Bloomberg News

Bill Moyers: The Party People of Wall Street

by Bill Moyers on January 30, 2012

Huffington Post…

A week or so ago, we read in the New York Times about what in the Gilded Age of the Roman Empire was known as a bacchanal — a big blowout at which the imperial swells got together and whooped it up. This one occurred here in Manhattan at the annual black-tie dinner and induction ceremony for Kappa Beta Phi. That’s the very exclusive Wall Street fraternity of billionaire bankers and private equity and hedge fund predators. People like Wilbur Ross, the vulture capitalist; Robert Benmosche, the CEO of AIG, the insurance giant that received tens of billions in bailout money; and Alan “Ace” Greenberg, former chairman of Bear Stearns, the failed investment bank bought by JPMorgan Chase. They got together at the St. Regis Hotel off Fifth Avenue to eat rack of lamb, drink and haze their newest members, who are made to dress in drag, sing and perform skits while braving the insults, wine-soaked napkins and petit fours — those fancy little frosted cakes — hurled at them by the old guard. In other words, a gilt-edged Animal House , food fight and all. This year, the butt of many a joke were the protesters of Occupy Wall Street. In one of the sketches, the bond specialist James Lebenthal scolded a demonstrator with a face tattoo, “Go home, wash that off your face and get back to work.” And in another, a member — dressed like a protester — was told, “You’re pathetic, you liberal. You need a bath!” Pretty hilarious stuff. The whole affair’s reminiscent of the wingdings the robber barons used to throw during America’s own Gilded Age a century and a half ago, when great wealth amassed at the top, far from the squalor and misery of working stiffs. Guests would arrive in the glittering mansions for costume balls that rivaled Versailles, reinforcing the sense of superiority and the virtue of a ruling class that depended on the toil and sweat of working people. That’s consistent with the attitude expressed by several of these types after Occupy Wall Street sprung up; bankers told the Times on the record that they could understand the anger of the protesters camped on their doorstep; but privately, a hedge manager said , “Most… view [it] as ragtag group looking for sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll.” So sayeth the winners in our winner-take all economy. The very guys who were celebrating at the St. Regis because they were too big to fail. Even when they fell flat on their faces, the government was there to dust them off, bail them out and send them back to fight the class war with nary a harsh word or punishment. Talk about a nanny welfare state. None of this was by accident. The last three decades have witnessed a carefully calculated heist worthy of Robert Redford and Paul Newman in The Sting — but on a massive scale. It was an inside job, politically engineered by Wall Street and Washington working hand-in-hand, sticky fingers with sticky fingers, to turn the legend of Robin Hood on its head — giving to the rich and taking from everybody else. Don’t take our word for it — it’s all on the record. The biggest of the big boys was Citigroup, at one time the world’s largest financial institution. When the meltdown hit in 2008, the bank cut more than 50,000 jobs and you and other taxpayers shelled out more than $45 billion to save it. And how are Citigroup executives doing? Nicely, thank you. Last year, its CEO, Vikram Pandit, took home $1.75 million in base salary, and was awarded $3.7 million in deferred stock. According to the Times , “Citigroup is expected to disclose the rest of his pay, cash, be it upfront or deferred, in March. In addition, while not necessarily for work performed in 2011, Mr. Pandit last year was awarded a $16.7 million retention bonus, plus stock options that could add $6.5 million to the package’s overall value.” Makes you want to cry out, “Retain me! Retain me!” To be fair, Vikram Pandit was at the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland last week, where he told Bloomberg News , “It’s important for the financial system to acknowledge that there’s a great deal of anger directed at it… Trust has been broken. Banks have to serve clients, not serve themselves.” What’s more, he has said that the “sentiments” expressed by Occupy Wall Street demonstrators were “completely understandable.” This, in contrast to the financial industry official who told a reporter that the protesters’ issues were “a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Or, as they used to say while partying down at the court of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, let them eat petits fours. See more at BillMoyers.com , including his most recent full show on how big banks are rewriting the rules to our economy , featuring a candid interview with former Citigroup CEO John Reed.

Follow this link:
Bill Moyers: The Party People of Wall Street

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

The Latest Bankers To Hear Bad Bonus News

by The Huffington Post on January 26, 2012

Huffington Post…

As Wall Street adjusts to a less profitable chapter in its history, bankers may be finally feeling the pain that many American workers have known for some time. Slow global economic growth and a boost in regulations are among the reasons banks raked in lower profits last year. As a result, institutions ranging from Bank of America and Credit Suisse to Goldman Sachs gave lower bonuses to employees for 2011. In addition, some firms cut the size of compensation to lower levels than at any point since the 2008 financial crisis. BofA, which informed employees of their bonuses on Thursday, has decided to freeze base salary levels and limit cash bonuses to $150,000 for some bankers, Bloomberg reports. Employees who are netting as much as $1 million in total bonuses will receive limited cash, with the rest of their bonuses being diverted into BofA shares. Credit Suisse, a major Swiss bank, also told senior bankers that their total compensation would be 30 percent lower on average than in 2010, according to a separate Bloomberg report. These recent moves mirror pay cuts across the banking industry. Bonus day at Goldman Sachs was “a bloodbath,” one mid-level employee told CNBC. The investment bank set aside 21 percent less money for compensation and benefits than in the previous year. Many Citigroup employees received bonuses that were smaller than is typical, or even nonexistent for 2011, according to The New York Times . JPMorgan Chase set aside 9 percent less money in compensation for its investment banking unit, the Wall Street Journal reports. In addition, Morgan Stanley capped 2011 cash bonuses at $125,000 and didn’t give cash bonuses to its top executives, according to The New York Times . But some Wall Street workers had more pressing issues to contend with last year than simply a cut in pay. Many bankers already have been forced to leave their jobs, with Wall Street laying off more than 200,000 bankers in 2011 alone. Some banks continue to cut back. Vikram Pandit, chief executive of Citigroup, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that he plans to slash Citigroup’s expenses by $2.5 to $3 billion in 2012. Citigroup already is laying off 5,000 employees, according to Bloomberg News.

Excerpt from:
The Latest Bankers To Hear Bad Bonus News

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

At Davos Summit, Income Inequality Is A Major Concern

January 25, 2012

High in the Swiss Alps, the global wealth gap is being identified as a source of misery and unrest. Participants in the annual World Economic Forum summit in Davos, Switzerland are citing worldwide income inequality as a problem that needs immediate attention, according to multiple reports. The political, cultural and business leaders convening in Switzerland this week are the latest group to express pointed concern over the growing gulf between the planet’s richest and poorest citizens. Several of the wealthiest Davos attendees have told the press that they believe the current lopsided distribution of wealth is unsustainable — that the “global social-economic order will change, if we want it or not,” in the words of one industrialist quoted in Bloomberg . It’s not just them. The Forum’s annual Global Risks report names “severe income disparity” as the issue most likely to affect the world over the next 10 years . And a poll of Davos participants conducted by Bloomberg News found that more than half believe income inequality is bad for economic growth — a conclusion also reached by the International Monetary Fund last year . About two-thirds believe governments should take active steps to address the issue, the survey also found. The Davos summit, taking place this week, comes after nearly a year of international protests inspired by a lack of economic opportunities, from Tahrir Square to Zuccotti Park , and on the heels of numerous studies showing much of the world’s population struggling with deprivation. It also comes just a day after President Barack Obama criticized the current level of wealth disparity in the U.S. during his State of the Union address, calling it ” the defining issue of our time .” At the moment — as one Davis panel discussed Wednesday — 1 percent of the world’s families control 40 percent of the wealth , and one third of the world’s workers, or about 1.1 billion people, are either unemployed or impoverished . Historically, income inequality has been shown to correlate with social unrest , and the current conditions of scant opportunities and ever-more concentrated wealth have been linked to a rise in protests and civil disobedience worldwide . The Occupy movement itself has established a presence at Davos, with a handful of protesters spending this week in igloos and staging demonstrations outside the conference center. One Occupier told reporters that he and his fellow protesters believe the wealthy and powerful Davos participants are more concerned with accruing profits than fostering social justice.

Read the full article →

Video: GM Once Again Top-Selling Automaker; Stocks Rally

January 20, 2012

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) — Jane King summarizes the top stories this morning on the Bloomberg Business Report. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: EU Toughens Fiscal Pact Bowing to ECB Objections

January 20, 2012

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) — European Union governments set tougher rules on budget deficits in the latest draft of a planned fiscal treaty, bowing to some objections raised by the European Central Bank. Linda Yueh reports on Bloomberg Television’s “First Look.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: RBC’s Breza Sees Microsoft Growth From Windows 8

January 20, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Robert Breza, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, talks about Microsoft Corp.’s second-quarter profit and the outlook for Windows 8. He talks with Bloomberg’s Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Becker Says Delta, AMR Would Gain From a Merger

January 20, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Helane Becker, an analyst at Dahlman Rose & Co., and Nancy Havens-Hasty, president of Havens Advisors LLC, talk about the bankruptcy and potential buyers of AMR Corp., the parent of American Airlines. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Lo Warns of `Water Trouble’ in Year of the Dragon

January 20, 2012

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) — Raymond Lo, a feng shui master, talks about the outlook for the Year of the Dragon. He speaks in Hong Kong with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Chen Sees Opportunity in China’s Cement, Coal Stocks

January 20, 2012

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) — Dorris Chen, head of China research at BNP Paribas SA, talks about the nation’s economy and stock market. She speaks from Shanghai with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Bianco Says Gold May Rise, Is `Bullish’ on Stocks

January 20, 2012

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) — James Bianco, president of Bianco Research LLC in Chicago, talks about the outlook for U.S. stocks, the implications of Europe’s debt crisis for global markets and his investment strategy. Bianco speaks with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Kessler Says Google Needs to Grow in Non-Search Areas

January 20, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Aaron Kessler, an analyst at Raymond James & Associates, talks about Google Inc.’s fourth-quarter earnings. The owner of the world’s most popular Internet search engine reported revenue and profit that missed analysts’ estimates. Kessler speaks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” Bloomberg’s Jon Erlichman, Julie Hyman and Cory Johnson also speak. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Boyle Says Risk Outweighing Reward in U.S. Stocks

January 20, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Daniel Wiener, chief executive officer at Adviser Investments, Douglas Borthwick, managing director at Faros Trading, Kathy Boyle president, and founder of Chapin Hill Advisors, and Peter Andersen, portfolio manager at Congress Asset Management Co., talk about investment strategies, the outlook for the U.S. stock market and European debt crisis. Wiener also discusses earnings at International Business Machines Corp. and Google Inc. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Condor’s Schapiro Expects Google’s Growth to Be `Rocky’

January 19, 2012

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) — Kenneth Schapiro, president of Condor Capital Management, talks about Google Inc. and International Business Machines Corp.’s financial results and business outlook. Schapiro speaks with Susan Li on Bloomberg Television’s “First Up.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: MasterCard, Priceline Lead Bloomberg Businessweek 50

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg Businessweek Senior Editor David Rocks talks about the BBW50, a ranking of top-performing companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Rise on Earnings Optimism and Jobs Data

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Deborah Kostroun reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks advanced, sending the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index higher for a third straight day, as Bank of America Corp. rallied after swinging to a profit and jobless claims plunged to the lowest level in almost four years. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: News Corp. Settles With 36 Phone-Hack Victims

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — News Corp.’s British newspaper unit settled 36 lawsuits by phone-hacking victims including actor Jude Law and soccer player Ashley Cole, with compensation set on the basis that senior managers at the company knew of the practice and tried to conceal it. Olivia Sterns reports on Bloomberg Television’s “Last Word.”

Read the full article →

Video: Commerzbank Capital Increase Is Extra Option

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Eric Strutz, chief financial officer of Commerzbank AG, talks about the Germany’s second-largest lender plan to raise capital. He speaks with Bloomberg’s Nicholas Comfort in Frankfurt.

Read the full article →

Video: Kodak Files for Bankruptcy Amid End of Era for Film

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Eastman Kodak Co., the photography pioneer that introduced its $1 Brownie Camera more than a century ago, filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors after consumers worldwide moved from film to digital technology. Olivia Sterns reports on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move” with Owen Thomas.

Read the full article →

Video: Kodak’s Bankruptcy; Facebook Expands Service

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Jane King summarizes the top stories this morning on the Bloomberg Business Report. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Roberts Says Carrefour `Too Late’ in Online Retailing

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Bryan Roberts, director of retail research at Kantar Retail, discusses Carrefour’s SA fourth-quarter sales and the outlook for European hypermarkets. Roberts speaks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.”

Read the full article →

Video: HSBC’s Morris Likes U.S. Technology Stocks, Treasuries

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Charles Morris, who oversees the Absolute Return fund at HSBC Global Asset Management, discusses the outlook for equities, bonds and commodities. He talks with Linzie Janis and Owen Thomas on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.”

Read the full article →

Video: Saudi’s November Oil Output Rises to 30-Year High

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Lara Setrakian reports on Saudi Arabia’s record oil production and its impact on relations with Iran. She speaks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.”

Read the full article →

Video: Karklins-Marchay Expects `Rapid Growth’ in Ghana, Peru

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Alexis Karklins-Marchay, associate at Ernst & Young LLP, talks about “rapid growth” markets including Indonesia, Ghana and Peru. He speaks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.”

Read the full article →

Video: BNY’s Derrick Says EU May Be Prepared for Greek Default

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Simon Derrick, chief currency strategist at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., discusses the possibility of a Greek debt default, Portuguese bonds and the outlook for the euro. He speaks with Linzie Janis on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.”

Read the full article →

Video: Citigroup’s Apabhai on China Markets, Europe Crisis

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Mohammed Apabhai, head of Asia trading strategy at Citigroup Inc., talks about the outlook for China’s economic growth and financial markets. Apabhai also discusses Europe’s debt crisis. He speaks with Rishaad Salamat, Susan Li, Zeb Eckert and Mia Saini on Bloomberg Television’s “Asia Edge.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Academic Lankov Says Kim Jong Un Might Start Reforms

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Andrei Lankov, an associate professor at Kookmin University in Seoul, talks about the outlook for North Korea after the death of Kim Jong Il and the prospects for Kim Jong Un’s leadership. Lankov speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Ibrahim Sees Opportunity in Android, Cloud Applications

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Maha Ibrahim, a partner at Canaan Partners, talks about Facebook Inc.’s possible initial public offering, the outlook for the technology industry and her investment strategy. Ibrahim speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Freris Doubts China Would Ease Policy Significantly

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Andrew Freris, senior investment strategist for Asia at BNP Paribas Wealth Management, talks about China’s economy and banking industry. China’s banking regulator is weighing a plan to relax capital requirements for lenders after the world’s second-largest economy expanded at the slowest pace in 10 quarters, four people with knowledge of the matter said. Freris also discusses Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. He speaks in Hong Kong with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Janet Tavakoli: 2011: The Year 60 Minutes Misled Americans About Municipal Bonds

December 30, 2011

In previous posts, I’ve mentioned serious fiscal problems that need to be addressed at state and local levels. This varies by region and some issues are potentially solvable. I live in llinois ground zero for fraud, corruption, underfunded pension funds and general fiscal mismanagement. It’s an example of one of the first fiscal messes in the United States. This year Illinois hiked personal income taxes from 3% to 5%, and increased corporate taxes. We’ll be slammed with hidden tax increases in utilities, purchases, and more. When now Mayor Rahm Emanuel left his post as White House Chief of Staff to run his election, the Chicago mayoral race centered partly around steps, including budget cuts, needed to solve Chicago’s serious fiscal issues: See also my previous post: ” Third World America: ‘Fast-Tracking to Anarch y;” Huffington Post , August 25, 2010. On December 19, 2010, I was (at first) happy to see 60 Minutes highlight fiscal problems of states and municipalities. It explained how Illinois was late on payments to service suppliers, and it’s a huge problem for people doing business with the state. The state’s pension fund is underfunded and although 60 Minutes didn’t mention it, state pension funds are the prey of Wall Street cronies that stuff them with losses and then propose fee-loaded leveraged financial products that are bets to make up the shortfall. The 60 Minutes went completely off the rails by suggesting that these problems would lead to widespread defaults on municipal bonds in 2012. You can still view the segment, ” State Budgets: Day of Reckoning ,” on the CBS web site. A “Performance” Instead of focusing on the implication of these problems to public services including police protection, fire departments, city maintenance, and city jobs (among other things), 60 Minutes let a pundit claim these problems translate into near-term massive municipal bond defaults. Meredith Whitney, the pundit, had written a report, Tragedy of the Commons, which supposedly backed her claims. Contrary to 60 Minutes’s assertion, Meredith Whitney, a banking analyst, did not have a great track record. Gullible reporters had given her great PR for a call on Citigroup that had been correctly made many months earlier in her presence by my friend Jim Rogers, a legendary investor. I was later bemused to see that either she or her PR flacks apparently took credit for my early warnings about serious problems at AIG. (See: ” Reporting v. PR: Meredith Whitney and AIG ,” TSF , March 23, 2009.) Whitney was quoted as claiming: “Clients are not pleased with my call and I have had several death threats.” A 2008 Fortune cover story reported she had received “one death threat.” (Perhaps clients were displeased that her ignoring Rogers had already cost them thirteen points and even then she didn’t directly tell people to bail out.) With characteristic humor Rogers quipped : “Gosh, I have never received a death threat ever for saying I was short a stock or that a company would be going bankrupt. What have I been doing wrong?” Whitney told 60 Minutes: “You could see 50 sizeable defaults. Fifty to 100 sizeable defaults. More. This will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of defaults….It’ll be something to worry about within the next 12 8months.” A Wild Guess Whitney wouldn’t justify her analysis saying “Quantifying is a guesstimate at this point.” (” Whitney Municipal-Bond Apocalypse Short on Specifics ,” by Max Abelson and Michael McDonald, Bloomberg News, Feb 1, 2011.) 60 Minutes admitted it had never reviewed her much-touted report. It never mentioned sizeable defaults, only that there “invariably” would be defaults. It also reported that 60 Minutes was wrong about her “untarnished’ track record. Since she started her company in 2009, about two-thirds of her stock picks since starting her company underperformed market indexes. A 2008 Fortune cover story ranked Whitney 1,205th out of 1,919 equity analysts the previous year, based on stock picks. Whitney told Bloomberg’s reporters: “A lot of this is, you know it, but can you prove it? There are fifth-derivative dimensions that I don’t think I need to spell out to my clients.” As a derivatives expert I can attest that this is gibberish. But I want to hear her explanation of “fifth-derivative dimensions,” because I adore a good belly laugh. Genuine Research via Bloomberg Bloomberg is also the financial news service that has done great early work on fraud and related municipal bond defaults, because that’s a worthy story. Municipal credit issues are granular and the severity of the problem — or non-problem — depends on the specific situation. In September 2005, Bloomberg broke a story about Jefferson County’s hair raising problems, ” The Banks that Fleeced Alabama ,” by Martin Z. Braun, Darrell Preston and Liz Willen. According to the article, “taxpayers blame the $160 million in fees JPMorgan Chase and other banks have charged to arrange the county’s financing–in deals that were never put out to bid.” This year, Jefferson County filed for bankruptcy. As the year wore on, Meredith Whitney waffled and by May she told a Bloomberg radio host: “In the cycle of this municipal downturn, I stand by it. But we never had a specific estimate for that.” Fortunately, Joe Mysak, a Bloomberg print reporter exposed that for the nonsense it was. Whitney had indeed given a one-year time frame on 60 Minutes and had called for hundreds of millions in defaults with 50 to 100 or more in defaults. (” Meredith Whitney Trips Over Her Muni Default Tale ,” May 19, 2011.) A Stellar Performance Whitney’s prediction of “hundreds of billions” of defaults was way off the mark. Even with Jefferson County’s $943 million filing, defaults for 2011 were down from 2010. Bonds that dipped into reserves to make payments totaled only $24.6 billion according to Richard Lehmann, publisher of the Distressed Debt Securities Newsletter. Defaults defined as bonds that missed payments are down to only $2.1 billion from $2.8 billion in 2010. In 2011, municipal bonds had stellar performance as an asset class returning more than 10% of potentially tax exempt returns. They beat the S&P, treasuries, corporate bonds and most commodities. (” Whitney’s Armageddon Belied by ’11 Returns ,” by Martin Z. Bruan, Bloomberg News , December 16, 2011). CNBC Schools 60 Minutes As for the actual analysis in Meredith Whitney’s Tragedy of the Commons report, it seems that it had serious flaws at least when it came to Nevada. Nevada State Treasurer Kate Marshall appeared on CNBC to debunk Whitney’s claim that Nevada’s municipal bonds were troubled. Marshall challenged Whitney’s analytics saying (among other things) that Whitney apparently misinterpreted a PEW report on pension plan liabilities. Nevada only represented 1/16th of the plan, and state employees pick up half the tab. Marshall then explained why Nevada’s municipal bond claims paying ability is much better than it would appear to the casual observer. The economy was still tough, but Nevada managed in anticipation of the ongoing crunch. Property tax revenues dropped, but sales tax revenues were up, gambling revenue was up, and business modified tax revenues were up. Her cash position in June 2011 was much better than 2010.

Read the full article →

Obama Campaign Returns Corzine Donations

December 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee have returned more than $70,000 in contributions from former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine following the collapse of MF Global, Corzine’s financial firm, officials said Friday. Obama’s campaign and the DNC returned contributions of $35,800 from Corzine and his wife, Sharon Elghanayan, said Democratic officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. They were not authorized to speak publicly. Corzine was among Obama’s top fundraisers, raising at least $500,000 for Obama’s re-election campaign since April, according to records released by the campaign. The former Goldman Sachs chief held a fundraiser for the president last April and was considered a main Obama emissary to Wall Street. One of the Democratic officials said the campaign and DNC would evaluate whether to return donations from other MF Global employees on a case-by-case basis. A spokesman for Corzine declined to comment. MF Global filed for bankruptcy protection on Oct. 31 after a disastrous bet on European debt sparked fear among investors and trading partners. It was the eighth-largest U.S. bankruptcy and the largest on Wall Street since the 2008 collapse of Lehman Bros. About $1.2 billion was found to be missing from client accounts when the securities firm failed, with much of the missing money belonging to farmers, ranchers and other business owners who used MF Global to reduce their risks from fluctuating prices of commodities such as corn and wheat. The FBI and federal regulators are investigating MF Global. Corzine, who also is a former U.S. senator, told congressional panels earlier this month that he didn’t know any customer money was missing until the day before MF Global collapsed. Bloomberg News was first to report the returned campaign contributions.

Read the full article →

Credit Agency Warns Debt Could Lead To U.S. Downgrade

December 22, 2011

NEW YORK (Daniel Bases) – Fitch Ratings on Wednesday warned again that the United States’ rising debt burden was not consistent with maintaining the country’s top AAA credit rating, but said there would likely be no decision on whether to cut the rating before 2013. Last month, Fitch changed its U.S. credit rating outlook to negative from stable, citing the failure of a special congressional committee to agree on at least $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction measures. “Federal debt will rise in the absence of expenditure and tax reforms that would address the challenges of rising health and social security spending as the population ages,” Fitch said in a statement. “The high and rising federal and general government debt burden is not consistent with the U.S. retaining its ‘AAA’ status despite its other fundamental sovereign credit strengths,” the ratings agency said. In a new fiscal projection, Fitch said at least $3.5 trillion of additional deficit reduction measures will be required to stabilize the federal debt held by the public at around 90 percent of gross domestic product in the latter half of the current decade. Fitch, when it lowered its outlook to negative, had said it was giving the U.S. government until 2013 to come up with a “credible plan” to tackle its ballooning budget deficit or risk a downgrade from the AAA status. “A key task of an incoming Congress and administration in 2013 is to formulate a credible plan to reduce the budget deficit and stabilize the federal debt burden. Without such a strategy, the sovereign rating will likely be lowered by the end of 2013,” Fitch reiterated. Rival ratings agency Standard & Poor’s cut its credit rating on the United States to AA-plus from AAA on August 5, citing concerns over the government’s budget deficit and rising debt burden as well as the political gridlock that nearly led to a default. On November 23, Moody’s Investors Service, warned that its top level Aaa credit rating for the United States could be in jeopardy if lawmakers were to backtrack on $1.2 trillion in automatic deficit cuts that are set to be made over 10 years. The plan for automatic cuts was triggered after the special congressional committee failed to reach an agreement on deficit reduction. Moody’s said any pullback from the agreed automatic cuts to take effect starting in 2013 could prompt it to take action. (Reporting By Daniel Bases; Editing by Leslie Adler) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

L. Randall Wray: Bernanke’s Obfuscation Continues: The Fed’s $29 Trillion Bail-Out Of Wall Street

December 14, 2011

Since the global financial crisis began in 2007, Chairman Bernanke has striven to save Wall Street’s biggest banks while concealing his actions from Congress by a thick veil of secrecy. It literally took an act of Congress plus a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Bloomberg to get him to finally release much of the information surrounding the Fed’s actions. Since that release, there have been several reports that tallied up the Fed’s largess. Most recently, Bloomberg provided an in-depth analysis of Fed lending to the biggest banks, reporting a sum of $7.77 trillion. On December 8, Bernanke struck back with a highly misleading and factually incorrect memo countering Bloomberg’s report. Bloomberg has largely vindicated its analysis. Any fair-minded reader would conclude that Bernanke’s memo to Senators Johnson and Shelby and Representatives Bachus and Frank is misleading. One could even conclude that it is not just a veil of secrecy, but rather a fog of deceit that the Fed is trying to throw over Congress. He argues that the sum total of the Fed’s lending was a mere $1.2 trillion, and that it was spread across financial and nonfinancial institutions of all sizes. Further, he asserts that the Fed never tried to hide the bail-outs from Congress. Both of these assertions fly in the face of the facts available (as the Bloomberg response makes clear). As Bernanke notes, analyses of the bail-out variously put the total at $7.77 trillion (Bloomberg) to $16 trillion (GAO) or even $24 trillion. He argues that these reports make “egregious errors,” in particular because they sum lending over-time. He also claims that these high figures likely include Fed facilities that were never utilized. Finally, he asserts that the Fed’s bail-out bears no relation to government spending, such as that undertaken by Treasury. All of these assertions are at best misleading. If he really believes the last claim, then he apparently does not understand the true risks to which he exposed the Treasury as the Fed made the commitments. There are a number of issues that must be understood. First, the Fed quibbles about the differences among lending, guarantees, and spending. For the purposes of this blog I will accept these differences and call the sum across the three “commitments.” In spite of what Bernanke claims, these do commit “Uncle Sam” since Fed losses will be absorbed by the Treasury. (The Fed pays profits to Treasury, so if its profits are hurt by losses, payments to Treasury are reduced. If the Fed should go insolvent, the Treasury will almost certainly be forced to recapitalize it.) I do, however, agree with the Chairman that a tally should not include facilities that were created but not utilized (there were several of them, and the tally I present below does not include any facilities that were not used, nor does it include “guarantees”). Second, there are (at least) three different ways to measure the Fed’s bail-out. One way would be to find the day on which the maximum outstanding Fed commitments was reached. According to the Fed, that appears to have been about $1.5 trillion sometime in December 2008. I’m willing to take Bernanke at his word. Fair enough, if we want a good measure of the maximum Fed exposure to credit risk, that is probably as good as we will find. Another way would be to take the total of commitments made over a short period of time — say, a week or a month. That would be a measure of systemic distress and would help to identify the worst periods of the GFC (global financial crisis). Obviously, this will be a bigger number and will depend on the rate of turn-over of Fed loans. For example, many of the loans were very short-term but were renewed. Bernanke argues that it is misleading to add up across revolving loans. Let us say that a bank borrows $1 million over night each day for a week. The total would be $7 million for the week. In a period of particular distress, the peak weekly or monthly lending would spike as many institutions would be forced to continually borrow from the Fed. Bernanke argues we should look only at the lending at a peak instant of time. While that measures the Fed’s risk, it does not tell us how much intervention was required. And that leads to the final way to measure the Fed’s commitments to propping up Wall Street: add up every single damned loan, guarantee and asset purchase the Fed made to benefit banks, banksters, real Housewives on Wall Street, fraudsters, and their cousins, aunts and uncles. This gives us the cumulative Fed commitments. The final important consideration is to separate “normal” Fed actions from the “extraordinary” or “emergency” interventions undertaken because of the crisis. That is easier than it sounds. After the crisis began, the Fed created a large alphabet soup of special facilities designed to deal with the crisis. We can thus take each facility and calculate the three measures of the Fed’s commitments for each, then sum up for all the special facilities. And that is precisely what Nicola Matthews and James Felkerson have done. They are PhD students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, working on a Ford Foundation grant under my direction, titled “A Research And Policy Dialogue Project On Improving Governance Of The Government Safety Net In Financial Crisis.” To my knowledge it is the most complete and accurate accounting of the Fed’s bail-out. Their results will be reported in a series of Working Papers at the Levy Economics Institute ( www.levy.org ). The first one is titled “$29,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bail-out by Funding Facility and Recipient.” Here’s the shocker. The Fed’s bail-out was not $1.2 trillion, $7.77 trillion, $16 trillion, or even $24 trillion. It was $29 trillion. That is, of course, the cumulative total. But even the peak outstanding numbers are bigger than previously reported. I do not want to take any of their fire away — interested readers must read the full account. However, I will use their study as the source for a brief summary of total Fed commitments. Here I am only going to focus on the final measure of the size of the bail-out: the cumulative total. This is not directly comparable to the Fed’s $1.2 trillion estimate, which is peak lending. I will post more on the important research done as part of this Ford Foundation grant; in coming blogs I will also explain why all Americans should be horrified at the Fed’s actions, and by Bernanke’s continued attempt to cover-up what the Fed has done. When all individual transactions are summed across all facilities created to deal with the crisis, the Fed committed a total of $29,616.4 billion dollars. This includes direct lending plus asset purchases. Three facilities — CBLS, PDCF, and TAF — overshadow all other facilities, and make up 71.1 percent ($22,826.8 billion) of all assistance. Totals (in billions) and percent of total, by facility are as follows. Any outstanding loans are in in parantheses. Term Auction Facility: $3,818.41, 12.89% Central Bank Liquidity Swaps:10,057.4 (1.96), 33.96% Single Tranche Open Market Operation: 855, 2.89% Terms Securities Lending Facility and Term Options Program: 2,005.7, 6.77% Bear Stearns Bridge Loan: 12.9, 0.04% Maiden Lane I: 28.82, (12.98) 0.10% Primary Dealer Credit Facility: 8,950.99, 30.22% Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility: 217.45, 0.73% Commercial Paper Funding Facility: 737.07, 2.49% Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: 71.09, (.794) 0.24% Agency Mortgage-Backed Security Purchase Program: 1,850.14, (849.26) 6.25% AIG Revolving Credit Facility: 140.316, 0.47% AIG Securities Borrowing Facility: 802.316, 2.71% Maiden Lane II: 9.5 (9.33) 0.07% Maiden Lane III: 24.3, (18.15) 0.08% AIA/ ALICO: 25, 0.08% Totals $29,616.4, 100.0% Source: “$29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bail-out by Funding Facility and Recipient” by James Felkerson, forthcoming, Levy Economics Institute, based on data analysis conducted with Nicola Matthews for the Ford Foundation project “A Research And Policy Dialogue Project On Improving Governance Of The Government Safety Net In Financial Crisis”.

Read the full article →

Video: Canaan’s Ibrahim Calls Zynga `Gold Standard’ of IPOs

December 10, 2011

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — Maha Ibrahim, partner at Canaan Partners, talks about the outlook for Zynga Inc.’s initial public offering and the social gaming industry. She speaks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Johnson Says Zite Delivers Highly Personalized News

December 10, 2011

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — Mark Johnson, chief executive officer of Zite, talks about the company’s application for Apple Inc.’s iPad and iPhone that offers users a personalized news stream. Johnson speaks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Kedrosky Says Hewlett-Packard Should Give Up on WebOS

December 10, 2011

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — Paul Kedrosky, author of the Infectious Greed blog and a Bloomberg contributing editor, talks about Hewlett-Packard Co.’s plans to give away its WebOS operating system to outside developers and turn it into an open-source project. Kedrosky also discusses Texas Instruments Inc.’s sales forecast. He speaks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Canally Says U.S. to Avoid Recession, Grow 2% in 2012

December 9, 2011

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — John Canally, an economic strategist at LPL Financial Corp., Jay Pelosky, consultant at J2Z, and Alessio de Loongis, a portfolio manager at Oppenheimer Funds, talk about the U.S. economy, Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis and their investment strategies. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Miller Says EU Challenges May Cause Treasury `Rally’

December 9, 2011

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — Adrian Miller, fixed-income strategist at Miller Tabak Roberts Securities LLC, talks about the euro-region’s new blueprint for a closer fiscal union and the outlook for U.S. Treasuries. He speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Rise on Consumer Confidence, Euro Agreement

December 9, 2011

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Deborah Kostroun reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks rose, as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index advanced for the second straight week, after European leaders agreed to boost a rescue fund and American consumer confidence topped estimates. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: Pulling Back the Curtain on the Wall Street Money Machine

December 7, 2011

On November 27, Bloomberg News reported the results of its successful case to force the Fed to reveal the lending details of its 2008-09 bank bailout. In 29,000 pages of documents, the Fed revealed that by March 2009, it had committed $7.77 trillion in below-market loans and guarantees to rescuing the financial system; and that these nearly interest-free loans came without strings attached. The Fed insisted that the loans were repaid and there have been no losses, but the banks reaped a $13 billion windfall in profits; and “details suggest taxpayers paid a price beyond dollars as the secret funding helped preserve a broken status quo and enabled the biggest banks to grow even bigger.” The revelations provoked shock and outrage among commentators. But in a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Committees focused on the financial services industry, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke responded on December 6th that the figures were greatly exaggerated. He said the loans were being double-counted: short-term loans rolled over from day to day were counted as separate cumulative loans rather than as a single extended loan. The Fed, it seems, was doing only what banks and the money market do for each other every day: making “liquidity” available at very low interest rates. In 2008, bank liquidity dried up after Lehman Brothers collapsed, and the banks could not get the cheap, ready credit on which their lending scheme depends. The Fed then stepped in as “lender of last resort,” doing what it had to do to keep the banking scheme going. Keeping the banking system afloat is all well and good. What is wrong with the existing scheme is that it allows the Fed to play favorites. As Alan Grayson observed in a December 5th editorial: The main, if not the sole, qualification for getting help from the Fed was to have lost huge amounts of money. The Fed bailouts rewarded failure, and penalized success. . . . During all the time that the Fed was stuffing money into the pockets of failed banks, many Americans couldn’t borrow a dime for a home, a car, or anything else. If the Fed had extended $26 trillion in credit to the American people instead of Wall Street, would there be 24 million Americans today who can’t find a full-time job? All in the Name of Liquidity What is this need for “liquidity” that justifies such extraordinary measures on behalf of the banks? Why do banks need cheap and ready access to funds? Aren’t they the lenders rather than the borrowers of funds? Don’t they simply take in deposits and lend them out? The answer is no. Today when banks make loans, they extend credit FIRST, then fund the loans by borrowing from the cheapest available source. If deposits are not available, they borrow from another bank, the money market, or the Federal Reserve. Rather than loans being created from deposits, loans actually CREATE deposits. They create deposits when checks are drawn on the borrower’s account and deposited in another bank. These deposits can then be borrowed back at the Fed funds rate — currently a very low 0.25%. A bank can thus create money in the form of “bank credit,” lend it to a customer at high interest, and borrow it back at very low interest, pocketing the difference as its profit. If all this looks like sleight of hand, it is. The process has been compared to “check kiting,” defined in Barron’s Business Dictionary as: [An] illegal scheme that establishes a false line of credit by the exchange of worthless checks between two banks. For instance, a check kiter might have empty checking accounts at two different banks, A and B. The kiter writes a check for $50,000 on the bank A account and deposits it in the bank B account. If the kiter has good credit at bank B, he will be able to draw funds against the deposited check before it clears, that is, is forwarded to bank A for payment and paid by bank A. Since the clearing process usually takes a few days, the kiter can use the $50,000 for a few days and then deposit it in the bank A account before the $50,000 check drawn on that account clears. Setting Things Right The Fed and the banking system have the unique power to create money as credit on their books, but this is not actually what is wrong with the banking scheme. The economy needs an expandable credit system and suffers recessions without it; and an expandable credit system needs a lender of last resort. What is wrong with the current scheme is that the profits are siphoned off to the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Banks can borrow very cheaply, while individuals, corporations and governments pay “whatever the market will bear.” The banker middlemen take their cut in a scheme in which money is actually manufactured in the process of lending it. To fix the system, the profits need to be returned to the 99%. How that could be done was suggested by Thom Hartmann in a recent editorial : Have the central bank owned by the US government and run by the Treasury Department, so all the profits . . . go directly into the Treasury and you and I pay less in taxes . . . . For what local governments could do, he pointed to the Bank of North Dakota: The good people of North Dakota . . . established something very much like this–the Bank of North Dakota–and it’s kept the state in the black, and kept its farmers, manufacturers and students protected from the predations of New York banksters for nearly a century. It’s time for every state to charter their own state bank, just like North Dakota did, and for the Treasury Department to either buy the Fed from the for-profit banks that own it, or simply nationalize it. We have been distracted here and in Europe by a sudden panic over our “sovereign debt” crises, when the real crisis is that our debt is NOT sovereign. We are indentured to a Wall Street money machine that creates our money and lends it back to us at interest, money our sovereign government could be creating itself, with full democratic oversight and accountability to the people. We have forgotten our roots, when the American colonists thrived on a system of money created by the people themselves, debt-free and interest-free. The continued dominance of the Wall Street money machine depends on that collective amnesia. The fact that this memory is surfacing again may be the machine’s greatest threat — and our greatest hope as a nation.

Read the full article →

Video: Bloomberg’s Johnson on Hiring in Technology, Year Up (Video)

December 3, 2011

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Cory Johnson reports on challenges technology companies face in hiring, and Year Up, a job training organization. Johnson speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Keystone XL Backlash: Canada Shifts Focus Away From U.S.

November 13, 2011

HONOLULU (Reuters / November 13) – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Sunday his country will make a bigger push to sell its energy products to Asia after Washington delayed a decision to approve the Keystone XL Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline project. “This does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we are able to access Asia markets for our energy products,” Harper told reporters on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. “That will be an important priority of our government going forward and I indicated that yesterday to the president of China.” The Obama administration recently announced it would study a possible new route for TransCanada Corp’s proposed $7 billion pipeline, which could end up killing the project. Harper reiterated the Canadian government’s disappointment and said he remained optimistic the United States would eventually give it the green light. “It’s important to note there has been extremely negative reaction to this decision in the United States,” Harper said ahead of a one-on-one meeting with President Barack Obama. (Reporting by Rachelle Younglai; Editing by John O’Callaghan) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Gordon Whitman: Cry Baby: Bank of America’s CEO Incensed by Criticism

October 28, 2011

Bloomberg News reported today that Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan is rather upset by all the bad things people are saying about his bank: “I, like you, get a little incensed when you think about how much good all of you do, whether it’s volunteer hours, charitable giving we do, serving clients and customers well,” Moynihan told employees during a global town hall meeting broadcasted from the bank’s headquarters. “You ought to think a little about that before you start yelling at us,” he scolded the banks’ critics. Excuse me, but we’re supposed to feel sorry for a man who earned $10 million last year while taking the homes of tens of thousands of American families and watching his own company teeter toward financial collapse. For three years, faith, community and civil rights organizations have pushed Bank of America to stop mass foreclosures and help get the U.S. housing market working again. Instead the bank has consistently chosen Public Relations over substance, believing it is big enough to bully its way out of responsibility for the mess it created. The Bloomberg article outlines Bank of America’s strategy to deal with the increasing criticism: launch a multi-million dollar campaign to go on the offensive at the local and state level, to kick up as much fear as possible from public officials that the bank will cut them off dry if they say anything negative about the bank’s impact on their communities. And lots of feel-good, full-page ads in local newspapers. Rather than actually change its practices in order to help ordinary Americans, the bank has chosen to double-down on advertising in an effort to fight back reality. No doubt, we will now see the bank dig up all sorts of carefully-chosen statistics about how much it is helping local communities and plaster these on every wall across every town in America. Amidst this PR blitz, we need to keep in mind some simple statistics of our own: Fact #1: Bank of America continues to smother job creation by refusing to lend to small-businesses: Bank of America went from being one of the top SBA lenders in 2006, making $415 million in loans to small businesses, to extending just $46 million in loans in 2010, an 89 percent drop. No wonder that Bloomberg reported that Bank of America ranked lowest in a 24-bank survey of small business customer satisfaction. Fact #2: Bank of America continues to prefer to kick homeowners out of their homes than do permanent, sustainable loan modifications: After participating in the HAMP program for two-and-a-half years, Bank of America has made permanent loan modifications to just 136,195 families. Meanwhile, they’ve denied or canceled modification for 683,000 families. This means homeowners have a one out of six chance of getting a permanent HAMP modification with Bank of America. In August 2011, the bank granted HAMP trial modifications to just 1% of eligible borrowers, according to a monthly report from the U.S. Treasury. Fact #3: Bank of America — and to be fair, the other big banks too — is actually increasing homeowner indebtedness, not reducing it: A report by the Congressional Oversight Panel last December found that nearly 95 percent of active, permanent loan modifications resulted in homeowners actually having a higher unpaid principal balance than before the modification. Translation: even those lucky few who manage to get a mortgage modification from Bank of America still end up deeper in debt than when they started. Keep this in mind every time you hear Bank of America or any other big bank tout big numbers of homeowners they have helped — 95 percent of them are deeper in debt than when they started. Fact #4: Bank of America continues to be a major threat to American taxpayers: And the threat just grew by trillions of dollars. Last week, federal bank regulators allowed Bank of America to transfer the riskiest of its crumbling assets from an uninsured Merrill Lynch division to the deposit-insured and discount-window-eligible Bancorp division. As Simon Johnson from MIT wrote , “The move puts the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on the hook for any losses…because the agency can tap a U.S. Treasury line of credit if the fund runs dry, taxpayers could be at risk, too.” This is an unacceptable shift of Wall Street risk onto the American taxpayers, and some are saying the beginning of another backdoor bailout for Bank of America. No amount of volunteering or advertising is going to make up for the devastation done by these four simple facts. That is why religious congregations that are part of PICO National Network are joining up with efforts to like Move Your Money to move hundreds of millions of dollars out of big banks like Bank of America and into more responsible local financial institutions. And with New Bottom Line , we’re helping move Responsible Banking laws in more than fifty cities, including a campaign by LA Voice and other grassroots groups to pass a path-breaking ordinance in Los Angeles that would move city dollars into responsible banks based on their foreclosure and lending practices. We’ll keep at it until Bank of America takes the millions it is spending on its PR campaign and instead invests in meaningful assistance for everyday struggling Americans. It might just have the desired effect that Moynihan is looking for.

Read the full article →

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: International Policy: Its Relationship to the Domestic Economy

September 9, 2011

Tonight I wish to speak to this Congress and to my fellow Americans about international policy and its relation to the domestic economy. I will advocate a new direction America must take in the world so that we can meet the needs of our people here at home. For the past decade we have relied on the force of our arms to make America secure while our economy has rotted from within. America has lost its focus. America has spent more time concentrating on reshaping the world than on reshaping our economy. We have created hundreds of thousands of jobs for military contractors all over the world, while we just learned that we created zero jobs here in the United States in the month of August as unemployment continues to stay above 9%. Come home America. We must begin to focus on things here at home and stop roaming the world looking for dragons to slay. We have a right and an obligation to defend our nation. That includes working for peace abroad and seeking peaceful resolution of conflict, a capacity that, at our peril, we have not fully developed: I call it strength through peace. It involves the pursuit of what President Franklin Roosevelt called the “Science of Human Relations,” actually engaging those with whom we disagree most to attempt to find a way to co-exist peacefully. As Dr. Martin Luther King said at a commencement address at Oberlin College in 1965: We must find some alternative to war and bloodshed… I do not wish to minimize the complexity of the problems to be faced in achieving disarmament and peace. But we shall not have the courage, the insight, to deal with such matters unless we are prepared to undergo a mental and spiritual change. It is not enough to say we must not wage war. We must love peace and sacrifice for it. We must fix our visions not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. We must see that peace represents a sweeter music, far superior to the discords of war. I believe the American people have the capacity to ‘undergo a mental and spiritual change’ that Dr. King spoke about. People are about that work in their own private lives everyday. The question is, does our government and those who lead it have that capacity? Are we willing to look, recognize that the path we are on leads only to destruction and poverty and are we willing to embark courageously on a new path? To those who say that this is naïve, I ask; has the strategy of military intervention, which took us and keeps us in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, made us any safer? The muscle-bound “with us or against us” mindset which passes for statecraft has placed us on a march of folly that in the past decade has left America with thousands of dead young soldiers, over a million dead innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the surrounding region, a new generation of terrorists and trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt. As poverty and war are twins, so are peace and prosperity. Mindful of the disaster of spreading war and being an eyewitness as to how easily our country seems to be drawn into conflict, I traveled to Syria this year, to personally urge their leader to stop the violence, respect human rights, and begin a transition toward a democratic state. I traveled to Lebanon afterwards to hear the concerns of leaders who also believe that the violence in Syria must stop and are concerned that if radical fundamentalism results in the overthrow of the government of Syria, the same fires will consume their own nation which developed a fragile political and social consensus after years of civil war. I opposed the war in Libya, not only because it was unconstitutional, but it was and is unconscionable for America to precipitate or take sides in a civil war, spending perhaps billions in an ongoing war while we have so many pressing needs here at home. We went in because we were told a massacre could occur, yet civilian casualties in Libya mounted after the U.S. and NATO attacked. In order to please the West, Libya cooperated with the CIA, got rid of its WMD program in 2004 and privatized its economy, resulting in massive unemployment. It was moving through to reform even as the West moved to bomb it and, inexplicably, the West moved to take up the cause of elements of Al Qaeda spurring the rebels. We learn today from CNN that the rebels and fighters aligned with them are looting weapons warehouses across Libya, where as many as 20,000 surface-to-air missiles had previously been kept under lock and key. Western officials, perhaps the same geniuses who knowingly helped Libyan rebels with ties to al Qaeda overthrow the Libyan government, are now worried the surface to air missiles and other weapons will get into the wrong hands. This lawless interventionism spurred on by an unaccountable NATO which violates United Nations Security Council resolutions with impunity, this attempt to use force to bring others to subjection in the name of democracy, actually has become a device for control over the wealth of other nations, the squandering of our own wealth, and the spreading of poverty here at home. Did our government just wake up one day and discover that 14 million Americans are out of work and that we need a massive program to put them back to work? No. It has known that for some time. War has become our great distraction. It has given those who have little or no ability to construct a fair economy an opportunity to pretend to leader at the expense of those brave men and women who serve and at the expense of the American economy and the expense of the American taxpayers. We can no longer afford participating in this wargame of nations. I opposed the war in Afghanistan, and have brought Congress to confront it several times because the U.S. has spent one half a trillion dollars trying to democratize a tribal nation while failing to spend sufficient resources to protect our democracy here at home. The latest report is that we may be in Afghanistan through 2024, at the request of the Afghanistan government. This will cost us hundreds of billions, even trillions more. Doesn’t it make more sense for America to come home, at the request of and for the benefit of the American people? I led opposition in this Congress to the war in Iraq. Nine years ago I warned this Congress that there was no reason to go to war against Iraq. I was asked at that time whose side I was on: America’s or the murderous dictator Saddam Hussein? Opposing that intervention was seen by some as coddling a murderous dictator. No matter that Hussein had opposed Al Qaeda. No matter that there was no proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda’s role in 9/11; no matter that Iraq did not have the intention or capability of attacking the United States and that no one had been able to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I wasn’t “for” Saddam Hussein. I was for the truth. And for peace. America pursued the war anyway. America put the lives of its sons and daughters on the line. America will spend over three trillion dollars for this war that was based on lies. And even today we find our government will not bring the troops home as promised, but instead will continue to spend billions on this stupid and corrupt war in Iraq while our own nation is falling apart. Money for war, but no money for jobs? Am I advocating isolationism? Certainly not. We need to strengthen the United Nation’s peacekeeping ability and blunt NATO’s warmaking capability. We must stop NATO from going rogue. We need a counter-terrorism strategy which brings people to justice, not which dispenses justice from 10,000 ft., with the help of Predator Drones. It is the predatory interventionism which must stop. We must stop intervening for the benefit of oil companies or other corrupt corporate interests. We cannot be the policeman of the world and lay off police and firemen in our own nation. We cannot continue to bomb bridges in other countries and say we do not have the money to build bridges here in America. We must stop pretending that America can solve all the problems in the world when we can’t solve our own problems here at home. How can we bring democracy to other nations when we are losing it at home? We cannot tell other people how to live when we have people here at home who are having difficulty living. We should look to the wisdom of Proverbs where it was written: “He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind” (Proverbs 11:29) and we must work to set our own house in order. There were no weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. But there are weapons of mass destruction here in America. Unemployment is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Poverty is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Homelessness is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Inadequate education is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Lost pension benefits are Weapons of Mass Destruction. Poor health care is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Yet despite the obvious needs domestically, the Pentagon budget now consumes over 50% of our discretionary spending. And the Pentagon budget has grown alongside the war budget. Just this year the wars and the Pentagon budget will consume close to $1 trillion in taxpayers’ money. A trillion dollars! Do you have any idea how many jobs a trillion dollars can create? Stop the wars, trim the bloated Pentagon budget and use the savings to put America back to work. The American people want work not warfare. Can we see any clearer example of the danger of endless war? We are supposed to be impressed with the strength of our leaders who, in the name of America wield awesome weapons against states a fraction of our size while when it comes to the economy and jobs, the same leaders lack the ability to confront Wall Street, which is destroying jobs on Main Street. While spending trillions for unnecessary wars, the government bailed out the banks for $700 billion, refusing to link the bailout to mortgage modification which would have helped millions of Americans stay in their homes. The Fed, which infamously looked the other way as the financial crisis was building and failed to properly monitor the overexposure of top banks, created $1.2 trillion out of nothing and gave secret emergency loans to some of the largest banks who helped to cause the financial collapse through reckless investments. This secret money created out of nothing, but backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S., is going to fuel an international financial system which siphons wealth out of the U.S., avoids paying taxes, takes American jobs and moves them to low-wage climates. According to Bloomberg News the “$1.2 trillion peak on December 5, 2008… was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and approximates the amount of money, $1.27 trillion that is due in unpaid principal on 6.5 million homes that are in or facing foreclosure.” Secret loans went to: Morgan Stanley 107.3 Billion Citigroup $99.5 billion Bank of America $91.4 billion Goldman Sachs $69 billion and to Foreign Borrowers: Banks of Scotland $84.5 billion Zurich based UBS AG 77.2 billion How is it possible that banks too big to fail still exist? We all know that the banks will fail again. The taxpayers will be asked bail them out again; to preserve the wealth of shareholders, bondholders and executives, again. The destruction of the middle class has been accelerated by the Wall Street manipulators who brought about the collapse of the housing market destroyed trillions of wealth built into American homes. Risk, like taxes, is a yoke unfairly placed upon the shoulders of the middle class. As income and resulting wealth is being redistributed upward at a pace not seen since the 1920s, the purchasing power of the middle class has been seriously eroded. Americans have less equity in homes to fuel home equity loans to keep their consumer spending up. A third of all Americans owe more than their home is worth. How is it possible that 120 million Americans literally have no wealth, just debts: How did it happen that 150 million Americans have less wealth than the top 400 individuals? How did it come to pass that the top 13,400 households, according to David Cay Johnston, have more yearly income than the bottom 96 million Americans? Who created this economy where welfare for the wealthy creates a system where a person earning $4 billion a year managing a hedge fund pays a lower tax rate on most of his income than a person who drives a truck? In a report just released, the Pew Charitable Trust wrote : “The idea that children will grow up to be better off than their parents is a central component of the American Dream and sustains American optimism. However… a middle class upbringing does not guarantee the same status over the course of a lifetime. A third of Americans raised in the middle class… fall out of the middle as adults.” The implications are this report are chilling. America’s middle class is being destroyed. America is headed toward a two class society. Just as America could not survive half free and half slave, America cannot survive half rich and half poor. “What happens to a dream deferred?” wrote Langston Hughes. “Does it dry up, Like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore – - And then run? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over Like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags Like a heavy load. Or does it explode?” It is democracy itself which at risk here. An economic democracy is a precondition of a political democracy. With endless wars, without solid jobs to sustain a middle class, a new national security state armed with the Patriot Act, will exist primarily to provide surveillance of a growing, bristling poverty class. America knew this forty-four years ago, when on February 29, 1968, The Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders or Kerner Report pronounced: “Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white — separate and unequal.” Then the inequalities were in lack of access to opportunities for jobs, housing, education and social services. In 1998, thirty years after the Kerner Report, Senator Fred Harris, said, “there is more poverty in America, it is deeper, blacker and browner than before, and it is more concentrated in the cities, which have become America’s poorhouses.” The inequalities exist today. Just since January of 2009, unemployment has skyrocketed among African Americans from 12.7% to 16.7%. Among, Hispanics the unemployment rate is currently 11.3% While intensifying among people of color, poverty today is colorblind. Foreclosures have spread through all American neighborhoods as a wildfire, consuming with it the hopes and dreams of millions. We had a moral urgency to address unemployment in the inner cities, but we failed as a society to do that. We have learned that writ large, the fate of people who live in our cities has been the fate of those who live in the suburbs, because the same massive economic machinery that for generations was crushing the hopes of millions of inner city Americans — banks who disinvested, insurance companies who redlined, businesses which pulled out, this same plague is now visited throughout America. The official unemployment figure of 9.1% conceals a much larger, more devastating picture in America. According to a recent study by Youngstown State University: the de facto unemployment rate, as conceived and computed by their center for Working Class Studies, is 26.37% This figure includes individuals who are no longer looking for work (discouraged), underemployed and those who are marginally employed. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and not hiring because of “uncertainty,” insinuating that small changes in federal regulations or tax policy are killing jobs. Yet we know that massive changes in federal tax policy and government regulations have taken place at periods of great economic growth in the United States. Our economy has not hit a rough spot in the road; it has hit a wall. The greatest losers in today’s economic system are the young. They have been fleeced. They were promised good jobs with good pay if they got a good education. Millions have done that only to discover that the jobs we promised were not there. Millions of young people have moved in with their family and friends, barely scraping by, dreading student loans that they have to repay. The dread when those loans come due. The major fault in the domestic economy is the failure to provide well paying jobs for Americans. The reasons for the high unemployment and low paying jobs are many, but two major reasons stand out: lack of consumer demand and stagnant wages accompanying low union participation. There is a lack of consumer demand in an economy that is 70% dependent on consumer spending. There are those who say we can spur demand with more tax cuts for businesses. This fails the test of experience. Business received tax cuts. We still have high unemployment. Business profits are greater than ever. Investment is less. We have learned from the past few years that businesses will not invest while economy is in bad shape. Since World War II, America has come out of every recession in less than a year, but this time we have had a false recovery. The economic numbers improved briefly, while stimulus was injected. Today we are back in recession, a double dip recession that is destroying people’s lives and setting back our nation. We did not have enough stimulus to begin with. As the stimulus runs out things are getting worse. The recession is feeding on itself. In 1937, a second round of depression surfaced as stimulus was withdrawn, requiring another effort by the government to stabilize the economy. The parallel between 1937 and 2011 is obvious. We need a second stimulus. It has to be strong enough to put millions of Americans back to work. State and local governments are forced to lay off people by the hundreds of thousands. These layoffs are not introducing efficiency. They undermine service and reduce the necessary role of government in the life of a community. Massive aid is needed to all areas of government, not because governments have spent recklessly, but because revenues are down. Income tax revenue is down. Sales tax revenue is down. Property tax revenue is down due to foreclosures. We can stimulate the economy by providing revenue to rehire state and local government employees. That is the easiest way to put hundreds of thousands back to work. This is an obvious way to stimulate the economy on a significant scale. State, local government, public schools, public and private college would all have an enhanced ability to restore service. Such a stimulus would create an economic climate where businesses will expand their investment, utilizing their own profit. The same thing is true in the housing area. The government must immediately implement a new housing program. More and more properties are becoming vacant and vandalized, while people are doubling up. We need a full-scale program where economically troubled homeowners are given the right to rent, at a market rate, property in foreclosure. The government would provide a rent subsidy while the homeowners seek work. The American people want work, not welfare. There should be work for those who are able to work. Government must become the employer of last resort. The private sector is not providing the jobs. When the private sector fails to provide the jobs, the government has a moral responsibility and a practical responsibility to step forward to put the country back to work. As with FDR and the New Deal, the government must now put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers issued a report that $2.2 trillion in infrastructure rebuilding must take place to move the commerce of America. It is not enough to describe the situation and to make a few suggestions as to what could be done to take us in a new direction. There comes a time when we need to look at some dramatic change that needs to be done to restructure our economy. This month I am going to be introducing a bill which will be aimed at addressing our structural economic problems directly. It is called the National Employment Economic Defense act — the NEED Act. America needs millions of jobs. How can we create millions of jobs in a time of annual deficits, long-term debt and contracting budgets? Here’s how: The Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing and it has given it to banks. The Fed has assumed that power through an Act of Congress. The Federal Reserve has used all of its standard monetary policy tools. But the American economy is not getting better. Whatever the Fed is doing, it is not working. The reason why is perhaps best explained by the Fed itself: “The Fed can’t control inflation or influence output and employment.” The Fed has been buying Treasury and other securities to put downward pressure on interest rates. The idea is to lower finance costs, encourage more borrowing and nudge investors into riskier investments. This provides breathing space but little else. Consumers are already over their heads in debt and they aren’t going to borrow more. Neither will producers, when sales are slack. Higher default rates are widening spreads. Many investors will still prefer to make a small gain on government securities rather than risk taking losses. Reality beats theory. The reality is that not enough people have enough money. Why is this? Where does our money come from? Why isn’t it coming? The Fed doesn’t create money we use in our bank accounts. The banks do. Most of this money is created when banks make loans. This is why the Fed can’t control inflation or influence output and employment. Output and employment depend on demand. Demand depends on how much money people have, or can borrow. Because banks create this money, they control demand. If banks aren’t lending or borrowers aren’t borrowing, new money isn’t being created to replace the money removed when bank loans are paid, so the money supply shrinks. The Fed can only put more money into the economy by buying assets from non-banks. No money goes into the economy when the Fed buys their assets. It’s just a swap of one asset for another, called reserves. Banks can’t lend reserves into the economy. The non-bank sellers of assets are mainly large institutional investors. They don’t spend much of the money they receive, they reinvest it in other assets — that is their business. But this churning of assets up in the stratosphere doesn’t “trickle down” to earth. The real economy of families, shops and small businesses of roads and schools is bypassed. We know this. The money is not getting to where it is needed. Until it does, things can only get worse. None of the current policies work because of the way the current system is set up. Here is how we fix it. We have to reclaim our Constitutional power to issue money into the economy, unburdened by debt. Last Congress I introduced legislation to do just that, and I am reintroducing it next week. Here is what the legislation does: It ends the Fed’s unaccountability by putting it under Treasury. It ends fractional reserve banking, ending banks’ ability to control demand in our economy. It empowers our nation to issue money directly into the economy to create jobs to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, unhindered by debt and interest payments – - creating millions of new, well-paying jobs. It gets the money to where it is needed the most. It gets the economy going and keeps it going. It avoids debt and deficits. It primes the pump of the economy. It enables us to regain control of our destiny as a nation. This plan would not create inflation because it would reduce infrastructure costs. Lower costs means prices can go down. Lower prices do not define inflation. Real wealth will be created with the new money. Infrastructure is enduring wealth, unlike the “financial wealth” of the stock market. If government borrows money created by banks for infrastructure it is an interest bearing debt, paid for over a long time. But if government creates money for infrastructure and spends it into circulation, there’s no debt or interest costs. The same amount of money is created in either case, adding to the money supply by exactly the same amount. This is also a way to save the free enterprise system from self-destruction. The American people know what is going on in our economy. It is run by Wall Street for Wall Street. It is run by banks for banks. Unless we look at serious structural reforms we are headed for a two class society. The ability to coin or create money is an inherent power under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The NEED Act would enable the government to invest in America. This coming Sunday we will observe the 10th anniversary of a terrible blow to our nation’s sense of security and confidence. We will never forget September 11, 2011. But we also need to remember the enduring capacity of our nation to bounce back from tragedy. We need to remember what this country is made of. America is made of vision and courage: the courage and vision of Washington, Jefferson and Adams to put lives, fortune, sacred honor on the line for the purpose of freedom and independence. We are the country of FDR and the New Deal, of John F. Kennedy and the New Frontier, of LBJ and the Great Society. We are a nation of charismatic leaders like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, who, agree with them or not, inspired a sense of optimism and confidence in America. We need to remember who we are. And in the act of remembering we will regain our confidence, we will regain our economic strength, we will put people back to work, we will help millions save their homes, we will protect the retirement security of elderly Americans, we will ensure that our children will be able to obtain a college education and a job when they graduate. We will restore our public institutions and the services they provide. We can do all of this and more. But we must ask that those who operate the engines of finance to abandon their recklessness, their selfishness and pledge allegiance to our nation and its people. We must demand that corporations pay a fair share of the taxes. We must end the off-shoring of jobs and profits. While some our leaders, with trembling hands and nervous eyes have focused abroad, our country is falling apart from within. America was never meant for decline. America was always meant for an upward, uplit path. We now must correct our course. We must move away from trying to determine the fate of nations around the globe and focus on the fate on the one nation that must matter to us more than all others — The United States of America! This speech was delivered to Congress on September 7, 2011. See video of the address here .

Read the full article →

Joel Kelsey: FCC to AT&T: Is That Your Final Answer?

August 26, 2011

Last Thursday five AT&T employees and twelve of its outside attorneys, from six different firms, got on a conference call with thirty-two officials from the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice. All told there were close to 50 people participating in the meeting. Ostensibly, the conference call was for AT&T to explain its third and latest economic model that attempts to justify its merger with T-Mobile. But AT&T’s attempt seems to be more evidence that its bid to monopolize everything has been unraveling. The conference call represents yet another trip to the drawing board for AT&T, which has yet to convince the regulators that its numbers and projections justifying the merger actually add up. The all-hands-on-deck approach of the conference call looks like AT&T is sticking with the only tune it knows: quantity over quality. Over the past two weeks the curtain has been drawn back, revealing troubling facts about the merger, and allowing decision-makers and analysts to focus on the serious problems with this deal. Yet AT&T is frantically trying to keep people focused on the all-powerful wizard rather than the lumpy man behind the curtain. The subterfuge is failing, and the air of inevitability that AT&T has tried so hard to cultivate is disappearing, exposing its vulnerability from many different quarters. For starters, several members of Congress have looked at the facts and data underlying AT&T’s proposal and have sent detailed letters to both the DOJ and the FCC, either flat-out opposing the merger or expressing significant misgivings with it. Rep. Jay Inslee asked a series of cutting and incisive questions about AT&T’s claims, asking just how many jobs will be lost by “consolidating platforms, customer care centers and headquarter organization.” Senators Herb Kohl and Al Franken warned of the harmful effects on competition and consumer choice. Representative Steve Chabot wrote about his concerns that the merger could harm rural and regional wireless providers. Representatives Ed Markey, Anna Eshoo and John Conyers wrote that the merger would be “a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace.” Then, the FCC stopped the clock on its informal review timetable. It appears that AT&T decided its original economic model justifying the merger was insufficient, and needed time to submit a revised version. That revise-and-resubmit process is still going on, as AT&T searches for the right alchemy to turn this leaden deal into gold. The FCC put another speedbump in AT&T’s path, combining the review of the company’s bid to buy even more wireless spectrum from Qualcomm, with the T-Mobile merger review. The agency is now looking at the total amount of spectrum AT&T is aggregating across the country, preventing AT&T from playing a shell-game by simultaneously putting in separate bids to acquire spectrum far in excess of the caps and screens that used to prevent one company from owning too much of our nation’s airwaves. State governments are also casting a jaundiced eye in AT&T’s direction. So far, nine separate states have acted upon their skeptical view of this merger by issuing subpoenas to AT&T and competitor Sprint Nextel for more detailed information about the wireless industry in general and the T-Mobile deal in particular. Complicating matters for AT&T on Wall St, the money people have been starting to get nervous since Bloomberg News reported that industry analysts are losing confidence that the merger will be approved. Snowing regulators is one thing, but separating investors from their money is a much heavier lift, particularly when billions of dollars are involved. Last, AT&T has stepped on its own tail, unintentionally disclosing confidential documents that revealed the company could meet its commitments to deploy mobile broadband to 97 percent of the country for just $3.8 billion — one-tenth of the $39 billion it is spending to acquire a competitor in T-Mobile that offers lower-priced services to wireless customers. This is irrefutable evidence that AT&T made a choice to eliminate competition in the market rather than invest in network upgrades. If the promise of rural broadband is the carrot AT&T is offering to win approval from Washington; denying rural Americans mobile broadband service is the stick — supposedly. Remember, with all of AT&T’s merger bluster, Verizon is already planning to offer 4G LTE service to 97% of the country. Surrendering such a large portion of the market to Verizon would be an expensive self-sacrifice, and unlikely given AT&T’s dominant position in the marketplace. The army of lawyers and lobbyists AT&T and T-Mobile have assembled to ram this merger through are going to need more than a conference call or two to make this deal happen. They’re going to have to convince two federal agencies, leaders in Congress, at least nine state regulatory agencies, investors and consumers that killing off competitors is somehow good for competition, cutting jobs is somehow good for employment, and refusing to invest in infrastructure is somehow good for investment. Their effort is faltering. If the facts get more traction than AT&T’s fantasy, that effort will surely fail.

Read the full article →

Fed’s $1.2 Trillion In Loans ‘A Classic Case Of Moral Hazard’

August 23, 2011

During the 2008 financial crisis, when the nation’s banking system seemed on the verge of collapse, President George W. Bush authorized a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry. The U.S. Treasury implemented that program, known as TARP, in an effort to stave off economic catastrophe. At the same time, and in the years that followed, the Federal Reserve was undertaking its own rescue operation, in the form of private, previously undisclosed loans to banks and other institutions — lending as much as $1.2 trillion, nearly twice the amount of the Treasury bailout, according to a data analysis performed by Bloomberg News and published on Monday . The scope of the Fed’s private lending had previously only been guessed at, but figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Bloomberg News show that the nation’s central banker issued loans to more than 300 institutions between August 2007 and April 2010, including over 100 loans of $1 billion or more. While the Fed’s loans likely helped to prevent a complete implosion of the global banking system, analysts say they fear the loans may have contributed to an atmosphere of complacency on Wall Street. Banks that received emergency cash infusions during the crisis may now believe the Fed will always be there to bail them out of trouble, the thinking goes. “It is a classic case of moral hazard,” Dimitri Papadimitriou, president of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, told The Huffington Post. The Federal Reserve itself had argued that the details of its emergency loans should be kept out of the public eye, claiming that the reputations of the firms involved could suffer if they were seen to be taking money from the government in order to stay afloat. Many of the banks that borrowed from the Fed had previously appealed to the Supreme Court to keep those records secret. However, an invocation of the Freedom of Information Act forced the Fed to release more than 29,000 pages of documents, revealing the extent to which the financial sector relied on Federal Reserve dollars during the worst days of the crisis. Given the extraordinary size of the loans, the public has a right to know what happened, said David Jones, an executive professor at the Lutgert College of Business at Florida Gulf Coast University. “It’s completely valid at some point to say, ‘Who did the borrowing?’” Jones told The Huffington Post. “It was appropriate, under this special set of circumstances, to divulge the information.” Among the largest borrowers were Bank of America, which borrowed $91.4 billion; Goldman Sachs, which was in debt for $69 billion; JPMorgan Chase, which borrowed $68.6 billion; Citigroup, which borrowed $99.5 billion and Morgan Stanley, the biggest borrower of all, to which the Fed loaned $107 billion. In addition, the Fed issued sizable loans to a number of foreign banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland, which borrowed $84.5 billion; Credit Suisse Group, which borrowed $60.8 billion and Germany’s Deutsche Bank, to which the Fed lent $66 billion. Nearly half of the 30 largest borrowers were European firms, according to Bloomberg News. While the amount of lending that took place is remarkable, some argue that the Fed’s error was not in issuing the loans, but rather in doing so without setting stronger policy reform conditions for the money. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told The Huffington Post that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke could have attached a “quid pro quo” to the emergency loans — stipulating, for example, that the money would only come through if the banks agreed to do business in a less risky way going forward. “This is the moment all the banks were on their backs,” Baker said. “The Fed ran to the rescue and got nothing in return.” A previous disclosure in December found that the Fed issued $9 trillion in low-interest overnight loans to banks and other Wall Street companies during the crisis. The $1.2 trillion figure represents the peak amount of outstanding loans, which occurred on December 5, 2008, according to Bloomberg News. Some critics contend that while the Fed was right to support the financial sector, the government didn’t do enough to help ordinary citizens who were also seeing their wealth evaporate during the crisis. Papadimitriou told The Huffington Post that the Fed issued many of its biggest loans during the Bush administration, and that “they didn’t appear to have any difficulty supporting the financial sector, but very much difficulty supporting the real sector, households.” Consumer spending suffered and unemployment spiked in the wake of the financial crisis, and the economy remains weak today. Output is low, consumer confidence is down and millions are still out of work — factors that have some economists worried about the possibility of a double-dip recession . The TARP bailout, led by the Treasury, was the subject of much popular ire when it occurred, since it was seen as a case of the government throwing money at the financial sector at the expense of everyday Americans. Similarly, the Fed’s $1.2 trillion in emergency loans were primarily aimed at keeping major financial institutions on their feet. “One would assume banks are too interconnected, you have to help all of them,” Papadimitriou said. “But if you take households in total, they are also all interconnected. They are also too big to fail.”

Read the full article →

We Have A Growth Crisis: Simon Johnson

August 15, 2011

The U.S.’s fiscal problem is not that the market questions the country’s ability to pay its debts. The willingness to pay was clearly proved by the outcome of the debt-ceiling debate, when even a majority of Tea Party adherents in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to lift the ceiling (though it would have passed without their votes). We most definitely do not have the kind of solvency crisis experienced by some emerging markets and now, for the first time, parts of Western Europe.

Read the full article →

U.S. Credit Downgrade Could Spark ‘Turmoil’

July 14, 2011

Major credit rating agencies have called the reliability of American government debt into question, warning that they could issue a punishing series of downgrades if Congress does not increase borrowing authority by early August. A downgrade of U.S. credit, unthinkable not long ago, is now a real possibility. Even a brief debt default would prompt Moody’s Investors Service to dock the government’s sterling rating, the agency said Wednesday in a release. Another warning, issued privately to lawmakers by Standard & Poor’s and reported widely , was perhaps even more chilling: Even if the government stays current on its debt payments but halts spending on other items due to the lack of a timely debt deal, the agency might issue a downgrade. It’s a prospect that has left economists and financial executives wringing their hands, sketching out scenarios that involve widespread panic, a freeze in markets and even a return to a 2008-style recession. The pronouncements of credit rating agencies, despite their battered reputations in the wake of the housing boom and bust, influence global markets on a daily basis. If the United States government, whose creditworthiness has long been the lynchpin of the global financial system, gets its rating downgraded, the consequences could be disastrous, experts said. “Forget a recovery in housing,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of the economic research firm IHS Global Insight. “You’d get a sell-off probably in U.S. bonds. It’s not a trivial matter. That would then influence corporate borrowing costs, it would influence consumer borrowing costs, it would influence mortgage rates.” Washington lawmakers remain locked in a debate over the terms of a debt ceiling increase, with Republicans insisting they will not vote to give the government more borrowing authority unless their demands for deficit-reduction are satisfied. Democrats and top economic officials, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke , have criticized that approach, arguing that it is irresponsible to threaten the full faith and credit of the U.S. as a means to trim the nation’s budget. If Congress does not raise the limit by Aug. 2, the nation will be forced to abruptly freeze spending, which could prompt a default, the Treasury has said. “We have no way to give Congress more time to solve this problem,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said in remarks Thursday. Following through on a pledge it made in early June, Moody’s placed the triple-A bond rating of the U.S. government “on review for possible downgrade” Wednesday, saying the probability of a default is no longer “de minimis.” With negotiations seeming to grow only more contentious, the nation might not be able to do something as simple as pay its bills, thereby tarnishing its top rating. A downgrade, which would imply that U.S. debt is no longer “risk-free,” would likely send interest rates soaring as yields on Treasury securities would rise, economists said. That could freeze the flow of cash through the economy, as borrowing would likely be constrained. Worse, it’s not just the U.S. government’s rating that would be downgraded. The ratings of thousands of borrowers are tied to the federal government’s rating. Bonds issued by U.S. municipalities, the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and even by the governments of Israel and Egypt could have their ratings threatened, Moody’s said. Moody’s would dock the ratings of at least 7,000 municipal credits if it slashes the U.S. government’s grade, Bloomberg News reported . “There is madness in Washington,” David Kotok, chairman and chief investment officer of Cumberland Advisors, said in a recent note. “These fools and idiots we elect to represent us passed the programs and budgets that spent the money. The controversy over future spending has nothing to do with the existing debt ceiling.” Economists expressed exasperation at what some have called an “artificial” or “self-created” crisis. Although Moody’s noted in its report that it was concerned about the absence of a long-term plan to reduce the federal deficit, the more pressing need — the one that could prompt a downgrade if not done on time — is raising the debt ceiling, the agency said. “At this point, what we’re waiting to see is an actual raising of the debt limit, regardless of how they get there,” Steven Hess, lead U.S. analyst at Moody’s, told the Wall Street Journal . Despite the ongoing drama, Treasury securities seem to be hardly affected. Yields on 10-year U.S. debt are around 2.9 percent, roughly equal to the lowest value this year, which was reached in late June, according to Bloomberg data . An array of worrisome macroeconomic risks, including the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, has investors taking refuge in U.S. government debt, pushing down yields and increasing the value of their investments. “Despite everything that’s happened in Washington in the last day or two, most investors still think a settlement is coming and default will be avoided,” said John Richards, head of strategy at Royal Bank of Scotland in the Americas. But some investors are betting on default. The price of insurance contracts on U.S. debt rose nearly 8 percent on Thursday, reflecting an increased demand for those derivatives, the Wall Street Journal reported . Some economists said a U.S. sovereign downgrade ultimately would not cripple the economy, as markets would adjust. There’s no equivalent to Treasury securities, which serve a central role in the world’s economy, said Kevin Logan, chief U.S. economist at HSBC. For that reason, investors would eventually learn to live with a lower rating, Logan said. But in the short term at least, a downgrade could still cause disruptions, he said. Some entities are required to hold highly-rated securities, often to comply with regulations. “If the triple-A government debt is suddenly double-A one day to the next, what does the entity do?” he asked. “Sell all it has? And if it does, what does that do to interest rates on all that debt?” “It could create turmoil,” he said, “as everyone tries to figure out what’s the correct pricing for all this stuff.”

Read the full article →

Video: Johnson on U.S. Debt Limit: Political Capital With Al Hunt

July 9, 2011

July 8 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, talks with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt about the outlook for the U.S. debt limit and the risk of a default. Bloomberg’s Julianna Goldman and Julie Davis discuss the U.S. June jobs report and the debate over the debt ceiling. Jim Rupert speaks about U.S. efforts to hold talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan and ties with Pakistan. Commentators Kate O’Beirne and Margaret Carlson discuss the outlook for former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn and fundraising efforts by Republican presidential candidates. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Shari Redstone Says Theater Market Needs to Be Protected: Video

July 9, 2011

July 8 (Bloomberg) — Shari Redstone, vice chairman of Viacom Inc. and CBS Corp., talks about the movie theater business versus video-on-demand services. Redstone also discusses her role at Viacom and CBS, and the outlook for international markets. She speaks with Bloomberg’s Jon Erlichman on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Excerpt. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Republicans Wage War On Financial Reform

July 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s financial overhaul law is nearly a year old. For congressional Republicans, the fight to weaken it is just starting. Wary of trying to repeal the entire statute and being portrayed as Wall Street’s protectors – banks rank among the country’s least popular institutions – GOP lawmakers are trying to nibble away at the behemoth measure. It’s a crusade they’re waging despite lacking the White House and Senate control they need to prevail. Days ago, one Republican-run House committee approved bills diluting parts of the law requiring reports on corporate salaries and exempting some investment advisers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Another House panel voted to slice $200 million from Obama’s $1.4 billion budget request for the SEC, which has a major enforcement role. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are continuing a procedural blockade that has helped prevent Obama from putting Elizabeth Warren or anyone else in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which opens its doors in two weeks. The law hurts “the formation of capital, the cost of capital and access to capital, and you can’t have capitalism without capital,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, a leader of the House Financial Services Committee. “So Republicans in the House will be examining each and every one of the 2,000-plus pages” of the law, which he called “a job creator’s nightmare.” Confident that Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate can prevent the House from doing major damage, Democrats view the Republican drive as a political exercise – for now. “It’s mostly setting a marker for the election. And it helps with their campaign contributions,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who chaired the Financial Services Committee last year and was a chief author of the law. “But it also tells people in the financial community that if they win the next election, they’ll be able to undo it all.” The financial industry leans Republican in its campaign contributions but not overwhelmingly. Sixty-one percent of the $9 million that commercial banks gave federal candidates for the 2010 elections went to Republicans, while 54 percent of the securities and investment industry’s $9 million went to Democrats, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Democrats are using the GOP drive for their own fundraising. In one email sent last week under Frank’s name soliciting money for House candidates, the party wrote that Republicans want to “bring back the days of unrestrained excess, deception and de-regulation of Wall Street.” The mailing called it “payback to their big contributors in the financial services industry.” Obama signed the banking and consumer protection measure last July 21, a keystone achievement that responded to the biggest financial crisis and most severe recession since the 1930s. It passed Congress with solid Democratic support and near-uniform GOP opposition. Among its provisions, the law: _ Created the consumer protection agency to oversee mortgages, credit cards and other financial products. _ Established a body of regulators to scan the economy for threats to the financial system. _ Required banks to hold back money for protection against losses. _ Curbed the trading of derivatives, speculative investments partly blamed for the 2008 financial crisis. _ Gave the Federal Reserve powers to oversee huge companies whose failures could jeopardize the entire financial system. Yet the law was just a start, since it ordered federal agencies to craft rules to enforce it. As of July 1, out of an estimated 400 regulations to be written, 38 are complete. That leaves 362 proposed, facing a future deadline or having missed due dates for completion, according to the law firm Davis Polk. Republicans say the overhaul went too far and has saddled banks and other companies with requirements that harm their competitiveness. The House Financial Services panel alone has held more than a dozen hearings on the law, in part to underscore to administration witnesses that some provisions – like forcing banks to hold back capital as a hedge against losses – will hurt business, according to the committee’s chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. “What we are doing is rational, it is sensible, it is entirely practical, it is compassionate,” said Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-N.Y., a tea party-backed freshman on that panel. “So we are doing the right thing, and it behooves the Senate and the administration to follow suit.” The highest-profile fight has been over Warren, picked by Obama to set up the new consumer bureau. Many Democrats and liberal groups want her to become its first director. Following a May clash between Warren and a House subcommittee chairman, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., plans to question the Harvard law professor and long-time consumer activist at a July 14 hearing about her role shaping the new agency. Meanwhile, 44 GOP senators have promised to block a vote on any nominee unless the bureau is made “accountable to the American people” by replacing the director with a board of directors and giving Congress control over its budget. Forty-one senators can prevent a nomination from coming to a vote. “You try to get leverage where you can. In the Senate, nominations are your leverage,” said Mark A. Calabria, who monitors financial regulation at the conservative-leaning Cato Institute. On another front, Republicans want to cut the budgets of agencies that are supposed to enforce the overhaul. Besides denying the SEC extra money next year, the House Appropriations Committee would limit the consumer protection bureau to $200 million, well below the $329 million Obama wants. The full House has voted to hold the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees derivatives, to $171 million, short of this year’s total and less than two-thirds of what Obama wanted. Republicans cast the cuts as part of their deficit-cutting drive, but Democrats say the reductions are designed to obstruct the new law. SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a speech this spring that budget cuts would mean “an investor protection effort hobbled.”

Read the full article →