What Did Draghi Know About Potential Loss and Abuses at Italy's Largest Bank

Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon.

As we read this, it could imperil the soundness of the financial system in Europe as well, as is still apparently the case with The Banks in the states, despite assurances to the contrary.

My understanding is that there was little to no coverage of this bank whistleblower's testimony in the US, a video of which is included below.

Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article below, recently posted on his blog here.

Whistleblowers Testify in EU Parliament

By Golem XIV on November 17, 2016 in latest

Yesterday a very high-powered panel of international banking whistleblowers met and told their stories in the European parliament.  The questions raised were important. Among them was the Irish Whistleblower, Jonathan Sugarman, who when UniCredit Ireland was breaking the law in very serious ways reported it to the Irish regulator.

He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major political parties.   He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it is the law after all –  informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems.

In the case of UniCredit that would mean the Italian Central bank would have been told that Italy’s largest Bank was in serious breach of Irish law in ways that could endanger the whole banking system. The head of the Italian Central Bank at the time was a certain Mr Mario Draghi.

Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know. If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled  and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty.

Surely not I hear you say.  Well perhaps someone might ask him? Or is he above the law?

http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/whistleblower-protection-what-must-be-done

Related: Studies Show Fed Stress Tests Merely 'a Placebo'

Some Wisdom About Leadership From the Depths of the Depression

"Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."

Peter Drucker

In other words, management is about the process of organization. A manager may be a great organizer, but a terrible leader. Management is an essential skill. But it lacks traction in times of great change.  Management will almost always choose what is expedient, but a leader will do what is both practical from within a set of choices that are right.   Superior management skills in the hands of the efficiently immoral, or even amoral, can create a hell on earth.

Leadership is about the substance, the overwhelming sense of what is wrong and what is right based on set of principles that can energize a people to accomplish goals greater than the sum of their parts. The vision of a leader can guide a people through a time of change and turmoil, where the tradeoffs are not clear, and in dispute. Leadership is not possible without a dedication to a set of principles that transcend mere operational goals. 

Goals must be joined together in a coherent manner. To merely state that our goals are low inflation and high employment are not sufficient.  How do they complement one another?  From whence do they derive?  How are priorities to be set between them?

And above all, leadership is more than a title, and power, and high pay.  A leader must have a natural empathy and affinity with those whom they lead, and that concern must be closely aligned and apparent.  They understand the worries and concerns of their people, and more importantly can speak directly to them with not only words but action. Leadership sets an example, and adheres to a set of principles greater than itself.  If the principles are worthy, and the strategy well thought, and the management sound, then the chances of success are good.

The social safety net is certainly important, in that it keeps individuals and families from falling into tragedy and despair because of our no-longer-so-recent financial dislocation.

However, direct government assistance is best as a temporary salve to a problem, especially a natural disaster.  It is not effective as a permanent state of affairs.

The great shortcoming of the liberal economists has been to ignore those conditions which have caused the ongoing financial crisis, which has been ebbing and flowing since at least 2001.   By the way and in their defense, the greater failure of their adversaries or counterparties is to address themselves fruitfully to the problems and conditions of the real world, rather than a world of top down idealisms and slogans of their own creation.  The liquidationists and austerians seek to create a clean slate by blowtorching the landscape of those things that offend their purely intellectual sensibilities, and the victims be damned.

Adding stimulus to a system that is broken only produces more of what has gone before, because the situation has not changed sufficiently to restore the economy to balance, to an equitable distribution of its growth in both profits and wages.

Thanks to Pam Martens for reminding us of that prescient speech by Franklin Roosevelt, delivered in the depth of the Great Depression, about the need for leadership and new ideas, especially those of progressive reform. Memo to Fed: Interest Rates Are a Sideshow; the Problem is Income Inequality Her essay rightly takes the Fed to task on their trickle down approach to The Recovery™ which is inexcusable in a monetary authority which is also a major banking regulator and economic policy influencer. 

The problem is not so much the inequality itself. No, the problem is in a corrupt system that routinely gives the upper hand to powerful private organizations in formulating political and policy decisions in the halls of Congress and the Courts.  Over time this transforms the economy into a machine for transferring wealth from the public to the Banks, and the corporations that have sprung up around them.

The problem is not so much the inequality, but the corruption of a system intended to reward productivity with a similar amount of benefits for labor as afforded to those who organize it, for the benefit of all.   This is the difference between market capitalism, where labor is fairly compensated, and slavery.  

And it is the proper role of government to address the imbalances of power amongst its various constituents to maintain equal protection, as much as it is the role of government to guard against incursions of the powerful from abroad.

And when government falls into this trap of corruption by private power, the solution is not to further diminish government, giving even more free reign to private power. The solution is to reform and restore balance between public and private interests.

Where power in an economy falls into such an imbalance, and concentrates in fewer and fewer hands, that society will find itself increasingly trying to remain standing on a two legged stool, held up increasingly by more fraud and more force, and the steady erosion of justice and the rule of law.

"I believe that the recent course of our history has demonstrated that, while we may utilize their expert knowledge of certain problems and the special facilities with which. they are familiar, we cannot allow our economic life to be controlled by that small group of men whose chief outlook upon the social welfare is tinctured by the fact that they can make huge profits from the lending of money and the marketing of securities--an outlook which deserves the adjectives 'selfish' and 'opportunist.'

You have been struck, I know, by the tragic irony of our economic situation today. We have not been brought to our present state by any natural calamity--by drought or floods or earthquakes or by the destruction of our productive machine or our man power. Indeed, we have a superabundance of raw materials, a more than ample supply of equipment for manufacturing these materials into the goods which we need, and transportation and commercial facilities for making them available to all who need them. But raw materials stand unused, factories stand idle, railroad traffic continues to dwindle, merchants sell less and less, while millions of able-bodied men and women, in dire need, are clamoring for the opportunity to work. This is the awful paradox with which we are confronted, a stinging rebuke that challenges our power to operate the economic machine which we have created.

We are presented with a multitude of views as to how we may again set into motion that economic machine. Some hold to the theory that the periodic slowing down of our economic machine is one of its inherent peculiarities--a peculiarity which we must grin, if we can, and bear because if we attempt to tamper with it we shall cause even worse ailments. According to this theory, as I see it, if we grin and bear long enough, the economic machine will eventually begin to pick up speed and in the course of an indefinite number of years will again attain that maximum number of revolutions which signifies what we have been wont to miscall prosperity, but which, alas, is but a last ostentatious twirl of the economic machine before it again succumbs to that mysterious impulse to slow down again.

This attitude toward our economic machine requires not only greater stoicism, but greater faith in immutable economic law and less faith in the ability of man to control what he has created than I, for one, have. Whatever elements of truth lie in it, it is an invitation to sit back and do nothing; and all of us are suffering today, I believe, because this comfortable theory was too thoroughly implanted in the minds of some of our leaders, both in finance and in public affairs...

No, our basic trouble was not an insufficiency of capital. It was an insufficient distribution of buying power coupled with an over-sufficient speculation in production. While wages rose in many of our industries, they did not as a whole rise proportionately to the reward to capital, and at the same time the purchasing power of other great groups of our population was permitted to shrink. We accumulated such a superabundance of capital that our great bankers were vying with each other, some of them employing questionable methods, in their efforts to lend this capital at home and abroad.

I believe that we are at the threshold of a fundamental change in our popular economic thought, that in the future we are going to think less about the producer and more about the consumer. Do what we may have to do to inject life into our ailing economic order, we cannot make it endure for long unless we can bring about a wiser, more equitable distribution of the national income.

It is well within the inventive capacity of man, who has built up this great social and economic machine capable of satisfying the wants of all, to insure that all who are willing and able to work receive from it at least the necessities of life. In such a system, the reward for a day's work will have to be greater, on the average, than it has been, and the reward to capital, especially capital which is speculative, will have to be less. But I believe that after the experience of the last three years, the average citizen would rather receive a smaller return upon his savings in return for greater security for the principal, than experience for a moment the thrill or the prospect of being a millionaire only to find the next moment that his fortune, actual or expected, has withered in his hand because the economic machine has again broken down.

It is toward that objective that we must move if we are to profit by our recent experiences. Probably few will disagree that the goal is desirable. Yet many, of faint heart, fearful of change, sitting tightly on the roof-tops in the flood, will sternly resist striking out for it, lest they fail to attain it. Even among those who are ready to attempt the journey there will be violent differences of opinion as to how it should be made. So complex, so widely distributed over our whole society are the problems which confront us that men and women of common aim do not agree upon the method of attacking them. Such disagreement leads to doing nothing, to drifting. Agreement may come too late."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address at Oglethorpe University, May 22, 1932

Simon Johnson: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown

Is the crisis over? No

Have we fixed the underlying problems? No

This video is from 2011. The answers remain the same.

TBTF is a government subsidy, a cartel, and a distorting factor on markets.

This is not about economics or the analytics anymore. This is about politics, this is about power, this is about the money.

Simon Johnson is one of the few economists that are making any real sense of what happened, and what therefore is likely to happen next.   I find his thoughts quite persuasive, at least on this particular topic of the roots of the crisis and the nature of the likely solutions with regard to bank regulation.

Elizabeth Warren: How the Regulators Are Protecting the Banks From Disclosure of Fraud

"Fraudus est celare fraudem." 
The concealment of fraud is a fraud.

Take a careful listen to Senator Elizabeth Warren pulling out the truth from Daniel P. Stipano, Deputy Chief Counsel, Comptroller of the Currency, and Richard Ashton, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Reserve.

"You have made a decision to protect the banks but not to help the families who were illegally foreclosed on. Families get pennies on the dollar for being the victims of illegal activities. And you know of cases where the banks broke the laws, but you are not going to tell the homeowners.

People want to know that their regulators are watching out for the American public, not the banks."

Senator Elizabeth Warren

Other people are doing a much better job of covering this than I am, notably Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, and I regularly include their links on my site.

It is a shame and a scandal that is representative of what is wrong with the current structure of the economy and the markets, the regulatory capture that favors insiders and special financial interests over basic law and justice for the public.

And I think it is a failure of the liberal agenda that calls blindly for stimulus, but at best pays lip service to significant reform.  As for those who call for austerity without reform, they are at best useful for the one percent, and of harm to most everyone else. 

The genuine reformers are found on both the right and the left, and might best be called progressives.  Unfortunately they are a group without a party or a portfolio these days, except for a few shining lights like Warren and Sanders.  From what I hear the situation in the UK and Canada is equally as bleak.  Oligarchies abound elsewhere.  As for Europe, it is just a mess of conflicting interests that one might strain to call a governing body of the most powerful special interests and their outside supporters.

Credibility Trap: Moyers And Barofsky on Failed Reform and Another Financial Crisis

The Bullet or the Bribe

This is the second part of the Moyers interview with Neil Barofsky.

BILL MOYERS: I thought, at the time, this was an incestuous orgy going on there, between inside players at Washington and inside players at Wall Street. Is that too strong?

NEIL BAROFSKY: It's probably not too strong. It's the fact that their ideology matches up. And look, one of the reasons why their ideology matches up is they all come from the same small handful of institutions. And the people I was dealing with on a daily basis came from the same financial institutions that helped cause the financial crisis and were the most generous recipients of bailouts, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, which, of course, had been adopted by J.P. Morgan Chase. Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs, it seemed like every time I turned around, I bumped into someone from Goldman Sachs.

Which is not to single them out. But they all bring that ideology with them, when they come to Washington. It's not like somebody hits them in the head with a magic wand and they give back everything that they've learned and believed in their years of Wall Street. And they bring that ideology with them. And even those who don't come from a specific bank, when you surround yourself, create an echo chamber of likeminded people, it's not terribly surprising that the government policy looks a lot like what the Wall Street institutions themselves would have most desired.

And I think the other side effect of that is that people who are outside of that bubble, people who don't have that background, people like myself as a federal prosecutor or Elizabeth Warren, who was the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel and before that a Harvard professor, that our views, our criticisms, our contrary positions were discounted, mocked, ridiculed, insulted, cursed at, at times. Because there was no-- we didn't have the pedigree in their world to have a meaningful contribution. So what happens is that there's no new ideas that creep in. And you get this very uniform, very non-diverse approach to the problems of finance.

BILL MOYERS: It was puzzling to outsiders like me that you had TARP money being used to concentrate further the size of these banks.

NEIL BAROFSKY: And the granddaddy of all those transactions, Bank of America acquiring Merrill Lynch. And the important thing to remember here is this is not banks gone wild, banks taking the money and saying, "Party time, we're going to consolidate." They did this with the encouragement of the government. And in Bank of America, a little bit with a gun to the head to complete that transaction.

This was the government policy created by the architects, Ben Bernanke who is chair of Federal Reserve, Tim Geithner, who was then the president of the New York Fed before becoming Treasury Secretary, and Hank Paulson. Their solution originally was to further concentrate the industry, to make the too big to fail banks bigger.

The theory was you take a healthier bank and mix it up with a failing bank and you get something somewhere in between, which is better overall for the system. Which may have had some validity in the very, very short term, but has put us on a path, I believe, to being even more dangerous. Because you have institutions now that are just monstrous in size, over $2 trillion in assets by certain measures, close to $4 trillion by other measures. Terrifying. The idea that any of these institutions could ever be allowed to fail is pure fantasy, at this point.

BILL MOYERS: Are you suggesting that we could have another crash?

NEIL BAROFSKY: I think it's inevitable. I mean, I don't think how you can look at all the incentives that were in place going up to 2008 and see that in many ways they've only gotten worse and come to any other conclusion.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean incentives in place?

NEIL BAROFSKY: So in a normal functioning capitalist utopia, where, you know, most markets are that don't have this too big to fail, this presumption of government bailout if a firm like a Citigroup amasses massive amounts of risk. And in so doing, they keep razor-thin capital to absorb potential losses, which basically means they're just borrowing tons and tons of money.

And not have a lot of their own money at stake, but it's mostly borrowed money. And it is very opaque. It's not very transparent about how they're running their business. You would expect that creditors, people lending them money, counterparties, those on the other sides of their transactions would either stay away or really exact a premium. But the presumption of bailout changes that on its head and actually makes it go in the other direction. So it removes the incentive of the other market participants to impose what's known as market discipline. Because that's ideally in a capitalist society what happens is that the lenders and creditors and counterparties say, "Hey, we're not going to do business with you unless you clean house, slim down, be more transparent."

But when there's a presumption of bailout, that disappears. Because all those other market players can feel safe in the presumption that if anything goes bad at Citigroup, Uncle Sam is going to come in and make their bets whole.

Then you have the very real incentive for the executives at that institution to then pile on risk. Because they know that if the bets go well in the short term, they get paid. And they get paid very richly. But if it blows up and the risks go bad, no worry, the taxpayer's going to be on the other side of that bill.

That's what happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, before they collapsed. That's what happened to our biggest banks and global banks before they collapsed. And if you maintain that system, it is foolhardy to think that those incentives and pressures are not once again going to carry the day.

BILL MOYERS: At a conference a week or so ago, here in New York, you said playing ball for Wall Street has become a normal way of life, despite the panic of 2008. What does it mean, "playing ball for Wall Street"?

NEIL BAROFSKY: Well, what I saw when I was in Washington was this real pressure on myself, on other regulators to essentially keep their tone down. And I was told point blank by Assistant Secretary of the Treasury that, this is about in 2010.

And he said to me, he said, "Neil, you're a smart guy. You're a young guy. You're a talented guy. You got your whole future in front of you. You've got a young family that's starting out. But you're doing yourself real harm.” And the reason why you're doing yourself real harm is the harsh tone that I had towards the government as well as to Wall Street, based on what I was seeing down in Washington. And he told me that if I wanted to get a job out on the Street afterwards, it was going to really be hard for me.

BILL MOYERS: You mean on Wall Street?

NEIL BAROFSKY: Yes. And I explained to him that I wasn't really interested in that. And he said, "Well, maybe a judgeship. Maybe an appointment from the Obama administration for a federal judgeship." And I said, "Well, again, that would be great. But I don't really think that's going to happen with my criticisms." And he said it didn't have to be that way. "If all you do is soften your tone, be a little bit more upbeat, all this stuff can happen for you."

And that's what I meant by playing ball. I was essentially told, play ball, soften your tone, and all of these good things can happen to you. But if you stay harsh that was going to cause me real harm in those words.

BILL MOYERS: What made you able to say no to the temptation?

NEIL BAROFSKY: Well, I think part of it is the only job I ever wanted was to be a federal prosecutor.

BILL MOYERS: Send bad guys to jail?

NEIL BAROFSKY: It doesn't get much better than that. Really interesting, complicated work, and wear the white hat. So I didn't have those incentives that I think that were presented. And I think, look, you know, being trained in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, I was trained to be a government employee and to take my oath of office very seriously.

But I wasn't really interested in their reindeer games. And I felt a real obligation and sense of duty to fulfill the oath that I took in Secretary Paulson's office on December 15th, 2008 to do the job that I was sent down there to do. But I wasn't really tempted with a big job on Wall Street. And frankly, if it meant getting a judgeship, compromising the job that I needed to do and was supposed to do, it just wasn't interesting to me.

But look, let me be very clear. I also have the fallback of I was a trial lawyer. I prosecuted a lot of big cases. And I knew that whatever happened, I could always go back and get a good job in New York, working at a law firm or doing legal work. So it gave me a degree of financial freedom even though I basically spent most of my career as a government employee and I didn’t have money. I didn't necessarily need to please anyone to be able to go back and still be able to feed my family.

BILL MOYERS: What happens to a political society, to a democracy, when we stifle or bribe or shoot the sheriff?

NEIL BAROFSKY: When I had my incident with the assistant secretary that my deputy, who had come down from-- who's another former federal prosecutor, who did narcotics work, said to me, Kevin Puvalowski. And he said to me, "Neil, you were just offered the bullet or the bribe, the gold or the lead."

And what he was referring to was a society just like that, which was Colombia, back in the day when Pablo Escobar and the drug kingpins really controlled society. And what he was referring to is that basically to corrupt society Escobar would go to a magistrate or a police officer, police chief, a politician, and say, "You have two choices. You can either take this giant pile of money and do my bidding. Or you can get the lead, a bullet in your head."

And Kevin was joking that I just received the Washington white collar equivalent of the gold or the lead. And it was funny, at the time, but that's kind of what happens in a society where the rewards and incentives are, again, nobody's getting shot in the head thank goodness. But it's a breakdown of the system.

And in some ways, it creates this false illusion that there are people out there looking out for the interest of taxpayers, the checks and balances that are built into the system are operational, when in fact they're not. And what you're going to see and what we are seeing is it'll be a breakdown of those governmental institutions. And you'll see governments that continue to have policies that feed the interests of -- and I don't want to get clichéd, but the one percent or the .1 percent -- to the detriment of everyone else.

BILL MOYERS: You make it clear in the book that the Obama administration fought against cutting down the size of these banks. And yet, in the second debate with Mitt Romney the president said, "We passed the toughest Wall Street reform since the Great Depression." As I hear you, it wasn't all that tough.

NEIL BAROFSKY: Well, that's a literally true statement. Because when you think of-- but it's a very low bar to clear. I mean, all of the regulatory reform since the Great Depression has been peeling back on those regulations. With really the big death knell happening in the end of the Clinton administration with, you know, a couple of bills, one that removed the last vestiges of the separation between commercial and investment banks.

BILL MOYERS: Glass-Steagall Act?

NEIL BAROFSKY: Glass-Steagall.

BILL MOYERS: It took down the wall between those two?

NEIL BAROFSKY: The last part of it. And then the second part by passing a bill that made it, essentially made derivatives out of bounds for regulation. So saying that it's the toughest is literally true. The problem is it hasn't been tough enough in where it most matters.

And again, you don't really have to take my word for it. You just look what the market has done. Based on the presumption of bailout, the banks get higher ratings from the credit rating agencies which means they can borrow money for less, because their debt is viewed by the credit rating agencies as being less risky. And they get these higher ratings on explicit presumption that the government will bail them out and make good on their debt.

So it didn't deliver the goods where it matters the most. Again, not saying that it doesn't have some good positive things for our system and for people. But it didn't deliver the most important thing that we need if we want to address the causes of the last crisis and help prevent the next one.

BILL MOYERS: What will it take to prevent the next one?

NEIL BAROFSKY: Got to break them up. I mean, it is not a simple thing to accomplish, necessarily. But it's a very simple solution. And what you see, I think, kind of amazingly, is how many more people have come to this view over the last year or so. It used to be a lonely perch that we sat on. Former special inspector generals, a couple of academics.

But now you have people like Sandy Weill, the architect of Citigroup. And sure, too little too late, after he made all of his money off creating these Frankenstein monsters. But even he now recognizes that we have to break up the banks. You have senior officials at the Federal Reserve recently coming out in favor of this. The vice chair of the FDIC, a very strong advocate for breaking up the banks. And you hear it a lot more in members of Congress-- that are supporting this notion. So to me, on the one hand, it's absolutely essential. If we really want to get to the point where we don't have to bailout a bank, we have to make it so that no bank is so systemically significant and large that its failure could bring down the system.

BILL MOYERS: Are they up to their old tricks?

NEIL BAROFSKY: The banks? Sure. I mean, you know, so we had this regulatory reform of Dodd-Frank in 2010, which, you know, left them intact and inside. But it had all of these rules and all of these regulations that needed to follow. And right now it is hand to hand, trench warfare, combat with those lobbyists spending all that money on campaign contributions, on, you know, flooding the decision makers and the regulators with comment letters and endless meetings.

And pressuring members of Congress to put pressure on the regulators, to water down the rules, to basically get as much back to the good old days where they would have free reign to print money, take advantage of their too big to fail status, bully and push out the little guys, take advantage of consumers. And that's what all of these efforts area about are to preserve these very, very core profit streams that they had before.

And that's right now is where the battle is being waged. Not on TV, you know, not necessarily out in front, but behind the scenes where the next set of rules are being forged on what they're going to be able to do and how they're going to be able to do it...

Neil Barofsky: Ongoing Bailout of Wall Street

PFGBest Is MF Global All Over Again: Gambling and Living High With Customer Funds

And another failure of self-regulatory industry groups and the inept CFTC.

Once again I must turn to Lauren Lyster on RT for the in depth look into US financial fraud coverage.

The mainstream financial news networks in the States are an extended infomercial for Wall Street. And their coverage of economic news and issues might make even Rupert Murdoch blush.

And so many watch these official Wall Street channels with the volume turned low, for just the numbers and any headlines, and turn to alternative sources for the real news, judging from the ratings reports.

Increasingly surreal, as life imitates Orwell.

William Black on JP Morgan and the Failure to Regulate Wall Street Fraud

"It is no exaggeration to say that since the 1980s, much of the global financial sector has become criminalised, creating an industry culture that tolerates or even encourages systematic fraud. The behaviour that caused the mortgage bubble and financial crisis of 2008 was a natural outcome and continuation of this pattern, rather than some kind of economic accident...And yet none of this conduct has been punished in any significant way."

Charles Ferguson, Inside Job


"I know that my retirement will make no difference in its [my newspaper's] cardinal principles, that it will always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty."

Joseph Pulitzer


"We are not left to conjecture how the moneyed power, thus organized and with such a weapon in its hands, would be likely to use it. The distress and alarm which pervaded and agitated the whole country when the Bank of the United States waged war upon the people in order to compel them to submit to its demands can not yet be forgotten.

The ruthless and unsparing temper with which whole cities and communities were oppressed, individuals impoverished and ruined, and a scene of cheerful prosperity suddenly changed into one of gloom and despondency ought to be indelibly impressed on the memory of the people of the United States. If such was its power in a time of peace, what would it not have been in a season of war, with an enemy at your doors?

No nation but the freemen of the United States could have come out victorious from such a contest; yet, if you had not conquered, the Government would have passed from the hands of the many to the hands of the few, and this organized money power from its secret conclave would have dictated the choice of your highest officers and compelled you to make peace or war, as best suited their own wishes. The forms of your Government might for a time have remained, but its living spirit would have departed from it."

Andrew Jackson

Here are two pieces by William K. Black on JPMorgan and the rampant and ongoing fraud and speculation on Wall Street. It tells the backstory of the subversion of the democratic process and how it is being rationalized by the corporate media.

A colleague and I were remarking the other day at the effectiveness of the Wall Street machine to spin the media, both at MF Global and JPM most recently. William K. Black strikes to the heart of it.

If you can do nothing else, if you do not have the means or the vocation for speaking out, you can at least offer some moral support and encouragement to those who do, and help to pass the message along to others.

JPMorgan's Addiction To Gambling on Derivatives
By William K. Black

JPMorgan’s flacks and apologists have, unintentionally, exposed the fact that their cover story – hedging gone bad – is false. JPMorgan runs the world’s largest gambling operation in financial derivatives. The New York Times reported the key facts, but not the analytics, in an article entitled “Discord at Key JPMorgan Unit is Faulted in Loss.” The analytics suggest that the latest JPMorgan cover story – it was JPMorgan’s “Achilles the heel” (based in the UK) who caused the loss – is misleading.

The thrust of the story is that in the beginning JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office (CIO) was run by a fair princess (Ina Drew) and all was fabulous. Sadly, Ms. Drew contracted Lyme’s Disease and was unable to ensure peace and prosperity in her land. The evil Achilles Macris, based in the UK, became disloyal and mean. He made massive, bad purchases of financial derivatives that caused major losses. CIO senior officers based in the U.S. (and women to boot) tried to warn Achilles but he screamed at them and refused to listen and learn. The just king, Jamie Dimon, did not act promptly to save his kingdom from loss because of his great confidence in Princess Drew.

The personal story of Achilles acting like a heel makes compelling journalism, but it obscures rather than clarifies the analysis as to why JPMorgan poses a clear and present danger to the global economy.

We need to begin with context. It was toxic financial derivatives (not) backed by fraudulent liar’s loan mortgages (“green slime”) that drove the U.S. crisis. Paul Volcker urged the administration and Congress to bar any entity that received federal deposit insurance from investing in financial derivatives. The Dodd-Frank Act did so in a provision called “the Volcker rule.” Treasury Secretary Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, who exist to serve the interests of CEOs of the largest banks, oppose the Volcker rule. Jamie Dimon leads the banking industry’s opposition to the Volcker rule.

Dimon has a three-part strategy: stall the Volcker rule, gut its effectiveness by creating a massive loophole, and get the rule repealed by a future Congress. The loophole takes advantage of the fact that the Volcker rule was not intended to prevent banks from using derivatives to create (true) hedges. The current draft of the rule, however, renders the rule useless because it allows banks to call non-hedges “hedges” – it adopts a standard I call “hedginess.” A systemically dangerous institution (SDI) like JPMorgan has vast amounts of financial derivatives and it can (and does) call any speculative bet it takes in financial derivatives a “hedge.”

The NYT article demonstrates that JPMorgan is speculating, not hedging, and that the current draft of the Volcker rule would render us defenseless against the next financial crisis. The article misses these analytics and presents a misleading portrayal of the purportedly good years of CIO under Princess Drew. It turns out that CIO’s profits and losses come from the same practice – gambling on massive amounts of financial derivatives – not hedging. The NYT misses this key analytical point...

Read the rest here at The Big Picture.

Additionally below is an interview that William K. Black has done with Lauren Lyster at Russia Today.

As always, one does not find this type of insightful discussion at the mainstream media which tends to present fake arguments and discussion between paid consultants and flacks from the major parties, both of whom are obtaining record amounts of money from corporations. The latest estimates are that Obama and Romney will gather in $1.5 Billion in campaign 'donations' for this November.

Regulators Searching MF Global for Millions in Missing Customer Funds

Do you know where your account funds or assets owned through ETFs really are?  Do the regulators and overseers of the markets?  Do they care, or just look the other way?

NYT Dealbook
Regulators Investigating MF Global
By BEN PROTESS, MICHAEL J. DE LA MERCED and SUSANNE CRAIG

Federal regulators have discovered that hundreds of millions of dollars in customer money have gone missing from MF Global in recent days, prompting an investigation into the company’s operations as it filed for bankruptcy on Monday, according to several people briefed on the matter.

The revelation of the missing money scuttled an 11th hour deal for MF Global to sell a major part of itself to a rival brokerage firm. MF Global, the powerhouse commodities brokerage run by Jon S. Corzine, had staked its survival on completing the deal.

Now, the investigation threatens to tarnish the reputation of Mr. Corzine, the former New Jersey Governor and Goldman Sachs chief who oversaw MF Global’s demise, making it the first American victim of Europe’s debt crisis.

What began as nearly $1 billion missing had dropped to less than $700 million by late Monday. It is unclear where the money went, and some money is expected to trickle in over the coming days as the firm sorts through the bankruptcy process, the people said....

Read the rest of the story here.

Kleptocracy, "rule by thieves" is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service.

No outside oversight is possible, due to the ability of the kleptocrats to personally control both the supply of public funds and the means of determining their disbursal.

Rajaratnam Guilty On All 14 Counts of Insider Trading - Faces 19+ Years In Prison

"The tapes show he didn't believe the rules applied to him. Cheating became part of his business model."

"He" is a microcosm of a financial system in which the currency of fraud drives out honest price discovery and displaces productive activity, and large institutions game the markets on a daily basis with near impunity, while the public underwrites their steady gains and occasional but spectacular losses.

Sentencing will be on July 29.

AP
Hedge fund founder convicted in inside-trade case
May 11, 2011

NEW YORK (AP) — A former Wall Street titan was convicted Wednesday of making a fortune by coaxing a crew of corporate tipsters to give him an illegal edge on blockbuster trades in technology and other stocks — what prosecutors called the largest insider trading case ever involving hedge funds.

Raj Rajaratnam was convicted of five conspiracy counts and nine securities fraud charges at the closely watched trial in federal court in Manhattan. The jury had deliberated since April 25, and at one point was forced to start over again when one juror dropped out due to illness.

Prosecutors had alleged the 53-year-old Rajaratnam made profits and avoided losses totaling more than $60 million from illegal tips. His Galleon Group funds, they said, became a multibillion-dollar success at the expense of ordinary stock investors who didn't have advance notice of the earnings of public companies and of mergers and acquisitions.

Rajaratnam will remain free on bail, though now with electronic monitoring, at least until his July 29 sentencing.

The verdict came after seven weeks of testimony showcasing wiretaps of Rajaratnam wheeling and dealing behind the scenes with corrupt executives and consultants. Some of the people on the other end of the line pleaded guilty and agreed to take the witness stand against the Sri Lanka-born defendant.

Authorities said the 45 tapes used in the case represented the most extensive use to date of wiretaps — common in organized crimes and drug cases — in a white-collar case.

The defense had fought hard in pretrial hearings to keep the avalanche of audio evidence out of the trial by arguing the FBI obtained it with a faulty warrant. Once a judge allowed them in, prosecutors put the recordings to maximum use by repeatedly playing them for jurors.

"You heard the defendant commit his crimes time and time again in his own words," Assistant U.S. Attorney Reed Brodsky said in closing arguments.

"The tapes show he didn't believe the rules applied to him," the prosecutor added. "Cheating became part of his business model."

In one July 29, 2008, call, Rajaratnam could be heard grilling former Goldman Sachs board member Rajat Gupta...."

William K Black on 'Financial Racketeering;' Government Coverup; a 250% Tax Increase

The interview with William K. Black starts at 13:00 in this video and is well worth seeing.

Gresham's Dynamic: The least ethically inclined have an advantage in the US financial system (in which regulatory capture nullifies enforcement) driven by perverse incentives of oversized bonuses and the failure to investigate and prosecute criminal activity.



In addition to the overhang of unindicted and undeclared fraud that is still in place, distorting the clearing of the markets, there is the issue of an imbalanced economy in which an oversized financial sector exacts what amounts to a draconian tax on the real economy, that is, fees and tariffs and other unproductive drains in excess of anything that the government is levying.

What Do You Get for a 250% Tax Increase?

As I recall the percentage of financial sector profits to corporate profits recently peaked at 41%, from a long run average of less than 16%. Granted, this is a bit theoretical because of the pervasive accounting fraud in the banks and the corporations.

I wonder what the percentage of profit, pre-bonus, is being enjoyed now?

This can be viewed as a form of a tax. If the government raised taxes from 16% to 41% what do you think the impact on the US economy would be? And yet there is little discussion of this, or the racketeering that accompanied such a festival of looting.

Yet conceptually this is what has been accomplished through the deregulation of the banks and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and of course, regulatory capture. The financial sector acts primarily as a capital accumulation and allocation system, and secondarily to facilitate wealth transferals through pure investment and speculation, the famous school of winners and losers. I would suggest that this latter function has grown out of control like a cancer, and metastasized to drain and debilitate the better part of the political system and the non-financial economy.

I would suggest that this system is broken, and that there can be no sustainable recovery until it is fixed. How can confidence return when most of those in the know realize that the fraud is still in play? Who can take positions with confidence in such a corrupt environment wherein the government acts as the handmaiden to a handful of powerful Banks which engage in large scale frauds as a mainstay of their business, and with virtual impunity?

Stimulus that is not targeted, and especially any subsidy that passes through the Banks, is liable to this tax. It reminds me of warlords stealing charitable relief as it arrives in a Third World country before it can be distributed to the people.

But austerity is even worse, because the kinds of austerity being discussed are specifically targeting the ordinary people who have been badly used already to say the least, and not the perpetrators of one of the biggest financial frauds in the history of the world, and those wealthy few who benefited from a culture of deception which they helped to form.

This is a compounding of the suffering and injustice. If one were to set a recipe for a social and civil revolution it would fit the bill nicely. No one ever said that the pigmen are not self-destructive in their lifestyles and obsessions.

The comparison to the aftermath of the Savings and Loan crisis could not be more stark. Why the inability and reluctance to investigate and indict? What is the government covering up? Who is pulling Obama's strings?

Why The Bankers, The Fed, and Their Allies In Washington Are Afraid of Elizabeth Warren

“Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders."

Dr. Lawrence Britt

The Nation
The AIG Bailout Scandal
William Greider
August 6, 2010

The government’s $182 billion bailout of insurance giant AIG should be seen as the Rosetta Stone for understanding the financial crisis and its costly aftermath. The story of American International Group explains the larger catastrophe not because this was the biggest corporate bailout in history but because AIG’s collapse and subsequent rescue involved nearly all the critical elements, including delusion and deception. These financial dealings are monstrously complicated, but this account focuses on something mere mortals can understand—moral confusion in high places, and the failure of governing institutions to fulfill their obligations to the public.

Three governmental investigative bodies have now pored through the AIG wreckage and turned up disturbing facts—the House Committee on Oversight and Reform; the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which will make its report at year’s end; and the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), which issued its report on AIG in June.

The five-member COP, chaired by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, has produced the most devastating and comprehensive account so far. Unanimously adopted by its bipartisan members, it provides alarming insights that should be fodder for the larger debate many citizens long to hear—why Washington rushed to forgive the very interests that produced this mess, while innocent others were made to suffer the consequences. The Congressional panel’s critique helps explain why bankers and their Washington allies do not want Elizabeth Warren to chair the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The report concludes that the Federal Reserve Board’s intimate relations with the leading powers of Wall Street—the same banks that benefited most from the government’s massive bailout—influenced its strategic decisions on AIG. The panel accuses the Fed and the Treasury Department of brushing aside alternative approaches that would have saved tens of billions in public funds by making these same banks “share the pain.”

Bailing out AIG effectively meant rescuing Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch (as well as a dozens of European banks) from huge losses. Those financial institutions played the derivatives game with AIG, the esoteric practice of placing financial bets on future events. AIG lost its bets, which led to its collapse. But other gamblers—the counterparties in AIG’s derivative deals—were made whole on their bets, paid off 100 cents on the dollar. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill.

“The AIG rescue demonstrated that Treasury and the Federal Reserve would commit taxpayers to pay any price and bear any burden to prevent the collapse of America’s largest financial institutions,” the COP report said. This could have been avoided, the report argues, if the Fed had listened to disinterested advisers with a less parochial understanding of the public interest....

Read the rest here

SP Futures and Gold Daily Charts at 2:30 EDT: Smoke and Mirrors

The spike in the overnight futures based on the vague assurances from China to revalue the yuan higher, an obvious and strictly political move to pre-empt the discussion of their currency manipulation at the upcoming G20 meeting, was used to justify a classic 'wash and rinse' in the price of stocks, and bring in some coin for the needy Wall Street banks.

This is how the moral hazard of bailing out the Too Big To Be Banks has returned as an unintended consequence, strangling the real economy and the very markets which the bailouts were intended to save by taxing production and capital with the drag of a corruption tax that also has a dampening effect on efficient capital allocation.

The Banks, being fundamentally unreformed and insolvent, with failed business models based on fraud, are unable to make their expected outsized returns using conventional business means. With the mortgage and CDO ponzi scheme collapsed, they must resort to the more familiar soft control frauds in the capital allocation markets, creating and exploiting inefficiencies to support their unsustainable existence. Better that they would have been broken up and liquidated where necessary, rather than being saved without a structural reform.

No matter the rationales put forward, it was an act of political corruption in which the Congress and the last two Administrations are complicit. More and more wealth is being transferred out of the productive economy and into the hands of a financial elite that spends it in the non-productive accumulation of capital, high risk speculation, and hoarding incented by historically low tax rates for the very wealthy.

As I suggested last night, the spike higher in the futures was artificial, and worth fading to the short side. But while it stays above the trendline now around 1110 I would not lean on it too hard, since the threat of a snapback rally in the last hour is always there on these thin volumes. If it breaks down, we are probably heading down to the 1060 support in a roundabout way. The economy is floundering, with about half of US GDP dependent on fraud in financial assets and corporate accounting.

There is also an FOMC rate decision coming up on the 23rd, Wednesday, so we will see some artificial action around that. It is also the day that GTU closes its shelf offering which should take some of the pressure off the unit price.



Chart Updated at 5:00 PM EDT

As a reminder this is the option expiration week (June 24th) for gold and silver July contracts at the COMEX. Even so, the pullback in the price of gold is well within the range of the handle. Short term it is relatively easy to manipulate the price within a certain range of the primary trend, given the current state of regulatory capture at the CFTC. At some point the primary trend will take a much steeper slope as we head towards a commercial failure to deliver. But no one can accuse the people in New York and Washington of long term thinking when there are short term profits to be made, and campaign contributions to be pocketed.



Chart Updated at 5:00 PM EDT

SP 500 Daily Chart and The Planet of the Apes

The SP futures declined to briefly touch a channel trendline that goes all the way back to the intraday spike lows of October 2009!

The market is rallying sharply now, and if it can retake the old support, now resistance, around 1105 it has a good chance of setting a new uptrend back to the top of the channel. This could just be a dead cat bounce. I was looking at some of the indicators last night, and they were at record oversold levels going back at least four years, including the crash.

Was all this a trading gambit mixed with petulance over the financial reform package? In a normal market I would say "nonsense." But this market is thin, like a Ponzi scheme, driven by high frequency trading and artificial liquidity. The few genuine investors are being chased and shot down like the human beings in The Planet of the Apes. The Wall Street gorillas have all the horses, nets and rifles, courtesy of the government, the regulators, and the Fed.

The smackdown in gold and silver ahead of option expiration next week, and the miners' option expiration today, was some of the most blatant and heavy handed market manipulation I have seen in a long time.

The US is badly in need of adult supervision and behavioural modification. Not the much maligned people, the long suffering public which seeks only to go about its daily business creating wealth in the real economy in the face of mounting hardships, but rather the corrupt and irresponsible government, and the pampered princes of Wall Street, who are engaged primarily in wealth extraction and redistribution, primarily for themselves.

Washington can pass all the reforms it wishes. But until it obtains the will and the regulators to enforce the laws, including the existing laws, it is all merely a show to placate the public and maintain a misplaced confidence in 'extend and pretend' sustained by self-serving neo-liberal economic mythology.

"Meanwhile, the financial sector is to be enriched by the translation of junk economics into international policy. Living in the short run is the financial sector¹s time frame ­ while distracting the attention of indebted populations from calculations that Wall Street understands quite well: the debts cannot be paid in the end.

But they can be paid in the short run, with promises to pay someday ­ as if any economies ever have been able to grow by imposing austerity! It is all junk economics, of course. But it buys time for the bankers to pay themselves yet more bonuses this year. By the time the financial system collapses, they presumably will have put their money into hard assets.

Bank lobbyists know that the financial game is over. They are playing for the short run. The financial sector’s aim is to take as much bailout money as it can and run, with large enough annual bonuses to lord it over the rest of society after the Clean Slate finally arrives. Less public spending on social programs will leave more bailout money to pay the banks for their exponentially rising bad debts that cannot possibly be paid in the end. It is inevitable that loans and bonds will default in the usual convulsion of bankruptcy."

Michael Hudson

As the crisis continues unreformed, the frauds will become increasingly outrageous, and obvious, to all those with a willingness, and yes the courage, to see things as they really are.

William K. Black's Testimony to the Congress on Lehman's fraud

The recent US financial crisis is always and everywhere founded in regulatory capture, dissembling, influence peddling, and fraud.

Janet Tavakoli: Did Goldman Sachs Commit Fraud?

Highlights:

Yes. The only thing that was surprising how long the SEC took to do it.

The complaint does not go quite far enough. It was a blatant fraud, more than just a failure to disclose information.

And this may be the beginning of a lot of questions about a lot of investment banks. It has massive implications IF the SEC does its job right, which they have not done in the past.

Tavakoli Structured Finance

Whistleblower Speaks Out On J. P. Morgan's Market Manipulation - Reports Violations to the CFTC in the Silver Market

Do we have another Harry Markopolos here, describing in detail the manipulation of the silver markets by J.P. Morgan to the CFTC? How does this square with the testimony today from the CFTC Commissioners, who seem to indicate that the markets are functioning extremely well, and that investor can have full confidence in them?

I am led to understand that Mr. McGuire had offered to testify before the CFTC today, and that he was refused admittance. I do not know him, or the position he is in within the trading community. I cannot therefore assess his credibility or the validity of any evidence which he may present or possess. But I have the feeling that nothing will come of this.

Remember, there was no action on the Madoff scandal until AFTER his fraud collapsed, and the government was forced to acknowledge Markopolos' existence. He had been ignored and dismissed by the bureaucrats at the SEC for years because of Madoff's power and standing with the trading establishment. And of course by those who had an interest in hiding Madoff's scheme, if nothing else, to promote 'confidence' in the markets.

What seems particularly twisted about this is that JPM is the custodian of the largest silver ETF (SLV). Is anyone auditing that ETF, and watching any conflicts of interest and self-trading? Multiple counterparty claims on the same bullion?

If you ever wanted to see a good reason for the Volcker rule, this is it. These jokers are one of the US' largest banks, with trillions of dollars in unaudited derivatives exposure, and they seem to be engaging in trading practices like Enron did before it collapsed.

Have they lost their minds, or are they just that reckless, immature, short term, and arrogant? Morgan practically holds the keys to the US Treasury, a recent recipient of billions in taxpayer support, and still receiving signficant subsidies from the Fed. They seem to be in dire need of adult supervision. Blatantly and clumsily rigging the silver market, and then bragging about it to people outside their company. What's next, bumping off grannies for their Social Security checks? Three card monte games on the boardwalk?

I was trying to understand why this item struck me so hard this evening. It shocked me in a way that few things do anymore. I think it is because I had unconsciously come to the same conclusion earlier, on my own, in the post where I showed the repeated and obvious bear raids on gold into this option expiration, and it struck a resonant chord when I read McGuire's description of the silver manipulation. I refused to believe it, but apparently there it is. The "Dr. Evil" trading strategy that Citigroup was caught using in the Eurobond markets.

I do not expect the detailed facts on this to ever reach the light of day in my lifetime. The implications are far too political.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY BILL MURPHY, CHAIRMAN OF THE GOLD ANTI-TRUST ACTION COMMITTEE

HEARINGS ON THE METALS MARKETS, MARCH 25, 2010

On March 23, 2010 GATA Director Adrian Douglas was contacted by a whistleblower by the name of Andrew Maguire. Mr. Maguire, formerly of Goldman Sachs, is a metals trader in London. He has been told first hand by traders working for JPMorganChase that JPMorganChase manipulates the precious metals markets and they bragged how they make money doing so.

In November 2009 he contacted the CFTC enforcement division to report this criminal activity. He described in detail the way in which JPM signals to the market its intention to take down the precious metals<. Traders recognize these signals and make money shorting the metals along side JPM. He explained how there are routine market manipulations at the time of option expiry, Non-farm payroll data releases, and Comex contract rollover as well as other ad hoc events.

On February 3 he gave two days advance warning by email to Mr Eliud Ramirez, a senior investigator of the Enforcement Division, that the precious metals would be attacked upon the release of the non-farm payroll data on February 5. Then on February 5 as it played out exactly as predicted further emails were sent to Mr. Ramirez in real time while the manipulation was in progress.

It would not be possible to predict such a market move in advance unless the market was manipulated.

In an email on that day Mr. Maguire said "It is 'common knowledge' here in London amongst the metals traders it is JPM's intent to flush out and cover as many shorts as possible prior to any discussion in March about position limits. I feel sorry for all those not in this loop. A serious amount of money was made and lost today and in my opinion as a result of the CFTC allowing by your own definition an illegal concentrated and manipulative position to continue"

Expiry of the COMEX APRIL call options is today. There was large open interest in strikes from $1100 to $1150 in gold. As always happens month after month HSBC and JPM sell short in large quantities to overwhelm all bids and make unsuspecting option holders lose their money. As predicted in advance by GATA the manipulation started on March 19th when gold was trading at $1126. By last night it traded at $1085.

This is how much the gold cartel fears the enforcement division. They thumb their noses at you because in over a decade of complaints and 18 months of a silver market manipulation investigation nothing has been done to stop them. And this is why JPM’s cocky and arrogant traders in London are able to brag that they manipulate the market.

It is an outrage and we are making available the emails from our whistleblower, Andrew Maguire available to the Press wherein he warns in advance of a manipulative event.

Additionally Mr. Maguire informed us that he has taped recordings of his telephone communications with the CFTC for which we are taking the appropriate legal steps to acquire.

-END-

From: Andrew Maguire
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:51 PM
To: Ramirez, Eliud [CFTC]
Cc: Chilton, Bart [CFTC]
Subject: Silver today

Dear Mr. Ramirez:

I thought you might be interested in looking into the silver trading today. It was a good example of how a single seller, when they hold such a concentrated position in the very small silver market, can instigate a selloff at will.

(Note: This is the "Dr. Evil" trading strategy that got Citi rebuked and fined in the Euro Bond markets, and also got Enron into trouble in the energy markets. - Jesse)

These events trade to a regular pattern and we see orchestrated selling occur 100% of the time at options expiry, contract rollover, non-farm payrolls (no matter if the news is bullish or bearish), and in a lesser way at the daily silver fix. I have attached a small presentation to illustrate some of these events. I have included gold, as the same traders to a lesser extent hold a controlling position there too....

I brought to your attention during our meeting how we traders look for the "signals" they (JPMorgan) send just prior to a big move. I saw the first signals early in Asia in thin volume. As traders we profited from this information but that is not the point as I do not like to operate in a rigged market and what is in reality a crime in progress.

As an example, if you look at the trades just before the pit open today you will see around 1,500 contracts sell all at once where the bids were tiny by comparison in the fives and tens. This has the immediate effect of gaining $2,500 per contract on the short positions against the long holders, who lost that in moments and likely were stopped out. Perhaps look for yourselves into who was behind the trades at that time and note that within that 10-minute period 2,800 contracts hit all the bids to overcome them. This is hardly how a normal trader gets the best price when selling a commodity. Note silver instigated a rapid move lower in both precious metals.

This kind of trading can occur only when a market is being controlled by a single trading entity.

I have a lot of captured data illustrating just about every price takedown since JPMorgan took over the Bear Stearns short silver position.

I am sure you are in a better position to look into the exact details.

It is my wish just to bring more information to your attention to assist you in putting a stop to this criminal activity.

Kind regards,
Andrew Maguire

Read more on this, and some particular examples of silver market manipulation, here.

Market Concentration - Approximately 80% of the Precious Metal Derivatives
This is remniscent of the Oil and Steel Trusts from the turn of the 20th Century

Today's CFTC Hearing on Metals Position Limits

Pretty much what you might expect. The gorillas hate restrictions, and threaten to take their business elsewhere if anyone tries to regulate them. Since there are only a few major metals exchanges in the world, TOCOM, LBMA, and COMEX, one might think the CFTC could pick up the phone and coordinate something with their counterparts without straining the smoothness of their golf swings.

For the most part commissioners say they are afraid of limiting transparency by increasing transparency requirements. As if there is sufficient market transparency today.

So let's not limit cheating, because it might lessen the volume of fraud on their exchanges and drive it to other countries. Let's see, like Japan, which has MORE transparency by company position, and London, which is mostly a physical market without futures as I recall. The FSA is cracking down on fraud. Maybe that will drive more business over here. Better tell them to ease up.

Perhaps the Commission is concerned that the financial pirates might try and take over Havana and turn it into their private casino. Oops, been there, tried that, too corrupt for their local standards. How about Somalia? They seem to be open to new free market trading concepts.

Gentlemen. Don't worry so much about other countries. Most of the recent financial frauds seem to be originating just to the east of the Hudson River and west of Long Island. Clean up your own house, and let the world look to its own devices.

For the most part as a regulator, the CFTC seems like the FED, but without the pocket protectors and PhD's, and the formal ownership by those whom it is supposed to be regulating.

Time for a change, America. I hate to sound negative, but if anything comes of this I will be astonished. The change will come after there is a major scandal, or a breakdown in the markets. And then the push will be to 'move on' and not look at what anyone did or did not do, but how we can 'fix it' by moving the regulatory responsibility to a committee of Chicago aldermen, or a contingent of Beverly Hills divorce lawyers. Are the Westies available for regulatory outsourcing? Hey, I know who can do it, after all, it's God's work.

What they said at CFTC hearing on metals limits

March 25 (Reuters) - The Commodity Futures Trading Commission held a hearing on Thursday to examine whether position limits are needed to curb speculation in metals futures markets.

Here are comments from participants:

GARY GENSLER, Chairman, CFTC

"Based upon what we learn, we will further review CFTC rules to determine what, if any, course of action is most appropriate." (Goldman Sachs alumni, and a Rubin protege.)

MICHAEL DUNN, Democrat commissioner, CFTC

"I am concerned that position limits in regulated futures markets without corresponding limits in the over-the-counter markets may result in less transparency in our markets, if those presently trading on exchanges move to over-the-counter and other opaque markets to circumvent CFTC regulations." (The benefit of course is that Joe Average doesn't trade on the unregulated and opaque markets, and won't be skinned on a weekly basis, or at least unless he or she is a qualified investor. Still, a decent thought.)

BART CHILTON, Democrat commissioner, CFTC

"The sensible, reasonable approach to position limits that guards against manipulation and stops excessive speculation is what we need to protect consumers.

I hope this hearing helps put us on a fast-track to getting a proposal out there." (A lone voice of reform. Bart is a man of the people.)

SCOTT O'MALIA, Republican commissioner, CFTC

"The exchanges registered with the commission are not the market's epicenter. Significant price discovery in these markets takes place abroad in London." (Let the FSA do it. Mentor is Mitch McConnell.)

"We must ensure that any rules or regulations do not offer any opportunities for regulatory arbitrage or decreased transparency of U.S. markets."

TOM LASALA, chief regulatory officer, CME Group (CME.O)

"The only impact that CFTC-imposed limits will have in the metals market will be to shift business away from U.S. exchanges to less-regulated or even wholly unregulated markets that are beyond the commission's jurisdictional reach." (Therefore one should never regulate because people will just move their business offshore. But that does beg the question of protecting AMERICAN investors and regulating THEIR markets. Very discouraging to hear this from the 'chief regulatory officer.')

DIARMUID O'HEGARTY, London Metal Exchange

"We've put a lot of work over the past 100 years to try and learn from the various mistakes in the market over the years and what we've ended up with is, I think, as good as it gets." (Got tungsten?)

JEFF BURGHARDT, Copper and Brass Fabricators Council

"It is our belief that investment funds have been the major driver behind the record high prices we have seen in many commodities in recent years, including copper."

"Increasing initial margin amounts charged to investment funds will be a more effective solution to the problem." (User Associations always want to limit the longs.)

TOM CALLAHAN, CEO of NYSE Liffe

"It is not clear that federally designed position limits for metals would have the desired effect of limiting unreasonable and abrupt price movements for these contracts just as federally set position limits for certain agricultural products did not appear to protect those products from price volatility during the recent commodity price bull run."

KEVIN NORRISH, Managing director commodities research, Barclays Capital

"Over the last 10 years, metals and energy have migrated to more transparent, better regulated markets. However, the wrong implementation could drive both the metals and energy markets back into that more opaque territory." (Always with the threats to get their way.)

JEREMY CHARLES, global head, HSBC's precious metals business

"Given the global nature of the precious metals markets, unilateral action on the part of the Commission could simply cause large market participants to shift business to other markets." (You can no longer regulate anything that takes place in your country because of globalization. Multinationals rule the world.)

JEFFREY CHRISTIAN, CPM Group

"My position is that the proposal is a mistake. Federally managed position limits seem both inappropriate and unnecessary." (perma-bear, par excellence)

RICHARD STRAIT, Triland USA, division of Mitsubishi

"In the misguided event position limits are mandated to the U.S. metals futures products, they should be applicable to the spot month only and not ... spread positions and only on an as-needed basis." (We reserve the right to manage the outer month prices.)

STEVE SHERROD, acting director of surveillance, CFTC

Citing an internal study of disaggregated commitment of traders data for COMEX, NYSE Liffe:

"In gold for all months combined and for a trader's net futures and delta-adjusted options combined position, 56 traders exceeded the position accountability levels on one or more days during the two-and-one-quarter-year sample period.

"The maximum number of traders holding positions in gold at or above the position accountability level on any one day was 26."

"Seventeen traders on average exceeded accountability levels for an average of 34 Tuesdays of the 115 Tuesdays in the sample period. The average position while over accountability levels was 20,233 contracts." (Ok we'll bite. What was the accountability level? What would happen if you set it higher to some percentage of the open interest? And what is special about a Tuesday? I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for some bullion today?)

MICHAEL MASTERS, Masters Capital Management

"Passive speculators are an invasive species that will continue to damage the markets until they are eradicated." (Who are these passive speculators, and why must we kill them? Are they getting in the way of the squid's beak?)

MARK EPSTEIN, individual trader

"If there weren't these big monster, guerrilla traders out there ... there would arrive a much more robust market-making community, the market will be much more effective in finding prices." (You say it brother.)

BILL MURPHY, Chairman, Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee

"The gold cartel ... thumb their noses at you because in over a period of complaints in 18 months of the (CFTC's) silver market manipulation investigation nothing has been done to stop them." (Well said, except I don't think those were their noses they were sticking out at them. No noses could be that small and that ugly.)

(Reporting by Christopher Doering, Frank Tank, Tom Doggett; Editing by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Marguerita Choy and Jim Marshall)

This brings to mind the famous quote from Meister Eckhart, "The price of inaction is far greater than the cost of making a mistake.”

But it is a sad reality of modern management that you are never blamed for doing nothing, and too often richly rewarded, but you are never allowed to make a mistake.

When I was in corporate life, the 'big boss' told me "If you do ninety-nine things exceptionally right, but one thing wrong, we will only remember the one thing that you did wrong."

And then he had the nerve to ask the next week in a meeting, "How can we get our employees to take more risks?"

This is the point where Obama must again begin to lead, to change the culture in Washington. The regulatory process needs the stimulus of words of direction, the proper motivational incentives, and perhaps, backed occasionally by a size 11 shoe.

Bank Of America to Pay $150 Million Fine to Settle SEC Case

Breaking news...

Bank of America has agreed to pay a $150 million fine to settle a case with the SEC that it failed to disclose bonuses and other relevant information regarding the acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

Apparently there will be charges under the Martin Act against Mr. Ken Lewis, compliments of Mr. Andrew Cuomo.

The Martin Act, New York General Business Law article 23-A, sections 352-353, is a 1921 piece of legislation in New York that gives extraordinary powers and discretion to an attorney general fighting financial fraud. People called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. The act's powers exceed those given any regulator in any other U.S. state.

With a couple of his lieutenants, Mr. Blankfein could cover that bank fine suggested by the SEC with out of pocket money. But some banks are more equal than others, and GS would probably not condescend to subject itself to an SEC inquiry in the first place.

Mr. Lewis is an outsider, a non-NY banker. He could be food for the wolves, or the career of an ambitious AG.

If the Martin Act carries such power to safeguard the system, as Senator Bob Corker referenced yesterday in his critique of the Volker Rule, why don't they use it to probe the AIG scandal?

Goldman Expects to Keep Cake, Eat Same, Stick Public with Tab

Dick Bove says that Obama's proposal will be good for Goldman Sachs because it will take away the prop trading from banks that have deposits, but will not affect Goldman Sachs who will once again eliminate more competition.

So buy the stock. Hard to imagine anything short of Armageddon that would cause the word 'sell' to emanate from his bloviateness when he is talking his book.

And Goldman Sachs says that it is 'unrealistic' to take away their place at the Fed's teats as a subsidy sucking bank holding company.

"Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said it’s “unrealistic” to imagine the firm won’t be a federally supervised bank, even as new regulatory proposals cast doubt on that status."

Perhaps they will lobby for a special category of bank. Some banks are more equal than others? The public might be dumb enough to buy it, but doubtful Lloyd's peers on the Street would not raise a fuss.

More likely that the corrupt Congress takes this idea of Volcker's, and leads it up a blind alley, and strangles it with delays, transitions, and deceptions, and grandiose discussion of new regulatory architectures, rather than simple but elegant focus on primary mission, and the elimination of conflicts of interest.

The threats of 'lack of competitiveness,' 'stifling the recovery,' and 'portfolio diversity' are already resounding from the canyons of Wall Street and their pond skimming sibyls on financial television.

Bloomberg
Goldman Will Benefit From Obama’s Proposal, Bove Says
By Rita Nazareth

Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. will benefit from President Barack Obama’s proposal to limit Wall Street risk because it may force deposit-taking banks to unwind trading operations, Rochdale Securities analyst Dick Bove said.

Obama called for limiting the size and trading activities of financial institutions as a way to reduce the risk of another financial crisis. The proposals would prohibit banks from running proprietary trading operations solely for their own profit and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds.

He also proposed expanding a 10 percent market-share cap on deposits to include other liabilities such as non-deposit funding as a way to restrict growth and consolidation.

“Banks with large deposit bases have distinct advantages in certain sectors of the market,” Bove wrote in a report today. “If the banks are told they cannot use deposits in this fashion in the future, it ‘levels the playing field’ for companies like Goldman Sachs. This is not a time to sell this stock, it is a time to buy it.”

Goldman Sachs shares erased an early advance as Obama prepared to outline his proposal. The shares lost 4 percent to $161.15 in New York at 2:56 p.m. after rising as much as 1.9 percent at the start of trading.

Bonus Pool Slashed

Goldman, the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, reported record earnings that beat analysts’ estimates as the bank slashed its bonus pool. Net income of $4.95 billion, or $8.20 per share, for the three months ended Dec. 31 compared with a loss of $2.12 billion, or $4.97 a share, for the same period in 2008. The average estimate of analysts in a Bloomberg survey was $5.18 a share.

The record profit came as Goldman Sachs, facing criticism from politicians and labor unions for near-record compensation, set aside $16.2 billion to pay employees, the smallest portion of revenue since the firm went public in 1999.

“The adjustment of compensation lower leaves more money for shareholders,” Bove wrote.

Bove said that if the bank had not slashed its bonus pool, earnings may have been only about 3 cents to 5 cents a share in the quarter, “under certain assumptions concerning compensation,” because of a slowdown in trading.

“Investors are reacting sharply to the fourth quarter results at this company,” Bove wrote. “However, all indicators -- M&A, new financings, increasing volatility in a number of markets, growth in the money supply -- all suggest that this quarter may be a one-time event.”

Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said it’s “unrealistic” to imagine the firm won’t be a federally supervised bank, even as new regulatory proposals cast doubt on that status.