Bloomberg News

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 →

Financial Regulatory Powers Might Be Outsourced To Wall Street-Funded Finra

June 28, 2011

Congress may outsource the job of regulating thousands of investment advisors to an organization funded by the professionals it regulates, Bloomberg News reports. Two and a half years after the worst financial crisis since the Depression, Washington lawmakers are focused on cutting funding from the government’s oversight of the financial industry, even before last summer’s Dodd-Frank law is fully implemented. House Republicans support a measure to flat-fund the Securities and Exchange Commission , to deny it resources that Democrats and SEC officials say are crucial to the protection of investors and the policing of financial crimes. And there’s another regulator eager to step in. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, an organization that oversees brokers and draws its budget from industry it regulates, is lobbying to replace the SEC in its oversight of nearly 12,000 investment advisors, who collectively manage about $40 trillion, Bloomberg reports. Industry experts say Finra is a weaker cop than the SEC. It levied $43 million in fines last year, compared to the SEC’s $1 billion. Finra spent $300,000 on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, the Associated Press reported this week. That’s 43 percent more than it spent during the same period last year. “They’re supposed to oversee the activity of the industry, but they are industry,” Denise Voigt Crawford, former commissioner of the Texas State Securities Board, told Bloomberg. The SEC, which draws funding from Congressional appropriations, has for months anticipated a reduction in its budget. The agency began slowing the pace of some investigations late last year, fearing it would have to contend with budget cuts. “It is not helpful for the wheels of investigations to grind to a halt,” former SEC lawyer Jacob Frenkel told the Wall Street Journal in December. The SEC’s expanding workload demands an expanded budget, SEC chair Mary Schapiro said in a speech to Congress last year, several months before the financial reform was passed. The agency, she said, should become self-funded, drawing its budget from penalties it levies. “The SEC languishes as one of the few financial regulators still subject to the annual appropriations process,” Schapiro said. “I believe that fees assessed on investors’ transactions should be dedicated to protecting investors.” Read the entire Bloomberg story here .

Read the full article →

Video: Walravens Says Oracle Has Good Case in Google Lawsuit

June 18, 2011

June 17 (Bloomberg) — Patrick Walravens, an analyst at JMP Securities, talks about Oracle Corp.’s lawsuit against Google Inc. Oracle is seeking billions of dollars in damages in the patent-and copyright-infringement suit that claims that Google’s Android software uses technology related to the Java programming language. Walravens speaks with Emily Chang and Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Lugar on Obama’s Foreign Policy: Political Capital With Al Hunt

June 18, 2011

June 17 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, talks about the conflict in Libya, the war in Afghanistan and President Barack Obama’s performance in foreign policy. Bloomberg’s Julianna Goldman and Julie Davis discuss efforts to reduce the U.S. budget deficit and Republican presidential candidates. Lara Setrakian talks about women in Saudi Arabia challenging the world’s only ban on driving by females. Commentators Margaret Carlson and Kate O’Beirne discuss Robert Gates’s legacy after he steps down as defense secretary and the outlook for Republican presidential candidates. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Smith Says Facebook Likely to Expand Mobile Applications

June 17, 2011

June 17 (Bloomberg) — Justin Smith, author of “Facebook Marketing Bible” and founder of Inside Network and Inside Facebook, talks about plans for an iPad application by Facebook Inc. and trends in the social-networking website’s subscribership and traffic. Smith talks with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Adams Expects U.S. Economic `Soft Patch’ to Dissipate

June 17, 2011

June 17 (Bloomberg) — Gina Martin Adams, senior analyst at Wells Fargo Securities LLC, talks about the outlook for the U.S. economy, stock and bond markets, and the debt crisis in Greece. Adams speaks with Carol Massar, Matt Miller, Julie Hyman and Adam Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Bank of America Seeks `Edge’ with Merrill Rivaling Schwab, Fidelity Online

June 15, 2011

By Margaret Collins and Alexis Leondis June 18 (Bloomberg) — Bank of America Corp. , the largest U.S. bank by assets, is trying to attract investors with less to invest through a new online trading site. Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch, the world’s largest brokerage with more than 15,000 financial advisers and about $2.2 trillion of client assets, will let customers trade stocks, mutual funds and options online starting June 21, through Merrill Edge , Dean Athanasia , head of banking and the direct investment division for Bank of America Global Wealth and Investment Management, said in an interview. “It’s an integrated bank and brokerage offering” that will compete with companies such as Charles Schwab Corp . and closely held Fidelity Investments, said Athanasia, who is based in New York and Boston. The site will target customers who have $250,000 or less to invest, those with “emerging wealth” or self-directed investors, he said. Customers of Merrill Edge will pay from $4.95 to as much as $8.95 a trade depending on the size of their accounts, Athanasia said. Those with at least $25,000 in total banking and brokerage accounts will get 30 free equity trades a month. Users may open investment and retirement accounts on the site and those with more than $20,000 to invest may contact advisers, who are separate from Merrill Lynch’s full-service advisers, by phone. Schwab, based in San Francisco, charges $8.95 for all online stock trades regardless of account balances, how many shares are traded and how often shares are traded, according to the company’s website. Trading Costs Fidelity, based in Boston, generally charges $7.95 for online U.S. equity trades, and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp ., based in Omaha, Nebraska, charges $9.99 for online stock trades. New York-based E*Trade Financial Corp . charges from $7.99 to $9.99, depending on the number of trades. Steve Austin , a spokesman for Fidelity, the world’s largest mutual-fund manager, declined to comment on Merrill Edge. Greg Gable, a spokesman for Schwab, also declined to comment. Schwab, TD Ameritrade and E*Trade, the largest U.S. independent online brokers, fell in stock trading yesterday after Bank of America’s plans were reported by the Wall Street Journal. It’s “highly unlikely” that Merrill Edge will cause a significant number of existing clients to leave Schwab, TD Ameritrade or E*Trade, and the initial negative market reaction is an “overreaction,” Raymond James Financial Inc.’s Patrick O’Shaughnessy , an analyst, and Megan Repine , a research associate, wrote in a research note yesterday. Re-Branding Effort “We believe this is simply a re-branding of Bank of America’s existing online brokerage,” said O’Shaughnessy and Repine, who are based in Chicago. Merrill Edge may lead to more financial advisers leaving the firm because they fear the platform might cannibalize their clients, they said. The firm’s full-service advisers target high-net-worth clients with complex needs while the online site is aimed at investors who choose to be self-directed, said Selena Morris , a spokeswoman for the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank. “The attrition rate for clients that have both a full- service and a self-directed account is half of those with only a full-service relationship,” Morris said. To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Collins in New York at mcollins45@bloomberg.net . Alexis Leondis in New York aleondis@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Video: Acton Smith Sees Moshi Monsters as Entertainment Brand

June 10, 2011

June 10 (Bloomberg) — Michael Acton Smith, chief executive officer of Mind Candy, talks about the company’s social network website for children. He speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Gurley Favors Internet Companies With `Organic’ Traffic

June 10, 2011

June 10 (Bloomberg) — Bill Gurley, general partner at the venture capital firm Benchmark Capital, talks about his investment strategy for technology companies. Gurly also discusses initial public offerings in the technology industry. He speaks with Jon Erlichman and Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Bloomberg’s Johnson Discusses Pandora Initial Share Sale

June 10, 2011

June 10 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Cory Johnson discusses the outlook for Pandora Media Inc.’s initial public offering. The Internet-radio company raised the amount sought in the sale by 43 percent to $176.2 million, as demand for shares of Web companies grows. Johnson speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Andersen Says Investors `Overallocating’ to Treasuries

June 10, 2011

June 10 (Bloomberg) — Jacob Kirkegaard, research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and Peter Andersen, portfolio manager at Congress Asset Management, talk about the Greek sovereign-debt crisis, U.S. Treasuries and investment strategy. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: U.S. Stocks Fall Amid Concern Global Economy Is Slowing

June 10, 2011

June 10 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Deborah Kostroun reports on the performance of the U.S. equity market today. U.S. stocks fell, extending the longest weekly Dow Jones Industrial Average slump in more than eight years, amid concern the global economy is slowing. Bloomberg’s Pimm Fox also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Wood Recommends `Globally Diversified’ Portfolios

June 10, 2011

June 10 (Bloomberg) — Stephen Wood, chief market strategist at Russell Investments, talks about the U.S. stock market and economy, and investment strategy for equities. Wood speaks with Carol Massar, Adam Johnson, Sheila Dharmarajan, Julie Hyman and Suzanne O’Halloran on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Daniel Marans: Sounding the Alarms on Another Social Security Tax Cut

June 9, 2011

The White House is considering adopting a temporary Social Security tax cut on employers to stimulate the economy as part of the debt ceiling negotiations with the Republicans, according to a Bloomberg News article . If the Administration so much as puts another Social Security tax cut on the table, they will be throwing Social Security under the bus for uncertain — indeed, unlikely — economic gain. It seems like déjà vu. Wasn’t it just last year that progressives had to talk themselves blue in the face explaining the harm that a temporary payroll tax cut would do? In case you hadn’t heard, the Obama Administration already enacted a one-year 2 percent payroll tax cut on the employee side as part of the tax cut deal with Republicans in December 2010. The revenue that Social Security would have gotten from the missing 2 percent of taxable payroll is being replaced by a one-time transfer of $105.2 billion from the general fund. (Click here for more on how Social Security is funded.) At the time, the payroll tax cut was criticized by progressives for endangering Social Security’s finances and undermining the program’s political underpinnings. A critique made by Nancy J. Altman, a nationally renowned Social Security expert and co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, still offers the best explanation for why a payroll tax cut is disastrous. Her arguments remain just as true of a payroll tax cut for employers. Here it is in a nutshell (though Nancy’s full critique is a must-read): Gradually defunds Social Security. The payroll tax cut will almost undoubtedly outlast its one-year expiration date. As the debate over the Bush tax cuts illustrates, taxes are easy to cut, but hard to restore, whatever the expectations are when enacted. Maintaining the reduced payroll tax rate would require the general fund to continue to transfer a growing amount of revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund amid mounting pressure to cut spending from the general budget. Social Security would have to compete with all other domestic spending programs for its share of a rapidly diminishing pie. The result would be both a real financial crisis for Social Security, and a crisis of public confidence in the program’s integrity. Undermines the program. The payroll tax is fundamental to the American public’s commitment to Social Security. It is less a tax than a dedicated down payment for an earned insurance benefit. The payroll tax represents a tangible feature of the promise that if workers pay into Social Security from their wages, they earn its benefits when they retire, become disabled, or experience the passing of a loved one. That is one reason why, at a time when anti-government skepticism is at an all-time-high, even Republicans and Tea Partiers strongly support Social Security and oppose benefit cuts. Diminishing the payroll tax risks undermining that robust commitment. Is a poor source of stimulus. The payroll tax cut is far more expensive, less progressive and less stimulating for the economy than other stimulus options like renewing the Obama Administration’s middle class Making Work Pay tax cut. (Click here for an analysis and chart comparing the two tax cuts.) The damage of one payroll tax cut has already been incalculable. Expanding it to include employers — in effect extending it — will be even worse. Deficit hawks falsely claim that Social Security contributes to the deficit. Putting it on the hook to the general budget, even temporarily, gives truth to their charge. A one-year payroll tax cut for employees was one thing — but two years running? At what point will the general fund turn off the spigot, turning Social Security’s modest shortfall into an immediate financial crisis? Precious political energy has, and will continue to be spent, preventing the current payroll tax cut from being extended. Republicans will no doubt depict it as a major tax increase, and exploit it for political gain as the 2012 election approaches. Doubling our efforts to include fighting the extension of an employer payroll tax cut, which will likely elicit the lobbying prowess of big business, is a bridge too far. It will suck major resources from the left, and aggravate the Democratic Party’s base in the run-up to the 2012 election. Perhaps most importantly, unlike the current payroll tax cut — which was inefficient stimulus, but stimulus nonetheless — an employer-side tax cut will do little, if anything for the economy. Employers are not the ones who are hurting; consumers and workers are. Corporations earned $1.68 trillion in profits at the end of 2010 — and were sitting on over $1 trillion in cash. Hiring has yet to pick up because consumer demand remains extraordinarily low. Giving businesses more money to work with is not going to change that. The position that the Obama Administration is in right now is not enviable. With a weak jobs report last month showing that the recovery is faltering, they know they need to do something. But Republicans are adamantly opposed to any policies to get the economy going other than high-end tax cuts. If, as Jared Bernstein speculated on Charlie Rose recently, the White House is eying an employer payroll tax cut, because it is the only thing Republicans will accept to raise the debt ceiling, then the President should stop wasting his time with the GOP. The Republicans clearly want to have their cake and eat it too — that is, destroy entitlements and reap the political gains to be had from a failing economy. They must be hoping to achieve parts of their extreme ideological goals under a Democratic President, and retake the White House in the following year to finish the job. Instead, the President should take his case to the American people. The public may not like raising the debt ceiling in theory, but they certainly do not favor throwing Social Security under the bus for a budget problem it did not cause.

Read the full article →

Celebrity Adviser Ken Starr Name-Dropped Peterson, Mellons in Alleged Scam

June 9, 2011

By John Helyar and David Glovin June 18 (Bloomberg) — Kenneth I. Starr knew how to cultivate relationships with powerful people, and he did it in the most transparent way — by serial name-dropping. Dining with Starr in the Grill Room at the Four Seasons in New York meant listening to him reel off bold-face names as fast as he guzzled Diet Cokes, according to one occasional lunch companion who asked not to be identified. Certain people would come up again and again in his boasts, according to a story in the June 21 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek. Starr would say he had lunch with Peter Peterson, co-founder of the private-equity firm Blackstone Group LP , or that he and “Pete” were talking at the Council on Foreign Relations, long chaired by Peterson, or that he had done something with “Pete,” according to the companion. Starr managed money for a living, and his relationship with Peterson was one of his key assets. Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, the 99-year-old widow of the bank heir and philanthropist Paul Mellon was a longstanding client, according to Alex Forger , Mellon’s lawyer. It was his connection to the Mellons that started Starr on his path to wooing the rich, according to people who knew Starr and who asked not to be identified. Starr’s career famously came to an end last month when government agents arrived at his home on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and found him hiding in a closet, prosecutors in Manhattan said on the night of his arrest. His $7.5 million condominium, which he shared with his fourth wife, Diane Passage, a pole dancer, featured floor-to-ceiling windows, a granite lap pool, and a 1,500-square-foot garden, financed with what prosecutors said was plundered cash, according to a criminal complaint. ‘Secret’ Interest Days after his arrest, a grand jury indicted Starr for cheating 11 clients — Jim Wiatt, the former head of the William Morris Agency, and actress Uma Thurman among them — out of $59 million. Starr pocketed half that amount, while the other half was placed in investments in which he or his friends had a secret interest, prosecutors said. Starr has denied wrongdoing and is being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan. The Securities and Exchange Commission brought its own civil fraud lawsuit against Starr and Passage, seeking the return of tens of millions of dollars. The two haven’t yet responded to the SEC suit. A judge last week extended the freeze on the couple’s assets at a hearing attended by Passage, who looked uncharacteristically demure in a pink cardigan and a black skirt. She declined all reporters’ questions except for one from Bloomberg Businessweek, about her age. “Thirty-four,” she said. “You can take a couple of years off that if you want to.” Elite Crowd The disintegration of Starr & Co., which once managed more than $700 million for about 175 wealthy individuals, exposes an uncomfortable truth about the elite crowd he preyed on — that wealthy, sophisticated people could be such easy marks for fraud. While the numbers involved aren’t on the scale of Bernie Madoff ’s Ponzi scheme, Starr shared Madoff’s ability to create an aura of exclusivity around himself that appealed to the elite. His allure was augmented by Starr’s attendance at invitation-only business gatherings, such as Allen & Co. President Herbert Allen ’s annual media conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. Still, there is no special trick to Starr’s alleged con game that one can glean from his indictment or the SEC complaint. So how is it so many people so willingly allowed their pockets to be picked? The Herd “Everyone follows the herd,” said Ken Springer, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and founder of New York- based investigative firm Corporate Resolutions. “Everyone says this guy is the best, and no one vets the people.” Starr & Co. rose by buzz and fell by buzz. A court- appointed receiver has reported that only 30 to 40 clients remained with the firm, after scores of others left amid repeated incidents of unauthorized client wire transfers and money-losing investments. Individuals once affiliated with Starr have typically gone mum — Peterson declined to comment on either his relationship with Starr or the accusations against him — or distanced themselves from him. Millennium Technology Ventures, a venture- capital firm that grew out of one co-founded by Starr and Peterson, addressed the issue in a June 4 letter to investors. ‘Not Involved’ “He has not been involved in investment decisions for the fund and has not been actively involved in any operational or strategic decision-making capacity with the fund for many years now,” wrote Daniel Burstein , one of Millennium’s two managing partners who were once with Blackstone. In addition, he wrote, “Mr. Starr has been removed from his role as a member of the Special Advisory Board.” Peterson remains a special advisory partner with Millennium, according to the firm’s website. Burstein declined to comment for this story. Starr’s connections to Blackstone go back to the early 1990s, when the firm was considerably smaller than it is now. Blackstone received $90 million from clients of Starr & Co., according to a lawsuit filed in 2009 by the estate of former Starr client Joan Stanton. Actor Wesley Snipes , for instance, put $1 million into Blackstone, according to testimony in the actor’s 2008 tax- evasion trial. Injecting himself as a middleman, Starr charged clients for placing their money with the firm and pooled their investments in partnerships he controlled, prosecutors said. The Stanton complaint doesn’t claim that Blackstone was aware of Starr’s motives. ‘Excessive’ Fees The Stanton estate’s suit decried “excessive fees,” which came on top of Starr’s regular ones. His annual charges rose from $120,000 in the years after he began working with Stanton in 1987 to $240,000 in 2004. The suit also accused Starr of using the partnerships to prevent Stanton from having direct communication with Blackstone. Stanton committed $5.1 million to a fund called Blackstone Domestic Capital Partners II, a Blackstone entity, her estate alleged. Her money didn’t go straight to Blackstone Domestic, according to the lawsuit. Stanton’s money was instead put with that of other Starr clients in a $12.4 million pool he formed called Blackstone Investors Partnership, which wasn’t affiliated with the Peterson Blackstone, according to the complaint. Stanton’s Blackstone Domestic returns were supposed to go to a trust whose assets would be distributed tax-free to heirs. Those Blackstone returns went to purposes unknown, according to the Stanton estate’s complaint. Venture Firm By 1997, Starr and Peterson had grown close enough to create and co-invest in a tech venture firm called P.S. Capital, according to filings and a person familiar with the enterprise. The vehicle’s chief financial officer and general counsel was Ronald Starr , a son from Ken Starr’s first marriage, and it created two investment funds totaling $13 million, according to this person. As Internet fever spiked around the year 2000, P.S. Capital morphed into the more ambitious Millennium Technology Venture Fund, which, according to press releases, raised $160 million of investor capital, yielded more than two dozen technology startups, and included “special limited advisory partners” Peterson and Starr. Dan Burstein , who previously had been a senior adviser to Blackstone and chief investment officer of P.S. Capital, became a managing partner of Millennium, as did Richard Kimball, then Peterson’s son-in-law. Settled Suit The firm’s location in the same office building as Starr & Co. enabled Starr to be active in the firm. He was “actively involved in managing personnel matters,” according to a former Millennium secretary named Mystery Masiello, who filed a discrimination lawsuit against the company in 2003. She alleged that when she told the firm’s leaders she was pregnant in July 2001, Starr said, “Oh great, now Dan is going to have to get a new assistant,” referring to Burstein. The case was settled on undisclosed terms in 2003. The Millennium fund, launched just before the Internet bubble burst, proved to be a dud. Its few successes — such as the Internet security company Phobos, which was sold to SonicWALL in 2000 — were overshadowed by big losses. About half of the original $160 million has been returned to investors, according to a person familiar with its finances who asked not to be identified. Millennium is in the process of being wound down, according to the June 4 letter to investors. ‘Land Rush’ “They were caught up in the Oklahoma land rush” along with many other Internet investors, says Neil Livingstone, former chief executive officer of GlobalOptions Group Inc. , a security company. GlobalOptions, which he said was the Millennium Fund’s only non-tech investment and its top- performing portfolio company after the bubble burst, went public in 2005. It owed much of its success to business it received directly from Millennium during the post-bubble malaise. “We shut down a lot of their Silicon Valley companies,” said Livingstone, who is now CEO of Washington security firm ExecutiveAction. The firm was an early example of Starr’s growing propensity to invest client funds “in questionable and suspicious investments, often with a direct benefit to himself, his wife,” or friends, prosecutors said last month in Starr’s criminal complaint. Starr also put his clients’ money straight into GlobalOptions stock. In a February 2008 SEC filing by GlobalOptions, Thurman and playwright Neil Simon together were listed as owning almost as many shares as the company’s CEO, Harvey Schiller . New Incarnation In 2004, Millennium was reinvented by Burstein as Millennium Technology Value Partners, a provider of liquidity for distressed tech companies in exchange for equity stakes. In its new incarnation it has had some success, investing in companies that were later bought by Amazon.com Inc. , Microsoft Corp. and AT&T Inc. , and in April it closed a new $280 million fund to new investors, according to Millennium’s press releases. Starr was listed on the Millennium website as a “special limited advisory partner” until February 2008. He effectively ceased involvement when Burstein changed the concept, according to people familiar with the firm. Starr met Bunny Mellon when he was a young certified public accountant with Manhattan-based Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. The Bronx-born graduate of Queens College and Brooklyn Law School loved the idea of handling taxes for one of America’s richest families, according to a person familiar with the situation. Modest Dress He absorbed his clients’ methods and desires, though he dressed inexpensively himself. He was following the advice of Paul Mellon, according to Livingstone, who recalls Starr invoking this line from the philanthropist: “If you have a bigger yacht than your clients, they won’t trust you.” The Mellons led Starr to another big-fish Oppenheim client, Arthur Stanton, who made his fortune as the first U.S. distributor of Volkswagen Beetles. Stanton and his wife, Joan, lived at one of Manhattan’s finest addresses, 10 Gracie Square, according to a published report of her apartment’s sale in February. The Stantons’ apartment served as a salon to many of the city’s elite. Joan Stanton was an actress who had played Lois Lane in The Adventures of Superman radio show, and their home was often filled with performing artists, according to a person familiar with the matter. When their daughter turned 21, Leonard Bernstein led the singing of Happy Birthday, the daughter, Jane Stanton Hitchcock, once recounted in an interview. Arthur Stanton introduced Starr to his social circle and endorsed his accounting. Film director Mike Nichols and stage director Hal Prince became Starr clients. Arthur Stanton died in 1987, leaving $60 million to his widow, and Starr pitched himself to manage it for her, according to a person familiar with the matter. ‘Predator’ The lawsuit brought against Starr by Joan Stanton’s estate 22 years later, soon after her own passing at age 94 in May 2009, portrayed him as a predator who defrauded her of “tens of millions of dollars.” “Mrs. Stanton’s lack of financial acumen was known to Mr. Starr,” according to the complaint. “Mr. Starr began to cultivate Mrs. Stanton as a client who would come to rely on his services exclusively.” Starr left Oppenheim in 1987 to start his own firm, he said in testimony at the 2008 tax-evasion trial of client Wesley Snipes. Skills honed on the Mellons and Stantons served him well in building a larger clientele, according to a person who has known him professionally for years. The person describes Starr as a master of ingratiating himself with people. He wasn’t suave; he wasn’t a Madoff in appearance and charm; he was rather abrupt. Detailed Investments So what was the appeal? This person describes Starr as very bright and says he came across as sincere. He could sit down with a piece of paper and map out detailed investments. Starr’s reputation took its first public beating in 2002 when his client Sylvester Stallone sued him for keeping him invested in Planet Hollywood from 1997 to 2001, as the restaurant chain spiraled toward bankruptcy and the value of his 4 million shares withered. The actor accused Starr of putting his friendship with Keith Barish , a founder of Planet Hollywood, ahead of his fiduciary duty to clients, and sought at least $10 million in damages. The litigation, settled on undisclosed terms in 2003, was an example of what prosecutors later said was Starr’s habit of making decisions without his clients’ approval. In 2006, Starr formed Starr Investment Advisors; regulatory filings indicate he had 26 to 100 clients and 11 to 50 employees. Two Funds Starr placed $6.5 million of Bunny Mellon’s fortune into two investment funds from 2005 to 2007 without informing his longtime client that they were “highly speculative and risky,” according to prosecutors. He also failed to “disclose certain conflicts of interest,” according to indictment against Starr. Barish didn’t return a call seeking comment. Only in August 2009, when investigators asked Mellon’s attorney about these illiquid investments, did her representative become aware of the funds. Starr returned $4.3 million to Mellon that month, according to the indictment. Starr’s behavior outside the office also turned erratic after taking up with Passage in 2005. He began to forsake his own counsel about modest appearances, spending more than $400,000 on jewelry from Jacob & Co., aka Jacob the Jeweler, during the span of several months in 2006, according to the criminal complaint. Pole Dancer In May 2007, he divorced Marisa Starr. He did so by filing court documents without her knowledge that claimed she agreed to end 16 years of marriage, according to her 2009 lawsuit. Starr’s fourth wife was a flashy, jarring presence in Manhattan society — tattooed, provocatively dressed and a pole dancer. She put on a Poledance Superstar competition in New York in October 2009 to raise money for a charity she started called S.P.I.N. (Single Parents In Need), according to a website promoting the event. Starr was proud of her, too, showing iPhone pictures of her gyrating on a pole to fellow attendees at a Tribeca Film Festival function in 2008, according to people who were there. In early 2008, Starr recruited Jacob the Jeweler, whose real name is Jacob Arabo , as an investment client. His money was invested in “sure deals” that included Glassnote Entertainment Group, which gave Passage a $150,000-a-year job, and Martin Bregman Productions, a movie venture involving Marty Bregman, a Starr client and a veteran producer of films such as Scarface, according to the criminal complaint. Prosecutors said Passage wanted to make the film version of “The Desert Rose,” Larry McMurtry ’s novel about an aging Las Vegas showgirl. The two doomed ventures represented $2.7 million of the $13 million of which Arabo was defrauded by Starr, according to the complaint. Strange Behavior The same network that made Starr rich quickly undid him, as stories of losses and strange behavior spread. Clients left the firm, including Mike Nichols and his broadcaster wife, Diane Sawyer , according to a person familiar with the matter. Four months after Stanton’s death, her estate sued Starr for “gross abuse of trust and confidence” over 20 years. The Stanton complaint, combined with some individual complaints, spurred the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and the SEC to start asking questions. Starr settled with the Stanton estate for an undisclosed sum in January, according to a person familiar with the situation. He also reached a $4 million settlement that month with an unidentified playwright and screenwriter who complained of being fraudulently induced to invest in a failed restaurant chain, according to the indictment. Top Clients Starr raided other clients’ accounts to make the payment, prosecutors said. In another winter development, a veteran account manager for Starr named Arnold Herrmann left for rival firm Citrin Cooperman & Co. and took some of his top clients, according to a Feb. 11 Citrin Cooperman press release. One of the clients was Barbara Walters , according to a person familiar with the matter. As his firm disintegrated, Starr tried to maintain appearances. In February he borrowed $2.6 million from Los- Angeles-based City National Bank , according to a lawsuit filed by the bank on June 16, two weeks after Starr missed a $9,385 interest payment. At a March 10 meeting with federal investigators, he said his firm had 200 clients. While that would have almost been true at its peak, the list had dwindled to less than a quarter of that by the time of his arrest, according to the criminal complaints and a document filed in court by the Starr & Co. receiver, Aurora Cassirer. Final Straw In April, prosecutors said, Starr bought the $7.5 million condominium. This proved to be the final straw. On May 25, the lawyer for Bunny Mellon, Starr’s first big client and one of his last, was looking through her financial statements. He saw a series of mid-April wire-transfers out of her Starr & Co. account, totaling $5.75 million, according to prosecutors. Starr had allegedly raided the account to close on his condominium. The lawyer called the authorities. Two days later, federal agents were removing him from the closet. The civil case is SEC v. Starr, 1:10-cv-04270, and the criminal case is U.S. v. Starr, 1:10-mj-01135, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). To contact the reporters on this story: John Helyar in Atlanta at jhelyar@bloomberg.net ; David Glovin in New York federal court at dglovin@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Weber Defies Trichet Over Europe Bond Bailout as ECB Succession Approaches

June 9, 2011

By Christian Vits, Jana Randow and Richard Tomlinson June 18 (Bloomberg) — On May 10, just hours after the European Central Bank stepped into government bond markets for the first time, Axel Weber broke ranks with most of his colleagues on the ECB’s Governing Council — including his boss, President Jean-Claude Trichet . “The purchase of government bonds poses significant stability risks, and that’s why I’m critical of this part of the ECB council’s decision,” said Weber, president of Germany’s Bundesbank. His comments, in an interview with the Frankfurt-based Boersen-Zeitung that was later posted on the Bundesbank’s website , came after he had spent part of the previous night on an emergency ECB conference call, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August 2010 issue. As finance ministers in Brussels hammered out a European Union-led rescue package worth about $927 billion, Trichet persuaded almost all of his council colleagues that purchasing government bonds was essential to halt a bond market rout triggered by Greece’s yawning fiscal deficit. One of the dissenters was Weber — the top candidate to become the ECB’s third leader when Trichet’s eight-year term expires in October 2011. Weber’s words matter because he represents the central bank of more than one-quarter of the euro region’s economy and a German habit of fiscal discipline and price stability that most of the euro-member countries have broken. Just as German Chancellor Angela Merkel held out on rescuing debt-stricken Greece until the last minute, Weber, 53, stands against getting the ECB too entwined with indebted nations. ‘First Among Equals’ “After Trichet, Weber is the first among equals,” says Juergen Michels , chief euro-region economist at Citigroup Inc. in London. “He’s not an ideologue, but he does represent a lot of the hard-money values that Germany is associated with.” Weber’s intransigence presents a dilemma for European leaders, who must decide in the next year whom to pick as Trichet’s successor. The ECB president chairs a 22-member council of the heads of all 16 central banks plus a 6-member Executive Board. By moving Weber from the Bundesbank’s bunker-like concrete building in northern Frankfurt to the Eurotower, the ECB’s 36- story glass-and-steel headquarters downtown, the member countries would be guaranteed an inflation fighter in the German tradition that underpinned the deutsche mark for half a century. They would also be choosing a plain-spoken former monetary economics professor who’s prepared to question policies he thinks are hazardous. Wanting Him? “Weber’s public opposition to a policy move by the ECB that the politicians are presumably very keen on could make his appointment a bit difficult,” says David Mackie , chief European economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in London. “They might feel: ‘Do we really want this guy to be in charge?’” Weber was nonetheless right to warn about the danger of buying bonds, Mackie says. By taking the helm of the world’s second-most-important central bank, Weber would face “huge” challenges, says Nouriel Roubini , the New York University economist who predicted the financial crisis. “There’s a rising risk of breakup of the monetary union, and the ECB will have to play an important role to prevent that from happening,” says Roubini, who sees Weber as the “leading candidate” for the top post. Tackling the Deficit Germany has a 2010 estimated budget deficit of 5 percent of gross domestic product, smaller than all but 4 of the 16 euro- member countries, and is fighting to keep the euro region under fiscal control. Merkel insisted Greece’s deficit be “tackled at its roots” before agreeing to the bailout package and is touting Germany’s constitutional amendment on fiscal restraint, which will start to go into effect in 2011, as an example to all euro governments. The euro has plunged 13.8 percent this year against the dollar, falling below $1.20 on June 4. Even after the round of rescue measures announced by the EU and the ECB, the extra yield that investors demand to hold 10-year Spanish bonds over German bunds is close to a euro-era high of 216 basis points. (A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.) Trichet’s successor thus may be confronted with the prospect of continuing to implement unconventional policy measures to safeguard the currency, such as wading deeper into the European debt market. “The ECB has crossed the Rubicon with the bond purchases,” says Julian Callow , chief European economist at Barclays Capital in London. By June 4, the ECB had purchased 40.5 billion euros ($50.1 billion) of bonds, according to the bank. First in Decades If Weber takes over from Trichet, he’ll be the first German to win a top EU post since Walter Hallstein, who led the European Commission’s predecessor institution from 1958 to 1969. To get this far, Weber — who has a British wife, Diane, and speaks fluent English — gave up a two-decade-long academic career specializing in applied monetary and international economics when he became Bundesbank president in 2004. “It’s the combination of his gravitas as an academic but also as head of the Bundesbank that matters,” says James Nixon , co-chief euro-region economist at Societe Generale SA in London. “I find it really hard to see any other person in Germany who can play in the same league.” Weber, who declined to be interviewed, grew up in Glan- Muenchweiler, a village of 1,200 people surrounded by tree- covered hills in southwestern Germany , about 45 kilometers (28 miles) from the French border. His father, Hans, taught at the local primary school and still lives in the village. Shoulder-Length Hair While he was a student at the University of Constance from 1976 to 1982, Weber sported shoulder-length hair and supplemented his income by working as a roofer when home during vacations, recalls Rudolph Hanss, a former co-worker. Fellow roofers nicknamed Weber “the theorizer” because of his academic background, says Hanss, who’s still employed at the same company. “But he certainly knew how to work.” After graduating, Weber taught and did research from 1982 to 2004 at German universities in Siegen, Bonn, Frankfurt and Cologne. He ran Cologne’s marathon in 2002, registering a time of 4 hours, 7 minutes. As an academic, Weber developed ties to the inner circle of Berlin politics. He was a member of the so-called Five Wise Men, the government’s panel of economic advisers, from 2002 to 2004. Former students include Deputy Finance Minister Joerg Asmussen and Jens Weidmann , Merkel’s chief economic adviser. Merkel has increasingly enlisted Weber to sell unpopular financial bailouts at home and abroad to skeptical politicians. Time in Berlin “He’s been very involved in rescuing the banks and dealing with the politicians,” says Joachim Fels , co-chief global economist at Morgan Stanley in London. “My guess would be that he’s spent more time in Berlin these past two years than Frankfurt.” On May 19, Weber spoke in a cramped meeting room in Berlin’s rebuilt Bundestag building. His task: Selling the euro bailout program to lawmakers. He wasn’t enjoying himself. “I’m personally dismayed about the fact that following the bank rescue program and help for Greece, I am now appearing before the German parliament for the third time,” Weber said. “It creates the impression that one is being driven by markets and is not in control of markets.” The Bundesbank president’s tone was counterproductive, says Steffen Bockhahn, a legislator for the opposition Left Party who attended the hearing. That Human Touch “Weber lacked sensitivity, that human touch that alleviates the job of conveying bad news,” he says. “When you’re trying to tell the keepers of the country’s public purse why they have to sign off on a huge aid package, a certain humanity can go a long way.” Selling himself as the next ECB president may require Weber to improve his conciliation skills. “He positions himself explicitly,” says Klaus Liebscher , who headed the Austrian central bank from 1995 to 2008 and thus sat with Weber on the ECB council. “He’s always honest about his convictions but possibly not always diplomatic.” Since becoming Bundesbank president, Weber has been a regular guest at the annual August conference of central bankers and economists hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. During the afternoon break, he hikes for hours with fellow participants in the surrounding Teton Range. Swiss National Bank President Philipp Hildebrand says he met Weber for the first time on such a jaunt in 2003 or 2004. “We started walking and marched far into the Grand Tetons,” he says. “I was impressed by his stamina and endurance. We just made it back in time for dinner.” Economics Department Inside the Bundesbank, Weber holds the reins tightly. One official says he wants to be No. 1 — and wants others to accept that. For example, when he arrived at the German central bank, he assumed leadership of its economics department. Weber reflects the Bundesbank’s traditional role as guardian of price stability. Runaway inflation gripped Germany in the early 1920s after the government printed bank notes to finance crippling World War I reparation payments imposed by the Allies. In 1957, the West German government created the Bundesbank, whose prime responsibility was to safeguard the mark as the bedrock of the country’s post-World War II recovery. “When you talk with German monetary policy makers, they still have the 1920s hyperinflation in their minds,” says Stephane Deo , chief European economist at UBS AG in London. “They have an aversion to inflation that is much higher than in other countries.” Implementing the Bailout The Bundesbank, which gave up setting Europe’s de facto benchmark interest rate after the ECB took over in 1999, retains some powers . It acts as an agent for about a quarter of the bond purchases conducted by the euro region’s network of central banks — in essence, helping implement the bailout package. And more than 70 percent of all European banks that accessed ECB money market funds last year did so through the Bundesbank. While Weber generally advocates a tight monetary policy stance to counter inflation risks, he can quickly adapt to a crisis. After Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s 2008 bankruptcy shattered confidence in financial markets and pushed Europe into its worst recession since World War II, Weber turned pragmatic. With other ECB council members, he became an advocate of pumping unlimited liquidity into the banking system to encourage lending and a supporter of lower interest rates. ‘Further Easing’ “Owing to a remarkable decline in inflationary pressures in the medium term and rapidly deteriorating economic prospects, euro-area monetary policy in my view has enough leeway for further easing if necessary,” Weber said at a banking conference in Frankfurt on Nov. 21, 2008. He sometimes speaks more forthrightly. Weber landed on Trichet’s so-called black list last November by revealing that the ECB would tighten its lending to banks. The list is drawn up by the ECB’s press division and given to all policy makers when they convene. The remarks breached ECB protocol that major announcements be made by the president. They also came within a week of a council meeting, when officials are supposed to refrain from commenting on policy. Weber will temper his style if he becomes ECB president, says Allan Meltzer , political economy professor at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University. “Anybody in that job will have to make consensus moves,” says Meltzer, who has known Weber for more than 30 years and is the author of a two-volume history of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Draghi’s History The only challenger for Trichet’s 35th-floor corner office is Mario Draghi , 62, governor of the Bank of Italy. His handicap may be his previous job as vice chairman of the international division of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. from 2002 to 2005. In 2000, Goldman Sachs helped Greece shave 2.4 billion euros from its official deficit through currency swaps, the New York-based bank said in a Feb. 21 statement. The Bank of Italy said on Feb. 17 that Draghi had “nothing to do with those transactions.” Merkel, 56, has won French President Nicolas Sarkozy ’s support for Weber’s candidacy, German magazine Spiegel reported in February, and the newspaper Handelsblatt said in May that Germany agreed to support the bailout package in return for a guarantee Weber would get the job. Government spokeswoman Sabine Heimbach denied there was a deal in a May 12 statement. “If Merkel says she wants Weber, Sarkozy probably won’t stand in her way,” says Philippe Chalmin , an economics professor at the University of Paris-Dauphine who advises France’s government on economic policy. “Now it’s Germany’s turn.” And it may be the turn of Weber, the former construction worker, to rebuild the ECB as a central bank that stands apart from governments. As he told Bundesbank employees in Mainz, Germany, on May 31: “The damaged foundations of the currency union need to be reinforced.” To contact the reporters on this story: Christian Vits in Frankfurt at cvits@bloomberg.net ; Jana Randow in Frankfurt at jrandow@bloomberg.net ; Richard Tomlinson in London at rtomlinson1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

BP to Increase Oil Recovery Rate From Leaking Well After Collection Halted

June 9, 2011

By Katarzyna Klimasinska June 20 (Bloomberg) — BP Plc plans to increase the rate it recovers oil from its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico after collection was halted yesterday. BP has the capacity to recover between 26,000 barrels and 28,000 barrels of oil daily, Robert Wine , a company spokesman, said today. The company recovered 21,040 barrels yesterday after the Discoverer Enterprise drillship stopped capturing oil for 10 hours because of an equipment problem and lightning storm. The temporary halt in the recovery rate came as BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward was photographed at a yacht race in the U.K. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel criticized Hayward, saying today on ABC’s “This Week” that it was “part of a long line of PR gaffes and mistakes.” About 11,050 barrels of oil were collected onto the drillship and 9,990 barrels and 43.4 million cubic feet of natural gas were burned aboard a second vessel, the London-based company said in a statement posted today on its website . If it’s able to recover 28,000 barrels of oil a day, BP would be preventing between 46 and 80 percent of the oil from entering the Gulf, based on leak estimates from a government-led panel of 35,000 barrels to 60,000 barrels a day. ‘Worst-Case Scenario’ Representative Edward Markey , a Massachusetts Democrat, said today a BP internal document shows the well may leak as much as 100,000 barrels a day under a “worst-case scenario.” That scenario would include a damaged bore and removing the blowout preventer and wellhead, according to an e-mailed statement from Markey’s office. The company has been recovering at least 15,000 barrels a day since June 8, with the exception of June 15, when capture was temporarily halted because of a fire that may have been caused by lightning. The vessels are now operating at their full capacities and BP “would like to get every drop” of oil, Wine said. BP said it has recovered 249,500 barrels in total from the well, which began leaking after an April 20 explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig. The company’s CEO returned to the U.K. this week to see his family, Wine said. Hayward is “still very much in charge” of BP, Wine said. BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said on Sky television on June 18 that Hayward was handing over control of the spill to BP Managing Director Robert Dudley . Wine declined to comment on a Wall Street Journal report today that BP hasn’t decided whether to sue Anadarko Petroleum Corp. , a minority partner in the Macondo well. BP said June 18 that both parties are responsible for the spill, while Anadarko said well operator BP should pay the claims related to the damage. To contact the reporter on this story: Katarzyna Klimasinska in Houston at kklimasinska@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Protestors Accuse Apple Of ‘Tax Cheating’

June 4, 2011

Protestors are set to visit Apple stores Saturday to oppose the company’s federal tax practices. Apple doesn’t pay its fair share of taxes, and now the technology company is trying to get another tax break, says grassroots group US Uncut , which has planned a series of “dance-in” protests at Apple stores across the country. The group takes issue with Apple’s support of a broader effort that would allow corporations to pay a low tax rate on profits they take home from overseas tax havens, according to a US Uncut release. That corporate effort, known as the “Win America Campaign,” would save Apple $4 billion, and overall would save corporations $80 billion in taxes that otherwise might have gone to the federal government, US Uncut says. Technology companies have come under scrutiny for the various ways they store profits overseas. By funneling profits through tax havens like Ireland and the Netherlands, Google, Microsoft and other companies use a system that overall costs the U.S. government about $60 billion every year, Bloomberg News reported last year. Finding ways to encourage companies to bring these profits home has not been easy. The “Win America Campaign,” which presents itself as one such effort, would amount to “tax cheating” because it would allow companies to pay a low rate, US Uncut says.

Read the full article →

Video: Paul on Debt Ceiling, Spending: Political Capital With Al Hunt

June 4, 2011

June 3 (Bloomberg) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul talks with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt about the U.S. debt ceiling, U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, and Federal Reserve monetary policy. Bloomberg’s Rich Miller and Hans Nichols discuss the state of the U.S. economy and the Fed’s quantitative easing program. Julie Davis talks about the debate over the debt ceiling and a documentary on Sarah Palin to premiere in Iowa next month. Commentators Margaret Carlson and Amity Shlaes discuss the outlook for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as a Republican presidential nominee. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Atala Discusses Human Organ, Tissue Engineering: Innovators

June 3, 2011

June 3 (Bloomberg) — Dr. Anthony Atala, director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, discusses the process of making laboratory-grown organs to be implanted into humans. Emily Chang reports on engineering human organs on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” Bloomberg’s Julie Hyman also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Sargen Says Outlook for Stocks Hinges on July Earnings

June 3, 2011

June 3 (Bloomberg) — Nicholas Sargen, chief investment officer at Fort Washington Investment Advisors, talks about the outlook for U.S. stocks. Sargen also discusses today’s U.S. jobs report for May, U.S. corporate earnings and his investment strategy. He speaks with Carol Massar, Adam Johnson and Sheila Dharmarajan on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Westman Says Yandex Technology as Good as Google

May 28, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Mattias Westman, chief executive officer of Prosperity Capital Management Ltd., discusses Russian seach-engine Yandex NV’s $1.3 billion U.S. initial public offering, Yandex’s competition with Google Inc. and factors driving Russia’s technology industry. Westman speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Bloomberg’s Johnson Discusses Trading of LinkedIn Shares

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg’s Cory Johnson discusses trading of LinkedIn Corp.’s shares. Investors unable to short sell LinkedIn, which just completed the hottest U.S. stock offering since at least 2006, can start betting against the shares using options today. Johnson speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Lieberman Says U.S. Economy Is `Gathering Momentum’

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Charles Lieberman, former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now chief investment officer with Advisors Capital Management LLC, discusses investment strategy and the U.S. economy. Lieberman, speaking with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart,” also talks about the outlook for Federal Reserve monetary policy. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Godine Says U.S. IPO Cycle Is in `Beginning Stages’

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Douglas Godine, managing director at Signal Hill, talks about the market for initial public offerings and LinkedIn Corp.’s share offering this month. He speaks with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Sorbera Says Wall Street Hiring Is `Very Tentative’

May 27, 2011

May 9 (Bloomberg) — Paul Sorbera, president of Alliance Consulting, an executive search firm, discusses hiring by Wall Street financial institutions. Sorbera speaks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: RBC’s Fukakusa Says Analysts Expected Higher Trading

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Janice Fukakusa, chief financial officer at Royal Bank of Canada, talks about the bank’s second-quarter earnings reported today. Profit at Canada’s largest lender climbed 13 percent, missing analysts estimates. Fukakusa also discusses RBC’s international banking unit and dividend. She speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Al Hunt on Palin’s Bus Tour, Potential GOP Nominees

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Al Hunt, executive editor at Bloomberg News, talks about Sarah Palin, former Republican governor of Alaska and 2008 nominee for vice president, and her “One Nation Tour.” Hunt, speaking on Bloomberg Television’s “InBusiness with Margaret Brennan,” also discusses the contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and his interview with Representative James Clyburn, the assistant Democratic leader in the U.S. House. Hunt’s interview with Clyburn airs this weekend on “Political Capital With Al Hunt.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Kaiser Discusses Investing Criteria Under Sharia Law

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Nicholas Kaiser, chairman of Saturna Capital Corp. and manager of the Amana Income Fund, talks about investing according to Sharia law. Kaiser speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” They spoke on May 23. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Cinetic’s Sloss Is `Bullish’ on Future of Film Industry

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — John Sloss, founder of Cinetic Media, talks about the state of the motion picture industry and the outlook for films. He speaks with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Television’s “Surveillance Midday.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →