An Open Letter About Austerity, Debt, and Public Policy from Alex Tsipras

As we read this, let us keep in mind that the Banks were mired in bad debts that were created by their fraudulent activities and speculation, and that they were massively bailed out by the people, in the most gentle and accommodating of terms if not outright subsidies.

And now they would prey on those who have saved them, seeking to extend more debts, and harsher terms, not only to Greece but to the poor and middle class of their own countries, in order to make them like slaves to unresolvable burdens, stripped of freedom and assets by a corrupt judiciary and politicians.

Even now, QE is being extended to buy unpayable and overvalued debts from the Banks, to free their balance sheets, and to give them more power to financially oppress the public.

"Most of you, dear Handesblatt readers, will have formed a preconception of what this article is about before you actually read it. I am imploring you not to succumb to such preconceptions. Prejudice was never a good guide, especially during periods when an economic crisis reinforces stereotypes and breeds bigotry, nationalism, even violence.

In 2010, the Greek state ceased to be able to service its debt. Unfortunately, European officials decided to pretend that this problem could be overcome by means of the largest loan in history on condition of fiscal austerity that would, with mathematical precision, shrink the national income from which both new and old loans must be paid. An insolvency problem was thus dealt with as if it were a case of illiquidity.

In other words, Europe adopted the tactics of the least reputable bankers who refuse to acknowledge bad loans, preferring to grant new ones to the insolvent entity so as to pretend that the original loan is performing while extending the bankruptcy into the future. Nothing more than common sense was required to see that the application of the 'extend and pretend' tactic would lead my country to a tragic state. That instead of Greece's stabilization, Europe was creating the circumstances for a self-reinforcing crisis that undermines the foundations of Europe itself.

My party, and I personally, disagreed fiercely with the May 2010 loan agreement not because you, the citizens of Germany, did not give us enough money but because you gave us much, much more than you should have and our government accepted far, far more than it had a right to. Money that would, in any case, neither help the people of Greece (as it was being thrown into the black hole of an unsustainable debt) nor prevent the ballooning of Greek government debt, at great expense to the Greek and German taxpayer.

Indeed, even before a full year had gone by, from 2011 onwards, our predictions were confirmed. The combination of gigantic new loans and stringent government spending cuts that depressed incomes not only failed to rein the debt in but, also, punished the weakest of citizens turning people who had hitherto been living a measured, modest life into paupers and beggars, denying them above all else their dignity. The collapse of incomes pushed thousands of firms into bankruptcy boosting the oligopolistic power of surviving large firms. Thus, prices have been falling but more slowly than wages and salaries, pushing down overall demand for goods and services and crushing nominal incomes while debts continue their inexorable rise. In this setting, the deficit of hope accelerated uncontrollably and, before we knew it, the 'serpent's egg' hatched – the result being neo-Nazis patrolling our neighbourhoods, spreading their message of hatred.

Despite the evident failure of the 'extend and pretend' logic, it is still being implemented to this day. The second Greek 'bailout', enacted in the Spring of 2012, added another huge loan on the weakened shoulders of the Greek taxpayers, "haircut" our social security funds, and financed a ruthless new kleptocracy.

Respected commentators have been referring of recent to Greece's stabilization, even of signs of growth. Alas, 'Greek-covery' is but a mirage which we must put to rest as soon as possible. The recent modest rise of real GDP, to the tune of 0.7%, signals not the end of recession (as has been proclaimed) but, rather, its continuation. Think about it: The same official sources report, for the same quarter, an inflation rate of -1.80%, i.e. deflation. Which means that the 0.7% rise in real GDP was due to a negative growth rate of nominal GDP! In other words, all that happened is that prices declined faster than nominal national income. Not exactly a cause for proclaiming the end of six years of recession!

Allow me to submit to you that this sorry attempt to recruit a new version of 'Greek statistics', in order to declare the ongoing Greek crisis over, is an insult to all Europeans who, at long last, deserve the truth about Greece and about Europe. So, let me be frank: Greece's debt is currently unsustainable and will never be serviced, especially while Greece is being subjected to continuous fiscal waterboarding. The insistence in these dead-end policies, and in the denial of simple arithmetic, costs the German taxpayer dearly while, at once, condemning to a proud European nation to permanent indignity. What is even worse: In this manner, before long the Germans turn against the Greeks, the Greeks against the Germans and, unsurprisingly, the European Ideal suffers catastrophic losses.

Germany, and in particular the hard-working German workers, have nothing to fear from a SYRIZA victory. The opposite holds. Our task is not to confront our partners. It is not to secure larger loans or, equivalently, the right to higher deficits. Our target is, rather, the country's stabilization, balanced budgets and, of course, the end of the grand squeeze of the weaker Greek taxpayers in the context of a loan agreement that is simply unenforceable. We are committed to end 'extend and pretend' logic not against German citizens but with a view to the mutual advantages for all Europeans.

Dear readers, I understand that, behind your 'demand' that our government fulfills all of its 'contractual obligations' hides the fear that, if you let us Greeks some breathing space, we shall return to our bad, old ways. I acknowledge this anxiety. However, let me say that it was not SYRIZA that incubated the cleptocracy which today pretends to strive for 'reforms', as long as these 'reforms' do not affect their ill-gotten privileges. We are ready and willing to introduce major reforms for which we are now seeking a mandate to implement from the Greek electorate, naturally in collaboration with our European partners.

Our task is to bring about a European New Deal within which our people can breathe, create and live in dignity.

A great opportunity for Europe is about to be born in Greece on 25th January. An opportunity Europe can ill afford to miss.

Alex Tsipras, An Open Letter to the People of Germany About That Which You Were Never Told

 

Related: 
Greek PM Freezes Privatisations

Anti-Austerity Party Gathers Support in Spain

Matt Taibbi On the Passage of the Spending Bill With Wall St Giveaway By the Senate

A brief word from Matt Taibbi on the passage of the 2015 Spending Bill by the Senate.

Basically, the American People were pushed aside by the Congress to favour JPM and Citigroup who lobbied heavily for public coverage for their gambling on derivatives.

We might expect this from the Republicans, although it is difficult to understand how they can rationalize supporting corporate welfare when they are so tough on entitlements for the poor.  And as for the Democrats...

"If the Democrats actually stood for anything other than sounding as progressive as possible without offending their financial backers, then they would do what Republicans always do in these situations: force a shutdown to save their legislation. How many times did Republicans hold the budget hostage to rescue the Bush tax cuts?

But the Democrats won't do that here, because they're not a real party. They're a marketing phenomenon, a big chunk of oligarchical Blob cleverly sold to voters as the more reasonable and less nakedly corrupt wing of a two-headed political establishment.

So they'll punt on this issue in the name of "maturity" or "bipartisanship," Wall Street will get a nice win, and Hillary Clinton or whoever else is being set up as the Blob candidate on the Democratic side will receive an avalanche of Financial Services donations to stave off Warren (who will begin appearing in the press as an unhinged combination of Lev Trotsky and Spartacus). A neat little piece of business all around. I don't know whether to applaud or throw up."

Read the entire Taibbi article in Rolling Stone here.

Senate Report Reveals Powerful Manipulative Positions of Goldman, JPM In Global Commodities

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Why is JP Morgan getting so much heat?   Maybe because it is a massive international crime syndicate."

Matt Taibbi, Talking JPM With Sam Seder

JPM and Goldman sought and obtained manipulative powers in global commodities, even while they were being bailed out on the back of the American people?   Oh no, nothing like this could be true, or so the shills and toadies of the moneyed interests will say.  Just get the government out of our way, and everything will be all right.  The market is naturally rational and efficient, pure and pristine.   No Bank would risk its reputation by doing anything illegal.

Especially when they buy off and intimidate enforcement, write the laws, and do what they will. 

I doubt that anything meaningful will be done about this.  The corruption runs deep.  In corporatism the private and public elites are largely interchangeable.  Different roles, similar objectives.

The politicians may make a good show of it, and talk harshly to their witnesses.  And then take their money, and lick their hands.

But at least we know more about what is true, and what is not.

Perhaps this may help you understand those who do not wish to remain under the power of the Banking cartel, and may be in a better position to do something about it.

Related: Wiseguys: Drawing Parallels Between the Mafia and Wall Street

Dealbook

Senate Report Criticizes Goldman and JPMorgan Over Their Roles in Commodities Market

By Nathaniel Popper and Peter Eavis

November 19, 2014

A two-year Senate-led investigation is throwing back the curtain on the outsize and sometimes hidden sway that Wall Street banks have gained over the markets for essential commodities like oil, aluminum and coal.

The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase assumed a role of such significance in the commodities markets that it became possible for the banks to influence the prices that consumers pay while also securing inside information about the markets that could be used by the banks’ own traders

Bankers from both firms, along with other industry executives and regulators, will testify about the allegations at hearings on Thursday and Friday.

The 400-page report, which was made public on Wednesday evening, included case studies on nine different commodities in which banks have taken big positions, including the 100 oil tankers and 55 million barrels of oil storage that were owned by Morgan Stanley, and the 31 power plants owned by JPMorgan at one point.

The subcommittee discussed several reasons that these commodity operations could create problems. The potential for price manipulation and the unfair advantage that banks can gain in these markets were among the top concerns expressed by Senator Levin and Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the subcommittee.

But both senators also echoed previous warnings that the enormous holdings of oil, uranium and other hazardous materials could expose the banks to significant legal liability that could, in turn, lead to runs on the banks.

A 2012 study by the Federal Reserve, cited in the report, found that banks have not put aside enough money and insurance to adequately prepare for the “extreme loss scenarios” involving commodities...

Read the entire article here.

CBC: Canada To Adopt the Cyprus Model of Depositor 'Bail-In' In Case of Bank Failure

The smugness of the Canadian politicians is reminiscent of the Bank of New Zealand. 

Perhaps that is what the political do when they are making plans for a gathering storm and they wish for everyone to remain on the beach in the meanwhile.

I could be wrong, but in my judgement nothing in the global banking system is safe if the massive derivative bubble collapses. 

It will not only take down the private banks, but quite a few sovereign countries as well.

I am of the opinion that in the States there will not be the same sort of 'bail in' but a 'print in' in which the Fed will supply as much money as is required, taking value from all who hold Dollars including foreign holders.  So in that sense, the US is 'safe.'  It is all the holders of dollars around the world who are not.

You may wish to take some protective measures if you have not done so already.   When the times comes, there will be no time.

Ottawa weighing plans for bank failures
By Neil MacDonald
April 3, 2013

Buried deep in last month's federal budget is an ambiguously worded section that has roiled parts of the financial world but has so far been largely ignored by the mainstream media.

It boils down to this: Ottawa is contemplating the possibility of a Canadian bank failure — and the same sort of pitiless prescription that was just imposed in Cyprus.

Meaning no bailout by taxpayers, but rather a "bail-in" that would force the bank's creditors to absorb the staggering losses that such an event would inevitably entail.

If that sounds sobering, it should. While officials in Ottawa are playing down the possibility of a raid on the bank accounts of ordinary Canadians, they chose not to include that guarantee in the budget language.

Canadians tend to believe their banks are safer and more backstopped than elsewhere in the world. The federal government enthusiastically promotes the notion, and loves to take credit for it.

It may well be true, even if Canada's six-bank oligopoly isn't terribly competitive, at least in comparison to the far more diverse American banking universe.

But in the ever-more insecure world that has unfolded since the financial meltdown of 2008, it is also increasingly clear that nothing is safe anymore, not even blue-chip bank stocks and bonds or even, in the case of the Cyprus bail-in, private bank accounts.

And now, Canada is making a bail-in official government policy, too...

Read the rest here.

The Banking System and Money Creation - A Forecast of Sorts

Money in the modern fiat sense originates from a number of sources.  Among these is the conversion of credit potential into money by the expansion of debt.  For the sake of simplicity I simply refer to this process as 'credit.'

This does not mean that 'credit' is money, not in the least. Credit is a source of money, and amongst the most vital in a highly geared fractional reserve banking system, but is still not money itself.

In our modern world of financial innovation, 'money' is most often created through the leveraged expansion of credit by private banks, and its subsequent employment in supporting real economic activity in the form of savings, consumption, and investment.

Private banks have been licensed the privilege to increase the supply of money through the exercise of fractional reserve credit and receiving insured desposits in return for assuming the responsibility for assessing the risks,  adhering to regulations, conforming to inspections, and taking the full responsibility for any losses by their management, shareholders, and bondholders. Otherwise it would be a very exorbitant privilege, a thinly disguised racket, and a confidence game.

"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the Bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country.  When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank."

Andew Jackson

While some central bank, either officially or de facto, most often manages the private banking system, providing additional credit where needed, largely through the discount window as lender of last resort, the real economy is able to generate enough money through its own activity to support its natural growth, with allowance made for seasonal fluctuations. Natural growth is rarely linear, but given to advance and consolidation, ebbs and flows.

One measure of this activity is the velocity of money, that is, the amount of real economic activity relative to the existing money supply using some sort of measure.  The measure does not do anything of course, but it is merely a measure of what is happening in the interaction between money creation and real economic activity, rather like a speedometer.

There are a number of 'throttles' which a central bank, and banking management for that matter, can use to manage and regulate the creation of credit and thereby the supply of money. Among these are lending standards, reserve requirements and quality, bank leverage and investment guidelines, and short term interest rates.

I will not go into these individually now, but one can see that this is how the capitalisation and activity of a bank is shaped, either by sound private management or the force of some external regulatory body, ideally in some combination and mutual cooperation.

For whatever reason, be it some exogenous event, human or natural, or the result of a period of mismanagement, the credit creation process may fail and the banks become unable to generate credit sufficient to serve the needs of the real economy. I can give any number of examples of why this might happen.

An appropriate one might be bank insolvency, that is, a sudden deterioration of the assets upon which the bank's credit rating is based, impairing its ability to acquire money to fund its daily operations.  This funding is known as liquidity.   It might be a simple and yet not incorrect to think of solvency as net asset wealth marked to market, and liquidity as cash flow available to meet demands.

In a financial collapse as the result of a financial bubble, an entire banking system might be brought low by some natural disaster or the deterioration of assets based on some chronic mispricing of risk.  This is most likely to be systemically severe if the credit creation process is concentrated in a few big banks, and/or the banking system is highly interconnected by counterparty risk. 

As an aside, and admittedly off the top of my head, I seem to recall that the objection which some economic scholars like Ben Bernanke have had to the gold standard and the Great Depression is that it helped, in their analysis, to transmit and transfer the economic failure in some countries to many countries, in the manner of a contagion.  Thank God they eliminated that problem with their new banking model, right?

Concentration and interdependency are negative influences on portfolio diversification.

At the point of a credit creation failure, the central bank, and most likely the government, must step in to remedy the situation. The most effective approach seems to be the shutting down of the bank or banks, the cleansing of  balance sheets, prosecution for fraud as appropriate, and then the reopening of the banks as well-managed and functioning institutions again, as appropriate and practical.

Hopefully the unsuspecting depositors have been made whole, while serious losses are realized by management, the shareholders, and even the bondholders of the bank, who presumably have a significant interest and effect on how it had been managed.  This satisfies equability and justice.

This resolution of the banks' balance sheets and management is what is called a sine qua non. If this does not happen, then the situation will continue in some crippled manner until it is corrected.  Even in the case of a natural disaster or some completely exogenous event, a general banking failure is the sign of some systemic weakness and concentration in the system.

During a period of bank restructuring, the central bank will most likely be called upon to take a more active role in the supply of credit to the real economy. It does this through its own lending facilities with the banking system though an ability to inject credit by purchasing financial assets from the remaining sound banks. 

This is absolutely the function of the central bank. It has little other reason to exist in the form that it does as a bank, except to stand ready as lender of last resort. If it does not perform this function, it is merely another regulator.

If the damage to the real economy is deep enough, the central government may have to intervene beyond prosecuting fraud, restoring the funds of depositors and the granted of new licenses to restructured banks.

If the central bank's activity to sustain the money creation process is not sufficient because of a spiral of diminishing demand caused by a lack of confidence to spend and invest, it can increase its own spending thereby stimulating activity in the real economy.

This is often controversial because during a sustained economic downturn government finances should turn negative, since their income from taxes on real economic transactions fall off, and perhaps sharply, due to a decline in those transactions.

I know this is a bit of a simplification, but it does essentially represent what happens.

The collapse of the credit system can be called a 'deflationary event.' It is deflationary not so much because it destroys money per se,  but because it reduces the growth rate of money relative to the needs of the real economy, and sometimes significantly.

A money supply is rarely static. It grows as a population and an economy grows and expands, and seasonal demand fluctuates, and can still be called stable.

Try not to think of a money supply in purely nominal terms but in relation to something else, like the real economy. If the economy is growing at five percent per year, the money supply would also be growing at about five percent a year just to maintain its stability and to satisfy demand. 

If the real economy is growing at five percent, and the money supply has no growth, then it will begin to act as a constricting force on the economy unless investments can be obtained from some external source if that is possible.

If it has been growing rather quickly relative to the needs of the real economy for whatever reason, and then suddenly the money supply growth stops without regard to anything real changes, it will have an artificial dampening effect on the real economy, prices, interest rates, and so forth. 

So why are the developed economies in such trouble today?

Because for whatever reason, the central bank and the government have failed to take that most important first step in a sustainable recovery in the aftermath of a credit bubble:  reforming and restructuring the financial system.

It is really that simple.

The imbalance that gripped the banking system, the oversized growth of financialisation through innovations in fraudulent conveyances, is still in place.   The activity has just moved to other segments of the economy to feed a bloated and overpaid financial sector that largely unchanged, except that the names on their business cards may be different and fewer.

What we have now is an oversized financial bureaucracy that continues to suck the life out of the real economy which itself has decreased in size and is less able to carry on gracefully.

In those countries that have taken the necessary steps to cleanse the debt and corruption out of their banking systems and restore a balance that favors real growth rather than financial manipulation and speculation, there has been a recovery. Iceland is one recent example. The US in the 1930's is another very good example.

And almost every one of the protections that the people put in place in the 1930's, based on their sad experience in the financial collapse of the 1920's speculative bubble in fraudulent financial instruments, was struck down.

The approach of 'bailing out the banks' and then shifting the pain of economic adjustment from the bank management, shareholders, and bondholders to the public is not only unjust, it is also ineffective, because it merely perpetuates the problems and distortions that caused the banks to fail in the first place and makes them much worse.

The result of this is most likely to be a prolonged period of significant stagflation, if the country has a sovereign currency sound enough to continue on supporting it.  In Japan this presented itself as a prolonged period of economic stagnation but not private deprivation for some reasons peculiar to the structure of their real economy and the nature of their political system.

So here we are. What happens next will be a policy decision.

Although it is different for Greece, whose currency is controlled by an external, and some might say foreign, authority, for the US the limit of the ability of the Federal Reserve to create money is the amount of outstanding debt that it can buy for its balance sheet. 

When working in conjunction with the Treasury, which is the issuer of the sovereign debt, the effect limit of this money creation is the value of the dollar as a medium of exchange for real goods and services, most importantly to non-dollar economies. 

Therefore it is not simply something in the control of the Fed, but a more organic response from the political class.

On one hand we have a powerful set of monied interests who have been the primary beneficiaries of the distortions in monetary and fiscal policy for the past twenty years or so.  And on the other hand we have the bulk of the real economy and the public, including the somewhat fortunate to the newly destitute.

There is a quiet power struggle taking place behind the scenes today over the policy decisions that have been and will be made in response to the crisis by the political class.  The decision is not naturally for the greatest good, and so therefore the polarization has deepened.

Huge sums are being spent, and much talent and energy expended, to shape and influence and frame the attitude and context of the policy debates, including the outright buying of power and influence in the political process. And even more money is being spent on selling those outcomes to the public, and buying a determined and highly vocal minority.  This is nothing new in history.

The people are confused, and in their confusion often become angry, and even hysterically reactive.  These are periods often rich in demagogues, scapegoating, nativisim, and nationalism. 

So here we are.  Where we go next is substantially up to us.  It is not so much that the system has gone wrong, but that our priorities have changed, leading to distortions in the way the system functions.

"Capitalism does have a lot of strengths, including producing things that are very innovative. But what drives capitalism is the profit motive. You can profit not only by making good things, but also by exploiting people, by exploiting the environment, by doing things that are not so good. The narrative that you describe ignores the extent to which a lot of the inequalities in the United States are not the result of creative activity but of exploitive activity."
Joseph Stiglitz

Significant discussions need to occur, and someone or some group must stand up for the right, the greater good.  There should be no doubt that some groups will quickly stand up for the wrong, the narrowly beneficial and broadly destructive, with passionate intensity.

Europe is a much more difficult situation, because their euro is controlled by a fortunate few who are politically separate from those who are feeling the brunt of the pain in the short term. The entire system as it is now constructed is inherently unstable, and cannot stand the stress.

And the same can be said for the 'success stories' like China and the Asian tigers, whose centrally organized economies are based on an unstable global export growth and artificially structured currency regime.

The first reaction of most people,  besides those who just skip the tutorial about how things work and reflexively chime in with a slogan like 'government is the problem so we must eliminate it' and say 'first' is to understandably ask 'how can I protect myself and my family.' Complete self-sufficiency is not obtainable for most, so one must settle for self-sufficiency as is practical. Preserving one's wealth from a rapacious financial system is key. Providing some practical form of food, shelter and protection for one's family is obvious. How to do that depends on one's means and abilities.

I will caution though, that if things progress as I think they might, there will be no place of complete safety to hide. Obviously some local situations might deteriorate badly, and one would not want to be there. But all things being equal, I would rather be amongst friends and in familiar territory, than a stranger in a strange land.

As Walter Bagehot observed, "Life is a school of probabilities."   There is a difference, and often significantly so, between what is possible and what is probable.  One needs be aware of the possibilities, but plan and act based on the evolving probabilities.  A plan based on extreme outcomes is often an extremely impractical plan. 

We live in interesting times.   Changes are coming at us, and so flexibility is an important component of preparedness.  But the best outcome would be for a return to more normal economic growth and stability, and this is not possible without significant reform.

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

AIG Files Master Recapitalization Plan

I am just thankful that Goldman and its Wall Street cronies did not have to take any losses or suffer cutbacks or austerity because of their dealings with AIG, thanks to the timely actions of their friends at Treasury and the NY Fed.

American International Group, Inc.
Wednesday December 8, 2010, 3:52 pm

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- American International Group, Inc. (AIG) announced it had filed a Form 8-K earlier today announcing the signing of the Master Transaction Agreement among ALICO Holdings LLC, AIA Aurora LLC, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the United States Department of the Treasury, the AIG Credit Facility Trust and AIG, regarding a series of integrated transactions to recapitalize AIG, for which trading on the New York Stock Exchange was briefly interrupted.

Regarding the filing of the Master Agreement, AIG issued the following statement:

"Our filing today that we have signed the definitive recapitalization agreement with the government marks an important step forward in our progress toward completely repaying taxpayers. We remain committed to executing the steps and meeting all conditions in the agreement as soon as possible."

Feds Probing JP Morgan Silver Manipulation as Merkel Sounds Defiance to the Banks

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel accused the financial industry of playing dirty. 'First the banks failed, forcing states to carry out rescue operations. They plunged the global economy over the precipice and we had to launch recovery packages, which increased our debts, and now they are speculating against these debts. That is very treacherous,' she said. 'Governments must regain supremacy. It is a fight against the markets and I am determined to win this fight.'"

UK Telegraph

The story of this crisis is the people versus the Banks. The largest mistake that Europe made was in bailing out their biggest banks, and not simply nationalizing them. But that would not have resolved the problem of the gangs of the New York and London, and their partners in the hedge funds and the ratings agencies.

I do not wish to sound pessimistic, but it will be a surprise if the US under the Obama Administration does anything meaningful and significant to curb the abuses of the large Wall Street firms. While the corruption in the campaign financial process and the revolving door between government and the Street remains open the progress to reform will remain a diversion at best.

NY Post
Feds Probing JPMorgan trades in Silver Pit
By MICHAEL GRAY
May 9, 2010

Federal agents have launched parallel criminal and civil probes of JPMorgan Chase and its trading activity in the precious metals market, The Post has learned.

The probes are centering on whether or not JPMorgan, a top derivatives holder in precious metals, acted improperly to depress the price of silver, sources said.

The Commodities Futures Trade Commission is looking into civil charges, and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division is handling the criminal probe, according to sources, who did not wish to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the information.

The probes are far-ranging, with federal officials looking into JPMorgan's precious metals trades on the London Bullion Market Association's (LBMA) exchange, which is a physical delivery market, and the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex) for future paper derivative trades.

JPMorgan increased its silver derivative holdings by $6.76 billion, or about 220 million ounces, during the last three months of 2009, according to the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.

Regulators are pulling trading tickets on JPMorgan's precious metals moves on all the exchanges as part of the probe, sources tell The Post.

JPMorgan has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

The DOJ and CFTC each declined to comment, as did JPMorgan.

The investigations stem from a story in The Post, which reported on a whistleblower questioning JPMorgan's involvement in suppressing the price of silver by "shorting" the precious metal around the release of news announcements that should have sent the price upwards.

It is alleged that in shorting silver, JPMorgan sells large blocks of silver option contracts or physical metal -- actions that would bring down the price of the metal -- closely following news that would otherwise move the metals higher.

Last week, The Post got a telling e-mail the Justice Dept. sent to a concerned investor. "Thank you for your e-mail regarding allegations that JPMorgan Chase, and perhaps other traders, are manipulating the silver futures market," the e-mail read.

Telling, indeed, as the concerned investor, in an e-mail to Justice's Anti-trust division, never mentioned any companies or traders.

When You Lie Down With Them Dept: Morgan Stanley Has 69% Tier 1 Capital Exposure to the PIIGS

That statistic about Morgan Stanley was an eye opener in terms of percent of capital exposure. No wonder Angie Merkel is playing hard to get, holding out for more than another back rub. Morgan Stanley looks like it done slipped in the pig wallow, don'cha know.

Gentlemen, start your presses.

Bloomberg
JPMorgan Has Biggest Exposure to Debt Risks in Europe
By Gavin Finch

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co., the second- biggest U.S. bank by assets, has a larger exposure than any of its peers to Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain, according to Wells Fargo & Co.

JPMorgan’s exposure to the five so-called PIIGS countries is $36.3 billion, equating to 28 percent of the firm’s Tier-1 capital, a measure of financial strength, Wells Fargo analysts including Matthew Burnell wrote today. Morgan Stanley holds $32.4 billion of debt in the region, which equates to 69 percent of its Tier 1 capital, Burnell wrote.

“Regulatory data suggests JPMorgan’s exposure is largest in aggregate, but Morgan Stanley held the largest aggregate exposure to the PIIGS relative to Tier 1 capital,” the analysts wrote. Overall U.S. bank “exposure to Greece is lower than exposure to
Ireland, Italy and Spain.”

Bonds and stocks plunged across Europe in the past week on concern the Greek debt crisis is spreading across the euro area. Standard & Poor’s this week cut Greece, Portugal and Spain’s credit ratings as concern the nations may fail to meet their debt commitments increased.

U.S. banks held a total of $236.8 billion of exposure to the five nations, including $18.1 billion to Greece, Wells Fargo said. European banks have claims totaling $193.1 billion on Greece, according to the Bank for International Settlements, with another $832.2 billion of claims on Spain.

Treasury to Resume the Monetization of the Fed's Programs to Support the Wall Street Banks

"It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." Frederic Bastiat

This Treasury Supplemental Financing Program is designed to provide public funds for the Fed's efforts to purchase and then liquidate toxic assets and derivatives from the financial sector, effectively absorbing their losses and monetizing them.

The Treasury creates new notes and sells them on the open market. The money obtained in these sales is deposited at an account at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve uses this money to purchase toxic assets from the banks at its own discretion and pricing, subject to little oversight and market discipline.

Senator Chris Dodd said "the Fed could become an 'effective Resolution Trust Corporation,' purchasing and ultimately disposing of depreciated assets.

It looks very much like a stealth bailout. It is even more of a scandal because of the Fed's resistance to any disclosures on the principles and specifics by which they are allocating taxpayer money.

Where this gets even more interesting is that the Fed in turn is buying Treasury debt after issuance through its primary dealers, debt that was issued by the Treasury to provide funds to the Fed.

Even more than a stealth bailout, this is starting to smell like 'a money machine.' Money machines are what Bernanke euphemistically called 'a printing press.' What is odious about this particular printing press is that the output is being given directly to a few big banks by a private organization which they own.

I believe that it is still illegal, by the letter of the statutes, for the Fed to directly purchase Treasury paper. But in this case, the Fed is buying Treasury paper with money supplied by the Treasury. Since the paper is passing through the marketplace, and the Primary Dealers are taking their commissions, it may be in conformance with the letter of the law. But it looks like it violates the spirit of the law.

And given that in many cases the Primary Dealers are the principal beneficiaries of the subsidy programs, selling their toxic debt to the Fed at non-market prices, this starts to appear like a right proper daisy chain of self-dealing and fraud.

As you can see from the background information below, this is a 'temporary' program from 2008 that the Treasury keeps promising to 'wind down.'

This is not a resolution trust by any measure. One only has to compare what happened with the Savings and Loan Resolution Trust, with the orderly liquidation of assets, losses assumed by the individual banks and their management, and investigations and prosecutions for fraud.

And the bankers involved in the Savings and Loan bubble and collapse were not still in business and giving themselves record bonuses within twelve months of their collapse, and engaging in the same frauds and speculation that led to the crisis.

Wall Street bonuses jumped 17 percent last year
SteveEder and Jonathan Stempel
Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:39pm EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bonuses on Wall Street rose 17 percent last year to $20.3 billion even as the industry faced a public backlash over pay practices.

The rise in payouts, reported by New York State's comptroller, came at a time when Wall Street was recovering from the financial crisis of 2008, which forced a taxpayer rescue of the industry that, in turn, stoked widespread anger across
the United States.

Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said on Tuesday profit for all of Wall Street could top $55 billion for 2009, nearly triple the previous record year. Last year, the U.S. economy began to stabilize and lenders raced to repay federal bailout money they had come to view as a stigma."

Further, the Savings and Loan bankers were not flooding the Congress with lobbying money to hinder reform of the banking system, and to shift the focus of Congressional discussion to the reduction of legitimate programs like Social Security to finance the public subsidies being given to the very banks responsible for the financial crisis in the first place.

As a possibly related aside, today's US Treasury 2 year auction was unusual. Indirect Bidders had 100% of their bids filled as noted by ZeroHedge.

MarketWatch
Treasury to expand Supplementary Financing program
By Greg Robb
Feb. 23, 2010, 12:01 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Treasury Department announced Tuesday that it is expanding its Supplementary Financing Program to help the Federal Reserve manage its enormous balance sheet. In a statement, Treasury said it will boost the SFA to $200 billion from its current level of $5 billion. The fund had been up to $200 billion but was scaled back when Congress delayed passage of an increase in the debt limit.

Now that an expansion of the debt limit has been signed into law, the department is able to resume the program. Starting on Wednesday, Treasury will conduct the first of eight weekly $25 billion 56-day SFP bills to restore the program. The department said it will then roll the bills over. "We are committed to work with the Fed to ensure they have the flexibility to manage their balance sheet," a Treasury official said.

September 17, 2008
HP-1144
Treasury Announces Supplementary Financing Program

Washington- The Federal Reserve has announced a series of lending and liquidity initiatives during the past several quarters intended to address heightened liquidity pressures in the financial market, including enhancing its liquidity facilities this week. To manage the balance sheet impact of these efforts, the Federal Reserve has taken a number of actions, including redeeming and selling securities from the System Open Market Account portfolio.

The Treasury Department announced today the initiation of a temporary Supplementary Financing Program at the request of the Federal Reserve. The program will consist of a series of Treasury bills, apart from Treasury's current borrowing program, which will provide cash for use in the Federal Reserve initiatives.

Calculated Risk
Treasury to Unwind Supplementary Financing Program
11/17/2008

One of the credit indicators I was tracking was the activity in the Treasury's Supplementary Financing Program (SFP). This was the Treasury program to raise cash for the Fed's liquidity initiatives.

Once the Fed started paying interest on reserves, the supplemental financing program wasn't needed any more to sterilize the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet. The Treasury announced today that the program will be unwound...

As it should be obvious, these guys cannot give up the needle on their own.

Equal Protection (From the Zombie Banks)

"...the AIG bailout, a hideous political contrivance that ranks with the great acts of political corruption and thievery in the history of the United States."

Remarkable that in light of the massive failure of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the United States Corporatocracy to protect and defend the public from the outrages being committed by the FIRE sector, the Judicial Branch is providing a haven for the rights of the people under the Constitution.

Can this be due to the fact that federal judges do not require huge campaign contributions, which Wall Street doles out like a foreign power to the craven denizens of Foggy Bottom?

Indeed. The clauses that designate the Credit Default Swaps as super senior to nearly everything else (Some animals are more equal than others clauses) are being struck down by bankruptcy courts. The banks do not take precedent in the hearts and minds of everyone, despite assertions by Timmy and Hank to the contrary.

This is an old financiers trick in the equity world of venture capital, the Sand Hill Road clause, long used to strip the holders of common shares of their slice of the pie in the evolution of startups. The CDS and CDO variation took the gambit a step too far, stepping on the rights of the bond holders, and the courts are nullifying it. Good for them.

Wall Street does not always come first, when honest public servants uphold their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against those confiscating the wealth of the people.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law is the guide of those doing their darker god's work. In the short term it makes them strong, because they deny themselves nothing: no trick or falsehood, no claim or deceit, no act of betrayal or sympathetic ploy. They simply have no shame.

But there is also no honour among thieves, only greed and fear. The best part of honour is the love of something greater than ourselves. And so the bonds of their coalition are weak. Greed and self-interest will be unable to sustain the partnership of government and the Banks when the tide turns-- in the end only the fear remains.

And will Timmy whimper when the zombies turn on him?


Institutional Risk Analyst
Zombie Update: Loan Repurchases and REO Anyone?
February 2, 2010

...Our friends at HousingWire report that a federal bankruptcy judge in New York sitting on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, has voided the seniority claims of holders of various qualified investment contracts, ruling that their ipso facto clauses which subordinated other claims to their own were "null and void in bankruptcy." This is an important victory for fans of equal protection and due process, and a big setback for the OTC derivative dealer banks which exert considerable influence at the Fed and OCC.

We have always held the view that the attempts by the large dealer banks, ISDA and regulators to carve out a special, privileged place in the law for OTC derivatives contracts in the event of default is inherently unfair and is doomed to failure, or at least would be challenged, on Constitutional grounds. This case and others make that challenge and review process a reality and also leaves much of the world of complex structured finance in a shambles when it comes to the legal reality of counterparty risk.

Indeed, the same legal art that gave the swap counterparties in this latest case the impression that they were senior to the other creditors of the bankruptcy estate was used by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his successor, Timothy Geithner, to justify the rescue of American International Group. The very same type of investment contracts that Secretary Paulson and Secretary Geithner swore under oath, over and over again, just had to be paid at par in the case if AIG were just set aside by New York Bankruptcy Judge James Peck.

And notice that the world has not ended when the holders of OTC contracts are treated like everyone else. Indeed, Judge Peck has made a number of rulings over the past two years re-leveling the playing field between holders of OTC contracts and other claims against the Lehman bankruptcy estate. As we have noted before, the admirable conduct of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy case by Judge Peck and US Bankruptcy Trustee Harvey Miller is the starkest condemnation possible of the AIG bailout, a hideous political contrivance that ranks with the great acts of political corruption and thievery in the history of the United States.

The question of the enforceability of the documentation in a complex structured securitization involving OTC swaps is not just a matter of debate in the AIG case. Across the US and around the world, investors and trustees are grappling with this same issue. The result is litigation by bond trustees against bond issuers as well as claims by guarantors such as MBIA (MBI) and the housing GSEs, including the Federal Home Loan Banks, against sponsor banks. Many of these claims regarding derivatives are being made in the context of claims for the repurchase of defaulted residential and commercial loans.

The wave of loan repurchase demands on securitization sponsors is the next area of fun in the zombie dance party, namely the part where different zombies start to eat one another. The GSE's are going to tear 50-100bp easy out of the flesh of the banking industry in the form of loan returns on trillions of dollars in exposure, this as charge-offs on the several trillion in residential exposure covered by the GSEs heads north of 5%. The damage here is in the hundreds of billions and lands in particular on the larger zombie banks, especially Bank of America (BAC) and Wells Fargo (WFC).

To put the growing combat in the loan repurchase channel into perspective, keen analysts will already know that a new item has appeared in the disclosure for non-interest income by many larger banks that have been active in the securitization markets. In the case of WFC in Q4 2009, gross income of $1.2 billion in mortgage loan originations was net of $316 million in loss reserves for loan repurchases. Imagine if we add a zero to the loss allocation, then another, and you get to the worst-case exposure on OBS loan repurchases.

Watch this heretofore obscure part of the mortgage banking business become downright material in coming quarters as a race of sorts develops between banks that want to restart the securitization markets and those that are being dragged under water by the weight of legacy liabilities. Notice, for instance, that in the MBI litigation against Countrywide Financial et al, MBIA Insurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al. that now includes BAC explicitly.

The action "arises out of the alleged fraudulent acts and breaches of contract of Countrywide in connection with fifteen securitizations of pools of residential second-lien mortgages" Take particular care to savor the fact that these are second lien pools and that, where defaults have occurred on the primary mortgage, loss severities on the seconds will tend to be 100%. Or the cost could be more than par if you count the cost of remediation and recovery efforts.

With private issuers trying to find a workable formulation for new securitizations, the mounting litigation in the secondary market for structured deals comes at a bad time for efforts to revive the patient and confirms our worry that there is a lot of tough work ahead in the loss mitigation channel. More, we worry that the level of claims and defaults now visible in the US markets is just a taste of the high tide we could see in 2010-2011, especially as and when interest rates start to rise even modestly. Did somebody say "interest rates?"

Front-Running the Markets And the Sickness Unto Death

"And that is the nature of Goldman. Gather up as many customers as possible, aggregate the available information to achieve a superior market view and then relentlessly extract rents from the marketplace. Better yet, tell yourself you’re smarter than everyone else and you’ve earned the rents from the symbiosis."

James Rickards, former General Counsel of Long Term Capital Management

This is a nice, concise, albeit somewhat simplified description, from a more mainstream and highly credible source, of how the markets are operating today to the extreme disadvantage of the public and the real economy. Between front-running and naked short selling the banks have things pretty well under their control.

The market makers are the Wall Street banks are the prop trading desks, trading at high frequency slightly ahead of the markets while peeking into your accounts, gaining just enough unfair advantage to defy the odds of winning and losing in a fairly regulated market.

From James Rickards, The Frog, The Scorpion, and Goldman Sachs:

"Now consider another example of data mining, not done by retail firms, but by giant investment banks such as Goldman Sachs. These banks have thousands of customers transacting in trillions of dollars in stocks, bonds, commodities and foreign exchange daily. By using systems with anodyne names like SecDB, Goldman not only sees the transaction flows but some of the outright positions and whether they are bullish or bearish. Data mining techniques are just as effective for this market information as they are for Google, Amazon, Wal-Mart and others. It’s not necessary to access individual accounts to be useful. The data can be aggregated so that the bank can look at positions on a portfolio basis without knowing the name of each customer.

One need not be a market expert to imagine the power of this information. You can see which way the winds are blowing before the storm hits. You get a sense of when momentum is draining out of a trade so you can get out of it before the market turns. You can see when bullish or bearish sentiment reaches extremes, suggesting it may soon turn the other way. This use of information is the ultimate type of insider trading because it does not break the law; you are not stealing the information, you own it.

So what do Goldman and others do with this mountain of market information? Do they send coupons to customers or text them with great trading ideas? A few lucky customers, usually giant hedge funds, may get a call on some insights, but this mountain of immensely valuable market information is used mainly to power their giant proprietary trading desks allowing them to rack up consistent excess returns. Economists have a name for this also. It’s called “rent seeking,” which means taking value from others without any contribution to productivity. The difference between value-added behavior and rent seeking is like the difference between Amazon trying to sell me a book or planning to steal my library. In nature, the name for a rent seeker is parasite.

The ideal existence for a parasite is symbiosis, or balance, where it offers some minimal service to the host, (some parasites devour insects which annoy the host), while extracting as much sustenance from the host as possible without killing it. But sometimes the symbiosis is disturbed and the parasite takes too much and actually destroys the host, which can end up destroying the parasite as well. This recalls the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Both are on the edge of a river looking for a way to cross. The scorpion cannot swim and asks the frog for a ride on its back. The frog at first says, “no,” for fear of being stung. But the scorpion assures the frog it will not sting him because they would both drown. The frog agrees to carry the scorpion. Once they reach the middle of the river, the scorpion stings the frog and they begin to drown. The frog cries, “why did you do that?” and the scorpion replies, “it’s my nature.”

And that is the nature of Goldman. Gather up as many customers as possible, aggregate the available information to achieve a superior market view and then relentlessly extract rents from the marketplace. Better yet, tell yourself you’re smarter than everyone else and you’ve earned the rents from the symbiosis."

How does it continue? Like the bailout of AIG, the stewards of the public trust are choosing to turn a blind eye. The politicians are the beneficiaries of huge campaign contributions. The regulators are overwhelmed, and desirous of Wall Street positions. The other traders are jackals, seeking to follow the lions as they tear into the flocks of sheep and cattle. The economists are timid, adverse to anything but painfully granular analysis of carcasses of other people's ideas and orthogonal scenarios.

"Worse yet, the parasite is now killing the host. The United States is drowning in debt, much of it incurred to bail out Goldman, AIG, GMAC, Fannie Mae and all of the other rent seekers. The U.S. is like the frog; well meaning but blind to nature of scorpions.

Wall Street likes to say, “what’s good for Wall Street is good for Main Street.” That’s the scorpion talking. What’s good for Wall Street is good for Wall Street. Never forget it."

The financial system did not need to be saved by bailouts, it needs to be saved from itself. Their insatiable greed, monstrous appetites, and arrogant pride will take them over the cliff.

Which would not be bad in itself, if our governments had not made us hostage to their reckless schemes, and if we, in our resignation and despair, do not allow them to take us with them.

The First Year of Obama's Failed Economic Policies: The Worst May Yet Be Avoided

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

We have been saying this for some time. The report below from Neil Barofsky says essentially the same thing.

"Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car," Barofsky wrote.

The US is heading towards a double dip recession, and the next leg down may be more fundamentally damaging than before.

The reason for the decline will be the abject failure of the Obama Administration to address the roots of the problem, instead wasting trillions to prop up a banking system that is a useless distortion.

Worse than useless really, because it actually presents a huge negative influence by stifling the recovery, channeling funds to the crony capitalists and non-producing wealth extraction sector, who tax the people like feudal lords under license of a corrupt government.

So far, Obama has failed the people, but preserved the banks. A source of his failure has been his weakness in listening to Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, the Rubin-Clinton wing of Democrats, who have well established their incompetence and inability to act at a level suitable to their positions. They are captive to special interests, locked into the ways of thinking that brought the world to the point of crisis.

In response to the next leg down, Bernanke will monetize debt at an even more furious and clever pace, perhaps in alliance with the Bank of England and Bank of Japan. The ECB resists, and all who balk will be chastised by the monied powers and their demimonde, the ratings agencies and global banks. This is modern warfare of a sort.

We do not expect the corruption of the world's reserves to be so blatant that the inflation will immediately appear, except in more subtle manner. At some point it may explode, especially if Ben is particularly good at concealing its subtle growth.

Monetary inflation is the growth of the money supply in excess of the demands of the real economy, not nominal growth of the supply. The US has been shifting its growth into the reserves of other central banks for the past twenty years or so, and those eurodollar present an overhang that will egulf the Treasury should they come home to roost too quickly. The great nations see the US problem, most surely. The question is how to handle it, gracefully, since the US is still the world's sole superpower, and given to covert pre-emptive action when it feels threatened.

It is not a pretty picture. We had high hopes for Obama, because he was capable of rising to the challenge. He had the backing of his people. And he is choosing failure, for whatever reason. That is certainly is the template of a modern tragedy.

“Given the same amount of intelligence, timidity will do a thousand times more damage than audacity.” Karl von Clausewitz

ReviewJournal
Watchdog: Bailouts created more risk in system
By DANIEL WAGNER and ALAN ZIBEL
AP Business Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government's response to the financial meltdown has made it more likely the United States will face a deeper crisis in the future, an independent watchdog at the Treasury Department warned.

The problems that led to the last crisis have not yet been addressed, and in some cases have grown worse, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the trouble asset relief program, or TARP. The quarterly report to Congress was released Sunday.

"Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car," Barofsky wrote.

Since Congress passed $700 billion financial bailout, the remaining institutions considered "too big to fail" have grown larger and failed to restrain the lavish pay for their executives, Barofsky wrote. He said the banks still have an incentive to take on risk because they know the government will save them rather than bring down the financial system.

Barofsky also said his office is investigating 77 cases of possible criminal and civil fraud, including crimes of tax evasion, insider trading, mortgage lending and payment collection, false statements and public corruption.

One case concerns apparent self-dealing by one of the private fund managers Treasury picked to buy bad assets from banks at discounted prices. A portfolio manager at the firm apparently sold a bond out of a private fund, then repurchased it at a higher price for a government-backed fund. A rating agency had just downgraded the bond, so it likely was worth less, not more, when the government fund bought it. The company is not being named pending the outcome of Barofsky's investigation.

Barofsky renewed a call for Treasury to enact clearer walls so that such apparent conflicts are less likely.

Treasury said it welcomed Barofsky's oversight but resisted the call to erect new barriers against conflicts of interest. The new rules "would be detrimental to the program," Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in a statement. The existing compliance rules "are a rigorous and effective method of protecting taxpayers," she said.

Much of Barofsky's report focused on the government's growing role in the housing market, which he said has increased the risk of another housing bubble.

Over the past year, the federal government has spent hundreds of billions propping up the housing market. About 90 percent of home loans are backed by government controlled entities, mainly Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The Federal Reserve is spending $1.25 trillion to hold down mortgage rates, and millions of homeowners have refinanced at lower rates.

"The government has stepped in where the private players have gone away," Barofsky said in an interview. "If we take government resources and replace that market without addressing the serious (underlying) concerns, there really is a risk of" artificially pushing up home prices in the coming years.

The report warned that these supports mean the government "has done more than simply support the mortgage market, in many ways it has become the mortgage market, with the taxpayer shouldering the risk that had once been borne by the private investor."

Barofsky's report echoed concerns raised by housing experts in recent months, as home sales and prices rebounded. They warn that the primary reason for the turnaround last year has been billions of dollars in federal spending to lower mortgage rates and prop up demand.

Once that spigot of cash is turned off, they caution, the market will be vulnerable to a dramatic turn for the worse. Daniel Alpert, managing partner of investment bank Westwood Capital, wrote in a report that national home prices are bound to fall 8 to 10 percent below the lows of last spring.

"The lion's share of the remaining decline will occur in markets that saw sizable bubbles but have not yet retrenched," he wrote.

Officials from the Obama administration counter that massive federal intervention has helped the housing market stabilize and prevented more dire consequences.

Barofsky's report also disclosed that, while the Obama administration has pledged to spend $75 billion to prevent foreclosures, only a tiny fraction - just over $15 million - has been spent so far. Under the Making Home Affordable program, only about 66,500 borrowers, or 7 percent of those who signed up, had completed the process as of December.

He said the key to preventing future crises is to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, create and improve loan underwriting and supervision of banks. He stopped short of endorsing specific proposals for overhauling financial regulation, but said many of the proposals would go far to improving the system.

$38 Billion Tax Break Granted to Citigroup to Help Improve the TARP Results

Maybe it's a mistake. Did Timmy have time to run their return on TurboTax?

Well, at least it will make the results of the TARP program look better on paper if it drives up Citi's stock price by inflating their financial results. That's a plus, right?

I guess raising the credit card rates to 26% and free money from Ben was not enough to push Citi over its capital objectives in time for bonus season. We'll all have to really tighten our belts for this one.

Change you can believe in.

Washington Post
Citigroup gains massive tax break in deal with IRS
By Binyamin Appelbaum
Tuesday, December 15, 2009; 8:05 PM

The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis.

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to longstanding tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and the few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain $38 billion in tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors.

While the Obama administration has said taxpayers likely will profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits.

The IRS, an arm of the Treasury Department, has changed a number of rules during the financial crisis to reduce the tax burden on financial firms. The rule changed Friday also was altered last fall by the Bush administration to encourage mergers, letting Wells Fargo cut billions from its tax bill by buying the ailing bank Wachovia.

"The government is consciously forfeiting future tax revenues. It's another form of assistance, maybe not as obvious as direct assistance but certainly another form," said Robert Willens, an expert on tax accounting who runs a firm of the same name. "I've been doing taxes for almost 40 years and I've never seen anything like this where the IRS and Treasury acted unilaterally on so many fronts."

Treasury officials said the most recent change was part of a broader decision initially made last year to shelter companies that accepted federal aid under the Troubled Assets Relief Program from the normal consequences of such an investment. Officials also said that the ruling benefited taxpayers because it made shares in Citigroup more valuable and asserted that without the ruling, Citigroup could not have repaid the government at this time. (Thank God. Just in time for prime bonus season - Jesse)

"This guidance is the part of the administration's orderly exit from TARP," said Treasury spokeswoman Nayyera Haq. "The guidance prevents the devaluing of common stock Treasury holds in TARP recipients. As a result, Treasury can receive a higher price for this stock, which will benefit the financial system and taxpayers." (George Orwell would have fun with this one. Let's give them a lot more money, so that when they give some back it will make our government program look better - Jesse)

Congress, concerned that the Treasury was rewriting tax laws, passed legislation earlier this year reversing the ruling that benefited Wells Fargo and restricting the ability of the IRS to make further changes. A Democratic aide to the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees federal tax policy, said the Obama administration had the legal authority to issue the new exception, but Republican aides to the committee said they were reviewing the issue.

A senior Republican staffer also questioned the government's rationale. "You're manipulating tax rules so that the market value of the stock is higher than it would be under current law," said the aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It inflates the returns that they're showing from TARP and that looks good for them." (And a nice accomplishment for Timmy's year end performance review - Jesse)

Read the rest here.

Will AIG Be Able to Pay Your Insurance Claim If Needed?

"Sanford Bernstein analyst Todd Bault said AIG is facing an $11 billion shortfall to cover potential claims in its property and casualty insurance business, according to media reports Monday."

The public has been reassured repeatedly that AIG's troubles with exotic financial instruments written by its London division at the behest of some of the Wall Street banks could not affect its personal and commercial insurance business which is regulated by the states.

We have raised the issue in the past that corporations such as AIG, with its exposure to individual and small business insurance claims and annuities, have no business engaging in raw financial speculation with a commingling of liabilities and risks. At one time AIG was a major speculator in the silver markets, holding enormous short positions along with a few of the Wall Street commercial banks.

Banks and insurance companies have absolutely no business engaging in financial speculation that exposes its non-qualified investors and depositors to risk of loss that has not been fully disclosed. It is the job of the government regulators to prevent this from happening in the first place as part of the corporate licensing process. Period.

We freely admit that we do not understand the exact structure of AIG's interwoven obligations and corporate structure, who owes what, what is safe and what is not. It is not clear to us who does understand it, except to say that it is a massive conglomerate, and that there are investments and speculations and commercial enterprises that have absolutely no business being in the same portfolio as others from a risk profile. The same goes for the money center banks. These companies look more like pyramid schemes serving their management to the detriment of shareholders and customers.

AIG ought to have been broken up and taken through a restructuring process, and the commercial business fully capitalized and separated from its speculative operations first, before anyone was paid with government funds, including enormous employee bonuses and full payments to counterparties in financial speculation like Goldman Sachs.

If the financial insiders were paid, and individuals are left high and dry on car and life insurance and retirment annuities, there will be hell to pay, of this we are certain.

AP
AIG shares decline amid reports of shortfall in insurance reserves
Monday November 30, 2009

NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares of American International Group Inc. tumbled nearly 15 percent Monday after an analyst stirred concerns that the troubled insurer doesn't have enough reserves to pay some potential claims.

AIG shares dropped $4.90, or 14.7 percent, to finish at $28.40 -- their lowest close since August 19. The shares have more than quadrupled from a low of $6.60 in March.

Sanford Bernstein analyst Todd Bault said AIG is facing an $11 billion shortfall to cover potential claims in its property and casualty insurance business, according to media reports Monday. Bault declined to share the research note.

Covering that shortfall could cause problems for the New York-based insurer as it tries to repay a government bailout package it received to help stay in business.

Separately, the Financial Times reported AIG may soon get a bid for a part of its aircraft leasing unit from a group that includes the head of that business.

A spokeswoman for AIG, which is based in New York, declined to comment on either report...


NY Times
Report Cites Big Shortfall In Reserves At A.I.G.
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
November 30, 2009

An independent analysis of whether the insurance industry has been setting aside enough money to pay its claims estimates that the American International Group has a shortfall of $11.9 billion in its property and casualty business.

The conclusion is at odds with the often-repeated refrain that A.I.G.’s troubles can all be traced to its derivatives portfolio, and that its insurance operations are sound.

Other researchers have raised doubts about A.I.G.’s total worth since it was bailed out last year, and even the federal government has acknowledged that the company might have difficulty repaying all the money it owed taxpayers, currently about $120 billion.

In a report distributed to clients on Monday, the investment research firm Sanford C. Bernstein pointed to a big shortfall in A.I.G.’s property and casualty insurance business — which has been renamed Chartis and is intended to be the future core of the company’s operations.

The stock fell by almost 15 percent, to $28.40 from $33.30, in trading on Monday. Bernstein cut A.I.G.’s price target by 40 percent, to $12 from $20. The report’s author, Todd R. Bault, called the results “a big surprise.” He also said the inadequacy of A.I.G.’s reserves had grown in recent years — “nearly the opposite behavior that we would expect,” since the claims-paying reserves of other insurance companies had been growing...

Customers Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is my insurance policy safe?
Yes, your insurance policy is safe. Our insurance companies remain strong and well-capitalized. Regulations ensure that the assets of our insurance companies are there to back up each policy. You are protected. Your policy is safe.

2. If I have a claim, will it be paid?
Yes, our insurance companies are able to pay all valid claims. As stated above, our insurance companies are financially strong and are not in jeopardy.

3. Should I cancel my insurance policy?
Your insurance policy is safe. As stated above, our insurance companies are financially strong so your policies are not in jeopardy. Please be aware that some policies may contain surrender charges and/or cancellation penalties. Talk to your financial advisor before making any decision.

4. Should I get out of my annuity?
Your annuity is underwritten by one of the AIG insurance companies. Our insurance companies are financially sound and well-capitalized. Please be aware that some annuities may contain surrender charges. Talk to your financial advisor before making any decision.

5. I just heard that AIG is selling the company that issued my insurance policy. What should I do?
You don't have to do anything. Your policy remains safe and intact. Your policy will be seamlessly transferred to the company that buys the subsidiary.

6. Should I pay the insurance premium bill I just received?
Yes, in order for your coverage with us to continue, you will need to pay the insurance premium.

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.

The Last Time the Feds Devalued the Dollar to Save the Banks

The Last Time the Feds Devalued the Dollar to Save the Banks
14 January 2009

We dipped once again into the Federal Reserve Bulletin Publication from June, 1934 to take a closer look at the growth of the monetary base, and found an interesting graphic that shows the accounting for the January 1934 devaluation of the dollar and the subsequent result on Bank Reserves in the Federal Reserve System.

As you will recall, the Gold Act, or more properly Executive Order 6102 of April 5, 1933, required Americans to surrender their gold coinage and certificates to the Federal Reserve Banks by May 1, 1933. There were no prosecutions for non-compliance except one benchmark case which was brought voluntarily by a person who wished to challenge the act in court.

After a substantial portion of the gold was turned in by US citizens and taken from their bank based safe deposit boxes, the government officially devalued the dollar from 20.67 to 35.00 per ounce in the Gold Reserve Act of January 31, 1934.

The proceeds from this devaluation were used to provide a significant boost to the Federal Reserve member bank positions as shown in the first chart below.

The inflation visited on the American people because of this action helped to take the CPI as it was then measured up 1200 basis points from about -8% to +4% by the end of 1933. To somewhat offset the monetary inflation the Fed also contracted the Monetary Base which served the nascent recovery in the real economy rather poorly and is viewed widely as one of a series of policy errors.

Considering that the actions did little for the employment situation this was painful medicine indeed to those who were dependent on wages.



Fortunately at the same time FDR was initiating the New Deal programs which, despite continual opposition from a Republican minority in Congress, managed to provide a small measure of relief for the 20+% public that was suffering from unemployment and wage stagnation.

People ask frequently "Will the government seize gold again?"

While there is no certainty involved in anything if a government begins to overturn the law and seize private property, one has to ask for the context and details first to understand what happened and why, to understand the precedent.

Technically, the government did not engage in a pure seize of private property, since at that time the US was on the gold standard, and much of the gold holdings of US citizens were in the form of gold coinage and certificates.

Governments always make the case that the currency is their property and that the user is merely holding it as a medium of exchange. The foundation of the argument was that the government required to recall its gold to strengthen the backing of the US dollar against the net outflows of gold for international trade. The devaluation helped with this as well, since dollars brought less gold for trade balances.

People also ask, "Why didn't the government just revalue the dollar without trying to recall all the gold from the American public?"

The answer would seem to be that this would have been more just, more equitable recompense for the public. The Treasury could have purchased gold from the public to support its foreign trade needs.

But it would have left much less liquidity for the banks.

One can make a better case that the recall of the gold, with the subsequent revaluation to benefit a small segment of the population in the Banks, was a form of seizure of wealth without due compensation. Hence the lack of active prosecutions.

So, will the government take back gold again to save the banks by devaluing the dollar?

Highly unlikely, because they not only do not need to this, since the dollar is no longer backed by gold, and is a form of secular property except perhaps for gold eagles, but they do not have to, because they are devaluing the dollar already to save the banks.

This time the confiscation of wealth to save the banks is called TARP.

If one thinks about it, US Dollars are being created and provided directly to the banks to boost their free reserves significantly, at a scale comparable and beyond to 1933-34.

The confiscation of wealth is being spread among all holders of US dollars and dollar assets, foreign and domestic, in the more subtle form of monetary inflation.

Granted, the government must be more opaque to mask their actions in order to sustain confidence in the dollar while the devaluation occurs, but this is exactly what is happening, and all that is required to happen in a fiat regime.

There is no need to seize widely held exogenous commodities like gold and oil, but merely dampen any bellwether signals that a significant devaluation of the dollar is once gain being perpetrated on the American people in order to save the banks.

Its fascinating to look carefully at this next chart below.



First, notice the big drop in gold in circulation of 9.8 million ounces, or roughly 36% of the measured inventory at the end of 1932. Think someone was front-running the dollar devaluation? We suspect that the order went out to start pulling in the gold stock to the banks.

The reduction in gold in circulation AFTER the announcement of the Gold Act in April would be about 3.9 million ounces, or roughly 22% of the gold remaining in circulation in March 1933.

Considering that all gold coinage held by banks in the vaults was automatically seized, the voluntary compliance rate is not all that impressive. We are not sure how much of this was being held in overseas hands by non-US entities.

But beyond a doubt, there was a unjust, if not illegal, seizure of wealth by requiring citizen to turn in their gold to the banks, which was then revalued at the beginning of 1934 by 69% from 20.67 to 35 dollars.

It would have been much more equitable to devalue the dollar and to change the basis for dollar/gold first, before requiring private citizens to surrender their holdings. But of course, this would have lessened the liquidity available for direct infusion into the Federal Reserve banks.