Remember, Remember, the Twelfth of November (1999)

"On November 12, 1999, President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(GLB) into law. This landmark legislation does much to unravel the influence of
the Glass-Steagall Act on the United States' financial system. Now banks and
other providers of financial services have far greater freedom to compete
against each other. No doubt, the legislation will prompt an altering of the
financial landscape in this country."

John Krainer, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Review,
2000

Federal Reserve August 12 Statement

The following is the Federal Open Market Committee statement following its August policy meeting:

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June suggests that economic activity is leveling out. Conditions in financial markets have improved further in recent weeks. Household spending has continued to show signs of stabilizing but remains constrained by ongoing job losses, sluggish income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit.

Businesses are still cutting back on fixed investment and staffing but are making progress in bringing inventory stocks into better alignment with sales. Although economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time, the Committee continues to anticipate that policy actions to stabilize financial markets and institutions, fiscal and monetary stimulus, and market forces will contribute to a gradual resumption of sustainable economic growth in a context of price stability. (So much for the "V" recovery - Jesse)

The prices of energy and other commodities have risen of late. However, substantial resource slack is likely to dampen cost pressures, and the Committee expects that inflation will remain subdued for some time. (Dream on - Jesse)

In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability. The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period. As previously announced, to provide support to mortgage lending and housing markets and to improve overall conditions in private credit markets, the Federal Reserve will purchase a total of up to $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities and up to $200 billion of agency debt by the end of the year.

In addition, the Federal Reserve is in the process of buying $300 billion of Treasury securities. To promote a smooth transition in markets as these purchases of Treasury securities are completed, the Committee has decided to gradually slow the pace of these transactions and anticipates that the full amount will be purchased by the end of October. The Committee will continue to evaluate the timing and overall amounts of its purchases of securities in light of the evolving economic outlook and conditions in financial markets. The Federal Reserve is monitoring the size and composition of its balance sheet and will make adjustments to its credit and liquidity programs as warranted.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Elizabeth A. Duke; Charles L. Evans; Donald L. Kohn; Jeffrey M. Lacker; Dennis P. Lockhart; Daniel K. Tarullo; Kevin M. Warsh; and Janet L. Yellen.

If You Read Nothing Else About the Financial Crisis Read (and Remember) This...

"The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises.

If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time."

The Atlantic
The Quiet Coup
By Simon Johnson
May 2009

...But I must tell you, to IMF officials, all of these crises looked depressingly similar...

...The downward spiral that follows is remarkably steep. Enormous companies teeter on the brink of default, and the local banks that have lent to them collapse. Yesterday’s “public-private partnerships” are relabeled “crony capitalism.” With credit unavailable, economic paralysis ensues, and conditions just get worse and worse. The government is forced to draw down its foreign-currency reserves to pay for imports, service debt, and cover private losses. But these reserves will eventually run out. If the country cannot right itself before that happens, it will default on its sovereign debt and become an economic pariah. The government, in its race to stop the bleeding, will typically need to wipe out some of the national champions — now hemorrhaging cash — and usually restructure a banking system that’s gone badly out of balance. It will, in other words, need to squeeze at least some of its oligarchs.

Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, such as preferential access to foreign currency, or maybe a nice tax break, or—here’s a classic Kremlin bailout technique—the assumption of private debt obligations by the government. Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk—at least until the riots grow too large...

From this confluence of campaign finance, personal connections, and ideology there flowed, in just the past decade, a river of deregulatory policies that is, in hindsight, astonishing:

• insistence on free movement of capital across borders;

• the repeal of Depression-era regulations separating commercial and investment banking;

• a congressional ban on the regulation of credit-default swaps;

• major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks;

• a light (dare I say invisible?) hand at the Securities and Exchange Commission in its regulatory enforcement;

• an international agreement to allow banks to measure their own riskiness;

• and an intentional failure to update regulations so as to keep up with the tremendous pace of financial innovation.

The mood that accompanied these measures in Washington seemed to swing between nonchalance and outright celebration: finance unleashed, it was thought, would continue to propel the economy to greater heights...

Looking just at the financial crisis (and leaving aside some problems of the larger economy), we face at least two major, interrelated problems. The first is a desperately ill banking sector that threatens to choke off any incipient recovery that the fiscal stimulus might generate. The second is a political balance of power that gives the financial sector a veto over public policy, even as that sector loses popular support...

At the root of the banks’ problems are the large losses they have undoubtedly taken on their securities and loan portfolios. But they don’t want to recognize the full extent of their losses, because that would likely expose them as insolvent. So they talk down the problem, and ask for handouts that aren’t enough to make them healthy (again, they can’t reveal the size of the handouts that would be necessary for that), but are enough to keep them upright a little longer. This behavior is corrosive: unhealthy banks either don’t lend (hoarding money to shore up reserves) or they make desperate gambles on high-risk loans and investments that could pay off big, but probably won’t pay off at all. In either case, the economy suffers further, and as it does, bank assets themselves continue to deteriorate—creating a highly destructive vicious cycle...

In my view, the U.S. faces two plausible scenarios. The first involves complicated bank-by-bank deals and a continual drumbeat of (repeated) bailouts, like the ones we saw in February with Citigroup and AIG. The administration will try to muddle through, and confusion will reign...confusion and chaos were very much in the interests of the powerful—letting them take things, legally and illegally, with impunity. When inflation is high, who can say what a piece of property is really worth? When the credit system is supported by byzantine government arrangements and backroom deals, how do you know that you aren’t being fleeced? (This is where the US is today - Jesse)

The second scenario begins more bleakly, and might end that way too...

Read the complete essay here.

Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, was the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund during 2007 and 2008. He blogs about the financial crisis at baselinescenario.com, along with James Kwak, who also contributed to this essay.

NAV Spreads of Certain Precious Metal ETFs and Funds

J P Morgan Chase Caught Speculating with Customer Money

Why the surprise? This is what the Wall Street banks do, even under a 'reform' administration. They use their customer money and public funds, for which they pay a pittance, to wildly speculate in markets, distorting prices and taking enormous risks, in order to pay themselves outrageous bonuses. They buy politicial influence to enable regulatory capture and support their financial schemes. And when their bets go wrong, the public absorbs the losses. This is the model of US gangster banking in the 21st century.

The Obama Administration cannot energize their health care reform because the public demands reform in the financial sector, and quite frankly Obama has lost the 'high ground' of the reformer by his inability to free his administration from the growing taint of scandal.

So it remains for the rest of the world to begin to rein in the outrageous behaviour of the US financial institutions that treat the world's bourses as their private casinos.

For a party that spent eight years on the sidelines, the American Democrats have proven themselves to be particularly inept at doing anything to promote their agenda once presented with a solid majority by the voting public.

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, before there can be any sustainable recovery.

Daily Mail
Blair bank targeted in £8.5bn FSA probe
By Ben Laurance
10th August 2009

The bank where Tony Blair is an adviser is the target of an unprecedented probe involving billions of pounds of customers' funds, the Daily Mail can disclose.

JP Morgan Chase, whose chief executive Jamie Dimon last year recruited the former prime minister as an adviser, is being investigated by the City's watchdog, the Financial Services Authority for allegedly failing to keep track of £8.5billion of clients' money.

The FSA has called in a top firm of accountants to examine the bank's London activities after evidence emerged that JP Morgan had mixed customers' funds with its own.

Banks are meant to maintain a strict segregation of their own money from that which is held on behalf of clients.

But JP Morgan managers in London discovered last month that client and bank money used for trading futures and options - a way of speculating on movements in currencies, share prices and commodities - had apparently been put into a single pool.

They raised the alarm and notified the FSA. The scale of case is unprecedented, say City insiders. The FSA has penalised small firms in the past for mixing funds owned by clients and the banks themselves.

But this is thought to be the first case involving such a large household name.
JP Morgan Chase faces the threat of an unlimited fine if the watchdog decides enforcement action is necessary.

News of the FSA investigation will come as a huge embarrassment for the bank, which is valued on Wall Street at £100billion.

It is thought that the JP Morgan Chase problem dates back to late 2002. This followed the takeover of JP Morgan by Chase Manhattan two years earlier.

Assets were not segregated to protect clients as FSA rules demand, insiders believe.

When the issue first came to light last month and the FSA was told, the authority called in specialists from leading accountancy firm KPMG to investigate.

The cost of the probe - known as a section 166 review - will be met by the bank.

Sources say that KPMG's team of investigators has been working at JP Morgan Chase's offices on London Wall in the City, combing through records and e-mails and interviewing staff.

Bank employees who were involved in handling client funds in 2002 as well as those still responsible have been questioned. The KPMG team has been asked to find out what checks, if any, were made to ensure that clients' money has been kept safe and segregated.

The accountants have also been asked to calculate if clients lost out because they were not paid any interest they might have been due.

Senior figures at the bank could be reprimanded or even barred from working in the City if the FSA concludes that they were slack in setting up systems for separating customers' funds.

The accountants have been asked to deliver their preliminary findings to the FSA by the end of this month. A final report is due by the end of September. These reports will not be made public - unless the FSA subsequently decides that the bank should be punished.

JP Morgan Chase has been regarded as one of the more robust of the banks to emerge from last year's meltdown in the global financial system. Among the six largest U.S. banks, it is the only one to have stayed consistently in the black since the recession began in 2007.

But it still took £15billion last year under the U.S. government's programme to prop up the financial system. The money has since been repaid.

Last month, the bank reported quarterly earnings of £1.64billion, which was a major factor in spurring the recovery in its shares and in Wall Street prices as a whole.

A report last week showed that last year, the firm paid bonuses of £600,000 ($1m) or more to 1,626 employees. Of those, more than 200 received at least £1.8m. The top four earners received a total of nearly £45million between them.

JP Morgan Chase said: 'We have no comment.'

The FSA said: 'We wouldn't comment on whether we are doing an investigation.'

KPMG also declined to comment.

Gordon Brown's Bottom and the Sale of England's Gold

Unrelated (perhaps not) to the English gold sale is this revelation about the gold reserves of Germany at around 7:25 in the tape .

This is of particular interest because Bundesbank has repeatedly denied the rumoured gold swaps with the the US Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) for 1,700 tons of gold, being held at West Point, NY with the designation "custodial gold."

Has the Bundesbank, like the Bank of England, sold (or lent if you will) half of its national gold reserves?

The other side of this rumour is that Bundesbank desperately wishes a 400 ton IMF gold sale to help it recover at least some portion of the 1,700 tonnes of gold which it has lent out to the bullion banks, who subsequently sold it into the market.

Why does it matter? It matters because of the lack of transparency of various Central Banks with regard to the size and timing of their gold sales, and their impact on the markets.

Its never really the initial act that is performed; it is the subsequent cover up and dissembling that brings down careers and governments.

"The most fascinating thing that I learned is that all the gold 'in Germany' is in New York."

Will the US Dollar Falter on an "Iron Cross"?

And in a related question, how absurd is it that AIG posted a 'profit?'

US Consumer Demand Off a Cliff as the Crisis Deepens

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

US Housing in a Deep Dive Says Buba

Do banks ever stop swimming?

Ben will need to print quite a bit more manure to throw on those green shoots, tout suite.

Its almost feeding time again, chum.

Bloomberg
‘Underwater’ Mortgages to Hit 48%, Deutsche Bank Says
By Jody Shenn
August 5, 2009 15:32 EDT

Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Almost half of U.S. homeowners with a mortgage are likely to owe more than their properties are worth before the housing recession ends, Deutsche Bank AG said.

The percentage of “underwater” loans may rise to 48 percent, or 25 million homes, as prices drop through the first quarter of 2011, Karen Weaver and Ying Shen, analysts in New York at Deutsche Bank, wrote in a report today.

As of March 31, the share of homes mortgaged for more than their value was 26 percent, or about 14 million properties, according to Deutsche Bank. Further deterioration will depress consumer spending and boost defaults by borrowers who face unemployment, divorce, disability or other financial challenges, the securitization analysts said.

“Borrowers may also ‘ruthlessly’ or strategically default even without such life events,” they wrote.

Seven markets in states with the fastest appreciation during the five-year housing boom -- including Fort Lauderdale and Miami, Florida; Merced and Modesto, California; and Las Vegas -- may find 90 percent of borrowers underwater, according to the report.

The share of borrowers owing more than 125 percent of their property’s value will increase to 28 percent from 13 percent, according to Weaver and Shen.

Home prices will decline another 14 percent on average, the analysts wrote.

Infamia e Disgrazie: Is Sheila Bair an Unsophisticated Hick?

"Flagrant evils cure themselves by being flagrant; and we are sanguine that the time is come when so great an evil...cannot stand its ground against good feeling and common sense..." John Henry Newman

The reporter on Bloomberg television just mentioned as a snide, smirking editorial aside, that Sheila Bair feels that a million dollars is a lot of pay for one year, and that ten million is excessive for a deposit taking institution. He noted that she is obviously a Washingtonian, and not a New Yorker.

That's right. A million dollars annual pay is 'nothing.' Even ten million is not much pay for an average Wall Street banker that is taking billions in public funds and gaming the financial system.

The obvious implication is that Ms. Bair is some hick regulator who is not as sophisticated as, let's say, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, or Ben Bernanake when it comes to rewarding their Wall Street cronies for allowing the economy to continue unimpaired.

Perhaps he was attempting to sneak a bit of irony into the propaganda that passes for news in the States these days, but it was not obvious.

But he might be right. When the monetary inflation from all this financial corruption hits, a million dollars per year might yet be a 'livable wage.'

And so goes the "downward spiral of dumbness." Keep these metrics in mind when you look at your next credit card bill, mortgage payment, and paycheck, rubes, and send your tribute to Caesar.


Bair Says U.S. Regulators Should Set Pay Standards for Banks
By Alison Vekshin and Erik Schatzker

Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said regulators should set pay standards for U.S. banks to ensure incentives encourage long-term performance without setting specific dollar limits.

Banking agencies should “become more active” in using existing authority to set compensation standards that are “principles-based,” Bair said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television in Washington.

“We do need to revamp the system to make sure that the incentives are long-term,” Bair said. “I do wish some of these firms would exercise better restraint and common sense on what they’re paying their folks.”

Bair echoed concerns of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and other lawmakers who say government needs to write compensation rules that discourage excessive risk taking. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. set aside a record $11.4 billion for pay and benefits in the first half of 2009, up 33 percent from a year earlier and enough to pay each worker $386,429 for the period, the company reported last month.

NAV Spreads of Certain Precious Metal ETFs and Funds and How to Use Them

Let's take a minute to review this chart, which we have been posting for about five years or more, since we appear to have new readers who are not familiar with NAV spreads and their relationship to different types of funds. We have been receiving some remarkably eccentric interpretations of this data and these funds.

SLV and GLD are funds which are targeted to a specific index or price. If the market is efficient, they *should* track their targets which are the *spot* prices of Silver and Gold respectively.

In both cases there are management fees, which are relatively stable, so we would expect the fund to be selling at a slight discount to the actual spot price, and in fact they do.

They accomplish this by buying and selling the underlying metals which they hold, in addition to other assets such as cash. There has been much criticism of both funds in relation to the lack of transparent public audits of their holdings which we will not address here. We would also assume that they buy or sell their share in the open markets as well for short term management, or engage in some arbitrage with other product if they are prohibited from trading in their own shares.

We do watch the fluctuations their spreads, primarily as a way of spotting clumsy arbitrage or short selling attempts by those who do not trade the futures, or as a futures pair if the market becomes inefficient. But these are rare.

Yes, we have read the prospectuses of both funds, and are well aware of what they say, and were around when they were both established. There were some 'issues' about the product and some regulatory and product boundaries they addressed.

CEF and GTU are 'closed end funds' based in Canada. They purchase a set amount of the underlying commodity and rarely sell it. The most significant fluctuation in asset holdings arises from the sale of additional shares in the fund, which does happen on occasion.

Because of this, CEF and GTU are an interesting guage of gold and silver sentiment. In its initial year, GTU traded at a significant DISCOUNT to its NAV, which created an opportunity to patrons of this Cafe to invest in gold 'on the cheap.'

Why do they so often trade at a premium? Because as a proxy for physical bullion, they tend to be offset by the costs of buying and storing physical bullion.

There is a silver fund being created by this same group in Canada, which is not yet available to US investors. When it does become available we will add it to our chart.

By the way, in answering a question received, there is no proper 'spot' market other than the twice daily 'fixing' on the London Metals Exchange. The fluctuating spot price which you may see quoted is a calculation based on the time decay to the 'front month' in the futures market.

We make comparisons therefore not so much between the products on this chart, which can be interesting nonetheless as it was when GTU traded at a discount because of investor wariness. Rather, the most interesting comparisons are product to itself over time. To accomplish this you will have to search back on prior posts, if you do not have a 'feel' for the norms.

When trading a bull market, a seasoned trader will tell you 'to buy weakness and sell strength.' An exceptional trader will tell you to never lose your core position as well. We have not lost ours since 2001, although we have certainly traded around it.

"Spreads" such as these are one input into the determination of what is strength and what is weakness. There are also the familiar chart based indicators as well.

We hope this helps.