities of $21 billion as of June 30. Citigroup Inc. is the agent on much of Capmark's secured debt. Other holders of Capmark's secured debt include hedge funds Paulson & Co., Anchorage Advisors and Silverpoint Capital, a person familiar with the matter said. (The asset - liabilities balance does not seem all that bad. Just how dodgy and marked to fantasy are those assets anyway? - Jesse)

Some of Capmark's debt that can't be repaid might be converted to stock, the person said. Current plans call for all Capmark businesses to be preserved as part of a reorganized company or "sold as going concerns for full value," the same person said.

The filing comes amid similar troubles in the commercial-property arena. Mall-giant General Growth Properties and hotel-chain Extended Stay Inc. filed for bankruptcy in the past year, and more commercial-company real-estate ventures could fail amid an inability to refinance debts and reduced customer traffic as consumers continue to pull back.

The difficulties are a blow to Capmark's private-equity owners. In 2006, a group led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Goldman Sachs Capital Partners and Five Mile Capital Partners paid $1.5 billion in cash to acquire lender GMAC's commercial real-estate business, which they renamed Capmark.

At the time, Capmark proclaimed it was poised to tap capital markets and realize the full potential of all its businesses, which include lending to commercial-property developers and investors; managing investment funds that bought commercial-real-estate debt; and collecting payments on loans, or "servicing." GMAC, meanwhile, boasted the deal would free up $9 billion in capital it could redeploy.

But the deal didn't work out for any of the parties. GMAC suffered heavy losses on its real-estate loans and faced further pressures on its car-financing operations when the auto market collapsed. It eventually had to tap federal bailout money.

KKR, which has written its Capmark investment down to zero, declined to comment. A Capmark spokeswoman didn't respond to requests for comment.

Capmark, based in Horsham, Pa., recently reported a $1.6 billion second-quarter loss. The company deteriorated along with the deep problems plaguing the commercial-property market. Capmark has originated more than $10 billion in commercial-real-estate loans, according to Moody's Investors Service.

One of Capmark's deals was the landmark Equitable Building that rises 33 stories above downtown Atlanta. In 2007, San Diego real-estate firm Equastone LLC paid $57 million for the office tower and took out a $51.9 million mortgage from Capmark Bank. Equastone planned to expand the tower and attract a tenant with pockets deep enough to rename the building.

In April, Capmark Bank foreclosed on the building after Equastone defaulted on the debt.

Adding to Capmark's pressures, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had notified the company it must raise capital and boost liquidity at its Utah bank, which has roughly $10 billion in assets. The bank makes and holds commercial mortgages.

The bank isn't part of Capmark's bankruptcy filing. Capmark Bank got a $600 million capital infusion from its parent company in late September.

Capmark has retained law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP and financial advisers Lazard Frères & Co. LLC, Loughlin Meghji + Co. and Beekman Advisors Inc.

The company has about 1,800 employees located in 47 offices world-wide. It recently reached an agreement to sell its North American servicing and mortgage-banking operations to a new company owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Leucadia National Corp. for as much as $490 million.

Under the deal's terms, the sale could occur while Capmark is in bankruptcy but would require a bigger cash payment.

Where David Einhorn Sees Value in Today's Markets

Greenlight Capital's David Einhorn was speaking today at the 5th Value Investing Congress in New York City.

Two years ago he appeared as a highlight lecture of the show, and laid out his reasons for shorting Lehman Brothers stock. Needless to say there was quite a bit of attention to what he had to say today.

Here are some highlights:

1. A very bleak outlook for the US economy

2. US has a lack of political will to adopt needed financial reforms.

3. Right now he would like to hold gold rather than cash because "gold benefits from poor fiscal policy."

4. Buying long dated options on much higher interest rates in the US and Japan

5. Singled out GE as thwarting financial reform due to their intense lobbying efforts.

Transcript of David Einhorn's presentation.

Hedge Funds Betting on a Deflationary Market Collapse

The observations herein regarding the nature of this stock market rally are quite in parallel with our own.

Buying the dollar to play the debt deflation trade may also be a good one in the short run, especially if leveraged foreign punters have to quickly raise cash to cover bad bets made in the US markets.

However we would have to add that this scenario assumes no black swans with regards to the heavy overhang of US dollars being held by overseas central banks.

If we were in such a position, we would be selling the rallies, given the huge amount dollars on the books.

Bloomberg
Goldman Sachs Wrong on Economic Recovery, Macro Hedge Funds Say
By Cristina Alesci

Sept. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Paul Tudor Jones, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who outperformed peers last year, is wagering that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley got it wrong in declaring the start of an economic recovery.

Jones’s Tudor Investment Corp., Clarium Capital Management LLC and Horseman Capital Management Ltd. are taking a bearish stand as U.S. stock and bond prices rise, saying that record government spending may be forestalling another slowdown and market selloff. The firms oversee a combined $15 billion in so- called macro funds, which seek to profit from economic trends by trading stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities.

“If we have a recovery at all, it isn’t sustainable,” Kevin Harrington, managing director at Clarium, said in an interview at the firm’s New York offices. “This is more likely a ski-jump recession, with short-term stimulus creating a bump that will ultimately lead to a more precipitous decline later.”

Equity and credit markets have rallied on hopes that government intervention is pulling the U.S. out of the deepest economic slump since the Great Depression. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index jumped 51 percent from its 12-year low in March through yesterday.

The economy will expand at an annualized rate of 2 percent or more in four straight quarters through June 2010, the first such streak in more than four years, according to the median estimate of at least 53 forecasters in a Bloomberg survey.

Tudor, the Greenwich, Connecticut-based firm started by Jones in the early 1980s, told clients in an Aug. 3 letter that the stock market’s climb was a “bear-market rally.” Weak growth in household income was among the reasons to be dubious about the rebound’s chances of survival, Tudor said.... (aka the growth in the median wage that we have been harping about - Jesse)


A focus on misleading indicators is driving markets, macro managers say. (Are there any other kind coming out of Washigton or Wall Street these days? - Jesse)

Clarium watches the unemployment rate that accounts for discouraged job applicants and those working part-time because they can’t find full-time positions, Harrington said. July joblessness with those adjustments was 16 percent, according to the Department of Labor, rather than the more widely reported 9.4 percent.

The housing data isn’t as rosy as some see it, Harrington said. As existing U.S. home sales rose 7.2 percent in July from the previous month, distressed deals including foreclosures accounted for 31 percent of transactions, according to the National Association of Realtors, a Chicago-based trade group.

A report by the Mortgage Bankers Association, based in Washington, showed the share of home loans with one or more payments overdue rose to a seasonally adjusted 9.24 percent in the second quarter, an all-time high.

Clarium, which oversees about $2 billion, is positioned for an equity bear market through investments in the U.S. dollar, Harrington said. Falling stock prices will strengthen the currency by forcing leveraged investors to sell equities to pay down the dollar-denominated debt they used to finance those trades, he said.... (That's one way to play it, conventionally, if the swans stay white - Jesse)

The Financial Accounting Standards Board voted in April to relax fair-value accounting rules. The change to mark-to-market accounting allowed companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities that plunged with the housing market.

Banks are reporting better earnings because they haven’t been forced to account for their losses yet, Clarium’s Harrington said.

“We haven’t fixed the problem,” he said. “We’ve just slowed down the official recognition of it...”

“Despite every effort by government in North America and Europe to avoid deflation,” Horseman wrote, “the current numbers suggest they are losing the battle.”

'New Deal for Wall Street' Programs Subsidizing Subprime Lenders

Welfare for Wall Street is just another phase of the 'trickle down' approach that seems to be so popular with the financerati.

If "Cash for Clunkers" had involved subsidized loans for cars administered by the banks it would have been touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread by the coporate media and mainstream infomercials, instead of being slammed on a daily basis as a troubled, pointless giveaway program.

So now we have a new "Cash for Criminals" program from the finance friendly folks at the tarnished Treasury and finagling Fed as outlined in the story below, this time for those overpriced housing loans sold to underpaid, over-indebted consumers.

The housing market needs to clear, the losses need to be realized, and the debt must be written down or taken into default by the banks.

The banks do not wish to foreclose because this will force them to start marking down the toxic assets they still hold on their books.

The Obama Administration is doing a fairly good imitation of Japan Inc.


Washington Post
Subprime Lenders Getting U.S. Subsidies, Report Says
By Renae Merle
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Many of the lenders eligible to receive billions of dollars from the government's massive foreclosure prevention program helped fuel the housing crisis by issuing risky subprime loans, according to a report to be issued Wednesday by the Center for Public Integrity.

Under the $75 billion program, called Making Home Affordable, lenders are eligible for taxpayer subsidies to lower the mortgage payments of distressed borrowers. Of the top 25 participants in the program, at least 21 specialized in servicing or originating subprime loans, according to the center, a nonprofit investigative reporting group funded largely by charitable foundations.

Much "of this money is going directly to the same financial institutions that helped create the sub-prime mortgage mess in the first place," Bill Buzenberg, executive director of the center, said in a statement.

For example, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Countrywide, which has been bought by Bank of America, are eligible to receive billions of dollars under the program, according to the report.

The report comes as the Obama administration is prodding lenders to do more to help borrowers. Less than 10 percent of delinquent borrowers eligible for assistance through Make Home Affordable have received help, according to Treasury Department estimates released this month. The administration is aiming to more than double the number of borrowers helped under the program to 500,000 by Nov. 1.

"Mortgage lenders and servicers have been reluctant to participate in foreclosure prevention programs despite their role in creating the subprime debacle. Intense pressure from Congress and the White House hasn't worked, either," the report said. "The stick has not been effective, so the Obama administration is offering a carrot -- billions of dollars in incentive payments to lenders and loan servicers to encourage them to participate..."

Capital Flight: A Plunge in Foreign Capital Inflows Preceded the Break in US Financial Markets

The peak of foreign capital inflows into the US was clearly seen in the second quarter of 2007, just before the crisis in the US that has rocked its banking system and driven it deeply into recession.

Are the two events connected? Had the US become a Ponzi scheme that began to collapse when new investment began to wane, and the growth of returns could not be maintained?

Watch the dollar and the Treasury and Agency Debt auctions for any further signs of capital flight, which is when those net inflows of foreign capital turn negative. And if for some reason the unlikely happens and it gains momentum, the dollar and bonds and stocks can all go lower in unison, and there is no place to hide except perhaps in some foreign currencies and precious metals.

The sad truth is that US collateralized debt packages and their derivatives have become toxic in the minds of the rest of the world, and there is little being done to change that, except an orderly winding down of the bubble, with the remaining assets being divided largely by insiders, and not price discovery and capital allocation mechanisms centered by the 'invisible hand of the markets.'



Unfortunately the Net Inflow Data is quarterly, and subject to revisions. But we have to note that the spectacularly rally off the bottom in the SP 500, not fully depicted above, is not being matched by a return of foreign capital inflows.

If that inflow does not return, if the median wage of Americans does not increase, if the financial system is not reformed, if the economy is not brought back into balance between the service and manufacturing sectors, exports and imports, then there can be no sustained recovery in the real, productive economy.

The rally in the US markets is based on an extreme series of New Deal for Wall Street programs from the Fed and the Treasury, monetization, and the devaluation of the dollar.

Saving the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

If they declare those payments to be on profit after bonuses they may find a groundswell of support on Wall Street. There is nothing like sticking it to the regional banks to consolidate the power of the few.

Look for another program from the Fed/Treasury to 'save FDIC' as part of the overall effort to maintain confidence and prevent a certain armageddon.

American Banking News
FDIC’s Deposit Fund May Need 25% of U.S. Banking Profit in 2010
August 23rd, 2009

With the 80th bank failure occurring in just the first eight months of 2009, the U.S. banking industry’s fee burden from the FDIC is continuing to be pressured as the Deposit Insurance Fund shrinks. Richard Bove, an analyst with Rochdale Securities, told Reuters in a report that the FDIC’s Insurance Fund may need to collect an amount that would equate to about 25 percent of U.S. bank industry pretax income in 2010 to stay afloat.

In the report Bove predicted another 150 to 200 additional U.S. banks failures before the current banking crisis ends. The FDIC will likely use special assessments against banks in order to raise the extra funds needed to secure the Deposit Insurance Fund’s integrity. Bove believes special assessments in 2010 could reach $11 billion in addition to the regular fees banks already pay.

The FDIC last levied a special assessment in the second quarter of five basis points on each FDIC-insured bank’s assets. The assessment is scheduled for collection on September 30.

When the FDIC released its final statement detailed the second quarter assessment it projected that the Deposit Insurance Fund would remain low, but positive through 2009 and begin to rise in 2010. However, FDIC Chairman Blair Sheila Blair said in that same statement an additional assessment may be required as early as the fourth quarter of 2009.

The Deposit Insurance Fund ended the first quarter of the year with a balance of roughly $13 billion. Since that time the FDIC has had to digest several large bank failures, such as Colonial BancGroup, which cost the fund about $4 billion.

The Deposit Insurance Fund holds a fraction of the $52 billion it had just a year ago, raising the odds of an upcoming special assessment to near certainty.

As seen recently on americanbankingnews.com, the FDIC is exploring its options for brining in investors to buy-up failed banks, thus easing the burden on the insurance fund. Investment from private equity firms has been the showcased proposal so far. The FDIC is set to vote August 26 on a relaxed set of guidelines that would entice private equity firms to invest in failed banks.

Why Is the Fed Creating Excess Reserves in the Banking System and Paying Interest on Them?

There have been some interesting side discussions at various venues including Naked Capitalism about the recent essay which I had posted titled When At First You Don't Succeed, Bring in the Reserves.

Let me clarify some points.

Yes, banking reserves in the US are a function of the Fed's Balance Sheet, by definition, because they are in the narrowest sense merely an accounting function, an entry on the books of the Fed reflecting actions undertaken by the Fed.

With purpose, I put the formal definitions of Reserve Bank Credit and Reserve Balances at the bottom of each chart. I had hoped this would make that point clear.

The essence of the essay was to point out the enormous increase in bank reserves which the Fed has created through their "New Deal for Wall Street" style banking programs. Because of this, the Fed has created a new function by which it pays interest on banking reserves, which to my knowledge it has never done before.

It is a new function at the Fed, and it does serve a important purpose. The purpose is to place a 'floor' under interest rates, in the face of a surfeit of liquidity which the Fed has created, and which shows up in the Adjusted Monetary Base, the Reserve Bank Credit figures, and so forth.

Now, some people have taken issue with my bringing the notion of excess Reserves to your attention for a variety of reasons. Even the mighty NY Fed has written a paper which attempts to defuse the notion that the excess reserves are indicative of anything that might be impeding lending.

Let me be clear about this.

The excess reserves are absolutely indicative of the Fed's having added substantial amounts of liquidity to the financial system. If the Fed were not paying interest on reserves, this liquidity would crush their target interest rates, since the banks are loath to hold reserves that are not generating some return. This is what they do, generate a return on capital. Capital has a price, even if it is an opportunity cost.

By establishing a floor, the Fed is setting a more blatant artificial level for interest rates, moreso than merely tinkering with drains and adds to the system. They are offering a riskless rate of return, and crowding out other competing requests for capital. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a reality of what they are doing.

What would happen if the Fed raised the interest rate it pays on reserves to let's say, twenty percent?

Economic activity in the US would grind to a halt, as banks placed every available dollar idly with the Fed's program, eschewing all other deals, liquidating assets if necessary, to place capital where it would receive the highest risk adjusted return. In essence, the Fed would 'crowd out' all other transactions that offered a lower risk adjusted return.

What if the Fed subsequently lowered the interest rate from twenty percent to zero? It would then enable more lending from the banks, as they sought to deploy their capital at higher risk adjusted rates.

There are some by the way that claim the excess reserves are so high because there is no demand for loans. This is a point of view only supported by those who a) have no understanding of finance and b) are seeking to support an extremely odd and mistaken view of the economy which seeks to justify their bets on a serious deflation.

There is always a demand for loans as long as there is economic activity; what varies is the price! Money is not particularly inelastic; that is, there is a rather high threshold at which people say, "I have too much!" It is rather a question of price, relative to return. Make the opportunity cost high enough and they will come (or be fired).

I hereby assert that I will borrow ALL funds the Fed might loan to me with no collateral at zero interest, and gladly so, as long as the short term US Treasury bills are paying more than 25 basis points interest. I reserve the right to defer on this offer if the Fed should make the policy error of hyperinflation a reality.

I hate to make points like this in the extreme with distorted examples, but sometimes it is what it requires to pierce through obfuscation to common sense.

So to summarize, what is the Fed likely to do if economic activity falters?

They are likely to lower interest rates paid on excess reserves closer to zero. They could even charge a 'haircut' on excess reserves which would highly motivate the banks.

These are all things which have been discussed before, often in the context of consumers! In fact, it is well known among bankers that as the Fed lowers interest rates money flows out of lower paying instruments like bank deposits and money markets, and into higher paying instruments that might be deemed too risky at high rates of riskless return. Such higher paying instruments are known as "stocks" and "corporate bonds." As former central banker Wayne Angell gleefully chortled in 2004, the Fed can indeed drive the public out of their savings and money market funds and into the equity markets by manipulating interest rates.

Does the Fed always 'create' excess reserves? It may be more correct to ask, does the Fed always create money, since excess reserves are an accounting function.

No. Banking reserves normally lag the creation of money, which is accomplished by lending, either from banks or more recently by neo-banks like Fannie, Freddie, GMAC, GE and so forth.

But at a time when economic activity is contracting, and the credit markets were seizing, the Fed took the lead in money creation by "monetizing" various types of debt. And they are going to enormous pains to maintain 'confidence' in the system and in particular the US dollar and debt. But we may ask, at what point does the confidence game become a con game? I would submit that it is when the Fed and Treasury purposely intervene in markets, beyond their normal interest rate targeting, and statistics and spread disinformation to manage perception.

There are other ways in which the Fed might address the failure of the productive economy to 'pick up the ball and run with it.' But most, if not all, of them involve the monetization of something, which is what happens when the Fed (and US Treasury) are taking the lead in money creation and not the productive economy.

Deflationists do not want to hear this, and central bankers do not wish you to know this, but it is the major factor in a fiat currency that it can be created literally 'out of nothing.'

This is why we have said long ago, and repeated since, that the limiting factor on the Fed's ability to create money is the value of the US Dollar and the sovereign debt.

As long as there is debt which can be monetized, then the Fed can monetize it and create money 'out of nothing.' For now they are acting with some reestraint, and channeling that money primarily to their cronies in the banking system, still able to mask the effects of their monetary inflation. CFTC Moves to Rein In Small Investors From Commodity ETFs

But the time is coming when they will not. And as they did when they demanded $700 billion in bailout money, the financiers will once again make the Administration and the Congress an offer which they think that 'we' cannot refuse, if only because the Congress will not listen if we tell them what we wish them to do, again.

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, and the economy brought back into productive balance, before their can be a sustained recovery.

US Consumer Demand Off a Cliff as the Crisis Deepens

As we said, we would be taking a closer look behind the headline GDP numbers recently released. The advantage of procrastination is that eventually a capable person will chart up the data which you have been studying. So thank you to ContraryInvestor for his excellent charts. His site is among the best, and we read it regularly.

The big story is the collapse of the US consumer, unprecedented since WW II, and possibly the Great Depression. This is apparent in the numbers despite the epic restatement of GDP having just been done by the BLS in their benchmark revisions.

If the Fed and Treasury were not actively monetizing everything in sight, we would certainly be seeing a more pronounced deflation as prices fall WITH demand. And if they continue, we may very well feel a touch of the lash of that hyperinflation that John Williams is predicting. We still think a stiff stagflation is more likely, but are allowing that the Fed and Treasury may indeed be 'just that dumb enough' to trigger something less probable.

Until the consumer returns to some semblance of health, there will be no sustained recovery. It really is that simple.



The Fed will have to stop artificially draining credit supply by paying such a high rate of interest on reserves. They know this. It will stimulate lending, even to less worthy borrowers. But this is not a cure. It is one of the paths to more inflation, fresh asset bubbles, and the devaluation of the dollar. And 'stimulus' handouts are no better. Healthcare reform is a step in the right direction. The US consumer pays far too much for the same (or less) level of care in most of the developed nations. But that is not enough.



The cure will be to increase the median wage, and to stop the transfer of the national income to fewer and fewer hands. For that is how the system is set up today. It is not the result of 'free markets' but a sustained transfer of wealth through regulatory and tax policies, and a pernicious corruption of the nation most significantly starting in 1980, although a case has been made for 1913.

It is an ironic echo that our inexperienced, badly advised President seeks to place more and broader powers into the hands of the Federal Reserve and its owners, the banks, in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson.

Obama needs to bring in fresh thinking. Volcker and Stiglitz would be a step in the right direction, but it is ironic that they are much older than the Bobsey twins, Geithner and Summers. Bobsey being, of course, Bob Rubin. They should be sacked.

The problem as we see it is that Obama is hopelessly over his head, and failing badly. His stump speeches to admiring crowds, as the most recent in Elkhart, Indiana, ring increasingly hollow. Granted his situation is difficult to say the least. He reminds us increasingly of Jack Kennedy in his first year in office, and his manipulation by 'handpicked advisors.' Remember the Bay of Pigs? He did manage to find his own voice, and was beginning to make his own way. There is still some hope that Obama can find his, but the trend is not hopeful.

Look for several third party candidates to rise in the next election, as both the Democrats and the Republicans fail to deliver an honest performance for the country. The problem is that at least one of them will be a toxic choice, probably the one that is most narrowly financed.

It does not look hopeful at this moment in history. But tomorrow is another day.

The Stock Market in Context with the Great Crash of 1929 - 1932

The US Stock Market Crash of 2007 - 2010 expressed in percent decline from the market top in October 2007.



A trading day by trading day comparison of the Great Crash of 1929 - 1932 with the current market decline from its October 2007 top.



The classic profile of a collapsing bubble.



The economic policy of the early post-Crash period was heavily influenced by what was later called Liquidationism epitomized by prevailing views of the Hoover Administration. The idea was that allowing companies and banks to fail as quickly as possible, in a relatively uncontrolled manner, was the appropriate response. This view is still held by the Austrian School of economics.

The flaw in this theory would seem to be that the decline of a crash is not like a natural decline in a business cycle or a severe demand contraction, but the result of a precipitous collapse from a Ponzi-like monetary and credit expansion.

One can argue this point, endlessly if they wish to ignore history and economic reality, but again we need to remember that the outcome in several other nations embracing this theory was the rise of militant, fascist political regimes in response to societal dislocations.

Obviously the best cure is prevention, in not allowing monetary bubbles in the first place. Duh. But one has to play with the cards in one's hand, and not the hand they wish to have.

But there is a lesson in this for our current 'cure' in that blowing yet another asset bubble from a monetary expansion, and little else, will not work. We ought to have learned this from the Fed's policy responses in 2003-2006 which led to the US housing bubble.

Systemic reform and rebalancing is absolutely essential to a sustained economy recovery, and needs to be measured by an increasing median wage and a reversion to manageable income - debt ratios.

The headwinds against this remedy from an outsized financial sector that in many cases has coopted the political process makes a sustained economic recovery less probable without a significant shock to the political and economic structures of the US at least.



Bernanke's wager

Being a student of economic history, Ben Bernanke believes that he can inflate the currency subtly without a formal devaluation, and avoid a second leg down to a deeper bottom.

The Fed is now confident, with the Volcker era inflation experience under their belts, that they do not need to replicate the NY Fed policy error of the 1931 by increasing nominal interest rates prematurely out of inflationary concerns.

Things ARE somewhat different today, in that there is no gold standard, and the world has relatively free flows of fiat capital under a US dollar reserve currency schema.

It should be noted, with no mistake, that the limiting factor on the Fed is the valuation of the US dollar and its sovereign. In 1931 the limiting factor was the gold standard which severely limited the Fed's options, and eventually caused a significant formal devaluation of the US dollar in a step-wise function.

In a fiat regime the devaluation can be done gradually without fanfare.



It is also easy to forget that in 1931 the business community and the leading economists were convinced that the worst was over and that a recovery was underway. Their concerns shifted to inflation, and dealing with the then unprecedented expansion of narrow money in the adjusted monetary base to ease short term credit problems.



The 'risk' is obviously that the analog with the Fed's experiment with subduing inflation in the 1970's under Volcker are not completely consistent to the environmental context today.

The levels of US debt to be absorbed by the rest of the World are without known precedent. And the degrees of freedom in the Fed's calculation are significantly impacted by the policy actions of countries that may be sympathetic but not completely consistent with their own national self-interest or inclinations.

From our own viewpoint, without signficant structural reforms to the US economy and political process, which at this time seem unlikely to overcome the resistance of the status quo, the Fed's actions will most likely result in another type of bubble, less obvious than the last two perhaps, and a stagflationary economic recovery of a sort combing some of the nastier aspects of the Japanese experience, but with a nasty dose of the post-Soviet / Argentinian slumps.

A deflationary envionrment with a stronger US dollar appears to be a fantasy in our opinion, although we have always held it to be possible. Of course it is possible. If the Fed raised short term rates to 22 percent tomorrow, we would see a serious deflation and a stronger dollar.

We would also see riots and civil insurrection in response. This is another limiting factor on the policy decisions of the Fed and the Administration, which people tend to underappreciate, again ignoring many of the social and political events of the 1930's.

The US dollar will continue to decline until there is a precipitating currency crisis that clears the market for US debt. Things will not be able to continue on this way forever. We estimate that the next bubble, if the Fed is able to get the rest of the world behind it, will be decisive.

However, we continue to degrade the probability of this happening as the weeks go by, and the rest of the world appears to be asserting its financial sovereignty from the Anglo-American banking cartel.