Curtain of Tragedy Will Be Raised Soon Enough, But Perhaps Not Next in Japan

"Ninety-five percent of Japan's debt is domestically owned. Fickle foreigners have almost no sway. Indeed, Japan's problem is still an excess of savings ." (at abormally low rates of return that serve to subsidize government mismanagement and malinvestment.)

An interesting piece from the Japan Times below, raising the issue of a hyperinflationary collapse of their economy and the yen. As you know, I forecast in 2005 that a new school of economic thought is likely to rise out of the financial crisis which the world is in today. The crisis is certainly not over, despite the government propaganda and economic window dressing that is being applied. Quite likely we have only seen the end of the first Act in what is going to be a three part drama lasting about nine more years.

In particular, the understanding of money and monetary theory is still in its infancy, having been sidetracked by the ideologues in the service of corporatism and big government. In fairness, economics is difficult because there are an enormous amount of variables, and the time lags are highly significant and varied. The fact that economics is a social science with a profound impact on public policy decisions does not help advance academic research. It does seem that the field has a surfeit of economists for hire who often seem to produce studies in order to support pre-ordained conclusions and biases. The average person can only mouth the opinions given to them by television and these studies as 'proofs' of the opinions they hold so dear. Their judgement is easily led in this, since it has no depth.

Economics is a subject rarely taught in the general curriculum. A person reads a few articles by supposedly learned men, and thinks themselves in a position to pronounce broad judgements for or against anything. Those who would appear informed enjoy repeating slogans and cartoons of thought to support their biases, which they themselves do not really understand, but draw emotional comfort from them. The irony is that they are so often arguing nonsense, and against their own best interests. Such is the power of propaganda to hold up caricatures and denounce them, and energize the public to enslave themselves.

Most discussions which I read get the Japanese economic experience all wrong. There is a complete misunderstanding of the roots of their deflation, the bubble as it was occurring, their long deflation and national stagnation, the single party political system and oligarchic economic structure, and the tremendous psychological impact which defeat had on the Japanese national psyche at the end of World War II.

As I have pointed out before, deflation and inflation are part of a policy decision in a purely fiat regime. The bias is to expansion as it is in all Ponzi schemes. People constantly create artificial rules regarding the inability to expand the money supply at will. Their minds cannot accept that something which they value so highly is created out of thin air by the monied interests.

The assumptions one makes when engaging in economic analysis are all important. Data is often sketchy and selective. People take naive examples and extrapolate them into real-life scenarios, crushing their complexity. This is due to the weakness of their model.

I think the field will progress more quickly once some new insights are made, and a new model, or skeleton if you will, is struck that allows the mathematicians to begin to flesh it out again.

For now, at least in my opinion, most economic thought is impoverished since the revolutionary insights of Keynes and so many others in response to the world depression of the 1930's. The jargon that currently passes for knowledge is a sign of decadence. I find all of the schools to offer little more than caricatures of what is a highly complex and richly interactive system.

My personal opinion is that Japan will not collapse until its export mercantilism collapses, or the average age of the overly homogeneous population strangles its ability to maintain a high savings rate and a ready market for government debt at artificially low prices.

I expect the UK and a portion of the european region to founder first, and then perhaps China, which appears to be an enormous bubble, an accident waiting to happen. Its collapse may be a precipitant to collapses in the developed world. The US dollar will have its day to devalue into a reissuance, but perhaps not until Europe and the UK are sorted out first. But the dollar is a doomed currency, the vanity of vanities. All fiat currencies are doomed; they are invariably the victims of human willfulness.

The adulation which the media and financiers had showered on Mussolini and Hitler and their economic recoveries in the 1930's was widespread, as it was for Japan Inc. in the 1980's, and for China today. The crowd always gets it wrong, but it is surprising how often the monied interests and the professionals get it wrong as well, and remain stubborn in their misjudgement until they are overwhelmed by its consequences. Or perhaps that is their intention. Who can say, who can truly 'think like a criminal.' You are a prisoner of reason, balance, and natural restraint. These are creatures of their own appetites, with a hole in their being which one can barely appreciate.

The Bankers will make the world an offer which they think it will not be able to refuse. One currency, and then one government. People being irrational are not likely to take that deal, once again.

There are those who say that they very sure what is coming, what will happen, what the future will bring. For the most part they are speaking out of fear and false pride. The only certainty is that if they really knew what is going to happen, they would cast themselves down from high places in despair.

Grab something solid and hang on to it, and to the faith that sustains you. Do not be distressed if it feels as though the world has lost its reason, and is made blind, and all is deception and trial, for this is part of the process which has begun. If a war comes, then the world will lose its ability to reason in its temporary madness. We are in for a rough ride, and revelations of what is life and what is nothingness, what is true and what is false.

“When pride comes, then comes disgrace. But with disgrace comes humility, and with humility comes wisdom. The humility of the righteous will guide them, but the sly illusions of the proud will destroy them." Prov 11

People will ask, and I can only say that I do not know if this is the end time, as no one can know this. What does it matter, since surely we are all heading towards the last things and a judgement, at our own pace. But it may certainly feel like it is something more general, more momentous, at some point before our blasphemous generation puts itself back into balance with God and nature again, and the crisis has past.

As the song says, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

How to Live Before You Die by Steve Jobs

Japan Times
Government Debt Crisis: Bubble prophet fears new disaster
By REIJI YOSHIDA
March 19, 2010

Economist Noguchi warns soaring public debt may bankrupt Japan, bring back hyperinflation

Prominent economist Yukio Noguchi is one of the few who correctly predicted the collapse of Japan's bubble economy in 1987, warning the preceding euphoria was based on a major distortion in land prices.

Now the doomsday prophet is making another terrifying prediction: Japan is likely to be devastated by a snowballing public debt that will bankrupt its government and trigger catastrophic hyperinflation.

"There is little hope," Noguchi said in an interview with The Japan Times at Waseda University's Graduate School of Finance in Tokyo. "Japan's fiscal conditions are so bad, it can no longer be fixed without causing inflation. I'm very pessimistic."

Noguchi is not the only one deeply fretting the debt.

They may still be a minority, but an increasing number of economists and market players are voicing deep concerns about Japan's fiscal sustainability and fear catastrophe may strike in the near future.

Compared with Greece, Japan's gross government debt is far worse, at 181 percent of gross domestic product — the highest among the developed countries. Greece's debt-to-GDP ratio is 115 percent.

Japan's present debt-to-GDP ratio is only comparable with what it was at the end of World War II. At that time, the only way the government could reduce the debt was through hyperinflation, which wiped out much of the people's wealth with skyrocketing prices.

"I can't tell exactly what will happen (this time), but what actually happened after the war was that the price level surged 60 times in just over four years," Noguchi said.

"If the same thing happens again, a ¥10 million bank account will have the same net value of just ¥100,000 today. It's actually possible," he warned.

The alarmists even include Ikuo Hirata, chief editorial writer of the Nikkei business daily.

Hirata predicts the huge debt will eventually force the Bank of Japan to purchase Japanese government bonds on a massive scale, eroding market confidence and pushing up long-term interest rates.

A rise in long-term interest rates of even a few percentage points would sharply increase debt-servicing costs on the bonds and critically damage the government's already precarious finances.

"The curtain of the tragedy will be raised next year," Hirata warned in a Nikkei article on Dec. 21.

Pessimists like Noguchi and Hirata are still in the minority — at least for now. The yield on 10-year JGBs, their barometer, hasn't indicated any trouble yet.

"Talk of a massive JGB bubble — let alone default — is far-fetched," the Financial Times said in its Feb. 8 editorial titled "Japan's debt woes are overstated."

The editorial pointed out that, for a long time, JGB yields have been effectively fixed at the ultralow level of around 1.3 percent — compared with the 3.6 percent yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds and the 4 percent for its counterpart in Britain as of Thursday.

"Ninety-five percent of Japan's debt is domestically owned. Fickle foreigners have almost no sway. Indeed, Japan's problem is still an excess of savings," the FT said.

"For some time yet, the government will not find it hard to secure buyers for JGBs. Japan's debt problem will be worked out in the family."

But most experts, including those at the International Monetary Fund, agreed that Japan's midterm future is shaky, and that the government could face difficulty financing its public debt in around 10 years.

In a July report, the IMF warned that Japan may find it "difficult" to finance its debt domestically toward 2020 because household savings are expected to keep falling in line with its rapidly graying population and declining birthrate.

Households maintained an average savings rate of more than 10 percent in the 1990s, much higher than in other developed countries. But as the aging workforce started tapping their assets to support retirement life, the savings rate — which supports Japan's fiscal deficit — fell to 2.2 percent in fiscal 2007, according to IMF figures.

Households directly and indirectly account for the financing of at least 50 percent of all outstanding JGBs, mainly through accounts and other assets at banks, Japan Post Bank and pension funds, the IMF said.

The IMF simulation indicates gross public debt could exceed household financial assets as early as 2019, which would likely force the government to seek more JGB buyers abroad, probably with a higher interest rate, since foreign investors in general demand a higher return on bonds than the ultralow 1.3 percent offered by Japan.

"The results indicate that domestic financing will likely become more difficult toward 2020, while other sources of fundings are available, including from overseas," the report said.

Masaya Sakuragawa, professor of finance at Keio University in Tokyo, recently conducted a simulation on the sustainability of the nation's public debt. His conclusion is that the only way to save Japan from bankruptcy is to drastically raise the politically unpopular consumption tax to at least 15 percent — a level he describes as "a rather optimistic scenario."

"If the debts keep increasing at the current pace, there is a possibility that (Japan) will face big trouble in around 10 years," Sakuragawa said.

The simulation examined two scenarios. The first hikes theconsumption tax to 10 percent by raising it a point a year from fiscal 2014 to 2018. The second hikes it to 15 percent, raising it over a longer period, from fiscal 2014 to 2023.

Under the 10 percent tax scenario, the debt expands forever, making sovereign bankruptcy inevitable. But the 15 percent scenario starts bringing the debt to heel in 2025.

Sakuragawa admitted the simulations weren't that realistic because they are based on some optimistic assumptions: that the social security budget won't drastically expand, interest rates will remain low, and the economy will keep growing at an annual pace of 1.5 percent.

The professor argued that a more drastic increase in tax revenues will be needed to save Japan from going insolvent, a crisis he says would wipe out much of the value of JGBs and trigger a domestic financial panic.

"The possibility is high that panic like a run on banks would break out. People would try to withdraw their money, but banks would go insolvent because they wouldn't have enough assets anymore," Sakuragawa said.

According to Sakuragawa, a dramatic rise in the consumption tax is the only viable option. Economists agree that, compared with other taxes, the sales tax would have the least impact on potential economic growth because the burden would be thinly spread to all taxpayers, he said.

Tax hikes, especially in the sales levy, are always a political taboo. When the former ruling Liberal Democratic Party introduced and then later hiked the consumption tax, it took a drubbing at election time. Even the LDP's Junichiro Koizumi — the most popular prime minister in recent memory — pledged not to touch the sales tax for fear of triggering a voter backlash.

"Koizumi should have raised the consumption tax. He had such high popularity, but he still did not want to raise the tax," said a former senior government official who was one of his closest aides.

"Japan's finances are in a stalemate. There will be no way out," he said.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, head of the ruling Democratic Partyof Japan, has pledged not to raise the consumption tax for at least four years, although key politicians in both the ruling and opposition camps have started discussing the urgency of fiscal reconstruction.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Naoto Kan surprised the public last month by floating the idea of starting discussions as early as this month on a sales tax hike.

Kan has pledged to adopt a midterm fiscal policy framework by June and reach a conclusion on "fundamental tax reforms" by the end of March 2012. Market players are keen to see what strategy the government maps out for fiscal reconstruction.

Kan, however, told the Upper House Budget Committee on March 4 that he will stick with an expansionary budget to prop up the economy for at least "one or a few more years." He also said it is still too early in the global slump to start talking of an "exit strategy" to mop up liquidity.

"If we shift to an exit strategy too early, the results will be much worse," Kan told NHK on March 8, signaling that an immediate switch to fiscal austerity could throw cold water on the economy and reducetax revenues even further.

Keio University's Sakuragawa and many other fiscal experts remain skeptical about the government's financial future. He said the public and politicians will avoid taking bold action on government finances until a shock hits the JGB market and starts pushing up long-term interest rates.

"So the scenario that I hope will happen is that Japan will face a minor crisis first, and the people will finally realize that a government bankruptcy will have a catastrophic impact on them," he said.

"Basically, Japanese people are good (at grasping situations). So they will eventually be willing to accept a rise in the tax," Sakuragawa said.

Boehner Tells Bankers to Stand Up to Those Senate Punks

"O heaven,...put in every honest hand a whip to lash the rascals naked through the world." William Shakespeare, Othello

Senate Minority Leader John Boehner told the American Bankers Association to 'stand up to those punks' in the Senate who want to regulate them. He said 'staffers' but that is because professional courtesy prohibited him from saying 'Senators.'

Perhaps Mr. Boehner feels a burst of confidence since Timmy and Ben and Larry have his back. And of course the bankers to whom he was speaking already have 25 lobbyists fighting against reform for every Congressman in Washington, and buckets of cash to spread around.

Actually, the only ones who seem to be underrepresented and in trouble in Washington these days are the American people.

The Dodd bill has its good points, but contains some bizarre twists. The ruling that the Fed would only supervise banks of over 50 billion seems particularly bizarre. Mr. Hoenig of the Kansas City Fed objected to this today. As well he might, since his district contains NO banks worth more than $50 billions, and he would be presumably out of a job.

This is classic Democrat blundering. Spend many months negotiating and seeking partnership with people who would just as soon place their hands in a meat grinder as make any reasonable compromise, and then toss off some bizarre legislation seemingly out of nowhere, after having made a big deal out of wishing to be 'bipartisan.' The Democratic party seems leaderless.

One thing for which I will give credit. Mr. Obama has certainly united his country -- in believing that he is one part corrupt Chicago politician and two parts a rather ineffective waffler who mistakes campaign-style speaking for leadership and timidity for consensus building.

Leadership in the real world is measured by getting the job done, and being recognized as effective by your own people and your key stakeholders, inspiring them with confidence and the ability to do even more than they might have imagined.

The American President reminds me of a corporate executive at a company which had recently acquired mine who was clearly over his head in his current position. When asked why he did not meet his commitments, he replied without hesitation, "My people are incompetent." What was particularly galling is that he had been allowed to assemble his own team, and been given adequate time to build his plan and objectives. He missed most of them, badly but did manage to exceed his expenses.

Mr. Obama inspires most people with disappointment, dismay, confusion and despair. He has managed to alienate a good chunk of his electoral base while gaining nothing. To win is not to be elected; to win is to succeed in your goals and the expectations which you have set with your constituents.

Still, as unattractive as the Democratic leadership may be, there is nothing uglier than a politician soliciting money from fat cat businessmen, and few can be as smarmy as a Republican in heat for cash.

Dealbook
Boehner to Bankers: Stand Up to ‘Punk’ Staffers
March 18, 2010, 9:18 am

Opponents of Senator Christopher J. Dodd’s financial regulation overhaul bill are talking tough, telling bankers how displeased they are without mincing words.

Representative John A. Boehner, the Republican House minority leader, told members of the American Bankers Association on Wednesday that they need to be unafraid to stand up to whom he called “punk” Senate staffers, according to MarketWatch.

And even the head of the Office of the Comptroller of Currency took a swipe at the consumer protection aspects of the bill, according to The Financial Times.

Mr. Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee has already been hearing from Republican senators who are unhappy with his decision to forge ahead without first reaching bipartisan consensus. Now House Republicans, according to Mr. Boehner, are arguing that Mr. Dodd’s proposal is too far apart from the financial regulation overhaul bill the House passed in December.

Here’s what Mr. Boehner said, according to MarketWatch:

“Don’t let those little punk staffers take advantage of you and stand up for
yourselves,” Boehner said. “All of us are hearing from our friends and
constituents on lack of credit, you can’t get a loan, the more your government
takes and taxes, the more regulations you have to comply with the more cost you
have there and less amount you are going to have available to loan to
customers....”

And remember, 36% of American Congressmen are also lawyers.

Dodd's Chief Counsel Was Trading In Financial Stocks During Financial Crisis

NY Fed Implicated in the Accounting Fraud at Lehman

Quite a bombshell from Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism tonight.

I wonder if the US mainstream media will ignore and dismiss it as they did the exclusion of the Wall Street banks from European debt sales in response to their fraudulent CDO sales. Is there a 'reverse gear' on the Voice of America?

In response, let's see if Chris Dodd puts the Consumer Protection section of the financial reform legislation under the control of a private organization,the Fed, which is owned by the institutions it is supposed to be regulating, and which is now implicated in the failure and fraud that helped to trigger the recent financial crisis.

The senior Republicans on the committee have insisted that it be. Originally Senator Dodd seemed to be going along with that in the spirit of bipartisan support for the monied interests and the financial lobbyists. That would be the perfect Orwellian twist to an increasingly surreal decline in the observance of the Constitution and the rule of law.

And then of course there is Turbo Tim, knee deep again in messy conflicts of interest and crony capitalism. The "CEO defense" claiming attention deficit disorder and blissful aloofness is in fashion among highly paid US executives. Considering Mr. Geithner's record, even in the execution of his own tax returns, the incompetence defense might be plausible. But it then calls into question the judgement of the person who subsequently appointed Tim to be the head of the most powerful financial organization on earth, the US Treasury.

Call the New Yorker. Time for another media PR blitz, but this one is for the Chief.

Naked Capitalism
NY Fed Under Geithner Implicated in Lehman Accounting Fraud

Quite a few observers, including this blogger, have been stunned and frustrated at the refusal to investigate what was almost certain accounting fraud at Lehman. Despite the bankruptcy administrator’s effort to blame the gaping hole in Lehman’s balance sheet on its disorderly collapse, the idea that the firm, which was by its own accounts solvent, would suddenly spring a roughly $130+ billion hole in its $660 balance sheet, is simply implausible on its face. Indeed, it was such common knowledge in the Lehman flailing about period that Lehman’s accounts were such that Hank Paulson’s recent book mentions repeatedly that Lehman’s valuations were phony as if it were no big deal.

Well, it is folks, as a newly-released examiner’s report by Anton Valukas in connection with the Lehman bankruptcy makes clear. The unraveling isn’t merely implicating Fuld and his recent succession of CFOs, or its accounting firm, Ernst & Young, as might be expected. It also emerges that the NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict in the performance of their duties, and may well be culpable in aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations.

We need to demand an immediate release of the e-mails, phone records, and meeting notes from the NY Fed and key Lehman principals regarding the NY Fed’s review of Lehman’s solvency. If, as things appear now, Lehman was allowed by the Fed’s inaction to remain in business, when the Fed should have insisted on a wind-down (and the failed Barclay’s said this was not infeasible: even an orderly bankruptcy would have been preferable, as Harvey Miller, who handled the Lehman BK filing has made clear; a good bank/bad bank structure, with a Fed backstop of the bad bank, would have been an option if the Fed’s justification for inaction was systemic risk), the NY Fed at a minimum helped perpetuate a fraud on investors and counter parties.

This pattern further suggests the Fed, which by its charter is tasked to promote the safety and soundness of the banking system, instead, via its collusion with Lehman management, operated to protect particular actors to the detriment of the public at large.

And most important, it says that the NY Fed, and likely Geithner himself, undermined, perhaps even violated, laws designed to protect investors and markets. If so, he is not fit to be Treasury secretary or hold any office related to financial supervision and should resign immediately...

Read the rest of the story here.

A Fitting Award for Alan Greenspan

Inhale deeply of the madness and illusions of the financial engineers.

Greenspan was a magnet for the enablers, the spokesman for those primarily responsible for the fraud that led to the series of financial crises. But more Meinhof than Baader, one might say. The monied interests are often not famed economists, having more of a yearning for either raw power or opaque solitude. Their recognition must wait for another day and a different venue.

And as for Bernanke, his time has come, and he may eclipse even Greenspan given a little more tenure at the Fed.

Young Tim is no economist, just a useful pair of hands, the hired help.

For Immediate Release
22 February 2010

Greenspan wins Dynamite Prize in Economics

Alan Greenspan has been judged the economist most responsible for causing the Global Financial Crisis. He and 2nd and 3rd place finishers Milton Friedman and Larry Summers have won the first–and hopefully last—Dynamite Prize in Economics.

In awarding the Prize, Edward Fullbrook, editor of the Real World Economics Review, noted that “They have been judged to be the three economists most responsible for the Global Financial Crisis. More figuratively, they are the three economists most responsible for blowing up the global economy.”

The prize was developed by the Real World Economics Review Blog in response to attempts by economists to evade responsibility for the crisis by calling it an unpredictable, Black Swan event.

In reality, the public perception that economic theories and policies helped cause the crisis is correct.

The prize winners were determined by a poll in which over 7,500 people voted—most of whom were economists themselves from the 11,000 subscribers to the real-world economics review . Each voter could vote for a maximum of three economists. In total 18,531 votes were cast.

Fullbrook cautioned that not all economics and economists were bad. “Only neoclassical economists caused the GFC. There are other approaches to economics that are more realistic—or at least less delusional—but these have been suppressed in universities and excluded from government policy making.”

“Some of these rebels also did what neoclassical economists falsely claimed was impossible: they foresaw the Global Financial Crisis and warned the public of its approach. In their honour, I now call for nominations for the inaugural Revere Award in Economics, named in honour of Paul Revere and his famous ride. It will be awarded to the 3 economists who saw the GFC coming, and whose work is most likely to prevent another GFC in the future.”

Dynamite Prize Citations

Alan Greenspan (5,061 votes): As Chairman of the Federal Reserve System from 1987 to 2006, Alan Greenspan both led the over expansion of money and credit that created the bubble that burst and aggressively promoted the view that financial markets are naturally efficient and in no need of regulation.

Milton Friedman (3,349 votes): Friedman propagated the delusion, through his misunderstanding of the scientific method, that an economy can be accurately modeled using counterfactual propositions about its nature. This, together with his simplistic model of money, encouraged the development of fantasy-based theories of economics and finance that facilitated the Global Financial Collapse.

Larry Summers (3,023 votes): As US Secretary of the Treasury (formerly an economist at Harvard and the World Bank), Summers worked successfully for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which since the Great Crash of 1929 had kept deposit banking separate from casino banking. He also helped Greenspan and Wall Street torpedo efforts to regulate derivatives.

In total 18,531 votes were cast. The vote totals for the other finalists were:

Fischer Black and Myron Scholes 2,016
Eugene Fama 1,668
Paul Samuelson 1,291
Robert Lucas 912
Richard Portes 433
Edward Prescott and Finn E. Kydland 403
Assar Lindbeck 375

The poll was conducted by PollDaddy. Cookies were used to prevent repeat voting.

Note: By way of disclosure, I voted for Fama, Greenspan, and Summers. - Jesse

"How Could I Be So Selfish and So Foolish"

Were Lloyd and Jamie and the pigmen of Wall Street and Washington taking notes during Tiger Woods' apology?

Doubtful.

No one is perfect, of course. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone sins. We are all weak, and insufficient in ourselves. And yet we attempt great things, in fear and trembling. The spirit endures and abides.

But there are moments in history that are epidemic with excess, a pathological pursuit of lust, greed, and deceit with a nihilistic determination that is more like a fashion of the age than an aberration. Chic to be above conventional morality and the law, lacking all proportion. Accepted, and even admired.

Tiger himself is what they call 'small potatoes,' the personal foibles of a star athlete. What is more significant is the festival of fraud going on in the financial world, centered around Chicago and New York.

Tiger's words could be the new American Anthem for a generation of reckless, selfish, and self-destructive behaviour by those most blessed by its freedom, offered the greatest opportunities and privileges, sometimes undeserved, and most often paid for by the sacrifice of others.

Most of them still have no regrets, except of course for the fear of discovery. They will have to somehow grow a conscience for that. Or face the withdrawal of support by their sponsors. In the case of Tiger it was Nike. In the case of the Banks it is the US government. And in the case of the US government it is a gullible and complacent public.

"Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me, have worked with me, always supported me. Now, every one of you has good reason to be critical of me. I want to say to each on of you simply and directly I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behaviour I engaged in. I know people want to find out how i could be so selfish and foolish.

I knew my actions were wrong but I convinced myself that the normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I only thought about myself...

I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt that I was entitled.

Parents used to point to me as a role model for their kids. I owe all those families a special apology. I want to say to them that I am truly sorry.

I recognize I have brought this on myself and I know, above all, I am the one who needs to change.

I was wrong. I was foolish. I don't get to play by different rules."

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

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

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

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




Here is a link if you have trouble viewing this.

The Banking Oligarchy Must Be Restrained For a Recovery to Be Sustained

Brilliant article really, in its simplicity.

Despite Obama's recent brave words, the US is lagging the world recognition that because of systemic distortions in the financial system the banks are in fact exercising a tax on the real economy that is impeding global recovery. As recently noted in London's Financial Times regarding the structural imbalances in the financial system:

"...as long as they are not addressed, the banks will make profits – or more accurately, extract rents – out of all proportion to any contribution they make to the wider economy."

The US is going in absolutely the wrong direction, lessening competition and strenghtening the grip of a financial oligarchy through its policy of focusing relief efforts on a small group of Too Big To Fail Banks, at the expense of the broad economy. Despite assurances to the contrary, this is the policy being administered by Washington.

This institutionalization of distortion was easier to understand under the Bush Administration with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson guiding policy, and the Clinton Administration under banking insider Robert Rubin. But why this sort of response from the new reform government? The answer most likely is centered on three men: Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Ben Bernanke. None of the three has practical experience in business. All three are creatures of the banking system, and are heavily indebted to the status quo.

The first practical step for Obama would be to dismiss Summers and Geithner, and if he is wise, the person or persons who recommended them. He also should encourage the Congress to investigate the bank bailouts in general, and tie this to Bernanke's reappointment to the Chairmanship and the movement to audit the Fed.

The most recent scandal regarding the collusion between the government and the Fed to mask the backdoor bailouts to a few big banks via AIG should be proof enough that the Fed has no intentions of acting honestly and openly, and is far exceeding its mandates in its aggressive expanding its balance sheet and the selective monetization of private debts.

There are disturbing indications that the US is using a few of its large banks as elements of its policy to achieve certain objectives in the world markets. Such collusion between the corporate and the government sectors is the prelude to fascism.

We should keep in mind that financial crisis was indeed created during both Democratic and Republican administrations, and that simply replacing the Democrats with traditional opponents is unlikely to achieve genuine change.

Change is what is required. But while the foul stench of corruption hangs over the political process in Washington, where Big Money readily buys influence and control over legislation and regulation, there will be no significant changes, and no economic recovery. Recovery will be in appearance only.


Financial Times
How the big banks rigged the market
By Philip Stephens
18 January 2010

When Lloyd Blankfein met politicians in London a little while ago he brushed aside warnings that investment banks faced higher taxes if they ignored the rising public outcry about multibillion-dollar bonus pools. The Goldman chief executive seemed to believe governments would not dare.
That misjudgment – a measure of the breathtaking hubris that, even after all that has happened, continues to separate bankers from just about everyone else – may explain Goldman’s response to the British government’s decision to apply a 50 per cent tax to this year’s payouts

In the description of Whitehall insiders, Goldman executives reacted with anger and aggression. The threat was that the bank would scale back its business in London. For a moment it seemed Gordon Brown’s administration might wobble. In the event, Goldman’s lobbying failed to persuade it to soften the impact of the tax.

Britain, of course, is not alone. France has imposed its own bonus tax. Barack Obama’s administration has just announced a levy to recover an estimated $90bn (£55bn, €63bn) over 10 years. The centre-right government in Sweden has gone further by introducing a permanent “stability levy” to discourage excessive risk-taking.

It is a measure of how far the political debate has shifted against the financial plutocrats that George Osborne, the Tory shadow chancellor, has applauded the Swedish plan. If the Tories win the coming general election, they would support a worldwide levy along similar lines. It is “unacceptable”, Mr Osborne remarked the other day, for the banks to be paying big bonuses rather than building resilience against future crises.

So far, so encouraging. But the process cannot end here. Irritating as it may be to Mr Blankfein, a one-off bonus tax is not going to change anything in the medium to long term. Levies such as that in Sweden mark a recognition that the profits and remuneration policies of the banks are more than a fleeting problem. But forcing bankers to strengthen balance sheets with money they would rather put in their own pockets addresses only part of the problem.

The next stage must be scrutiny of the structural distortions that allow these institutions to rack up such huge profits. Broadly speaking, the leading players in at least three areas of investment banking – wholesale markets, underwriting and mergers and acquisitions – have been operating natural oligopolies.

Their profits have been in significant part a reflection of the absence of robust competition. There are different reasons for this in the different areas of business – what economists call asymmetries in some and market dominance in others. But as long as they are not addressed, the banks will make profits – or more accurately, extract rents – out of all proportion to any contribution they make to the wider economy.

Read the rest of this article here.

Watching the Senate Testimony

Ad hoc observations.

Lloyd Blankfein seems like Al Capone as compared to Jamie Dimon as Lucky Luciano.



If I were a prosecutor, I would key in on Lloyd because of his edgy, talkative nervousness.

Is there a purpose to this questioning or is it just for show? Are they going to
be interviewing critics of the banking system's actions in this crisis at any point?

Lloyd is fruitful ground. "Money became plentiful, and so people paid less attention to risk." Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ben.
As if anyone except for a Federal Reserve governor would not already understand that relationship.

This is pure theater.

Financial Coup d'Etat: A Simple, Credible Explanation of What Happened (and Some Ideas About How to Fix It)

Here is an excerpt from the transcript of Bill Moyer's Journal of January 8, 2010.

"Thanks to taxpayers like you who generously bailed banking from the financial shipwreck it created for itself and for us, by the end of 2009 the industry's compensation pool reached nearly $200 billion. And despite windfall profits, the banks will claim almost $80 billion in tax deductions. And nearly $20 billion of those deductions will go to just three institutions — Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs.

Ah, yes — Goldman Sachs, that paragon of profit and probity — which bet big on the housing bubble and when it popped — presto! — converted itself from an investment firm into a bank so it could get your bailout money. Now consider this: in 2008, Goldman Sachs paid an effective tax rate of just one percent. I'm not making that up — one percent! — while their CEO Lloyd Blankfein pulled down over $40 million. That's God's work, if you can get it. And, believe me, Wall Street bankers know how to get it..."

You can read the full transcript, and watch the video of his show here.

The links for part two and his summary are in the title bar above the video screen.

If you find this to be worthwhile, send a copy of this to everyone you know who might be interested in this.

Reading for the Market Holiday - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

"At length corruption, like a general flood,
Did deluge all, and avarice creeping on,
Spread, like a low-born mist, and hid the sun.
Statesmen and patriots plied alike the stocks,
Peeress and butler shared alike the box;
And judges jobbed, and bishops bit the town,
And mighty dukes packed cards for half-a-crown:
Britain was sunk in lucre's sordid charms."

—Pope

THE SOUTH-SEA COMPANY was originated by the celebrated Harley, Earl of Oxford, in the year 1711, with the view of restoring public credit, which had suffered by the dismissal of the Whig ministry, and of providing for the discharge of the army and navy debentures, and other parts of the floating debt, amounting to nearly ten millions sterling. A company of merchants, at that time without a name, took this debt upon themselves, and the government agreed to secure them, for a certain period, the interest of six per cent. To provide for this interest, amounting to 600,000l. per annum, the duties upon wines, vinegar, India goods, wrought silks, tobacco, whale-fins, and some other articles, were rendered permanent. The monopoly of the trade to the South Seas was granted, and the company, being incorporated by Act of Parliament, assumed the title by which it has ever since been known. The minister took great credit to himself for his share in this transaction, and the scheme was always called by his flatterers "the Earl of Oxford's masterpiece...."

The South Sea Bubble, Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Chapter 2

Is the US Financial Crisis Over?

This frankness and honest statement of the situation is the reason that Paul Volcker, one of the most credible advisors in the Obama Administration, is a marginalized voice as compared to Larry Summers and Turbo Tim. Ironic, because only by assuming Volcker's leadership style can the US President hope to get his country out of this cycle of monetary bubbles, systemic fragility, and chronic imbalances driven by an outsized, counterproductive financial sector.

DER SPIEGEL: But even though there are still more people being fired than hired, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke is saying that the recession is technically over. Do you agree with him?

Paul Volcker: You know, people get very technical about these things. We had a quarter of increased growth but I don't think we are out of the woods.

SPIEGEL: You expect a backlash?

Volcker: The recovery is quite slow and I expect it to continue to be pretty slow and restrained for a variety of reasons and the possibility of a relapse can't be entirely discounted. I'm not predicting it but I think we have to be careful.

SPIEGEL: What is the difference between this deep recession and all the other recessions we have seen since World War II?

Volcker: What complicates this situation, as compared to the ordinary garden variety recession, is that we have this financial collapse on top of an economic disequilibrium. Too much consumption and too little investment, too many imports and too few exports. We have not been on a sustainable economic track and that has to be changed. But those changes don't come overnight, they don't come in a quarter, they don't come in a year. You can begin them but that is a process that takes time. If we don't make that adjustment and if we again pump up consumption, we will just walk into another crisis.

SPIEGEL: The US has not yet instituted any kind of reform policy. What we see is the government and the Federal Reserve pouring money into the economy. If one looks beyond that money, one sees that the economy is in fact still shrinking.

Volcker: What should I say? That's right. We have not yet achieved self-reinforcing recovery. We are heavily dependent upon government support so far. We are on a government support system, both in the financial markets and in the economy...

The rest of the interview can be read here

The net Treasury International Capital flows came in light today at 20.7B versus 38.7B expected. GE was a drag on the big caps because of Immelt's lack of enthusiasm for any US recovery.

As a reminder, tomorrow the FOMC will make its December rate decision public at 2:15 EST. Traditationally there will be shenanigans abounding. In the morning the US will be revealing its premiere fantasy economy number, the Consumer Price Index.

As a heads up, Gold often gets hit with a bear raid on FOMC day. Since the miners were hit a bit today with possible front-running that might be a good bet. Who can say in these thin markets?

The US economy is much like this stock market rally: big on show and thin on substance.

Propaganda, Western Style: Moscow Memories II

As regular readers know, Le Proprietaire was doing business in Russia, mostly in Moscow and St. Pete, in the 1990's as part of the overall international business portfolio during his past corporate life.

It was an exciting and somewhat nerve-wracking experience, but one that vividly drove home certain lessons about government, currency, and the resilience of the human spirit that have served well in the following decade. Moscow Memories of 1997

I have to admit I was not aware of this series about Russia by the Wall Street Journal, given a long term preference for The Economist and The Financial Times. Thanks to Zero Hedge for bringing this story about it from The Nation (which I would have never read, being a long time conservative) about the Journal and Steve Liesman to light.

As someone involved there I can say that anyone who did not perceive the growing crisis was living in a bubble, or carrying some particularly optimistic slant in their outlook.

The decline of the Russian economy was oppressive, palpable, almost on everyone's mind. Hard to miss, even at the occasional showy party in English thrown by western corporations for an audience largely made up of ex-pats. The move out of the rouble into just about anything else with substance was becomng a groundswell, later to become unstoppable default. Any presentation about a Russian venture in the 1990's had better contain some plans regarding currency risk.

But why bring this up now? Le Cafe has no particular squabble with the Liesman, and since we do not watch CNBC anymore, are largely immune to whatever it is he says that does not appear in a youtube excerpt, generally involving his getting owned by Rick Santelli.

We bring it up because this article below exposes the typical modus operandi of the Western press, now and over the past twenty years. Carry a party line until the situation explodes, cover it up and distract the public with phony debates and verbal circuses, and then back to give breaking coverage of Armageddon, with a twist of shared guilt. No one is to blame.

Can you remember the coverage of the tech bubble of 2000 by the media? Giddy excitement as the numbers climbed higher, with reassurance as they turned down that this was just a temporary setback.

And I will never forget, as the stocks collapsed and people were wiped out, the CNBC regular arrogantly saying "Well, no one FORCED them to buy those stocks."

Keep this in mind, because we are nearing that point again, with the western media reassuring its public that all is well, while the insiders sell, and the grifters and grafters are draining the nation of its wealth, while the propaganda puppets mouth the slogans of the day. And after it blows up, they will shift gears without an afterthought, keeping the public mind moving on, trusting to the collective amnesia of a distracted populace.

As they said on Bloomberg this morning regarding the crisis just passed, 'We are all to blame; the regulators, the government, the rating agencies, the banks, and the public who was apathetic, who failed to act."

And then they moved on to let us know that Ashley Dupre will be providing a weekly advice column in the NY Post. Romance with a financial twist?

The difference here, at least it seems to me, is that the American public is still a believer in what the government says. The Russian people, at least by that time, did not. So perhaps there are a few more good years left.

The Nation
The Journal's Russia Scandal
By Matt Taibbi & Mark Ames
October 4, 1999

Just before Christmas in 1997, as a tumultuous stock-market
crisis ravaged emerging markets in every corner of the globe, readers of the
Wall Street Journal were treated to some good news: Russia was going to emerge
from the mess unscathed. While conceding that "few debt markets outside
Southeast Asia were hit harder by recent financial turmoil than Russia's," the
Journal's Moscow bureau chief, Steve Liesman, added quickly that "many analysts
believe an equally strong rebound may be in the offing." Moreover, Liesman
wrote, investors were rapidly coming to the realization that "Russia's problems
are far different and, for the moment, less dire than those that undermined
Asian economies." The December 16 piece was headlined, "Russian Debt Markets Due
for Rebound."

A few weeks later, Liesman and the Journal used even
stronger language to trumpet Russia's economic merits. They chided investors who
were too busy "fretting over Asia's financial crisis" to notice what they called
"one of the decade's major economic events: the end of Russia's seven-year
recession."

The Journal's prediction was more than a little precipitate.
Instead of getting better, things in Russia got worse. A lot worse. Nine months
after Liesman declared that Russia's debt market was due for a rebound, and just
over seven months after proclaiming the end of the Russian recession, the
Journal--like most US newspapers--found itself having to explain the near-total
collapse of Russia's economy and capital markets...

Read the rest here: The Journal's Russia Scandal - Matt Taibbi, The Nation 1999

Has the American Model of Capitalism Failed?

This video is well worth watching to provoke thought and provide a perspective which you may not obtain from the mainstream media, particularly in the States

Naomi Klein, Howard DeSoto, and Joe Stiglitz on Economic Power and the Financial Crisis in the US

Has the American system failed? What is the American system of markets?

Is the US becoming a 'banana republic' and if so how has this happened?

What are the roots of the financial crisis?

Howard DeSoto is interesting, but takes a decent macro concept and then flogs it to death without taking it to the next step towards relevancy. Naomi Klein is more of a popularizer but makes some interesting points and explains them exceptionally well. Stiglitz is his usual brilliant self, and one must only regret that he and Volcker have no voice or real place in the Obama Administration.

But at the end of the day, one still suspects that all this talks around the basis for this financial crisis, which is a determined, if loosely organized campaign to undermine of the rule of law and to 'fix the game' in a way that has numerous historical examples.

It is best epitomized by the well-funded campaign led by Sandy Weill to capture the regulatory and political process in the US, and to overturn Glass-Steagall and the restraints on markets and leverage and oversight for the Wall Street banks. It was more sophisticated in its own way than Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme and certainly on a grander scale than Enron, but is of the same general species of financial fraud.

As the book title says, It Takes a Pillage...

A Brilliant Warning On Robert Rubin's Proposal to Deregulate Banks, circa 1995

There is little doubt in this mind that the GDP number will be revised lower, and the chain deflator lowball will prove to be transitory, and the recovery will be ephemeral, at least based on real numbers. The Clunkers programs pulled sales forward, which is a useful thing only if there is the follow up of systemic reform. The consumer is flat on their back, and median wages and employment are going nowhere. One can stoke monetary inflation with enough Fed expansion, but without the vitality that bestows permanence and self-sufficiency.

A reader sent in this prescient warning from 1995, when then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, late of Goldman Sachs, mentor to Larry and Timmy of the current US ship of state, wanted to unleash the power of the big money center banks to ensure their "efficiency and international competitiveness."

If only the US had rejected the Rubin - Greenspan doctrine then, and firmly said no to freewheeling finance, and not succumbed to the hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and donations spread about Washington in that 1990's campaign by Wall Street that culminated in Fed preemptive action, followed by a massive lobbying campaign led by Sandy Weill.

In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).

This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. Virtually any bank holding company wanting to engage in securities business would be able to stay under the 25 percent limit on revenue. However, the law remains on the books, and along with the Bank Holding Company Act, does impose other restrictions on banks, such as prohibiting them from owning insurance-underwriting companies.

In August 1997, the Fed eliminates many restrictions imposed on "Section 20 subsidiaries" by the 1987 and 1989 orders. The Board states that the risks of underwriting had proven to be "manageable," and says banks would have the right to acquire securities firms outright...

As the push for new legislation heats up, lobbyists quip that raising the issue of financial modernization really signals the start of a fresh round of political fund-raising. Indeed, in the 1997-98 election cycle, the finance, insurance, and real estate industries (known as the FIRE sector), spends more than $200 million on lobbying and makes more than $150 million in political donations. Campaign contributions are targeted to members of Congressional banking committees and other committees with direct jurisdiction over financial services legislation.

PBS Frontline: The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall

One might be tempted to conclude from this that they bought the attention of the Congress for their agenda then, and based on additional substantial contributions, have held it ever since.

As you may recall, it was in December, 1996 when Alan Greenspan made his famous 'irrational exuberance' speech. And then shortly thereafter laid the groundwork for the tech bubble of 1999, and the series of bubbles that are the basis of the American economy even today, and the long twilight of the US dollar.

Based on our read, the financial reform plans crafted by Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and their friends on Wall Street is merely a continuation of the Rubinomics. Is there any wonder, as we have Rubinomics Recalculated by Obama.

Thanks to Mark for sharing this on a day in which I had not intended to post anything. There seem to be about 12,000 regular visitors to Le Cafe each day. Although this is not a lot by internet standards, I have to say that based on their valuable comments and exceptionally well-informed messages sent in by email, that when it comes to astute readers, we have an embarrassment of riches. And for this we give thanks and are grateful.

NY Times
End Bank Law and Robber Barons Ride Again
Published: Sunday, March 5, 1995

To the Editor:

Re "For Rogue Traders, Yet Another Victim" (Business Day, Feb. 28) and your same-day article on Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin's proposal to eliminate the legal barriers that have separated the nation's commercial banks, securities firms and insurance companies for decades: The American Bankers Association, Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, Representative Jim Leach and Treasury Secretary Rubin are gravely misguided in their quest to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act.

Their contention that insurance companies, commercial banks and securities firms should be freed from legislative obstructions is predicated on fallacious, historically inaccurate statements. If the Baring Brothers failure does not give them pause, a history lesson is our only hope before the Administration and bank lobby iron out their differences and set the economy back 90 years.

The argument that American financial intermediaries will become "more efficient and more internationally competitive" is false. The American financial system is the most stable, most profitable and most dynamic in the world.

The notion that Glass-Steagall prevents American financial intermediaries from fulfilling their utmost potential in a global marketplace reflects inadequate understanding of the events that precipitated the act and the similarities between today's financial marketplace and the market nearly a century ago.

Although Glass-Steagall was enacted during the Great Depression, it was put in place because the Aldrich-Vreeland Act of 1908, the blue-sky laws following 1910 and the Federal Reserve System of 1913 failed to keep the concentration of financial power in check. The investment climate that ultimately led to Glass-Steagall was one filled with emerging markets, interlocking control of productive resources and widespread bank ownership of securities.

Ever since railroad securities began driving secondary capital markets in the late 1860's, "emerging markets" have existed for investors looking for high-yield opportunities, and banks have been primary agents in industrial development. In the 19th century, emerging markets were scattered throughout the United States, and capital flowed into them from New York, Boston, Philadelphia and London. In the same way, capital flows from the United States, Japan and England to Latin America and the Pacific rim -- today we just have more terms to define the market mechanisms.

The economy and financial markets were even more interconnected in the 19th century than now. Commercial and investment banks could accept deposits, issue currency, underwrite securities and own industrial enterprises. With Glass-Steagall lifted, we will chart a course returning us to that environment.

J. P. Morgan and Andrew Mellon made their billions through inter locking directorates and outright ownership of hundreds of nationally prominent enterprises. Glass-Steagall is one crucial piece of a litany of legislation designed to place checks and balances on the concentration of financial resources. To repeal it would be tantamount to bringing back the days of the robber barons.

The unbridled activities of those gifted financiers crumbled under the dynamic forces of the capital marketplace. If you take away the checks, the market forces will eventually knock the system off balance.

MARK D. SAMBER
Stamford, Conn.
Feb. 28, 1995

The writer is a management consultant specializing in business history.

About The Jobless Recovery ....

For the first time we had a 'jobless recovery' after the tech bubble bust thanks to the wonders of Greenspan's monetary expansion and the willingness (gullibility?) of the average American to assume enormous amounts of debt, largely based on home mortgages, the house as ATM phenomenon. Not to mention the large, unfunded expenditures of the government thanks to tax cuts and multiple wars.





Now the pundits are talking about the hopes for another jobless recovery.

Who is going to go deeply into debt this time? It looks like its the government's turn. And the expectation is that foreigners will continue to suck up the debt.





If you think this explosion of Federal debt will facilitate a stronger US dollar you might be suffering from ideological myopia or some other delusion.

Some years ago we forecast that the financiers and their elites would take the world down this road of leveraged debt and malinvestment, and then make you an offer that they think you cannot refuse. They will seek to frighten you with a collapse of the existing financial order, because that is what they fear the most themselves, for their own unique positions of power.

The offer will be a one world currency, which is a giant step towards a one world government, managed by them of course. Once you control the money, local fiscal and social preferences start to matter less and less.

This theory seems more plausible today than it did then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subprime Mortgages

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

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

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

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

Goldman Sachs

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

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

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

New York Fed

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

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

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

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

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

Unwinding Derivatives

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

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

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

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

A Range of Options

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

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

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

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

Secret Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

‘Cataclysmic Financial Crisis’

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

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

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

‘Enough Trouble’

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

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

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

‘An Outrage’

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

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

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

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

98,600 Goldman Shares

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Taibbi: Wall Street's Naked Swindle

This is worth reading.

Wall Street's Naked Swindle by Matt Taibbi.

Closing quote from this story:

"The new president for whom we all had such high hopes went and hired Michael Froman, a Citigroup executive who accepted a $2.2 million bonus after he joined the White House, to serve on his economic transition team — at the same time the government was giving Citigroup a massive bailout. Then, after promising to curb the influence of lobbyists, Obama hired a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, Mark Patterson, as chief of staff at the Treasury. He hired another Goldmanite, Gary Gensler, to police the commodities markets. He handed control of the Treasury and Federal Reserve over to Geithner and Bernanke, a pair of stooges who spent their whole careers being bellhops for New York bankers. And on the first anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, when he finally came to Wall Street to promote "serious financial reform," his plan proved to be so completely absent of balls that the share prices of the major banks soared at the news.

The nation's largest financial players are able to write the rules for own their businesses and brazenly steal billions under the noses of regulators, and nothing is done about it. A thing so fundamental to civilized society as the integrity of a stock, or a mortgage note, or even a U.S. Treasury bond, can no longer be protected, not even in a crisis, and a crime as vulgar and conspicuous as counterfeiting can take place on a systematic level for years without being stopped, even after it begins to affect the modern-day equivalents of the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What 10 years ago was a cheap stock-fraud scheme for second-rate grifters in Brooklyn has become a major profit center for Wall Street. Our burglar class now rules the national economy. And no one is trying to stop them."

PBS Frontline Presents: The Warning - Roots of the Financial Crisis

It will be worth watching if we can see the role that the Fed under Alan Greenpsan played, during the Clinton Administration, to set the US on the road to financial crisis. This was done in concert with Bob Rubin, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, representing the vested interests of the Wall Street banks.

Many of the same players that were involved in this have been brought back to Washington under the Obama Administration. This is the source of our initial disillusion with Obama as a 'reformer.' He was reforming nothing, just bringing back the crew that started the ball rolling.

Several Republicans played a key role in this sabotage of sound regulation even during the Clinton Administration, including Phil Gramm's crippling of the regulatory process. What was started under Clinton reached its fruition, if not a generalized looting, under the free market ideologues in the Bush Administration and in particular with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

We have not seen it yet, but it is a story that deserves to be told. We hope that Frontline does it justice.

We hope that this is not the phase of the financial crisis when they start trotting out patsies and scapegoats to be thrown under the bus for the amusement and diversion of the crowd from the serious work before us. The US financial system needs a thorough investigation and substantial reform, not more headlines and high profile perp walks. Or we will be back at the brink most assuredly, if we are not there already. It will happen again.

PBS FRONTLINE Presents
The Warning
Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS

The Warning (Video Preview)

"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?"

In The Warning, airing Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings), veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk (Inside the Meltdown, Breaking the Bank) unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

"I didn't know Brooksley Born," says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton's powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. "I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable." Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group -- former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- convinced him that Born's attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was "clearly a mistake."

Born's battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President's Working Group vehemently opposed regulation -- especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

"I walk into Brooksley's office one day; the blood has drained from her face," says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. "She's hanging up the telephone; she says to me: 'That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, "You're going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II."... [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.'"

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

"It'll happen again if we don't take the appropriate steps," Born warns. "There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience..."

Stiglitz: The Banks Must Be Restrained, The Financial System Must Be Reformed

"We will have another armed robbery unless we prevent the banks, the banks that are too big to fail. We should say that if you’re too big to fail then you are too big to be. They need more restrictions, such as no derivative trading.” Joe Stiglitz

If a Nobel Prize winnter in economics says the obvious, besides a few diligent bloggers, perhaps other economists will obtain 'air cover' in speaking about the economic and regulatory absurdity taking place today in the US and the UK. Winning the Nobel is even better than tenure.

Here is a video of his speech in Brussels, because this Bloomberg article leaves out some of the more 'pithy' remarks on the Wall Street bank bonuses, the errors efficient market theory, political and ideological capture, lies (his wording) told by central bankers including Alan Greenspan, unproductive "taxes" by banks on the real economy, 'criminal' management of beta, and the social costs of this financial crisis from Joe Stiglitz from the Brussels banking conference.

Stiglitz characterizes the reforms being put forward by the US Congress as completely wrong, and harmful. Watch the video, and compare what Joe Stiglitz is saying with the ponderous mendacity of Larry Summers, and you may better understand why Obama's policies are doomed to failure.

It does not take much imagine to see how things might be quite different if Joltin' Joe was the Chief Economic Advisor or Fed Chairman, rather than 'Last War' Larry or Zimbabwe Ben.

Again, here is a link to this 'must see' video which can be a bit slow to start because of Bloomberg's video platform.

Bloomberg
Stiglitz Says Banks Should Be Banned From CDS Trading
By Ben Moshinsky
October 12, 2009 06:28 EDT

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Large banks should be banned from trading derivatives including credit default swaps, said Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize-winning economist.

The CDS positions held by the five largest banks posed “significant risk” to the financial system, Stiglitz said at a press conference in Brussels. Big banks should have extra restrictions placed on them, including a ban on derivative trading, because of the risk that they would need government money if they fail, he said in a speech today.

“We will have another armed robbery unless we prevent the banks, the banks that are too big to fail,” Stiglitz said. “We should say that if you’re too big to fail then you are too big to be. They need more restrictions, such as no derivative trading.”

Derivative trading and excessive risk-taking are blamed for helping to spark the worst financial crisis since World War II. American International Group Inc., once the world’s largest insurer, needed about $180 billion of government money after its derivative trades faltered and pushed the company toward bankruptcy.

Financial markets should be subject to taxes that will discourage “dysfunctional” trading and help pay for the effects that the global crisis had on poorer nations, Stiglitz said last week.

U.S. and European regulators have pushed for tighter regulation of the $592 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market, amid concerns that it could create systemic failures in the financial system. Lawmakers have called for global rules covering derivatives to prevent financial institutions from exploiting jurisdictional differences in regulation.

Stricter Standards

Former German finance minister Hans Eichel said in an interview today that global regulation would ultimately be needed. The European Union should enforce tougher legislation, even if the U.K. is reluctant to adopt stricter standards, he said.

“The Eurozone is strong enough economically to go it alone,” Eichel said. European legislation could then become the blueprint for global rules, said Eichel.