Federal Reserve Bank

Huffington Post…

The latest Quarterly and Semiannual Report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) was released January 30, 2012. What follows are relevant excerpts of some of the more noteworthy contractor related activities. On December 21, a U.S. contractor was sentenced to 3 months confinement followed by 2 years of supervised release for lying to federal agents during the course of an investigation. The agents were investigating a fraud scheme involving the theft and resale of generators in Iraq to various entities, including the U.S. government. When he was initially interviewed in Iraq, he denied any involvement in the fraud scheme. The investigation demonstrated that he had in fact signed fraudulent U.S. documents and received money on several occasions for his part in the scheme. As of December 31, 2011, the Defense and State departments and the US Agency for International Development had reported 88,380 contracting actions, projects, and grants, totaling $40.31 billion in cumulative obligation. As of January 23, 2012, 15,154 employees of U.S.-funded contractors and grantees supported DoD, DoS, USAID, and other U.S. agencies in Iraq. The number of contractor employees declined by 72% since the end of last quarter, dropping from the 53,447 registered as of September 30, 2011. As you would expect, now that the U.S. mission has been handed off to the State Department, the largest number of contractors, 9,228, are working for State, with 3,823 of those being American. The second largest share is working for the U.S. Army, which has a total of 5,118 under contract, with 2,737 of the American. One very interesting point comes towards the end, in the section on oversight. To appreciate this a little trip down memory lane is in order. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) — anyone remember Paul Bremer? — was established in May 2003 to provide for the temporary governance of Iraq. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 created the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) and assigned the CPA full responsibility for managing it. The DFI comprised revenues from Iraqi oil and gas sales, certain remaining Oil for Food deposits, and repatriated national assets. It was used, in part, for Iraq relief and reconstruction efforts. During its almost 14-month governance, the CPA had access to $20.7 billion in DFI funds and directed expenditures of about $14.1 billion. The CPA had $6.6 billion under its control when its mission ended on June 28, 2004. The Government of Iraq OI gave DoD access to about $3 billion of these funds to pay bills for contracts the CPA awarded prior to its dissolution. Most of these funds were deposited into a DFI sub-account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) established for this purpose. SIGIR initiated an audit to determine whether DoD properly accounted for its use of the $2.8 billion deposited into the DFI sub-account at the FRBNY after the CPA dissolved, and $217.7 million in cash that remained in the presidential palace vault when the CPA dissolved. Here is what it found: DoD cannot account for about two-thirds of the approximately $3 billion in DFI funds made available to it by the GOI for making payments on contracts the CPA awarded prior to its dissolution. Most of these funds ($2.8 billion) were held in the DFI sub-account at the FRBNY; the remainder ($217.7 million) was held in the presidential palace vault in Baghdad. FRBNY records show that DoD made about $2.7 billion in payments from the DFI sub-account. However, the FRBNY does not have specifics about the payments or financial documents, such as vendor invoices, to support them. It required only written approval from the GOI to issue payment. Although DoD had responsibility for maintaining documentation to support the full $2.7 billion in expenditures made from the FRBNY subaccount, it could provide SIGIR documentation to support only about $1 billion. Although DoD established internal processes and controls to report sub-account payments to the GOI, the bulk of the records are missing. As a result, SIGIR’s review was limited to the $1 billion in available records. SIGIR examined 15 payments from this group and found most of the key supporting financial documents.

Here is the original post:
David Isenberg: SIGIR Reports: Hey, Anybody Know What Happened to the $2 Billion?

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

{ 0 comments }

Kathleen Merrigan: The Business of Local Foods

by Kathleen Merrigan on February 3, 2012

Huffington Post…

This week I was at the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago to talk about the business of local food. The conversation focused on how USDA and other federal agencies can work together with the private sector to harness the economic potential of local food across the Midwest. Joining me were executives, economic developers, and experts from businesses you may have heard of — Sysco , Chartwells , SuperValu , General Electric , Feeding America , Whole Foods Market and FamilyFarmed.org . There were also representatives from local, state and federal government ranging from USDA’s agencies to the Illinois Commerce Department — each recognizing how investments in local food can help stimulate the economy, create jobs and complement our country’s current agricultural system. According the USDA’s own research, local food sales made through direct marketing sales like farmers markets, CSAs, and farm stands plus via supermarkets, restaurants and institutional buyers were close to $5 billion . Fruit, vegetable and nut growers selling into local and regional markets employ 13 fulltime workers per $1 million in revenue earned. Why is this? Part of it is consumer demand. In 2011, over 85 percent of the customers polled by National Grocers Association said they chose grocery stores based in part on whether they stock local products. Part of it is flexible business models that can nimbly and quickly respond to the market. Farms selling locally may grow a wider variety of crops, they may pack or process on the farm or use workers to transport and market their products. Regardless, local food has big potential for job creation and economic opportunity. In the Midwest, local food businesses are blossoming. For instance, with USDA support, the Local Roots Market and Café in Wooster, Ohio is developing a commercial kitchen. When the kitchen comes on-line, Local Roots expects 25 businesses to benefit from increased revenues and 10 new businesses to start-up as a result of kitchen access. Local Roots began in 2009 as a year-round farmers market and has expanded rapidly since then, incorporating as a cooperative in 2010. Today, it has some 800 members and sells food from 150 local producers, who take home 90 percent of their gross sales. Detroit’s Eastern Market attracts more than 250 vendors from Michigan, Ohio, and Ontario to process, and sell their food at the market. Eastern Market also coordinates aggregation, distribution, processing, and commercial sales for many of the region’s small and mid-size farmers. In 2010, with USDA support, the market ramped up its research and planning to expand healthy, local food access throughout Detroit. The market also plans to redevelop an economic development district to bring in additional business incubators, restaurants, retailers, wholesale services and a distribution center. The USDA has been eagerly watching businesses like this grow, develop and succeed. In 2009, the USDA launched the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative to coordinate the Department’s support and understanding of local food systems. Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food leverages existing USDA resources and improves our ability to execute programs and policies supporting local food businesses and developments across the country. We are proud of the investments the USDA has made in producers, processors, distributors, buyers and other important players in strengthening local food systems to date, and will continue to do so in the future. As part of the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative, we are currently preparing a summary of some of the great achievements and inspiring stories coming from these food systems across the country. We know these stories will spark a national conversation about the impact local food systems have on our economy, our farmers and ranchers, and your community. The conversation I had in Chicago is just the beginning.

Read more here:
Kathleen Merrigan: The Business of Local Foods

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

{ 0 comments }

After Greenspan, Bernanke Ends Cult Of Personality At Fed Through Transparency

January 28, 2012

* Achieves new stress on jobs in setting inflation target * Cleverly makes shifts through policy framework revamp * Ends era of cult of personality through new transparency By Stella Dawson WASHINGTON, Jan 27 (Reuters) – Ben Bernanke has achieved at the Federal Reserve what John Maynard Keynes only dreamed of – that economists be viewed not as cult heroes but as humble, competent people on a level with dentists. Alan Greenspan, Bernanke’s predecessor as Fed chairman, was proclaimed a “Maestro” in a 2000 biography as he presided over the longest-ever U.S. economic expansion, working mostly behind a veil of secrecy and boasting of mumbling incoherently. In the 1980s, then-Chairman Paul Volcker chomped on a huge cigar, glowered and blinded the public with a blizzard of data on monetary aggregates to wrestle down inflation. Both were larger-than-life personalities. Bernanke in contrast cuts a modest figure, and has taken much of the mystique from U.S. central banking by making the Fed a more open institution – a move he forwarded this week by unveiling a new monetary policy framework with an explicit inflation target of 2 percent. In the process, he is quietly revolutionizing the Fed and leaving a lasting legacy for the framing of U.S. monetary policy. By adopting an inflation target – a step Bernanke has advocated since his days as a Princeton professor – the Fed chief implicitly gave the central bank more room to concentrate on lifting employment. “He is a shrewd and extremely smart guy,” said Michael Bordo, an economic historian at Rutgers University who specializes in monetary policy and has reservations about the wisdom of the change for fear of a resurgence in inflation. Already in a break from Greenspan, Bernanke had introduced a more collegial style of discussion at Fed meetings to solicit greater input of views, and in another transparency first, he began holding quarterly news conferences last year. This week he also released for the first time interest rate projections from all 17 Fed policymakers to help guide markets on the range of thinking within the central bank. None of these steps seem radical, but they adhere to Bernanke’s long-espoused goal of increasing the transparency of the Fed to give investors better information and improve market efficiency. They also have the effect of giving the Fed new leeway to focus more on unemployment. A QUIET CALL TO ACTION The U.S. central bank has a dual mandate – stable prices and maximum employment. Under Volcker and Greenspan, the emphasis was on delivering low inflation – a pressing issue after the stagflationary period of the 1970s. Full employment in their view would flow from the delivery of stable prices. “Bernanke has moved us back to an earlier time by giving a greater weight to employment,” said Bordo. He has done this in three ways. First, forecasts Fed policymakers delivered this week show that they expect inflation to meet the new 2 percent target if not undershoot, while unemployment will stay high – clearly exposing that the Fed could fail in its dual mandate. At 8.5 percent in December, the U.S. jobless rate remains well above the 5.2 percent to 6.0 percent range Fed officials want to achieve. At the same time, a government reading on Friday on core prices in the fourth quarter showed a sharp pullback in inflation pressures. Prices excluding food and energy rose at a 1.1 percent annual pace, underscoring the prospect that the Fed could miss its new inflation target on the downside. Second, Bernanke said several times during a news conference on Wednesday that this may warrant action. “If recovery continues to be modest and progress on unemployment very slow, and if inflation appears to be likely to be below target for a number of years … I think there would be a very strong case based on our framework for finding different additional tools for expansion,” he said. Lastly, analysts said that Bernanke left little doubt that for all his collegiality and stress on collective decision making among the Fed’s 17 members, it is the smaller Federal Open Market Committee, which Bernanke dominates as chairman, that has the final say. “There are no mechanical relationships between these projections and the outcomes of the FOMC decisions,” the chairman said. If that wasn’t clear enough, he said later: “The FOMC will always trump the projections of forward interest rates.” The message was not lost on Michael Feroli, a former Fed official now at JPMorgan. “This is still the chairman’s committee, and as long as Bernanke is the chairman, at least through early 2014, the Fed will remain growth-friendly and committed to doing all it can to ensure the economy recovers,” he said in a note to clients. Thomas Gallagher, a Fed-watching veteran at the Scowcroft Group, agrees. He saw the biggest message underlying Bernanke’s explanation of the new policy framework was a determination to pursue further monetary easing to address weak employment. “He is going to do whatever he can to prevent another recession. He is just going pedal to the metal. That is a pretty powerful stance,” Gallagher said. READY, OR NOT? The Fed has already cut overnight interest rates to near zero and snapped up $2.3 trillion in bonds to try to ignite a faster recovery and ward off deflation risks. Indeed, Treasury yields fell on Bernanke’s message pushing the 10-year note yield below 2 percent, delivering a mild easing through the communication process alone. Former Fed governor Laurence Meyer of Macroeconomic Advisers is less sure Bernanke is ready to go even further to meet the employment mandate. The conditions Bernanke laid out for that – exceptionally low inflation and inadequate progress in lowering unemployment – have not yet clearly been met, he said. “What’s the bottom line? Hard to say.” But New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley on Friday also delivered a decidedly dovish message. “Clearly, much work remains to achieve the Fed’s dual mandate of maximum sustainable employment in the context of price stability,” he told reporters after a speech. If the new framework does give the Fed more wriggle room to address weak employment growth, it will not be without controversy. Bill White, former chief economist at the Bank for International Settlements, said the Fed – by focusing on the short-term problems of low inflation and high unemployment caused by a large output gap – fails to look at longer-term credit imbalances. He said a growing body of research suggests that even when a central bank has an explicit inflation target, inflation expectations can become unanchored, especially when public and private debt levels are large. “They are constantly giving the economy steroids, or cortisone to ease the pain, which any doctor will tell you that over the long term is deadly,” White said. The Fed’s hope is that ever more monetary easing will stimulate economic growth before the debt burdens overwhelm businesses, households or governments. The legacy of Bernanke, whose second term as chairman expires in 2014, is a new policy framework that by heightening the importance of inflation with an explicit target, implicitly strengthens his hand for more easing to get unemployment down. (Reporting by Stella Dawson; Editing by Tim Ahmann and Andrea Ricci)

Read the full article →

Programmer Charged With Stealing Software Worth Millions From NY Fed

January 18, 2012

NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. prosectors charged a computer programmer with stealing software code valued at nearly $10 million from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. They charged Bo Zhang, who worked as a contract programmer at the bank, with illegally copying software to an external hard drive, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District court on Wednesday. Both the New York Fed and the Federal Reserve Board in Washington declined requests for comment. Authorities said the software, owned by the U.S. Treasury Department, cost about $9.5 million to develop. It was not immediately clear if Zhang was in custody. But the complaint, signed by an FBI agent, said Zhang had admitted to copying the code onto a drive and taking it back to his home. Zhang told investigators he took the code “for private use and in order to ensure that it was available to him in the event that he lost his job,” the complaint said. Zhang was hired as a contract employee in May by an unnamed technology consulting company hired by the Fed to work on its computers, the complaint said. It appears that investigators uncovered the suspected breach only after one of Zhang’s colleagues told a supervisor that Zhang had claimed to have lost a hard drive containing the code, the complaint said. It was not immediately clear if Zhang had retained an attorney. (Reporting By Basil Katz; Additional reporting by Pedro da Costa; Editing by Gary Hill and Tim Dobbyn)

Read the full article →

Goldman Makes Federal Reserve An Offer It Can Refuse

January 13, 2012

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. recently approached the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and offered to buy a multibillion-dollar bundle of risky mortgage bonds that the Fed acquired in the 2008 bailout of American International Group Inc., according to people familiar with the matter.

Read the full article →

Lynn Parramore: Vampire Squid Watch: 4 Scary Economic Trends for 2012

January 2, 2012

Having been seen to twitch – ever so slightly – in the 2011 tidal wave of global protests, the vampire squid is stirring in its evil lair. Reports of sucking noises and new tentacles sprouting in every direction tell us that the global financial monster is poised to steal yet more wealth and resources from the public in the coming year. Top economic thinkers have shared their forecasts, and the focus is clear: 2012 will be a year of continued – and escalating – predation by financiers. Their influence over political, financial, and economic activity is likely to grow – along with potential for harm. 1. Back-door Bailout of the Eurozone Would you like more of your hard-earned money to flow to fatcats? Wish granted! Attorney Walker Todd, who spent two decades in the legal departments of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland, names the back-door bailout of the eurozone banking system by our very own Federal Reserve as the top economic story of the upcoming year – or, at least one of the most outrageous. In a nutshell, the Fed is helping European banks by opening up the short-term ‘emergency’ lending pipeline, which means that U.S. taxpayers are indirectly bailing out private European capitalists. This is being done through a bit of financial hocus pocus called “swaps” – essentially the trading of dollars for euros. Such a maneuver allows the Fed to prop up European banks while claiming that it is not ‘technically’ directly lending. In other words, swaps are an attempt to hide the truth from the public. As Gerald O’Driscoll put it in the Wall Street Journal: “This Byzantine financial arrangement could hardly be better designed to confuse observers, and it has largely succeeded on this side of the Atlantic, where press coverage has been light.” O’Driscoll observes that the Fed has no authority to bail out European banks and warns of what economists call “moral hazard” – the nasty habit of banks to engage in even riskier behavior when they get bailed out. Why is this happening? Well, because the squid is strangling morality, democracy, and the rule of law. We pay, they play. “This is an attempt by our own governing elites to maintain a false vision of how the world works, or how ‘we’ think it should work,” Todd explained. “This comes at the expense of many people who never will go to Europe, who know no European bankers, and who have no European bank accounts.” You may not know a European banker, but you can be sure that one is just now raising a glass of bubbly in your honor. After all, you paid for it. 2. Record-breaking Political Finance What does corporate dough buy? Newspapers and elections and presidents, oh my! Thomas Ferguson of the University of Massachusetts, Boston and the Institute for New Economic Thinking suggested that next year’s very biggest stories could well be about corporate money influencing politics. He told me he saw a real possibility that a serious third party candidate for president might emerge; if one does, it will be bankrolled from the right while promoted in public as representing the political “center.” And it will also be designed to give corporate America many of the policies it has long sought, such a trimming Social Security and eviscerating the social safety net. “People are going to be astonished at how lethal the combination of secret money and corporate mass media will be to the public’s interest,” said Ferguson. Ferguson was confident that the 2012 elections would break all records for political finance, but he did add a sobering qualification. He thought there was an outside chance that the world economic slowdown would provoke really serious unrest in China or Europe on a scale that would put American developments in the shade. 3. Executive Pay Explosion Since the Great Recession of 2008-2009, the prime beneficiaries of the sluggish recovery have been…you guessed it!….top corporate executives. And it looks like the good times will keep rolling – for them. William Lazonick, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, predicts an escalation of the harmful practice of corporate stock buybacks, which produces the explosion in executive pay. As Lazonick explained, corporate honchos have enjoyed a windfall as they have cashed in their stock options in a generally rising stock market. This kind of thing does absolutely zilch for the economy. But here’s what it does do: spending on buybacks makes executives rich and results in manipulative boosts to stock prices in the short-term at the cost of investments in innovation and job creation. “Look for buybacks to continue to increase in 2012, perhaps surpassing the record $600 billion done by S&P 500 companies in 2007,” predicted Lazonick. What to do? Maybe it’s time for Congress to confront the reality of that predatory monster, the financialized business corporation. Lazonick suggests that a ban on buybacks (which is already in the purview of the Securities Exchange Act) would be a good start. Unfortunately this idea is at odds with prediction #2. 4. Pathological Corporate Leadership Jamie Dimon never seems to seize an opportunity to keep his mouth shut. JP Morgan’s CEO, who happens to be the highest-paid chief executive officer among the six biggest U.S. banks, has consequently regaled us with his worldview, in which bank regulations are “anti-American” and ordinary folks have no right to be mad at rich people. He has become the poster-boy for Wall Street greed and has earned the especial ire of the Occupy movement, which recently marched to his digs on Park Avenue to offer to help him pack his bags and go wreak havoc somewhere else. In his universe, defrauding investors, spreading lies to manipulate markets, and foreclosing on military families are all part of a good day’s work. Dimon is a particularly nasty customer, but he is part of a new breed of sociopathic financiers. And his kind of distorted ‘vision’ has harmed the country’s prospects and created a gap in America between the richest and the poorest that puts us in close range of Rwanda and Serbia. When those at the top of the corporate pyramid are this tone-deaf and lacking in any sense of public responsibility, we are in treacherous waters. “The biggest danger to America is that the people in the financial sector and corporate leadership convey no awareness of what is needed to create a coherent and prosperous society,” economist Rob Johnson, head of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, told AlterNet. “Leadership is not simply about how much money one makes.” Many dollars. Very little sense. Ultimately, hoarding everything at the top is not sustainable, and bankers like Dimon will end up destroying the very society that makes their enormous wealth possible. If we let them. And that, Reader, is what’s on the horizon. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, if you want a happy ending, see a Disney movie. *Cross-posted from AlterNet .

Read the full article →

US midwest manufacturing output up by 7.3% in Oct

November 29, 2011

(MENAFN) US Federal Reserve Bank’s Chicago branch said that last month, US midwest manufacturing production grew by 7.3 percent over 2010′s same period, reported Xinhua News. The bank added that …

Read the full article →

Middle-Class Jobs Disappearing In Workforce Shift: Report

November 21, 2011

America is increasingly becoming a place of high- and low-skill jobs, with less room available for a middle class. A new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that over the past 30 years, the U.S. workforce has shifted toward high-paying jobs that require a great deal of education — jobs in the legal, engineering or technology industries, for example — and toward low-paying jobs that require little schooling, like food preparation, maintenance and personal care. What haven’t fared so well are the industries in the middle, like sales, teaching, construction, repair, entertainment, transportation and business — the ones where a majority of Americans end up working. In 1980, these middle-level jobs accounted for 75 percent of the workforce. By 2009, that number had fallen to 68 percent . In the same span of time, low- and high-skill jobs had each grown as a percentage of the workforce. The New York Fed’s report highlights the growing gap between rich and poor in America, a wealth discrepancy that one economist recently described as approaching “Gilded Age” levels . It also offers evidence that the middle class, a large consumer base that once powered the country’s robust economy, is beginning to erode, as outsourcing, technological advances and social policy cause employment opportunities to evaporate. Poverty and long-term unemployment are increasingly afflicting middle-class households, and food insecurity is a growing concern in many suburbs . The nationwide move toward high- and low-paying jobs has been mirrored by a similar geographic shift: today, twice as many Americans live in either poor or affluent neighborhoods as did in 1970. And corporations are not unaware of the declining purchasing power of the middle class , with some companies now focusing on luxury items and bargain goods, and putting less emphasis on middle-market products. There’s no shortage of consumers looking to get a good price on household necessities, with a record number of Americans — 46 million , or possibly as many as 49 million — now living in poverty. Meanwhile, wealth has become ever more concentrated at the top. In October, a Congressional Budget Office report showed that the past three decades have seen the incomes of the very highest earners nearly triple , while wages have remained relatively stable for the vast majority of workers — the literal 99 percent on which the Occupy Wall Street movement has based its identity.

Read the full article →

Ismael Hossein-zadeh: What Quantitative Easing Really Means

October 21, 2011

Stripped from its fancy (and mystifying) jargon, quantitative easing (QE) simply means increasing the quantity of money supply, or easing credit conditions — in the hope of stimulating a stagnant economy. This is usually done by having central banks inject a predetermined quantity of money into the coffers of commercial banks in return for the purchase of their financial assets, which consist largely of government bonds. Although it is typically done electronically, or on paper, its practical effect is the same as printing money. This is supposed to be an expansionary monetary policy designed to promote economic recovery. The rationale behind the policy is that the addition of new funds to the capital base of the commercial banks (at, or near, zero interest rates) will enable them to, in turn, extend new credit to businesses and/or manufacturers at reasonably low rates so that they would, then, be encouraged to borrow, to expand, to hire and, therefore, create growth and prosperity. While under certain circumstances (when money supply or capital markets are tight, interest rates are too high and effective demand or purchasing power is strong) this may work, under the current market conditions (where there is no shortage of capital, low interest rates or the cost of borrowing is already low, and effective demand is very weak) it is bound to fail — as it has actually failed miserably. Borrowing and investing in the production of goods and manufactures is weak not because there is a shortage of investible funds (corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash but not hiring) or because the cost of borrowing is too high, as is implicitly assumed by the QE gurus, but because the macro-level purchasing power is too weak, and the uncertain market conditions do not warrant investment and expansion. Furthermore, corporations prefer to produce not at home but where the labor is cheapest globally. Likewise, the reluctance on the part of banks to extend credit to manufacturers is not because they lack capital, but because they find it more profitable to invest in speculation, that is, in buying and selling of assets and/or securities such as bonds, stocks, commodities, real estate, currencies, and the like — destabilizing activities that tend to create asset price bubbles, inevitably followed by bursts. Parasites discovered long time ago that it is easier to suck the existing blood out of the body of living organisms than producing it from scratch. Karl Marx used an even better metaphor to characterize parasitic finance capital, “The complete objectification, inversion and derangement of capital as interest-bearing capital…It appears as a Moloch demanding the whole world as a sacrifice belonging to it of right.” This explains why instead of increasing industrial production and raising employment the $1.2 trillion dollars of money that the Federal Reserve Bank has pumped into the coffers of commercial banks through two rounds of QEs has simply resulted in further financialization of the economy; which goes to explain the significant bubbling of some asset prices of the past few years, especially the considerable rise in certain share prices as well as the drastic rise in the price of a number of important commodities such as rice, wheat, and oil. By the same token, it also explains why the QE policy has further exacerbated income and wealth inequality, both in Europe and the United States, as it has helped only the financial elite without any help to the public. “The evidence suggests that QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it,” reports Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research. Joshi further points out that real wages — adjusted for inflation — have fallen in both the U.S. and UK, where QE has been used to promote growth. “The shocking thing is, two years into an ostensible recovery, [UK] workers are actually earning less than at the depth of the recession. Real wages and salaries have fallen by £4 billion. Profits are up by £11 billion. The spoils of the recovery have been shared in the most unequal of ways.” In Germany, meanwhile, where there has been no quantitative easing, real wages have risen. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that the financial oligarchy is using QE essentially as a legal, policy tool to further enrich itself at the expense of everybody else. Not only were the Wall Street gamblers able to bail themselves out by means of $16 trillion of taxpayers’ dollars, but now they are also showering themselves with additional trillions of QE dollars to grow even richer and bigger. Let us assume for a moment that, as the Federal Reserve and the government claim, QE is honestly designed to be an expansionary monetary policy intended to stimulate the economy. If so, why is then the government at the same time pursuing a fiscal policy that is contra-actionary, that is, moving in the opposite direction of the monetary policy by cutting social spending at all levels of the public sector? The answer is that while from the viewpoint of national or public interests the two policies contradict each other, they are quite consistent from the viewpoint of Wall Street gamblers; both the supposedly expansionary monetary policy and the brutally austere contra-actionary fiscal policy serve the nefarious interests of the financial aristocracy. It is hard to believe that economic policy makers do not see the obvious: that their monetary and fiscal policies contradict each other. But, then, it is perhaps not so much a matter of economic know-how or policy expertise as it is of wicked preferences and warped loyalties to the powerful special interests to be served. Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. He is the author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007) and Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989).

Read the full article →

Curtis Arnold: Best Credit Cards If Your Credit Is in the Doghouse

October 20, 2011

As the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis spread to credit card issuers in 2010, as many as 11 in 100 credit card accounts fell so far behind that banks charged them off as noncollectable . Though that ratio has dropped by half since then, you may be one of the many consumers who now face rebuilding your credit with tarnished credit reports. According to the Federal Reserve, your credit report can impact more areas of your life than just whether you can pay for your next online shopping order with a credit card: Insurance companies use credit scores to assess risk and set rates. Some actuaries believe that consumers with bad credit might destroy their property to escape car loans or home loans. Employers review credit reports to determine trustworthiness of job applicants. If your career involves handling cash, credit card numbers or customer information, your employers want to reduce the risk that a new hire will steal to cover their debts. Telephone, cable and other utility companies use credit scores to determine new service deposits. If your credit history is doubtful, ordering a new cell phone or a cable box could cost you extra setup fees and higher deposits. Landlords use credit scores to rank potential tenants. Because credit reports omit personal details like race and age, landlords can legally use them to select applicants they feel will pay the rent on time while causing the least property damage. Secured credit cards boost your credit score by building trust with new lenders. You’re putting your own money on the line, leaving hundreds or thousands of dollars on deposit in a savings account you can’t touch. “Churn” some routine expenses on your card and revolve up to about a third of your credit line to get the biggest impact on your credit report. Fail to make monthly payments or exceed your limit, and the deal’s off. Unlike instant approval credit cards , secured credit cards require additional scrutiny by loan officers and can take up to four weeks for approval. Banks use the time frame as a filter: if you can get by without your deposit for the better part of a month, they can see that you have the cash flow to properly rebuild your credit. We can suggest five sources for secured credit cards that won’t rip you off: Capital One Secured MasterCard If your credit isn’t at rock bottom, Capital One may offer you a credit line greater than the amount of your initial deposit. Making this card’s 22.9 percent APR pay off requires leaving the unsecured portion of your credit line untouched. When the bank reports your low credit utilization and your on-time payments to the credit bureaus, you’ll enjoy a slight lift in your credit score. Maintain your good habits over time, and Capital One may even graduate you to one of its cash back rewards cards. Orchard Bank Classic MasterCard and Classic Visa If you can afford to park a larger deposit with this division of HSBC (which is being acquired by Capital One), you’ll benefit from a better credit utilization percentage. Orchard waives the first year of its $35 annual fee for new customers while offering a 7.90 percent APR on purchases. A cash advance APR of nearly 21 percent means you’ll need to deposit money you won’t need to touch for a while to get the most from this card. Citi Secured Card Citi has rolled out one of the industry’s most aggressive fraud prevention systems, and it’s included in this $29 annual fee secured credit card. Make 18 months of consistent payments and you could be considered for one of Citi’s unsecured cards. At this writing, the variable interest rate on the Citi Secured Card hovers at just above 18 percent. First Progress Platinum Secured MasterCard Synovus Bank’s exposure to subprime credit card debt during the financial crisis forced it to launch two new brands: the familiar Green Dot prepaid debit card and the new First Progress secured credit card. Of the two, only the First Progress card reports customer activity to all three credit bureaus. At this time, Synovus markets First Progress with a $39 annual fee and an APR below 15 percent. Your local credit union As member-owned, non-profit organizations, credit unions offer some of the best terms on secured credit cards. For instance, Navy Federal Credit Union offers a version of its nRewards credit card with no annual fee, an APR under 9 percent, and up to 1 percent cash back on purchases. Teachers Federal Credit Union offers a no-fee secured credit card with an APR below 7 percent. If you’re not a teacher or a Navy veteran, your local credit union may offer similar terms. However, you may have to commit to attending a money management seminar and to bringing your other financial accounts into your credit union membership. Desperate for credit? Here’s a final word of caution. Our website about the best credit cards on the market often attracts questions from consumers in trouble with their credit. According to Amber Stubbs, managing editor for CardRatings.com, these questions often indicate a serious money problem that a new account isn’t likely to solve. Secured credit cards won’t magically improve your credit score overnight, and they won’t get you instant cash. To enjoy the real benefits of credit cards, you’ll need to keep your secured account in good standing for a year or two. Commit to earning and saving more money, so you can control your credit cards instead of letting them control you. Important Note! The information in this article is believed to be accurate as of the date it was written. Please keep in mind that credit card offers change frequently. Therefore, we can not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this article. Please verify all terms and conditions of any credit card prior to applying. The original article can be found at CardRatings.com : ” Best credit cards if your credit is in the doghouse ”

Read the full article →

PHOTOS: ‘Occupy SF’ Swells To The Thousands

October 16, 2011

As ‘Occupy Wall Street’ spread to cities across the globe Saturday, San Francisco’s contingent showed no signs of slowing down. An estimated 5,000 demonstrators swarmed downtown, marching from Union Square to the steps of City Hall in solidarity against economic inequality. Meanwhile, the movement has swelled to encapsulate much of the Bay Area. ‘Occupy Oakland’ topped 2,500 activists this weekend, who have set up a permanent encampment in the city’s Frank Ogawa Plaza. Other offshoots have sprouted in Berkeley, Richmond, Palo Alto, Santa Cruz and even affluent suburbs like Walnut Creek and San Mateo. (SCROLL DOWN FOR PHOTOS AND VIDEO) “Motorists driving BMW’s and Lexus’s in a city where average household incomes routinely exceed $95,000 honked their horns in support of protesters who carried ‘Tax the Rich’ signs,” Foster City Patch reported Saturday . Many local officials have expressed their support as the occupation continues to grow. Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin told CBS News that she’s in favor of the rallies in both her own city and throughout the rest of the world. San Francisco Supervisor and mayoral hopeful John Avalos appeared on “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” Wednesday to discuss his role in the protests. “I’ve spoken a couple times at the movement,” he said. “We have a large number of foreclosures and a high level of unemployment. People are getting desperate. They’re having a hard time paying the mortgage, having a hard time putting food on the table.” “Occupy Bay Area” has even drawn the attention of national celebrities. Hip Hop icon Lupe Fiasco stopped by Occupy Oakland before his concert at the nearby Fox Theater Wednesday evening, and actor Danny Glover reportedly joined the “Jobs Not Cuts” march Saturday afternoon. Take a look at images and video from San Francisco’s most recent demonstration below. Have you taken part in the local Occupy movement? Submit your own photos for a chance to be featured in our slideshow.

Read the full article →

Aaron Greenspan: What Occupy Wall Street Should Ask For

October 2, 2011

There needs to be a clear message coming from the public regarding exactly which changes are being sought. Perhaps there are too many views for everyone to agree, but from what the New York Times is reporting, it appears that there just isn’t enough understanding of the regulatory hairball that governs our nation’s financial system in order to untangle the mess — which is hardly the public’s fault. Here’s my own view on what we should be demanding: Reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act. This law kept retail banks separate from investment banks from the Great Depression until 1999, when Larry Summers thought it was no longer necessary. Citigroup in particular benefited from the repeal in the short term, but in the long term it allowed banks to take on insane amounts of risk, which eventually led to the 2008 financial crisis. Federal preemption of state money transmission laws. Money transmitters, such as PayPal (and FaceCash, which my company operates), are the best hope consumers have for an alternative to traditional banking services. With banks instituting fees left and right for debit card use, checking accounts, ATMs, and other supposed benefits, one would think that an entire industry of money transmitters would be popping up in order to take advantage of consumer anger. That’s not happening because the financial lobby has made money transmission illegal in most states without licenses that come at exorbitant expense. Right now, every state has a different law — just yesterday, the New York Department of Banking changed its interpretation of New York law to make it harder for money transmitters to compete with banks in the State of New York. The current system is insane, hurts consumers, and should be centralized at the U.S. Treasury (via FinCEN), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or Federal Reserve. In order for this to happen, Congress needs to act. Criminal investigations of government and banking officials. There’s a long list of bank CEOs who aren’t in jail but should be. There’s a similarly long list of government officials who paved the way for them but never got caught. Right now more entrepreneurs are being threatened with jail time for violating money transmission laws than former bank CEOs. Elimination of Wall Street bonuses. For a while the investment banks decided that it would be bad PR to keep on giving away six-figure bonuses to traders–”a while” meaning a few months. Wall Street bonus culture is toxic and needs to be fixed. New taxes and SEC requirements for extremely high (greater than 500,000) levels of executive compensation. The last CEO of Hewlett-Packard, a publicly-traded corporation, walked away with more than7 million as part of his golden parachute after only 11 months on the job. During that time he made a series of catastrophically bad decisions that hurt the company’s brand, employees, and stock price. Yet this is hardly an exception; criminal levels of compensation are the norm among CEOs of large companies, and Board of Directors rarely if ever account for the reasoning behind fat paychecks. At least embarrass them a little. New semantic rules. How exactly is a “savings” account going to help you save any money with an interest rate of 0.05%? With1,000.00 in deposits, you might earn two quarters per year. It should not be legal to call such an account a savings account, especially when fees are attached. Required disclosure for credit default swaps and other unregulated securities. Though it might in rare cases be necessary for some transactions to remain confidential for a time, there need to be records. Half of the battle in the mortgage mess is figuring out who owns what. We live in an age where two-terabyte hard drives cost100. It’s ridiculous that we don’t know this information. One banking regulator. Your bank might be regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (http://www.occ.treas.gov). Or the FDIC (http://www.fdic.gov). Or the Federal Reserve Bank (http://www.federalreserve.gov). Or the California Department of Financial Institutions (http://www.dfi.ca.gov), if you live in California. It gets complicated quickly. Complexity is bad when you are trying to prevent fraud. Simpler taxes now. Everyone is always arguing about how high tax rates should be, but have you bothered to look at the forms? If the Secretary of the Treasury (who oversees the IRS, among other divisions) can’t figure out how to do his own taxes, then we shouldn’t have to either. It should not require a CPA or any other degree to figure out how much to pay the government. This is just a start. The financial system is complex and even the most knowledgeable experts only understand a fraction of what is going on at any given point in time. But it’s better than nothing.

Read the full article →

Gloom and Doom for Markets ahead of the U.S. Session

September 22, 2011

It all seems doom and gloom today in markets, as the Federal Reserve Bank failed to restore confidence in markets despite announcing an Operation Twist, as traders focused on the downbeat outlook …

Read the full article →

Paul Krugman: 50 Percent Chance Global Economy Will Enter Recession

September 9, 2011

Even though Obama’s jobs plan is “bolder and better” than Paul Krugman expected, the Nobel-Prize winning economist still told Bloomberg Television on Friday that it might not be enough to stave off global recession. The risk of global recession is “quite high, maybe 50 percent,” Krugman told Bloomberg. He added: “The risk of something that feels like a recession is much higher than that. My central belief is that we’re likely to have higher unemployment a year from now than we do today.” Krugman said that while Obama’s plan “could make a noticeable difference to the economy,” Republican opposition to the President’s proposal, on top of the euro zone crisis, still makes recession a substantial possibility. Speculation over the possibility of the U.S. entering back into recession, and likely bringing the global economy with it, has been a topic of frequent discussion among economists. While World Bank President Robert Zoellick , along with a recent poll of economists , said that a recession is unlikely, others are less optimistic. Michael Spence, another Nobel Prize-winning economist, also recently pegged the chances of a global recession at 50 percent . Likewise, President of Federal Reserve Bank Charles Evans in a recent speech was of a similar mind that, even if the economy’s not technically in a recession already, high unemployment makes it feel that way. Nevertheless, Krugman’s opinion on how Republicans will receive Obama’s plan remains consistent between the two. “The chance that it’s not going to actually be enacted by Republicans is 100 percent, I think nothing will pass,” Krugman said. “I believe if Obama proposed that we honor motherhood, Republicans would vote it down.” Watch Bloomberg Television’s interview with economist Paul Krugman here.

Read the full article →

Boomer Retirement May Weigh Down Stock Market For Next Two Decades

August 22, 2011

By Michael S. Derby of the Wall Street Journal The next quarter century or so could be a tough one for the stock market, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warn. In a paper released by the institution Monday, two of its staffers said the retirement of the Baby Boom generation stands to strip away from equities a key source of support. The ongoing wave of retirees won’t crater the market, but they may well be “a factor holding down equity valuations over the next two decades,” writes Zheng Liu and Mark Spiegel write. As they see it, what the Baby Boomers have given to the market is something like what they will be taking away. Allowing for the “theoretical ambiguities,” the economists noted “U.S. equity values have been closely related to demographic trends in the past half century” across several key metrics. “In the context of the impending retirement of baby boomers over the next two decades, this correlation portends poorly for equity values,” Liu and Spiegel write. (Read more: Uniforms Inspire Attendance, Not Achievement) As much as it is a problem for the market over the long haul, as retirees sell stocks to try to maintain their lifestyles, the “well known” nature of the troubles is also a problem for markets now. Indeed, if current investors now start pricing in the coming Baby Boomer headwind, they may “depress” stock prices. “These demographic shifts may present headwinds today for the stock market’s recovery from the financial crisis,” the paper said. Liu and Siegel allow that considerable uncertainty surrounds their work. Other important influences on the outlook for stocks are the performance of the bond market, as well as the appetites of foreign buyers. They cited China as one potential wild card, saying that nation and other emerging economies “may relax capital controls, which would allow their nationals to invest in U.S. equity markets.” That could counter some of the drag generated by U.S. retirees. Read more: What Do Markets Expect From Bernanke at Jackson Hole? There are, of course, even more risks that surround the stock market beyond what the paper flags. Equity prices have undergone considerable volatility of late after enjoying a sharp Federal-Reserve-engineered rally starting nearly a year ago. Equity investors are confronting a protracted period of economic weakness, and a central bank that appears to have few good options to restart growth. Should weakness prove longer-lasting than some expect, that itself may influence Baby Boomers’ retirement plans, and thus change the outlook for the market. The the entire post here.

Read the full article →

Mercantile Bancorp Names Interim President and CEO

August 8, 2011

QUINCY, IL–(Marketwire – Aug 8, 2011) – Mercantile Bancorp, Inc. ( NYSE Amex : MBR ) today announced Lee R. Keith has been appointed, effective today, as the acting and interim President and CEO of Mercantile Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) and Chairman of Mercantile Bank. The appointment is contingent on the approval of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Federal Reserve Bank.

Read the full article →

How Washington Took U.S. To The Brink In Debt Fight

August 4, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The world’s largest economy was headed toward an unprecedented default, and all Washington wanted to talk about was the manner in which the president had left a room. A White House meeting in mid-July between President Barack Obama and congressional leaders had ended with sharp words as Obama clashed with the brash Republican House majority leader, Eric Cantor. Now Cantor was back on Capitol Hill, dishing details to a scrum of reporters — a shift from the terse, vague statements that usually followed such meetings. “He said to me, ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this,’” Cantor said in his Southern drawl. “I was somewhat taken aback.” Republican aides filled in the gaps. Obama had “stormed out of the room,” one said. At the White House, aides pushed back. One official demonstrated to reporters exactly how Obama had ended the meeting — lightly pushing his chair back from the table, standing up deliberately, walking away calmly. “He didn’t storm out. He just got up and walked into his office,” one said. That evening — July 13, 2011 — was one of the lowest points in the struggle to avert fiscal disaster and put the nation’s budget on a sustainable path. Congress needed to extend the country’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling before Tuesday, August 2, the date the Treasury Department would begin running out of cash to cover the country’s bills. But Republicans and Democrats were deadlocked. INSIDERS UNITE As the deadline drew closer, the two sides abandoned a series of efforts to reach agreement, searching for the right combination of policies and personalities to get a deal done. In the end, it fell to two consummate Washington insiders to prevent the talks from collapsing. A Reuters examination of the months-long showdown over the debt ceiling found that: * Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell emerged as critical players in the final stretch of the talks, as theirs was the only cross-party relationship built on decades of trust. * Despite a belief among many rank-and-file Republicans that the government could muddle through a default, party leaders never doubted the Treasury Department’s warnings that economic catastrophe was a real possibility if they didn’t reach a deal by August 2. * Although House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top U.S. Republican, was eager to strike a bold deal with Obama, it was ultimately necessary for Boehner to distance himself from the White House to convince his House Republicans to back the final deal. * The business community played an important behind-the-scenes role, with two White House foes — Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce — rallying support for a compromise backed by Obama. This account of America’s journey to the brink of default is based on interviews conducted over the past six weeks with dozens of elected officials, business lobbyists and aides in the House, the Senate and the White House. A ZEAL FOR CUTS The U.S. congressional elections in November 2010 set the stage for confrontation over the congressionally mandated cap on the outstanding total of federal government borrowings. Republicans had harnessed voters’ anxiety over the economy and soaring deficits to capture the House of Representatives. Accusing Obama of overreaching with his stimulus package in 2009 and his drive for healthcare reform, Republicans vowed to slash spending and rein in the federal government’s size. A campaign document — the “Pledge to America” — promised to cut spending by $100 billion in the first year alone, back to the levels in place in Republican President George W. Bush’s last year in office. The newly elected Republicans, 87 in all, were not interested in compromise. Many felt a greater obligation to the grassroots Tea Party activists who had sent them to Washington than to the party elders who ran the place. In a budget fight with the Democratic-controlled Senate that took the government to the brink of a shutdown in April, Republicans managed to cut spending by $38 billion, the largest domestic cut in U.S. history. Still, 59 House Republicans voted against the bill because it did not go far enough. BOEHNER’S BATTLELINES That was a mere skirmish. The big battle lay ahead as the government was fast running up against its $14.3 trillion credit limit and would need Congress to raise it further. In early May, Boehner laid out his conditions for a debt-ceiling increase: spending cuts would need to exceed the amount of new borrowing authority. Instead of billions of dollars, the debate would be measured in the trillions. It would be a chance for Boehner to show his new troops that he could use the levers of Washington to get results. An avid golfer and a chain-smoker, the 61-year-old Boehner is from an older generation than many of the Tea Party conservatives whose election to Congress made it possible for him to become House Speaker. The seasoned legislator and former businessman grew up in Ohio from a family of modest means and worked as a janitor to help put himself through college. Obama, 49, had a comfort level with fellow Midwesterner Boehner despite their philosophical differences. The speaker reminded the president, a former state senator from Illinois, of Republican legislators he used to play poker with in Illinois and with whom he forged bipartisan deals. Both men are even-tempered and view themselves as Washington outsiders. Each has ambitions of transforming Washington and making a big mark on policy. Those aspirations drove their on-again, off-again talks aimed at a far-reaching, bipartisan “grand bargain” that would put the United States on sounder fiscal footing for years to come. On a golf outing in mid-June, the two agreed to work together on a broad deficit-reduction deal. “Let’s give it a try,” Obama told the speaker. The following week, at a secret White House meeting, they agreed to have their staff draw up options. The aim was to craft a plan that would cut deficits by roughly $4 trillion over 10 years. A ‘GRAND BARGAIN?’ The challenges were steep. Democrats would have to agree to rein in cherished social programs like the Medicare health plan for retirees and the disabled. Republicans would have to accept a tax-code overhaul that would increase revenues through the elimination of tax breaks and deductions. Boehner’s enthusiasm for the “grand bargain” was not shared by his colleague, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell had confided to Vice President Joe Biden that he thought it was unrealistic to try to accomplish such a sweeping deal in the weeks before August 2 deadline. The Senate Republican leader worried it would lead to a dead end when pressure was building to resolve the debt-limit standoff. Rating agencies were warning they might downgrade the country’s top-notch credit score and, while there was no sign of panic yet in financial markets, investors were growing nervous. McConnell, 69, had served in the Senate since 1985 and witnessed firsthand the divided-government battles of the 1990s, when Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich and an earlier generation of firebrand conservatives went toe-to-toe with Democratic President Bill Clinton. MEMORIES OF 1996 That confrontation led to a shutdown of the federal government and provoked a public backlash against Gingrich and his party. With the Republican brand tarnished, Clinton sailed to re-election in 1996. McConnell, whose party is a minority in the closely divided Senate, viewed the 2012 elections as a chance to gain dominance in the chamber. He feared the debt-limit fight would put that in jeopardy while also bolstering Obama’s re-election prospects. If Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s warnings were right — and both McConnell and Boehner believed they were despite skepticism among their rank-and-file — the fallout from a debt default would be calamitous, causing stocks and the dollar to sink and interest rates to surge. Mortgage rates and business borrowing costs would spike, potentially sending the economy into another recession. That would mean Republicans — whom Democrats had accused of intransigence over the debt limit — would share in the blame for the economy’s woes and suffer voter wrath as a result. Many in the White House viewed McConnell as more of a tactician than a visionary and someone more focused on party politics than on setting policy. In the quest for a grand bargain, Boehner would make a better partner, they thought. But in the end, after Boehner twice broke off talks with the White House, administration officials relied heavily on McConnell as an emissary to the speaker, and came to view him as a crucial player. A BOND BETWEEN RIVALS The administration’s chief link to McConnell was Biden, 68, a 36-year veteran of the Senate with rock-solid Democratic credentials who nonetheless had a strong rapport with the Republican leader. The two seemed to speak the same language from their years in the Senate together. Their bond grew closer when they worked together on a tax-cutting deal just before Christmas late last year, according to people who know both men. “C’mon Mitch, you know what I’m dealing with here,” Biden would sometimes tell McConnell — Senate-speak to describe the pushback he would face from Democratic Party activists if he gave too much ground. According to a former Biden aide, McConnell seemed to appreciate that Biden understood the GOP leader faced similar constraints within the Republican Party. In April, Obama tapped Biden to lead a panel of lawmakers that would lay the groundwork for a deal. In an ornate corner room just off the Senate floor, the group pored through stacks of government and private-sector reports to identify more than $1 trillion in mutually acceptable spending cuts. As the talks stretched into June, Biden gradually built up a rapport with Cantor, the House majority leader, who was leading the Republican side. REPUBLICAN RIFT In less than 10 years in Washington, Cantor had quickly climbed to the top rungs of Republican leadership. But his sharp elbows had earned him enemies — some from within his own party. He and Boehner had a cool relationship, say people who know both lawmakers. The rift extended into the lobbying community, where Republicans identified themselves as “Boehner people” or “Cantor people.” At the end of June, Cantor abruptly walked out of the Biden talks, saying the two sides could not agree on taxes. The “principals” — Obama and Boehner — would have to take it from there. Even before the Biden talks began, members of Boehner’s office dismissed them as political theater. “This thing will ultimately get decided by Boehner and Obama,” a Boehner aide said. After weeks of back-channel negotiations with Obama, Boehner decided on July 22 that he could not work with the White House and would have to forge a deal with Democrats on Capitol Hill. The two sides had come tantalizingly close to a deal, but stumbled again over the tax question. Boehner felt the White House had shifted the goalposts at the last minute. White House officials believed Boehner’s departure stemmed from an unwillingness — or an inability — to take on the conservative rebels in his party. If Boehner had been willing to shake hands publicly with Obama on a “grand bargain,” they said, there would have been a way to woo enough mainstream Republicans and Democrats to pass the bill. They also disagreed with any suggestions that they had shifted the goalposts. ‘A BOWL OF JELL-O’ “Dealing with the White House is like dealing with a bowl of Jell-O,” Boehner said angrily at a press conference that night. Obama called him back to the White House the following day and told him he should not be left out of the process. “Mr. President, as I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws. You get to decide if you want to sign them,” Boehner responded, according to his aides. The action moved back to Congress. Like the deal that Boehner and the White House had abandoned, the latest plan would separate the relatively easy decisions — curbs on annual discretionary spending — from the difficult reforms to benefits and the tax code. It wasn’t the “grand bargain” Obama and Boehner had sought, but it would deliver trillions in savings and cover the nation’s borrowing needs past the November 2012 elections. There was one catch. The plan would require another debt-ceiling vote in a few months to ensure Congress would sign off on the second set of savings, and Obama had already ruled that out. Around 10 p.m., on Saturday, July 23, Obama called Boehner to tell him he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. But he suggested that they could find another way to ensure Congress would actually follow through with the tax and benefit changes envisioned by the plan. GOING SEPARATE WAYS Congressional staff continued work on the plan the next day. Boehner told Fox News he would press ahead with his own legislation if the two sides could not agree. With no progress made on the enforcement mechanism, known as a “trigger” in Washington-speak, that appeared to be the case. Boehner told Republicans he would unveil his version of the plan on Monday, July 25, while the Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, decided to advance a rival plan. Another effort had failed. The final week would put Boehner’s leadership to the test. Boehner unveiled his plan to Republicans that Monday in a meeting room in the bowels of the Capitol. It wouldn’t tie a debt-limit increase to the balanced-budget constitutional amendment, as many of them wanted, but it would deliver more than $2 trillion in savings. A vote was set for Wednesday, July 27. Boehner launched a two-front lobbying blitz, alternating between in-person meetings with wavering lawmakers and phone calls to conservative media figures like talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and columnist Charles Krauthammer. On Monday night, he touted the plan directly to a national audience, as television networks granted him air time to respond to a prime-time speech by Obama. ‘READY TO DRIVE THE CAR’ Boehner’s rally continued on Tuesday morning at the Capitol Hill Club, a social club for Republicans. Boehner’s lieutenants took the lead. Cantor bluntly acknowledged that “the debt limit sucks.” Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican whip, or lead vote counter, showed a clip from “The Town,” a 2010 movie about bank robbers. “I need your help,” said a character played by Ben Affleck. “You can never ask me about it later and we’re gonna hurt some people.” “Whose car are we going to take?” asks another character. The message: it was time to get the job done, no matter how messy. The film clip appeared to win over at least one convert. Representative Allen West, an outspoken Tea Party-aligned freshman, stood up and shouted: “I’m ready to drive the car!” OBAMA’S UNLIKELY ALLIES But momentum shifted as the day wore on. Outside conservative groups like the Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation urged a vote against the bill. At the White House, aides were batting away suggestions that Obama had been sidelined. “He’s working tirelessly, meeting with his economic team, doing a lot of outreach, exploring all opportunities for compromise,” said senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Obama worked the phones, talking strategy with Democratic leaders and developing options for the final endgame. Jarrett, one of the administration’s envoys to the business community, said her phone was ringing off the hook with calls from retailers and other business owners worried about the prospect of another debt-limit fight in December if Obama was forced to accept Boehner’s two-step plan. The White House was also actively reaching out to the business community to spell out the dire consequences of a default. The administration found an ally in the Chamber of Commerce, a group traditionally aligned with Republicans, who now urged the party to back the bill. The financial services industry was also on the same page as the administration on this issue, despite its many skirmishes with the White House during the debate over Wall Street reform in 2010. JAMMED CIRCUITS In his public address on Monday night, Obama had implored Americans to intervene directly by calling, emailing or posting messages on Twitter to their lawmakers. Telephone circuits on Capitol Hill seized up, email messages bounced back and Web sites crashed under the load. The anxiety at the White House was building. “It’s fair to say that nobody here had any doubt that this was going to go right up to the line, even as we urged Congress not to take it right up to the line,” one administration official said. “That’s just the way Congress works.” Still, the path toward a deal was far from clear. Over at Treasury, Geithner was trying to figure out what to do if Congress failed to reach a deal in time. Should the government make debt service a top priority to prevent a meltdown on Wall Street? That could delay paychecks to soldiers, benefit checks to retirees, and payments to government contracts, sending ripples through the economy. Back at the Capitol, Boehner’s troubles mounted. Representative Jim Jordan, a leader of the Republican Party’s right wing, predicted Boehner wouldn’t get the votes he needed from his own party. Democrats united against his bill. The Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper, said it would only deliver $850 billion in savings, rather than the $1.2 trillion it claimed. Late that evening, Boehner decided to rewrite the bill to make sure it complied with the party’s vow to extract spending cuts greater than the size of the debt limit increase. That put off a vote until at least Thursday. ‘FIRE HIM!’ The acrimony spilled into the open Wednesday morning, July 27, in the party’s basement meeting room. Representative Greg Walden, a Boehner ally, read aloud an email from a Jordan staffer that urged outside conservative groups to convince undecided members to vote against the bill. Many lawmakers in the room viewed the message as a betrayal of the Speaker. As the Jordan staffer stood uncomfortably against a wall, lawmakers chanted, “Fire him! Fire him!” The usually jovial Boehner turned the screws. “Get your ass in line,” he said. There was laughter, but the message was unmistakable. As the meeting adjourned, lawmakers predicted the bill would pass. But a large number remained on the fence. Boehner spent the day listening to their concerns — the cuts weren’t big enough, the special committee might raise taxes, the balanced-budget amendment has been watered down. Thursday morning, July 28: another meeting, another chance to rally the troops over fruit and doughnuts and signs that read “Play like a champion.” Representative Mike Kelly, an alumnus of Notre Dame University, drew upon his school’s storied legacy as he urged members to “put on your helmet, buckle your chin straps, run out onto the field and beat the shit out of your opponent!” Doubters like Jordan stayed silent. As the meeting adjourned, they told reporters that their opposition had not changed. With the rewritten bill ready to go, Republican leaders scheduled a vote for late Thursday afternoon. As debate started on the House floor, Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor and Whip McCarthy continued to meet with doubters, making the case that the party needed to stick together if it wanted an acceptable final product. At 5:25 p.m., the Republican troika abruptly yanked the bill from the House floor with only one minute left of debate. They didn’t have the votes. ‘BLOODY AND BEATEN’ As floor action turned to naming post offices, Boehner summoned the holdouts to his office just off the Capitol rotunda. Whatever he was doing wasn’t changing any minds. “I’m a bloodied and beaten ‘no,’” said Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, one of several conservatives who had downplayed the consequences of a technical default, as he left the office. At the beginning of the year, Republicans had enacted a ban on earmarks, the pet spending projects that had come to symbolize waste and corruption in the public imagination. That meant that Boehner had fewer carrots to offer reluctant members — no highway overpasses. “It is the most refreshing thing in the world to see what is going on here. These kinds of negotiations a couple of years ago would have cost $20 billion,” said Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona, whose anti-spending stance had made him an outcast in the party in the past decade. The five Republicans who represent South Carolina headed from Boehner’s opulent suite to the Capitol’s small, private chapel to pray. As they knelt beneath a stained glass window depicting George Washington, they weren’t praying for guidance, just strength to maintain their stand. “I think divine inspiration has already happened. I was a ‘lean-no,’ now I’m a ‘no,’” said Representative Tim Scott. 19 BOXES OF PIZZA The action moved downstairs to McCarthy’s office. The jovial 46-year-old Republican whip, from California’s dusty interior, was a novice vote counter. He had presided over a few embarrassing setbacks earlier in the year. Now he was facing a true disaster. As the night wore on, 19 boxes of pizza from Al’s Pizzeria disappeared into McCarthy’s office. The holdouts weren’t looking for pork-barrel spending or other favors — though they didn’t refuse the pizza. Instead, they wanted to strengthen the balanced-budget clause. That would certainly doom the bill in the Senate, but at that point Boehner just wanted to get it out of the House. Even with that change, Boehner still appeared to be short of the 217 votes he needed. At 10:30 on Thursday night, the House adjourned without a vote. House Republicans met in their basement clubhouse again on Friday morning, July 29. The holdouts came under more pressure — this time from other rank-and-file members who said they were undermining the party’s negotiating position. But a final count showed that the votes appeared to be there. “I love you guys,” Boehner said in a moment of levity. The bill passed Friday evening on a vote of 218 to 210 — just one vote more than needed. The Senate defeated it two hours later, and the House retaliated on Saturday by defeating a proposal put forth by Harry Reid, leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate. Another week had elapsed, and Congress was no closer to consensus. While the legislative chess game played out, Biden called McConnell on Wednesday and Friday. MCCONNELL’S BOTTOM LINE Out of loyalty to Boehner, the Senate Republican leader had refrained from talks with the White House for most of the week. On Friday morning, McConnell told Biden there was “no daylight” between the two Republicans, but told the vice president to try later in the day. “Call me back after these votes and I will tell you what it will take to get my support,” McConnell said, according to a Republican aide. Biden and McConnell spoke again Friday evening and in the early afternoon on Saturday. Negotiations began in earnest around 3 p.m., after the House defeated Reid’s bill. Tuesday, August 2, was three days away. White House chief of staff Bill Daley’s office became Grand Central Station for a rolling series of meetings among White House staff. The meetings moved on Sunday to the vice president’s office and later to the Oval Office. On Saturday, Obama asked Biden’s chief of staff, Bruce Reed, whether his wife was angry that he was spending his wedding anniversary at the office. “Previously, I was on negative watch but I’ve now been officially downgraded,” Reed deadpanned. CLIMACTIC PHONE CALLS After months of high-profile meetings, nearly all of the negotiations on the final weekend took place by phone. In the big gatherings, participants tended to emphasize “talking points” because of the expectation that the conversations would spill out into the public. Smaller meetings allowed participants to cut to the chase, according to an administration official, and details could remain private. On Saturday night, a media report surfaced that there was a tentative framework for a deal. White House reporters seeking an update chased a top communications aide toward the Oval Office, only to be told later that the two sides had not arrived at a deal yet. Indeed, the negotiations ended up going down to the wire. At 5 p.m. on Sunday night, White House officials discussed whether Treasury Secretary Geithner should make a statement to the financial markets that evening or perhaps the following morning. GEITHNER’S GAME Geithner, in his former role as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was one of the chief financial firefighters during the global markets meltdown triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Asian markets were about to open. The crisis had already roiled U.S. debt markets and taken a toll on the dollar and Wall Street stocks. Administration officials feared worse bloodletting if investors returned to their desks at the start of the week without clarity on whether there would be a deal. Geithner and a small team of aides had been quietly working on contingency plans in case Congress missed the August 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling. Treasury had planned to brief markets on those plans no later than Monday. Private-sector analysts believed that in a worst-case scenario, Geithner would be prepared to tell markets he would put a priority on paying the government’s debt in order to avoid default — even if that meant taking the politically explosive step of delaying payments to Social Security recipients and others. PULLING THE TRIGGER But the Treasury secretary never had to show his hand. The final sticking point in the talks centered on the terms of the deficit-cutting “trigger.” Democrats wanted automatic cuts in military spending if Congress balked at the second round of deficit reduction. Biden and McConnell spoke four times on Saturday, five times on Sunday, circling around the two stumbling blocks that remained — the nature of the “trigger” and the size of the defense cuts that Democrats wanted. McConnell kept in contact with Boehner. On Sunday, July 31, there were less than two full days before Default Day. As Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, crunched numbers on the Republican defense cut proposals, the White House feared it might not get a deal. Biden spoke with Boehner around 4 p.m. and said, “We just can’t get there.” McConnell floated a compromise to widen the trigger to all security-related programs — the State Department, veterans’ care, nuclear security — and not just the Pentagon. At 8:15 p.m. Sunday, Obama made a final call to Boehner as White House aides listened nearby. “Do we have a deal?” Obama asked. There was a moment of suspense, then: “Congratulations to you, too, John.” (Additional reporting by Richard Cowan, Rachelle Younglai, Laura MacInnis, Dave Clarke, Alister Bull and Jeff Mason; Editing by Jackie Frank) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Robert E. Scott: Revaluation of the Chinese Yuan Would Improve the U.S. Trade Balance

August 1, 2011

In a recent report , I showed that full revaluation of the yuan and other undervalued Asian currencies would improve the U.S. current account balance by up to $190.5 billion, increasing U.S. GDP by as much as $285.7 billion, adding up to 2.25 million U.S. jobs and reducing the federal budget deficit by up to $857 billion over 10 years. This change to the current account balance (the broadest measure of the U.S. trade balance) would also help workers in China and other Asian countries by reducing inflationary overheating and increasing workers’ purchasing power. However, a recent blog post by two researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York argues that revaluation “would not make a meaningful near-term difference in the U.S. bilateral deficit with China.” Their work ignores the much more significant impact that Chinese revaluation would have on U.S. exports to the rest of the world; and the likely impact a higher yuan will have on other currency manipulators such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia. Recent research has estimated that the yuan is undervalued by 28.5 percent against the U.S. dollar. China’s currency manipulation acts like a subsidy of 28.5 percent on all of its exports, and a tax on U.S. exports to China and the rest of the world (since it lowers the cost of Chinese products relative to those made by U.S. firms). The New York Fed researchers, Matthew Higgins and Thomas Klitgaard, examine the impacts of a stronger renminbi (RMB), the official currency of China, denominated in yuan, on the U.S.-China trade balance only, ignoring the impact that RMB manipulation has on U.S. trade with the rest of the world. On the import side, Higgins and Klitgaard make two significant claims. First, they claim that a revaluation would have a less than proportionate impact on the cost and prices of Chinese exports (e.g., a 10 percent revaluation might only reduce Chinese profit margins by 5 percent). This claim, which is based on research that pegs the domestic content of Chinese exports at only about 50 percent, ignores the large share of China’s imported components that come from other Asian countries, many of which are also currency manipulators. According to recent Chinese data, 60 percent of China’s imports come from other Asian countries, and much of the rest comes from oil exporting countries. If, as is likely, all currency manipulators follow China’s lead and revalue, the dollar price of those imports will also increase, putting further upward pressure on the dollar price of Chinese exports. Second, the authors claim that if Chinese export prices rise, by 10 percent for example, then the volume of U.S. imports from China will fall by 10 percent or less, so at best, U.S. spending on imports from China will remain constant. (Spending equals price times volume; if prices rise 10 percent and volume goes down 10 percent, then total spending on Chinese imports would remain unchanged). But this framework fails to consider what would happen to spending on Chinese imports absent revaluation. Between 2001 and 2007 (prior to the Great Recession) U.S. imports from China increased 18.6 percent per year. Even in a very weak economy, imports through May 2011 increased 16.0 percent. If revaluation stabilized the level of Chinese imports, it would make a huge contribution to stabilizing the U.S. current account deficit. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China increased $68.5 billion in 2010, and was responsible, alone, for nearly three-quarters (72.6%) of the growth in the U.S. current account deficit. Higgins and Klitgaard also claim that if China revalues it will have a small impact on U.S. exports to China. They note that U.S. exports to China ($85.7 billion in 2010) were tiny in comparison with our imports from China ($364.1 billion). They argue that even a large percentage increase in U.S. exports to China (for example a 20 percent increase, from a 20 percent revaluation by China) will have a less than $20 billion impact on the U.S. bilateral deficit with China ($278.3 billion in 2010). This argument fails to consider the impact of revaluation on U.S. exports to the rest of the world. They fail to note that China is our largest competitor in almost every export market around the world. In 2010, China was the world’s largest exporter, as shown in the chart below. China’s share of world exports nearly tripled between 2000 and 2010, rising from 3.9% to 10.5%, while the U.S. share declined nearly a third, from 12.3% to 8.5%. To create a more complete picture of the impact of revaluation on U.S. trade, I examined the impact of revaluation by China and other Asian currency manipulators on the U.S. current account balance with the world, using currency weights from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, which are based on global trade flows. These weights reflect the fact that China is our most important competitor in third-country markets for exports. China’s overall weight in the broad index of the foreign exchange value of the dollar was 19.871 percent in 2011. I examined the impact of a 28.5 percent revaluation of the RMB, which would reduce the relative value of the U.S. dollar by 5.66 percent. I also assumed that if China revalues, other Asian currency manipulators including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia would also revalue by 28.5 percent. The weight of those four currencies in the broad dollar is 7.557 percent, and if they revalue by 28.5 percent, then the U.S. dollar would fall by an additional 2.16 percent, for a total decline of 7.82 percent. To test my results, I used Higgins and Klitgaard’s method to estimate the impacts of revaluation on total U.S. exports. They assume that a 1 percent decrease in the value of the dollar would increase U.S. exports by 1 percent (a price elasticity of demand for U.S. exports of 1). Based on year-to-date growth through May 2011, total U.S. goods exports in 2011 are on track $1.5 trillion. Using their conservative elasticity assumption yields a $120 billion increase in goods exports ($1.5 trillion times 7.82 percent). U.S. services exports will likely exceed $600 billion in 2011, and a 7.82 percent fall in the dollar would add an additional $48 billion in services exports, for a $168 billion increase in total goods and services exports. Since they assume revaluation would have no impact on the value of U.S. Imports from China, this translates into a $168 billion improvement in the trade balance. Higgins and Klitgaard also acknowledge that the response of trade to changes in the dollar could be twice as large (a price elasticity of 2) which could yield current account improvements in excess of $300 billion, but that figure seems improbably large, based on past experience. In my study, I used a multiplier from William Cline of the Peterson Institute which yields slightly larger estimates of the impacts of changes in the value of the dollar on the U.S. current account. I estimated that a 28.5 percent revaluation by China and other Asian currency manipulators would improve the U.S. current account deficit by $190.5 billion. I then used standard macroeconomic models to estimate the impacts of this change on GDP, employment and the federal budget deficit. Thus, both methods yield similar estimates of the impact of revaluation on the U.S. global trade balance. Clearly, revaluation by China and other Asian currency manipulators could help reduce the U.S. current account deficit, which increased $94.3 billion (25.1 percent) in 2010. Growing trade and current account deficits are a major drag on the economy. Growth of the goods and services trade deficit alone reduced real GDP growth by 0.49 percentage points in 2010. Higgins and Klitgaard erred in failing to consider the impact of revaluation of the Chinese yuan on U.S. global exports. When this mistake is corrected, the two models lead to the same, unmistakable conclusion that revaluation of the RMB would reduce or reverse the growth of the U.S. current account deficit, the broadest measure of our trade deficit. Higgins and Klitgaard also argue that the U.S. trade deficit with China will shrink in the future without significant RMB revaluation, due to the rapid expansion of China’s middle class and its demand for “higher-end goods and services.” They also claim that the “current share of Chinese goods in overall U.S. non-oil spending… is already so high” that the rate of growth of Chinese imports must slow in the future. On the exports side, the most rapidly growing U.S. exports to China in 2010 (by dollar volume) were (in order): motor vehicles, grains and oilseeds, waste and scrap, other agricultural products and semiconductors. Raw agricultural products, waste paper and steel scrap are not “higher-end goods.” Most U.S. exports to China are parts and raw materials that are used to produce exports; relatively few are consumer goods. The growth of U.S. exports to China primarily reflects the rapid growth of China’s exports (such as motor vehicles and parts, and electronic products) to the United States. Regarding Chinese imports, the U.S. retains a large manufacturing base, although manufacturing employment has fallen by about one-third in the past decade. Nearly 12 million workers are now directly employed in U.S. manufacturing, and millions more are employed in supporting industries like business services, law, accounting, engineering and scientific research. China’s rapidly growing exports threaten U.S. exports to the rest of the world, and the remaining core of the U.S. industrial base. The U.S. trade deficit is likely to continue its rapid growth and these jobs will continue to be threatened unless and until China revalues.

Read the full article →

A Year After Dodd-Frank, Too Big To Fail Remains Bigger Problem Than Ever

July 21, 2011

WASHINGTON — A year after Congress passed a landmark law intended to tame the excesses that produced the financial crisis, some experts contend that a crucial vulnerability remains: The largest financial institutions are still so enormous that their failure could again bring the financial system to the brink of disaster. The passage of the Dodd-Frank law has sowed a perception of safety that has spawned a dangerous complacency, they add. “The next crisis will happen sooner rather than later,” said Anat Admati, a professor of finance and economics at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. “We’re not safer and there’s still a lot of systemic risks in large banks and in the financial sector overall.” A central aim of the law, known as the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, was to undercut the assumption that some institutions are so big that their potential failure could again force the government to rescue them, rather than allow their troubles to trigger another crisis. The very perception that the government stands ready to rescue the largest banks tends to be construed by the markets as a government insurance policy — one that encourages the executives at such institutions to take bigger risks. But on the first anniversary of the act’s passage, the nation’s largest banks boast larger holdings than ever. Their political clout is on the rise, say experts, and the government regulators who are supposed to be looking out for the next wave of reckless speculation are starved of cash. Meanwhile, stalwart banking industry allies in Congress are seeking to crimp the authority of the regulators on multiple fronts. In short, assert some experts, the problem posed by institutions seen as Too Big To Fail is itself bigger than ever. “The structural problems are worse,” said Simon Johnson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. “Their size, incentives — none of that has changed.” Obama administration officials maintain that the new law has contributed to greater stability in the financial system and rolled back the problem of Too Big To Fail institutions by limiting the circumstances in which the government can mount a rescue. “It’s one of these things that I think in the end people might not believe until they actually see one fail and have the government not step in,” a senior Treasury Department official said last week. “But there is no authority as a matter of law for the government to commit taxpayer money in that circumstance.” Others argue that the financial system is today safer than before for the simple reason that the people working within it have gained valuable lessons. “So much has been learned about risk management, securitization and the rest,” said Ernest Patrikis, a former general counsel at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now a partner at the law firm White & Case. “We’re safer because of the experience.” But the consequences of a potential collapse of a major American lender have grown, if for no other reason than the dollar values at stake are larger. The assets held by the five largest American banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs — grew 3 percent last year compared to the year prior, according to their most recent quarterly filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. They held $8.7 trillion in assets as of June 30, compared to $8.4 trillion the same time last year. “The fact is everyone views the top six banks as too big to fail,” said Admati, a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee, referring to a group that also includes Morgan Stanley. Collectively, those institutions hold close to two-thirds of the entire U.S. banking industry’s assets, Federal Reserve data show. Johnson, also a member of the FDIC’s systemic committee, argues that once boom times inevitably return, these same institutions can take the same kind of risks without fear of failure: If trouble emerges, they can count on the government bailing them out again, given the alternative — another full-blown crisis. The Obama administration has emphasized the need to limit the vulnerability to banks that are so big that their demise would have broad repercussions. During a discussion of the economy and financial reform last year, Obama’s former top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, said Too Big To Fail was “in many ways the central challenge here.” “When institutions are too big to fail, they gain a competitive advantage from the sense of government support,” Summers explained. “And that gives them an unfair competitive advantage. They are then able to take risks without market discipline, and when they take those risks, then they fail. And if they’re too big to fail, taxpayers are on the hook and the rest of the economy suffers, as we’ve seen.” The distorting power of this dynamic can be huge, say experts. If creditors believe that large banks are essentially immune to normal market forces and they cannot lose money by lending to them, then they are apt to charge the banks less for their cash. If banks can borrow money on cheaper terms by dint of the perception that they can count on Uncle Sam as their guarantor, then they are more likely to take risks that would otherwise be imprudent, magnifying the risks to the system. Money has been flowing to the largest banks on discount terms that appear to reflect the market’s assumption that the taxpayer stands ready to protect them against collapse, say experts. In 2009, this funding advantage amounted to $250 billion for 28 of the largest banks in the world, according to Andrew Haldane, the executive director for financial stability at the Bank of England. In June 2009, the five largest U.S. banks paid creditors on average about 3.6 percent less on their long-term debt than they would have had they not been perceived to be too big to fail, according to Thomas Hoenig, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. When banks can acquire money cheaply, they tend to distribute it more freely — on risky loans, but also on out-sized pay packages for their employees, say experts. This enables them to lure the best and brightest minds to high finance, depriving goods-producing industries of innovative workers. A team of economists affiliated with the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland determined last year that the pay of banking and finance executives was more associated with the size of the financial institution than its operating efficiency. “This kind of pay structure might have encouraged managers to grow the sizes of the financial institutions they work for at the expense of the returns on the capital invested,” the team concluded in their study. “These distortions must be addressed,” Admati said. The Treasury official emphasized that regulators are today substantially disinclined against rescuing major financial institutions, which limits the risks being taken by such lenders. Though officials acknowledge that taxpayer funds could be used as a stopgap measure as the government supervises the orderly unwinding of troubled institutions, the new law enables federal authorities to recoup those funds from surviving firms. Experts question whether that scenario would really play out. “Surviving institutions are likely to be stressed themselves in the event of a crisis,” Thomas F. Cooley, an economics professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, said during a panel discussion on the financial reform law last month. And the fact that companies may be forced to pay up after the fact “may encourage them to take additional risk,” he said. Whatever the merits of the Dodd-Frank act, some question whether it will ever be sufficiently implemented. The 848-page piece of legislation set out roughly 400 rules governing home mortgages and consumer credit, as well as the trading of the exotic financial instruments known as derivatives. Not least, it laid out fresh restrictions on how and when government can use taxpayer funds to rescue a teetering bank. The law was designed to make it exceedingly difficult for regulators to resort to bailouts going forward, but the market has yet to show signs that it believes that message: Major credit rating agencies continue to certify the debts of major banks as rock-solid, in part because of the assumption that they enjoy implicit government support. But a year after its passage, only 38 of its roughly 400 new rules have been finalized, according to a July 1 review conducted by law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell. Nearly as many deadlines for new rules have been missed. Some experts say this reflects considerable efforts by banking industry allies to hamstring the regulators as they seek to follow through. Republicans in Congress are determined to either repeal the law, trim portions of it, or — if all else fails — starve regulators of much-needed cash, say observers. “Dodd Frank has tried to equip regulators with more tools, but there’s so much push back from the financial industry that what emerges in the implementation of those regulations remains to be seen,” said Raghuram Rajan, an economist and finance professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, and a former chief economist at the IMF. “There’s still a question as to whether regulators will implement rules in the spirit of the legislation.” Goldman Sachs executives have held at least 83 meetings with five of the federal agencies regulating the financial system since Dodd-Frank went into effect, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based transparency advocacy group. JPMorgan Chase representatives have met with the agencies at least 73 times. Federal regulators have met with Morgan Stanley executives at least 58 times, while Bank of America executives have held 55 meetings. The new rules are “already being gamed to death,” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Hoenig said last month. The lobbying campaign appears to be producing gains. Earlier this year, federal bank regulators allowed some of the largest banks to resume paying dividends to their investors, even though new rules governing bank capital had yet to be finalized. This was “the most outrageous thing regulators did,” Admati said in an email. “There is NO justification for it that I heard from anyone who knows anything about this.” The banks say they have plenty of capital, and that they will meet regulators’ targets through retaining a portion of their future profits. Admati say such assurances are not enough, and she pointedly dismisses the notion that the awful experience of the last financial crisis provides comfort against a repeat. Banks continue to rely on borrowed money, she noted, with debt financing about 90 percent of their assets, according to the FDIC. Five years ago, equity funded about 10.4 percent of the banking system’s assets, FDIC data show — a figure that experts now generally see as woefully inadequate. In the wake of the worst crisis since the Great Depression, that’s risen to just 11.3 percent, according to data as of March 31. “We’re missing the big picture when it comes to systemic risk,” Admati said. * * * * * Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 1-917-267-2335.

Read the full article →

Stephen Zarlenga: Greening the Dollar

July 13, 2011

Real progress on monetary reform is being made. Don’t swallow the widespread negativism spread, out of error or by design, which tries to convince people that there’s no use in fighting for justice. That strategy was taught by the Taoist philosopher Sun Tzu in The Art of War . He advised that the best way to defeat opponents is to convince them to surrender by convincing them that victory is impossible. Rather than falling for it, steel yourself! Progress on solving our monetary problems does take time, yet it is being made and will continue to be made. For example, I was invited to give a talk at the 2007 US Green Party Convention to explain the need for monetary reform. On advice of an old friend, I called my talk “Greening the Dollar.” Now, four years later, thanks to Dee Berry and Ben Kjelsus of Kansas City, MO, the US Green Party has come forward with a marvelous monetary reform plank for its economic platform! For the first time in our nation’s history, a national party has proposed an effective solution to our malfunctioning monetary system! We applaud their remarkable courage and intelligence to present a genuine alternative to our malformed and unjust money system. 2011 Monetary Reform Plank of the US Green Party First the Greens accurately state the problem: “The present mis-structured system of privatized control has resulted in the misdirection of our resources to speculation, toxic loans, and phony financial instruments that create huge profits for the few but no real wealth or jobs. It is both possible and necessary for our government to take back its special money creation privilege and spend this money into circulation through… local and state government entities to be used for infrastructure, health, education, and the arts. This would add millions of good jobs, enrich our communities, and go a long ways toward ending the current deep recession.” Then the Greens put forward the three necessary parts of the solution: I. “Nationalize the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, reconstituting them and the Federal Reserve Systems Washington Board of Governors under a new Monetary Authority Board within the U.S. Treasury. The private creation of money or credit which substitutes for money, will cease and with it the reckless and fraudulent practices that have led to the present financial and economic crisis.” II. “Create a Monetary Authority, which will…redefine bank lending rules and procedures to end the privilege banks now have to create money when they extend their credit…Banks will be encouraged to continue as profit making companies…[yet they] will no longer be creators of what we are using for money.” (Fractional reserve banking will be ended.) III. “The new money that must be regularly added to an improving system as population and commerce grow will be created and spent into circulation by the U. S. Government for infrastructure, including the human infrastructure of education and health care. This begins with the $2.2 trillion the American Society of Civil Engineers warns us is needed to bring existing infrastructure to safe levels over the next 5 years.” End of Plank Getting Involved Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced H.R. 6550 , The National Emergency Employment Defense (NEED) Act on December 17th, 2010. His NEED Act and the 2011 Green Party Plan share the same three essential reform components of the American Monetary Act: putting the Fed into the US Treasury; ending private money creation, and using the nation’s money power to fund our infrastructure, health care and education. The 2011 US Green Party Plank and Congressman Kucinich’s NEED Act are both great achievements for the monetary reform movement. Awareness of these real solutions will inspire the capacity for positive change in our political system. It is now up to every one of us to support this leadership and transform this bill into law. Do not be discouraged by the phony and ridiculous arguments over the national debt as portrayed by Rupert Murdoch’s criminal media operation and by others. Don’t be fooled by the nonsense arguments of having states going into the banking business, which would leave the fractional reserve system intact, actually worsening the problem and reforming nothing. Dee Berry and Ben Kjelsus, both in their 70′s, made an inspiring presentation at the 6th Annual AMI Monetary Reform Conference . Progress will be made, because for humanity to survive and advance, progress must be made! Educate your friends, family, and local government representatives on this monetary reform, using our free 32 page brochure at our website . Read The Lost Science of Money and become a member of the American Monetary Institute to keep informed. Monetary reform is about realizing our vision to leave a better world for our children and grandchildren. It’s about our ability to evolve toward a higher human destiny, toward our highest aspirations. Kucinich and the Greens are doing their part. Now it’s our turn . Edited by Jules Brouillet. Zarlenga is co-founder and Director of the American Monetary Institute and author of The Lost Science of Money . Meet him at The 7th Annual AMI Monetary Reform Conference ! Brouillet is a researcher for the American Monetary Institute.

Read the full article →

Recession Cost Average American $7,300, Fed Economist Says

July 12, 2011

The recession that struck the U.S. in 2007 has cost consumers about $7,300 each in lost spending, according to a San Francisco Federal Reserve economist. In a paper published Monday, Kevin Lansing, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, wrote that if personal consumption had continued on from December 2007 to the present day at the same rates that it occurred from 2000 to 2007, Americans would have each spent an extra $7,356 by now. Taken over a period of 42 months, that’s about $175 in lost spending per month, Lansing writes. However, it’s not necessarily true that personal consumption should have continued on at pre-2008 rates. That kind of spending was symptomatic of a bubble economy, Lansing notes in the paper, and “was bound to slow sooner or later.” The climbing rates of consumption may not have been “economically desirable,” he writes, in part because Americans were saving so little and taking on so much debt. And much of that spending was made possible by “unsound lending practices,” which have since come under scrutiny. In an interview with Bloomberg, Lansing said the pre-recession spending reflected an “artificial economy that was driven by debt.” Real consumer spending took a nosedive in December 2007, the official start of the recession, which was declared to have ended in June 2009. Lansing points out that after the recession of 1990-91, personal consumption took 23 months to recover to pre-recession levels; by contract, current personal consumption is still 1.6 percent below its pre-recession peak, 42 months later. Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce reported that month-over-month consumer spending rates were virtually unchanged in May, making for the weakest month in spending since September 2009. It was suggested that inflation, particularly in the form of high gas prices, accounted for the slowdown in spending. And it seems as though spending remained sluggish during June, according to economist forecasts showing that retail sales probably stagnated during that month. The Commerce Department will release its figures for June on Thursday. In his report, Lansing notes that policymakers might have done more to address the housing bubble while it was happening. In particular, he cites monetary policy as an instrument central banks can use to prevent harmful deflation. Lansing writes that interest rate policy could have “a distinct advantage” over regulatory measures “because vigilant central bankers can deploy it against bubbles regardless of the regulatory environment.” Given the costly results of the housing-bubble burst, Lansing writes, “the case for preemptive action against bubbles may be strong indeed.”

Read the full article →

Americans Have Never Been More Distrustful Of Banks: Poll

June 24, 2011

The recession might be officially over, but American views toward the institutions that brought the economic system close to collapse have never been worse. According to a new poll by Gallup , 36 percent of Americans now say they have “very little” or “no” confidence in U.S. banks, the highest percentage on record since Gallup first started tracking that data. Those saying they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in banks has also stagnated, stuck at 23 percent for the second straight year, after falling to a low of 22 percent in 2009. Safe to say it’s been a tough year in the banks’ public relations departments. U.S. banks have spent much of the past year aggressively lobbying against the implementation of Dodd-Frank financial reform. This week, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called out banks for the “huge amount of money [spent by banks] to erode, weaken, walk back” financial reform. Indeed, the largest-lobbying institutions of last year spent 2.7 percent more in the first months of this year in an attempt to combat rules including higher capital requirements and restrictions on swipe fees. The nation’s five largest mortgage servicers — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial — have also been the focus of a federal investigation into whether the banks defrauded taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures, first reported by The Huffington Post in mid-May. In addition, in April, Goldman Sachs, the nation’s first-largest bank by assets, was accused in a Senate report of systematically misleading clients by selling them assets known to be junk and then subsequently betting against that junk. So this year’s Gallup results only further emphasize the growing animosity toward banks in America. Never before 2009 had more Americans expressed more distrust than trust in banks. That has not only been the norm for three years now, but the gap is widening. Gallup, who has been tracking confidence in banks for over thirty years now, notes the steady decline of confidence in their release, pointing out that 60 percent of Americans had at least “quite a lot” of confidence in banks in 1979. That fell to 30 percent in the early 1990s, but then steadily rose to 53 percent in the mid-200s. The percentage of Americans with a good deal of trust in banks has been nearly halved since 2007: Although levels of confidence have fallen in all regions since the first years of the financial crisis in 2007, confidence is again on the rise in the Midwest and West. This year, it is the East that has the least confidence in banks, at 20 percent. The below graph charts levels of confidence since the financial crisis:

Read the full article →

Video: Broaddus Says June U.S. Jobs Data Is `Key’ to Fed Policy

June 10, 2011

June 10 (Bloomberg) — Former Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President Alfred Broaddus talks about Fed monetary policy, the economy and the U.S. budget. He speaks with Carol Massar and Adam Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

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 →

Krugman: ‘Strong Chance’ U.S. Economy Will Worsen

June 3, 2011

Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a blog post about the “mistake of 1937,” the premature fiscal and monetary pullback that aborted an ongoing economic recovery and prolonged the Great Depression. As Gauti Eggertsson, the post’s author (with whom I have done research) points out, economic conditions today — with output growing, some prices rising, but unemployment still very high — bear a strong resemblance to those in 1936-37. So are modern policy makers going to make the same mistake?

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: Lieberman Says Fed to Let QE2 Expire on Schedule

May 20, 2011

May 20 (Bloomberg) — Charles Lieberman, former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and now chief investment officer with Advisors Capital Management LLC, talks about the oulook for Fed policy. He speaks with Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Federal Reserve’s Actions May Increase Unemployment

April 28, 2011

The Federal Reserve’s purchases of more than $2 trillion in mortgage and U.S. government debt may cause an upswing in unemployment, a top regional Fed official argued Thursday in a new paper that counters the central bank’s position. The forecast by Yi Wen , an assistant vice president and economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, challenges a chorus of pro-purchase research published by the Fed’s Board of Governors in Washington and its regional banks in San Francisco and Boston. The Fed’s $2.3 trillion asset-purchase programs could lead to a 2.2 percent rise in the unemployment rate in the long term, Wen wrote. The economist argued that the increase in bank reserves — a result of the Fed’s buying programs — could lead to an increase in the amount of money flowing through the economy, which in turn would lead to inflation. Over time, that would lead to an increase in joblessness, he reckoned. Some within the Fed — as well as members of Congress, and foreign central bankers and political leaders — have publicly criticized the central bank’s recent initiatives. Detractors say the Fed lacks the tools to withdraw the record stimulus before it causes runaway inflation. Once money is in the system, they argue, it will inevitably lead to rising prices. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has countered that the poor state of the economy and near-record unemployment compels the central bank to be aggressive. The Fed has tripled the size of its balance sheet to further bring down interest rates in an effort to spur borrowing and spending. The San Francisco Fed argued in January that those efforts, known as quantitative easing, will create 3 million jobs by 2012 . The most recent round of purchasing, known as QE2 and scheduled to run through June, will lead to 700,000 new jobs, the researchers, who include San Francisco Fed President John C. Williams , forecast in their paper. Fed Vice Chairman Janet Yellen endorsed that research in a January speech to economists in Denver. Bernanke said at his Wednesday press conference that the purchasing programs have been successful and that the number of jobs created as a result have been “significant.” The Boston Fed predicted in November that the Fed’s asset purchases would lead to 700,000 new jobs through 2012 . By purchasing U.S. Treasury obligations and mortgage securities from Wall Street firms, the Fed increases the amount of cash at those banks. Banks are parking $1.47 trillion at the Fed beyond what is required by regulators, Fed data from last week showed. Unused, that stashed cash simply collects interest at a rate of 0.25 percent from the Fed. Fed officials, including Yellen, Bernanke and New York Fed President William Dudley, have said the central bank will be able to drain the excess bank reserves before they lead to significant inflation. But if the Fed cannot successfully manage the exit from their record stimulus program, Wen’s forecast could become a reality. An annual increase of 1 percent in the amount of money in the economy would have “almost no impact on unemployment” during the first five years, Wen wrote. But, later, a growing money supply could lead to a rise in the unemployment rate of 1-2.2 percent, Wen argued. A surge of money in the system would lead to higher prices because the value of money would decline. That would in turn lower growth and increase joblessness, he wrote. The unemployment rate stood at 8.8 percent as of last month , according to the Labor Department. It’s decreased by a full percentage point since November. On Wednesday, the Fed forecast unemployment to average 8.4 to 8.7 percent during the last three months of this year , then falling to 7.6 to 7.9 percent during the fourth quarter of 2012.

Read the full article →

The U.S. Banking Industry Is Shrinking: Who Benefits?

April 28, 2011

By Knowledge@Wharton Though the U.S. banking sector was in recovery mode in 2010, it still managed to reach some highs and lows. There were 157 bank failures in the country last year, the most since 1992, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). And the number of new bank charters was at an historic low — 11, compared with 181 three years earlier. With so many banks leaving the sector and so few entering it, a long-anticipated consolidation process is now under way. The U.S. is expected to end up with no less than 6,529 commercial banks and 1,128 savings institutions by the end of this year. That is a 4.4% decline from the previous year, and it leaves the country with nearly half as many institutions as it had 20 years ago, according to the FDIC. What does this consolidation mean for the banking sector’s next 20 years? Should consumers be concerned about the shrinking number of banks? Many experts expect consolidation to continue, and predict that the trend will leave the banking system better off in the long run. “We don’t really need as many banks as we used to,” says Jack Guttentag , a finance emeritus professor at Wharton and former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. “Banks now have the power to [set up branches] wherever they want to, so what really matters is how many options a customer has in a certain market.” Therein lies the challenge, according to Kenneth H. Thomas, a Wharton lecturer of finance. As he sees it, not all customers will benefit from greater consolidation. A market, such as the one in the U.S., that is “over-banked,” with a supply of banking services exceeding demand, “is generally good for consumers and businesses because it results in lower prices — i.e., lower loan rates, loan/deposit fees and higher deposit rates — and higher output [in terms of] more varied and innovative products,” he notes. “Some may argue that ‘over-competition’ [or over-banking] could drive weaker banks out of business” — as happened to Washington Mutual, the savings institution that collapsed in 2008 — “but then someone else comes in and replaces them, yet may reduce the number of offices and amount of services.” History Lessons It is no accident that the U.S. has had such a large number of banks. Rather than setting up one, large national bank as other countries do, the U.S. federal government rolled out various laws in 1784 to encourage multiple banks in individual states. In 1863, a new banking act introduced a national charter that encouraged the establishment of more financial institutions even as it taxed banks with state charters. Nearly 70 years later, with the dawn of the Great Depression, the country had more than 30,000 banks. But the stock market collapse took its toll. In 1933 alone, about 4,000 commercial banks and 1,700 savings and loans institutions failed. The next wave of consolidation occurred in 1994 with the arrival of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act. That made interstate expansion easier, whether it occurred through M&A activity or organically. The number of banks began shrinking annually by about 4.5% before another period of expansion in the late 1990s, according to the FDIC. With another swing of the pendulum last year, consolidation returned to 1994 levels. But in contrast to previous times, much of the consolidation has been due to failures rather than through M&A. Shuttered banks have ranged from American National Bank of Ohio, a small institution with assets of $70 million that had struggled for years to turn a profit and was under regulatory pressure until it was closed in March, to $25 billion Colonial BancGroup of Alabama, which closed its doors in the summer of 2009, a few days after regulators started an investigation into accounting irregularities. As the third largest failure in U.S. history, all of Colonial’s deposits were sold to BB&T, turning it into the ninth-biggest U.S. bank by assets, according to Bloomberg. As for M&A, there were 197 deals last year, a 20-year low. Loretta J. Mester, a Wharton adjunct professor of finance and director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, expects consolidation to continue over the next few years. “In the short term, I think consolidation will pick up as weaker banks go through mergers and acquisitions, and stronger banks take time to get their capital shored up” in their pursuit of greater efficiency and economies of scale, she notes. The Little Guy The institutions that will likely be hardest hit by all this activity will be the community banks. Most of these small, locally owned banks have less than $1 billion of assets, but account for 92% of all banks and savings institutions, says the FDIC. For many of them, the arrival of the recent Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was a death knell.Tougher controls involving capital, liquidity and leverage, and a surge in regulatory red tape, have left such banks struggling, particularly those with less than $500 million of assets. “Many small banks feel that they are being pushed out of existence by new regulations,” Thomas states. Their plight hasn’t been lost on the FDIC, which has launched various initiatives to give community banks some relief. A few weeks ago, for example, it released guidelines that lighten requirements for how these banks manage customers whose accounts are consistently overdrawn. The FDIC has also been encouraging entrepreneurs to buy troubled banks. According to Thomas, this trend started two years ago, when new charters were hard to come by. A case in point: BankUnited, a 70-branch Miami Lakes, Fla.-based financial institution, was taken public earlier this year after the FDIC sold it in 2009 to a bevy of private equity investors led by John Kanas — the former chief executive of a Long Island regional bank sold a few years ago to Capital One. Todd A. Gormley , a Wharton finance professor, says community banks play an important role in local economies. They typically have close relationships with individual customers, while, for example, making loan decisions based more on personalized information than the credit scores and other hard data used by large banks. “Smaller firms and local individuals trying to get loans from larger banks could be a subset of the population that is worse off because of consolidation,” Gormley suggests. There is also something to be said for the often underrated efficiency of smaller lenders that rely on personal relationships as a guarantee against loan defaults. In a study published last year, Stephanie Moulton, a professor of public affairs at Ohio State University, found that borrowers with low incomes or bad credit are significantly less likely to default on loans if they borrow from a local bank than if they receive a loan from a distant bank or mortgage company. Personal relationships, she concluded, are an important factor in the reciprocal relationship between lender and borrower, resulting in both sides offering critical information, such as repayment schedules. Easy Come, Easy Go According to Guttentag, consolidation also leaves a handful of banks controlling the majority of certain types of products. Four “mega banks” — Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup — now hold three-fifths of the home mortgage market, which limits consumers’ choice of products and their ability to shop around for competitive pricing. “It’s a textbook issue of a concentration of power,” Guttentag says. “A limited number of firms control the market, and they will engage in implicit collusion.” Thomas, meanwhile, is concerned about the concentration in geographic markets as a result of ongoing consolidation. While there are more than enough banks in the entire country, some cities, states and regions have just one dominant bank. “There are a few markets in danger of becoming a one-bank or two-bank town,” he says. For example, in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, PNC Bank has 47% of the deposit share, according to the FDIC. The second-largest bank in the area is Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, which has 8.5% of the deposit share. “We need competition because competition lowers prices,” Thomas states. While there are no limits on deposit shares in certain markets, 1994′s Riegle-Neal Act imposes a 10% cap on nationwide deposits for a single bank. That has since been interpreted as a cap on growth that occurs through mergers rather than organically. The Treasury Department is now looking into modifying the cap to include all consolidated liabilities. But Mester says consumers need not worry. “When there is consolidation, there are not necessarily fewer outlets for banking services,” she notes. While the total number of banks may be declining, the number of branches isn’t. Additionally, no matter where they are, consumers have access to a growing number of Internet banking options. In the last 10 years, the number of bank branches nationwide has increased 15%, although that expansion has primarily involved banks with $500 million or more in assets. The number of branches dropped slightly for the first time in a decade in 2010. As for the future, Guttentag predicts that the number of banks will continue to shrink, but he doubts the U.S. will ever look like, say, Canada — which has just 22 banks. Indeed, if consolidation continues as it has over the past 20 years at the average annual rate of 3.3%, it would take 60 years for the total number to fall below 1,000 banks and nearly 130 years to get below 100. “Even if the number of banks shrinks from 6,000 to 100, if those 100 are operating in all market segments and if consumers have many options, there is no reason for concern,” Guttentag says. Additional reading from Knowledge@Wharton: The Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Law: Long-Awaited Cure — or Cause for ‘Wild-Eyed Alarm’? ‘A Major Transformation’: The Pros and Cons of the Dodd-Frank Act The Coming Meta-Boom and Meta-Bust — One Economist’s View

Read the full article →

Dory Rand: On Principal Writedowns and Moral Hazard: Do We Want to Put Out the Fire or Not?

April 19, 2011

We at Woodstock Institute have long argued that, in order for loan modifications programs to effectively prevent foreclosures on a broad scale, they need to include a component of reducing the principal owed on underwater homes. In fact, we bring it up pretty much every time we talk to policymakers, regulators, and the media when they ask us what needs to be done to fix the foreclosure mess. Principal writedowns became more relevant — and controversial — than ever when it was recently revealed that Attorneys Generals may include a principal writedown component to their settlement with loan servicers over improperly preparing foreclosure documents. A common criticism of principal writedown is that by offering to reduce the amount a borrower owes, it would encourage other borrowers who owe more than their home is worth but could afford to continue making payments to default on their loans so they too could get their principal reduced — or, as economists call it, moral hazard. That concern is not unreasonable, but it shouldn’t stop us from pursuing principal writedowns for one simple reason: they work. The concerns about moral hazard are twofold: there’s an economic concern, where moral hazard would trigger a wave of countless dollars lost to forgiven principal; and an ethical issue, where critics believe that principal writedowns would violate the spirit of fairness by protecting borrowers from losses on an investment that inherently includes an amount of risk. While it’s not clear how many homeowners would choose to default in order to cure their negative equity, it is clear that NOT addressing negative equity will cause defaults — and significant losses for investors. A body of research on borrowers’ incentives to pay demonstrate that negative equity is a strong predictor for default. A study by researchers at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University, cited by Alan White at Public Citizen , examines the relationship between negative equity and propensity to strategically default, or walk away from your mortgage even if you can afford the monthly payments. The study finds that that borrowers largely do not consider strategically defaulting on their loans until negative equity reaches a tipping point. For example, if negative equity was at 10 percent, no homeowners would choose to default because of economic costs associated with foreclosure and moral constraints. However, when negative equity reaches 50 percent or greater, economic benefits of default and moral constraints loosen, raising the likelihood that the borrower will default. The study found that borrowers are more likely to consider walking away from their underwater homes if they believe that many of their peers have done so. As more homes fall more deeply underwater, it’s likely that the stigma of walking away from your home is not as potent as it once was. This suggests that a significant campaign of principal reduction, particularly in areas with widespread negative equity, would curb strategic defaults and the resulting losses. Principal reductions also address the risk that a borrower will default on their loan after it has been modified, which is referred to as re-default. Re-default is a real risk that threatens the viability of foreclosure prevention programs: bank regulators found that nearly 24 percent of all modified loans since 2008 (which have largely relied on reducing interest rates and extending loan terms) have become seriously delinquent again, and another 13.6 percent were in foreclosure or have completed foreclosure. A recent Federal Reserve Bank of New York study points out that “modification is only worthwhile if it induces borrowers who would otherwise default to continue paying.” The report found that while both promoting affordability and reducing negative equity lower re-default rates, reducing negative equity impacts re-defaults to a much bigger degree: the authors estimated that “restoring the borrower’s incentive to pay [by writing down principal to current market value] nearly quadruples the reduction in re-default rates achieved by payment reductions through interest rate modifications and term extensions alone.” Additionally, negative equity could be exacerbating the unemployment rate: if an unemployed borrower gets a job offer in another state, but can’t sell his or her house because he or she owes more than it will sell for, he or she faces a significant barrier to accepting that new job. One study cited by the New York Fed found that borrowers in negative equity are one-third less mobile than borrowers with positive equity. As for the criticism that principal writedown is “wrong”? Well, figuring that out is above my pay grade, but there are ways to introduce costs for receiving a principal writedown to make it less desirable to borrowers who don’t really need it. One way would be to allow principal writedowns to happen in bankruptcy court . A borrower would still be able to keep his or her home and would have incentive to continue paying his or her mortgage, but would have to suffer the consequences of a bankruptcy on his or her credit report and pay significant costs to his or her debtors. In an editorial questioning “moral hazard fundamentalists,” Larry Summers pointed out that the fact that some people smoke in bed does not mean that we shouldn’t put out their fires. We don’t condemn the bed-smokers to suffer the consequences of their risky behavior because the fire can spread. If we want to stop the spread of strategic defaults caused by negative equity, principal writedowns are the most effective option. This post was coauthored by Katie Buitrago.

Read the full article →

Elise Lelon: The Career Epidemic: You Don’t Have to Choose Between Your Job and Your Health

April 10, 2011

Two years ago, shortly before she came to see me about some career challenges, Elizabeth, a physically-fit, happily married, mother of two, was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease. A high-achieving executive with an impressive 20-year track record in finance, Elizabeth has held a variety of senior positions including, at one time, CEO. During the onset of her symptoms, Elizabeth exceeded everyone’s expectations but became embroiled in a tough fight for a well-deserved promotion. Her request was denied despite her reliably stellar reviews. Medication and dietary changes have helped, but Elizabeth continues to work while saddled with exhaustion and pain, both daily realities of her disease. In 2009, with the 20% decline in Manhattan apartment prices and a significant slowdown in transaction volume, Marc, a top real estate agent at a premier firm, came to me for advice about how to reinvent his business. When we first met, he told me, “The game has changed. This housing market is in a downward spiral and I’ve got to re-think my strategy or else.” As the sales cycles got longer, and as clients got more gun-shy, Marc began having severe podiatric and orthopedic problems that literally prevented him from stepping his business forward, and would ultimately require surgery. Samantha, a superstar salesperson in a blue chip bank with over $1 trillion in assets under management, developed dental and oral problems from biting the inside of her mouth. This behavior began once the company she had been loyal to for over a decade became unstable following post-merger restructuring. And then, there is Matthew (whose name has been changed along with all the client names referenced above, to honor confidentiality). A spectacular entertainer who graced Broadway stages for years, Matthew now faces fewer audiences and paychecks thanks to the closed shows, lower ticket sales, and increased competition for work following Broadway’s bust in 2009. Re-located to a suburb of Los Angeles, he is struggling to raise four children on diminishing means. Matthew has developed such debilitating insomnia that there are nights when he considers taking his own life. As a whole, the clients who come to me for strategic career advice are healthy, extremely high functioning and successful professionals. But, in the last two-and-a-half years, a disproportionate number of them have struggled with physiological conditions. Research says that anxiety over job and income instability is partly to blame. Sheldon Cohen of Carnegie Mellon University, one of the leading researchers on the relationship between stress and disease, confirms that , under chronic stress, the immune system doesn’t defend as well as it should against challenges. According to Cohen, when exposed to a virus, people who are experiencing ongoing stress are more likely to get sick. More dramatic is the research suggesting that job loss takes 1-1.5 years off of your life . Two prominent economists, Daniel Sullivan of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and Till von Wachter of Columbia University, claim , “We were convincingly able to show that if you lose your job, you die earlier.” This is especially relevant data given a Gallup Poll that says 1 out of 5 employed Americans think they will lose their job in the next 12 months. If you do the math, that means about 26 million Americans will die at least a year earlier than they would have, had they kept their jobs. Even the lucky among us, who have jobs but worry about them constantly, are at risk. Sociologist, Sarah Burgard, of the University of Michigan has found that the consistent, nagging concern about losing one’s job is even more harmful to people’s health than job loss itself. Under the stress of job uncertainty, people smoke more, drink more and don’t sleep as much. Ultimately, they are more likely to develop stress-related health conditions such as hypertension or diabetes. Each year, hypertension kills 40,000 Americans, and high-blood-pressure-related illness claims an additional 200,000 lives. (Not to mention that having hypertension makes you 7 times more likely to have a stroke and 6 times more likely to have congestive heart failure.) According to the American Diabetes Association , 25.8 million Americans have diabetes and 5800 of them die from the disease each week. Clearly, genetic factors, environmental influences and lifestyle choices impact people’s physical health. But, the domino effect on America’s collective well-being caused by the recession, massive industry restructuring, and layoffs cannot be dismissed. While there are wide reaching public-policy implications of our country’s rampant career and income instability, that’s not a battle for this blog post. Instead, here are four practical ways to combat the stresses of your career: #1) Don’t Fixate on Fixing. Create. Sometimes, fixing your job is the wrong answer. Ming, an experienced technology professional, was constantly frustrated at her job. As much as she tried to influence the decisions of her senior management team, she was never the one making the decisions. For a born leader with strong entrepreneurial instincts, the lack of “juice in the job,” as she called it, chipped away at her self-esteem. To increase her impact, Ming began new initiatives and ran big projects, but ultimately the buck always stopped with someone else. The years of hoop jumping and fence mending were causing more anxiety than promotion potential. The fact was that no one above her was going anywhere. In our private weekly meetings together, Ming and I started repeating a mantra, ” Fixing is about history. Creating is about the future. ” She grew to be more proactive than reactive by tapping into her Rolodex and big idea bank. Ming is now the CEO of her own Internet company where, by the way, the buck sits squarely on her desk. You too can make the mind shift from broken to becoming. Focus on new opportunities rather than old problems. A good place to start is InMaps by LinkedIn . InMaps is an innovative way to see your entire professional network at a glance. In seconds, it builds an intricate web of all the contacts from your LinkedIn account and clusters them by color. You can name the groups according to the common theme that each cluster shares. For example, one cluster may be made up of friends from college, another grouping may consist of former colleagues at your previous employer or a national association to which you belong. The visual picture shows you the depth of each one of your micro networks as well as the breadth of your macro network. This is a great tool for brainstorming about ways to leverage the dense volume of people you already know in one industry, geography, company or social circle. Equally as important, InMaps allows you to identify where you’re “out of it.” While you may maintain solid contact with certain people, the fun part is to discover where you can build bridges with entirely new communities to broaden your professional universe. InMaps opens the career doors your current manager keeps slamming in your face and reminds you of your power to create a whole new pathway of possibility — with a little help from your friends. #2) Blame The Economy Research shows that stress is correlated with blows to your self-esteem. The more you internalize the reasons for your present job crisis, the more negative your health consequences may be. Stop beating yourself up, and look around. You’re not the only one out of a job, obsessed that you might be unemployed soon, or struggling to make ends meet. In fact, you’re in pretty good company. Along with the 13.7 million unemployed Americans reported in the Bureau of Labor Statics’ March 4th release, 84% of high-powered women and 40% of their male counterparts are considering leaving their current job. Whether you’re employed or not, uncertainty is part of the career condition right now. So ease up on the self-blame game. #3) Support Groups (Read before rolling your eyes.) Jack, one of my CEO clients, closes his office door at work whenever there is a crisis. At home, if he feels overwhelmed by family issues, he locks the study door and hangs a sign on the knob that says in French “Do Not Disturb”. The sign was a not so subtle and sadly appropriate trip souvenir gift from his high school age son. Everyone around Jack gets the message loud and clear. His strategy for survival when the going gets tough is to shut the world out. But science indicates that social relationships, more than any other factor, are the key to health and happiness. Dr. John Cacioppo, from The University of Chicago, has found that isolation is bad for our health. In fact, chronic loneliness is associated with many mental and physical disorders including heart disease, diabetes, dementia and depression. In the event that you’re one of the 27 million Americans living alone, it’s especially important that you get off your couch and make contact with the human race. Join your local chapter of BNI where you can pitch other people over breakfast on your skill sets, business services, and make new contacts. As they say, start “gaining from giving.” #4) Mindfulness Meditation Meditation is the best way I know to let go of what is and what isn’t. It settles you into the truth. By tuning into the present moment, your body and your breath, you become an impartial witness to your own experience. Like the welcome change of scenery a vacation provides, meditation gives you distance from your everyday frustrations, on command . It loosens your grip around that gnawing sense of dissatisfaction so many of us live with — what Buddhists refer to as “Dukkha,” a primary cause of human suffering. In my own life and in the lives of my clients, I have observed the transformative power of meditation. Ironically, busy clients who associate stillness with failure and futility benefit the most from learning to meditate. For some people, life spent sprinting on a treadmill with no off button feels far safer than a few minutes sitting in silence. The goal for them is always the same: more. This cycle of craving — endemic to our culture — drives many people to fill voids constantly in their jobs and lives. Unfortunately, spending so much energy filling what’s not there usually causes people to miss what is . If that sounds too abstract, imagine this. You’re driving at a good clip along Highway 1 in breathtaking Big Sur, California. As you steer, you try to take in the view through the car window that is moving past everything at 60 miles per hour. There’s so much to see, but you’re moving too fast. You take your eyes off the raw beauty around you and just focus on the road. You might think you’re driving that car, but it turns out the car is really driving you. Clients often tell me that they can’t take time off or cut back on their work schedules because there’s too much to do. Sometimes, it takes actually getting sick for them to figure out that when you can’t stop, you can’t really see. After all, that’s what lookout points on the side of the road are for — a spot to stop and take it all in. Meditation gives you that reason to pause, a lookout point. Eventually, with a regular meditation practice, an awesome sense of emptiness replaces the craving for more. Much to your surprise, with nothing but your own mind and breath, you might just find that is enough. Need to press pause? Set an alarm for 3 minutes, sit quietly in an undisturbed place, and close your eyes. Focus only on your breath going in and out. If your mind wanders, bring it back gently, and re-attend to your breathing until your alarm rings. Try it every day for a week, adding a few minutes when it becomes more comfortable. To learn more about meditation and its healing potential, read Jon Kabat-Zinn ‘s book, Full Catastrophe Living , or check out some mindfulness meditation tips, CDs and resources at MindfulnessTapes . Clearly, there is a paradox to this current career crisis. In order to make a healthy livelihood, you need to make sure your job or joblessness doesn’t suck the life out of you. As the four strategies outlined above show, this requires that you do both internal and external work. Yes, it’s important to dive deep inside yourself to create exciting new possibilities, strong self-esteem and inner peace. But, connect that inspired internal effort with other people and communities, both on-line and face-to-face. Regardless of our global economic concerns, the world needs your contribution. It’s up to you to take care of yourself so that you can first determine what your unique path of contribution is, and then start paving it like your life depends on it.

Read the full article →

What Happened To Entrepreneurship During The Recession?

April 5, 2011

They were among the recession’s most inspiring stories: laid-off workers who went on to start their own businesses rather than dropping out of the labor force or crawling back to corporate America. But a recent analysis of Census data calls into question the popular belief that the financial crisis spurred American entrepreneurship. Instead, entrepreneurial activity took a nosedive during the downturn, according to a new paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. The new report challenges another study that used identical Census data. According to a widely-circulated study by the Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City-based entrepreneurship advocacy group, new business creation spiked during the recession. Released last May, the study found the monthly rate of people transitioning into self-employment steadily rose from late 2007 to a 14-year high in 2009 . “Kauffman’s findings give only half the picture,” says Scott Shane, the new paper’s author and entrepreneurship professor at Case Western Reserve University. “Sure, the number of Americans who became self-employed grew. But that number was dwarfed by the amount of US entrepreneurs whose businesses failed during the recession, and who were forced to exit self-employment.” As a result, the total number of self-employed Americans shrank to 9.8 million in June 2009 from 10.2 million in November 2007, Census data show. All told, 68,490 more businesses closed in 2009 than in 2007, an 11.6 percent increase in the business closure rate. “If you have more people giving up than going in, I can’t see how entrepreneurship went up,” says Shane. The main point of contention between the two reports is which measure does a better job of capturing entrepreneurial activity: the net change in the total number of self-employed workers or the rate by which people become self-employed. One thing both studies can agree on is that the majority of the businesses formed during the recession are not hiring employees in the short term. But Dane Stangler, research manager at Kauffman, is bullish over the long term. Even though they have not yet hired an employee, “non-employer firms started during the most recent recession will become the employer firms of the next decade,” Stangler says. So will the hoards of new businesses created since the downturn began — many of which still don’t employ workers — boost the economy? Even though only three percent of new businesses created without employees eventually evolve into businesses with employees, a 2007 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that those three percent made up over a fourth of “young businesses,” or companies under three years old with employees. That three percent also accounted for 20 percent of the revenue generated by young businesses. And relatively young businesses — not small businesses — are the biggest engines of job growth, according to Census economists . ‪If these trends are still valid in the post-recession economy, then Kauffman may have been right to focus on the flow of entrepreneurs into the economy during the recession, rather than the total stock.‬

Read the full article →

Federal Reserve Lent To Gaddafi-Owned Bank

April 1, 2011

At a time when credit markets shunned even the most worthy borrowers, foreign banks, including one partly-owned by Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, fled to the Federal Reserve and borrowed at rock-bottom interest rates, Fed documents released Thursday show. During the height of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, as investors and firms hoarded cash, the Fed reduced its rates to kickstart lending in the broader economy. Arab Banking Corp., a $28 billion lender now 59 percent-owned by Libya’s central bank, borrowed at least $3.2 billion during this time. The Fed charged it an interest rate ranging from 2.25 percent to as low as 1.25 percent on those borrowings, regular Fed data show. AAA-rated corporations paid bondholders an average rate ranging from 5.63 percent to 6.37 percent during the same period, according to the Fed. The Fed lends money to banks at cheaper rates than the market because it intends for those funds to be distributed throughout the economy. The primary facility, known as the discount window, has been in practice since 1914. Arab Banking Corp., which can borrow from the Fed because it has a subsidiary in the U.S., was among the foreign banks that had difficulty accessing cash from other lenders during that time, leaving it to turn to America’s central bank. Records show the Libyan bank borrowed its funds beginning on September 18, 2008 and lasting through at least November 13 of the same year. The daily high point came on three separate occasions in October and November, when the lender tapped the discount window for $600 million. Beginning Oct. 8, those loans were available at a 1.75 percent interest rate. A few weeks later, the rate dropped to 1.25 percent. These disclosures and more were buried in nearly 30,000 pages spread across almost 900 computer files that the Fed released to reporters under court order in response to lawsuits launched nearly three years ago by Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, and Fox Business Network, the financial news television channel of Fox News. The Fed had fought against disclosing data surrounding its activities during the financial crisis. After President Barack Obama signed his financial reform package into law last July, calling for the nation’s central bank to release documents on most of its lending programs, a coalition of the nation’s largest financial institutions took the Fed’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to keep the records hidden. The high court declined to hear the case, and in December, the Fed released critical details on its emergency crisis-era programs. For the first time it revealed the identities of the banks, investment firms, insurance companies, automakers, corporations, and other borrowers it flooded with more than $3 trillion in taxpayer-backed cash. But it took federal courts and two determined news organizations to force the public release of the Fed’s discount-window activities during the same time. On Thursday, the Fed finally disclosed such information. Now, for the first time, the public can see which banks, from the smallest community lender to the largest Wall Street bank, accessed the backstop at their regional Federal Reserve bank during the worst financial emergency since the Great Depression. The loans are far more generous than what banks get from the market. Trillion-dollar financial behemoths like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup accessed cheap Fed cash through the discount window, as did smaller firms like Proficio Bank, a Utah lender with just $125 million in deposits. After changing its legal status from an investment firm to a bank, Goldman Sachs also benefited from the Fed’s discount window. A top Goldman executive had previously testified under oath to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that it accessed the program simply to test its systems. In September 2008 — the month that saw the federal government takeover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the failure of Lehman Brothers, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history; the forced-sale of Washington Mutual, the largest bank failure in U.S. history; and a government rescue of AIG, the world’s largest insurer — the Fed lent borrowers $1,574,142,741,934 through its discount window and emergency programs, documents show. During the same period, 22 foreign-based banks borrowed $56.6 billion on 42 separate occasions from the Fed’s discount window, according to a Huffington Post analysis of Fed documents. The disclosures led Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, to write Fed chairman Ben Bernanke asking why the central bank lent U.S. funds to foreign firms. Sanders wrote that he had “serious concerns” in particular over the Fed’s lending to Arab Banking Corp., the Libya-owned lender. The Federal Reserve did not respond to a request for comment. William Alden contributed to this report. ************************* Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail ; bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed ; follow him on Twitter ; friend him on Facebook ; become a fan ; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 917-267-2335.

Read the full article →

Federal Reserve Unlikely To Extend Quantitative Easing, Top Officials Say

March 25, 2011

NEW YORK, March 25 – With the economy on firmer footing the Federal Reserve Bank is unlikely to extend its bond-buying stimulus program beyond a planned $600 billion, several top Fed officials said on Friday. Members of the more hawkish wing of the Fed went further, with Philadelphia Fed Bank President Charles Plosser saying the U.S. central bank will have to reverse its easy money policy in the “not-too-distant future” to avoid sowing the seeds of inflation. The Fed has kept short-term rates near zero since December 2008 and has bought more than $2 trillion in long-term securities to push borrowing costs down further and boost recovery from the 2007-2009 recession. At its most recent policy-setting meeting, policymakers voted to continue the bond-buying program begun last November and slated to end in June. “Following through on that to the tune of $600 billion, like we’ve said, I think is appropriate,” Chicago Fed President Evans told reporters at the regional bank’s headquarters. “I personally don’t see as many needs for a further amount, as I probably thought last fall.” Evans comments, along with those of Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart who said on Friday that “it’s a high bar” for the Fed to do more, suggest the debate at the Fed has moved away from a consideration of further easing. “Given the pressure, from the hawks on the Federal Open Market Committee, the public, Congress, and foreign officials, I would highly doubt Evans would say something like that if Chairman Ben Bernanke, New York Fed President William Dudley, and Fed Vice Chair Janet Yellen didn’t agree with him,” said Eric Stein, a fund manager at Eaton Vance in Boston. Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota told reporters in Marseilles that the U.S. economy would need to worsen “materially” for the bank to consider further bond-buying. Plosser and fellow hawk Dallas Fed Fisher continue to press for the Fed to do less. Fisher, speaking in Brussels Friday, said the Fed has done enough and may even have done too much. Speaking in New York, Plosser said consumer spending continues to expand at a “reasonably robust pace,” and the labor market is improving. The overall economy, he said, has gained “significant strength and momentum” since the summer. “If this forecast is broadly accurate, then monetary policy will have to reverse course in the not-too-distant future and begin to remove the massive amount of accommodation it has supplied to the economy,” said Plosser, one of the central bank’s biggest inflation hawks. “Failure to do so in a timely manner could have serious consequences for inflation and economic stability in the future,” said Plosser, a voter on the Fed’s policy-setting committee this year. Plosser outlined his preferred strategy for eventually tightening policy. He said he would like to raise interest rates and reduce the Fed’s balance sheet — which ballooned to more than $2 trillion during the crisis — at the same time. “My proposed strategy involves raising rates and shrinking the balance sheet concurrently and tying the pace of asset sales to the pace and size of interest rate increases,” Plosser said. “By tying sales to interest rate decisions, it allows the process for selling assets to be conditional on economic outcomes in ways that are familiar to market participants,” he said. Evans, who like Plosser has a vote on the policy-setting committee this year, suggested that the Fed would not quickly move to tighten its extraordinarily loose monetary policy, and would likely try to keep its balance sheet steady once active bond-buying stopped. That would require the Fed to continue to reinvest proceeds of maturing securities in new purchases, as it has been done for some months now. “It is natural to expect there would be some period of time between when the $600 billion is completed and an assessment in the change of the trajectory,” he said. After a period of what could be some months, he said, the Fed could stop reinvestments, a “modest step” toward tightening that probably not be followed quickly by other steps unless the economy was outpacing expectations. Evans and Plosser both said the earthquake and nuclear crisis in Japan and the rise in oil prices because of turmoil in the Middle East pose a risk to the U.S. recovery — but said he expected this risk to be small and short-term. (Reporting by Kristina Cooke, Edith Honan in New York, Ann Saphir in Chicago, Pedro Nicolai da Costa in Ft. Myers, Fla., Philip Blenkinsop in Brussels, Editing by Padraic Cassidy and Andrew Hay) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

How Unemployment Is Dragging Down The Housing Market

March 25, 2011

Although the United States population has grown by 120 million people in the past fifty-odd years, today’s new homes are selling at just half the pace they were in 1963. Home sales are being dragged down by the weakness of the labor market and the number of Americans who have grown too discouraged to look for work, economists say. In previous recoveries, the housing market has sometimes buoyed the economy, creating new jobs and driving economic growth. This time, however, the housing market is now lagging behind. Over at Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, a new chart helps bring employment into the housing story by comparing the ratio of annual new home sales to the size of the civilian labor force. See the chart below. The point is simple: while the working age population is steadily rising, the size of the labor force is actually shrinking. And those Americans who have grown so discouraged that they have given up looking for work — around 4.9 million as of last month — are unlikely to be in the market for a house. With construction for new homes all but coming to a halt in February, Americans are on track to buy fewer new homes than in any year since the government began keeping data almost a half-century ago. Mish lays out the problems, as he sees it: • Those not in the labor force are not looking • Those unemployed are not looking • Those afraid of losing their job are not looking • Those in a house and underwater are not looking • Those just out of school and deep in school debt are not looking • Those facing retirement may be looking to sell or downsize • Mortgage standards are much tighter for those who are looking Economists, however, are hard pressed to tie down the exact relationship between a slumping housing market and a weak labor market. “It’s very hard to zero-in in that way,” said Bank of America-Merrill Lynch economist Michelle Meyer. “But one of the major components for why housing demand has remained very soft is because the labor market is very weak. And until we see that really changing, housing sales will continue to be soft.” The more significant problem, for Meyer, is how these two factors taken together — housing and unemployment — indicate an economy still in trouble. “When you think about new home sales, and housing specifically, that obviously ties to what share of Americans are participating in the labor force,” Meyer said. “But you can’t really say that because the labor force shrunk by X amount there is this many fewer homes needed. To me, it’s more of a signal that the fact that the labor force is weak. And that at this point in the recovery, people are still leaving the labor force — that signals to me that the fundamentals are soft.” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that it will likely take five years for the unemployment rate to return to pre-recession levels, while a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that the unemployment rate, now hovering around 9 percent, may never return to pre-recession levels. Here is the chart from Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, comparing annualized new home sales to the civilian labor force ratio, year over year. (Click image for more detail). More graphs over at Mish’s can be found here .

Read the full article →

Video: Brusuelas Says Hoenig Exit to Alter Fed `Hawk-Dove’ Balance

March 25, 2011

March 25 (Bloomberg) — Bloomberg economist Joseph Brusuelas discusses the outlook for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s search to replace President Thomas Hoenig, who is retiring Oct. 1. Hoenig, the U.S. central bank’s longest-serving policy maker, is required under internal Fed rules to retire at 65, an age he will reach in September. Brusuelas speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Joseph Brusuelas is a Bloomberg economist. The opinions expressed are his own. Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Fed Official: High Unemployment Isn’t Inevitable After Bubbles Collapse

March 25, 2011

The collapse of an asset bubble will not necessarily lead to higher unemployment as long as monetary policy is loose enough, a top Federal Reserve Bank official said on Friday. But a central bank that has already lowered interest rates to zero may be unable to deliver adequately accommodative policy, and unemployment may rise, Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President Narayana Kocherlakota said in prepared remarks for delivery at an academic conference in Marseilles. Kocherlakota touched neither upon the U.S. economic outlook nor current monetary policy in his speech. An unusually strong disclaimer, he said his paper was only meant to explore a new economic model and contains “no information about my own thinking about current policy.” Since December 2008, the U.S. central bank has kept short-term interest rates near zero and has bought about $2 trillion in mortgage- and U.S.-government-backed debt to lower borrowing rates still further. But that has not been enough to bring down persistently high unemployment, which in February registered 8.9 percent. Meanwhile, median U.S. home prices — which soared before the crisis hit — sank to the lowest since December 2003. “The collapse of a bubble need have no impact on the economy, as long as the central bank lowers r* sufficiently,” he wrote, using economists’ shorthand for the real interest rate. “With insufficiently accommodative monetary policy (generated perhaps by the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates), the bubble collapse can lead to increases in unemployment.” In one of the paper’s more surprising claims, Kocherlakota suggested that extending unemployment benefits — sometimes seen as adding to the jobless rate because it can discourage those receiving benefits from actively seeking jobs — actually reduces it. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

SF Fed Blames Business Cycle For High Unemployment

March 21, 2011

(Reuters) – The current high rate of unemployment in the United States is primarily due to cyclical factors, not structural changes in the economy, according to researchers at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. The study runs counter to worries among some top Fed policymakers that undesirable upward pressure on wages, and thus inflation, could kick in even when unemployment remains relatively high — a situation that could have implications for U.S. monetary policy. According to the research, recent college graduates are finding it just as hard to get work as other job seekers. Since college grads are among the best educated and most mobile in the labor force, their difficulty finding jobs suggests that it is labor market weakness as a whole, rather than mismatches between workers’ skills and employees’ needs, that is keeping would-be workers from getting jobs, the researchers said. Recent college grads are also unlikely to be motivated by the extension of unemployment insurance, often cited as a reason for the elevated unemployment rate in the labor force as a whole. “The current unemployment rate trends are reminiscent of the 2001 recession and the subsequent jobless recovery that continued through 2004,” research advisor Bart Hobijn and research associates Colin Gardiner and Theodore Wiles said in the bank’s latest Economic Letter. “This holds for both the overall unemployment rate and for those of recent college graduates, suggesting that structural factors are not quantitatively important in driving the overall unemployment rate, just as they were largely irrelevant after the 2001 recession,” they wrote. Some U.S. central bank officials, including Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, have suggested that structural shifts in the economy since the Great Recession have pushed up the new “normal” for joblessness. A higher norm for U.S. unemployment means upward pressures on wages could start to build even when the jobless rate is quite high by historical standards. The San Francisco Fed research suggests that such concerns are remote. “Given the current weak labor market, we expect the labor market outcomes of the recent college graduate cohort to remain depressed well into the future,” the researchers said. From the San Francisco Federal Reserve report: (Reporting by Ann Saphir; Editing by Andrew Hay) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Credit Card Debt Is Falling, But Only Because Of Defaults, Report Says

March 20, 2011

Credit card debt fell last year only because of consumer defaults and bank write-offs, a new study argues. In 2010, U.S. credit card debt dropped to the lowest level in eight years , according to credit reporting agency TransUnion. But there is more evidence Americans may have taken on more credit card debt than they paid off. A study by Cardhub.com of Federal Reserve data found that last year, while banks wrote off a total of $75 billion in credit card debt, the level of the debt only declined by around $67 billion. This, according to Cardhub, suggests that the “entire decrease [in overall debt] is the direct result of Americans defaulting on their debt.” “The widely-held belief is that consumers have been paying down debt,” said Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub.com. But, he said, as the pressures of the recession eased for some and consumer confidence improved , so did spending . Last year, for the first time since 2008, figures from the Federal Reserve also showed showed Americans accumulating more debt. Some economists insist, despite the wave of defaults and write-offs, many Americans are more wary of paying with plastic. “Charge-offs are part of the picture, there’s no doubt about that” said Gregory Daco, economist at IHS Global Insight. “But there has been a change in attitudes to credit, and paying it off,” he added, quoting a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which found the way people used credit cards had changed significantly. “A lot of people are taking on less debt and paying off existing balances,” Daco added. Many Americans spent beyond their means in the lead-up to the financial crisis tapping the rising value of homes, stock portfolios and east credit. As the recession deepened and unemployment grew, millions of Americans found themselves struggling to pay off their balances. In 2009, as the recession was ending, consumers paid off $10 billion in debt.

Read the full article →

NY Fed Decides To Intervene In Currency Markets

March 18, 2011

WASHINGTON — The New York Federal Reserve Bank confirmed that it intervened in currency markets on Friday for the first time in more than a decade. The disclosure came a day after the Group of Seven major industrialized nations pledged in a statement to join in a coordinated effort to weaken the Japanese yen. The yen has surged in the last week to post-war record levels following the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. A spokesman at the New York Fed, which operates as the agent of the U.S. Treasury in currency operations, confirmed that it had intervened. The last time the U.S. government intervened in currency markets was the fall of 2000 when it sold dollars and bought euros to bolster the fledgling European currency. The spokesman refused to provide any details on the amounts of the intervention or what currencies were involved. A stronger yen threatened to deal another blow to the fragile Japanese economy by depressing the country’s exports. In morning trading in New York on Friday, a dollar was buying 81.30 yen, up from 79.05 yen late Thursday and moving off its postwar low of 76.32 yen hit on Wednesday. Before the earthquake struck, one dollar bought 83.02 yen.

Read the full article →

Are Farmland Values Growing Overly Ripe?

March 17, 2011

With booming farm income and robust demand for farmland, property values for agricultural land soared in the fourth quarter of 2010, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s Survey of Agricultural Credit Conditions. Agricultural commodity prices surged in late 2010, boosting farm income, especially for crop and cattle producers. The burgeoning farm profits accelerated cropland and ranchland value gains in the Federal Reserve’s seven…

Read the full article →

Video: Broaddus Says Fed Remarks on Commodity Prices `Striking’

March 15, 2011

March 15 (Bloomberg) — Former Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President Alfred Broaddus talks about today’s Federal Open Market Committee statement that the U.S. economic recovery is gaining strength and higher energy prices will have a temporary effect on inflation. Broaddus, speaking with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart,” also discusses the Fed’s asset purchase program and the outlook for monetary policy. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Federal Reserve Meets As Economic Risks Widen

March 15, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve meets Tuesday at a time of widening economic risks: higher oil and food prices; unemployment near 9 percent; crises in the Middle East and Japan. Threats at home and abroad have the potential to slow the U.S. economy, or heat up inflation. Or both. Chairman Ben Bernanke and his Federal Reserve colleagues will debate those risks at Tuesday’s session. At the top of their agenda is whether to make any changes to the Fed’s $600 billion Treasury bond-purchase program, which is set to expire at the end of June. The bond purchases are intended to help the economy by keeping long-term interest rates down, encouraging spending and driving up stock prices. Economists think the Fed will agree Tuesday to maintain the pace and size of the bond purchases. But the risks the economy is facing will likely complicate Bernanke’s efforts to forge consensus. “Bernanke is walking a tightrope,” said Victor Li, associate professor of economics at Villanova School of Business The Fed chief and a majority of his colleagues argue that the economy still needs support from the bond purchases, especially with unemployment still high and home prices in many areas depressed. But a vocal minority on the Fed has raised concerns that the bond purchases, combined with higher prices for food, fuel and other commodities, will spread inflation through the economy. They also say they worry that the purchases could feed speculative buying that could inflate new bubbles in the prices of stocks or other assets. Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, has said he may push for an early end to the bond-buying program. And Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, has said he might push to scale back the bond purchases. A contentious debate is expected Tuesday. If, as expected, Bernanke prevails and the Fed decides to keep the bond-buying program intact, Plosser and Fisher might dissent. There’s a slight chance that Bernanke could craft a compromise. That could involve slowing down the bond purchases by extending the program’s end date to September. The total size of the program, however, would stay the same. “This modest alteration in the large-scale asset program could be seen as a positive by both the doves and the hawks,” said economist Steven Ricchiuto at Mizuho Securities. However, Ricchiuto and many other economists think it’s more likely that the Fed won’t make any changes to the bond-purchase program. With reputations as inflation “hawks,” Plosser and Fisher are more concerned about rising inflation, than about stimulating the economy and lowering unemployment. Bernanke and other “doves” are more concerned about stimulating the economy and reducing unemployment. Upheaval in the Middle East has sent oil and gasoline prices up. A sustained run-up in those prices could cause Americans to reduce spending on other items and slow the economy. Bernanke has predicted that rising oil prices will cause only a brief and slight rise in consumer inflation. But he’s warned that any prolonged surge in oil prices would pose a danger to the recovery. Other potential risks have emerged, from a slowdown in U.S. growth to renewed worries about Europe’s debt problems to economic effects from the earthquake and nuclear crisis in Japan. When the Fed last met in late January, optimism about the U.S. recovery was rising. Fed officials predicted the economy would grow at a faster pace this year – between 3.4 percent and 3.9 percent. Even so, unemployment would stay elevated – at best dropping only to 7.7 percent by the end of 2012. Fortified by tax cuts, Americans are spending more. Retail sales grew strongly in February, marking the eight straight monthly increase. Businesses are hiring more. The unemployment rate has fallen nearly a full percentage point in just three months – the sharpest drop in a generation. Still, some economists are now lowering their forecasts for growth in the first three months of this year because they think high energy prices will slow consumer spending. JPMorgan Chase now predicts growth in the January-March quarter of just 2.5 percent, down from 3.5 percent. Once the recovery is more firmly cemented, the Fed will start boosting interest rates and taking other steps to soak up the money it pumped into the economy during the financial crisis and recession. Many economists think it will start raising rates early next year. Others think it will be at the end of 2012. The central bank’s key interest rate has been at a record low near zero since December 2008. An increase in that rate would boost lending rates charged to consumers. These include rates on certain credit cards, home equity loans and some adjustable-rate mortgages.

Read the full article →

AIG Offers To Buy Back Mortgage Securities From Fed

March 11, 2011

(Reuters) – American International Group (AIG.N) offered on Thursday to buy back, for $15.7 billion cash, mortgage-backed securities the U.S. government took off the bailed-out insurer’s hands during the financial crisis. The announcement came as a surprise, though AIG — which nearly collapsed in the fall of 2008 partly because of the securities — said in a regulatory filing it has been preparing to make the offer for at least a year. The company said it has set aside the cash to pay for the deal and will still have “strong liquidity reserves” after it closes. AIG will pay for the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) with cash from its insurance subsidiaries, which will then hold the securities in their investment portfolios, a person familiar with the situation said on condition of anonymity. AIG and the Fed have been in talks for “many months” about the deal, the person said. Given the insurance units’ needs to invest their capital, the source said the RMBS were an “attractive investment” at their current levels. The securities have actually increased in value since, giving AIG the opportunity to profitably pay back the government and regain them for its own portfolios. The source said AIG is hopeful the Fed will accept the offer soon, and that the company will have the cash to fund the offer ready as soon as next week. REDUCING AID AIG, which is 92 percent owned by the government, said the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will make a profit of about $1.5 billion on its residual equity interest in Maiden Lane II, the entity that holds the securities, if it accepts the offer. AIG said in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that the total outstanding assistance to it will be reduced by about $13 billion, to some $26 billion in total, if its offer is accepted. That $26 billion figure has three parts: the government’s interest in a vehicle that holds shares in insurer AIA Group (1299.HK), a different Maiden Lane vehicle that holds interests in collateralized debt obligations and an undrawn line of credit. Maiden Lane II was formed in December 2008 and took over about $20.5 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities in a bid to ease liquidity pressure on AIG due to its securities lending program. “At the proposed purchase price, the Maiden Lane II securities have an attractive risk/return profile to AIG,” the company said in its offer letter. The source said AIG would split the securities roughly proportionally between life insurer SunAmerica and property insurer Chartis. AIG shares rose to $37.45 in after-hours trading from a $36.48 close. At current levels, the Treasury stands to make a profit of nearly $13 billion on AIG shares. People familiar with the plans have said the Treasury is likely to start selling off its stake in May. The source said Thursday that the Fed deal would help AIG convince potential investors that its insurance businesses had solid opportunities to grow their investment income. (Additional reporting by Paritosh Bansal; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Gary Hill) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Fed Officials: We Must ‘Remain Vigilant’ Against Inflation

March 3, 2011

ST. CLOUD, Minnesota (Reuters) – The Federal Reserve Bank should continue to flood the economy with cheap money to fight high unemployment, but policymakers must stay on watch for signs of inflation, two top Fed officials said on Thursday. Political upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East has driven oil prices up sharply, with U.S. crude oil futures surpassing $100 a barrel this week. That has sparked fears of inflation, particularly given the Fed’s unprecedented stimulus to the economy, including $2.3 billion worth of government and mortgage bond purchases due to be completed in June. “We must remain vigilant in looking for any uptick in broad-based inflation that could unanchor long-term expectations,” Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart told the Economic Club of Florida. So far, he said, inflation remains significantly below the Fed’s presumed comfort range of 2.0 percent or lower. At the same time, unemployment remains far too high and the economic recovery still needs plenty of help from the Fed, Lockhart said. Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, speaking at the aptly named “Winter Institute” economics conference at St. Cloud State University, agreed. “It is appropriate for monetary policy to be highly accommodative,” Kocherlakota said. As long as inflation continues to decline, monetary policy will be an effective tool to fight unemployment, said Kocherlakota. But Fed officials must be vigilant on any changes to that equation. “By responding to the rate of inflation, responding to changes in the rate of inflation, that’s the best way for monetary policy to be helping the economy,” he said. Kocherlakota said he would be keeping an eagle eye on core inflation. Some Fed officials have argued that recent stronger economic data means the Fed should consider cutting short its current $600 billion bond-buying program. But officials’ comments today reflect the core view of the policy-setting committee, which next meets on March 15. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on Wednesday said that a failure to bring down unemployment could imperil the recovery, suggesting he is not inclined to shift policy any time soon. European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet signaled he may raise interest rates next month to head off rising inflation. That was far earlier than markets expected, and puts the ECB in the pole position to hike rates well before the U.S. and even the Bank of England. UNEMPLOYMENT Economists polled by Reuters expect the jobless rate to rise to 9.1 percent in February from 9.0 percent, following two months of sharp declines. They also believe 185,000 new jobs were created, up sharply from January’s paltry 36,000. The Labor Department will release its closely watched employment report on Friday. Lockhart flagged the problem of long-term unemployment as one of the greatest challenges facing the country. “The recovery has brought little relief to the labor market,” Lockhart said. He said only part of the recent spike in joblessness was due to structural factors that are beyond the reach of policymakers. “Monetary policy can contribute, but it shouldn’t be expected to eliminate all the factors holding back employment growth,” Lockhart said. Still, he saw some signs of hope in the data. “The pace of job growth is picking up. Also, the large volume of announced layoffs … has declined,” he said. Applications for first-time jobless benefits fell in the latest week to their lowest level in 2-1/2 years, adding further evidence of an employment sector that is beginning to heal, albeit very slowly. (Reporting by Ann Saphir in St. Cloud and Pedro Nicolaci da Costa in Tallahassee, Fla) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

David Paul: While Washington Turns to 2012, Ben Bernanke Is Still Focused on 2008

February 28, 2011

Each time Ben Bernanke testifies before Congress, his job gets more difficult. Firmly ensconced between a rock and a hard place, Bernanke must defend the drastic measures he is taking as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank to support the economic recovery, all the while denying any extreme concerns that he might have, lest his words spook the bond markets and exacerbate the problems that are his to tackle. But the extreme nature of current Fed actions — the quantitative easing strategy that essentially constitutes printing money to buy long-term bonds in an effort both to reduce long-term rates and flood the economy with liquidity — betray the depth of Bernanke’s concern. Looking back at a his seminal speech in 2002 — when Bernanke laid out the extraordinary steps available to some future Fed chairman that would assure that Japan-style deflation could never happen here — one can read the full array of strategies Bernanke has now employed. However circumspect and positive he tries to be in his public commentary, his are the actions of one who believes the risks of falling back into recession, and ultimately into a deflationary spiral, are real indeed. And he is not alone. The recently released minutes of the late January meeting of the Federal Reserve Bank Board of Governors indicate unanimous support for continuing the Fed’s QE2 strategy. Buried in the elliptical government-speak of the staff reports is the list of contingencies that the Fed Governors fear may yet drag the U.S. economy down into a deflationary spiral: Deepening financial market disarray in Europe; layoffs by stressed state and local governments; downside risks in housing prices; reversal of improving consumer sentiment; and slow job growth. And since that meeting, turmoil in the Middle East has spiked oil prices upward. Congress, on the other hand, has largely moved on from the 2008 crisis. While Bernanke continues to warn of the risks of moving too quickly or too soon to reduce federal deficits, his words by and large are falling on deaf ears. Bernanke, a Republican Fed Chairman appointed by a Republican President, is now widely derided by new House leaders and their supporters who are in thrall of the Austrian school of economics that rejects both Keynesian theorists on the left and Monetarists on the right. Harsher still have been the attacks from the international community. In the early months of the financial crisis, the Fed emerged as the world’s central bank, providing liquidity for U.S. and foreign banks alike to stem systemic failure. However, as the fear and panic receded into memory, protests escalated as the Fed expanded its efforts late last year. Bernanke, foreign leaders complained, was seeking to drive down the value of the dollar. He was seeking to build U.S. exports at the expense of other nations. He was seeking to export inflation and poverty. Most shrill in its criticism was China, whose leaders and media decried Bernanke’s efforts and demanded that the Fed renounce its policies and strengthen the dollar. Yet, for all of those nations there was something far greater at stake, something that seemed to have been lost in all the noise: All of those nations — and none more so than China — depend on the strength and resilience of the United States economy for their own economic growth, and they have much to lose should the U.S. recovery fail. Instead of cries of indignation, some degree of introspection and patience should have been warranted from those foreign leaders as they consider what the future might hold should Bernanke fail. But patience and introspection are commodities in short supply these days. Few in the United States seem to recall the turmoil in late 2008, when Hank Paulson begged Congress to act to save the financial system. Few seem to recall how the voices across the political spectrum and commentariat fell silent in the face of real and palpable fear of broad based economic collapse. The cavalier protests that Bernanke confronts these days are evidence of how quickly success in forestalling a greater crisis has engendered collective amnesia regarding that national near-death experience. And the arrogant retorts from China strikes a similar cord. Despite the recent fanfare of China’s economy surpassing Japan in size, it remains a relatively poor country — on a per capita basis it is barely in the top 100 nations, sitting at 93 between Bosnia and El Savador according to IMF data. And the depth of China’s dependence on the U.S. consumer was laid bare following the 2008 collapse, as factories shut down and protesters quickly turned on the Communist regime, quieted only by an immediate and massive public works program. Nowhere in the public declarations of Chinese leaders is the acknowledgment, the appreciation or the humility that might come with the recognition that without open access to the U.S. market, China has no path to becoming Japan, and the Communist Party will be hard pressed to keep its hold on power. Chinese leaders are quick to point to the excesses of U.S. consumerism — too much debt and too little savings — ignoring the paradox of their own dependence on that consumer excess. Nowhere too is there any recognition of the unsustainability of the status quo . While the global financial collapse was precipitated by a housing asset bubble problems across the financial sector, it masked an accelerating problem at the center of the U.S. economy — the continuing erosion of the manufacturing sector that, for all the talk of the migration to a service economy, remains essential to sustaining the U.S. middle class wealth. In the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, the U.S. manufacturing sector was in free fall, illustrated here in Federal Reserve data. The long run decline of the U.S. manufacturing economy was not news. The percent of the workforce employed in manufacturing declined steadily by decade — from 24% in 1970 to 21% in 1980 to 17% in 1990 to 14% in 2000–and this decline contributed directly to the lack of real wage growth for the middle quintile of the U.S. workforce over the past three decades. However, despite these percentage declines, the actual number of workers employed in manufacturing was remarkably stable, declining only slightly from 19.2 million to 18.5 million from 1970 to 2000. In contrast, since 2000 manufacturing employment plummeted, as approximately 6 million jobs were lost by 2009, a decline of 33%. The difference was China. Since 1970, U.S. manufacturers faced global competition from Germany and Japan to Singapore and Korea. Worker productivity steadily increased, as did manufacturing quality. Nonetheless, while the U.S. had negative trade balances with those countries that built their own economies through access to the U.S. market, by and large those trade balances remained manageable. Trade with China has been another story, however. With a deep labor pool of very low cost labor and abundant capital provided through trade surpluses, the Chinese economy has grown steadily and driven manufacturing costs toward zero. Over the course of the past decade, trade with China eroded the U.S. manufacturing base. As illustrated here, as 6 million jobs were lost over the past decade, U.S. manufacturing income declined by 17% in real terms and imported Chinese goods grew in value from 6% to 20% of U.S. manufacturing income. Perhaps most notable in this graph is the increase in the Chinese share of the total U.S. manufacturing trade deficit, which grew to 45%, or more than doubling, over the decade. For other countries that rely on free access to the U.S. market for their own economic development, this essentially meant that China, a relative new-comer to free trade, was rapidly squeezing out the rest of the world in the most important global market. Central to China’s economic development strategy has been to peg the value of the renminbi to the dollar, and to carefully manage changes over time. Since the beginning of the Fed’s quantitative easing, the dollar has declined in value against the currency of the U.S.’s major trading partners, while the Chinese government has continued to resist pressure to open its currency to market forces. Slowly, international opposition to Benanke’s policy has moderated, as other nations — Brazil most recently — have come to recognize that Bernanke’s fight is not with them, but with a Chinese regime whose predatory trade and currency policies will ultimately decimate their manufacturing sectors just as it has the U.S. And like Bernanke, they are beginning to realize that the future stability of their own economies depend on his success. Last week, as oil prices moved over $100 and the Case-Shiller housing index turned downward, the hint of fear began to emerge that we are not out of the woods. But Benanke should not expect to see greater support for his efforts in Washington, as the 2012 election season is upon us. That’s just the way it is. Surely Ben Bernanke must know by now that if he succeeds there will be no acclaim or garlands, even as he understands that if he fails the consequences will be devastating.

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: The Return of the Brothers Grimm

February 28, 2011

Fairy tales are supposed to be the province of the young. Not anymore. The brothers Grimm wrote their first volume of them in 1812. And now, nearly 200 years later, they seem to be making the trek to Wall Street. Here’s the story. If I told you that the overseas uprisings are almost kaput, that rising oil prices (now around $100 a barrel) are hardly a big deal since the price is still well below its July 2008 high of $147, that European debt woes are history, that our housing and job problems should soon take a decided turn for the better amid an improving economy, that inflation fears are way overdone and that higher interest rates are simply out of question in a struggling economic environment, what would you tell me? Probably, that I ought to rejoin the real world. In other words, leave the fairy tales to the brothers Grimm. Well, these rosy views, in a nutshell, are what a fair number of Wall Streeters are pitching and what London money manager Raymond Stahler suggests investors seem to be swallowing by continuing to bid up U.S. stock prices in the face of a giant 86 percent rebound from their March 2009 lows (roughly 6,500 to 12,100 in the Dow Industrials) and a bevy of risks and uncertainties. A couple of weeks ago, I caught up with Stahler, who told me he thought investors were recklessly ignoring the negative ramifications of the sudden outbreak of revolutions and the clear and present danger of them spreading. Now he’s taking it one step further, noting, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned and U.S. investors appear to be doing the same thing when it comes to the stock market.” In effect, he thinks they’re blinded by the signs of economic improvement, accordingly seeing only sunshine and no clouds. “There’s just too much euphoria,” he says, “totally unjustifiable.” Some of those euphoric signs: heavy leveraging by many hedge funds to be as fully invested in stocks, a lively pace of corporate buybacks a growing risk appetite, very low institutional cash reserves and inflows of nearly $25 billion worth of U.S. equity mutual funds the past couple of months (although there has been some recent outflows due to the riots in Egypt and Libya and the rising price of oil). You may be one of those struck by the euphoric wave, but it’s worth knowing that one of the more respected investment and economic minds around, David Rosenberg, the chief investment strategist and economist at Glusken Sheff, a leading Canadian-based wealth management firm, is hoisting cautionary flags. In a weekend note to clients, he kicked off with six of them: declining home prices, contracting bank credit, listless jobs market, soaring oil prices, accelerating spending cuts and tax hikes at state and local government levels and policy tightening overseas. Granted there are tailwinds, such as quantitative easings, strong corporate balance sheets, manufacturing renaissance and the lagged impact of last year’s stimulus announcement. But Rosenberg notes, “If I was keeping score, headwinds are in the lead by six to four.” It also seems clear to our worrywart that the tenor of the global economic recovery is undergoing a bit of change here, and not for the better unfortunately. But U.S. growth projections, he observes, have almost doubled to nearly 4 percent for current quarter GDP even though data on new home sales, real estate prices (resale values are down to 2002 levels) and durable goods orders offer some cause for pause. Rosenberg also takes issue with what he regards as another fairy tale — the emerging view that Saudi Arabia can just step in and replace Libyan oil, which strikes him as totally off base. The reason: Libya’s crude is a perfect feed for ultra low sulfur diesel. The oil the Saudis would use to replace it is not. Apparently, you need three barrels of Saudi crude to get the same number of barrels of diesel sulfur you get from one Libyan barrel. Further, Saudi crude is very high in sulfur and the refineries that process the Libyan crude cannot remove the sulfur. Rosenberg also raises the question of what happens if we lose Libyan crude (an estimated 1.8 million barrels a day) and strategic stocks are not released? Then, as he sees it, $150 a barrel oil would certainly not be out of the question. And that, he points out, is not factoring in Algeria, which has also experienced recent protests. Rosenberg figures the rent rise in oil from $80 to $100 a barrel will subtract 1 percent off real GDP growth. He went on to note that about half of this quarter’s fiscal stimulus from the payroll tax cut has been wiped out by what’s happening at the gas pump. Another economic revelation that he believes is worth thinking about centers on the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s monthly National Activity Index (NAI) that covers the entire economy and is viewed as close to a GDP proxy as you can get. The index has been negative for eight straight months and came in below zero in five of the last six months. The NAI swung from 0.18 in December to 0.16 in January. One has to view these numbers with alarm since Rosenberg says anything below 0.70 and the chances are good the economy is heading back into a recession. “Illusion is the most dangerous thing,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson. As far as Wall Street goes, so too may be the return of the brothers Grimm. But just maybe they never left since fairy tales are a good part of what Wall Street is all about. What do you think? E-mal me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Read the full article →

Jeff Connaughton: Where Are the Cops on Wall Street?

February 5, 2011

This post is adapted from a speech delivered Nov. 2, 2010, to more than 300 financial regulators and Wall Street executives during a panel discussion entitled “Financial Crisis and Financial Crimes” at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. I’m going to address briefly four questions, all of which go to the integrity and competitiveness of our capital markets. First, was there fraud at the heart of the financial crisis? Second, has the law enforcement response so far achieved effective levels of deterrence against financial fraud? Third, are federal law enforcement agencies sufficiently capable of detecting fraud and manipulation, particularly in markets that are increasingly complex? And finally, should Wall Street itself care about all this? In short, my answers would be yes, no, no and yes. But I think it would be a mistake to view the financial crisis and government’s response as partisan issues. Indeed, on June 3, in the midst of the Senate debate on the Dodd bill, I picked up my Wall Street Journal and read the following : “The left says Congress is counting too much on the wisdom of discredited regulators. ‘We should follow in the footsteps of our forbears from the 1930s who made the tough decisions and wrote bright-line laws which lasted for over 60 years–until they were repealed,’” said Sen. Ted Kaufman (D., Del.). “The right counters with an attack on big government. Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) blasts the new consumer-finance regulator as ‘the Democrats’ new bureaucracy’ and ‘a massive expansion of government influence in our daily financial lives.’” I called the columnist and said politely: There’s only one flaw with your thesis: Senator Shelby voted FOR the Brown-Kaufman amendment to limit bank size and leverage! Why are we the “left” and he is the “right”… when on the major issue of “Too Big to Fail” we came out at the same place? To me, it is a conservative view to want to go back to what had worked in the past. Senator Kaufman wanted short bills that draw hard statutory lines, that firmly resolve inherent conflicts of interest, and that give regulators clear guidance. Now, to Question 1: Was there fraud at the heart of the financial crisis? On this question, the left and right clearly came together during the 111th Congress. Co-authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, Senator Chuck Grassley and Sen Kaufman, the Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act — or FERA, as it is known — received 92 votes on the Senate floor and was signed into law by President Obama in May 2009. FERA authorized an additional $165 million in resources to federal investigators and prosecutors to target fraud connected to the financial crisis. From the beginning we recognized there was a wide spectrum of behavior: from those banks that never even issued sub-prime mortgages, to those who perhaps recklessly but not criminally assumed housing pricings would never fall — to those who had actual knowledge that they were engaged in fraudulent behavior, lined their own pockets, failed to disclose material information and left investors holding the bag. Even if there were only a few bad apples, well-trained law enforcement officials needed additional resources to sort through the mountain of actors, transactions and evidence, and FERA was designed to give it to them. The counter-narrative is that all information about the underlying mortgages was disclosed, even if buried deep in the documents; that the markets themselves were not distinguishing among the quality of the underlying mortgage pools, pricing all mortgage-backed securities on the basis of the evaluations stamped on them by the credit rating agencies; that buyers were not performing due diligence; and therefore any fraud that might have occurred was isolated and played a minor role. There may be some truth to this counter-narrative, at least in part because the disclosures that were made can make it very difficult for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the necessary element of criminal intent. (Parenthetically, if so, what does that tell us about the adequacy of disclosure rules and the ability and efficiency of our most sophisticated market players to understand this information?) But let me focus on the information that we know was NOT disclosed, both in the case of Washington Mutual as uncovered by the staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and Lehman Brothers as described by the bankruptcy Examiner’s Report. As early as 2005, internal audits by WaMu revealed stunning lapses in underwriting standards. An audit of two large Southern California origination offices had confirmed fraud rates of 58 and 83 percent . The extensive — and perhaps systemic — fraud uncovered by these audits was never disclosed, and yet WaMu officials chose to continue with business as usual. Just last month, two witnesses before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission alleged similar cover-ups. Clayton Holdings, a firm that reviewed loans filed on behalf of investment banks, noticed significant underwriting deficiencies in the loans sold for securitization in 2006 and 2007, yet investment banks continued to package the mortgages and sell the resulting securities to investors, never disclosing Clayton’s findings. Was this material information that WaMu and other banks had a duty to disclose to investors? That is for prosecutors, judges and juries to decide; but it sure looked that way to committee investigators. Another example of likely fraud is described by the Examiner’s Report in the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, which concluded that Lehman executives manipulated the balance sheet by failing to disclose Repo 105 transactions . In fact, the whole purpose of these short-term transactions was to suggest capital reserves were higher by $50 billion than they actually were just before reporting periods. Finally, recent revelations about the foreclosure mess strongly indicate that fraud — and possibly criminal perjury — were system-wide at many of the loan servicers selected by the banks. And just as troubling for the derivatives markets, there may have been fraud or systemic recordkeeping failures (or both) that will cloud title for many securitized mortgages. Question 2: Has the law enforcement response to the financial crisis so far been adequate to deter financial fraud? Twice, Chairman Leahy has asked Senator Kaufman to chair oversight hearings on FERA, in December 2009 and again in September 2010. At those hearings — which featured officials from the Justice Department, FBI and SEC — Senator Kaufman expressed his full support and appreciation for the hundreds of law enforcement personnel who are working tirelessly on this effort, but also voiced his frustration about the lack of prosecutions against executive and boardroom-level officials. Many commentators have asked: Where are the cases? There have been many successful cases brought against mortgage brokers, as well as an impressive list of recent cases against Ponzi schemes and insider trading. But after the Bear Stearns verdict, we have seen no further criminal indictments at major firms for behavior connected with the financial crisis. As for civil suits brought by the SEC, two federal judges have each put the question squarely on the table: Are the SEC settlements achieving the level of deterrence that the facts demand? Are they holding the responsible individuals adequately to account? Or are they in effect just sending a bill to be paid by the current shareholders? As for WaMu officials, why hasn’t the US Attorney in Seattle brought a case? Or the SEC against former Lehman Brothers executives? I really don’t have a clue. The role of Congress stops after asking whether the agencies are coordinating and engaged in a foundational strategic approach and whether there are any systemic obstacles preventing effective law enforcement. The Justice Department and SEC have testified publicly that they are continuing a robust investigative effort and that cases are still in the pipeline. These are no doubt complicated cases that take time to develop. Regardless of the election results, I predict the new Congress will continue to demand accountability and provide law enforcement with all the resources it needs to pursue complex financial fraud. It’s good policy and good politics — for BOTH parties. Question 3: Does federal law enforcement have in place systems that permit it to monitor and uncover ongoing fraud and manipulation? Well, clearly not, as the experience of the last two years demonstrates. First, the FBI cannot do the investigative work alone. Senator Kaufman has repeatedly urged the bank regulatory agencies to play a stronger role in developing criminal referrals, as was ultimately the case in the Savings & Loan crisis. The WaMu hearings revealed that the Office of Thrift Supervision was almost a fraud enabler. This regulatory culture must change, and it is. Between the first oversight hearing in December, 2009 and the second in September, 2010, the number of criminal referrals provided by the bank regulatory agencies has increased from ZERO to a small but significant number, according to the Justice Department. Second is an example Senator Kaufman has focused on extensively in the past 15 months: Technology advances in trading markets have caused law enforcement and regulatory agencies to fall far behind in their ability to monitor and detect manipulation by high-speed, algorithmic traders. In only a few years time, the equity markets have jumped from two exchanges to more than 50 trading venues, becoming so mind-numbingly complex that even professional traders have difficulty telling you with confidence what happens to their orders. As we’ve moved from floor-based to electronic systems, the systems that undergird regulatory surveillance have become ridiculously outmoded. After the May 6 flash crash, it took armies of SEC and CFTC staff more than three months to collect and analyze the trading activity for that single day. What does that say about their ability to monitor that activity in real time on an ongoing basis? This is not a new problem. After Black Thursday in 1987 and another market event in 1989, Congress passed the Market Reform Act in 1990 to expand the SEC’s authority to enhance its ability to recreate unusual trading days and to detect illegal trading activity. In 20 years, the SEC has never used that authority! The Commission proposed a rule in 1991 and then re-proposed it in 1994, but never adopted it. Finally, on April 14, 2010, the Commission proposed a rule that would require tagging of high frequency and other large volume traders. And because of the proliferation of market venues, we have huge gaps in the audit trails collected by the exchanges, and so the Commission after the flash crash also proposed a consolidated audit trail. We’ll see if the Commission finally adopts these rules. In the meanwhile, do we know whether some algorithmic traders — whose servers are co-located at every exchange, who trade in microseconds and whose volumes currently represent 70 percent of the daily trading in the equity markets — are engaged in manipulation? How can we know, one way or the other? The systems still aren’t in place to monitor and police their activity. Neither has the Commission provided any guidelines for what type of electronic trading behavior in the current microsecond environment would equate to manipulation. We’ve heard concerns from the SEC about spoofing or layering (when orders are issued and immediately cancelled for the purpose of feigning interest in buying a stock to manipulate its price), momentum ignition strategies, liquidity detection strategies that enable front-running of mutual fund and pension fund orders, and most recently about quote stuffing (when a trader enters a huge numbers of electronic orders in an effort to slow one market center and capitalize on latency arbitrage opportunities at other market centers). Without guidelines or monitoring, as Senator Kaufman has said repeatedly, it’s like the Wild West. In Australia, in a review of algorithmic trading published February 8, the Australian Securities Exchange called on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to, “Ensure that… market manipulation provisions… are adequately drafted to capture contemporary forms of trading and provide a more granular definition of market manipulation.” In the UK, noting that some market participants may not be sure that spoofing or layering is illegal, on September 1, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Financial Services Authority said, “This is to clarify that it is.” FINRA, to its credit, recently brought a manipulation case that resulted in fines and individual bans against an electronic trading firm named Trillium, but that was for activity that took place four years ago. Clearly, that’s not enough. Finally, to my last question: Why should all of us care? I think we can all agree that effective law enforcement is vital to preserving the credibility of our capital markets; that our economy cannot succeed in the long-term unless we restore and maintain financial stability; and that investor confidence is critical to the success of the market. But this is not a job for law enforcement alone. Wall Street should recognize that it is in its long-term interests to work cooperatively with government to curb Wall Street excesses. The actions of a few bad apples — if they go undetected and unpunished — can indeed put in peril confidence in the entire system. If not, it won’t be long before a consensus will form among non-financial U.S. companies and millions of American investors: “We’re going to strongly support government efforts to stop any and all reckless behavior before it hurts the economy again.” It’s mindboggling to me that the financial crisis was not horrific enough to bring about wholesale and effective change now. If extensive fraud is uncovered in the foreclosure mess, with much of the action taking place at the state, not federal level, I predict the public’s reaction will not be tame. As for the equity markets, however, Americans vote today in the polling booths, investors will continue to vote with their feet if they believe the markets are rigged against them. Senator Kaufman’s term, and my time as a Senate staffer, has ended, but this is not a fight for one Senator to wage. These are questions that go to the foundations of the rule of law and America’s future economic success. For the common good, I hope you answer them well.

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: Why The Financial Crisis Could Not Have Been Prevented

January 29, 2011

The multi-trillion dollar meltdown of financial markets in 2007-09 could not have been prevented. It was absurd speculation on the part of the special Presidential Commission to even suggest this impossible nirvana. No way Jose! Let me tell you why. As my esteemed friend Jim Stone, chairman of Plymouth Rock Assurance, headquartered in Boston, puts it so succinctly; “We have wagered our place in history on our relative strength in finance. Bad bet.” The financial markets crisis could not have been prevented because Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, for 18 long years the power center in the nation for monetary policy, did not believe in reining in the animal spirits on Wall Street. He chose to ignore pleading from wise titans like Loews Corp. Laurence Tisch, and Wall Street great John Whitehead, who begged him to turn off the spigot of easy money and rock-bottom interest rates. Yeah, it could have been prevented if Greenspan had actually taken steps to dampen down “irrational exuberance,” his description of the craziness that began in the mid-1990s– and continued to accelerate until mid-2007. Regrettably, Greenspan’s utter and naive faith in free market ideology, makes him look a fool– not the God-like figure we all created. Yeah, it could have been prevented if the Clinton administration led by Robert Rubin and Larry Summers had not blithely agreed to deep-six the discipline of the Glass-Steagall Act- which in 1933 wisely separated the activities of the investment banks and the commercial banks– and had ensured relative stability on Wall Street for over half a century. Sure, the meltdown could have been prevented if these very same chaps in cahoots with the SEC and some conservative members of Congress had not ambushed an attempt to regulate the fastest growing financial market in the world– the explosion in the use of derivatives– from being regulated in any way, shape or form. The leverage unleashed by these new securities was never understood or considered to be a danger despite warnings from wise heads like Warren Buffett. Ignorance ruled the day. Yeah, the meltdown could have been prevented in 2004 if SEC Chairman Bill Donaldson and 2 of the other 4 Commissioners had not buckled under to Wall Street’s demand that the ceiling on the use of leverage– borrowed money– be raised to unimaginably dangerous levels like being able to borrow $30 or $40 for each $1.00 of capital the banks held. So was endangered the entire financial system with the verdict applied from Washington, DC. Yeah, the meltdown could have been prevented if only Tim Geithner, then President of the New York Federal Reserve Board, had only carried out the duties handed him to oversee, i.e. regulate the money center banks like Citigroup. He did nothing to protect the system before the crisis exploded and the financial system was threatened. I’ve been dying to ask Geithner if he ever reviewed Citigroup’s financial statements to recognize just how dangerous to its survival were the excessive off-balance sheet operations that were not at all in the “shadows” of the shadow banking system– but were right there in front of him. Need I remind you that Citigroup shares fell from $60 to 97 cents in 2009? Yeah, maybe the panic that ensued in September, 2008 might have been prevented if Hank Greenberg– while he was CEO and Chairman of AIG– had liquidated the $240 billion of risky credit default swap contracts on his balance sheet– or if his successors had comprehended the hari-kari they were committing by doubling the 100% leveraged book of insurance to over $500 billion of disaster waiting to happen. And I could go on. But, I’ll leave you with this uncomfortable and disturbing thought. The absurdity of this commission’s conclusion is expressed so bluntly by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Chicago economist, who revealed yesterday that the majority Democrats on the commission and the Republican minority were so alienated from each other they weren’t even communicating– well before the reports were even written. All this sordid and tragic mess that Wall Street made for itself with the passive lack of assertion by those responsible for cleaning up the mess. And how ironic it comes in the wake of hedge fund operator John Paulson making for himself some $5 billion in one year of operation– an unbelievable multiple of what the chairman of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase earn– which is not chump change either. So, I turned to a financier I highly respect, Jim Stone, chairman of the CFTC in the Carter administration, now the CEO and Chairman of a private insurance company in Boston, Mass.– Plymouth Rock Assurance– a hardy competitor to Berkshire Hathaway’s Geico. Here’s what Stone sent me; It’s definitely food for thought. “I think the crash would have been easy to prevent: leverage limits of 5 to 1(or even less) would have done that. Cut leverage and we can all relax a bit” ” A society can be judged by whom it chooses to reward most highly. The closer the reward scale is to the contribution scale, the better for the nation’s future. A trader may be brilliant and honorable, as many are, but their work is not of the sort that will keep America a great, strong nation. That problem is not so easily correctable. We have wagered our place in history on our relative strength in finance. Bad bet.”

Read the full article →

Goldman Sachs’ Top Execs Got Huge Stock Windfall During Crisis

January 19, 2011

Goldman Sachs’ wealthiest clients may be angry that an exclusive offer to invest in Facebook was pulled from under their feet, but the bank’s executives are posed to reap a windfall from stock options granted during the financial crisis. A new study of Goldman’s regulatory filings and internal documents conducted by the New York Times and Footnoted.com, reveals some startling details about the composition and compensation of Goldman’s top employees. The study documents the members of a group of partners made up of Goldman’s star performers. There are 475 current members and the average length of membership in this elite club is 7 years. In 2008, during the height of uncertainty in the financial world, Goldman issued nearly 36 million stock options (a tenfold increase from the prior year) — primarily to partners. Now, business is booming again, and the bank’s stock price has more than doubled. The Times lays out the numbers: The documents illustrate just how much wealth the partnership owns and has cashed out over the years. Goldman has almost 860 current and former partners, the documents show. In the last 12 years, they have cashed out more than $20 billion in Goldman shares and currently hold more than $10 billion in Goldman stock. Of those 860, only six percent are female. Current and former members include CEO Lloyd Blankfein; chief operating officer Gary D. Cohn; former Treasury Secretaries Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Robert E. Rubin; the former governor of New Jersey Jon Corzine; and William C. Dudley, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Meanwhile, Goldman’s elite U.S. clients are growing anxious after they were told they couldn’t invest in Facebook just two weeks after Goldman persuaded them to. Wary of regulatory scrutiny and “intense media attention,” the bank announced Monday that it would not sell Facebook stock to its U.S. clients. The deal has been called a “serious embarrassment” for the bank. The Wall Street Journal talks to some of those slighted. “Before this deal, if they told me to buy something, I’d buy it,” he said. “Now I’m paying attention to the fees. And I’m going to tell all my friends who are Goldman clients to look at their fees. I can’t see how that’s good for them in the long term.”

Read the full article →